1969-06-12

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been certain consultations about the hours the house is to sit tomorrow. If there is general agreement perhaps we could have an order of the house stating that the house will sit for two hours tomorrow evening after private members hour. The order would be to the following effect: That if government orders Nos. 64, 75, 82 and 78 have not been disposed of earlier, after orders Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 relating to private bills have been disposed of, or at the end of the hour provided for private members business, whichever be earlier, the house will revert to government orders and continue to sit for two additional hours.
Perhaps that could be made an order of the house, Mr. Speaker, if hon. members are agreeable.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that for the balance of the session we are to dispense with private members hour, and consideration of private bills. When we return in the fall I understand that we are to consider notices of motions and motions for the production of papers in private members hour. Is not my understanding correct?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could explain something. If the hon. member will examine the matter he will notice that two of the private bills are at the second reading stage and have to be referred to committee. Actually one of the private bills is now in committee. It was thought the bill might be passed and returned to the house for consideration. We will therefore require another private members day or another private members hour to deal with the remaining private members bills. Subject to that I would be quite agreeable to the stipulation
with regard to notices of motions and matters relating to papers being discussed in private members hour after the adjournment if the house sits then.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it might be agreeable to adopt a somewhat different procedure with regard to these particular bills. In themselves they are minor matters and of no great consequence. Our procedure has been to refer bills to standing committees. Could we not in this instance deal with them directly in the house tomorrow? That way I submit these remaining private members bills could be disposed of.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there is one difficulty we must face: One bill is still before committee, and must be reported back.


Frank Howard: I see; very well.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council. Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT-ORDER OF THE HOUSE FOR COMMITTEE STUDY, EXCLUSIVE OF ELECTION EXPENSES

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago, that is to say on April 1, I mentioned to the house the several matters relating to the election law that require our attention. I made a suggestion at that time as to how we might proceed in dealing with those matters. Since then the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections has considered the possibility of introducing a system for the continuous or permanent listing of electors and on May 22 made a report on that particular matter. This means that the way is now clear for a review of the Canada Elections Act by the Standing Committee.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Hon. members know that upwards of 24 months are required between the time the act is amended extensively and the date of the writs for a general election. This means that we ought to begin the review of the act very

June 12, 1969
Business of the House
soon. One possibility is that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections will decide to hold a series of meetings this September, during the summer adjournment of the house. In commenting on my suggestion of April 1, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) proposed that to save time the matter of election expenses should be separated out and sent to a special committee. I am quite prepared to agree to that proposal and therefore would be prepared to make a separate motion, if not this week, then next week, to make that reference to a special committee.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, it will be found that there will be general agreement to a motion to refer the Canada Elections Act, exclusive of the sections relating to election expenses, to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. If that expectation is correct, perhaps there could be an order to the following effect:
That the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be empowered to study the Canada Elections Act, exclusive of sections 62 and 63, and to report to the house such proposals as the committee may deem advisable.
Perhaps if there is general consent that could be made an order of the house.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary to spend much time commenting on the statement that the government house leader has made in connection with the subject of elections. Elections are a matter of great concern to all members of parliament. Indeed, in recent years some of us have had considerable experience. As a matter of fact I passed through my eighth election a year ago.
I am sure the more exposure we have to the electoral process, the more concerned we are about the great need for reform, particularly the need for carrying out more expeditiously electoral procedures.
Members of this party agree that the Canada Elections Act should be reviewed. As the government house leader has said, it is necessary to have a 24 month period between the completion of the electoral act reforms and the calling of another election. In view of the government's wavering performance, I am not sure whether we have sufficient time, but I would certainly approve of the suggestion that has been placed before this house, that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) .1
I also concur in the suggestion that the subject of election expenses be considered by a separate parliamentary group. We had a report on this subject a number of years ago and there is as much expedition required in this aspect of the electoral process as in the other matters which have been mentioned.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish simply to confirm that the statement made by the minister is in accordance with an understanding that we have. We are all agreed there is urgency in reforming the Canada Elections Act. Therefore we support the motion that it now be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
We are pleased that the government has accepted the suggestion that was made from this quarter, namely that the question of election expenses should be treated separately by a special parliamentary committee. We are glad to know that a motion to that effect will be made within a week, or indeed before we rise for the summer recess.
I want also to say that we approve of the proposal that one or both of these committees meet in September when the house is in recess. We support his proposal for two reasons. First, the subject matters being referred to these two committees are so important they must be dealt with when there is an opportunity to consider them adequately. Secondly, in view of the greater importance that we are now attaching to the work of committees, we believe this is a pattern that should be established. From time to time committees should meet when the house is not in session so they can devote their full time and attention to the important matters referred to them. We are happy to support the order proposed today by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), and we look forward to supporting the other proposal when he moves it a few days from now.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to state briefly that we support the motion moved by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) for a review of the problem of electoral expenses and its referral to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.
I am a member of that committee, Mr. Speaker, and I think that we have not been remiss in our task. However, we have not yet touched upon the question of electoral expenses. A rather expensive report, pre-
June 12, 1969

pared by a certain Mr. Barbeau, I believe, was submitted to us. I suggest that this report should be carefully considered because it surely deals with a question which should help us reform the political parties as they now exist.
Therefore, we would be happy if that matter were referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the proposal advanced by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale). Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. H. E. Gray (Windsor West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-206, respecting Little League Week.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to designate the second week in June of each year as Little League Week in recognition of the efforts of Little League to help boys to develop qualities of good citizenship and good sportsmanship through baseball.

Little League Week, to be observed during the second week in June, will help to recognize adequately the work performed by little league baseball to promote a healthy activity and well-guided training in a sound atmosphere and with the participation of the community.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


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


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to direct to the Minister without Portfolio in
Inquiries of the Ministry charge of housing. Could the minister advise whether or not any decision has been made by him regarding urban renewal schemes under study in the major cities of the country, of which the city of Hamilton is one? I ask this question in view of the fact that it is my understanding that St. John's, London, Sault Ste. Marie and Vancouver urban renewal schemes have been approved, which information was provided on CHCH-TV last night by Mr. Geoff Scott.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the information given last night on that telecast was not totally accurate. I have not yet approved any of these projects. I have met with several delegations, particularly last week when the mayors and municipalities convention was held in Ottawa. We discussed some of the aspects of their particular proposals and some of the aspects of the timing of decisions, and in each case delegations were encouraged by stating that some answers would be given soon. But again I confirm that no urban renewal projects in the implementation stage have yet been cut loose by me.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in the light of information the minister has now given-since he said the telecast was not totally accurate, there must be some veracity to it-that a decision has been made to cancel or postpone urban renewal schemes and plans in a number of major cities, of which Toronto, Hamilton and Calgary have been mentioned, will the minister tell us why this decision was made in the light of the housing crisis facing the nation; and would he now revert to motions to make a full statement to the house and say why one member of parliament was given that information?


Robert Knight Andras: I do not know to which member of parliament the hon. member is referring, but no decision has been made to postpone, cancel or divert this project. It is simply a question of getting to the individual programs before me and trying to make decisions in the light of the considerations raised by the task force. In respect of the 12 municipal plans, I am looking at the details of each. Referring to the words I just used to the effect that the information given on the telecast was not totally accurate, I would clarify this by saying it was totally inaccurate.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, because of the importance of the matter, may I ask the minister whether he

June 12, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry thinks it will be possible before the house adjourns for the recess that an answer could be given concerning what urban renewal projects either commercial or residential will be approved or rejected.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to meet that deadline, but I could not give such a commitment at this time.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he will make a statement in the house before we adjourn setting forth the guidelines with regard to public housing projects.


Robert Knight Andras: I answered that question the other day. I would say it is very unlikely that I will be able to be precise about the guidelines to be established, for the very reason I stated when I opened the debate on second reading and for the reason that we are now consulting with the provincial ministers to determine what their views are. When this negotiation and consultation is completed I will be informing all members of the house of the various criteria.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the minister assure the house that on motions before the house adjourns he will make a full statement, because there has been some suggestion that this will be held back until the house adjourns.


Robert Knight Andras: I think I have already covered that point. If it is possible to reach decisions on all the projects and form criteria I will make the statement before the house adjourns, but 1 cannot make such a commitment now since I must consult with all the parties concerned with each renewal project.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE LIMITATIONS ON COST-SHARING PROGRAMS THROUGH VETO POWERS OF SENATORIAL REGIONS-DAILY AND POST-CONFERENCE REPORTS

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister regarding the statements to be found in the press and supposedly emanating from official sources that the government proposes to set limitations on the policy of Canada with regard to entering into cost-sharing programs. I wish to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he will assure the house that no firm commitment will be made by the government of Canada until there is an opportunity for full discussion and debate in the house.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to make a commitment or give assurance relating to the continuing discussions which are now going in progress. It is inevitable I suppose that there will be some speculation about what is or is not being discussed and who said what, but I think it would be unwise and inappropriate while these discussions are continuing-and they will be continuing this afternoon-to try to comment on them here.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the government proposes to establish four senatorial regions in Canada and that any two of them would have veto power over costsharing programs initiated by this parliament.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The answer to the question whether this is being discussed I think would be the same as my first answer. Members of the house have been and indeed are curious to know what is being discussed, but I think the purpose of these discussions is better served if they are continued in private. I hope we shall all be patient and await the report after the conclusion of the discussions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the minister's quite accurate statement that the house is concerned about what is being discussed and curious when they see the press reports, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether a statement will be made by the government when the conference is over outlining the proposals that have been placed before the provinces, and what reception these proposals have received.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think it is safe to say that the conference will this afternoon be devoting some time and thought to making an appropriate report on their discussions.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-iings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Because the propositions that have been discussed at this conference must have been decided by the cabinet, and are known to the government as government policy, I should like to ask whether the proposition which has been suggested by the government at this conference, to provide a veto on all cost-shared programs, includes retroactive action on programs such as medicare, which have not yet started, and opposed to which are provinces considerably in excess of the two senatorial districts required?
June 12, 1969


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, we have a program known as medicare which is now the law of the land and is coming into operation progressively across Canada. I was not able to grasp some of the subtleties of the hon. member's theme, but I think he can rest assured that medicare is and will continue to be progressively in effect.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question slowly and patiently. I asked whether the propositions contained any retroactive program dealing with programs such as medicare, which have not yet come into operation, and which are opposed by provinces considerably in excess of the two senatorial districts required for veto. That is my question.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the hon. member is putting forward a speculative hypothesis about senatorial vetoes, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on this.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is simply what the Prime Minister announced yesterday afternoon. I am sure the minister must be at least aware of that.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing subtle in what I am about to ask. In view of the fact that so many statements are emanating from the so called responsible and usually reliable sources as to what is going on, I am wondering whether the minister would bring to the Prime Minister's attention the appropriateness of having a statement made each day that the following matters were not dealt with, so that the House of Commons would at least have an idea as to what is going on in respect of a matter, information with respect to which is being denied to parliament and the people of Canada? I am wondering whether the minister would consider removing this from the field of uncertainty by making a statement about or a list of these things each day?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to convey the suggestion to the Prime Minister.



PAYMENT OF SEVEN PER CENT BONUS TO BILINGUAL STAFF

Mr. Real Caouetle (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President of the Privy Council.
Inquiries of the Ministry
We have recently been advised of the payment of a 7 per cent bonus to the bilingual secretaries of hon. members.
Is the government also considering the possibility of paying that bonus to the bilingual employees of the House of Commons, the guides, the guards and all the employees of the House of Commons who must use both languages?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the decision of the government was to grant the bilingual secretaries of the House of Commons the same rights as the secretaries in the Public Service. No other decision has been taken up to now.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I understand that no decision has been taken, but is consideration presently given to granting the same rights and privileges to the House of Commons employees, such as watchmen, guides, etc.?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is doubtful, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council.
Would he advise the house why bilingual employees, such as guards, should not receive the same treatment as other bilingual civil servants?


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind the hon. member that the question was asked a few moments ago.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the rather spectacular decrease in the price of British Columbia lumber, I wonder whether the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is in a position to advise the house that he has been able to ascertain or to assure himself that such decline in prices will be passed on to those people using British Columbia lumber in the construction of homes?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is well aware of the operation of the Combines Investigation Act.
1C034

June 12, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry Naturally, the officials of the department and the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act will be fulfilling their statutory duties to ensure that we have a competitive market in Canada.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to give the house the same assurance as he did with regard to any price reductions that would follow the Kennedy Round negotiations, when he stated he would do everything in his power to see that these were passed on for the benefit of consumers?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I did say I was having discussions and that I hoped to have more to say later on this subject.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not revert to the open and frank person he used to be before he became a cabinet minister, and admit to the house that he cannot do anything at all in this matter?



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. W. B. Nesbifi (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of the bill which was given first reading this afternoon, presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), which points out the great interest in commemorative weeks for special events, would the Secretary of State request the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to put aside one week a year for no anti-American propaganda-just one week?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, who may be the same person as the Acting Prime Minister. I address the question to him in both capacities, and ask if he can inform the house whether the government has been made aware of charges of intimidation by members of the Greek community in Canada who oppose the military dictatorship in Greece, and whether the government has investigated or is investigating these charges.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will remember that the question was asked yesterday in similar terms and it was suggested that this very important matter might be considered more fully at the time of adjournment.


David Lewis: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I looked carefully at the question asked yesterday and it merely asked whether the minister had information about this matter, that is, whether the information has been conveyed to him by Nicholas Skoulas. I very carefully asked not only whether he has been made aware of these charges but whether the matter is being investigated. I wanted to follow this question by asking one or two other questions related to this very important matter.


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


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another question on the subject? I ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government has considered the question of the violation of the NATO treaty through the destruction of the democratic process by the present military government in Greece, and whether the government will undertake to bring this matter before the NATO council at the earliest opportunity.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the problem the hon. gentleman has outlined has been examined, and it has not been felt that any useful purpose would be served, in the interests both of democracy and of NATO, to raise it for formal discussion at a NATO council meeting.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The President of the Treasury Board is answering questions as Acting Prime Minister, whereas according to the seniority list which was distributed showing which ministers are to be in the house the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is the senior minister. We would like to know whether the ministry does not know who is senior, or what has caused the confusion? Could we not have the proper Acting Prime Minister answering these questions, or is he too shy to do so?
June 12, 1969


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minisler of Manpower and Immigration):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my hon. friend that I never aspired to being an Acting Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to the hon. member and the minister that there is neither a point of order nor a question of privilege in the point raised.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I think it is in order to ask that the senior officer of the house, the Acting Prime Minister, answer these questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not my interpretation of what is in order.


George Harris Hees: Then why have we been given the pecking order? You had better revise the pecking order, boys, because you are all out of place.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for York South. It is directed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the government consider joining with the Pope and many others in pleading for clemency for one Alexandoros Panagoulis, who was condemned to death in Greece, recently escaped from custody and was recaptured, and who is regarded by many people in Greece and elsewhere as symbolizing the spirit of freedom in Greece but is a political prisoner in that country?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would be glad to have this matter looked into, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: Don't make it post mortem.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and ask whether it is the intention of the government to increase war veterans allowances in the near future to compensate for the rise in the cost of living, and to make such increases automatic in the future, similar to the system
Inquiries of the Ministry which provides increases under old age security and the Canada Pension Plan.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that this very question was asked just a few days ago.



TELEVISION


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State in connection with procedures being followed by the C.R.T.C. in advertising public hearings. In an advertisement published in the Edmonton Journal on May 30, the C.R.T.C. set a deadline of May 29 for petitions opposing the granting of a French language educational licence to the C.B.C. in Edmonton. Since the advertisement was published a day after the deadline, it was impossible for anyone to meet the deadline.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask a question. I think his preamble is much too long.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but this is a serious matter and I would ask the minister to look into it and see whether the procedure was followed deliberately to stifle opposition to the granting of the licence, and whether there was collusion between the C.B.C. and the C.R.T.C. on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question; it is an argument. The hon. member has made a representation to the minister and has to assume that it will be taken into account.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On January 21 the minister said he would be making early in February a statement about self-government in the Northwest Territories; in February he said it would be made in a few weeks; at the end of April he said it would be made soon. I wonder whether the minister can tell us which is going to come first, the statement about the Territories or his following Paul Hellyer.

June 12, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry CONSUMER AFFAIRS



BEEF-INQUIRIES BY ADVISORY COUNCIL AND COMBINES BRANCH RESPECTING PRICE INCREASES

Mr. James A. McGralh (SI. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I ask him whether in view of the conflicting statements made by the Minister of Agriculture for the province of Ontario, and statements made by the minister in the house concerning the very serious rise in the retail price of beef, he will refer this matter to the Consumers Advisory Council for their investigation and study.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I really do not think it is a matter that should be referred to an advisory council such as the Consumers Advisory Council. What I really said was that consumers should exercise their freedom of choice within the market, and if things were too expensive they should stop buying them. I think this is sound advice to give to consumers, and is the operation of the free market economy about which so many people brag all the time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether he has given some thought to having the combines investigation branch look into the chain stores to find out whether there is a monopoly on beef because of the wide spread between what the producer is getting and what the consumer is paying for it.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I will be delighted to refer the question of the hon. member to the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act, but I think he can take it for granted that matters of this sort are constantly under surveillance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that there is a good deal of evidence that some exploitation is going on in the rapid increase in the price of beef, may I ask the minister whether his department has made any investigation of this matter and if he can tell the house whether or not in the opinion of his department these increases are justified.


Stanley Ronald Basford: With regard to the first part of the hon. member's question, if he has evidence which I do not have, I wish he would send it along to me.

With regard to the second part of the question, I will repeat the answer which I gave previously, that the hon. member can rest assured that the officers of my department and of the combines investigation branch watch situations such as this very carefully to make sure that there is no collusion, price fixing or any conspiracy, I also indicated in the house last Thursday, particularly in one situation which is quite unusual, that my inspectors in British Columbia were maintaining a particular and specific surveillance of price movements and that I was quite prepared to name any of the people who, in the view of my inspectors, appeared to be gouging consumers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the considerable sum of money which taxpayers are paying to maintain a Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, does the minister think that they are getting value when all the minister can tell us is that the housewives should boycott the butcher shops?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


James Aloysius McGrath: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not aware of the statement made by the president of the Ontario Beef Producers Association that such a boycott of beef as proposed by the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask a question, not make an argument. If he wishes to ask whether or not the minister is aware of a statement, I submit this is not the proper form of the question.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can rephrase my question by asking the minister whether it is not a fact that a boycott of beef products in Canada at this time would result in a greater shortage on the market, and hence have the opposite result of sending the prices up still higher.


Mr. Speaker:: This is an argument, not a question.
V/ATER RESOURCES



OKANAGAN VALLEY WATER BASIN STUDY

Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: have a question for the Minister Without Portfolio in charge of energy, mines and resources in connection with the comprehensive water basin study in the Okanagan valley. I should like to ask the minister whether
June 12, 1989

he could advise the house when the agreement between British Columbia and the federal government will be signed, and whether or not it is necessary to wait for the signing of that agreement before the study can commence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether this is a matter of urgency. It is difficult for the Chair to make that judgment, but I think it is the type of question which might well be considered at the time of adjournment.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member for Ottawa West. I believe my question is in order because it relates exclusively to the hon. member's role as chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact that it now appears that the Woods report will not be studied by his committee in June, will the hon. member consider making the necessary arrangements so that the committee can meet during the recess to consider this important matter?


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that consideration has been given to that suggestion.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. Would he be prepared to amend his answer to my question of May 27 as reported at page 9100 of Hansard with regard to the reclassification of postal rates on Royal Canadian Legion publications, in view of the clarification of the facts outlined to him from the dominion command of the Legion?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications and Postmaster General):: We
have replied to that letter and our position remains exactly the same.


Jack Marshall: I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister now consider making reparations to the Canadian Legion on the same basis as he has promised to such publications as he Devoir and UEvangeline?
Inquiries of the Ministry SPORTS



HOCKEY-GAME BETWEEN CANADIAN AND RUSSIAN TEAMS

John Gilbert: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the recent Gallup poll indication that the majority of Canadians would like to see a hockey match between a Canadian professional team and a Russian hockey team, would he use his good offices to persuade the president of the National Hockey League to extend an invitation for a hockey game next fall?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question is one of urgency. The hon. member has made a submission to the minister.



INDIAN ACT


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: My question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the many statements he has made concerning the time of announcement of his decision regarding the new Indian Act, I wonder if he could tell the house when he expects to make this announcement and whether he plans to do it soon enough to give the house an opportunity to debate his suggestions when he does make them.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that I intended to make this statement between June 15 and 27, and I do not mean to change my mind.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
George Harris Hees: I have a question for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wish to ask him whether he can bring the house up to date on the drama which is being enacted in the Scandinavian countries these days and tell us whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs is receiving even the slightest encouragement from very junior representatives of Red China who have deigned to meet him to discuss his one-sided love affair with Communist China.

June 12, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the acting ministers in attendance in the house, hon. member that the question in this form is Does the minister realize that he should not not acceptable.	even be here today?



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and ask him whether, in view of his interest in rising prices, it is his intention to reconvene the Consumer Affairs Committee which we had formerly, and if so when he intends to announce this.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I suggest that the hon. member watch the order paper carefully in the next few days.



FAILURE TO APPOINT PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION MEMBERS

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kin gs-way):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the minister indicate to the house what alternatives he is considering in view of the fact that academic economists across Canada are not interested in his prices and incomes commission and are rejecting salary offers of approximately $25,000 a year.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have not found that, and the information of the hon. member is not my information.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


John Angus MacLean: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Acting Minister of National Defence. Is it the intention of the government tomorrow or at least before the end of June to table a white paper or make any other detailed statement on the effects and details of recent changes in defence policy?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not Acting Minister of National Defence today. The Minister of National Defence is not in the house today but he will be here tomorrow.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: I have a supplementary question concerning



IMMIGRATION


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In the light of recent figures published by his department which show a continued and substantial decline in the number of immigrants admitted to Canada from Europe, will the government review its present regulations to see whether the decline does not indicate that the regulations are unduly restrictive?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The regulations are under review. One of the purposes of the original regulations was to relate to some extent the employment opportunities in Canada to the flow of immigration. There has been a drop in our intake in the first months of this year, but because of the improved situation in Canada we are considering various measures or administrative steps by which we can increase the flow.



RESTRICTIONS TO PREVENT SALES INVOLVING RISK TO PATIENTS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Some time ago the minister undertook to have his department get in touch with the food and drug administration in the United States regarding some 78 drugs which have been banned by that organization because they might expose the patient to unnecessary risks. I wonder whether the minister's department now has the necessary information and whether any steps are being taken in Canada to make absolutely sure that those drugs are not being sold here if, in the minister's opinion, they constitute a risk to the patient.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National
Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member had a motion to table certain documents. We have been in touch with his office, and subject to reservations tabled the documents yesterday. I think they give
June 12, 1969	COMMONS
the full answer for which the hon. member is looking.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. The documents do not answer the major question, which is whether or not these drugs that have been banned in the United States are still being used in Canada, and if an investigation is being made to see whether or not they should be circulating in Canada.


Mr. Munro:: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the drugs have not as yet been banned in the United States. I understand what has happened is that the manufacturers have been asked to substantiate the claims they make for the drugs, and therefore they are under review. However, I will check into the matter and report to the hon. member.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Could he tell us whether, during the federal-provincial conference, taxation arrangements have been made between the federal government and the province of Quebec to enable that province to establish its own health insurance plan?


John Carr Munro: I do not believe so, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the deepening crisis in the agricultural industry on the prairies, would the minister take immediate steps under the Canadian dairy policy to halt the growing movement of western dairy quotas to eastern Canada so that at least the western provinces will retain sufficient quotas to take care of their own butterfat consumption needs?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question a few days ago.
The Budget-Mr. Mazankowski



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, might I be permitted to ask the President of the Privy Council, as house leader, about the business for tomorrow and for next week?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. For tomorrow the business will be as indicated in the order the house made earlier; that is to say, the first item, item 64, third reading of Bill C-184 with respect to Canada Telesat; next, No. 75, the report stage of Bill C-192 with respect to the National Housing Act; No. 82, Bill C-201, the report and third reading stages of the second bill with regard to the National Housing Act and No. 78, Bill C-195, report and third reading stages of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
Monday and Tuesday will be allotted days under the auspices of the opposition. On Wednesday, if at that time agreement has been reached so that an allotted day would not be necessary, we would expect to call the report stage of the official languages bill. At the present time it would appear that Thursday will be an allotted day.
Perhaps I might suggest that the house watch this spot for further announcements about possible extension of sitting hours.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 11, 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. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of participating in this debate on the second budget with which the house has been presented this session. While the budget introduced last Tuesday may be encouraging to some in that it does give some indication of fiscal management, it has been termed by others as discriminative, unrealistic and impractical. In short, it lacks a comprehensive approach to the basic issues which face this country-poverty, rising interest rates, the serious conditions in agriculture, and the
June 12. 1969

The Budget-Mr. Mazankowski continuance of high taxation which every year takes a greater portion of one's gross income.
There is growing reason to believe that the back of the Canadian taxpayer is nearing the breaking point, and that generally all taxpayers are thoroughly fed up by the demands of all levels of government. There is going to be a $250 million surplus, at the expense of the average taxpayer. This may be well and good, but where in this budget is any relief in sight for the average taxpayer? Where is there any positive aid for our aged, for those unfortunates on fixed pensions or incomes? Where is any positive measure to overcome the problems of housing, of regional disparity, to abate the ever-increasing prevalence of welfare and to relieve the ever-increasing crisis in agriculture?
I presume that the selective measures chosen by the minister are aimed at encouraging areas of slow growth. However, how will these areas be defined? What criterion will be used? Are we looking strictly at the large urban areas and overlooking the small rural centres which also deserve consideration? I hope not, but I am afraid that we are.
According to the budget the province of Alberta is a have province. This may be true so far as the cities of Edmonton and Calgary are concerned, but the rural areas of that province are a different matter. The tax penalty that the minister is proposing to levy on certain areas deserves an explanation from the minister, who is singling out cities like Edmonton and Calgary while allowing places like Montreal and Quebec City to go scot-free. It is particularly ironic in the case of Montreal, on whose behalf the minister decided to wipe out the Expo debt of $125 million. Why should Edmonton be slapped down for its initiative, its growth, its economic stability, its excellent labour picture and exciting future? The 22 centres in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario that are suffering this injustice have just as many problems as the major centres in the other seven provinces, particularly when compared with Quebec which has a population almost four times that of Alberta.
If I may turn to the problems of rural Canada, particularly in western Canada, I should like to point out that with the continuing deterioration in the agricultural industry, which correspondingly has had an adverse effect on our rural towns, we are experiencing a mass migration into the cities of Edmonton and Calgary, a mass migration not of choice but of necessity. If some positive

measures are not instituted soon in these rural areas we will end up being a province of two cities. We already have more than one half of our people living in these two centres, and their population is increasing at a rapid pace.
This is one of my main reasons for rising to participate in this debate, to draw the attention of the minister and the government to the glaring omission of even token consideration of the present unprecedented crisis in western agriculture and the decline and abandonment of rural centres in the west. I am sorry to say that in this regard we do not seem to be getting too much assistance from the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). It seems that most of the aid is going to eastern Canada and Quebec. We require some alternative employment to enable the people in the rural centres in my part of the country to earn a living. Certainly one would have thought that in this political era of participation and dialogue an imaginative and sensible program might have been brought forward to curtail the serious deterioration in the western farm economy. We expected that out of all the submissions and briefs presented, the task force reviews and conferences that have been held, some form of emergency relief would emerge.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
The wheat situation has not improved. Country elevators are full. Farm storage facilities are filled. There is no cash. The banks are commencing foreclosures on land and machinery. Finance companies are pressing for payments which were extended from last fall. There is a general climate of chaos and apprehension among the people of my area, many of whom are unable to meet their public utility bills. The most optimistic quota we can look forward to is five bushels for this crop year, the result being that most farmers will have to provide themselves with additional storage facilities for this fall's harvest.
Where will the money come from for this construction, Mr. Speaker? If conditions do not improve the majority of farmers will not be eligible for cash advances this fall because they will not have cleared their previous advances. They will not be marketing grain. As a result the provision of storage facilities will become a serious problem. I think the government should institute immediately a program of storage payments for farm stored grain or some alternative program in order to provide assistance for construction of storage
June 12, 1969	COMMONS
facilities. Better still, I think the government ought to get off its fat butt and market grain.
Another sore spot in the western farm economy is the present dairy policy and the administration of that policy. The establishment of minimum subsidy levels has imposed a severe hardship on many low income families on the prairies. We are told that this policy was instituted to encourage large, viable producers. That is a confirmed Liberal philosophy aimed at promoting bigness. I simply say this, Mr. Speaker. For years many of our small farmers depended on a few milk cows for groceries on the table and the necessary clothing for the children. By raising the minimum subsidy level the commission will not stop production by these farmers. They cannot stop producing; if they do, they will have to stop eating.
What is happening, one may ask? Many farmers, as a result of tough luck, a break in communication with the Canadian Dairy Commission or simple lack of knowledge, fall below the 420-pound level of production of butterfat in any given year and are disqualified as eligible producers. They cannot be re-established as eligible producers unless they buy a herd with a quota of 3,500 pounds. A herd of this size represents a sizeable investment in livestock, machinery and ancillary equipment vital to the operation. Furthermore, the majority of cream producers in western Canada are far below that level of production. So, as I say, our farmers must purchase herds with requisite quotas and transfer those quotas. The red tape encountered in transferring quotas is most frustrating; the results of applications are uncertain and this is a most questionable procedure. The red tape our farmers have to encounter in transferring quotas constitutes another form of discrimination.
And where are these quotas, the property of the Canadian Dairy Commission, being reallocated, Mr. Speaker-and please remember that the dairy commission has been created to assist farmers? Where else but in Quebec and Ontario. Those quotas have been given to the milk producers in those provinces. So we have the situation that in western Canada creameries are threatening to close because of decreased shipments while at the same time we are seeing a huge build-up of skim milk powder in Quebec and Ontario. And the closing of creameries is another severe blow to rural towns.
I am told that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has been 29180-635
The Budget-Mr. Mazankowski trying desperately to market this skim milk powder at fire sale prices. He has failed in that field just as he has failed with wheat. Skim milk powder production has increased by 75 per cent since 1965 and each year the government is called on to purchase more of it. In 1967 the Canadian Dairy Commission purchased 101 million pounds and subsidized the private export of 53 million pounds. In 1968 the Canadian Dairy Commission purchased 200 million pounds of skim milk powder and subsidized the private export of 22 million pounds. It is clear that we have a total surplus of 222 million pounds. This government policy is being carried out while world stocks are at an all-time high. The result of that policy is that the Canadian Dairy Commission has lost about 15 cents per pound on sales. It has bought for 20 cents per pound and sold for 5 cents per pound on export markets.
In formulating present dairy policy the government has written off prairie cream producers. There can never be a clearer cut case of discrimination than we have here. I believe there is a place for the producer of farm separated cream in an equitable dairy policy. Furthermore, there is a place on the prairies for the dairy industry. I am sure that by discriminating against these producers the dairy commission will create more problems than it will solve in the over-all production of dairy products in Canada. By doing a little arithmetic one can easily calculate that the loss on skim milk powder is $33 million, and that figure does not take into account transportation and storage costs.
I strongly urge the dairy commission to look again at where its policy is leading us. If the program is designed to pacify producers in Quebec and Ontario, it is living up to its commitment. On the other hand, if that policy is designed to create a just society with equal opportunities for all, no matter whether they live in the maritimes, central or western Canada, one can only conclude that the policy is being abused. By utilizing the arts of gerrymandering, trickery and deception the government has created and is administering an invidious policy. I think it ought to be possible for anyone producing 300 pounds of butterfat to qualify for a subsidy and I think there is! merit in the idea of removing the minimum ceiling altogether. Present regulations make it impossible for a young farmer or small operator to go into business by buying a 3,500 pound production unit which may consist of about 15 cows plus machinery and housing. Entering business on this scale
10042	COMMONS DEBATES	June 12, 1969
The Budget-Mr. Mazankowski involves major capital expenditures which many of our young farmers cannot afford.
Many prairie farmers today who are desperately searching for cash are selling five gallon cans of cream for $9.45. Those with subsidy quotas realize an average of $14.80 for the same quantity of cream. Is that fair, Mr. Speaker? I say it is definitely not fair. Nevertheless, when one needs food for the table and clothes for the children one tends to overlook this discouraging inequity and carry on producing.
In the light of existing conditions in the west and with the government giving us no consideration we often hear of western separation and alienation. One cannot be surprised to hear these things. This government's national policies and the Canadian Dairy Commission's policies are not helping to dispel this sort of talk.
About 700 farmers threatened, at a recent gathering in St. Paul, Alberta, to march on the nearest welfare office in search of financial assistance if their demands were not met. I was in touch with those farmers last week and was advised that neither the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) nor the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have as yet even acknowledged receipt of the brief that was sent. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we have not heard the last from this group. They are desperate, being the victims of poor weather, poor government and poor marketing policies. They are the victims of economic injustice brought about by lack of flexible government policies. Those policies control their destinies. They are the victims of misfortune. In providing or considering emergency assistance, the government is ignoring these people.
I now wish to comment about the price of beef. It is unfortunate that some are criticizing the farmer for the high price of beef. Beef is the only commodity at present which returns a fair price to the farmer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am somewhat disturbed to hear the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) and other hon. members magnify the price of beef on the hoof. Yesterday, for example, choice steers were being sold in Calgary for $33 per hundredweight, a far cry from the $38 that has been publicized in the press and in this house.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Beef is $1.50 a pound at some markets.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The price of slaughtered beef recently reached a figure between $29 and $30. The increase of $3 per hundredweight represents a 10 per cent increase to the consumer and not the 25 per cent increase that has been publicized in some quarters. Meanwhile, meat prices in the stores have risen by 40 per cent.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I merely want to point out that the producer is not gaining in this spiral. It is the middleman somewhere along the way to the consumer who is taking advantage of the situation. I also point out that the figures I used are prices for choice steers. The majority sold for slaughter are medium to good and realize somewhere between $30 and $32 per hundredweight. I am sure I do not have to remind hon. members that when you walk into a store to purchase a steak there is only one price and that is based on choice quality. Steak is selling in the stores somewhere in the vicinity of $1.60 to $1.70 a pound. Why this spread? Who is raking off the profits? If this does not demand a full scale investigation, I do not know what does.
In all sincerity, I think the large food chains are attempting to shift the blame for the rising food costs on to the producer, but the real blame lies somewhere in between. This is completely irresponsible and I think the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) should clarify his position without hesitation.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has proposed a $2 acreage payment based on 1968-69 cultivated acreage up to a maximum of $2,000 for any farmer. I wholeheartedly support this recommendation and strongly urge the government to implement such a program immediately. It is estimated to cost between $150 million and $160 million. This is certainly not too high a price to pay for emergency relief to overcome the desperate plight on the prairies.
There is never a shortage of money for arts centres, airports, Canada Council grants or the C.B.C. What about the $80 million tariff write-off we have just been examining in the Public Accounts Committee, $75 million to one automobile manufacturer? There is always plenty of money for the ever-growing governmental bureaucracy.
It is interesting to note that in 1912 Canada had a population of seven million people with
June 12, 1969

20.000	federal employees. That is a ratio of one federal employee for every 350 citizens. Today, 60 years later, Canada's population has tripled to 21 million. However, the number of federal employees has increased by 2,500 per cent, almost to half a million, despite the advances in technology, computers and sophisticated administrative equipment. In other words, in 1912 we had one federal employee for every 350 Canadians and today we have one federal employee for every 40 Canadians. This is a shocking example of how bureaucracy grows with crippling socialistic schemes for the nation.
On April 18 I placed a question on the order paper regarding the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which reads as follows:
What was the total number of people within the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, or its predecessor, who were directly concerned with the administration of Indian Affairs and services in the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969?
The increase in staff has been 50 per cent since 1965. In 1965 there were approximately
1.000	people and in 1969 there were approximately 1,523, while the Indian population increased by less than 10 per cent in the corresponding period of time.
Looking at the 1968 Auditor General's report, we find further evidence of the ever-increasing administrative body. As it points out, in 1963 the cost of administrative overhead was $1 billion. This figure rose to $1,760 million for 1968-69, an increase of 76 per cent in six years. Increases in staff have occurred in 34 of the 42 departments-by some 10,629 people in the past year alone. The Auditor General further points to the continual rise in expenditures as a result of uneconomic and wasteful policies of the government. I refer to page 7 of the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1968, wherein he states:
My report this year again directs the attention of the house to a number of expenditures that were uneconomical or wasteful. In my opinion more should be done to examine the underlying causes as to why so much of this kind of waste continues year after year.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to advise the hon. member his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
29180-635!

The Budget-Mr. R. Stewart


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will conclude by saying that now we have dispensed with some of the red herring issues such as abortion and homosexuality, and are soon to dispense with the official languages bill, I hope we can look forward to the government honestly facing the real problems which confront our country. We have heard a great deal from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and members of the government asking the opposition for their co-operation, suggestions, alternatives and ideas. Goodness knows, we have certainly been co-operative and have given them a lot of material and suggestions.
The real test of the Prime Minister's participatory democracy will come and will be proven only if he seriously considers some of our submissions and accepts some of the suggestions made by hon. members in this house. After all, we are the elected representatives of the people. We know the problems. We are in contact with these problems continuously. We are constantly in communication with our constituents. We do not need regional desks to solve these problems. What is needed is co-operation between the elected representatives of this distinguished house and the government of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in this budget debate I intend to deal with three specific subjects. It has been my intention to deal strictly with the new ideas for regional economic expansion as they apply to my part of the country, northeastern Ontario, but since recent events in the Nigeria-Biafra conflict have underlined the seriousness of the situation and the danger to Canadians in that area, I wish to deal with it first.
I believe that the Department of External Affairs has never understood the situation in Nigeria and Biafra. In an attempt to appear neutral, Canada has actually taken sides. We cannot afford to align ourselves with one side or another in any struggle around the world. It is not for us to decide who is right or who is wrong. We can remain non-committed and still offer our help to alleviate the sufferings and difficulties arising from war.
What does Canada do? Whenever the department prepares a statement or an answer it refers to the Biafrans as "the rebels". This is automatically taking sides and it is also using a term which is inflammatory to the Biafrans. It is not up to us to say whether
10044	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. R. Stewart they are rebels. On other occasions the minister has intimated that the way to end the war is tor the Biafrans to surrender. No doubt it is, but to my mind that kind of statement on our part shows a complete lack of understanding of what is going on in that terrible struggle.
It has been my contention, and I still insist, that the two parties must come together at a conference table. Canada can help, and we must help. The department's answer repeatedly is that there is no lack of mediators, just a lack of agreement as to what negotiations should be pursued. This again shows a complete lack of appreciation of the problem. I suggest that there is a lack of the kind of mediators that would be acceptable to both sides. Canada is the only country that qualifies in this regard. Even the Emperor of Ethiopia was not successful in his kind efforts. We have underestimated ourselves. We are regarded as a big, powerful and influential country that is neutral, with no axe to grind, and has never had imperialistic tendencies or the desire to push anyone else around. This is the picture of Canada in the eyes of both Nigeria and Biafra.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
As far as a basis for negotiations is concerned, that is a contradiction in terms. The idea of getting together is for the purpose of negotiating. How can you have an agreement before you even get together to agree? It is up to us to put the proposal to both sides that they come together to talk on neutral ground, with Canada as the mediator. Let there be no preconditions other than a desire to talk. If one side or other refuses to go along with it, then there will be no one who can say that Canada did not at least try.
The recent shooting down of a Red Cross plane is something that cannot pass without mention. This is a matter which affects us seriously because we are involved in helping the Red Cross. It takes on even greater responsibility on our part because 12 Canadian crews are helping to fly relief supplies into Biafra and are in grave danger of their lives. My information is that a Red Cross plane was shot down by a Nigerian aircraft at 1855 hours on June 5, 50 kilometers southwest of Calabar, killing the crew of four. I am also informed that there is no question of it having been bright enough to see the Red Cross plane, and those of us who have seen those planes know that the large red cross on the tail and wings is unmistakeable.
[Mr. Stewart (Cochrane) .1
DEBATES	June 12, 1969
Whether or not this information is correct I cannot say because I do not have the actual documentation. The poor fellows are dead. But in any case the story is that it was certainly bright enough to see the airplane and the red crosses. The head of the Nigerian air force, Colonel Alad, is quoted as having said:
As far as we're concerned we are hitting at anything flying into Biafra, Red Cross or not.
One of the greatest organizations in the world today is Canairelief. They are a group of dedicated Canadians representative of various church organizations, and they have been saving countless lives by their efforts in the Nigeria-Biafra war. They have been doing so against great odds. But even our Department of External Affairs has not seen fit to help them in any way. Yes, we operate through the Red Cross-that is the argument of the government-but so do other countries, and those other countries also help the church organizations.
I go so far as to say that the department have a cavalier attitude toward Canairelief, considering them as a thorn in their side or a prick to their conscience. They say that they cannot recognize an organization bringing relief only to one side. This simply is not so because the church organizations are more active on the federal side of Nigeria than they are in Biafra. The airlift itself is only to Biafra because that is the area that is cut off.
It is time that the minister and his colleagues in the cabinet took a look at the whole policy regarding Nigeria-Biafra. It is time that the cabinet started making decisions on this subject instead of allowing the department to do so. It is the minister who has to take the responsibility in the department, and the cabinet should exercise its authority in formulating the policy.
I want to make it quite clear that the essential thing for Canada is not to take sides. There is no such thing as a one-sided responsibility in a struggle. No doubt both sides have done many things they should not do, but that is not for us to judge. However, I suggest that it is up to us to take the initiative to try to bring about an understanding so that this senseless war will end and so that lives will be saved.
The rectifying of disparities in various parts of Canada was one of the main aims of the government when it took office. We are all pleased that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) has introduced measures which will contribute in a
June 12, 1969	COMMONS
positive way to helping slow growth areas. My part of the country in northeastern Ontario is just such an area, but we are not of a breed that sits around waiting for the government to give us a handout. No, Mr. Speaker, we want to help ourselves, but we need orientation from governments.
Last weekend we held an economic conference in Cochrane and Kapuskasing which was successful beyond all predictions. When we first thought about having such a conference in northeastern Ontario we agreed that the problems of the area were so many and complex and so intertwined that it would not be sufficient to have representatives from only one sector of the economy. We agreed that we would have to have top representatives from various groups, from the financial and business community, and from government.
Most people in the southern parts of Canada do not understand the north. In order to attract the top kind of people to this conference I thought that the best way would be to have good representation from the government. So we decided we would ask two federal cabinet ministers to give one day each to the conference. That is how the whole thing began. Everyone knows that my counterpart in Cochrane at the provincial level is a minister in the provincial government, and together we decided we would be the cohosts of the economic conference.
It turned out that almost 100 businessmen from the southern part of Canada, from Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, attended the conference. They are people who are leaders in the country's economy, people like the chairman of the board of the Montreal Trust Company, the vice-president of Metropolitan Life, the vice-president of Canada Life, the vice-president of Crown Life, the general manager of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, the executive vice-president of Imperial Oil, the vice-president of C.I.L., the president of Allstate-the list goes on and on. We had almost 100 people of that calibre.
These are people who are interested in the future development of the north. They came there without really knowing what they were coming to, but I can say that they went away very happy with what they had learned about northern Ontario. We discussed four main topics. We talked about capital investment. We talked about industry and natural resources. We spoke about tourism and transportation. Many of these things depend upon each other. You cannot talk about tourism in the north without talking about capital
The Budget-Mr. R. Stewart , investment, because money is needed to build tourist establishments. You cannot talk about industry in the north without talking about transportation, because people do not want to move industries to an area unless they are able to send their product out to market at a reasonable rate.
We discussed all of these topics in seminar form. For half of one day we gave these gentlemen the choice of three different things to do. After going to church they had an opportunity to take part in a fishing trip to see what the tourist possibilities were or they could take a flight in one of the provincial aircraft provided by my counterpart to look at the area and its natural resources from the air. The third choice was to look at some of the available industrial sites, particularly those having to do with the forest industry.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion attended on the first day of the conference. He spoke about the new regulations under the new legislation and of the idea of helping slow growth areas by means of incentives. On the second day the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) was with us in Kapuskasing,, and he spoke about the development of the north.
This kind of conference, which brings together such varied people, wakens people to what is available, shows them what the natural resources of an area are, and emphasizes the growth possibilities of the area. The people who attend such a conference try to come up with their own ideas on how to develop the area. This is precisely what happened in this case. In free periods when these gentlemen were discussing things among themselves they were making an honest effort to find ways and means of helping that part of the country.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
However, when the conference drew to a close my problem was how to know whether or not it had been a successful conference because these are busy men who have many problems. There was the possibility that they would go back to their offices, perhaps not think too much about what they had learned and let it remain in the back of their minds. But I can tell you that before they left the north some of these men came up with very good ideas concerning the betterment of northern Ontario which should be considered further. The representatives of one bank gave notice that they are changing some of their
10048	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. R. Stewart basic policies in respect of the north. An official of one of Canada's principal chemical companies told me one of their men would be employed full time in considering expansion in our part of the country. To my mind these are real results. Many of the results of this conference will not be seen perhaps for a number of years, but I believe this is an example of the way in which we should try to develop the underdeveloped areas of Canada. We should try to do this in concert with others and by amalgamating the efforts of government and industry. It is a mistake to sit back and ask the government to do everything. We must take the bull by the horns and do something ourselves.
I believe that the degree of federal and provincial co-operation was another great example of the success of the conference. The Minister of Lands and Forests of the province of Ontario and myself are not members of the same party, but that does not make any difference when it comes to the question of developing our area. We are both interested in the development of northern Ontario. It is only when the federal government and provincial governments work together in this way that we are able to really accomplish something. There was absolutely no question of political partisanship throughout this whole weekend. I think this will perhaps serve as an example of the co-operation we need.

Mr. Speaker, before concluding my remarks, I would like to add a few words on the official languages bill, particularly on the choice of the Commissioner of languages.
I have said it before, the Commissioner will have a very difficult task. He will have to have remarkable qualifications, be perfectly bilingual and understand the different mentalities of our country, and know exactly how others think.
Not only will he have to be a diplomat, possess a sound judgement and know how to hear grievances, but he will also have to be capable of judging problems according to the mentality of the people involved. Thus, it will be very difficult to find a man who is well qualified, to hold down that job.
In my opinion, the late Mr. Laurendeau would have been the right man for that position.
We will need an excellent Commissioner of languages, and I urge the government to choose him carefully. This choice should not be entrusted to the public service. I do not

DEBATES	June 12, 1969
want to criticize the public service but it is imperative that such a choice be made by the cabinet, and that it be well-advised.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth budget this government has termed anti-inflationary which has been presented to the country during the past three years. The solution offered by the government in the first three was increased taxes. In order that we may decide how successful the policy of raising taxes has been I suggest we examine some of the figures of the consumer price index over the past few years because that will give us a good factual idea of just how this program of raising taxes has worked out for the country.
During the six years that the Conservative government was in power the average increase in the cost of living each year was 1.5 per cent.


Mr. Benson:: How about unemployment?


George Harris Hees: Then in 1964, the first year after the Liberal government took over, the cost of living rose 1.7 per cent. In 1965 it rose 2.5 per cent; in 1966 it rose 3.7 per cent; in 1967 it rose the same amount, 3.7 per cent; in 1968 it rose 4.1 per cent, and during the last 12 months it has risen 4.7 per cent. During the past 12 months the wholesale price index has risen 5.4 per cent. So I think we will agree it is very easy to decide that the policy which the government employed in the previous three budgets has been a complete failure so far as slowing down the steady increase which was taking place in the cost of living is concerned, because that increase had accelerated each year.
After each of these budgets during the past three years I and other members of the opposition have suggested two means of controlling the steadily increasing rise in the cost of living. These two methods are completely different from the method of raising taxes. The first method is by controlling government spending which has doubled during the past six years that the Liberal government has been in power. It has increased from $6| billion to $13 billion. Action must be taken to relieve the upward pressure of prices brought about by the steadily increasing government spending which has taken place year after year. The government's answer on each of these occasions was that it could not make
June 12, 1969

cuts in the current fiscal year. Of course, as we know, during the next fiscal year the cuts that were made were purely routine.
Any member of parliament who has been a member of a government knows that each minister in charge of each department inflates his estimates to the highest possible point before he presents them to the Treasury Board because he knows they will be slashed very materially. He knows that the more he has in his estimates the better chance he will have of coming out of this very trying experience with something of a reasonable nature with which to operate his department during the next 12 months. The President of the Treasury Board takes great pleasure each year in cutting down materially the estimates of each department. The net result is he is pleased and the minister is pleased because they usually end up where they had hoped to end up. That is what goes on each year when the Minister of Finance says he plans to cut the next year's estimates materially. The cut is a routine matter. It really is nothing that has not been taking place in parliament for the last 100 years.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Let us ask ourselves whether it is possible to make important cuts during the present fiscal year. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and his predecessor have said during the past three years that this is not possible to do, but is it possible? In 1962 the Conservative government was faced with an international payments problem, but at that time it showed that this could be done. On June 23, 1962, we made the decision to reduce current expenditures by no less than $200 million in that fiscal year. This means that that cut was made at the rate of $265 million for a full fiscal year. That cut was accomplished during a period of only three days. We showed that it could be done.
The second proposition we put forward was to control the cost of living by bringing about lower prices through an increase in productivity. We urged the government to introduce incentives which would induce industrialists to instal new plant,, machinery and industrial systems to make it possible to manufacture at lower cost, thereby lowering the selling price. Once again the Minister of Finance and his predecessor scoffed at this idea and would take no action to introduce the necessary incentives to make it possible to improve the productivity of this country. So during the past three years we have had, as I pointed out by citing figures from the consumer price
The Budget-Mr. Hees
index, a state of escalation in the rate of the increase in the cost of living, year by year. This demonstrates more clearly than any words I or anyone else might say the complete failure of the government's policy of increasing taxes in the past three budgets.
We now have another budget. Let us have a look at it. It offers two new approaches. The first is to control the cost of living by deferment of construction in cities over 50,000 in the three provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, by withholding the capital cost allowance of 5 per cent in the next two years. The second plan is to complete the Kennedy Round tariff reductions immediately instead of waiting for the next three years over which the planned reduction had been worked out with industry. It is now up to us in discussing this budget to decide whether these two plans will work any better than the previous plan put forward by the government to increase taxation.
Let us first examine the plan to delay construction in cities over 50,000 population in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. We know that building costs are going up 12 per cent per year. If a builder in any of these centres defers construction during the next two years, as the government hopes they will, he will know perfectly well that when he commences construction two years from now he will in all probability be faced with construction costs 24 per cent higher than they are today. It is obvious that no builder is going to defer construction for two years and absorb that kind of an increase in cost. In every case builders will simply absorb the 5 per cent capital cost allowance in their not insignificant profit and go ahead and build. Any businessman in the country can tell you that this is a fact. There is no doubt about it.
Let us now have a look at the effect of immediate tariff cuts in respect of the Kennedy Round instead of over the next three years. There is no machinery available in peacetime to require importers to pass along to consumers the benefits they receive as a result of these lower import duties.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) has stated that he is considering the setting up of machinery to pass along these savings to the consumer. He referred to the sales tax on drugs that was removed. The minister knows perfectly well that when the sales tax on drugs was removed the government found there was no way by which it could require druggists to pass on the savings to the consumer, and that

June 12, 1969
The Budget-Mr. Hees
in very few cases were these savings passed on.
When the minister talks about setting up machinery to require importers to pass on these tax reductions to the consumer he is simply misleading the public because he knows perfectly well that in peacetime there is no way he can do this which will be effective. We may find out that in a few cases importers will pass on their savings because of their good nature or good will, or because they are faced with a very competitive situation, but these cases will be very few and far between. In the vast majority of cases these tariff reductions will simply be absorbed by importers in their profits through the price of goods. The costs will not be affected in this way and will not be reduced. They will continue to rise as they have during the past three years. We can therefore only conclude, that this budget, like its three predecessors, is going to be a failure. As they say in show-business, it looks like the minister has got another flop on his hands.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member-


George Harris Hees: I will be glad to answer the minister when I finish. I only have five more minutes at my disposal, but I would be very glad to answer any questions he wants to put at that time. I hope he understands that I take this attitude only because I have a very short time left.
As they say in the automobile industry, it looks like the minister produced an Edsel. In fact, I understand that in the cabinet they have now stopped calling him Edgar; he is now called "Edsel" by his colleagues.
Let us be constructive and decide what the government should do. First of all I suggest it should do three things. It should reduce government spending at this moment, in the present fiscal year, by $250 million, thereby taking the pressure off prices and thereby slow down the increase in the cost of living.
As I pointed out, the Conservative party showed in 1962 that this could be done. If seven years ago we could reduce expenditures by $200 million in one fiscal year without any trouble at all, the present government should be able to reduce expenditures today by $250 million, particularly in view of the inflation that has taken place during the seven intervening years. There is no question but that this can be done. It must be done to take the pressure off prices by removing this very large upward drive on prices throughout

the country. This is being caused by the increase in government expenditure.
The second thing the government must do is increase productivity in this country and reduce the cost of goods. This can be done by lowering the cost of production. As I have pointed out, the only way this can be brought about is by introducing tax incentives which will induce producers across the country to instal new machinery, plant and production systems, which will in turn enable them to produce more efficiently, bring their costs down, and sell their goods to the Canadian public at more reasonable prices.
The third thing I propose that this government should do is to substantially eliminate the waste which is taking place today. This can be done by the establishment of better economic co-ordination and planning. We should establish an economic planning committee composed of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), with the chairman being the Minister of Finance.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Any top civil servant in our economic departments will tell you privately-and those of us who have been in government know them all very well indeed-that tremendous waste is taking place today in the government through duplication and overlapping in our major economic departments. Sometimes five different departments are doing the same kind of thing. By centralizing under an economic planning operation the sinews of these five economic departments, under the able chairmanship of the Minister of Finance, I feel sure that a great deal of this waste can be cut out. Such a committee could make possible the kind of action which the former deputy prime minister, when he resigned a few weeks ago, said this government is unwilling to take. I refer, for instance, to controlling inflation, producing housing which people can afford to buy, and a program that will deal effectively with pollution.
Such an economic planning committee could make possible the kind of program brought forward by the government of Australia in the realm of housing, something which we in this country need desperately. There, through the work of a committee of this kind, it has been possible to produce
June 12, 1969	COMMONS
three-bedroom houses for $12,000 apiece, with a down payment of $1,200 and a mortgage of 5 per cent. That is the kind of action Canada needs today. But this government, as the former deputy prime minister said at the time of his resignation-and he ought to know, if anybody does-refuses to move because of the classroom attitude of the Prime Minister, who would far sooner deal with constitutional matters and does not give a hoot about the practical problems facing the ordinary citizens of Canada, the kind of problems I have just mentioned.
This government obviously thinks it has three years in office before the next election takes place. It shows no inclination to do anything but take things very, very easy. Therefore we see, just one year after the last election, that a government about which the people of Canada had great expectations when it came into office has turned out to be simply a government of false expectations. I say to the government that there is a great deal to be done, as the former deputy prime minister said very eloquently when he resigned. He pointed out the great weaknesses existing in the government. All the ministers, led by the Prime Minister, are responsible for this lethargy and unwillingness to tackle anything other than constitutional and theoretical problems; they are unwilling to turn their attention to the problems the people of Canada want solved.
There is a big job to be done. The next three years will pass faster than the government imagines. I ask the government to get on with the job it was elected to do and to show the people of Canada that it is a government and not simply a group that wants to sit down and ride out its time.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question that is in several parts? I am sure he wants to be very fair in his assumptions and that he read the budget speech before making such a presentation. Does the hon. member realize that other steps taken, which he did not mention, are, first, the change in the budgetary position of the government from a deficit of over $500 million to a surplus of $375 million on a cash basis, which is a reversal of a billion dollars in the government's position? This is over 1 per cent of the G.N.P. Second, does the hon. member realize that this move creates freedom for monetary action by the Bank of 29180-636
The Budget-Mr. Hopkins Canada, which did not exist before? In addition, does he realize that government expenditures this year, outside of shared-cost programs and interest on the public debt, will increase by 4 per cent, which is less than the general increase in prices and wages in the country? Finally, does he realize that the government already has a committee on economic planning such as he has discussed?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, this is a broken record we have been listening to for the past three years. This is the kind of response Ministers of Finance have given to every one of our speeches on the budget during the past three years. The minister asks whether we realize that this has been done and that has been done to reduce the cost of living. We have seen what has taken place. I do not think the programs the minister has mentioned will have the effect of reducing by one dollar the steadily rising cost of living.
The government will achieve a surplus position by having grossly overtaxed the people of Canada in three shameful budgets. It has not reduced its expenditures one whit, and the cost of living gives every indication of continuing to rise steadily month after month and year after year from now on. I do not think this budget is one iota better than the last three. I suggest that the minister discard that old, broken record, try to obtain some new idea men and come forward with policies that will really mean something.


Edgar John Benson: What about answering the question?


George Harris Hees: Have I not answered your question?


Edgar John Benson: No.
Mr Hees: If the minister has any other questions to ask, I would love to answer them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt about allowing this discussion to continue. 1 think I would prefer to recognize the hon. member for Renfrew North.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, under the new system in parliament our committees are doing a great deal of very constructive work, but I feel they are not receiving the recognition they deserve in the House of Commons. I believe that reports submitted to the house by standing committees should be given more publicity. I should first of all like to compliment the members who served on the Standing Committee on
June 12, 1969

The Budget-Mr. Hopkins National Resources and Public Works for the work they have done over the past months. I think it is important for the image of this committee to point out that not once did we have to cancel a meeting for lack of a quorum. I believe this is a very definite tribute to the members who served on that committee. In order to give their work some publicity I shall read from the fourth report of the committee so it will be on the record of the house:
Your committee recommends that as soon as possible the government allocate more money for scientific research projects that are now under way, as well as to continue new programs for the future.
During the study of the estimates of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the committee learned that more and more funds from that company's regular budget will be required to continue the operations of several nuclear power generators until such time as private enterprise is financially capable of taking them over, probably about 1978. In the meantime, these established expenses will be a drain from the research funds of the company and these should be supplemented.
Canada has been in the forefront in nuclear research in the world with emphasis on the peaceful role of atomic energy and your committee recommends that increased financial support be given to research projects in this field.
The committee commends the government on the establishment of the Inland Waters Centre at Burlington and the work being carried out there on water pollution research. We recommend that this be given full and increased assistance and that other complementary centres be set up where needed.
Your committee is concerned by the increasing magnitude of air, water and soil pollution and the jurisdictional conflict which hampers the finding and implementing of proper solutions.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Your committee recommends that the government draft a code of standards for the cleaning up of and the future protection of all Canadian waters; that provincial approval of such a code be sought; and that the federal government provide an enforcement procedure-if necessary by means of an amendment to the Criminal Code.
Your committee also recommends that a centre or centres similar to the Canada Centre for Inland Waters be set up to centralize all existing and future federal research in air and soil pollution and to extend and speed up such research so that codes of standards may be drafted to protect the air and soil from pollution.
During its study of the estimates of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, your committee was informed that there would not be any "Canadian produced" heavy water available in Canada this year. Your committee recommends therefore that the words "Canadian produced" be deleted from Vote L20 thus enabling the company to purchase heavy water from non-Canadian sources.
The committee wishes to state that it has been greatly impressed by the contributions from the Canadian science community and commends all

personnel involved in scientific progress in Canada on their achievements.
Your committee commends these estimates to the house.
I should like to say a word on the political activities of employees of Crown corporations. I am given to understand that in the past the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority had one employee at least who ran as a federal member of parliament in either 1962 or 1963, and I believe the Polymer Corporation had one employee who contested two elections. But there are some Crown corporations in Canada whose employees are not permitted to participate in political activity or party politics. I think that some uniform plan should be worked out in this regard because in the case of Crown corporations, which are run in much the same way as a private enterprise with people working as carpenters, tradesmen of various types and general labourers, I do not think it is fair to refuse employees the opportunity of participating in the activities of the political party of their choice. I ask that this matter be looked into.
We have a very useful fund in the Department of Transport for the construction and improvement of airports. Money in this fund is allotted on the basis of $1 million per annum, which is quite inadequate to look after these needs in communities across Canada today. At the present time all these funds are committed for 1969 and there is very little left in the 1970 budget. In my riding, in and around the towns of Pembroke, Petawawa and Deep River, we have started the construction of an airport which is already one of the most used airports along the new route that was started by Royalair from Montreal. The route starts in Montreal and goes on to Ottawa, Pembroke, Peterborough, Toronto and St. Catharine's, with other lines added since. However, the airport at Pembroke is the only one along the entire route that is not paved. It supplies 50 per cent of the passengers on the entire run. It is used extensively by the scientists from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited at Chalk River and by the Department of National Defence at Petawawa.
I will give hon. members some examples of aircraft movements at the airport in Pembroke over a period of four months. In December of last year there were 461 aircraft movements, and in another month there were 1,325. In still another month there were 1,878 aircraft movements at this unpaved airport, and in yet another month 2,489 on what is a sod runway. So I appeal to the Department of Transport and to the Treasury Board to have
June 12, 1969	COMMONS
this airstrip paved at the earliest possible time.
In another area, the town of Mattawa is looking forward to the development of an airstrip there. As |you know, I am privileged in having a very beautiful riding which covers 64 townships and several organized villages and municipalities. Sometimes I wish I had an aircraft or a helicopter, but if an airstrip were built in the vicinity of Mattawa a very good tourist trade could be developed. Also, fishermen could fly in and out of the area, and so could hunters. Another important point is that if there were an airstrip at Mattawa a dentist could come into that community of 3,000 people for one day a week. Otherwise, the community does not have these services because of the lack of modern conveniences.
Over the past few years the Department of Public Works has had a very useful program called the tourist wharf policy. Under this policy wharves and docks up to a value of $15,000 are built on waterways. They are paid for by the Department of Public Works. There has been some talk from time to time that this program might be cancelled. I have heard this for the last few years, but I am glad to say that this decision has not been made because approximately only $200,000 a year is made available for this program. It provides a service to communities which normally would not have it because these docks and wharves are built in municipalities that are usually not wealthy, and we all know that every municipality today is under a heavy taxation burden at the local level. This is a very useful program which brings tourists into the area. It helps to promote the tourist trade and it promotes healthy recreation. I think it would be a very serious error if this program were ever dropped by the Department of Public Works.
As a matter of fact, it seems to me that $200,000 is far too little for such an important program which will enrich the lives of so many people as well as the lives of those who come to visit the area. I feel that not only should the fund not be cancelled but that the amount should be doubled. This is not something that has cost a lot of money. Much good can be done in many places with a small sum of money compared with some other projects.
Coming as I do from the upper Ottawa valley, an industry that is of crucial importance to me and to many people in my area is the forest industry. In our area 3,200 people make their living from the timber resources of Algonquin Park, and all this propaganda 29180-636J
The Budget-Mr. Hopkins that is coming over the airwaves about the slaughter of our natural resources is just so much talk for the record. In this regard one matter that has not been pointed out is that this spring many of the companies who have operations in the park planted 300,000 trees apiece. The trees were provided by the Department of Lands and Forests, but the companies paid the wages of those who planted them.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
An attempt has been made to implant the idea that once you cut down our forests nothing is left. This is far, far from the truth. As we all know the forest is a renewable resource. We also know that the people who depend upon the forest and its products for their livelihood are not going recklessly to destroy that from which they make their living. I think that is a point that should be made very strongly.
I think the point should be equally strongly made in favour of the forest industry that the forestry research station at Chalk River is cultivating trees that grow three to four times as fast as natural growth. In artificial conditions under lights a birch tree has been grown to the height of 13 or 14 feet in one year. These trees are exposed to lights and other treatment for 24 hours a day. I say these conditions are artificial because they are completely foreign to the world of nature, but this does give some idea of the kind of experiment being carried on.
The forest industry in the Algonquin Park area also supplies wood to the furniture industry in southern Ontario which employs
10,000	workers. I make that point to show that my area is not the only one to benefit from the forest industry. I hope I will have other opportunities to put other important facts on record, but I think the important thing to note is that the forest is a renewable resource.
I do not agree for one moment with 34 townships being set aside for the operations of an organization such as the Wild Lands League which claims a little over 800 members. The city of Toronto could be placed several times over within the area of Algonquin Park. There is an area already set aside for the Wild Lands League. Our attitude is that we are willing to live and let live, but we believe in the multiple use of this area.
Another important matter I want to mention is of an historical nature. On a high hill across the Ottawa River from the town of
June 12, 1989

The Budget-Mr. Hopkins Mattawa stood a cross that was placed there by Champlain. Time and again it has fallen down and been replaced, but for at least the last year the cross has not stood. I should like to suggest to the Department of Indians Affairs and Northern Development that the historic sites board adopt this place as an historic site and place the cross there as a permanent remembrance of the days when Champlain travelled up the Ottawa River. Many people in the past have watched for this cross as they have driven along highway 17 through Mattawa, and now it is no longer there. Therefore I recommend to the historic sites board some action along the line I have suggested.
In the government shuffle to bring constructive economies into our financial affairs I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) on the first major balanced budget, with a forecast surplus, in many years. However, I hope that in this shuffle the new military hospital planned for Base Petawawa does not get lost, because the hospital is very badly needed. I hope the colleagues of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) in Treasury Board will be very kind to him in this regard.
I should like to conclude on this note. Since certain pressure groups, such as the Wild Lands League, are putting pressure on the Ontario government to change the regulations in Algonquin Park, and throw out industry altogether, as would be the case if the league had its way, I think we should also think of all the asphalt and concrete that is being thrown over the best soil of many parts of Canada. For example, in the Niagara peninsula concrete buildings are being constructed and asphalt laid every day on good, fruit producing soil. Therefore I suggest it is not the forest industry of Canada that we should be concerned about. As I have said, the forest is a renewable resource, but that is not the case when you cover the best soil in the country with concrete buildings.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for Renfrew North to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: In conclusion, may I compliment the Minister of Regional Economic

Development on bringing in his new legislation which will make available to any one industry up to $12 million if it sets up a business in certain areas.
In view of the threat to urban areas caused by pollution, with an eye to the future I think it is an excellent idea that we do our utmost to try to diversify industry throughout Canada as much as possible in order to give our country greater depth, instead of confining industry to the industrial belt close to the United States border. I think the regional development bill is good legislation. It is more flexible than the area development agency legislation which I think has really put economies into a strait-jacket. It has been said that the industrial community surrounding the Great Lakes will grow to three or four times its present size by the turn of the century. Dare we think how much programs to combat pollution will cost if all this development takes place in one or two areas of Canada? So I should like to put in a plug for Renfrew North, Mr. Speaker. The upper Ottawa Valley needs industry very badly.
* (4:20 p.m.)


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks may I read the amendment proposed by my party. It is relevant to the remarks I am about to make. The amendment reads as follows:
"regrets the continuing inability of the Government to curb the relentless increase in the cost of living since 1965, while increasing the hardship on the unemployed, the poor, pensioners, farmers, and other victims of the just society'.
I will not, as did the hon. member who just resumed his seat, congratulate the minister on his balanced budget. The technicalities of budget balancing mean precious little to the poor of this country, to the unemployed and to the regionally disadvantaged. I commend that comment to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and his colleagues in parliament.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, the most urgent problem facing Canada today is poverty- ugly poverty, poverty that is real throughout this country, poverty that is all too prevalent throughout this country. This problem is not unique to Canada. That great, affluent society, the United States, is equally concerned about the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty. That question, too, is gnawing at the conscience of the United States. As in Canada, poverty can be found almost everywhere in the United States. It is found not only in the steaming ghettos of the eastern cities but also
June 12, 1969	COMMONS
in the ramshackled countryside of Appalachia. The same can be said of Canada.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, what are we doing about poverty in Canada? What are we doing to help the poor of this country? Perhaps we might ask ourselves this question. Who are the poor people of Canada? The obvious answer is that the poor are those who are poor by material standards. The poor are the regionally disadvantaged people. The poor are those who live in poverty on the reservations of Canada or in the slums of our big cities. The fact is that we have poverty in Canada. Our poverty recently was defined by the Economic Council of Canada and according to that definition we have an abundance of poverty.
I realize that what I am about to read has been quoted many times before, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, what has been read before bears repeating. I shall repeat it in the hope that someone in the government of this country may hear me and become seized of the fact that the real problem facing this country today is poverty. Perhaps something will be done about it. May I therefore read part of the sixth chapter of the fifth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada:
Poverty in Canada is real. Its numbers are not in the thousands, but the millions. There is more of it than our society can tolerate, more than our economy can afford, and far more than existing measures and efforts can cope with. Its persistence, at a time when the bulk of Canadians enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world, is a disgrace.
What is poverty in Canada? Those who have seen it, felt it, experienced it-whether as its victims or as those trying to do something about it-can supply some telling descriptions.
The report of the Economic Council states that any man earning less than $3,000 a year and supporting a wife and child in living below the poverty line. Commenting on the report of the Economic Council the Globe and Mail had this to say in part in an editorial of September 30, 1968:
The average Canadian does not need the council to tell him that it is impossible for a family of three to live with anything remotely approaching dignity on $2,641.60 a year: his own budget tells him so. A family might do it without going hungry if it lived in a Newfoundland village where the fish were plentiful and free, but not in any of the built-up parts of Canada where most of our people live. Yet, as the council pointed out with anger, more than a quarter of our non-farm population is forced to live in this appalling poverty.
Again I ask, what will we do about poverty in this country? There are two types of poor people in this country. Some are unable to
The Budget-Mr. McGrath sustain themselves because of physical hand icaps or circumstances over which they have no control. These people must depend on the charity of the state. They depend on welfare and its concommitant degradation. Nevertheless, we must be concerned about a larger group. The people in that group through no fault of their own are poor because they have inadequate incomes or because they suffer from chronic unemployment. I refer to the regionally disadvantaged people of Canada.
I come from a province that is considered regionally disadvantaged. A few weeks ago I was at an Indian reservation in Manitoba and saw appalling poverty. The people of the reservation could also be described as regionally disadvantaged. These, then, are the poor people of this country. They live in its various regions. Unfortunately, many of our poor also live in large cities.
To illustrate the point I am making about regionally disadvantaged people I wish to refer to a report of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics which shows that a fisherman working in the fishing industry of Newfoundland in February or March of this year received on the average $62 after working a 44.8 hour week. His counterpart in British Columbia who does the same work earns almost $84 after working a 30.6 hour week. That, Mr. Speaker, is regional disparity. That sort of thing, I hope, is being considered at the dominion-provincial conference being conducted at this time. The example I have cited, and I make no apology for saying this, is a glaring example of how working men are exploited in the regionally disadvantaged areas of this country. A man working 45 hours a week in a fish plant and earning $60 is at least working, able to hold his head up and does not have to lose his dignity or pride by being forced to appeal to the state for public welfare. Granted his plight is a serious one because of runaway inflation and rising prices, but at least he is able to work. Although I am concerned about him, I am more concerned about the man who does not have a job.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I am also concerned about the man working in the cities of my province

where we have a guaranteed minimum wage of $1 an hour for men and 70 cents an hour for women. I have in my hand a pay cheque of one of my constituents living in St. John's. His pay envelope covers a 46-hour week. The hourly rate of pay is $1.15 and his gross earnings are
10054	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. McGrath $52.90. From that $52.90 he must pay $1.70 in income tax, which is a crying shame.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


James Aloysius McGrath: That man should not have to pay income tax. It the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) were here, I would refer him and other members to the amendment the other night of the New Democratic party which, unfortunately, the government did not accept. This man had to pay 65 cents unemployment insurance and 74 cents for the Canada Pension Plan. His total deductions from his $52.90 for the 46-hour week were $3.09, giving him a net take-home pay of $49.81.
The man to whom I am referring has a wife and child to support. He lives in a basement apartment for which he pays $115 a month. He cannot afford to buy steak. He cannot even afford hamburger. He cannot even afford to live, yet he is a working man. He has to pay $115 a month rent because the state has failed to provide adequate public housing. He is forced to live in a damp basement because the province in which he lives and the federal government are unable to get together to provide him with public housing.
That is the crime of poverty in this nation today. That is what is crying out for justice in this country today. The paradox of Canada is the growing gap between the rich and the poor, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. I make no apology for using that hackneyed phrase because they are the only words I can muster to describe the situation.
I have seen poverty in other areas of Canada but I am more familiar with the poverty in my own city and constituency. We have the largest families and the lowest per capita income in Canada. We have the highest per capita cost of living in Canada. I offer that as a paradox in terms of the human tragedy it represents. This gap is widening in my city, province and throughout the country. You do not have to travel 1,500 miles to St. John's, Newfoundland to find this poverty. I suggest you can find it right here in the city of Ottawa. You will certainly find it in abundance in the cities of Montreal and Toronto. This is the tragedy of our time. This is the real problem in Canada today, not bilingualism or biculturalism but the bread and butter issue of abject poverty that is all around us.
We have lived through the Pearson era when, coincidental with the Kennedy

DEBATES	June 12, 1969
administration, the liberals said they were going to tackle this problem. They declared war on poverty. That war on poverty has been shelved in the dusty archives of hackneyed political campaign phrases, perhaps to be dusted off and taken out in a few years' time to be used in some subsequent election. In the last election campaign we had the era of the just society, a phrase which is becoming more and more meaningless as the weeks go by. Perhaps that phrase too will end up in the dusty archives of used political campaign slogans to be taken out at some opportune time and used again. What satisfaction does that give to my poor little friend in St. John's, Newfoundland, who takes home $49.81 for working 46 hours from which he must feed his wife and child and pay $115 a month rent because this government has failed to provide him with public housing? It is precious little consolation, Mr. Speaker.
We have reached the point in this country when we must do more than just talk about poverty. We must do more than try to epitomize the problem in fancy phrases. We must have a realistic program to attack it. I do not know what is going on behind the closed, doors at the federal-provincial conference. I know there is not a great deal going on in this house today. One only needs to look around to see the evidence. Perhaps someone may hear what I am saying, and perhaps it may even filter through the secure doors of that building where the conference is taking place. Perhaps then these men who have the responsibility of heading the provincial and federal governments will come to grips with the serious problem of poverty.
The Canadian Council of Churches and the Canadian Catholic Conference recently issued a paper as a consequence of a study of poverty in Canada. Perhaps hon. members will bear with me if I quote from the June, 1969 issue of Canadian Churchman.
The resulting report notes that people today are in a hurry to be fully alive, free from daily want, sharing social power and a better life. "The deprived are saying to the privileged, 'Damn your charity. Give us justice.' Those in need are impatient because there is no longer any valid excuse for injustice and discrimination. Abundant resources and technical know-how can provide necessities and opportunities for all-given enough moral will and political courage."
The just society is still a dream, notes the report. The gap is still widening between rich and poor nations and the rich and poor within nations.
"The reality is a disgrace, which sees 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 Canadians enslaved by economic and social want. Public priorities still put the power of money before the needs of people."
June 12, 1969	COMMONS
1 have been in this house since the beginning of this session. I have listened to debates on satellites, defence budgets and everything else, but I have yet to hear a concrete proposal emanating from the government to come to grips with the real problem of this nation, the problem of poverty. It is just a few months since the Economic Council of Canada in its fifth annual report dealt extensively with this problem and defined it for all to see, except those who have not the eyes to see, and I suggest that surely the government of Canada falls into that category. On behalf of the poor of this country I can only re-echo to the empty treasury benches what the Christian churches of this country have said: "Damn your charity. Give us justice."
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, the study of a budget is a kind of self-examination for a government. It is also an opportunity for hon. members to make suggestions and, as it were, to examine the economic health of the country. I would like to restrict my remarks to a particular aspect of the Canadian economy.
Before getting into my topic, I would like to say to the hon. member who spoke before me that I share several of his opinions, except that I think it is an easy solution to leave it to the federal government to settle the problems.
I would like to remind him that the problems he mentioned a while ago, mainly that of poverty, will only be settled when the three government levels have arrived at a fair distribution of responsibilities as well as of the resources that will enable them to assume those responsibilities.
Before I deal with two subjects close to my heart, such as the present depression in the textile industry-which is of concern to my constituency, as it gives some 2,200 jobs to my constituents-I must say that I attended at lunch time a study meeting of the Canadian Textiles Institute, and after having heard their grievances, I came very close to elaborating on this matter.
Unfortunately, I believe that any aspect of the Canadian economy is as urgent or even more generalized, and I want my remarks to be a kind of SOS from Canadian municipalities, in the present economic context.
In the present government trilogy, there is no doubt at all that the municipal level is treated as a poor retarded child. That
The Budget-Mr. Mongrain reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of a baby who would hide under the table while two older children are quarrelling for a cake and who could only have a few crumbs falling from the table during that quarrel.
I am bringing this matter up for another reason. It is because this afternoon and tomorrow the premiers of the ten provinces are gathered here in Ottawa. They are mainly responsible for that lack of dialogue between municipal, provincial and federal authorities.
I would like to avoid, as much as possible, any partisan consideration and discuss the matter as objectively as possible and put the blame, if need be as fairly as possible. But to prove clearly that I agree with the leader of the government and the country, I would like to quote a few words which he said at the opening of the convention of the Canada Federation of Mayors which was held in Ottawa last week.
After having recalled that urbanization in Canada is being carried on at a very fast pace, with the result that in the year 2,000, it is expected that at least 50 per cent of Canadians will be living in large urban areas, which are already a source of unimaginably acute problems, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) added:
We cannot expect one single level of government to satisfy all those requirements. There has always been and there will always be numerous aspects of urban renewal that must be left to local initiatives, to local preferences and to local administration exclusively.
That is the municipal government.
As far as others are concerned, it is preferable that the provinces deal with them at the regional level. Finally, there are still other aspects which represent questions with which the Parliament of Canada must necessarily be concerned.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime minister is absolutely right. We should grant the municipal representatives the right to attend constitutional conferences, particularly those where division of taxation is discussed, because municipal governments are nearer to the people, as well as the oldest form of government. It is only fairly recently that they became creatures of the provinces. The municipal government has both feet on its home ground and is closest to the people. Every day, it hears their grievances and their requests. The spokesmen of the municipal government should be invited to take part in the dialogue,
1005S
June 12, 1969

The Budget-Mr. Mongrain to outline their views and to find solutions to problems.
And the Prime Minister added:
If the federal and provincial governments have decided to proceed with the complete revision of the constitution, the reason is that we are now faced with many constitutional provisions which were drafted according to what were the realities in 1867. The few provisions dealing with the municipal organization of the country have not yet been dealt with during that revision; but the next intergovernmental meeting which will take place in June will be partly devoted to various aspects of our constitutional law, like the spending power of the federal government, which closely affects municipal governments.
Mr. Speaker, I am still amazed that the spokesman for the municipal governments have not been invited to participate at least as observers, in those discussions when their fate is at stake.
And I quote further:
I suggest the future stages of this constitutional review could very well involve a comprehensive study of the municipalities' role in a federal state.
I welcome that suggestion. The Prime Minister added:
The new tendencies that I have tried to describe to you this morning raise a whole series of pertinent questions each of which warrants a detailed study and a full debate; I shall quote only three of them. First, the physical presence of the federal administration in a great number of municipalities, under the form of airports, harbours, railways, and a whole range of government agencies and public undertakings; how can we make sure that this more and more keenly felt presence and its socio-economic effects will contribute positively to urban development?
Secondly, what machinery would allow the national interest, as defined by parliament, to affect a decision made at the local level and with implications for the whole country?
I would have some suggestions to offer in answer to this question of the Prime Minister. He added:
Thirdly and finally: does the enormous increase in the political and financial responsibilities of the municipalities give rise to a need for new constitutional provisions?
The Prime Minister added:
X do not believe that there exists any agency more directly concerned with these questions than this Federation of Mayors and Municipalities.
Who is the official spokesman (those are my own words) of all municipalities across Canada?
Bom from a pressing need to settle the problems that resulted in the cities from the financial crisis of the thirties, your Federation has constantly reviewed the part the municipalities should play, and their relationship with the provincial and federal governments.

[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I am in the very thick of things. I might say that I have been familiar with the municipal problems for the last twenty years or so. I was on the executive of the Conference of the mayors of central Quebec, which comprises 85 municipalities. I have also been on the executive of the Union of the municipalities of the province of Quebec. I was on the executive of the Canadian Federation of mayors, of which, at one time, I have been the chairman. I took part in conferences of municipalities in the ten provinces of Canada. I attended seminars of municipal associations in the United States and Europe, and each time I set foot on Canadian soil I have noticed an almost incredible thing:	when problems coming
under these three levels of government are dealt with, the spokesmen of the municipal governments are practically ignored. They are treated like backward children and they find themselves constantly at grips with those difficulties that we are discussing, but they are devoid of the means of solving them.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is high time that the country be informed of such a situation. What are the needs of the municipalities? The answer should be at hand, as the municipalities submit these needs every year to the federal government which, unfortunately, be it Liberal or Conservative finds itself immediately in conflict with the provincial governments. These governments cry: "Hands off! The municipalities belong to us."
I believe this to be true. I admit that legally, municipalities are creatures of the provinces, but I also think that that gives the municipalities the right to take part in discussions and, when the time comes to share the revenue, the right to express their opinions. In fact, they are the ones closer to the people and in a better position to suggest solutions, since they have first hand knowledge of the problems facing them each day. And I do not know of any constitutionnal or legal provision which forbids the mayors of Canada to meet wherever they choose to compare notes to try to benefit from the experience of others, to consult those who are more experienced and together to devise solutions which will enable them to carry out their mandate.
Among all those problems facing us, here is how should be handled those coming under the jurisdiction of the three levels of government. Here is an excerpt from a brief entitled Submission to the Government of Canada, submitted by the Canadian Federation of
June 12, 1969

Mayors and Municipalities at the end of April of this year, and I quote:

Who is responsible . . . for housing, for pollution control, for unemployment and for creating new jobs, for devising policies which will bring about a reduction in the cost of money, for keeping prices stable, for assuring the welfare needs of less fortunate Canadians? The locus of responsibility lies somewhere in a limbo of constitutional debate, infringement and obscurity. In seeking the responsibility for any one or more of these, insofar as it will mean access to new tax sources or revenues, the blanket-so to speak-is pulled back and forth between governments; there is considerably less blanket tugging, however, when it comes to enunciating effective policies. Here, the "buck" is passed and, all too frequently, the municipalities-within which such problems actually arise-are left to hold the bag.

Not only are municipalities refused the revenue sources they need, but they are handicapped on the debenture market. They have trouble selling their bonds. I understand there is at present in Canada $60 millions worth of municipal bonds on the shelves, and when they are finally sold, the rates are almost prohibitive, so that the municipality is still at a disadvantage.
I repeat that the provincial governments should once and for all understand that with the urgency and the proliferation of problems only dialogue at the three levels of government will make it possible to find acceptable solutions. For political or other reasons, attempts are being made to prevent that dialogue: In my opinion, it is a perpetuation of discrimination which is at the root of almost all the problems which we are discussing here, and which we find very difficult to solve.
Here are a few of the problems which were discussed by the mayors from all over Canada during their convention in Ottawa. Low cost housing with all the problems involved. Municipalities would be prepared to take action but they cannot afford it.
Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, some pieces of legislation were designed to assist directly the municipalities in providing for the construction of an adequate number of homes.
There was "The municipal... tEnglish]
The municipal winter works incentive program, introduced in 1958, was terminated in 1968. The municipal development and loan fund, established in 1963 (and which should have preferably been a permanent program under which capital funds would have been provided to the provinces to

The Budget-Mr. Mongrain enable them to set up "municipal credit institutions"), was terminated in 1966. A program of federal financial assistance towards urban renewal, first established in 1956 and then given real substance in 1964, has been suspended since late 1968 and now appears to be in serious jeopardy.

-at least restricted to a certain extent. [English]
The federal program of loans and forgiveness of loans for the installation of trunk sewers and the construction of sewage treatment plants, introduced in 1960, appears to be headed for termination. This is a sorry picture-

-say the mayors of Canada.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the spokesmen of the mayors of Canada are not getting the deal they deserve, considering the serious and extensive problems they have to solve.
There is another problem which is a matter of concern for them: pollution-a serious problem as we all know. I would like to quote here the statement made by a doctor and published in the June 11 issue of La Presse. He had this to say last week, at Pointe-au-Pic:
Water pollution is catching up with us at an alarming rate. I would even go as far as to say that it is definitely out of control. Such was the statement made yesterday by Dr. Richard Nelson, from Hull, who is a member of the Quebec Water Development Committee, and a member of the Quebec Wildlife Federation.
Mr. Speaker, I was reading recently in a research paper that, last year, a special UNESCO committee made up of representatives of various branches of science coming from 55 countries met in Paris where they concluded unanimously that things being as they are, unless drastic steps are taken in just about every country of the world, by the year 2,000, it will be impossible for man and animals to survive on earth. That means that municipalities must soon take steps to deal with water and air pollution. But provincial and federal governments, in some cases, for all sorts of constitutional and other reasons, are not providing those municipalities the means to solve their problems.
There is also the question of fiscal matters. I know that, for several years now, municipalities have asked that a municipal fund be established, some sort of municipal bank to which the federal and provincial governments would contribute funds to enable municipalities to take advantage of the borrowing power of the federal government, or
June 12, 1969

The Budget-Mr. Mongrain at least from the easy credit of the federal government, in order to borrow at more reasonable interest rates.
This formula has been used in Europe for over 110 or 120 years. The communal funds have, we know, proved very successful. However, we are told that it cannot be done here for all kinds of constitutional reasons.
The mayors are also asking that the railway act be amended so that they will not have to pay such a large share of the building costs of railway crossings.
In addition, they are asking-and I believe this sums up their requests-for the right to participate in the constitutional conferences, especially those that deal with fiscal matters, in order to have the opportunity to put forward their views.
I have personally advocated in the house two or three years ago the creation of an intergovernmental advisory commission. This kind of agency exists in the United States and obtains excellent results. Such a commission could be useful in this country. It exists now in a somewhat different form in Canada but the representatives of the municipal administration are not entitled to give their opinion and are not invited to participate in the study or in the research of new means to solve the problems that exist on the three levels of government.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, it is the voice of the Canadian municipalities which I would like to project, and I would like it to be heard far and wide, .so that whose whom I regard as most responsible for this disagreement or for this lack of dialogue between the three levels of government, the provincial administrators, the provincial premiers, the people in charge of municipal affairs, understand that even if we accept the fact that the municipality is, legally speaking, a creature of the province, therefore answerable to the province, its spokemen should nevertheless be treated like adults who are conscious of their responsibilities and who know how to solve the problems of their [DOT]constituents. Therefore, they are entitled to give their opinion on the same basis as other levels of government, because they are not less important than the two others since they are closer to the grass roots and know more than any member or any other government what are the real needs of the people.
What are, for instance, the ways of dealing with the problems of leisure, with the sew-.age, water supply and street problems

created by housing projects, with new parks development, with the fight against pollution and unemployment? How can we overcome the urban transport and development difficulties, in short those things that require capital investment, so as to enable all Canadians to benefit from that reasonable modicum of creature comforts without which, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, no Christian can find salvation.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed the following bills without any amendment:
Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act.
Bill C-153, an act to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act; and also
A message informing this house that the Senate have agreed to the amendments made by the House of Commons to Bill S-29, an act respecting the production and conservation of oil and gas in the Yukon territory and the Northwest Territories.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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).
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take advantage of the latitude traditionally permitted in this debate to discuss a matter of urgent importance to the future of Canada. I refer to the disastrous proposal apparently put forward by the government at the closed door sessions of the federal-provincial constitutional conference.
I say "apparently" because it is impossible to be sure whether newspaper stories that
June 12, 1969

emanate from secret conferences are correct in substance or in detail. However, the Globe and Mail, an excellent newspaper in my judgment, has come out with a clearcut statement of a federal plan to allow any two of the four federal senatorial districts, the maritimes, Quebec, Ontario and the west, to veto the use by the Canadian government of the federal spending power through some machinery of a reformed Senate appointed in whole or in part by the provinces.
If this story is true, and I hope it is not, we in our party must hasten to express our view that it is an outrageous proposal, undermining the federal system and ignoring parliamentary control. Such a proposal would constitute a betrayal of the federal government's responsibility to maintain national standards in certain services essential to all Canadians. It would enhance regional disparities, and the whole system of social security as it has grown up would be undermined.
Within such a constitutional strait-jacket we might never have had old age pensions or the Canada Pension Plan. Although I appreciate that now old age pensions are specifically a federal responsibility, the original old age pension plan would no doubt have been vetoed and, at best, postponed. Federal contributions to the hospitalization plan for all Canada would never have come into effect. Without a doubt, the two central regions of Canada would have torpedoed for all of Canada the universal medical plan as recommended by the Hall commission. The Canada Assistance Plan, of which the predecessor of this government was rightly proud, might have been sabotaged.
A more serious aspect of these proposals is that once again they have shown that the government is unwilling to take parliament into its confidence. Here we have sprung, at a federal provincial conference, sweeping proposals which go to the very root of the constitutional structure and functions of parliament. Yet the elected members of parliament, and I believe this includes government supporters as well as members of the opposition, have been given no glimmering, no inkling, of what the proposals contain.
The government of Canada may well be committing itself to the provinces on constitutional amendments which undermine the federal power of dealing effectively with regional disparities. Once the government is formally committed it cannot back down and its supporters cannot defeat or change its proposals without voting lack of confidence in the government. We all know that in practice,
The Budget-Mr. Brewin if the government commits itself in advance, its proposals will be swept through by a majority vote. A commitment by the government without prior consultation with or approval by parliament has the effect of bypassing parliament.
Three of four years ago, and consistently since that date, we in this party and I personally have proposed, as have other members, machinery whereby the need for constitutional change in Canada could be examined by the elected representatives of the Canadian people so that when proposals were made to the provinces they would carry not only the approval of the government of the day but the consensus of parliament itself.
The proposal was for an all-party special committee on the constitution. The former Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, said he approved of this plan, but he did nothing about it. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has never concealed his lack of interest in consulting the representatives of the people on constitutional issues. However, just the other day he announced in the house that at the next session such a committee might be set up. This would be locking the barn door after the horse had been stolen. Can anyone doubt if cut and dried proposals for constitutional change are presented by the government to such a committee the tendency of the committee would be to divide on partisan lines with, on one side, the majority dedicated to endorsing the proposal and, on the other, a minority in all probability dedicated to opposing it?
I want to go back now to the substance of the proposal. It is to give the provinces or groups of representatives in a reformed Senate the power to veto the federal government's use of its constitutional power to tax and spend on certain projects not clearly assigned by the constitution to either jurisdiction. I am well aware that there are two schools of thought in respect of federal use of the spending power. In the province of Quebec, for obvious historical and cultural reasons which one can and does respect, the exercise of the spending power of the government has often been regarded as an unwarranted, if not illegal, invasion of provincial fields of jurisdiction and provincial rights. But in the other provinces, particularly the have-not provinces, the exercise of the federal spending power in shared-cost programs has been absolutely essential and remains so if the people in those provinces are to enjoy any measure of equality in the services to which Canadians as a whole aspire.

June 12, 1969
The Budget-Mr. Brewin We in this party are ready to recognize the strong and natural feelings of the people of Quebec and to concede some means of opting out of these cost-sharing programs without penalty, as a general rule. But to give a veto power to any two out of four regions in Canada and, above all, to senatorial minorities however appointed, would be to hamstring the initiative of the federal government and to deny to other Canadians the security and the standards to which they are entitled. It would be to deny the power of leadership in those fields to the parliament and government of Canada. The potential impact of parliament on the welfare of Canadians would be reduced to virtually nil, and interest in the federal government would consequently diminish if not disappear.
Let it be clear that we in this party do believe that shared-cost programs should generally be administered on a provincial and local basis. We do believe in the continuous and active co-operation of the federal and provincial governments. We do believe that the provision of adequate provincial revenues to carry out the tasks unquestionably within provincial jurisdiction is urgent. What we do not believe in is the abdication of the federal parliament from concern, in co-operation with the provinces, in such fields as housing, social welfare and medicare, and to give an external veto outside parliament is indeed a form of abdication.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
There are in these proposals extremely important implications in the field of taxation. What we are now seeing, I suspect, is a total abandonment of the efforts symbolized by the Rowell-Sirois report to bring order out of chaos in the field of federal-provincial relations. This report was based on three essential principles: first, the removal of competition among the various levels of government in various tax fields through reallocation of responsibilities and the establishment of exclusive areas of taxing jurisdiction; second, the establishment of national standards; third, a system of equalization payments based on fiscal need in relation to national standards rather than on fiscal capacity.
It seems clear from the proposals set out in the Globe and Mail, and from the government's proposal, that the government is proposing to abandon at least the second of these pillars, namely, a strong, rational federal system essential in the long run to Canadian unity. This is the second recent incident which has demonstrated that the people of

Canada elected the present government on the basis of a misunderstanding. The Prime Minister won acclaim all over Canada because he purported to stand for a strong federal government in a strong Canada. We are now seeing that this stance was misleading. The resignation of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), because he discovered this misunderstanding, was the first disillusionment. It became clear to the Prime Minister's former deskmate and second in command that the Prime Minister in fact did not wish a federal structure strong enough to take an effective part in dealing with the housing problems of Canadians.
Now, from behind the closed doors of the federal-provincial conference in the railway station, emerges a plan to emasculate the federal government's spending powers and its ability to deal with regional disparities in social welfare. The man who won election on a "one Canada" slogan bids fair, if the present proposal comes into effect, to become the creator of a "four Canada" monstrosity.
I believe that the effective custodian of the rights of parliament and a federal structure which would preserve a strong central government is parliament itself. I urge my colleagues of all parties to make it clear to the government that it must not proceed to any invasion or erosion of federal constitutional powers without full reference to parliament, without adequate debate in parliament and without final decision by parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: We find in the government's proposal something particularly odious-the notion of conferring a veto power over the action of parliament by some minority representation from a non-elective body, the Senate or the other place, if anybody prefers to call it that. Within a federal system such as we have in Canada there are more than enough roadblocks to effective legislative action to meet the needs of Canadians. It is hardly necessary for the government to create constitutional hazards, which will be the case under this proposal.
Constitutions seem to some people dull and lifeless legal documents, but I remind the house that the welfare of Canadians for whom we are responsible depends in a federal system upon the constitutional framework within which we operate. We in this parliament have a responsibility to the people who elected us to make sure that the constitutional framework, the strong federal Canada in
June 12, 1969

which we believe, is not eroded by any behind-doors conferences that may take place in Ottawa.


Mr. Allen B. Sulaiycky (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address myself this afternoon to two aspects of the budget, the deferred capital cost allowance which has already received a great deal of airing, and the user charges which were justified by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in his budget address. In his speech the minister announced the intention to impose a user charge on persons using commercial air carriers in Canada. I think that is fair and I have no quarrel with this innovation. In making the announcement the minister stated that it is a general policy "to ask those who benefit directly from services or facilities provided by the government to pay charges more in line with the direct cost involved". The minister further stated:
In some cases these charges have not been recently revised to reflect current levels of costs or values of services and we are carrying out a systematic review and revision of these charges. We shall probably introduce some new charges as well.
I do not have any reason to argue with these statements in so far as they represent a general policy. I think it is a wise policy. It stands up well under scrutiny when it is applied in the manner which the minister specifically indicated in his budget speech. But I would like to caution the minister that this policy must be scrutinized in each particular case to which it is thought it might logically be applied.
There may well be instances when to insist upon adherence to the general policy would be unjust, impractical or unsupportable on any other ground. My experience leads me to mention precisely one such case. I refer to the charges levied on the use of certain Crown property located within the national parks of Canada. More particularly, I am concerned with Waterton Lakes National Park, Banff National Park and Jasper National Park, all of which are within my riding. These are the outstanding examples of Canada's national parks system-indeed, of parks systems anywhere in the world.
I know that a number of hon. members were fortunate to visit both Banff and Jasper last week, and perhaps they learned about some of the matters which are causing the people of these parks a great deal of concern. While I know that many hon. members have visited one or more of the mountain parks in Alberta, many others have not yet had the
The Budget-Mr. Sulatycky opportunity to do so. Those who have paid a visit almost surely did so as part of a vacation and therefore may not have become acquainted with the economic and administrative aspects of the parks operation. For this reason I think it is important that I devote some time to consideration of the operation of these parks and how they are affected by the declared policy that those who benefit shall pay the cost.
Jasper, Waterton Lakes, Banff, and Lake Louise which is within Banff National Park, are known throughout the world. Of the several million visitors who enter one or more of these areas each year, a high percentage come from outside our borders. To many people any one of these names may better describe Canada than Toronto, Montreal or any other place name in this country. To them Banff, Jasper, Lake Louise or Waterton may epitomize Canada as a country of spectacular vistas, richly endowed by nature, peaceful, serene and occupied by an industrious, courteous people.
In order to serve these visitors, Canadian tourists especially, when they visit these areas the government has for many years actively promoted the establishment of tourist facilities such as hotels, motels, restaurants, service stations and other businesses of the type which cater and appeal to the travelling public. At the same time, one transcontinental railway traverses the Rocky Mountains at the exact location of Banff National Park, and the other crosses the same mountains by cutting through Jasper National Park. More recently the trans-Canada highway was constructed through Banff, and now an equally important and highly utilized road, the Yellowhead highway, bisects Jasper National Park. In addition, certain other national communication and transportation channels have, because of geography and physiography, been compelled to pass through these parks.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The net result is that the demand for tourist services at certain key points, coupled with active promotion for many years by the government of adequate facilities, further coupled with the needs of transcontinental transportation and communication, has resulted in the development at certain locations within these national parks of communities filling these established needs and demands. The result is that at both the Banff and Jasper townsites we now have communities of more than 3,000 persons each, and at Water-ton and Lake Louise communities of much
10062	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Sulatycky smaller dimensions but in all cases very much like any other town or village in Canada except tor the tact that these park communities occupy awe-inspiring geographic locations. The geographic location would be the only factor distinguishing one of the park communities from any non-park community in the mind of the casual visitor. But in actuality they are very different.
All land within the national parks is owned by the Crown. There is no privately held land. This is the basic difference between the communities within and outside the national parks. It is1 within this system of land holding in the parks that the application of the general policy stated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) breaks down. I will not at this time dispute the basic concept of this system since an essential element of it, the lease renewable in perpetuity, is now before the Supreme Court of Canada and also because that part of the problem is not wholly within any aspect of the budget as presented by the Minister of Finance. But the matter of compensation expected by the Crown from those persons who occupy Crown-owned land under a lease is one which is certainly described by the minister in his previously quoted remarks, and it is also one which deserves the full and careful consideration of this house in the context of those remarks.
I want to examine the situation which exists at the present time in the national parks of Banff, Jasper and Waterton. The federal government decided many years1 ago that in each of these cases there was an area which should be preserved as a park for future generations of Canadians. It needed these areas as national parks and it promoted them as such. Large amounts of money were expended in the interest of all Canadians for the development of these parks. In order to get people to establish necessary services within the area set aside as. a park the Crown granted leases which contained a clause providing that such leases will be renewed time after time, in perpetuity. People moved in and accepted these leases. The government charged a small land rental, a nominal sum, for the use of this land. These leaseholders built improvements on the land and when, in the ordinary course of events, the leaseholders or their successors were required to dispose of the property, new inhabitants of the park purchased the improvements and the unused term of the lease. The balance of the lease term is valuable because it carries the right of renewal. In many cases a very respectable sum is paid for the unused term of a lease for this reason.

DEBATES	June 12, 1969
Once a leaseholder, an individual must assume certain obligations. He must pay the land rental to the Crown. In addition, he must pay the ordinary school and hospital taxes levied under provincial legislation. Furthermore, since the land rental does not cover any services, the government compels him to pay a water and sewerage rate to cover the cost of providing such services. In the meantime the Crown continues to expend funds on the development of the park.
It is noted by Crown officials that the revenues realized from the national parks do not equal the amounts expended on them. At the same time, other officials say that the residents of the parks should not enjoy any economic advantage over residents outside the parks, nor should they be at any economic disadvantage. The implication is that in so far as the cost of holding and maintaining property within the parks is concerned, it should not be a great deal more nor a great deal less than the cost of holding similar property in a community outside a federal park. This is logical.
However, it costs the federal government a substantial sum each year to operate and maintain the townsites. They are maintained at a standard well above those of any similar non-park community, not for the benefit of the people who live there but in the interests of the country as a whole. The intent is to benefit those people who find enjoyment in visiting the natural splendour found within the parks. It is only incidental that some of the benefits accrue to the people who are required to live in the parks.
Much of the cost of the operation of the townsites is directly attributable to the services provided in order that the townsites can cope with the demands of large numbers of tourists. The influx of tourists in the summer has the effect of multiplying five to tenfold the population which relies on the services of the government. I submit that under these circumstances it is inequitable to expect the permanent residents of the townsites to pay a rental more closely related to the costs of the services provided. To do so would depart from the proposition that these residents suffer no economic disadvantage nor receive any advantage.
The whole scope of the administration of townsites within the national parks has been a matter of concern for some years now. Many problems are involved in addition to the ones I have been discussing. Almost ten years ago the Institute of Local Government
June 12, 1969

at Queens University conducted a study for the department of northern affairs and national resources, then responsible for national parks. This study inquired into various aspects of townsite administration. The report which resulted from the study is commonly called the Crawford report. It is enlightening to read some of the passages of this report in the light of recent actions- by the national parks branch and in the light of the policy which expects the recipient of services to bear the cost more directly.
Before I read from this report I should point out that there is1 no municipal government in the park townsites. Elsewhere in Canada a citizen has. the right of representation in municipal, provincial and federal government, but not in a park townsite. The position has been that so long as the federal government pays the cost of the townsite there should be no right to municipal selfgovernment in the townsites. So long as the federal government bore a large share of the costs the inhabitants of these townsites, quite rightly, did not expect a decisive say in their operation. The Crawford report had this to say on the subject:
Local self-government involves a willingness on the part of the inhabitants to assume the responsibilities and obligations of government and a willingness to meet a significant portion of the cost. Without this willingness, local self-government will not function satisfactorily. Without the obligation to meet a significant part of the cost, there can be no real sense of responsibility in public spending.
If this is- a compelling argument against self-government in the park townsites, and I think it is, then as soon as the obligation to meet a significant part of the cost is transferred to the inhabitants the same reasoning becomes equally compelling in favour of selfgovernment. I merely want to mention this aspect of the problem now because I intend to deal with it in much greater detail in the coming months.
The Crawford report underscored other aspects of the park townsites operation. It found that the rents being paid to the government were in general very low and also that some lessees were much more favourably treated than others. At the same time it also pointed out that, in addition to rent being paid to the Crown, lessees were paying school taxes and charges for water and sewer services as well as hospital taxes. At the rates prevailing today the average home owner in any one of the townsites is paying, in various rates and levies, an amount equal to approximately 75 per cent of the taxes he would be
The Budget-Mr. Sulatycky required to pay on similar property situated outside the parks. All park residents would be extremely willing to pay an increased rental to bring this percentage to 100. This would involve an increase of 33J per cent. No one would object. But it appears that the general policy as stated in the budget speech will be applied, and in the year 1970 residents of national park townsites will be expected to bear increases ranging from 100 per cent to 1,400 per cent, I suggest that this is unjust. The application of the general policy breaks down in this instance.
There is one more aspect of the matter of charging increased land rentals which I feel cannot go unmentioned. I refer to the inequities in the manner in which the rental increases will affect different pieces of land. Up to 1949 land was, generally speaking, available without tender or upset price. In other words, land was available for the taking. In that year the practice was changed to provide for the lessor to pay for land which he was leasing. In effect, he was buying a lease. In the words of the Crawford report:
The tenderer then offered what price he was prepared to pay for a particular lot knowing when he did so what annual rental he would have to pay in addition to the price of the lot.
This meant, of course, that a bidder would be prepared to pay a higher price for a lot if he knew that it carried a low yearly rental. In 1952 the procedure was changed again, but the price of a lot was still inversely proportionate to the annual land rental. A departmental memo of that year stated:
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
In establishing the prevailing upset prices for lots in park townsites, the department has taken into consideration the comparatively low lot rentals payable for lots used for residential purposes, as well as the fact that park residents, whether permanent or transient, pay no general tax rate and make no contribution towards normal townsite maintenance.
Obviously, it was the intention to nullify the lack of taxes by a higher upset price.
The effect of the department charging a substantial price for a lot is readily perceivable: it immediately established a lot value, whether that lot was purchased from the crown or from a previous leaseholder. The result was that any lot leased or lease purchased was in fact paid for by the purchaser. This situation obtained until recently when the procedure was again changed and leases on lots are now no longer sold by the Crown. Rather a lease is granted and the lessee
10064	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Sulatycky understands that he will be required to pay a substantial land rental. Then, on the basis of the existing procedure the department establishes increased land rentals and attempts to justify the same by claiming that the leaseholder possesses an advantage in that he does not have to pay for his lot. While that may be true in some cases, in the vast majority he did. And it does not make any difference that the price paid may have been to a previous leaseholder rather than to the crown. It was crown policy which encouraged the price structure of leasehold sales.
These are some of the problems connected with townsites in parks. There are many more, but these are the ones which stem directly from the policy respecting user charges stated in the budget speech. I hope the minister and his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), will take cognizance of the weakness of the policy in certain situations and make the necessary adjustments to ensure fair treatment of those citizens who reside in townsites in national parks.
I want to speak briefly on the matter of the deferral of capital cost allowances on commercial projects in any city of more than
50,000	people in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. A number of members, particularly those in the opposition, have been critical of this action. Even greater cries of anguish have been heard from some municipal officials. They, of course, are given to self-concern only and have no need to think of the nation generally. For my part, even if the minister had risen in his place and announced in as few words as possible this deferral action, his budget speech would have been highly commendable.
I recognize that the primary purpose of this step is to hold down the fires of inflation which are reaching inferno-like proportions. However, it is the secondary effect of this measure, that of contributing to the easing of regional disparities, which most appeals to me.
By regional disparities, I do not mean only the disparities which exist as between, say, southern Ontario and western Newfoundland, for example. Indeed, I harbour no illusion that the minister's plan will in any way transfer some benefit from Toronto to anywhere in the Atlantic provinces. I am referring generally to the disparities of economic opportunity which exists within Canada. It will readily be acknowledged that the greatest opportunities for economic advancement exist within the confines of more or less a

DEBATES	June 12, 1969
score of the largest cities in this country. A few miles outside these confines, the opportunities are drastically reduced.
But while there is this disparity, there is also competition between these large cities and the smaller communities in the hinterland. The basic competition is for capital. Many of the smaller communities show a substantial rate of growth, but they do not grow at the same rate as the large cities. They must compete with the cities for capital, and what they receive is not at all proportionate to what they and the larger cities require. In the end, the disparity is increased.
This provision in the budget will certainly not help any municipality which is far removed from any of the 22 cities affected, nor will it help any area which is in a state of recession; but it certainly should prove to be an asset in the search for capital by many smaller expanding communities. I hope it will have this effect. If it has, I know of many areas which will benefit. I can think of a number of expanding towns in my own area, towns such as Blairmore, Coleman, Turner Valley, Black Diamond, Canmore, Hinton, Ed-son, Drayton Valley, Whitecourt, Fox Creed and Grande Cache.
If the measure does not have the desired effect, as members opposite have been quick to predict, may I suggest that rather than having gone too far in this matter of deferral of depreciation the Minister of Finance will not have gone far enough. Perhaps serious consideration should be given to the repeal of all provisions for capital cost allowances on all buildings throughout Canada. We all know that the people who benefit the most are those who least need this kind of benefit. In its place, and as a measure to assist in the development of Canada, new provision should be made for capital cost allowances in those areas of Canada which are economically strong but do not have the capital drawing powers of the more highly urbanized cities in Canada.
I am pleased to be able to congratulate the Minister of Finance on this budget and particularly on the fact that it is a balanced one.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of saying what I think of the present economic situation, of the supposedly balanced budget-a thing that we had not seen in a long time-which was presented to the people.
June 12, 1969	COMMONS
Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss this matter, namely whether it is important and justifiable to balance a budget. The question is to how are we going to do it, and whether it will help Canadians or be a nuisance to them.
Will not the fact of balancing the budget at this moment be harmful for the Canadian economy? I say, here and now, that the Canadian economy will be adversely affected, because to balance the national budget, it will be necessary to unbalance the taxpayer's budget.
This is, Mr. Speaker, where we stand with a balanced budget under the present system.
The Conservatives have tried to balance the budget when they were in power. The Liberals have been doing the same for many years because they have been in power for quite a long time. The Conservatives have not been in power very long, all in all, during the past 20 years. The Liberals have been at the helm almost continuously for some 30 years now. The Progressive Conservatives were only transients, but neither party has ever succeeded in balancing the tax payer's budget.
It is important to balance the budget, provided that does not throw the taxpayers' budget out of balance. Taxpayers are responsible for that budget. They pay for that. Depriving the taxpayer of his purchasing power to balance a budget, to please and serve big finance, is contrary to good sense.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
It is preferable in the present system that budgets be unbalanced. It is awful to balance a budget, thereby throwing the whole Canadian economy out of balance, and keeping in misery, in poverty, in insecurity, a large part, and I could safely say, 80 per cent of the population. People are plunged in anarchy for the sake of a balanced budget.
They speak of inflation and they want to solve the problem inherent to it. As soon as the population is threatened with a certain economic unbalance, we are told that we are in a period of inflation. The people do not have the right to balance their family budget, they never have the right to do so; but the financier has the right to balance his own. He has the right to organize the inflationary economic systems. Under this system, the people are threatened with inflation and deflation and they go from one recession to another. In times of inflation, the watchword from the financiers is: austerity for the people. That means we must tighten our belts then.
The Budget-Mr. Latulippe
In times of deflation, the financiers impose tight money policies, allow the increase in interest rates, which brings about ruin, bankruptcy, unemployment and misery. That is strangling, tightening the belt to the last notch.
This is1 what the so-called balanced budget is doing. To be realist, the financial system should conform to realities of production and needs. Now those realities are disregarded. No consideration is given to the real facts or to the physical facts. The purpose in balancing the budget is to give bigger interests to high finance, to bleed the people white and to put them at the mercy of high finance that exploits them in a criminal way.
To act in this way is criminal. Money should go where the needs are and the needs are felt by the people. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) set forth, a short while ago, the needs of the people, of the municipalities and of the provinces. He stated that money was required to meet such needs but he did not ask the government where it was to be found. He did not ask the government to initiate reforms to change our vicious financial system that deprives the population of its freedom and its right to live decently. That he did not say and will not say, because that might not serve the purpose of some supporters or some financiers, in the government itself or in the country at large.
We have never experienced a viable economic balance in Canada for decades. We have never balanced our budget as concerns corporations or individuals. The prices of services have been raised as never before in Canadian history.
Indeed, it is easy to balance the budget, if all the services provided to the provinces and municipalities to promote our economy are curtailed. Investments have been cut but the interest rate was allowed to rise, which is the main cause of inflation and will lead the great majority of the people to deflation.
Inflation is due to 20 per cent of the population, while 80 per cent suffer from deflation. Who cares? Yet the budget must be balanced.
Mr. Speaker, since I came here in 1962, both Tories and Liberals have attempted to balance the budget. The Liberal or Conservative opposition raised a strong protest and said that unemployment was worse than ever and that the government should do something to deal with unemployment and poverty, to foster the development of municipalities and school boards and promote housing. In fact, no houses had been built in ten years and
June 12, 1969

The Budget-Mr. Latulippe nothing had been done to balance the budget during the same period. The whole economy was lagging behind, and was practically at a standstill.
The Conservatives, under the present system, tried to put the economy back on its feet. They devised some measures to promote winter works, to help municipalities and provinces and to alleviate unemployment and poverty, which were rampant in this country.
But to that end, it was necessary to accept an unbalanced budget, to raise loans, to pay interest rates in order to finance provincial, municipal and school debts. For that purpose, the debt was increased, and the federal budget was alarmingly out of balance.
Then the Liberals came to power. The people were unhappy because the debt had been increased, the economic problem remained unsolved, for there were still pockets of dire poverty in the country. Adequate solutions and possible improvements had been merely touched on and a few improvements had been made.
The Liberals contend: the Conservatives have spent too much, they have increased the debt of the country. We will have to increase taxes, to cancel joint programs, make a cut here and a cut there. That is what has been done in the last few years, and it is claimed that eventually it will be possible to balance the budget of the financial interests, but not that of the government. We will allow finance to collect interests of 10, 12, 15, 24 per cent, to sweat the people, to lay down the law and, at the same time, we will bring the Canadian economy down to its lowest level.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The Progressive Conservatives will tell the people: "The Liberals gave you nothing and did nothing for you." Then they will try to get back into office with exactly the same administration, the same wagon, the same old run-down jalopy which is done with, but instead of changing the old crate they change the driver. This has been going on for decades now.
And so for Canadians at large, things remain static or grow worse, because every time something is being done for the people, we get into new debts which we are unable to repay. And when a group such as ours, demands a balanced economy, a reform of our financial system the financing of our provinces and municipalities with the same appropriations available to us now, but interest free, they say we are crackpots,

whacky, simpletons, mentally deficient and off our rocker. But I wonder who is mostly off his rocker at the present time and if one of the two parties have really found a solution. I have heard several Conservatives or Liberal members speak on the budget. But not a single one suggested even a shadow of a solution to the problem. However, they want to take over, and to govern. They blame our present leaders without offering however any concrete solution for balancing our economy.
It is not this budget which is going to set our topsy-turvy economic situation right again. First, in order to balance the budget, there should be a reduction in expenditures and capital investments. For instance, the winter works programs have been cancelled and a number of measures liable to increase the purchasing power, which would enable the human being to fulfill itself, the various bodies to build, to expand, to give the nation that to which it is entitled.
But all this progress is being delayed to allow the financiers to exploit the people, to extract frightful interest rates and neither the government nor any government member has any say in the matter except the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres who said a while ago that the interest rates are exorbitant and that something should be done to remedy the situation. He is the only Liberal member I have heard take the people's side rather than that of the financiers.
We have known wars and crises and we are still living in a period of inflation and deflation because we never had a balanced system.
Let us take, for example, the war which the United States are waging against Viet Nam. You will tell me that the war is not ended though it is about to end. However, for the five years which this war has been going on, we have seen unparalleled prosperity in the United States. They spoke neither of deflation nor of inflation because everything was going well. Now, they talk of peace. Although it is yet to come, the problem of inflation is already being raised. By means of taxes, levies and exorbitant interest rates, they want to take away from the people the money Canadians earned during the war, in order to put it in the hands of the high finance,, which will exploit the people again by imposing a 10 per cent rate of interest.
Mr. Speaker, that is what we have come to on account of a topsy-turvy international economic system. As soon as the United States get themselves in this kind of a mess, Canada
June 12, 1969	COMMONS
suffers; she immediately raises her rates of interest. The Bank of Canada immediately increases its discount rate instead of lowering it, in order to lend money to the Americans.
Mr. Speaker, instead of cashing in on credit with an American guarantee, we prefer raising our rates of interest to the level established by the Americans, to prevent them from coming here, and buying our products. As for the high finance system, not a single one among you condemns it. Not a single one among you realizes what is going on. We are told it is a normal thing to balance a budget. We are told this is sound administration, and adequate and rational way of doing things, while the opposite is true. It is the most illogical administraton we have ever seen and we shall ever see in any country.
What does the present budget amount to? I say with certainty that the increase in the debt service means that the Canadian people will pay the highest interest in their whole history, and statistics bear me out on that point.
Let us1 just think of the Post Office department. Postal tariffs became perhaps 500 times higher than they should have been perhaps even they were set a thousand per cent too high. Indeed, they have been increased tremendously in order to balance the budget. We blame the minister, Mr. Speaker, because he is primarily responsible but he is not the only one. All hon. members are to be blamed, all those who accept such a situation.
Looking at the interest of the debt, we see that it amounted to $817 million in 1961, to $1,147 million in 1964-65, and to $2,102 million in 1968-69. There will be a fairly large increase in 1969-70 since bonds will be redeemed at the new current interest rate.
The minister wants to check inflation by increasing the interest of the debt and keeping taxes as they are. He is strangling the taxpayers. The budget is to be balanced at the expense of the taxpayers, that is by upsetting even further the individuals' budget, to balance that of big finance, by keeping higher interest rates which will give more money to-


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

At six o'clock the house took recess.
The Budget-Mr. Flemming AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 8 p.m.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Prior to recognizing the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. Flemming) I am advised that the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) would like to revert to routine proceedings for the purpose of presenting a committee report. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Twenty-fourth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in French and in English-Mr. Trudel (Bourassa).
[Editor's note: The text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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).
Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Carlelon-Char-lolle):: Mr. Speaker, in making some remarks in connection with the proposal made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), usually termed the budget speech, I first want to tell the house how impressed I was with the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). He referred to the delegation of responsibility by those who have been entrusted with responsibility by the people of a country. I have always had a very strong opinion relative to the delegation of responsibility.
Generally speaking, people are elected by their friends and neighbours who know them
10068	COMMONS DEBATES	June 12, 1969
The Budget-Mr. Flemming well. They are elected because of the knowledge which others have of them and because of the things they promise to carry out. They are elected because they have a certain policy and have indicated they will carry out that policy. I am anxious to express my disapproval in no uncertain terms of any suggestion that there be some delegation of control of federal spending to any other body in Canada, thus removing control from a strong central government. This was the suggestion to which the hon. member for Greenwood referred this afternoon.
We have before us a motion by the Minister of Finance, and since it is very short I will quote it:
That this house approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
I think we have to consider the question of whether or not the government has changed its policy. We have to decide whether it is the same policy that has been in effect since 1965, and even since 1963. I cannot think of anyone in a better position to express approval or otherwise than a man who has been a member of the government and who, within the last three or four weeks, found reasons to resign from it.
I have here in my hand an article from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald headlined, "Hellyer Takes Swipe at Policy." This refers to the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) who should know all about government policy. The article bears a London, Ontario, dateline and reads:
Mr. Hellyer attacked what he called excessive emphasis on constitutional reform and not enough on bread and butter issues.
The reason I quote it is this gentleman should certainly know all about government policy, yet he says it is not the proper policy for the country and, as the headline says, he takes a swipe at it.
A headline in the Globe and Mail of June 11 stated, "Hellyer Wants Government to be More Businesslike." He implies that the government does not have the proper amount of business ability. All who are not prejudiced and whose eyes are not clouded by bias know the government has indicated absolutely no business ability in the way it has handled the affairs of the nation over the last few years. We would not be in the position we are in today if it had shown business ability. So, this is the headline, "Hellyer wants government to be more businesslike". This is the statement of a man who knows all about the government because he was a member of it. Here is

another statement in the Toronto Star having to do with government policy. It reads, "Hellyer says government to blame for financial mess." Those are his words; they are not mine. We are being asked to express approval of the budgetary policy of the government when a former member of that government finds he cannot accept it. He makes speeches and tells the people of Canada the reasons he cannot support it. It seems to me this is a very difficult motion to support. I suppose our friends opposite will say they have to support it because that is their job; but that is not the job of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). It will be interesting to see how he deals with this motion.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
So far as I am concerned, has this motion been qualified to some extent then probably I might believe the government had a change of heart, that it had changed its policy and that the new policy might be acceptable. But this1 motion does not indicate there has been any change, and therefore it seems to me it would be very difficult to accept the motion. Then, we have an amendment by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. (Lambert) to the effect that this house regrets the continuing inability of the government to curb the relentless increase in the cost of living since 1965. How could anyone vote against that amendment? I repeat the words "regrets the continuing inability of the government to curb the relentless increase in the cost of living". That is sometimes known in polite terms as inflation. Then, the amendment goes on to say, "while increasing the hardship on the unemployed, the poor, pensioners, farmers, and other victims of the just society". I think I remember where that phrase "just society" originated, but the way things are going I think the spelling of the word should be changed to j-e-s-t instead of j-u-s-t because that would seem to be more appropriate.
To my hon. friend opposite who interjected may I say there is more joy in heaven for sinners who repent than for all the others; so there is some chance for my hon. friend opposite. The other night we had a vote and the government marshalled all its forces to defeat the subamendment. That was the first time since the budget debate started that the government front benches had been filled. Most of the time they are nearly empty. Tonight, they are nearly empty. I do not think it is entirely because I am speaking; I hope it is not. No members1 of the cabinet are present,
June 12, 1969

but there are some other men present who I hope have some influence. I think they should consider very sincerely whether the committee system is a success it the committee system results in some members losing interest in attending the debates of this house to the extent that would seem to be indicated by the lack ot attendance here tonight.


An hon. Member:: Where are your members?


Hugh John Flemming: I think our members are attending fairly well, but whether or not they are in their seats, we are not responsible for conducting the affairs of the country. I suggest to hon. members opposite that perhaps they should examine themselves to see whether or not they are making a proper contribution. I think we should give the Minister of Finance some credit because usually he is in his seat, even though he makes his presence known mostly by interruptions.


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister is not there now. There are no ministers over there.


Hugh John Flemming: I can get along without them. As a result of defeating the amendment proposed by the New Democratic party, the members of the government have said in effect that they refuse to consider any measure for the relief of people who are obliged to live on incomes which are below the average. They voted down the amendment. The government has said, in effect, that they will not grant relief in that way. The Minister of Finance, in his speech, has said that he will grant this relief by dealing with inflation and by bringing down prices.
I submit that since the government has indicated its lack of interest in tax reduction, it has decided it must address itself to a reduction in the cost of living. How does the government propose to do this? Well, the other day the minister told us how they propose to do it. I think, however, it would be a good thing if some of our friends opposite would elucidate on how they intend to deal with the matter of inflation. They have not done so. It seems to me the only action they have taken has been the acceptance of the increase in the price of money, the increase in the interest rate. Presumably, this is so that people will not proceed with projects but will postpone them until money is more plentiful and less expensive. With this postponement will come a lessening of employment and people will seek employment elsewhere. In my opinion, there is a more direct way in

The Budget-Mr. Flemming which the government could do this. The government could insist-I say this most advisedly-on a reduction in wasteful projects. This should apply not only to governmental waste but also to waste by Crown corporations which are dependent on this government and parliament for their operating funds.
I think the Minister of Finance should be very firm with the bureaucracy which is increasing numerically. Every single person added becomes a proponent of some type of government expenditure in order to justify his existence. I have had some experience in other places and I suggest that it is common for the importance of a department to be judged by the amount of money it spends. I presume this is still the case. It is time the Minister of Finance did something about this. He will certainly have to do something about it if he expects us to support this motion which indicates that we approve the budgetary policy of the government. He will have to indicate that he intends to do something about it. Does he know, in the case of the Crown corporations, what expenditures have been suggested or even approved? In the first portion of his budget speech he glibly stated that we are now getting a firmer grip upon the national finances and bringing them under more effective control.
When have the national finances been under effective control? I should like some gentleman opposite to tell me when this has happened because there is no indication of it so far as I am concerned. We know the remedy for inflation is not some pleasant medicine. If anyone has this idea he should get rid of it because it is not true. The required improvement can be brought about only by some bitter medicine. The health of the patient, in this case national finances, can be improved only by taking some bitter medicine. The final result will be some improvement in the degree of inflation or even the curing of a portion of it.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I acknowledge freely that the intention of the government to live within its income and not go to the money market to borrow is in itself a constructive step. I give the minister and the government full marks for that, because this leaves the door open for private business to borrow the money it needs.
In this budget speech the Minister of Finance announced that the 3 per cent surtax would be continued until the end of 1970. He said last October it would be terminated in a
June 12, 1969

The Budget-Mr. Flemming year. His reason lor changing his mind and not carrying out this commitment is that this taxation is required for economic stabilization and not for revenue. He uses this word "revenue", but that is just the old word "taxation" dressed up in new clothes. There is no other word for it except "taxation". This tax must come out of the pockets of the people of Canada. Supposing we were to acaept as valid the argument that the Minister of Finance had to levy this tax to stabilize the economy, then this would entail a responsibility on him to see that the tax money thus received was used for the purpose of balancing the budget, of lessening the need for borrowing and for fighting inflation. For this reason, and only for this reason, can this tax money be used for the very worthy purpose of lessening the cost of living.
The reduction, and even an attempt at elimination of waste and extravagance, is one way to combat inflation. The basic principle of a stabilized currency is that we live within our income in good times, thus paving the way for priming the pump by an infusion of borrowed money in hard times. That is as simple as it can be, but this policy has not been carried out by this government. That is why no one, unless he has some other motivation, could possibly vote for this motion before the house tonight.
Investment money pours in because people feel, on the basis of previous performance, that this is a safe country since the people have a sense of responsibility. This is what happens when the world community sees a country balancing its budget. The people invest their money because they feel it is safe and that the government is doing something about the situation. All we have heard or witnessed has been a lot of idle words from different ministers of finance, time and time again.
These ministers of finance said they were conscious of so and so but that they had to do such and such, so on and so on. Finally, we wind up with a fiscal situation as bad as ever. This time we are going to end up with $250 million. Let me tell the Minister of Finance that the Liberal government which enjoyed the type of reputation which was desirable was the Liberal government of Mr. St. Laurent. There is no question about that. The federal government of those days not only lived within its income, it actually reduced the debt during some years and, as a result, the cost of living remained fairly constant. People were able to balance their own budgets and live within their own incomes.

At this time I should like to deal with the matter of tariffs, but because I may not have sufficient time, before I talk about the tariff changes which the minister announced in his first budget. I should refer to another matter. The matter I wish to bring to his attention is something the government has indicated it has in mind. I refer to regional disparity. Let me bring this to the attention of the minister and all those influential members of the Liberal caucus who are within the sound of my voice. I presume they are all influential just as my friend, the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai), is influential, along with the rest of them over there if they have any sense at all-sometimes I doubt it.
Surely, the minister already has knowledge of the situation in the maritime provinces, especially New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. The government should devote some attention to this problem which has a reasonable opportunity of affecting this important area. This course is not going to cost the government anything. It should make representations, and I am sure the minister has been approached along these lines, to the United States leading to the elimination of the tariffs on potatoes imposed by our next door neighbour.
Before beginning my remarks on this subject, let me point out to the minister that both New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have a very close interest in the production of potatoes. Their soil is well suited to this production. I have always felt that so far as our part of the country is concerned, we should place an emphasis on our natural advantages rather than on our disadvantages. One of the biggest advantages in the mari-times over other parts of Canada is that the soil is very good for growing potatoes. This crop is very important to the economy of these two provinces. I know the minister might say that he cannot do anything about free trade with the United States in respect of potatoes because the population of that country is 200 million compared to the 20 million population here.
Let me give you some information about this situation, Mr. Speaker. Since our area comprises a portion of Canada which unfortunately qualifies under the heading of regional disparity, it appears very logical that any action leading to an improvement in the general standard of living in our area should be explored. There is nothing wrong with that. I am now talking about the potato industry in
June 12, 1963

the Atlantic provinces, especially in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
Let me first state the objective which, very simply, is this: Free trade between Canada and the United States in potatoes. Why should this be an objective? Because under the general heading of fruit and vegetables we bring into Canada each year from the United States over $200 million worth of products, and we sell them only 20 per cent of that amount.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. Does he have the unanimous consent of the house to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hugh John Flemming: I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members of the house for this privilege.
In 1965 we exported $39 million in fruit and vegetables and we imported $200 million worth. In 1966 we exported $34 million in fruit and vegetables and we imported $210 million worth. In 1967 we exported $40 million worth of fruit and vegetables and imported $217 million worth. In commenting on those figures I should like to use the words of Harrison McCain of Florenceville, New Brunswick, the president of McCain Food Ltd., probably the largest food producers in Canada. This industry, to a great extent, exists in my constituency. This company has processing plants in many areas. Mr. McCain uttered these words:
This is a drastic imbalance of trade and on this basis we have a perfect right to ask for duty free entry of our potatoes to help correct this imbalance.
In the same public document Mr. McCain reported that, in respect of potatoes alone, we imported more than we exported, the figure being 9.2 million cwt. imported as against 7.3 million exported. In other words, 20 million people bought more from a country with 200 million than that country bought from us.
This morning at the public accounts committee we were examining the remissions under the auto pact. The thought occurred to me that we might work out an agreement whereby we receive a fair share of the United States market for New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island Potato production by special arrangement. That is what this auto pact was, it was a special arrangement, and the government did not seem to have any difficulty working that out. We have a special arrangement with regard to oil and there does not seem to be any difficulty, or at least no administrative difficulty.
The Budget-Mr. Gibson
New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island produce something less than 10 per cent of the United States market requirements for potatoes. I know the government of New Brunswick has taken this matter up with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and I have no doubt that the Minister of Finance is familiar with it. I believe the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has been approached in this regard.
Let me add my voice, with all the force and emphasis of which I am capable, to the voices of all those who have approached the government to request negotiations with the United States on the question of duty free potatoes, in both directions, with special attention to the hazardous state of this industry in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. I say to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) that it is just as important to revive and save an industry as it is to go to the expense of creating a new one.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: I say this, Mr. Speaker, because a great many people are involved in this problem and the way we handle it.


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, several points made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) on Tuesday should not go unchallenged. First, he misinterpreted the Carter report and was in error when he indicated that the budget overlooks tax reform. The Carter report in fact deals with all taxpayers, be they pensioners, widows or wage earners, on the same basis. The impression the hon. member sought to leave was that we should have treated these problems differently and that the Carter report so indicated. Perhaps the hon. member has failed to grasp the significance of the regional technique introduced into the budget for the first time this year. He is probably unaware that this technique was also recommended in the Carter report. We have had a long and interesting debate on the budget. So far, it appears to have been accepted by the country as a whole with enthusiasm as a progressive tax reform budget.


Hugh John Flemming: Time will tell.


Colin David Gibson: Of course, there are always wild-eyed socialists who see no good in any reforms except neo-communistic measures which completely stifle initiative and leave the economy in a strait jacket, as is the case

June 12, 1969
The Budget-Mr. Gibson today under the Labour government of the United Kingdom. It is indeed fortunate that the pessimistic thinking of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) no longer prevails in this country. He had no words of kindness for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson); only bitter sarcasm tinged with bulbous pomp and ceremony. However, gradually the opposition parties will grasp the brilliance of the budget plan and will realize that the regional approach to financial problems in Canada is practical and, of course, is one that will better balance the regional development of this great country.
The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, spoke with eloquence, as he always does, about the unbalanced treatment accorded by the federal government to the problem of inflation. I suggest that his words are a little too premature, when it is quite apparent to all of us in this country that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in calling the federal-provincial conference which is in session at the present time, is urgently grappling with the problem of inflation. The Prime Minister is dealing with a very difficult problem in a humane and practical manner. This is demonstrated by the intensive effort being put forward to make the conference a success.
The Prime Minister and the provincial premiers are not facing the country under the glare of publicity. They are seriously engaged in an effort to change our great constitution. Let us hope they succeed. Why do I think they will succeed? Yesterday a press release was issued by the Prime Minister and the premiers of the provinces which indicated that spending power has been given top priority and that the Prime Minister has explained to the premiers representing the provinces of this great country that we will try and deal with the problem on a federal basis. Therefore, if two of the four regions do not wish to enter a scheme, they do not have to do so. This is a humane approach to dealing with the problem of inflation.
If the Minister of Finance had in his budget spelled out a great many detailed methods of trying to deal with inflation, would he not look stupid if the programs he proposed could not be implemented because the provinces would not co-operate? I suggest it was much sounder for the Minister of Finance to outline the general principles of how he would do this, then iron it out with the provincial premiers and come into the house with a concrete plan. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is a much better approach to the problem.

We on this side of the house agree that fiscal restraint is the foundation for a check upon inflation. In this way we shall succeed in easing strains upon capital markets. The Prices and Incomes Board set up under the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) presents this country with a real challenge in dealing with inflationary pressures. This is a new approach to the problem and we, as Canadians, can counteract the forces which cause inflation. It may be that in concert we can agree not to buy certain goods if the prices of those goods are increased. Perhaps we can find a method of using television and radio in a way that is not dictatorial but expresses the free will of the people in their distaste of enterprises which have selfish interests at heart. If the Prices and Incomes Board can succeed in this area, with the aid of the Canadian consumer, we will have achieved a new method of dealing with our economic evils. In fact, a new force, the force of consumers' associations, may be able to organize against unfair price and wage increases. I welcome the efforts of the government to start work in this direction.
I submit that the Kennedy round tariff reductions will help to increase price competition and resistance to increased costs. The hon. member for Kootenay West asked, what is the government doing about unemployment? I wonder where he has been. The answer is that we have established the finest Department of Manpower and Immigration in the world. We now have the best system in the world for retraining industrial workers. We have departments of government which assist in finding the jobs and training workers for new jobs when the jobs they held are abolished. This is what we have done to cure the problem of unemployment. We have established the department of regional development so that in areas of economic trouble efforts will be made to start new industries. This program is related to the provision of employment in our depressed areas. It does not apply only in the isolated context of bringing in one industry to create jobs; it applies to a whole area. We are trying to develop not just one industry but a community spirit, and housing projects to go with it. The important thing is to arrive at agreement with respect to urban renewal projects. I am sure this problem will be dealt with by the federal-provincial conference.
I should now like to say a few words on natoinal unity in the context of regional development. We have heard a great deal of half-baked, uninformed criticism in this respect,
June 12, 1969

which as usual has failed to impress the house because it has been unconstructive. I urge the government to establish a national pollution control board in co-operation with the provinces. 1 believe now is the time to develop this idea, because we are embarking upon a course of pollution control which should march hand-in-glove with regional development.	\
It is imperative that new industries be compelled to use anti-pollution equipment and methods as plants and machinery are installed in new areas. Second, as this country opens up and develops in the northern regions, let us not repeat errors of the past by ignoring pollution control. Now is the ideal time to introduce pollution control methods in connection with regional planning and other matters. We should now institute a system of pollution control in the north, and not attempt to deal with the problem when it becomes greater, as is the case now in the southern parts of this country. In fact, if the federal government created a pollution control agency which would lay down for provinces and municipalities standards, ideas and methods of dealing with the problem, Canada would be advancing in the direction of success in the battle of survival and the war against pollution. I have a little more to say on that subject at this time.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I have participated in the review of foreign policy in the Committee on External Affairs. Today we visited the NORAD centre at North Bay. It is apparent that not only are we well prepared for a bomber attack but that our forces are working in harmony with United States officers and other ranks. I was impressed by the efficiency and preparedness of our fine service officers and other ranks at North Bay.
I believe that our review of foreign policy should include the problem of disarmament and nuclear testing at the same time as the problems of military defence. Surely, members of parliament should participate more in the process of policy development. We have made a good start in this area, but I believe that the External Affairs Committee should be closely involved in the current disarmament negotiations at Geneva. We should know what is going on there and be briefed on it.
In the field of national unity I wish to report on a parade that I witnessed last week which would warm the heart of the toughest minded person. We saw thousands of young 29180-637
The Budget-Mr. Gibson Canadians carrying Canadian flags and singing "O, Canada" as we watched their happy faces pass before us. We were watching the new spirit of Canada, a spirit which has no prejudice but which has a longing to live in contentment, in peace and happiness. I speak of the flag day at Stoney Creek last week when, in the presence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) and of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Sullivan), we were fortunate to see an example of citizenry organizing a national effort toward national unity. The Kinsmen's club of Stoney Creek organized a large parade in which groups of all sorts of people participated in a gigantic effort to display the national spirit. Somehow I believe that we caught the message from these children. In part it said: "Change your foreign policy; struggle and succeed with multilateral disarmament; strive for a land of energy and devotion to duty through the United Nations-and if you do, this world will be a far better planet on which all of us can live in harmony."
With regard to external affairs, I am proud of this government's policy, a policy of questioning historic practices, a policy of reshaping our goals in this modern world, and a policy which recognizes the vital factor in our lives, namely the necessity for communication, communication with new entities, new people, and new ideas. As the spirit of Canada develops, as I was privileged to see it develop in the presence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I suggest that nothing can stop this country from progressing and developing to become the greatest country that has ever existed.
I urge the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) to pronounce Canada flag day soon. We seem to have slowed down in exhibiting the true spirit of Canada, that is we are not leading the people sufficiently by a symbolic reference to our flag by proclaiming Canada flag day. As was demonstrated last week, we can provide the Canadian people with a sort of identity. Also I ask: What has happened to our national anthem? Why have we not celebrated D-Day recently on Parliament Hill? I do not advocate a complete holiday every year to celebrate D-Day, but I submit that when the Canadian army landed in France it was an historic event and a milestone in the history of freedom. At that time Canadians from many units, both English and French speaking, forged a link in the chain of democracy. I say that there is a place on Parliament Hill and a time to recognize that event and
June 12, 1969

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis other significant events in Canadian history. I say that we should commemorate that great day by a tattoo of bands on Parliament Hill and we should inject into that celebration the enthusiasm of young Canadians who really do know the words of the Canada song. We can remove the cannons and replace them with modern words, but we should look back to that historic day with pride and joy.
Furthermore, I endorse the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) that we place a Canadian flag in the chamber of the House of Commons.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, members of the house, and especially hon. members opposite, will no doubt recall the number of questions that I put to the government with regard to the Devco corporation. Hon. members will also recall the delight they felt when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) found it necessary to read out a telegram from the local union back home telling me to cool down and be quiet-in essence to shut up with respect to my representations concerning the retirement plan. The only problem is that when the Prime Minister reminded the house of what the union told me, neither he nor the government realized that the attitude of the miners in Cape Breton had been reversed. Many representations were being made to me asking me to continue my fight against the early retirement plan proposed to the government. Hon. members opposite will probably find it hard to believe, but last Sunday I found it necessary to stand before a meeting in my home town at which a considerable number of miners were present and tell them that the members of the House of Commons cannot be faulted. I even apologized for the Liberal members in this house because, as I said, this house is not responsible for the plan.
I think this is a case of the tail wagging the dog. I ask hon. members present, and especially the minister present, to pay some attention to my arguments and to examine what is developing with respect to this plan so that a fair deal may be given to the retiring miners. An early retirement plan was brought about by Bill C-135 with respect to the Cape Breton coal miners. The intention was that the mines be phased out over a period of years which would mean a saving to the federal government of upward of $20 million annually, a sum which was paid out by way of subventions and which permitted the coal mining

operation to be carried out over the last number of years.
If I were to discuss pensions, and time does not permit me to do this, I could refer to a great number of subventions granted by the government. The fact that subventions to the coal industry have been cut down, and an early retirement plan made available, might make you wonder why coal miners in Cape Breton have deserved this kind of treatment. They do not deserve this kind of treatment any more than any other segment of the economy which depends on subsidies from the government.
I can well imagine what the situation would be if subventions or subsidies were withdrawn from the agricultural field or if the couple of million dollars which were made available to dig the hole in the ground for the Arts center were withdrawn. It is going to be subsidized to the tune of a couple of million dollars a year. We could have the withdrawal of a subvention in the form of a write-off which was just given to the city of Montreal to the tune of $125 million, or of a subsidy which will be made available across the river in Hull amounting to $200 million. I could go on and on. This is why I say that miners in Cape Breton are entitled to this subsidy, but at the moment the tail is certainly wagging the dog. If the government took a good close look, as I have suggested before, at a public meeting, it would be discovered that members of this House of Commons do not want to associate themselves with what Devco is doing. I feel sure of that, so sure that I am ready to stand up and defend the Liberals, which I have done. This statement can be checked. I am sure that no member of parliament wants to associate himself with the dishonest approach of those who are running this Crown corporation.
Why do I call this approach dishonest? I can give many reasons. The preamble of the bill which set up this corporation recommends closure "unless a substantial capital investment is made" for the rehabilitation and modernization of these coal mines. Farther on, the preamble reads:
-the major coal producer in the Sydney coalfield and reorganize and operate the mines with a view to the rationalization of coal production therefrom and a progressive withdrawal of the corporation-
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
As I say, time does not permit me to go into the full details but I should like to illustrate what I mean by a dishonest approach. If
June 12, 1969

hon. members want to defend their own integrity, I would ask them to read Bill C-135 and also get a copy of the early retirement leave plan wherein, in the second paragraph on page 1, they will read these words:
It is the intention of the corporation to reduce coal mining employment as quickly as possible.
That was not the intent of the legislation.
I say the approach was dishonest also because on page 3 of the early retirement leave plan, a copy of which is given to those who are about to retire, appears this statement in paragraph 3:
Those on leave retain C.P.P. entitlement, and are free to take alternative employment, with half monthly outside earnings over $50 applied to reduce benefits.
In other words, people who are about to retire are given the privilege of earning an extra $50. If they earn over $50 they split it with Devco and the money is applied to reduce benefits.
There was the same dishonest approach used when men were given notice that their services would no longer be required, even though some had put in 50 years with the company. Sent out with the notice of retirement or the notice of dismissal, about which I will have something to say later, was a brochure. Included in the brochure were questions and answers provided by the company so that the employees would know what to do ahead of time. I ask hon. members to keep in mind that there was held out to the miners who were retiring the promise of outside earnings. Question 28 deals, in essence, with these outside earnings and reads as follows:
If a participant in the plan is offered work by Canada Manpower, what does he do?
This is the answer that is provided by the company.
Regarding the potential employment background in Cape Breton, prospects of such a position is unlikely.
So, the situation is this: Having held out a promise to the miners in the over-all plan that was submitted to the government, the company then turns around to these men and says that the possibility of employment is absolutely out of the question in Cape Breton. No one can substantiate this better than the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen), who knows the employment situation on the east coast.
I submit that was a dishonest approach. It was an illegal approach, and it remained illegal until I told the government on April 15 29180-6372
The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis that it had not properly looked after the mechanics of the legislation. Following upon that, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) indicated that perhaps the company could recall the letters it had sent out and the notices that informed the men their services were no longer required. I ask, Mr. Speaker, who else but Devco could provide such an answer? Who else but a company run by a man called Fullerton, who speaks to anybody and everybody with the exception of the miners? He has yet to go to the Cape Breton miners and talk to them.
Mr. Fullerton also took a dishonest approach when he appeared before the committee. I questioned him about this matter in the committee and he denied my statements. I say 'he showed contempt of this parliament and I suggest that the government take a look at this political "hanger-oner". That is what he was when the previous administration was in office and he still is. He has more to say about free love and sex in Sweden, about which he writes in local newspapers. This is the man who is trying to tell Cape Bretoners how to live and what to do with their lives. This is the man who questions truth in the committee, as I can show from the evidence.
I should like to mention another situation that occurred in this regard. A Mr. Black-more, who was formerly president of the coal board in the U.K., visited Canada, bringing with him the reputation of being a closer of coal mines. He submitted to t'he government a scheme that went even further than the government's own proposed legislation. I would ask the members of the house, in the name of justice, to read through Bill C-135 and the early retirement leave plan provided by the government, as well as the notices sent out to the miners who were forced into retirement. They will then see the promise that was held out on the one hand and denied on the other.
When I tried to make some representations on behalf of these miners, the president of the United Mineworkers Union suggested that I should keep my mouth shut. But what is the situation today, Mr. Speaker? I would ask anybody who is interested to read the correspondence, clippings and telegrams in this connection, all of which indicate that the stand I took on behalf of the miners was the right one, namely that these men were forced into early retirement. At a meeting I attended last Sunday afternoon I stated that the members of this house would not associate themselves with such a move. I ask members
June 12, 1969

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis on the other side of the house to examine the evidence and to tell their own government to take another look at what Mr. Fullerton and his company are doing, because they are certainly not being just in this just society.
When the plan was first announced the president of the U.M.W. criticized it as going too far too soon. He also criticized the idea of opening up a new mine at Lingan. He did not believe a new mine at Lingan should be opened because it would be at the expense of other collieries. Although the union had nothing at all to do with drawing up the plan, for some strange reason Mr. Marsh, the president of the union, along with Mr. Fullerton, sees it as a great boon to the coal mining industry. He stated that opening a new mine at Lingan would usher in a new era for the coal mining industry in Cape Breton. Last Sunday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the highest paid executive officer of the union stated that the opening of a new mine at Lingan would mean closing down all the other collieries. So, there we have a difference of opinion between two union officials.
In alleging there has been a dishonest approach I would also call into question the use of the Unemployment Insurance Commission fund. I have been trying to get answers from the government in this connection. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) indicated to me, in all fairness-and in this respect I have no criticism of the U.I.C.; I want that clearly understood-that when the men applied for U.I.C. benefits, the U.I.C. did exactly what they were supposed to do. But the over-all approach of Devco is dishonest because they are now using the U.I.C. fund to pay the pension that was held out to these men.
Let me give an example of what I mean. A retired miner who is married and has, say, other dependents can receive a top pension of $3,000 a year. The U.I.C. could be providing that man in his first year of retirement with $2,760 of his $3,000. As I have previously stated, if this retired miner makes extra earnings he has to turn back half of any amount over $50 to Devco. In fact, he could hand over to Devco more than he gets from Devco. I agree it is applied to reduce benefits, but this is not what the U.I.C. was intended for.
If these men had been able to remain on the job until they reached the full retiring age, then they would have been entitled to whatever pensions they had earned plus their U.I.C. benefit. As I have said before, this would have given them somewhere in the

vicinity of $2,600 to $2,800 a year in U.I.C. payments. Some of these men have paid into the fund for as long as 29 years and it is their money. This money belongs to those who contributed to the U.I.C. fund over the years. Certainly, it does not belong to the Crown corporation to do with it what it wishes.
I say the action of the Crown corporation is illegal, because I hold in my hand a letter written to an individual requiring him to reimburse the U.I.C. a sum of money because he had left a particular job voluntarily. This is the sort of thing that is going on now in Cape Breton. I have told hon. members what is going on in Cape Breton. These men who retire at ages of between 55 and 60 are being paid pensions. Altogether, they receive $250 a month. Of that amount $230 comes from the U.I.C. and $20 from Devco, that big, generous corporation headed by Mr. Fullerton who seems to know more about free love in Sweden than about the workings of a coal mine or coal miners. At one time coal mining was considered an essential industry in this country and the miners have every right to expect just treatment. So important was coal mining during the last war that miners who wanted to join the army, navy or air force were told, "No you cannot join the armed forces and serve your country. You must stay in the coal mines and perform an essential function".
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Some may say that I am repeating myself. Well, Mr. Fullerton should remember that the miners were promised something. He may make all the speeches he wants to make. I don't care. If hon. members opposite tell their minister that Devco is falling down on the job, there is hope the situation may be corrected. What else can be done? The U.I.C. funds are being used in the promotion of this scheme, and all the promises to our miners are being forgotten. Miners are being forced to retire before they want to. I have spoken in the house before on this matter. Miners are entitled to work until proper retirement age. There is no justification for retiring them early against their wishes. I only ask for justice. I only ask hon. members to bring this matter to the attention of the minister.
Written agreements between the unions involved and the former company indicate that the retirement age of miners is to be 65. For some reason or other some of those miners who have been forced out have retained copies of the letter signed by Mr. Orr, the president of Devco, and co-signed by
June 12, 1969

Mr. Clubb, the then president of Dosco, in which it is indicated that working conditions for miners will remain the same under Devco. Now, Fullerton and company want to break that agreement. They are trying to tell the Canadian people and these miners that the agreement meant nothing because the provision respecting early retirement is now contained in legislation and that legislation supersedes the general agreement. In essence, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fullerton is making a liar of the minister. And the minister indicated on or about January 15 that the agreement would be honoured. He said that agreements existing at the time of the take-over would be honoured. I cannot cite the page number of Hansard which shows that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion gave that undertaking but if hon. members wish to see those remarks I will look them up. In any event, I can provide them with a copy of the letter to which I have alluded.
As I say, there is a letter from Mr. Orr, the president of Devco, and co-signed by the then president of Dosco, in which the men are told that their working conditions will remain the same under Devco. Clearly, those conditions are not the same, because Mr. Fullerton and company argue that the provisions of the new law supersede the previous agreements. That is nonsense and I do not think any court in the land would uphold such a claim. After all, it can be argued that the Devco people violated the agreement in the first place. I repeat, the minister said in this house on January 15 that existing agreements would be honoured. He also said that notices sent to men being forced off their jobs could easily be recalled. It was precisely at this point that Devco said it was under no binding legal obligation to give one month's notice to the men. Notice was only being sent as a courtesy. What nonsense is this? How can Douglas Fullerton and company say to a man who has worked in the mines for 40 years, "This is a courtesy letter only."
I ask the government to examine Bill C-135. Better still, why does it not look at the Donald report. Look at the recommendations of that report and then look at Bill C-135. I ask the government to look at the early retirement plan. I hate to say this, but in this case we have the tail wagging the dog. I do not often defend Liberals, but I defended Liberal colleagues on Sunday afternoon when I said that I did not think any member of this house would wish to associate himself with
The Budget-Mr. Kaplan the kind of injustice being perpetrated against our Cape Breton miners.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald MacInnis: I bring this matter to the attention of the minister, Mr. Speaker, in the hope that the miners of Cape Breton will obtain justice and that Mr. Fullerton may get the just boot.


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take advantage of your customary latitude in the budget debate in order to add a few words to the debate of last Thursday, May 29. On that day the New Democratic Party moved the following motion for the house to consider:
That this house condemns the failure of the government to provide policies to prevent further takeovers of Canadian resources, industry and financial institutions by foreign corporations, thus increasing the danger of foreign domination of Canada's economy and culture to the point where Canada's political independence is threatened.
The N.D.P. considered that motion urgent. My reaction to the motion, frankly, was one of disappointment in the N.D.P. I have never been a member of that party but, I assure you, I take great pride, as all Canadians do, in its existence. I admire its dedicated leaders. Although they seek, as do other political parties, the power to form a government, I submit they have had no reason to regret their constant role in opposition. Perhaps they are reconciled to the fact that they will never form a federal government. Nevertheless they can take pride and are fully entitled to do so in their contribution to much that is good in modern society.
Foreign ownership, Mr. Speaker, is an issue of enormous importance to Canada. That issues poses a challenge to government and calls for responses which, I must say, have not yet been forthcoming from the government. Obviously, the government must broaden its dialogue with interested Canadians if it is to develop a proper response to this question. Frankly, I do not know what that response should be. I do not pretend that I can offer an answer. Nevertheless, I wish to take a few ideas and throw them in the air, so to speak, for discussion. What surprises me is that the N.D.P., which likes to call itself the party of the future, has pulled out the old cliehed responses to the dangers of foreign take-overs.


John Gilbert: What about Walter Gordon? What did he say?

June 12, 1969
The Budget-Mr. Kaplan


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am coming to Walter
Gordon.
This approach of the N.D.P. ignores the value of foreign capital, foreign initiative and foreign know-how which has done so much to uplift the economy and raise economic standards of living in Canada. The living standards of many who support the N.D.P. have been raised by this foreign capital. Of course, I am speaking of the working man.
The N.D.P. has not proposed, just as Walter Gordon did not propose, any solution which would give us the maximum benefits that flow from foreign ownership, from foreign genius and capital while preventing at the same time the threat of foreign dominion. Perhaps the N.D.P. has not been able to think of an answer to this question. I have not been able to think of an answer. Frankly, I think the problem is a difficult one. What the N.D.P. ought to have done in its motion was ask us to discuss the whole problem. That party should have refrained from merely proposing for discussion a worn-out cliche which will cause us much damage in terms of lost capital.


John Gilbert: What is the Watkins report about? Does it not discuss questions of that kind?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, those of us in political life do not know how long we will survive as members of the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: You will find out.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: One does not know how long one will survive in the house, least of all as a Liberal member. I say that, because the Liberal party has few doctrinaire supporters prepared to support the Liberal party if it gives lousy government to this country. I discovered during the last election campaign that the opposition parties, especially the Conservatives and the N.D.P., enjoy a certain amount of support from those who adopt doctrinaire, mindless viewpoints. Those parties enjoy considerable unthinking support The Liberal party has fewer supporters of that kind. People elect Liberal members because they think that Liberal members will provide this country with good government. I would also like to think, Mr. Speaker, that if I ever become dissatisfied with this government or the party to which I belong, I will be able to cross the floor of the house. This presents problems.

[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I have studied economics, so I cannot join the Creditistes. I accept the need for positive change, so I cannot join the Conservatives- perhaps they would not take me, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Oh yes, we would take you.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The New Democratic Party was one place I could go, but they are now beginning to give out the old cliche answers.
Let us look for a moment at the answer proposed by the N.D.P. to the foreign ownership question, the proposal that we close the door. Other countries have done it, some successfully and some unsuccesfully. One thing that is undeniable is that at the margin of decision-making such a policy reduces the flow of foreign capital and talent into the country concerned. If foreigners are to be disadvantaged and deprived of the fruits of their labour, they are less likely to come here. The economic activity which they generate, positively affects the standard of living of Canadians, whether or not they take their profits home. We should, therefore, not seek to keep out foreign capital, but to encourage it.
This proposition is obvious, but I want to take a moment to press it home. People like to say that Canada is a country of untold riches because we have vast resources which we have not yet tapped. Such a point of view is entirely wrong. Untapped riches are not wealth. They do not add to the gross national product or to the standard of living of our poorest citizens, which is the proper test of the national wealth of a society which purports to be a just one. The wealth of a country is a function of the amount of its capital. By that I do not mean resources, but command over resources.
Canada, unfortunately, is a capital-intensive country and will always be one. We will always require more capital for each of our citizens, to provide the standard of living we do than any other country. The reason for this is our demographic dispersion and our harsh climate. To be productive and to be in business we need more miles of road, more miles of railway tracks, more harbours, more buildings and more solid buildings per capita than any other country in the world.
How is this capital to be provided? It is important to realize, and in this debate on foreign ownership it rarely is realized or stated, that all of the capital that is owned by the
June 12, 1969

people of Canada, or virtually all of the capital, is already at work in this economy. If we were to make a decision to buy back that part of the capital working in this country that is owned by foreigners, how would we pay for it? The capital that we have is already at work in our economy.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) referred to the Royal Securities takeover. This is a company apparently owned by Canadians which is being bought by United States interests1. From that concrete illustration it should be realized that the owners of Royal Securities will likely invest the proceeds of their sale in Canada. The total amount of capital in this country owned by Canadians will not be affected by the transaction. The net result of this will not be to decrease the amount of capital in this country owned by Canadians.
I would like to deal with two points made by the hon. member for York South. One of his arguments really supports, the other side of his case. He said, as recorded, at page 9221 of Hansard:
I warn the Canadian people through this parliament that the trend which I have described and which everyone regrets will not be reversed if the economy is left to the control of private corporations. To them a buck is a buck and they will not permit considerations of nationhood to stand in the way of any development even if it moves in the direction of greater and greater control from the outside.
This statement disproves the whole thesis. The hon. member does not complain of foreign ownership, he complains of private ownership. There is much truth in his assertion that corporations, even our best Canadian citizen corporations, are in business to provide goods and jobs and to make money. Surely, this observation cuts across national boundaries. Our Canadian corporate citizens and foreign corporations here are in business to make money. The resolution of the N.D.P. assumes we will find native Canadians thinking more about our national interests' than foreigners. I do not accept this thesis except in a very narrow range of industries. In this respect I agree with the hon. member for York South, but I disagree with the resolution.
Let me move the argument forward. If we are to have corporations act in the national interest, I believe the way to do it is- by legislation. The hon, member for York South said that if the economy is controlled by powerful neighbours our political sovereignty is
The Budget-Mr. Kaplan threatened. This is possible, but not necessarily the outcome. It can be avoided, not by shutting the door to foreign ownership as they propose and losing the benefit of foreign capital, but by appropriate control.
One of the colleagues of the hon. member for York South has outgrown the old idea that foreign ownership, as such, is what should be cut off. I am referring to the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman). He feels that political power, not economic power, is the ultimate authority. This is obvious because, at the extreme, political power can always appropriate economic power through expropriation, Economic strength should not be considered as a means to political sovereignty. One might even say the huge United States investment in this country can be regarded as a hostage, a hostage we can use to enact the political policies we consider to be in the best interests of this country. Considering the interesting research being done in this area by the hon. member for Waterloo, I am surprised his party has picked the old chestnut solution, the easy solution, the one that in the end reduces opportunity in Canada.
I am glad to report that foreign ownership is a problem being discussed by members on this side of the house as well. It is and should be a major issue in Canada, but we have not yet reached the conclusion, and I hope we never do, that there is no alternative, but to shut the door.
I regret the N.D.P., which has so often led the way, is not doing so any longer. The hon. member for York South referred to the Watkins Report. He said the government has allowed it to collect dust.


Mr. Barnett:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I would, but I might run over my 20 minutes. The hon. member can ask the indulgence of the house when I have completed my remarks.
I would like to read from the Watkins report:
It is a prerequisite to public discussion of government policy and the formulation and implementation of actual policy that more information must be available on the activities of corporations, particularly large corporations, both Canadian owned and foreign owned. Information presently available is generally deficient, and in some respect grossly so, for meeting the three distinct purposes for which the information is needed: public disclosure, economic analysis and governmental surveillance of firms.

June 12. 1969
The Budget-Mr. Kaplan
This first step or requirement has finally been taken and, I agree, it is about time. I congratulate the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) for bringing forward this legislation on corporate disclosure.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
In the few minutes that I have left, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on some budgetary matters. I have followed this debate with interest, and though not too much of it dealt with the budget there has been great criticism of government for its irresponsibility, for its deficiencies, for its grandiose spending programs. Admitting that the present inflationary situation is a severe one, I would like to introduce into this debate some statistics of interest. These figures are from the International Statistics Service of the World Bank.
Some 27 countries are compared, including most of the free economy industrial countries, as to the amount of inflation, that is, as to the change in the cost of living from 1958 to November, 1966, over an eight year period. These figures show that over the eight year period Canada is second only to the United States in controlling its price levels. In that eight year period U.S. prices increased 14 per cent, and Canadian 16 per cent. In Germany, whose economy is often praised for its stability, prices increased 22 per cent. In the United Kingdom, which is a socialist country, the increase was 27 per cent. In Sweden, much admired by many, the increase was 34 per cent, and in Japan, the land of the modern economic miracle, the increase was 50 per cent. Inflation is no laughing matter. Indeed it is our most serious national problem. The point I want to make is that it is a serious international problem, and our government stands up well in comparison with other governments in its dealings to control inflation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, and using the latitude permitted in this debate, I would like to tell a tale of two cities. There have been allegations made in this house in the past few days that Montreal is Canada's favourite son, and that Toronto is less favoured. These allegations have even come from this side of the house. The Toronto press has picked up the cause, and these matters are being projected as a cause celebre. Mr. Speaker, such allegations are without foundation.
I have spent the day reviewing figures and checking the financial contributions of the federal government to each of these cities. I

would like to read to you the results of my findings, and I think what I have found will indicate to you that Toronto has not been less favoured than Montreal in financial terms. But before I read the figures I would like to say one thing. I do not believe any government should be judged on the old porkbarrel basis. I do not think it matters, or should matter, how much the members for a particular part of the country are able to bring home to their constituents or riding from the federal treasury. I would rather judge a government on whether it has or has not provided justice in our society. My expectation and my hope is that this government on this basis will earn the support of my city in the next election.
Here are the figures. They make rather dull reading. I compare apples and oranges in many ways. In some items, there are different periods compared, but for each item the period is the same for both cities. In some cases I have matched loan against loan rather than grant against grant, but I am being consistent in dealing with these figures in that way.
First, Expo-Montreal got $159 million for Expo, including Habitat; Toronto got nothing. In public works Montreal got $11,100,000; Toronto $12,500,000. In harbours Montreal got $185 million, again more; and Toronto $25 million. In airports Montreal got $31 million; Toronto $25 million. Centennial projects other than Expo-Montreal zero; Toronto $3 million. Municipal development projects, that is loans to cities, and grants-Montreal $40,500,000; Toronto $54,800,000. In winter works programs Montreal $2,200,000; Toronto $4 million. Conservation authority, water conservation projects-Montreal zero; Toronto $9 million. In housing, Mr. Speaker, Montreal $477 million; Toronto over $1 billion. In the total Montreal got $905,800,000, and Toronto $1,133,300,000, a difference in Toronto's favour of $227,500,000. But, as I have said, Mr. Speaker, these figures mean less to me than they seem to mean to many, and than they seem to mean to the Toronto press. When one checks these figures one finds Montreal is by no means a favourite son.
May I say, with respect to federal participation in the life of our city, that it tends to be submerged. It is below the surface. It is in projects that are shared-cost projects, in projects that are presented as provincial projects, but in many of these provincial projects the federal contribution is as high as 85 per cent and even 95 per cent. This is where Toronto has obtained the advantage over Montreal.
June 12, 1969

I deeply wish there were a federal presence in our city. I would like it very much if there were an impressive head office, a federal building on an enormous scale in our city. I would very much like to be able to point to something-


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


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to this four day debate on the subject of the budget which was brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) last week. I was interested to note that a great many members expressed their dissatisfaction with the unsatisfactory economic conditions which prevail in urban Canada. Most of the other members who took part in the debate expressed their dissatisfaction with the highly unsatisfactory conditions that exist in rural Canada. The only reaction I have been able to ascertain on the part of the government is that it takes the view that the economic situation in Canadian cities, so far as the ordinary citizen is concerned, is serious but not hopeless, and that the economic situation in rural Canada is hopeless but not serious.
I say this because there seems to be no sensitivity whatsoever on the part of the government to the very severe economic conditions under which many parts of rural Canada are living. Whether you go to western Canada where there are vast quantities of unsold wheat and low quotas, or to the Maritimes where for the third year there are unsatisfactory prices for potatoes and many other products, or whether you look at the agricultural situation in central Canada, you have to come to the same conclusion that the rural economy is suffering because the primary producer is being caught in a cost-price squeeze.
I am not suggesting that members of the government are not conscious of their responsibility, but I see very little evidence of the government's ability to make an accurate diagnosis of the malaise affecting the Canadian economy and how it should be treated. Instead I find that several ministers whose departments in the general sense might be termed economic ones such as Trade and Commerce, Finance, Area Development and so on, each have their favoured nostrum, each have their favoured cure for what ails the Canadian economy. They rush about, one in one department introducing legislation 29180-638

The Budget-Mr. MacLean which will cost the taxpayers a great deal of money and another in some other department insisting that the defence expenditures, for example, be cut. Then, someone else will have some other suggestion. Each one is determined that he has the cure. This strikes me as being very similar to the situation in respect of a group of quack doctors who were visited by a patient for the treatment of a disease the cure for which they did not know. I have the highest respect for the medical profession today, but if one goes back far enough in history one will find situations which bear a striking resemblance to the performance of this government.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
In this regard the other day I happened to look up the history of the last illness of a famous lady, the Marchioness of Douglas, who passed away in 1674. The best doctors in the land were obtained to look after her. The first doctor who saw her on January 15 applied a plaster to her navel at a cost of 16 shillings. Then, she was forced to take orally two drams of oil of amber. The following day she was given an enema. The patient still got worse so another specialist was called in. This treatment went on for days until eventually one day the unfortunate lady was given a dose of hysteric and purging pills, two blisters for the ear, a suppository, and seven ounces of a cordial and anti-hysteric julep. She still got worse. So, the final expert was called in. He prescribed some more medicine and ended up when she still continued to sink by bleeding her. The total cost of the treatment was something in the order of 467 pounds, 14 shillings and fourpence. There is a striking similarity between the activities of this government, which Canadian taxpayers have suffered in the last number of years, and this sort of thing. The saddest part of it all is that it is the patient, or victim perhaps I should say, who pays the bill.
There are some economic facts of life. I am not one who thinks the question of economics has yet become a science. I believe there is a great deal of research work which should be done by governments, if not by anyone else, to determine the effect of certain policies and the causes of certain economic illnesses so that they can be treated with a reasonable degree of objectivity and a reasonable certainty that the treatment will be effective. I am no expert, but it would seem to me we must get down to some basic and serious economic facts of life. One of these is that we cannot
June 12, 1969

The Budget-Mr. MacLean live beyond our means without having to pay the bill in the end.
I should like to congratulate the Minister of Finance for his proposal to balance the budget. I hope this can be done. I do not agree with his methods entirely because I think with the tax load under which the Canadian people are staggering at the present time should be sufficient to produce a surplus of at least $1 billion if the savings were made which could be made. I know this is difficult. At this point in time it may be impossible because for the last number of years in parliament here we have been passing what I believe has been ill conceived legislation. Everyone came in with his favourite piece of legislation which he thought would serve to make him an honest man because of something he said in a previous election campaign or on some other occasion. The result has been that it has been necessary to amend or repeal much of this legislation or replace it with something else. This is all very costly because it means that boards are set up which employ a large number of experts and civil servants. This all costs a great deal.
The only way in which the Minister of Finance found it possible to balance a budget was to prolong a tax burden that is bearing very heavily on the Canadian people. At the present time the levels of taxation are not acceptable. They should be reduced. I believe that we have too much government in the federal sense. From 1950 to 1968 the ratio of civil servants to population has gone from 1 in 106 to 1 in 87. I have nothing against the civil service. I think we have an excellent civil service so far as it goes, but I am not so naive as to think that if some of a thing is good more of it is better. I think that one person in 87 working for the federal government is too high a proportion. As a nation I do not think we are getting full value for all these extra civil servants. It is no fault of theirs, but they are assigned to tasks which are unproductive or not sufficiently productive to benefit the Canadian people. Concurrently with this increase, the average income tax paid per Canadian has increased from $89 to $264 per annum.
The costs of government generally have gone up astronomically. Federal government expenditures from 1962 to the present have increased from about $7.5 billion to about $12 billion. The cost of carrying the national debt due to inflation and high interest rates has gone up at an even greater rate. The cost of carrying the debt of *11 levels of government

in Canada has gone up since 1963 from $1.4 billion to $2.2 billion. The total cost of government has increased from about $13 billion to $23 billion if you take all levels of govern^ ment. The personal debt situation is not any better. Because of the high level of taxation in the nation in the last calendar year, Canadians increased their personal debt by about $1 billion. They have to pay high interest rates which siphon off some of their purchasing power. I believe this situation is partly due to the age in which we live in which a politician can be speaking on television with a whole battery of soap salesmen telling him what to say.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
This is not an atmosphere from which good government evolves. I think we hit an all time low during the compaign before the last election when the successful party seemed to adopt the strategy, in some cases at least, that the federal election was not something equivalent to the selling of soap, but equivalent to the selling of Indian snake oil. You have to keep the minds of the people as far away from the issues as possible. I think this was the feeling of the government. It had to do this for fear it might not be returned. The government bragged that it had going for it a mania. I would not boast about being in power because of a lot of maniacs around.


Edgar John Benson: What did we promise in expenditures?


John Angus MacLean: You promised many things, including the just society.


Edgar John Benson: But what did we promise in expenditure?


John Angus MacLean: That involves a matter of opinion. I do not think the great number of Canadians who live below the poverty line would agree with you.
I realize that my time has almost expired. I did wish to refer to another subject but there is not time so I shall leave it. I do wish to say, however, that this is a time when all Canadians-and I have great faith in the future of our country providing we act intelligently, maturely, sensibly and look carefully at the situation before we decide what to do-have a very great responsibility along with members of the government and opposition parties to make sure we are not guitly of mistakes for which our children and our children's children will be paying for decades, perhaps generations.
June 12, 1969

Let me say that it might be well for us to recall one of the most widely read books of its time, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". It sets forth five basic reasons why that civilization withered and died. These were the undermining of the dignity and sanctity of the home, which is the basis for human society; higher and higher taxes and the spending of public money for free bread and circuses for the populace-the Roman empire collapsed under a load of tax, but I would not imagine the Roman empire could have footed the bill of the C.B.C. for more than about three months-the mad craze for pleasure; sports becoming every year more exciting, more brutal, more immoral; the building of great armaments when the real enemy was within, and the decay of individual responsibility.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It being 9:45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to special order made on Thursday, June 5, 1969, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on the amendment and the motion now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.	
The question is	now on the main motion.
All those in favour will please say yea?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
10084	COMMON!
Division


Some hon. Members:: On division.
And more than ten members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the v^ish of the house that we proceed with the division without the call of the bell?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easl Richmond):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I question the legality of the vote we have just completed. It was my understanding that hon. members on this side of the house indicated the motion would be carried on division. That is to say, I understood that an hon. member on this side would say "On division" when Your Honour proposed the motion, and that no formal vote would be taken. With that understanding several hon. members left the chamber only to be surprised when outside the chamber by the ringing of the bells. Since some of us were not expecting the division bells to ring and since the government forced the vote on the house, I submit that the entire procedure we have just gone through is illegal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will note the hon. member's point of order. I am not sure it will make that much difference in the records of the proceedings of this parliament which are officially recorded. It was my impression that I asked hon. members whether they wished that the bells be rung for the calling of the members. My impression was that hon. members wanted to proceed with the vote without the bells.
June 12, 1969

I am afraid our rules do not allow for a second vote to be taken once a vote has been taken. I appreciate the hon. member's objection. Perhaps the next time the Chair should watch a little more closely to see whether there is a wish on the part of hon. members that the bells do ring. I do not think there is very much that can be done at this point except to note the hon. member's objec-
Division
tion and point of order and perhaps try to ensure this difficulty will not arise on another occasion.
I have to bring to the attention of hon. members it is after ten o'clock and that this house has to stand adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow forenoon.
At 10.19 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, June 13, 1969