1970-04-23

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who is, of course, the watchdog for the protection of the consumers of the country. Is he able to assure the House that the reported reduction by an automobile company in certain safety features does not constitute a hazard to the Canadian consumer in his capacity as a user of automobiles?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think the question should properly be directed to the Minister of Transport who is the minister responsible for the legislation on car safety to which the House gave approval only a few weeks ago.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I explain to the minister that I put the question to him because I do not believe that the Minister of Transport has any regulations in effect yet under that act, and I was wondering whether the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, as protector of the consumer, had ordered any investigation into this reported reduction in safety features on automobiles. Has the minister ordered any such investigation, is he prepared to order such an investigation, or is he just going to sit back and say that it is somebody else's job?


Mr. Hees:: As usual.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I will consult with my colleague the Minister of Transport, who is responsible for the administration of the automobile safety program in Canada, so as to assure that there is no weakening of consumer protection.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. Would the minister 22218-46
himself also make an inquiry or have somebody else make an inquiry into the report that this cutback in safety features was ordered by the United States head office of the company in question?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to check that out.



PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has the minister seen the brochure entitled "Fight Inflation" issued by the Prices and Incomes Commission, and has the commission consulted him, or to his knowledge any other department, as to the contents of the propaganda in the brochure?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker. The brochure was prepared by the commission and issued by it.


David Lewis: Then in that case, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there sue contained in this brochure statements of policy about what should happen in the country, for example, that "pensions, wages and other money payments should not rise automatically in step with the cost of living because this would make inflation much more explosive"-I notice that the minister has a copy of the brochure in his hand-may I ask whether he and the government support this statement of policy by the commission?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, these are observations that are made by the commission. The commission is authorized to make such observations under its terms of reference. The particular observation to which the hon. member has referred should, I think, more properly be dealt with by the Minister of Finance.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question. The Prices and Incomes Commission is answerable to this Parliament through the minister, not through the Minister of Finance. Therefore may I ask the minister, in view of the activities of the commission which have
April 23, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry resulted in no benefit as far as the reduction of prices is concerned, and since the commission has now been turned into purely a public relations body that is turning out misleading stuff of this kind, whether it is not now time to consider either abolishing the commission or firing its chairman?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's supplementary is purely argumentative.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-FUTURE PLANS

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, the Minister without Portfolio. A number of the letters I have received in connection with the so-called LIFT program, sometimes called the WARP program, indicate that the major weakness is that it is not tied to a long-term program. Farmers are asking what plans the minister or the government has if the farmers proceed to reduce their acreage as requested. What plans in general, not in particular, does the government have for the year 1971-72? The farmers need that information in order to determine the course they will follow in 1970.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman is asking for a rather general statement of policy. Perhaps the minister might reply in a brief way.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the only way I can reply briefly is by saying that the approach to this question has been made clear by the Minister of Agriculture and myself on previous occasions. It would require a statement on motions to repeat it at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have read the statement and I, in common with the farmers in general, cannot understand what the government stands for. That is the reason I asked. If the minister does not know I will not press him.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-REFERENDUM OF FERMITHOLDERS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio. In view of reports that many farmers on the prairies do not find the government's proposals under operation LIFT acceptable, and in view of the fact that the National Farmers' Union has

called for the government to rescind this program, will the minister give consideration to holding a referendum of the 190,000 permit-holders on whether or not they are in favour of the wheat acreage reduction program?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, among the 190,000 permit-holders there are, of course, many who could find a change which would be suitable to themselves. It would scarcely be possible to hold a meaningful referendum in connection with a program of this nature.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the United States government holds referendums in respect of its wheat programs, can the minister inform the House whether any opinion polls have been taken to test the farmers' reactions to the program and whether it is acceptable and, if he has done so, will he report the results to the House?


Otto Emil Lang: To the greatest degree, Mr. Speaker, the testing of the opinions of producers has come about by contact with farm organizations and farmers themselves. I may say that when it is understood by the producers that this plan is part of a total examination of where the agricultural industry stands and what must be done to put it into its proper state, there is general support and agreement for this approach.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-INCREASE IN ACREAGE PAYMENT

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of reports from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and other agencies as to the intention of farmers to reduce their wheat acreage to 18 million and then to 15 million after operation LIFT was announced, and if the government insists on proceeding with the program and wants it to succeed, will the Minister without Portfolio say whether the government is considering increasing the amount of the acreage payment?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. I must say I have not seen any very accurate analysis of what is likely to happen in regard to planting intentions. It really will be impossible to know exactly how much farmers have changed their plans until in fact seeding is completed.
April 23, 1970	COMMONS



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM- REPLACEMENT OF QUOTA PROVISIONS

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that all of the major farm organizations have declined to give their support to operation LIFT, is the minister considering any major revisions to the plan as originally announced and, in particular, is he considering dropping the quota provisions as he originally announced them in favour of some other more acceptable type of plan?


Otto Emil Lang: The original allegation by the hon. member, as usual, is completely without foundation. Indeed, most farm organizations consulted supported the plan and its purposes. There seems to be some exception in respect of the National Farmers' Union whose initial support was not followed up with any consistency later.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We seem to be getting into the area of debate. The hon. member for Battle River will be allowed a supplementary and then the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-INCREASE IN PRICE OF GRASS AND FORAGE SEED

Mr. Cliff Downey (Baffle River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister in charge of the Wheat Board whether he or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has looked into the fact that the price of grass and forage seed has doubled since the initiation of the LIFT program?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have not taken a specific look at the exact nature of what has happened to prices. I presume the hon. member is not suggesting that the $10 per acre offered in respect of conversion of land into forage was rather too high and thus has encouraged a move in the price of grass seed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of members who are seeking an opportunity to ask supplementary questions on this subject. The Chair will attempt to return to the hon. member for Battle River and the hon. member for Regina East in a moment. For the time being the hon. member for Edmonton West has the floor.
DEBATES	6195
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



IMPROVEMENT OF RELATIONS WITH CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES-SUBSTITUTION OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT FUND FOR SUGAR AGREEMENT

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs either in his ministerial capacity or as Acting Prime Minister. In light of the replies given by the minister yesterday to my colleagues from Calgary Centre and Fundy-Royal concerning the unilateral abrogation by Canada of the 29 cent rebate on sugar and in view of the conditions which exist today in Trinidad and other Caribbean islands, would the minister undertake to make a full statement in the House outlining the position of the government, what it has done and what it proposes to do?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make clear, as I did yesterday, that there is no connection whatever between the troubles in Trinidad and any action by the Canadian government. Second, since there seems to be some misunderstanding, not as a result of what I said yesterday but as a result of a statement in the press, I should like to say that there was no agreement between Canada and the islands of the Caribbean concerning the rebate of the sugar duty. It was a unilateral action on our part to pay the rebate and it was a unilateral action by which it was withdrawn.


Mr. Lamberi (Edmonion West):: In light of the reaction of the countries concerned, which is reported to be negative, and in view of the fact that Canada has a vital stake in promoting trade and relations in this area, surely the minister must understand that there should be a clarifying statement so that we can all get our views on the record in respect of this vital subject.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is advancing an argument for the consideration of the minister. I do not think it can be considered to be in the form of a question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the minister consider it appropriate for Canada in conducting an aid program not to consult the country or countries being assisted when it proposes to make a change in the form of the assistance?
6196	COMMONS DEBATES	April 23, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition is also confused about the nature of the action. This was not part of any aid program. It was a unilateral action taken by Canada in anticipation of the signing of an international sugar agreement. Canada helped to get that agreement concluded. The price of sugar went up and we believe it is now more suitable to increase our aid program than continue this temporary rebate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not agree that in terms of the effectiveness of the assistance, as well as having a bearing on the relations between our country and the countries affected, it would be appropriate for Canada to consult the other countries concerned before making a unilateral decision about a policy, admittedly with a unilateral base in the first place?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce would like to participate in the debate.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is interested in the facts it might be useful to say that West Indies exporters of sugar did not use the rebate fully and are not at present using fully the allocation under the international sugar agreement.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I asked for a statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point made by the hon. member for Edmonton West is well taken. It was not my understanding that the question was asked of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I suggest that we should not enter the field of debate. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal has a supplementary question, I gather.



RESOLUTION PASSED BY CARIBBEAN GOVERNMENTS RESPECTING TRADE WITH CANADA

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: What information can the minister give us about a meeting of heads of governments of the Caribbean countries which I am informed passed a resolution calling for an inventory of Canadian assets in the various Caribbean countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, such a meeting was held. They did not call for an inventory of Canadian assets. I have seen the resolution; I thought I had it with me, buit I can

get it. What it did call for was a review of trade and other relations between Canada and the islands, but it did not refer specifically to an inventory of assets.



SAFETY OF CANADIANS IN TRINIDAD- EVACUATION ARRANGEMENTS

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a related question. Has the minister had any information on whether there has been any molestation of Canadians in Trinidad or injury to them or to their property?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I understand that yesterday or the day before some windows were broken. There have been, however, no injuries as far as we know to any Canadians, and certainly no violence has been directed particularly against Canadian property.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What arrangements, if any, has the minister now made for the evacuation of Canadian personnel, tourists or otherwise, from Trinidad?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to give the details because I would not want to create an impression that we are expecting that evacuation will be necessary. I believe that conditions have now improved somewhat and it is important that we do not create unnecessary concern. We have contingency plans for the evacuation of Canadians.



REPORTED STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF LABOUR-ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the attitude the minister took to the over-eager feminists in Montreal on Wednesday, April 22, prompted by what Judy LaMarsh said about the minister in her much publicized book?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Labour and is related to the last question.
April 23, 1970	COMMONS


George Harris Hees: You are blushing, Bryce; you are blushing.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Was the minister stating government policy when he is reported to have said in Montreal yesterday that the object of the feminist movement should be not to produce a race of women who will at any given moment turn their saucepans into swords?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member knows that a question like that can only be directed to the Prime Minister or Acting Prime Minister.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether there is a supplementary which could be in order on this subject.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I try, Mr. Speaker, and then you can rule on whether it is in order. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister how soon it is anticipated that the Royal Commission on the Status of Women will be making its report?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not informed. I will make inquiries.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Over a week ago I asked the minister if he would take the first opportunity on motions to report to the House what success the Prices and Incomes Commission is having in persuading the leaders of organized labour to give that co-operation without which no anti-inflation program can be successful. He said he would speak to the chairman and would see about giving a report as soon as possible. Is he now in a position to ask for unanimous consent to revert to motions in order that he may give that report?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I discussed the matter with the chairman, as I said I would, and the commission has a number of initiatives under way. But it was the view of the chairman that nothing very useful could be said on motions at this particular time.
DEBATES	6197
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true that the leaders of organized labour have told the government to go fly a kite, and that the Prices and Incomes Commission has fallen flat on its face once again?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member to suggest that his question is not asked correctly from a procedural standpoint.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour which I have asked previously on other days and I hope it has been brought to his attention. Would he be in a position within the next day or so to make a statement on motions concerning the proposals that the Unemployment Insurance Commission may have to clear up the endless delays and complications experienced by the unemployed in receiving their unemployment insurance cheques?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I might do better than that. I will arrange to bring the estimates of the Unemployment Insurance Commission before the appropriate committee within the next two weeks in order to give the hon. member and other hon. members an opportunity to question the representatives of the commission on its efficiency or inefficiency.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Maiher (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs somewhat related to those asked earlier by the Leader of the Opposition. Is his department conducting a survey of the cost and the quality of car repairs in Canada and, if so, when can we expect a report?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not.

April 23, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry VETERANS AFFAIRS



INTEGRATION OF VETERANS CHARTER WITH SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It arises from a reply given by the Prime Minister the other day which indicated that veterans benefits are being included in general social welfare policy. Is it now the policy of the government to integrate the veterans charter, which gives veterans special rights arising from the special services they rendered to the country, with general welfare programs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question was asked in similar terms on at least one occasion. I am not sure whether there is any point in having the minister give the reply which he has already given to the House.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the reason I am asking this question is that there was ambiguity in the answer and I have now phrased the question in such a way as to avoid that ambiguity. I am asking specifically whether the veterans charter is being integrated with the general social welfare programs?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not. There is quite a distinction between social legislation and social welfare. What the Prime Minister has said and what I have said is that veterans benefits are part of social legislation, not social welfare.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have a supplementary question arising from that answer, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's further reply, is it his intention to review the benefits under the veterans charter and increase them in light of the rising cost of living, prior to the general review of social welfare programs?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Some of the benefits provided for veterans are now being reviewed under the white paper and are before the Veterans Affairs Committee at the present time.



MANPOWER


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would the minister indicate to the House to
[Mr. Basford.l
what extent his department, in co-operation with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, has succeeded in the objective of placing the half a million unemployed students in summer jobs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has no objection to the minister replying to this very important question, but the minister might consider whether it might not be advisable to make a general statement on motions. However, I am sure hon. members would be agreeable to hearing a short statement from the minister at this time.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, my statement will be very short. It is impossible at the moment to determine the success of our program. We will be able to do that at the end of the summer, but in the meantime I will be happy to give the hon. member a statement on the steps that are being taken with respect to the summer program.



HOURS OF WORK OF STUDENTS EMPLOYED BY FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS

Mr. W. C. Scoff (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. In view of the fact that some students worked in excess of 80 hours per week for federal departments last year, will this still be the policy of federal departments this year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to check into the extent of this practice if it does exist.


William C. Scott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to give the minister any information in this connection that he desires.



&quot;HIRE A STUDENT&quot; CAMPAIGN-SPECIAL PROGRAMS IN ECONOMICALLY DEPRESSED REGIONS

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether his department will continue to support the "Hire a Student" campaign which it conducted last year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are continuing it. We are working this year with the Canadian Chamber of Com-
April 23, 1970	COMMONS
merce which has launched a special summer hiring program as a way of encouraging employers to hire a certain percentage of summer students. We look forward to this as an important part of our total program.


Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. Is his department considering any special programs to help students to find summer employment in economically depressed regions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we had
reasonable success in our program last year. We are attempting to maintain the program and improve it where possible. We do not anticipate a special program along the lines mentioned by the hon. member.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of complaints made by Mr. McGregor, vice-president of the Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks, in telegrams to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour, to the effect that Canadian Pacific has violated its agreement with the brotherhood in ordering a reduction of 10 per cent of its work, will the minister look into this matter and make an early statement on it?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the telegram although I am sure it has been received in my office, but normally if the CPR were to violate their collective agreement there should be some condition in the collective agreement which would protect the union against this type of unilateral action.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellingion-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It has to do with his legislation on hazardous products and the symbols that have been published. In view of the fact that thousands of those who have been the victims of hazardous products could not read, is his department or the government planning any legislation with regard to the safe packaging of these products?
DEBATES	6199
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, under the Hazardous Products Act the whole purpose of the symbols designed for the labelling of hazardous products is to assist those people in our society who through illiteracy or otherwise cannot read, and also to assist young children who would learn the symbols rather than the words. We are examining ways, and have power under the act, to deal with safety in packaging, which is part of a safety program including education, labelling and packaging. For example, with respect to a matter in which I know the hon. member is keenly interested, we are endeavouring to develop a safe standard for safety lids that would be waterproof so that many of these hazardous chemical substances could be properly contained.



BANK OF CANADA


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, I would like to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Does the government intend opening a branch of the Bank of Canada in the province of Quebec in the near future?


An hon. Member:: After the 29th?


Mr. Speaker:: The question could be placed on the order paper.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In his role of restraining increases in prices, what action is the minister taking with the Treasury Board to have them roll back their recent increases in rental costs of permanent married quarters on defence bases, which they authorized for April 1 of this year and which in some cases are as much as $15 per month?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, some
April 23. 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry time ago the government announced the rollback of a number of user fees that had been intended for imposition this year. I will take up the rental increases the hon. member mentioned with the President of the Treasury Board, but it may be that they are offset by the reduction in rents that the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing announced the other day.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. As these increases are completely unjustifiable, will the minister recommend to his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, that there be a roll-back, with no nonsense about it?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member, of course, is asking a question in the form of a representation, and he has to assume that it will be taken into due consideration.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would take steps to have this increase in rent referred to the Prices and Incomes Commission to see whether that independent commission would find that the increase was justified within the policy of the commission?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, Mr. Speaker, I shall be delighted to discuss it, as I always do, with the President of the Treasury Board, but I think the fact that we in Canada, according to the latest available figures, have been having a better price performance than the United States, Japan or the United Kingdom is some indication that our present policies are working more successfully than theirs.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Acting Prime Minister as the Minister of Fisheries and his assistant and also the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources are absent from the House. In view of the announced closing of the Howe Sound to sport fishing because of mercury pollution, can the minister inform the House as to the source of the pollution, its extent and the measures being taken to control it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I feel this is a question that could be directed to the minister tomorrow as well as today.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture concerning the government action in banning the use of certain chemicals which are no longer available for purchase by the industry for control purposes and the desire of Canadian agriculture and horticulture to reduce risks to a minimum. Is it the intention of the government to publicize before the growing season a list of recommended agricultural chemicals for substitute use both in fields and gardens?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about the publication of a pamphlet or other type of publication but certainly when the restrictions on the number of purposes for which DDT, for example, would be licensed were determined the department was very careful to ensure that there were other products available for the purposes for which licensing was withdrawn.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Ralph Slewari (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the financial crisis which has arisen in UNRRA, the United Nations body which looks after the refugees in the Middle East, involving an amount of $4 million, would the government consider taking up a part of that crisis, even though Canada already contributes substantially to UNRRA?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, certainly I would be prepared to look into this question but as the hon. member knows I think we already carry more than our just share. Even so, I will look at the possibility of doing more.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What initiatives is the government taking with respect to the threat to the survival of the Atlantic salmon posed by Denmark's fishing
April 23, 1970

activities off Greenland, especially in view of the strong stand taken by the Prime Minister of Great Britain on this subject?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall take notice of this question. The Minister of Fisheries and I consult regularly about these matters. I shall consult with him about it and see what would be the most effective action we could take.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. This problem has been around for some time and in view of the fact that the government of Canada has not been able to obtain agreement on this matter in the International Commission on the North Atlantic Fisheries, has the minister consulted or called in the ambassador for Denmark to discuss it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Information Canada. As a preface to the question may I suggest that perhaps the Minister without Portfolio from day to day, when the Prime Minister is not in the House, could tell us where the Prime Minister is and what he is doing on a daily basis when he does not appear here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My basic question, Mr. Speaker, is whether the minister has appointed five unit directors or subdirectors of Information Canada and, if so, what their function is and were they appointed by Public Service competition?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no, but I would be glad to exchange information such as I have with the hon. member if he will keep me informed of the movements of his leader, who does not appear here as often as the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I had some doubts about the preamble to the hon. member's question and I have some doubts about the preamble to the minister's answer. Per-

Inquiries of the Ministry haps he would like to limit his contribution to the second part of the hon. member's question.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, one good
preamble deserves another, but I did say, although the hon. member may not have heard, that the answer to the second question is no.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is not a preamble. I do not quarrel too much with preambles; it is the content I quarrel with. The supplementary question-if we are going to talk about leadership we can talk about some basic things right now and why the Prime Minister is not in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are four minutes left before the end of the question period and I ask for the co-operation of the hon. member.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I certainly will co-operate, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister ensure that in future all executive appointments to Information Canada will be made on the basis of Public Service competition?


Mr. Sianbury:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That has always been clear and it remains so.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-Easi Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the original question. Was the usual procedure followed in giving security clearance to the head of Information Canada?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: The Prime Minister has answered that question, Mr. Speaker.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I realize that a minister is not bound to answer a question, but if he does so he is certainly required to give a truthful answer. The fact is that the Prime Minister has not satisfactorily answered the question.


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



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, may I answer a question raised by the hon. member for Hillsborough on April 20 about resignations of two returning officers
Inquiries of the Ministry in Prince Edward Island. I have been informed by the Chief Electoral Officer that he has received and accepted the resignations of the returning officers for Egmont and Cardigan. I would appreciate, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member could convey that information to the hon. member for Hillsborough, who is not in his seat today.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to convey this information to my colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough. I might add that I shall be able to do it within an hour in this place. I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the government to fill the vacancies which have been created?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I am sure replacements will be appointed in due course, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare about the use of the laundry facilities at the Coqualeet-za Hospital near Chilliwack. I had some conversation with the minister following the question period and I wonder-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The lighthearted exchanges on my right make it difficult for the Chair to hear the hon. member's interesting question.


Frank Howard: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think the designation should have been lightheaded. I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he can provide an answer to my question regarding the use of the laundry facilities at the Coqualeetza Hospital, following the conversation that he and I had after the question period yesterday?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we did receive a telegram from Mr. Wilbur Campbell on this matter. We did indicate that we could not make a decision on the feasibility of the laundry in question until we had received the feasibility study on the entire site which we expected by the end of May; I understand now that it will not be available until June so we are talking about another six weeks. Then we will be in a position to relate the circumstances regarding the laundry to the over-all recommendations for this site.

April 23, 1970


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether we might not pursue the matter raised by the hon. member for Skeena tomorrow or Monday. The hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East.



POLLUTION


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouth-Halifax Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. To date, has the government been able to work out the procedures that those people should follow who are requesting compensation because of the oil disaster in Chedabucto Bay?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: No. The subject is under review by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Minister of Transport and myself.



UNITED NATIONS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would like to find out whether the conflict within the cabinet has yet been resolved and whether Canada has a policy with regard to contributing to the United Nations fund for-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubts as to the form of the question. The hon. member for Joliette.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member wants to rephrase the question.


Malcolm MacInnis: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I do. I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he will make an early statement on Canada's policy regarding a contribution to the United Nations fund for family planning and birth control for those nations that wish it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I hope consideration of this matter will be concluded soon so that I will be able to make such a statement.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Information Canada.
In view of the statement by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) yesterday that the way to sell federalism to Quebecers would be through Information Canada, can the Minister without Portfolio inform the House whether Information Canada will have the task of enlightening the Canadian people on the federal system and of expounding its advantages?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I hope so, Mr. Speaker. In our estimation this is not propaganda with a view to promoting federalism.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Angus MacLean: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as House Leader give his usual statement as to the business which the government plans to place before the House for the next week?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. member for the question. As the House knows, today will be the final day of the budget debate. Tomorrow the following bills will be called in this order: government order 13, Bill C-10 with regard to the Canada Shipping Act, government order 76, Bill S-14, with regard to radiation emitting devices, government order 15, the Senate amendments to Bill C-12, with regard to the International Development Research Centre.
On Monday we will call government order 84, Bill C-197, with regard to the National Farm Products Marketing Council. Tuesday will be an opposition day. On Wednesday we will call government order 53, with regard to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Price Stability. I hope the subject for Thursday can be a matter for discussion among the House Leaders.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
The Budget-Mr. Gendron



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, April 15, consideration of the motion of Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, at paragraph 155 of the Auditor General's report to the House, one can read, and I quote:
155. Partial development of port which lacks prospective users, Gros Cacouna, Que.
This is all that was needed to prompt all information media to give this news frontpage treatment and to have people cry shame. Never did the Gros-Cacouna project have so much adverse publicity.
Studies of the E.Q.P.B. show that in the pilot area, made up of the ten counties of the Lower St. Lawrence, about $150 million are spent yearly in subsidies of all kinds to maintain some 300,000 people in economic stagnation, but this causes no indignation. However, any attempt made with the utmost difficulty to equip the area for economic development creates a scandal simply on the strength of the opinion expressed in the report of the Auditor General.
Naturally, it is the government that foots the bill anyway whether it be that of recession, much heavier to bear and non-productive, or that of progress which often represents the tenth part of what it should be, in giving those underdeveloped areas adequate transportation means to help them in their efforts towards industrialization.
Mr. Speaker, in giving the other side of the story, I do not expect the same audience or the same publicity the report of the Auditor General received. I am handicapped from the start, because in such matters, all the facts cannot be publicly disclosed. Everyone knows that in that field there is strong competition among the harbour cities as well as among areas and provinces. Everyone knows also that when we refer to prospective users, we mean private concerns and due to the competition among the latter, their future plans are confidential. As for concerns already estab-
COMMONS DEBATES	April 23, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Gendron
lished which are liable to take advantage of that means of transport since to export their products they do business with existing transport companies, they do not want to be in an unfavourable position before the construction of the port is completed and they can take full advantage of it.
We must not forget that there is at the present time at Gros-Cacouna two piers and an inner basin and that we are more or less in a vicious circle, because if there is no wharf, there can be no traffic and if there is no traffic no wharf will be built. It is like a dog trying to catch its tail.
In short, people wonder if this is a pet project of the member of Parliament for the constituency who would like to delude the Canadian government, or if the maritime traffic really justifies the construction of this wharf.
Now, the project's history and evidence given by men in public life who are aware of the needs of this place, hence who know the prospective users, and who had no interests other than those of their region to serve, prove without any doubt the real need in that area.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
This vital need and evidence from experts will no doubt indicate that it is a first class site, open to navigation the year around, and market analysis will establish an enormous traffic potential. Thus, any person of good faith must conclude that never were public funds spent so wisely. What are we waiting for, then, to complete the project?
We might retell its history in the manner of old time tales: "Once upon a time...". As early as 1897, the Chamber of Commerce of Riviere-du-Loup made representations to Ottawa about the harbour. In the spring of the same year, a delegation was sent to Ottawa and they were assured that their request would be given consideration. In October of that year, Sir Wilfrid Laurier promised, at Riviere-du-Loup, to promote himself the project. Year after year, promises and studies followed one another.
In 1959, an interregional committee on waterways made up of representatives from Temiscouata, Kamouraska, Riviere-du-Loup, Edmundston, New Brunswick, the northern part of New Brunswick, Haut-Madawaska, made representations to the hon. Howard Green, then Minister of Public Works. In reply to a question put to him in the House 
by the hon. Lionel Chevrier, the minister said, and I quote Hansard for June 5:
We all realized that the seaway would bring tremendous changes to this part of Canada, in fact, to a very large part of Canada, but I do not think any of us realized just how extensive thoses changes would be. The department has done a great deal in the way of making plans for new harbours, various other projects in the Lower St. Lawrence, but I have reached the conclusion that a great deal more will have to be done.
On September 7, 1959, which was Labour Day, the committee organized a big parade from Madawaska (Maine) to Riviere-du-Loup, gathering all the people concerned with this project and made representations concerning the establishment of port facilities at Riviere-du-Loup. Among those present were the Hon. Pierre Sevigny, the Hon. Paul Comtois, Raymond O'Hurley, Edgar Fournier, former Minister of Water Resources for New Brunswick, now a senator, Clynton Clauson, of Augusta, the new governor of Maine, senator Edouard Cyr, of Maine, and senator Jean-Frangois Pouliot, from Riviere-du-Loup. Then, important reports were presented stating our views and the ministers, impressed by this presentation, said:
You have convinced us of the need for a sea port in the Riviere-du-Loup area and we shall put your case in Ottawa along with your federal member.
On September 15, 1959, the hon. Raymond O'Hurley, in a speech he made in Quebec city to the delegation at the convention of the Union des Conseils de Comtes de la province de Quebec, stated that the federal government was interested in the building of port facilities accessible the year round at Gros-Cacouna, near Riviere-du-Loup. Following that statement, L'Evenement-Journal of September 16 published the following:
The Minister of Defence Production has given to understand that the federal cabinet was highly interested in the building of a deep-sea harbour at Cacouna, near Riviere-du-Loup, that would be open the year round and that would promote the exchange of goods between the Lower St. Lawrence, New England and the State of Maine, and the central areas of North America, through the St. Lawrence seaway up to the Great Lakes...He suggested that such a project would certainly change the picture of every region in the vicinity of Riviere-du-Loup and the new harbour.
On March 29, 1960, a regional delegation made the trip to Ottawa to ask for the building of harbour facilities at Gros-Cacouna. Hon. David Walker then asked for the cost of that project to be estimated. Then, the Piette, Audy and Lepinay firm conducted a thorough
April 23, 1970

technical study on Gros-Cacouna island on behalf of the federal Department of Public Works.
On March 30, 1960, a delegation from that area appeared before and submitted briefs to the Royal McPherson Commission on Transportation, in Ottawa.
In April 1961 the Department of Public Works authorized the construction of a model in the laboratory of the National Research Council in Ottawa in order to study the movement of ice due to currents and prevailing winds, and also its possible effects on the harbour facilities at Gros-Cacouna.
On February 26, 1962 the hon. Leon Balcer, federal Minister of Transport, said that expenditures amounting to $50,000 had been approved by the Treasury Board for the construction, for study purposes, of a small-scale model of the future port facilities at Gros-Cacouna.
Governor Clauson, of the State of Maine, who was surely interested, as well as his successor, in protecting the port of Portland in Maine, stated at the 60th annual convention of insurance agents held in Rockland, Maine: As governor of the State of Maine, it is my duty, in order to safeguard the interests of the northern part of the State, to approve the building of this sea port in Gros-Cacouna. He added that the making of Riviere-du-Loup into a deep-sea port would give the people of northern Maine new opportunities for industrial development and activity.
In March 1960, his successor, governor John H. Reed, wrote to the right hon. John Diefen-baker, and I quote:
I am most happy to approve the project of a sea port at Riviere-du-Loup because, we, in the State of Maine, have long wanted to have access to the Saint-Lawrence river, in order to take maximum advantage of the St. Lawrence seaway.
The development of such a sea port will give the State an economic boost and will, I am sure, also benefit the Riviere-du-Loup region. I am very happy to support the plan and I would appreciate any consideration your government may give it.
Senator Cyr, from Maine, in his submission to the Royal Commission on Transportation, added:
If we are to benefit from the St. Lawrence seaway, it can be done effectively and economically only through Riviere-du-Loup.
Here is another statement made to the McPherson Commission by Mr. Alphee Levesque, of Edmundston (N.B.), then Vicepresident of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I quote:
The Budget-Mr. Gendron As far as I know, this is the first time the people of such a large district, extending beyond southeastern Quebec through more than one eighth of the province of New Brunswick, and the county of Aroostook in the state of Maine, have pooled their efforts to solve a number of problems common to the three regions, one of which is the problem of transportation; and, gentlemen, when I say the people of those regions, I do not mean part of the population or a group of businessmen,
I mean to say that the Commission has conducted thorough studies at all levels and spoken with people from all walks of life, and I wish to make you aware that the whole population of the regions which we are representing supports this request and feels that the building of a deep water sea port at Gros-Cacouna is the only solution to our common transportation problem.
On April 19, 1962, following these representations, the right hon. Lester B. Pearson wrote to the mayor of Riviere-du-Loup- yours truly-the following letter:
Mr. Mayor,
Being aware of your great interest in the improvement of the transportation network in your region, I wish to remind you that Mr. Lionel Che-vrier on behalf of the Liberal opposition raised the question time and again during the last parliamentary session. I would also like to define for you the position of the federal Liberal party on this question.
The whole area served by Riviere-du-Loup is in urgent need of new deep water harbour facilities in order to facilitate communications with the North Shore of the St. Lawrence, the interior of the country and the United States via the Great Lakes, and the European continent.
The Liberal party of Canada acknowledges this urgent need and will undertake not only to continue these studies but also to build these new harbour facilities within the framework of its regional development plan and to provide year-round ferry services between the shores of the St. Lawrence.
I am convinced that carrying out these projects will contribute to the growth of your area about which you are so concerned.
Sincerely yours,
L. B. Pearson
And I could continue this list, which would be rather lengthy, because all those who know the area and who have examined these problems have reached the same conclusions. Some will say that these are so many ad hominem arguments. Let us see what justifies their attitude.
The port of Gros Cacouna could have four main uses, in general:
1.	Through traffic or transfer point for goods.
2.	Winter harbour.
3.	Regional service.
4.	Year-round ferry service.
The Budget-Mr. Gendron [DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I am coming to my first point, the one dealing with through traffic. Where does that use come from? Let us consider first of all the privileged situation of that sea port.
The Gros-Cacouna port is five miles east of Riviere-du-Loup, on the south shore of the St. Lawrence river, 101 miles east of Quebec, 80 miles from the Maine and New Brunswick borders across from the mouth of the Saguenay river and Tadoussac. The average depth of the water there is 100 feet and the port is ice free the year round. As we will see further, specialized studies have shown that Gros-Cacouna benefits from an exceptional geographic situation, being at the crossroads of the international shipping lines, of the railway lines connecting the Gaspe peninsula and the Maritimes as well as the Trans Canada and the Trans Gaspe highways.
It is also to be noted that it is quite free of access and that the depth of the river up to Gros-Cacouna allows the movement of ships of any tonnage. Towards the hinterland, whether it be Quebec or Montreal, the channel gets narrower, which makes navigation more difficult, specially in winter, since in some parts it is only 27 feet deep.
More and more, ships drawing 40, 50 or 60 feet of water are being built and such ships will never be able to anchor anywhere in the river with the exception of Sept-Iles, Port-Cartier and Gros-Cacouna. On the other hand, we must remember that according to the 1965 edition of Ports of the World, there are only about ten sea ports in the world where ships drawing more than 30 feet of water can drop anchor.
In 1964, 6.4 million tons out of the 10.1 million tons of freight shipped abroad, have been shipped to countries where ports are more than 39 feet deep. It would be possible to establish a regular service between Gros-Cacouna and these harbours. Here is what can be read at page 115 of the Sores report:
The rapid increase in the number of huge ships and the trends in the composition of the world ore ship fleet show a noticeable increase in this category (fig. 19, page 114).
In eastern Canada, presently, three ports only can receive tankers (page 55, fig. 5).
And I refer again to the Sores report:
-They are Halifax, Havre Saint-Pierre and Port-Cartier.
In other words, 54 per cent of the ships presently in operation cannot enter the harbours of eastern Canada. With a depth of 40 feet 60,000 ton vessels

April 23, 1970
can be accommodated. With 50 feet of water, a harbour can handle almost any type of ships under 100,000 tons.
Equipped with a mooring station, Gros-Cacouna harbour could accommodate the largest tankers now in use (around 200,000 tons).
The construction of ships is becoming more and more specialized. For instance, lakers are being built which are able to sail through locks and are designed to navigate on inland seas. Moreover, 200,000 ton ocean liners are also being built but they cannot sail through canals and inland seas and their access to sea ports is limited to about ten in the world, and this enables such ports, mainly in the case of bulk merchandise such as grain, oil, chemical fertilizers, ore to meet certain specific needs.
Subsection 9.4.6, at page 233 of the Sores report, reads as follows, and I quote:
Possibility for Gros-Cacouna of becoming a container terminal.
This study indicates that potential container traffic is quite promising for that port; on the other hand, the setting up of such a terminal on the St. Lawrence, east of Montreal, is quite likely in a few years; the choice of the Gros-Cacouna port at first sight seems therefore quite possible. Indeed, there is plenty of space-which is quite important for such a use-the port is easily accessible all year round and finally the existing communication network-railways and roads- puts this port scarcely a few hours away from Montreal.
For example, we could quite well see a laker loaded with grain discharge its shipment in the grain elevators at Gros-Cacouna and return to its point of departure with an ore shipment. We could also see an oceanic with an oil shipment go back loaded with grain. We could give a hundred examples, but it is important to remember that this transit operation would immediately entail considerable development and would create some employment and enable the setting up of oil refineries, grain elevators, plants for smelting and other similar operations as well as plants for the production of chemical fertilizers, liquid ground wood pulp, potato-flour, and all kinds of warehouses.
Gros-Cacouna can therefore be considered as one of the best developed ports for the shipping trade, provided, of course, it is equipped with the most modern devices, provided with barges and with all the facilities required to meet international competition. Either Quebec will develop that sea-

April 23. 1970	COMMONS
port which has an international part to play or it will forever miss the boat.
It is up to Quebec, through which runs the stately St. Lawrence River, to realize the importance of this project and to promote it, just as Nova Scotia is promoting the port of Halifax and New Brunswick, St. John harbour.
I come now to the importance of Gros-Cacouna as a winter port which is due to its first rate location as a transit point. Gros-Cacouna can handle all types of ships in winter. Being the furthermost inland port, it is thus the most competitive and the most capable of serving Canadian shippers who, from Moose Jaw in Saskatchewan, have as much interest in selecting both eastern and western ports for the shipping of their products.
Is it unwarranted to claim the role of winter port for Gros-Cacouna? Let us hear the unquestionable evidence of experts on that subject.
The ice conditions around Gros-Cacouna Island have been examined for a long time. Studies made by Mr. W. A. Black, of the Geographical Branch, by Mr. B. Robitaille entitled "Rapport preliminaire sur les glaces fluviales a l'lle de Cacouna", greographical study No. 10, and the study No. 24, by Mr. Michel Brochu, all reach the same conclusion. I will quote from page 68 of the study No. 24 by Mr. Michael Brochu:
As was suggested by Mr. Benoit Robitaille in 1956, in a paper on the development of a winter port in that area, the most appropriate location for an adequate summer and winter port would be the south-western point of the Gros-Cacouna peninsula, 10 miles east of Riviere-du-Loup. An islet to the north-east of Gros-Cacouna would also provide an excellent location for a deep-water wharf that could accommodate ocean-going ships as well as coasting vessels.
That islet, like the south-western point of the peninsula, has a very edgy shore, without strand and free most of the time of heavy ice concentrations, perhaps due to the powerful currents there; as was pointed out by Mr. Benoit Robitaille (1956), this is an exceptional asset for the south shore of the St. Lawrence.
It must be noted that on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, from Montreal to Gaspe, Gros-Cacouna is the only place which deserves to be selected as the best location for the establishment of a winter port.
The geographical location is unequalled and its easy access all year round is unique. Now, is traffic available.
In studies conducted in 1967 and entitled "Traffic potential of the port of Gros-
DEBATES	6207
The Budget-Mr. Gendron Cacouna"-which studies, by the way, cost $40,000 to the taxpayers-Sores Inc. showed clearly what goods might be shipped from that seaport and concluded that, being a winter port, 1,700,000 tons of goods could be handled, provided the required facilities were provided. First of all, a wharf, railroads and other services had to be built.
Whereas the promoters of the development of this port are aware of its tremendous possibilities for transit and winter operations, they are also conscious of its regional importance.
The people in that area need that port for their survival, for the major obstacle to the setting up of industries in our area, is its remoteness from the market and the necessity to reduce transportation costs.
As yet, the best way to reduce transportation costs is still water transportation.
Mr. Pierre Camu, now president of the St. Lawrence Seaway, and formerly director of the Laval University research department, said on page 25 of a brief on transport in the Lower St. Lawrence, and I quote:
Retaining only 50 per cent of the pulp and lumber shipments because of the competition of the other means of transportation and port facilities, we reach a total of 585,000 tons for that area and a total potential tonnage of 1,227,000 tons.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Minimum traffic which justifies more adequate harbour facilities. If complementary in-going or out-going traffic were added for each of these regions, the volume would easily reach 2 million tons.
Riviere-du-Loup has a natural hinterland which has never been properly joined to this town on the St. Lawrence; if an adequate harbour were built in that hinterland, it would contribute to the economic growth of the adjacent region.
In his study, Sores has reached the same conclusions. We know of the eloquent evidence given by all the leaders in this region which includes northern Maine, northern New Brunswick and the counties of Quebec, particularly the Temiscouata valley, which need this outlet towards the sea.
Perhaps it would be beside the point to list all the agricultural, commercial and industrial advantages but, in any case, there is no time.
But one example would prove the point. With this service, a pulp and paper company such as F. F. Soucy Inc. would save $7 a ton-at the rate of 100 tons a day, it would be $700-which would make the difference for a company between being a marginal industry or an economic operation.
6208	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Gendron
Finally, there is a great volume of goods shipped from our region. This has been shown, not only by people of the area who submitted briefs, but also by experts whose knowledge, integrity and ojectivity cannot be doubted.
Either the necessary effort to complete the most modern harbour facilities is made or the whole present substructure, railways, roads, airports, will slowly disintegrate and the area will become forever unproductive, although it has often shown its willingness to live and do its part for the prosperity of the country.
And I now come to the fourth use to which this port can be put, that of providing ferry service the year round.
We do not claim to be the only ones responsible for establishing communications between the two shores of the St. Lawrence. In my own district, the ferry between Trois-Pistoles and Les Escoumins provides very good service and fulfills a very real need.
Nevertheless, in this field, we have a very positive part to play, which is complementary to that of others, and, for that reason, we are in an ideal position to establish year round communications between Gros-Cacouna and Tadousac. First, the distance would be shortened, because we would overcome the two natural obstacles that are the Saguenay and the St. Lawrence rivers. Because of the shorter distance, rates would be reduced, the number of trips would be increased and traffic would increase on the four-lane Trans-Canada highway, which is to be extended to Riviere-du-Loup in 1972.
Anyone having a quick look at the map can see the deep penetration of Maine into our country and the entrance into Canada from the United States which is very close to Gros-Cacouana.
These means of communication will help to promote tourism considerably in this immense country so different from any other, the beautiful country of Maria Chapdelaine, the Chicoutimi area, where the natural beauty of the St. Lawrence and the Saguenay are blended, the picturesque lakes and still virgin lands of the North shore, the incomparable attractions of the St. Lawrence valley and of the Gaspe peninsula.
It is a sea bridge essential to the balanced development of these two regions economically complementary, one with agricultural surpluses, the other highly industrialized and with no agricultural calling.
If one is not shocked upon realizing that people living 15 miles apart must, during the

DEBATES	April 23, 1970
winter months, make a detour of 300 miles through Quebec city to meet one another, it is because one has lost all sense of responsibility, not to mention plain common sense.
Gros-Cacouna is a unique site, open all year round to navigation, with enough depth to accommodate the biggest ships in the world. We have seen that this was the unanimous desire of a wide area, of all its leaders, and that this project has been supported by top-ranking people in Canada and even outside the country, and that, according to the experts, heavy traffic is possible there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired, unless he has the consent of the House to continue.

Is it the pleasure of the House to give unanimous consent to the hon. member to carry on with his remarks?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Cinq minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Rosaire Gendron: Mr. Speaker, I thank the house for its indulgence, and I shall try not to take an unfair advantage.
If short-term returns are to be the sole criteria, then we must reluctantly give forever more to developed regions and give nothing at all to under-developed areas; it seems like a high price to pay for just keeping a whole area in its impoverished state.
All the great achievements in Canada, the transcontinental railways, the St. Lawrence Seaway, did not always seem justified at first blush, and so gave rise to much criticism; still, they were carried through because some had faith in the future of Canada, and the future proved them right.
As for us, we are quite willing to have that kind of faith which can move mountains but we would like to know that this responsibility is to be shared by those whose task it is to build up this country and to provide for its orderly development. They must understand the problems facing us: the problem of involving those who will be the first to profit by it; the problem bom from regional rivalries, or from the inability of the Establishment to realize the fantastic job opportunities involved in this program. We must however
April 23, 1970

be ready to pay the price for it instead of jeopardizing it through all sorts of manoeuvres.
The first project concerning the grain elevators cost the company about $1 million, out of which $375,000 went towards additional dredging, engineering and the hiring and travelling expenses of four contractors. On top of that, they started picketing the site until the company finally decided to drop the project following a struggle between unions. All the workers belonged to some union and had nothing else to gain except the possibility of choosing one union or the other.
Of course they need wharves, up to date equipment and public services which are the responsibility of the three government levels. That is why I solemnly urge everyone concerned to encourage them to help each other, so as to provide our many unemployed with jobs, for their plight is no longer acceptable in a highly industrialized country such as ours. There are many projects, but the time for consideration is now over. It is high time we should take some action and I will quote Churchill: "Give us the tools, we will finish the job".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer briefly to some of the basic principles behind the budget we have before us. I shall refer to the economic prospects ahead of us and shall direct the attention of the House, and I hope the minister, to one or two aspects of the budget which I believe to be of vital importance to every Canadian citizen. First of all, I should like to extend my congratulations to the minister for having brought in a balanced budget. For years, we have been asking that government expenditures might be held in line with the government's income. The tremendous increase in the governmental debt during recent years, combined with the tremendous increase in interest rates, has resulted in a very heavy tax load for the Canadian taxpayer which is neither productive nor service rendering.
Having said that, however, what disturbs me about the budget is that it gives the impression the government has cut back its expenditures, is holding down on pressures that are exerted upon it, and has thus balanced its budget when in reality the government has had, and still has, sources of income which have placed an additional tax
The Budget-Mr. Thompson burden on the Canadian people for purposes other than just general revenue. I am referring to the continuation of the surtax on income, which is projected forward for yet another year. This tax hits at those taxpayers least able to bear it, those earning low wages. They are burdened unduly by this particular tax. I also refer to the social development tax which was to have been related to the cost of medicare. This tax is being collected from Canadians in some provinces where medicare has not yet been established. One of the issues in the present Quebec election campaign relates to the collection of this tax. This income intended to defray half the costs of aspects of medicare in that province as well as in other provinces has gone into the general coffers of the government.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
It seems to me that collecting taxes on this basis, and for purposes which have not been implemented tends to alter the financial picture of this government. When the premier of Quebec talks about the federal government's responsibility to return $200 million to Quebec, he has some justification for his stand. The same remarks apply to the province of Ontario the residents of which paid their tax for a good part of the year before the province established its participation in medicare. The same applies to several other provinces. The government can boast about balancing its budget because, really, it has been able to literally hold up the taxpayers in certain areas of the country.


John Angus MacLean: It has indulged in larceny.


Robert Norman Thompson: Yes. That could even be described as larceny. Another omission of the budget and of the white paper on taxation is the necessity of co-ordinated taxing policies to cover all levels of governmental expenditure. Although the white paper was supposed to deal with tax reform, it does not even refer to this area. If the white paper had dealt with that aspect new policies would have been suggested rather than various new schemes intended just to increase the tax revenue. The white paper ought to have dealt with the over-all problem of taxation as it affects all our people and all levels of government. Unfortunately, neither this budget nor the white paper considers the over-all financial problems facing the provinces, the municipalities and cities at the present time. They are completely ignored. The government may not have realized this before, but it
April 23, 1970

The Budget-Mr. Thompson ought to realize it now as a result of the brief presented by the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities several days ago.
The municipalities, cities and provinces face a very serious situation. The white paper and the budget by merely adopting a stand pat attitude to these problems, I submit is stark evidence that the government is avoiding its responsibilities. The effects of all this are cumulative, because it can be proven that the general economic and financial situation of the country is really much worse than we have been led to believe. I wish to point out that no matter whether the money collected is to be spent by the municipalities, the provinces or the federal government, it all comes out of the same taxpayer's pocket. While I commended the government for balancing the budget, but I submit that it is tragic to see that budget being balanced under false pretences particularly when vital areas of governmental activity are completely ignored. These considerations certainly alter the overall financial picture the government seeks to present.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are in much greater difficulties than the minister's statements relating to the budget would have us believe. The government has deliberately spoken of a policy of cutting back, of holding the line with respect to expenditures. A great deal has been made about cutting back the civil service; yet, if one examines the estimates for the coming year it can be seen that instead of the civil service being decreased, there is to be a sizeable increase in its strength. The over-all picture certainly does not indicate any cut-back, and does not support the government's claims. Besides this, the increase in government expenditures has gone forward at a rate which is much greater than the rate of productivity in this country. How can the government expect the private sector, private businesses, industry and labour to hold down prices and wages as requested by the Prices and Incomes Commission when the government itself does not do what it requests of others.
Last year's increase in government expenditures over the figures relating to 1968 was 11 per cent. For this year the rate of increase has been decreased but the government will spend about 9.5 per cent more than last year; but this rate of increase is still considerably above the rate the government has asked labour and business to observe in suggested guidelines. If the government were really serious about coping with the problem of

inflation, which the Minister of Finance has said is the most important problem facing us and which the Prime Minister tells us almost every week is the basic problem he faces at the present time, it would limit its increase in expenditures to 5 per cent or less over those of last year rather than 9 per cent plus. I submit that the real culprit in inflation is not increased profits, is not increased wages or salaries, although certain wage increases have been much higher than our productivity would warrant, but is instead government expenditure.
While exhorting other sectors of the economy to keep expenditures down, the government has increased its spending at a rate nearly double that which is deemed desirable for other sectors. On top of that the white paper, which is supposed to be a statement of government policy related to tax reform, offers no encouragement. Government policies, as evident from the budget, show that nothing is being done to correct the inequities in our taxation system. I submit that adjustments must be brought about which will affect not only the revenues of the federal government but those of other levels of government as well.
For instance, it is clear that nothing has been done to alleviate the condition of the poor. In these days when the cost of living is increasing ever more rapidly, those at the low end of the income scale who are the hardest hit ought to have been helped first. But the budget does nothing for those people. Instead, it loads burdens on to the middle income people. They are already carrying a heavy tax burden. If the tax load on private business is to be increased as the white paper suggests, private business may not be able to survive. Even this year many private businesses have had to or will close their doors.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Not only is this true so far as the people on the middle level of the income scale are concerned, but it also destroys the incentives necessary to explore and develop our own resources, which are our great wealth and future potential. Consequently, instead of productivity growth increasing in order to make the pie bigger so that all have a bigger share, as a result of government expenditures following the old pattern, the pie is still being cut up in different ways in order to make it seem bigger while in reality it is not. This is where we stand now, with a very dismal
April 23, 1970
prospect for the fall and winter months, combined with serious unemployment which will inevitably become more difficult as the months pass.
Just the other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) again said that the government's basic problem is inflation. A healthy and viable economy is a prerequisite for any sound and equitable social order, or just society. The continued growth of general trade, of productivity, of good labour relations and of the general prosperity of the country are all dependent on the effective control of inflation. Thus, it is the government's foremost responsibility to deal with inflation not just by doctoring the symptoms, but by coming to grips with the causes of the symptoms. The government does not seem to have any answer for that.
We come back to the old cycle that has faced us for years. We seem to believe the cost of living can be controlled by cutting back spending, all the time forgetting that as spending is cut back production decreases and when production is decreased unemployment goes up. Then, as unemployment goes up earning power goes down and the over-all economy falters.
The problem is not one of production nor is it one of consumption. Today ours is a problem of distribution. The white paper on tax reform being directly related to this budget is based on the false assumption that inflation can be controlled by holding back expenditures. But all that is being done is forcing us into a situation which, with less earnings and less employment, is reminiscent of conditions in the thirties.
At this time, the unemployment statistics show more than 542,000 of our work force out of work. This is a greater unemployment figure than we had in 1939, 1938 and 1937, and is approximately equal to the unemployment figure in 1936. It is certainly much more than the unemployment figure in 1930 and 1931, when we considered the unemployment situation to be the worst we ever had. It can be said that our population has increased a great deal since then. That is true, but nevertheless the prospect of 7 per cent unemployment, and much higher than that in many areas of the country, leaves us facing a grim prospect for the fall and winter months. Again, I say that the real culprit has been governmental spending.
So far as the taxpayer is concerned, the tax load in Canada has increased from $6 billion to $26 billion over a period of 18 years. With
The Budget

Mr. Thompson $13.5 billion as the estimated expenditure for 1970, which is approximately equal to the combined expenditures of the provinces and municipalities, we find that the tax load has gone up nearly fivefold in the last 18 years, much greater than the rate of inflation so far as the cost of living is concerned and certainly much greater than the rise in the productivity of the economy.
Last year when we discussed the budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) disregarded certain figures as being unimportant. We do not have the figures for the fiscal year just ended, 1969, but we do know that with the current rate of government spending at one level or another takes more than 45 cents out of every dollar earned by Canadians. It is my contention that this trend cannot continue.
The net national income of the Canadian people as it relates to the gross national product is something much less because the gross national product does not have a direct relationship to the actual earnings of the Canadian people, whether in dividends, commissions, salaries or from the sale of produce. Thus, while the tax load is about 35 per cent of the GNP, it is much more when compared to the national income.
In his budget speech, the Minister of Finance said that the government intended to introduce certain controls on consumer spending as a method of bringing about a more effective control over inflation. If the minister really feels that consumer credit controls, of a type similar to those used in 1950 to 1952, are necessary, why has he delayed the implementation of them? Now, we hear reports to the effect that these controls may be introduced about July 1, but we are not sure.
If the government is of the opinion that inflation is our basic problem, why does it not do something about it through its fiscal and financial policies? To stand still is not good enough. Looking at the over-all picture affecting the taxpayer, and referring just briefly to the cities of western Canada, the cost-price squeeze which faces not only the farmer but businessmen up and down all the streets of our towns and cities, and in particular those on fixed incomes, those on pensions, we see that the government has a responsibility to introduce policies to correct the situation. If the situation is not corrected it will push us into a recession just as dangerous as any that we had in the 1930's. By ignoring the situation the government is ignoring its responsibility.

The Budget-Mr. Thompson
[DOT] (3:50 p.ra.)
There is just one more thought I would leave with the House. It relates to our development assistance program to the rest of the world. We would like to think that we have a foreign aid program which is a model that can be held up to other nations of the world. We would give the impression now that the new International Development Centre about to be established in Canada really is going to do something about our overseas responsibilities. But the unavoidable impression one receives from our present policies with regard to development assistance is that we are backing away from our responsibilities.
As the World Bank report, under the authorship of a former prime minister, Mr. Pearson, points out, unless we understand partnership in development as far as the world economy is concerned, we are in for trouble. If we do not share in that development program so urgently required today, markets are not going to be available for what we produce. Our share of the world wheat markets has dropped from 48 per cent or 49 per cent to something like 17 per cent or 18 per cent in the last five years. In the underdeveloped areas of the world that do not have the opportunity of forging ahead, we are going to have an even smaller market for export trade in all categories.
Though we are the third richest country in the world, last year we gave in aid only .49 per cent, less than one half per cent of our GNP, standing 16th out of 16 countries studied by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. This, Mr. Speaker, is not adequate. How can this situation be related to the fact that we are asking for controlled inflation and at the same time a more equitable tax structure as it relates to the taxpayer. The fact is unless we are able to assure our economy of a continuing export market for our products, we are going to find ourselves in a worse situation than ever before.
It comes down to one last point, and that is the absolute necessity for monetary reform at the international level. We have supported and still take a leading part in the committee of nations set up to study this problem. Herein lies the basic problem that restricts our trading patterns and makes it difficult for the developing countries of the world to face up to the challenge of a world economy. I think that the Minister of Finance in his budget or in his white paper statement should have referred to this very important fact. It is 
April 23/ 1970
time that the Canadian government took a lead in trying to bring about some over-all international monetary reform. To continue patching up the monetary system as we did preceding the last election campaign in 1968-the truth about that action is just now becoming public knowledge-is to bring reflection upon the growth and viability of our economy, especially as it relates to the development of our natural resources which are of vital concern to our future economy. Thus, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the government will do something better than was outlined in the budget or the white paper. The situation facing us cannot continue and it grows more serious day by day.


Mr. H. E. Stafford (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, April 5, 1970, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) was interviewed on the CBC program "Under Attack". During the program he was questioned by a concerned student regarding Canada's health manpower status, our reliance on foreign medical manpower to expand our health delivery personnel and our failure to build adequate medical educational facilities.
In reply to a question on educational facilities and their expansion, the minister stated the government policy was to put "a limit on the degree of expansion". His reasoning is difficult to accept in view of the facts at our disposal. He stated "I am one of those who have not really bought this story that we are that short of health personnel in this country.
I think our doctor-patient ratio is somewhere between one to 950 people. It is probably one of the highest in the world; in fact, it is one of the highest in the world".
It is unfortunate that the minister takes this myopic view of medical manpower, when there are hundreds of communities in this country without physicians and others are grossly undermanned. The problem is obviously of such a nature and such proportion that the Toronto Daily Star of Saturday, April 11, 1970 was moved to devote over two pages and a covering editorial to decry the short supply and need for increased physician coverage. The Daily Star quoted situation after situation in detailing the problems in many communities.
The minister, in his telecast, quoted Canada's physician-population ratio as one in 950, whereas it is actually somewhat lower, namely one in 750. In terms of physicians per
100.000	population it is 130 physicians per
100.000	population for easier comparison

April 23, 1970	COMMONS
with other countries. He stated this was one of the highest in the world. It is not. This ratio is a middle ratio range compared to other nations. Russia and Israel have the best ratios, each having over 250 physicians per 100,000 population compared to Canada's 130 physicians per 100,000 population. Both these countries have twice as many available physicians per capita as Canada.
Furthermore, the Russians have a highly developed program for assistant doctors, what they call a "Feldshers" program, which provides a primary level of health care in factories and outlying areas. They have thousands of people engaged as Feldshers, besides having twice the density of physicians as Canada. It is unreasonable for the minister to suggest that Canada is in the same medical manpower league at all. Moreover, the Russians feel the desirable physician per population ratio to deliver ideal health care is 360 physicians per 100,000 population and is aiming for this by 1985. This will give them three times the available doctors per capita as Canada.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Both Dutch and English authorities have estimated the desirable physician ratio as being about 200 physicians per 100,000 population. If we accept this figure, which is much less than the Russian figure, Canada is still far from adequately populated with physicians, having only 130 physicians per 100,000 population. The whole of eastern Europe had a disastrously depleted medical population at the end of World War II and a very poor comparative rating with respect to Canada's medical manpower. Now, the situation is completely altered because they have had the foresight to see that their health care delivery system is geared to the number of available physicians and they have wisely anticipated and supplied the necessary manpower. Even these eastern European nations, which we have considered to be less developed than us, have surpassed us in medical manpower. I refer to Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the U.S.S.R. as well as Italy and Greece. Even the similarly developed countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, West Germany and France, have far better ratios being 186, 147, 193 and 154 respectively per 100,000 population as compared to Canada's physician-population ratio of 130 per 100,000. There are countries with worse ratios such as India with 22 physicians per 100,000 population and Indonesia with 1.4 per 100,000. In view of these 1969 statistics
DEBATES	6213
The Budget-Mr. Stafford from the World Medical Association, can the minister really be "one of those who have not bought this story that we are short of health personnel in this country"?
During the same television interview another important question was raised. The minister volunteered that "more doctors than we graduate each year, immigrate to Canada". The student then asked if the health manpower in Canada was not being expanded at the expense of other developing countries. The minister admitted openly that it was, and stated this was "one of the areas where we have a brain drain in our favour". I would like to examine more closely this question which the student raised of "expanding, or maintaining, our health manpower at the expense of other developing countries".
According to the Health Manpower Inventory booklet produced by the Department of National Health and Welfare in 1969, the number of Canadian graduates from our own medical schools has increased very slightly from about 850 to 1,000 per annum over the past ten years, an increase of only 150 graduates per year. At the same time, the number of immigrant physicians, which was stable in the late 50's and early 60's at about 450 per annum, has dramatically risen, especially in the past five years, to around 1,400 new immigrant medical doctors at the present time. This represents an increase per annum of 1,000 immigrant physicians over the past ten years, while our own national output has marginally increased by 150 new medical graduates. Significantly, of these 1,400 immigrant physicians, approximately half are from developing countries. These statistics, which are taken from the Department of Health and Welfare, show unequivocally that we are the beneficiaries of the brain drain as it affects the poorer nations. Moreover, information from United Nations sources indicates Canada is one of the major international bandits of trained foreign personnel.
As well as this health and welfare document I have mentioned, I have here the most recently published and comprehensive study done by the United Nations on this very problem of the "brain drain". The title of this report of the Secretary General is "Outflow of Trained Personnel from Developing Countries". In this United Nations report, Canada's very large and increasing role as a benefactor of the brain drain is made all too clear. Furthermore, I have in front of me a copy of United Nations Resolution No. 2417, which resulted from the Secretary General's report
6214	COMMONS DEBATES	April 23, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Stafford and which was adopted by the 1745th plenary meeting at the United Nations on December 17, 1968. Canada agreed to the adoption of this resolution.
This UN resolution deals with "Outflow of trained professional and technical personnel at all levels from the developing to the developed countries; its causes, its consequences and practical remedies for the problems resulting from it". This resolution "notes with concern" the continuing and accelerating emigration from many developing countries to a certain few developed countries, among whom Canada and the U.S.A. are the major gainers, as is also the UK and perhaps France and Germany.
This resolution further suggests there is a "need to take appropriate interim action at both the national and international levels" and it specifically recommends "that developed countries should co-operate now in taking appropriate measures, with a view to reducing the adverse effects of the outflow of trained personnel from the developing countries". From the health and welfare statistics that I have already quoted on immigrant physicians coming to Canada and the large percentage of these who are from underdeveloped countries-approximately half of the 1,400 per year-it is obvious that we are contributing actively to the brain drain as it affects the poorer nations' medical manpower. In fact, the UN report states, and I emphasize:
In proportion to its population, Canada's intake of professionals appears to be among the largest in the world; the trend towards an increasing reliance on the skilled from developing countries is strong.
Not only is Canada the primary goal of many medical doctors from developing countries, it is also the halfway house or, as the Secretary-General's report states, "the intermediate country" in "a staged migration" to the U.S.A. from the developing nations. This fact bears up in reviewing the 450 physicians leaving Canada to immigrate to the U.S.A. in 1967-which is the last reported year-300 of these, or two-thirds, were landed immigrants to Canada and not Canadian born.
The Secretary General's report points out with approval, the United States exchange-visitor visa program which was set up by the United States government to ensure a return of training professionals to their countries of origin. These exchange visitors or "J-Visa" holders are allowed entry into the U.S.A. for a period of five years for specialized training, at the conclusion of which they are required to return to their country of origin. However, the UN report points out this program was

working extremely well up to 1967, with one exception, Canada. Canada's role in this aspect of the brain drain is also looked on with disfavour in the UN report. No Canadian policy has been initiated to complement or parallel the American exchange visitor program which the UN report has commended as being a desirable developed nation program to staunch the flow from developing countries.
That there will always be a certain amount of international exchange of trained personnel is obvious and very desirable, but that it should become a river of the best educated people from the developing countries to the already developed countries of the western world is most undesirable. This flow of trained people in an accelerating migration pattern over the past 20 years is not only due to conditions in the country of origin, but directly relates to the preference provisions now contained in the new Canadian immigration laws which came into force in October, 1967; to the new American laws which became operative in 1962 and 1965; as well as those of the UK in 1962 and 1967 and those of Australia in 1965. These new immigration laws have had the desirable effect on one hand of removing "racially restrictive legal barriers" and on the other hand have extended "an implicit invitation to the professionals of the developing world by certain developed countries".
That there is more than an implicit invitation to potential underdeveloped countries' trained professionals is underlined by the report's quotation of the Canadian white paper on immigration, October, 1966, which states "Other countries are in competition with us for trained immigrants". The American Secretary of State confirmed the aggressive American policy in connection with this international banditry for educated peoples, when he said in July, 1964 "We are in the international market for brains".
[DOT] (4; 10 p.m.)
May I take this opportunity to quote a few of the examples cited by the UN report as they affected only the medical manpower situation.
1.	A World Health Organization Study shows 100 Cameroonian physicians practising in France, while only 47 were left in practice in the African state of Cameroons.
2.	Three thousand Turkish doctors were working abroad in 1969 for whom the cost of
April 23, 1970	COMMONS
education of each physician was $100,000 as estimated by Dr. Payzin, Dean of Medical School, Ankara, Turkey.
3.	Ten per cent of India's physicians have left for the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada mainly, while over half the government clinics in the Punjab are vacant, the physician-population ratio in the rural areas of India are as high as one in 25,000 in some areas, which is one of the world's worst ratios of physicians to population. I would hate to think what the medical services in my home town of St. Thomas would be with only one physician for the whole population of 25,000. This is exactly the situation in rural India today.
4.	Fifty-one per cent of Bolivia's physician output in 1965 applied to immigrate to the United States.
5.	The Dominican Republic is losing half of its medical graduates to emigration every year.
6.	From the Philippines 1,158 physicians emigrated to the United States and this number represented 5.3 per cent of their national medical manpower and half of these went to the United States in 1967.
7.	The United Nations report estimates that the total value in terms of cost of education alone for the professional people immigrating to the United States in the 20 years after the second world war was in excess of four billion U.S. dollars. This figure does not include anything of the estimated productivity of these trained personnel in a normal expected working span of 25 years. This value of productivity must be added to the benefit of the developed country, in excess of their zero expenditure for the education of these people.
I have cited but a few examples to illustrate the overall brainpower drain from developing countries. I have further cited statistics from our own Department of National Health and Welfare to indicate the extent to which we are dependent on a continuing inflow of trained personnel from these poorer countries to meet our annual requirement of physicians.
In the final recommendations of the Secretary General's report the following statement is made:
Developed nations which at the present time rely on developing nations for numbers of their trained personnel should expand their training facilities and improve their internal career ladders so as to avoid heavy reliance on the human resources of developing nations. This would apply, in particular, to the medical field.
DEBATES	6215
The Budget-Mr. Stafford
Given this specific recommendation in the Secretary General's report and realizing as we must the magnitude and inequity of this brain drain problem and bearing in mind the report's numerous references to Canada's very pregnant part in the problem, what is the national policy? I believe we see the policy taken by our government in the medical manpower field illustrated in a report prepared by the Department of National Health and Welfare. In this special report and study of the Projected Supply of Active Civilian Physicians in Canada from 1968 to 1981, we find it stated in the preamble that foreign medical graduates "now provide the majority of new physicians in Canada". Furthermore, this study draws attention to the degree of dependency which Canada at large, and each province in particular, places on the foreign medical graduate.
The study shows that unless an average excess of 588 new physicians enters this country every year during the next ten years, that is to say, in excess of our own Canadian graduates, we will not be able to maintain our present physician-population ratio of one in 740. Furthermore, by 1981, with no immigration of physicians into this country and the marginal increase in medical school graduates each year-and this increase barely keeps pace with expected population increases-the physician-population ratio will worsen to the extent of one physician per 933 population.
Because of the heavy inflow of immigrant physicians we have failed to make educational adjustments to match our medical manpower output with job demand in Canada. Thus we have exclude thousands of our own promising, deserving and qualified students from entering our medical schools because of lack of space. Statistics compiled by the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges indicate a snowballing increase in the number of applicants to Canadian medical schools in the past few years. The number of acceptable applicants now exceeds the number of available position by some 200 students. As well, the group of students labelled as marginally acceptable in the last reported year numbers 288. Together, there is a reservoir of almost 500 of our own Canadian sons and daughters who are being denied admission to medical school. To have to deny our own students access to the medical profession with its attendant social prestige, respect, satisfaction and financial security is a most unpalatable situation.
6216	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Stafford
Our own nationals are being denied the right to an education in their chosen profession of medicine, for which there is an ever-increasing need, merely because the government directly or indirectly has become reliant upon foreign personnel to fill our medical manpower needs and has not increased and is not planning to increase our medical school output except to a small, marginal extent. We are directly and covertly contravening the spirit and the word of the UN report as it pertains to the brain drain of manpower, and the backlash effect in our own country is that our young college graduates are being, and will continue to be, denied a professional education in the field of medicine.
There is another aspect to this question of the medical brain drain which has not received adequate attention. This was brought to the attention of the World Medical Association by an American physician who pointed out that it is utterly inconceivable that the poor nations will continue to subsidize medically the richest nations, and that it is only a matter of time before strong efforts will be made to dam these rivers of technical skill flowing toward the developed western world. India, Turkey and Iran have already taken some positive steps in this direction and other countries will undoubtedly follow suit, as indeed they should. Because we have now become dependent on a continuing outside supply of physicians, the medical manpower shortage in Canada will assume potentially disastrous proportions should this source of medical manpower be withdrawn. The shortcomings of our medical education program will become painfully apparent.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I can only say it is indeed unfortunate that we have become so dependent on foreign medical graduates to meet our annual manpower need in medicine and that this gain of ours is made at the very serious expense of the developing nations who have limited medical manpower to begin with. I have drawn attention to the United Nations report, its comments and recommendations with respect to this problem. I must also add that this dependency on foreign medical graduates has denied many of our own students their right to an education in medicine because we have not increased our medical school facilities so that we can be at least self-sufficient.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Finally, I have drawn attention to the potentially disastrous position in which we

DEBATES	April 23, 1970
may find ourselves if the present supply of foreign medical graduates is no longer available. I feel this whole area of medical manpower should be reconsidered by the minister and his provincial counterparts in light of the recommendations contained in the United Nations report No. 2417 and also because of the deleterious effect that our reliance on foreign medical graduates has had on our own medical school aspirants.
It is a matter of concern to me that the university in my area, namely the University of Western Ontario, is able to accept 85 applicants only this year out of the 700 applications which were received. It is a matter of equal concern that approximately 60 per cent of new physicians entering the Canadian medical scene last year were foreign medical graduates, and that this 60 per cent is the means by which the government has planned to fill our medical manpower needs rather than educating our own citizens.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Stafford) for his timely comments on a very important and current problem facing the nation in connection with staffing our medical and professional services. The other night I watched a United States program that pinpointed the fact the United States was having the same problem with regard to the scarcity of medical assistants. In Canada, we realize that if it were not for the brain drain from some of the underdeveloped countries we would have no medical help at all.
I should like to say a few words primarily about the budget, which to me is a very mediocre document. I have been here for a number of years, and usually on budget night the galleries of the House are filled and the business and economic community wait for the budget with bated breath. But the budget of 1970 caused hardly a ripple, and this at a time when there was a necessity for some government action to be taken to deal with conditions in our country which have brought about the highest taxes we have ever had, the highest interest rates, the highest unemployment level for many years, the highest wheat surplus in western Canada and the highest cost of living.
During the last election campaign we were often told that the government program was one of "no promises". This has now changed to "no action". The only redeeming factor in the budget, I feel, was the one referred to by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thomp-
April 23. 1970

son), who mentioned that the government was able to balance the budget this year. Indeed, the government was budgeting for a surplus, the first surplus in 13 years. I remember the last budget surplus. In those days, we indicated that the government seemed to think that by creating a surplus they were taking money away from the people of Canada because they did not know how to look after it themselves. One of the sops used at that time was the $6 addition to the old age security pension. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is now being given a $30 tag.
For this budget to be effective, some action should have been taken to reduce taxation. After all, taxation is an integral part of our economic structure. As the hon. member for Red Deer mentioned, the 2 per cent surcharge should have been removed. This would have increased the take-home pay of those people who are living so close to the poverty line these days. If they had an increase in their take-home pay the government would make them a little happier, but this does not seem to be in the government's program.
The budget also gave no consideration at this time to tariff adjustments. This is an area where some assistance could have been given to secondary manufacturing industry. Lots of problems are being created in the nation by low cost goods that are imported from countries with a lower cost of living and lower labour costs than Canada. If tariffs and quotas had been adjusted I suggest assistance would have been provided, economically and financially, to secondary industry. Some ministers have said that it is very important to provide cheap merchandise for consumers by importing cheap manufactured goods from other countries. How can the Canadian people buy any of this merchandise if they cannot get jobs?
The main part of my remarks this afternoon is going to deal with a problem that I think is important to all members of the House, one that was pinpointed in a press release issued on November 5. Outside of a few references to it in the newpapers, I do not think too many people in the House or across the nation paid much attention. The release has to do with applications made by the Canadian National Railways to withdraw from passenger service in 31 areas, and by Canadian Pacific Railway to withdraw from passenger service all across the nation. I sincerely hope other members of the House will take note of this action by the railways. It 2221 a-47
The Budget-Mr. Howe was brought very noticeably to my attention during the Easter recess when a hearing was held in Owen Sound.
However, before I go into the matter I should like to make reference to a piece of legislation that went into force in 1967. I believe it is the umbrella under which the railroads are applying to abandon passenger service in so many areas of Canada. I heard one member of the House refer to the law being an ass, and that somebody should get on it and ride that donkey out of this House. Looking at this particular piece of legislation, and realizing that I was both a member of the committee and of the House when the legislation was passed, I must admit that I must have been a little derelict in my duty not to have looked a little closer at the bill, because it is a bad piece of legislation.
Why, Mr. Speaker, do I say it is bad? I should like to read one paragraph from the MacPlierson Commission report on which this legislation was modelled. Again, I admit that the party of which I was a member initiated the MacPherson report, but I think that this first report should have been put up on one of those dusty shelves where a lot of reports end up.
I should like to quote from page 43 of the report, the following paragraph:
One of these effects, perhaps the most important one, is the railways' continuing need of revenues to cover deficits incurred because of the apparent inability of railway management to slough off the historical, traditional and institutional obligation to provide passenger services.
The thing that provokes me the most about this report is that it refers to the railroads of Canada doing away with the historical, traditional and contractual obligations to provide passenger services. Believe you me, Mr. Speaker, if they are allowed to do that I think it would be a very retrograde step in the history of this nation.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
One of the first hearings that was held in connection with the applications made by the railways was in the County Courthouse at Owen Sound, Ontario, commencing on Tuesday, March 31, 1970, at 9.30 in the morning. That particular hearing lasted three days. This is an indication of the amount of interest there was in this hearing. Representations from municipal councils, county wardens, chambers of commerce and old age pensioners were heard. Of particular interest to me was the fact that the provinces of Alberta,

is favourable to them. I say that in a situation such as this which has nation-wide ramifications a lot more consideration should be given to it.
The MacPherson report mentioned the historic and traditional obligation in respect of the provision of passenger services in certain areas. As reported in the Palmerston Observer, a local councillor stated that the Canadian National Railways owes $100 million worth of services to the people in that area. The background to this statement is that in 1879, when this railroad was put into these areas, the people in the different communities provided a total of $400,000 to assist the railways in building through the area. In addition, the railway received assistance in the form of property grants and taxation reduction. This situation continued for years. They had the benefit of this money over a long period. When one thinks of the value of $400,000 away back in 1879, it would seem that this councillor was quite right when he computed that over a period of 90 years at 6 per cent the amount of money involved would be $100 million. So, as I say, I believe there is a traditional obligation. The people in many areas of Canada are concerned about these railway lines.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker; sometimes they say, "Why worry about the passenger service? Who uses it anyway?" But I say that in a great many areas the passenger service has been downgraded to the extent that nobody wants to use it. Certainly, a few years ago the Canadian Pacific Railway introduced its dome cars and made a great noise about its service across Canada. It attracted passengers to its service. The Canadian National, by introducing its red, white and blue fares, did a tremendous amount to attract passengers, and it gave service. I think that the traditional attitude of the railways can best be summed up if I read an article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of November 12, just three days after the original notice I hold in my hand, which came out on November 9. The Ottawa Citizen article is entitled, "Rail Service? The Best Way is To Go By Bus." I quote from the article as follows:
So the CPR and CNR would like to cut their pasenger service.
Have they not been doing that for the past 10 years?
Take the Ottawa-Montreal local trains. CN used to run a Friday evening train at 5 p.m. to Montreal; also Sunday evening from Montreal, arriving in Ottawa at 9.30.
The Budget-Mr. Howe
Great service-trains crowded, standing room only.
CN policy-move the train time to 4 p.m. Friday, workers cannot make it.
Sunday evening have train arrive in Ottawa at 11.30 p.m. Bus service poor after 12 midnight, so more and more turn to car pools. Score for CNR.
This was only the beginning. Since then local service between these two points has deteriorated so much as to be almost nil. Score again for the CNR.
So, Mr. Speaker, when the railways say they are losing more and more money year after year, whose fault is it? It is not the fault of the Canadian people, but the fault of the railways themselves.
One question I asked of both representatives there was how much research the railways had done in connection with a passenger train service that would be suitable on branch lines in areas such as I live, western Ontario, where a great proliferation of branch lines remain unused most of the time. I asked whether they had looked into the possibility of providing buses to operate on the rails, and trucks which would run on rails. Thus trucks would be taken off our highways, and highway traffic would be reduced. The buses would reduce the number of passenger cars going into our urban areas, and the result would be a reduction in pollution.
The Canadian National representative said, "Oh well, we tried that a few years ago; we had some operation like that in Quebec but it didn't amount to much." So, when I came back to Ottawa I thought I would get in touch with some of the people who are interested in building buses. I called the appropriate General Motors division in London and learned they had been doing considerable research in this field. In fact, they had come up with a unit that could travel both on the road and rails. They called it a Hy-Rail bus, or heavy duty, high-rail equipment. This system is being studied in the United States, and to prove my point I have in my possession many editorials and discussions on the subject. For instance, the Wall Street Journal of Monday, October 2, 1967 carries this headline, "Hy-Rail Buses Studied by Philadelphia Concern". The St. Paul Dispatch of Wednesday, December 6, 1967 carries this headline, "Rail-Bus Test Successful Here". Another headline says, "New Dade Bus Whistles, Clicks and Beeps". Still another says, "Rapid Transit For Us?"
There is a whole series of headlines proclaiming this type of bus, and yet Canadian National officials, when asked if there had

April 23, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Howe been any research in this country said, "Oh, we did a little bit a few years ago in Quebec, and it didn't amount to anything". I submit the editorial in the Ottawa Citizen of November 12 laid the case on the line. The "Canadian Railwayman" has this caption under a picture, "Riding on Air: Train of the Future?" Underneath appeared these words, "Will this be a rail car of the future?" This train will use the air cushion principle and will be a high speed link between major cities. Yet we have done no research into the possibilities of using vehicles like these on the branch lines of this nation. We could take some of the trucks off our highways and we could use rail buses to carry people from one place to another, thereby reducing the number of people on the highway, reducing pollution and reducing accident rates.
During the hearing of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications this past week, one of the bits of information that came to us was that one 47-passenger bus, if filled, will take 22 cars off our highways. This is interesting information, especially as municipal and provincial governments are trying to find ways of moving people from one place to another as economically as possible. Yet here we have an organization coming under federal jurisdiction which is considering reducing rail passenger service, a service which will carry bulk loads of people from one place to another, and is in fact considering a complete abandonment of such service.
May I say something about cost? It is rather interesting to note that the counties of the area from which I come contain roughly 344,254 people, so if the loss attributed to the area was $480,000, that would only amount to about $1.39 per capita. But when we look at the Canadian National report for 1968 we find that freight and express services brought the railway a revenue of pretty nearly $800 million. Considering that there were about 21 million people in Canada in 1968, this means that every individual in Canada contributed in one way or another almost $40 to the profits of Canadian National. At the same time, if you consider that the Canadian National Railways deficit in 1968 was $29 million, again, on the basis of there being 21 million people in Canada, we can see that this deficit cost the individual in this country only about $1.39. Of course, we realize that if Canadian National did not have to pay about $70 million in interest on bonds we have been carrying since Canadian National was instituted, the railway would have shown a surplus. In the very same year, Canadian Pacific Railway

had a $42 million surplus. So, I cannot understand all this big cry for reducing passenger service. I hope these figures will be taken into consideration before any definite action is taken.
In the recent statement by the minister on the changes to be made in the role and structure of the federal transport portfolio there is a paragraph on page 5 which I wish to quote. It reads:
Canadian National Railways, Air Canada and Northern Transportation Company Limited, being outside the Public Service, will continue to exercise freedom in their personnel policies, but policy issues or public interest matters will require continuing close consultation with the Minister in the light of the government's general policies.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Administrations and authorities, largely made up of public servants, will be exposed to the normal forces of the commercial environment and will need a capability to be responsive and adaptive to changing conditions. A high degree of authority will therefore be delegated to the heads of administrations and authorities allowing them to make managerial decisions on many day to day matters but-
And this is the important thing, Mr. Speaker.
-subject to ministerial direction on all policy issues.
So, Mr. Speaker, I feel that since this issue is vital to all of Canada, and in view of the number of hearings that have yet to take place, this particular piece of legislation that permits the reduction of rail passenger service in this nation should be amended. I feel that the minister himself must take a second look at this particular operation to ensure that railway management will not be allowed to slough off its historical, traditional and contractual obligations to provide passenger service for the nation.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, the concern which has just been expressed by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey (Mr. Howe) about cancellation of rail passenger service is an issue that finds a great deal of sympathy in my part of the Province of Ontario, a vast region which still relies heavily on this vital link. So, I congratulate the hon. member for expressing these concerns and upon the degree of research that went into his speech.
In my contribution to this budget debate, I wish to present a few thoughts on the large and important topic of environmental control. In his budget speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) referred to certain government
April 23, 1970

policies designed to prevent or reduce the pollution of Canadian waters and air. There is a new brand of politics taking shape within our nation, and it is also evident outside our country as well. This new brand of politics has sometimes been described as the politics of ecology, and it is being given urgency by a growing public alarm over all varieties of pollution and environmental spoilage.
War protest is yielding to demonstrations against the rape of the environment. Many young people are turning away from political and economic theorists and instead are flocking to ecologists. The message is ecocide-the environment being murdered by mankind. Yesterday was designated as "E" day, "Earth Day"-history's first mass observance of the world's environmental problems. The attention and energy of millions of North Americans were focussed on fear for the well being of our planet.
One of the most significant features of the past decade in this country has been the increasing public debate about the management and use of Canada's water resources. The awakening of public concern about water problems in Canada is partly due to the increasing number and complexity of conflicts in water use. As population has grown, as industry has expanded, and as urbanization has proceeded, competition for the use of particular water supplies has intensified and has sometimes resulted in severe conflicts of interest among water users. A well known example concerns the water resources in the United States. There, Stuart Udall has pointed out that there is really no shortage of water; the problem is one of improper use, creating an apparent shortage.
Another reason for public concern about water is rooted in the increasing demand for a higher quality environment. Canadians are no longer satisfied with merely increasing their incomes; they also wish to improve the environment in which they live, work, and enjoy recreation. Increasing affluence has led to an increase in leisure time, and this in turn has given rise to growing demands for outdoor recreation. More and more pressure is being placed on governments to deal with pollution problems and to increase opportunities for outdoor recreation.
Donald Water field, in a recent book entitled "Continental Water Boy: The Columbia River Controversy", makes an articulate plea for balanced development of the entire culture of a river basin. This point of view will appeal to the growing number of ecologists who are
The Budget-Mr. Penner warning an increasingly worried world that its very survival may depend on just such an approach. Ecological awareness on such a wide scale is a very recent development. Ten years ago the most effective criticism of such a treaty as, for example, the Columbia River Treaty was based mainly on economic and political aspects, such as the value of power and water and who would control these resources. The intangible effects on wildlife, recreation, ecology and the people directly affected were largely ignored. In today's climate, such an approach is unacceptable. Now, power authorities must go to unprecedented expense to develop integrated plans for a whole area, rather than just build a dam.
The social and ecological impact of water developments are almost impossible to predict with available current knowledge. A great deal of intensive research is required, and Canada is giving considerable leadership in this regard. Concern for the preservation of social values and natural ecological conditions has resulted in the cancellation of several major reservoir programs in the United States. Naturalists and farmers with a love for some particular valley are understandably concerned with the effects of a reservoir on vegetation, wildlife, the way of life of local residents, and the aesthetic values of their valley. The people of northwestern Ontario, surrounded by an abundance of fresh water, share these concerns, and hence we ask hard questions when engineers and hydrologists do their studies in our region. We want the assurance that other studies, sociological and ecological, are also being undertaken. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) recently gave the assurance in this House that the current Northern Ontario Water Survey would be expanded to include these vital considerations.
The growing public concern about cleaning up the "human nest" is to be welcomed and encouraged. What is most needed today are new realizations about man's place in the universe, a new sense of life, a new pride in the importance of being human, and a new determination to keep this planet from becoming uninhabitable. It has been said that man, for all his brilliance, has thrown himself all the way back to his primitive condition in which his dominant problem on earth was coping with his environment. The difference between the situation today and his tribal beginnings is that the environmental threats today are of his own making. "We have met the enemy
April 23, 1970


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate at a time when our country is faced with such a high rate of unemployment, the highest taxes in our history, I am sure it would be of small consolation to the thousands of unemployed for me to point out that the first indication that such a high rate of unemployment may have been in the offing was and has been strenuously objected to by the official opposition. I am referring, of course, to a period when the then minister of finance and the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) said that this government was prepared to put some slack into the economy to fight inflation.
This practice appears to have become a way of life with this government, Mr. Speaker. At the present time they are even telling the farmers not to grow wheat. I can assure them that this policy, coupled with the reduction in wheat sales, has certainly brought the western economy to a standstill. I am sure all
April 23, 1970	COMMONS
of us are wondering if the government is still looking for a little more slack to put into the farm economy.
Another aspect of the economic picture of Canada is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) endeavouring to convince Canadians that there is no increase in the rate of tax projected for the next fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, this is utter nonsense in the light of the fact that for the next fiscal year he has forecast an unpredictable increase in the cost of living. With the inflation we are experiencing incomes will increase, so it means that many Canadians will not only be paying higher taxes but will be paying a higher rate of tax, having gotten into a high tax bracket, notwithstanding the fact that in real terms their incomes may even have declined. I do not intend to speak about the tax proposals in the government's white paper except to say "amen" if these proposals are ever implemented as presently outlined. In relation to putting slack into the economy by means of cutbacks, the inconsistency of the government's proposals is quite evident for anyone to see.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The government is talking of austerity programs across the nation. Business, labour and industry are being asked to hold the line, yet we see in the government's own little preserve an unlimited increase in expenditures. There are many things at which we can look. I have made many criticisms in this respect. I am sure that Canadians are wondering just how long this type of policy can continue. How long are Canadians going to be prepared to co-operate in holding the line when the government is spending in such a manner?
There is the matter of the expenses of the regional desks across the country. I do not have these figures on hand, but I am sure if they were examined it would be seen that a great deal of the taxpayers' money is being spent on these regional desks. We have yet to find out what value they have. In the opinion of most members of the opposition, Information Canada, which was set up recently by the government, is nothing but a propaganda institution. It will involve considerable expenditure.
With regard to ministerial staff assistants, one need only look at the increases which have occurred in the staffs of most of the ministers to realize the tremendous expenditure involved as far as this new policy of the government is concerned. Getting closer to
DEBATES	6223
The Budget-Mr. Simpson home as far as the government is concerned, there is the outlandish increase in the staff of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). This has been mentioned in the House before. Many questions have been asked, and some have been answered. Just recently Canadians learned that the staff of the Prime Minister consists of 75 members with a total salary in the neighbourhood of $821,000 a year.
All session the opposition have been questioning the increasing size and cost of the establishment. From time to time different opposition members have asked for precise figures. Because the Prime Minister specifically exempted his staff from the cutbacks imposed on other sections of the government by the austerity program, the figures each time have differed, routinely increasing. In 1960 the cost of the staff of former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker was approximately $50,000. The cost was the same when he assumed this office in 1957. One of the first things he did was to ask for the staff establishment of former Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent. The cost of Mr. St. Laurent's staff was $50,000. The cost of Mr. Pearson's staff ran in the neighbourhood of $75,000 until near the end of his regime when there were some sharp increases. However, this is a far cry from the $821,000 annually which is now being spent by the Prime Minister to staff his office.
I wonder how long Canadians will be prepared to accept the request of the government to keep expenditures under control in an endeavour to fight inflation? I have mentioned just a few places where I feel the government is unnecessarily spending money, while at the same time asking Canadians in general to hold the line. This type of money is available. Apparently there is some good news in the announcements being made with regard to incentive grants and special area grants. I wish to make a few suggestions to the government as to where some very much needed expenditures could be made, expenditures which I am sure would greatly assist the economy in some of the underdeveloped areas.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that many communities in northern Alberta, in northern parts of other provinces and in the Northwest Territories, are currently submitting briefs to the government through the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development in relation to plans for opening up that part of the country. The town of Fort Smith has submitted a brief bringing to the attention of the committee the desirability of
The Budget-Mr. Simpson developing and constructing roads into many areas in the northern part of Alberta and the Northwest Territories. This particular brief points out that within 20 years the town of Fort McMurray will be a city of some 30,000 people or more and that it will be the logical service centre of the eastern Arctic. The report mentions that this town is approximately 850 miles from Baker Lake, an inland harbour on Hudson Bay, and 750 miles from Bathurst Inlet a reportedly excellent harbour on the Arctic Ocean. They put forth a very strong case. I congratulate them on their efforts and wish them the best of success. However, these facts immediately suggest to me the necessity for the provision of transportation facilities, either by highway or railway or both. Huge sums of money would be required to provide what is felt to be a very desirable outlet to the sea. One cannot deny the desirability and necessity of such measures.
I wish to point out that neither of the two proposed harbours have been developed and that development would entail huge expenditures. I suggest to the government and this House that Canada already has a northern outlet to the sea from Western Canada in a developed port at Churchill where many millions of dollars have already been spent on providing wharfage, loading and unloading equipment and a Canadian National Railways connection. These moneys were spent over a period extending from 1929 to seven years ago. The port of Churchill is the logical gateway to the Arctic.
Although the port of Churchill is serviced by a railway, it has as yet no highway linking it with the rest of North America. A highway is of vital importance to the future development of port facilities which are presently available. When I speak of a highway to Churchill, I am not speaking in terms of 750 or 800 miles, but something in the neighbourhood of 250 miles. I, therefore, appeal to the government that before any extensive planning is done with respect to opening other harbour facilities immediate action be taken to further develop and utilize the facilities at Churchill which have proven to provide savings to those who have used them.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The extension of the highway from Thompson, Manitoba to Churchill, would not only pay for itself in a few years but it would open up a unique tourist attraction in North America. Canadians, particularly residents of [Mr. Simpson.!
April 23, 1970
Manitoba, are worried because residents of Churchill are so frustrated at this time that they are requesting the relocation of the provincial boundaries so as to allow their area to be included in the Northwest Territories. As I have said to the townspeople on many occasions, it would be in very bad taste for me, as one who is not a resident of Churchill, to suggest what they should do in this respect. But it is very easy for me to understand then-frustration, as it would be easy for anyone who is familiar with the situation there to do so. It is easy to understand that they should be inclined to take measures of this nature and withdraw from Manitoba. As a Manitoban, I would regret this move very much and I hope that steps can be taken in the near future through co-operation with the federal and provincial governments to make a greater use of this port. Highway construction would enable this to take place.
I have criticized the government strongly for not including Churchill as a special area under the new legislation. Everyone who visits this location realizes that if there is an area in Canada which deserves consideration under this new program it is the townsite of Churchill. Among the things which have been asked for in recent years are the following: increased wheat exports from the port; a longer shipping season; increased port development; an extension of the period covered by marine and cargo insurance; increased icebreaker assistance and additional grain galleries. All these things have been requested many times by representatives of the area and by interested groups in Saskatchewan and Alberta, as well as by officials and executives of the Hudson Bay Route Association. Most of the items I have mentioned are definitely a federal responsibility. Although the townsite is within the province of Manitoba, federal responsibility for its development has been recognized in the past as being in the neighbourhood of 75 per cent. In the last seven or eight years, however, very little, if anything, has been done. I should like to commend the government, however, on the measure which was undertaken last year to provide money for a partial sewer and water system for the townsite.
Several years ago, during an election campaign the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) was reported as saying on many occasions in Churchill that this was only a beginning, and that there would be much greater development in Churchill. Nothing has happened since then and there is no indi-

April 23, 1970	COMMONS
cation that anything is likely to happen. I
have consistently asked the Minister of Public Works whether he had any news with regard to further developments. The answer he gave was either "no comment" or the statement that it would depend entirely on the amount of co-operation the federal government received from the government of Manitoba. It is no wonder that the people of Churchill are asking to be included in the Northwest Territories.
I believe that a key factor in achieving larger wheat exports from Churchill would be for the Wheat Board to advertise that more grain was available out of that port. The Board has always argued that exports out of Churchill have remained steady for many years because the wheat moved from the port was mainly intended for the European market, and for the British market, and that the shipping season coincided with a period in which some of those countries were in the middle of their own harvest. For these reasons, they argued, sales were of necessity limited to some 23 million bushels. It is strange, however, that each year the Board should advertise that there are some 23 million bushels of wheat to be exported from Churchill and that each year this amount is snapped up quickly by interested purchasers. I challenge the Wheat Board to advertise during the balance of this year and early next year that 30 million bushels will be available out of Churchill. If they make this well known to the grain trade I am sure the amount exported from Churchill can be increased to that figure.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I realize we are in a period of inflation and I may be asked why I would suggest that money be spent at such a time in any part of Canada. Nevertheless, I should like to draw attention to some of the mistakes which have been made in relation to the program which the government is presently operating. One of these is the special areas program. I am not criticizing this program, though the time is long overdue when the government should have initiated a program of this nature. However, when the minister announced the program on March 11, I believe it was, he mentioned the areas in Canada that would be included within the program. As far as Manitoba was concerned, he said the program related to an area around The Pas. I can assure the House that the residents of that area are gratified to know that some $2.2
DEBATES	6225
The Budget-Mr. Simpson million is going to be spent at The Pas. Of this $2.2 million, I understand some $1.7 million is in the form of grants and $505,000 is in the form of loans.
Most of the money is going to be spent in the centre of The Pas itself. However, I am glad to see that $500,000 will be spent in the area of The Pas reserve. I do not know, and I have been unable to find out, who determines where money is to be spent under this special areas program.


Mr. Bell:: That is a good question.


Robert Simpson: I asked the minister the question on several occasions. The first answers I got were that the government cannot determine this until the agreements have been signed by the provinces. The minister kept announcing different aspects of the program, and when I asked him which provinces had signed agreements he continued to say that no agreements had been signed as yet. I now understand that agreements have been approved. Whether or not the province of Manitoba has signed, I am not sure. But I have yet to find out who decides just where this money is going to be spent. I understand that The Pas town council, and I suppose many of the residents, are quite satisfied with the way the money has been distributed among the different projects within The Pas and the Indian reserve.
However, there are three other settlements adjacent to The Pas which apparently are being left out in the cold. These are Metis settlements. Not too long ago the government of Canada announced that it was going to embark upon a program of Metis housing in co-operation with the various provinces, again something that has been long overdue and which I congratulate the government for starting. If there is any group of people in Canada that is in dire need of housing, it is many of the Metis people who are living in small settlements.
We see at The Pas, the only area in Manitoba that has been considered under the special areas program, a situation where the town and the Indian reserve will receive grants, but three Metis settlements, the furthest one being only four miles out of town, are left out in the cold. These three settlements are Young's Point, Umpherville and Big Eddy. The odd thing is that at Young's Point five houses out of a total of 50 houses built for the Metis people in Manitoba were constructed last year to fill a long overdue need, but no sewer and water facilities have
The Budget-Mr. Simpson been provided. Yet four miles away we have $2 million being spent under the federal government special projects program. It is hoped that additional houses will be built next year, though these too will not be serviced by sewers and water.
I think this situation is ridiculous. Five houses were built at the Metis settlement of Big Eddy, and again there will be no sewers or water. When representatives of these people met with the town authorities at The Pas, with the Premier of the province and others, they came away from the meeting with the answer that no provision was made for them in the special area grants. I think this sort of thing is false economy. The federal government is giving this money to the provinces. If the provinces are deciding how the money shall be spent, then I think the federal government should take a second look to make sure that their contribution is being spent economically and wisely.
This may not seem important to the House, but these three small Metis communities adjacent to The Pas are faced with a situation whereby they will have to go to the province next year and in future years to request that they be considered for the new program of Metis housing. They may be provided with a few houses in due course, but I feel money should now be made available for them under the special areas program. When new houses are built sewers and water should be supplied to enable these people to enjoy the amenities of life along with other Canadians. It is bad enough having people living in slum conditions in these areas, without having new houses built at a slow pace with no sewer and water facilities.
I have other criticisms of this special areas program, but before I refer to them I should like to congratulate the provinces of Newfoundland and New Brunswick on the agreements that have been signed with the federal government in relation to this particular project. I have mentioned that only one area of Manitoba benefits to the tune of $2.2 million. The latest information, released today, is that an agreement has been signed between the federal government and the government of New Brunswick under the special areas program covering the amount of $62 million. Again wonder whether this is further evidence of the neglect of western Canada.
I notice that the federal funds committed for the present fiscal year to March 31, 1971, comprise $22.7 million in grants and $9.8 million in loans, and the remainder of the $62 
April 23. 1970
million covering work to be completed by June, 1972, consists of a ceiling for additional federal payments of $18.1 million in grants and $11.5 million in loans. The agreement covers projects in the special areas of Saint John and Moncton, together with highway construction in a number of other areas of the province.
I am sure that the people of New Brunswick will be very happy with this expenditure. As far as the $2.2 million to be spent in Manitoba is concerned, there is no stipulation to my knowledge that any of it will be spent on highway construction, which the federal government has always told me was the responsibility of the provincial government.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
As I have said, for many years we have been pressing for a road to Churchill. This is a very desirable project. This could be an extension of the road from Thompson, Manitoba. I mentioned this matter during the past two sessions of Parliament. Every time I approached the federal authorities on this subject I was told that provincial roads are the responsibility of the particular province. As members know, at one time we had a very desirable program called the roads to resources program. Under this program the federal government co-operated with the provinces and provided financing in respect of roads that were necessary for the development of an area. The predecessor of this government, however, saw fit to discontinue that program. Since that time the western provinces particularly, and I suppose all provinces, have found it very difficult to even consider building the very necessary roads into their more remote northern areas.
If we are ever to develop the northern parts of our country-I am not referring only to the Northwest Territories and the Arctic area-we must have more co-operation and assistance on the part of the federal government. In respect of the special areas program I should also like to mention that an agreement has been reached between the federal government and the government of the province of Newfoundland wherein $82 million will be made available to that province under this program.
The moneys are to be spent in much the same way as they were spent in respect of the other program I mentioned. There is to be $31 million in grants and $10.2 million in loans up to March 31, 1971. The remainder of the work is to be completed by June 30, 1972,

April 23, 1970

with provision for additional federal payments of $31 million in grants and $9.4 million in loans. If the province of Manitoba could become involved in an agreement such as this, I am sure many of the requests of the communities in the northern part of the province could be met quite easily and quickly.
I am wondering whether the arguments with New Brunswick and Newfoundland are handouts to provincial Liberal governments or a carrot to Quebec voters. This government, however, for some reason or another seems bound and determined to believe there is a line somewhere in Canada running from north to south. I do not know where that line is, but anything west of it receives very little attention.
Although there are a number of other matters I wished to bring to the attention of the House at this time, suffice it to say that the program of designated areas as opposed to the program of special areas has also not worked out in respect of the northern parts of the province. The designated areas program does not extend too far into the northern part of Manitoba. Again we have a situation in which it is very difficult to induce industry to come into a northern area. Industry seems to feel that such an area is too far away from the markets. This possibly is the reason the government has not extended these designated areas too far north within the province.
I wonder whether the government's economists have worked out the figures in order to determine just how much false economy would be involved in not extending these designated areas. The government is providing incentives for industry to locate in what are now rapidly growing urban areas. Immediately there is the problem of urban redevelopment and huge expenditures in order to provide the necessary services for these rapidly growing urban centres. Yet the government feels that the more isolated areas should not qualify as designated areas because industry may not be too anxious to go there because it might consider it to be too far from markets. I believe consideration should be given to a restructuring of the designated areas program so that industry would not only be given an incentive to build in these more isolated areas but would also be given an incentive in the form of an offset against the higher transportation costs involved in getting their goods to market.
We have all heard of a program which is being eagerly and interestingly watched by Canadians. I refer to the mid-Canada corridor
22218-48J

The Budget-Mr. Rodrigue program which was a brainchild of Mr. Richard Rohmer. I believe the federal government should co-operate in this program to the fullest extent. I do not know what, if any, representations Mr. Rohmer or the officials of the mid-Canada corridor project have made to the federal government for assistance.


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


Robert Simpson: I have just one more sentence, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the House give unanimous consent to the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Simpson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I believe the federal government has a wonderful opportunity to approach the people who are involved in the mid-Canada corridor program because I think this is a program which will go ahead on a continuing basis. I believe the federal government should approach these people on the basis that it is prepared to co-operate financially in an effort to see that some of the Indian, Eskimo and Metis people who have the capabilities are brought into the program on a consultative basis. I say the federal government should take this initiative because I doubt whether the budget in respect of the mid-Canada corridor program at the present time would allow for the hiring of such people. If the federal government were to take on the job of hiring such people to work on this program, I think it would be a good move because then I believe the native people in the area would feel they were a part of Canada's desire to open up and develop northern Canada.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) on the way he fulfilled his duty of delivering his budget speech.
In his speech, he expressed his concern about the problems facing our country, more especially ever rising prices. He seemed most concerned about inflation which is getting worse and worse. As many economists and businessmen had done before him, he then urged Canadians, especially those in the low-
April 23, 1970

The Budget-Mr. Rodrigue income brackets, to spend their money wisely. He also asked provincial and municipal governments, as well as school boards, to postpone some of their projects.
Therefore, we are not the only ones who realize that the Canadian economy is having a hard time. Others had already predicted those troubles. However, when it comes to remedies, they do not dare accept them and claim, for all kinds of reasons, that they will not work out. Instead of calling upon the public on this occasion, the minister should have called upon those who control the country's economy and the officials whose responsibility it is to see that it functions properly.
In fact, who caused these problems which are now plaguing the population, that is increased prices, inflation, or what else? Would it not be more proper to call a spade a spade and just call that lack of purchasing power, lack of cash? Is it not the Canadian government which in the first place caused our present situation, that is to say the progressive rise of prices resulting to a great extent from the constant increase of interest rates and taxes over the past few years? The 11 per cent tax on building materials has contributed to, an abnormal increase of construction costs, which have indirectly eliminated any hope people in the lower-income bracket might have to eventually own their homes, a legitimate hope of all Canadian citizens.
On March 22, 1967, when the Parliament of Canada passed Bill C-222 abolishing the ceiling on interest rates, it contributed to speeding up the growth of inflation which has now been with us for several years. To justify the abolition of the ceiling on interest rates, it was claimed that leaving individuals or organizations to set their own rates would attract into Canada more capital for construction and industrial development. It was also claimed that this decision would draw more foreign capital for the development of our natural resources. Money is scarce, everyone agrees. However, there are still people asking where to look for funds and how to go about getting them.
Not more than 40 years ago, it was said that we had to have gold reserves to guarantee the currency, otherwise none would be available. Since then, we have not heard that old tune because it has been a long time since gold played any part in the domestic monetary system. It is still being used, but less and less so, to settle the operations of internation-

al trade. There again the need for changes was realized, because some thought has even been given to establishment of an accounting system to deal with international trade. New terms were found to make an impression on the people. Now we hear about gold-paper and special drawing rights.
There are still some people who pretend not to understand, who are offended when we ask the government to review social security allowances or to adjust them according to the cost of living index.
Moreover, the trade policy of the government has been very weak in the last few years. We accumulate surplusses in some economic sectors. Our grain and dairy products exports are decreasing and, as a result, farmers find themselves in an unfortunate financial situation.
In order to keep its foreign markets, the government must subsidize the sale of grain with public funds.
As for dairy products, the conditions are worse, because the Canadian Dairy Commission collects $1.25 per hundredweight on all non quota surplus production, which I feel is nonsense. The government policy concerning subsidies should be the same for all farm products.
Another field in which the government is delaying its decision, is that of the textile industry. In June 1969, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) promised the labour-management associations that he would publish a white paper on that industry. Briefs have been submitted by the Canadian Textile Institute and'by the CNTU but it seems that nothing happens.
In the meantime, there are more layoffs in the textile factories in Beauce, especially at Saint-Georges. Other towns in Quebec, such as Saint-Jean, Saint-Hyacinthe, Drummond-ville, Magog, Valleyfield, Granby, Sherbrooke and even Cornwall, Ontario, have to face greater unemployment because of the lack of understanding of the government and of its delay in establishing a realistic policy for the textile and footwear industries.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
wish of the House that we call it six o'clock?


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.
April 23, 1970


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair, to resume the same at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Romuald Rodrigue: Mr. Speaker, the textile and shoe industries are not the only ones which lace problems in my riding. Ready-to-wear factories are experiencing a slack partly due to the flooding of our domestic markets with goods from countries where labour is cheap.
Work stoppages, as well as rising prices and tax increases have aggravated the feeling of insecurity and distress of the textile and shoe workers.
With its programs designed to create new employment, the government falls short of compensating for lost jobs in the farm, textile and shoe sectors.
In the last few years, through publicity, the people were led to believe that industry and trade could by themselves solve the problem created by the consumers' lack of purchasing power, while the true function of industry and commerce is to provide products and services.
When products and services are available, it is up to the government to see that the people have the necessary purchasing power to buy them. Therefore, money is not performing its true function, since in order to do this, it must circulate unencumbered and according to the country's capacity to produce goods and services, the need for which can be determined scientifically. I agree on that point, but I am certainly not in favour of making it scarce so that it may be considered miraculous. I suggest that must be taken into account, first of all by the government itself.
As a matter of fact who in recent years has made capital and money scarce if not the government through its numerous borrowings? In 1968 the federal government borrowed $5,264 million as compared to $3,284 million in 1967, which is an increase of $2 billion.
Since the beginning of the 28th Parliament, the government, with its majority, has passed bills to increase interest rates on loans to farmers, fishermen, veterans and students. Are such measures going to end the problems
The Budget-Mr. Nystrom of these people? Are they such as to restrain inflation? No. These increased interest rates will be added to the cost of products, thus pushing prices up.
When advocating something, one must at least be logical. Why deny to low income people an increase in their welfare allowances when, not so long ago, the government approved wage increases to high ranking civil servants. In this connection, I would quote a press release from the prime minister's office to the effect that the recommendations made by the advisory group will come into force as early as January 1969. The new salaries, for the three levels of deputy minister, will range from $37,000 to $40,000 for deputy ministers in the third category, from $28,000 to $33,000 for deputy ministers in the first category. The maximum salaries for these three categories of civil servants stood at $31,000, $28,750, and $26,500, respectively.
It is true that capital is scarce and that the government itself is responsible for this situation. It is not enough to realize this, we must also find solutions. There is one national institution which could play that role-the Bank of Canada. Why should it not play the part for which it was established? If the government does not want to use it, there is only one other solution, and that is to cut down government expenditures. In my opinion, the first thing to do would be to reduce the budget for national defence. It is important that the government stops playing with the public funds by launching expensive experiments and manufacturing ever deadlier weapons which will likely be obsolete before they are used and which, for all practical purposes, are nothing but scrap metal for millionaires.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, first the debate on the budget gives us an opportunity to look at the types of programs the government of Canada is offering the people of this country, and second it gives us an opportunity as individual Members of Parliament to offer alternatives to these programs that we think will be improvements on them. I see that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) agrees with me thus far.
The budget outlines the government's priorities for its different policies and programs. It gives an idea of the basic direction in which the government is moving, and it gives a good outline of the types of ideas that the government thinks are best in order to solve the problems with which we are faced.
April 23, 1970

The Budget-Mr. Nystrom
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The budget debate and the Speech from the Throne give members of Parliament an opportunity to ask important questions about the direction in which Canada is going. They give us a chance to look at our place in society, assess our values and decide our role in the world community as well as the closer question of the role of Parliament itself.
I came across many answers to these important questions whilst travelling throughout Saskatchewan dining the last few weeks. People are frustrated with the way things are going in Canada, particularly on the problems of unemployment and poverty, and farmers who are being asked to take wheatland out of production are incensed.
Looking around the world we see that humanity has the potential to destroy itself through nuclear weapons, through pollution or even through overpopulation. We live in a world guided by international anarchy. More and more people are being alienated from the institution of Parliament. They are dissatisfied with its performance and are looking for alternatives.
I should like to deal with a number of things which I mentioned at the outset, Mr. Speaker. Firstly, people from all regions of this country should have a greater opportunity to derive the benefits of citizenship. Instead of waging war on poverty, the government is waging war on the poor. In their fight against inflation they have created unemployment, raised interest rates and have generally made things more difficult for the poor people and many average citizens of this country. Unemployment is now higher than it has been for a number of years. The figures for March show that 6.7 per cent of the Canadian work force is unemployed, representing 542,000 men and women. Many of these people have families to support, making this a very serious problem. I should like to compare the year 1967 with 1970. In March, 1967, 5.3 per cent of the Work force was unemployed whilst today the figure is 6.7 per cent, a substantial increase.
The regional unemployment picture shows that in the Maritimes in 1967 unemployment was 10.6 per cent, and today the figure is 10.8 per cent. The 1967 figure for the province of Quebec was 7.2 per cent, and today it is 9.2 per cent. These figures may indicate one of the reasons why many people in Quebec are frustrated with the federal system and the type of programs offered to them. Even in industrialized Ontario the 1967 unemployment figure was 3.9 per cent, and today it is 4.6 per

cent. In the Prairie provinces the figures show the region to be severely affected. In 1967 only 2.7 per cent of the work force was unemployed, but today the figure is 5.2 per cent.
Just the other day in this House the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was telling us that unemployment was not too severe. He used some seasonally adjusted figures to show that unemployment had decreased in some areas. But in March, 1967, the seasonally adjusted unemployment figure was 3.9 per cent of the work force of Canada, and last month, March, it was 5.1 per cent. This is a serious increase.
Considered in terms of the actual number of people out of work, the situation becomes rather startling. In the province of Quebec in October, 1969, 135,000 people were unemployed. In December the figure increased to 152,000 people and on March 21, 1970, the total was 206,000 people unemployed. When we break down the unemployment figure to see who is being affected, we find that unemployment is higher among people between the ages of 14 and 24 years of age. Out of a total of 540,000 unemployed, 216,000 people are between the ages of 14 and 24.
This clearly points out that the retraining facilities, the schools and the programs offered to people in this age group are not adequate. We must remember, too, that many in this group will drop out and not be seeking employment after a year or so, having gravitated to one of the subcultures prevalent in city life and thus not calculated in the statistics. Another factor is that in the month of April tens of thousands of university students and some graduate students will be seeking summer employment. They will face difficulties, particularly in the Maritime provinces, rural Quebec, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, because of the agricultural recession, unless they are willing to go outside their own province.
Another grave factor that we must face up to soon is the whole question of poverty in the country. This has been pointed out clearly and vividly by the Economic Council of Canada, which stated that 20 per cent of the population is living in poverty and another 20 per cent is living on the edge of poverty or at a subsistence level. What does this mean to the country, Mr. Speaker? First of all, it means lack of opportunity for better education and a better life. Poverty has many social and psychological effects and society is deprived of the contribution that could be made by these people if they were in better circumstances.
April 23, 1970

The cost to the country could be hundreds of millions of dollars each year because we are not doing as much as we should about poverty.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The poor people in this country are not only those who are unemployed or who because of some misfortune are on welfare. There are many workers in the cities and many farmers living on a subsistence or poverty wage. These people are living in this condition because they do not have the types of opportunities they should have. Yet three or four months ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) said these Canadians can live on $30 a week. It so happens, Mr. Speaker, that thousands of Canadians are living on less than $30 a week. The minister is not, nor are any other people in the government. However, many old age pensioners are living in conditions that are a disgrace.
Many of the people who laid the foundations and built this country are now being forced to live on incomes that are not equal to a subsistence wage or worse. This must be changed as quickly as possible. These people are being penalized by the government. The government is waging a war against the poor people of this country by putting a freeze on increases in pensions, by creating unemployment and higher interest rates as well as encouraging a wage freeze for the working people. These are just a few of the matters that are contributing to what I call a war against the poor.
The Prime Minister has told the old age pensioners that they cannot have an increase in their pensions because if they did they would not be joining the rest of the country in fighting inflation; they would be contributing to inflation in this country. This is what the Prime Minister said the day before he acquired a few extra people for his staff and before he went scuba-diving in the Caribbean. The people of the country are not going to accept this situation. There are basic contradictions in this policy which we must change as rapidly as possible because Canadians will not tolerate the government having values of this sort.
We have to grapple with many issues, one of which is the whole question of inflation. Inflation is bad in this country, but the cure for inflation that this government is proposing is even worse than the disease. It is widening the gap between the rich and the poor and widening regional and economic disparities in
The Budget-Mr. Nystrom Canada. When the noted American economist John Kenneth Galbraith visited Ottawa last year, someone asked him what he thought of using the voluntary restraint method to fight inflation. He said, "You are not going to successfully fight inflation in this way. If you think you can, you are only fooling yourself; it is only nonsense." The Quebec Liberal leader, Robert Bourassa, is saying the same thing about the Liberal Party's policy to fight inflation.
To try to control inflation by voluntary restraint will not work. One reason is that there will be only limited co-operation from the Canadian public and corporations. Many small businessmen, farmers and other people in this country cannot afford to borrow money at high interest rates in order to expand their operations. These people are penalized because of this type of fight against inflation. The poor people will sink even further into poverty. Meanwhile the huge corporations, most of which are to blame in large part for the inflationary crisis, will be able to expand even faster than before. High interest rates do not affect them. They just reinvest their profits and go further and further ahead, faster than before. I am referring to companies such as General Motors, and Weston's and Safeways.
If we look at the profit figures of these corporations for the last year we see that they increased; in fact, they increased at a much faster rate than the average wage or pension of the old age citizens of this country. This type of approach only widens the economic gap: all the economic evidence points to this. Most economic experts, except some on the government side, are saying this as well. We have to change this approach because obviously it is not working.
If we are to control inflation, we have to get tougher. We have to instigate certain controls. We hate to go as far as instigating wage, profit and price controls in a centralized way. This must be coupled with economic planning which will benefit all Canadians, not just the privileged few. The important point to note is that most of the inflation in Canada is a direct result of the inflation in the United States. This has been said by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said that the effect in fighting inflation will be very minute because most of our inflation problems in Canada are a result of what is happening in the United States. A large portion of the inflation in the United States is as a result of the war in Viet Nam. This war
April 23. 1970

The Budget-Mr. Nystrom must end, for many reasons. If we are to have control over our economy and the type of priorities we want to set, it is obvious that we must repatriate our economy; we must control our own economy and our country.
I now wish to deal with the question of foreign ownership, which is a problem that this government has not yet faced. I realize the government is now going through the process of preparing a study or white paper on the question of foreign ownership. I hope this will be done as expeditiously as possible. We must face this important question immediately, otherwise it will be beyond our control. Canada is one of the few countries in the western world, if not the only country, that opens her doors to any country without limits and without any set of rules.
Today approximately two-thirds of our Canadian economy is foreign owned, mostly by corporations with headquarters in the United States. Of our manufacturing industry, 50 per cent is owned and controlled by the United States or by US corporations. Nearly 100 per cent of our automobile industry is owned or controlled by U.S. corporations. In the fields of mining, petroleum, natural gas and things of that sort American ownership is as high as 60 to 80 per cent. This is having many effects on Canada. It is eroding our political sovereignty and our ability to make decisions that affect the policies of Canada. It also has an effect on Canada's foreign policy. We have less and less influence and power abroad. We must start changing this situation immediately. There must be some kind of control or regulation on foreign investment in Canada. This is the only country in the western world that allows foreign ownership to come into our house and completely take over. It is something like the old tribal tradition in Africa years ago: when you met a friend you had not seen for a while, you invited him to dinner in your home and then let him spend the night with your wife. That is what is happening in Canada to-day with regard to foreign capital.
We are not doing all that we must in order to change Canadian society economically and socially. We must also reform our monetary and fiscal policies. There must be more social and economic planning. I also suggest in order to have more people on an equal basis we must not be afraid to have more public participation, involvement in and public ownership of the Canadian economy. These are only some of the things we must be doing in the area of foreign ownership if we are to take

control of Canada's economy. We must tackle the very important issues which concern us each and every day.
There are a number of other matters with which I want to deal. Coming from the province of Saskatchewan, I must deal with the question of agriculture. Anyone who has travelled in western Canada or has spent some time on the Prairies knows that wheat farmers are facing a real problem. I do not have the figures immediately available, but I believe farm income fell by some 40 per cent in 1969 as compared with 1968, and that the income in 1968 was less than it had been a year previously. This situation affects not only farmers but the small businessman, the machine implement dealers and suppliers in every small town.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
It also affects the working people. The average weekly wage has declined in the last few years; people have been getting out of the province. Unemployment rates are higher than they have been for many years and large numbers of working people have left for British Columbia or Ontario. Between April and October of last year some 1,800 people were moving out of Saskatchewan every month. This gives a clear picture of the economic circumstances which the province is facing. Saskatchewan does need help. The agricultural industry needs help. It needs an immediate injection of cash if some of the smaller farms and, indeed, some of the bigger farms are to be saved. If many farmers are to be saved from bankruptcy, $250 million is immediately needed.
The government should impose a moratorium on debts such as those of the Farm Credit Corporation. Many farmers will not be able to repay the debts they have accumulated over the past few years because failure to sell grain has left them without money. We must begin a new program designed to sell wheat, a new program of trade. These are a few of the things we should be doing in order to give the people of the Prairies a fair break.
In the election campaign of 1968 the Prime Minister campaigned on two main issues. One was the whole question of national unity and the other was the lessening of regional economic disparity. He campaigned on these issues and won the election largely because of his stand with regard to them. What has happened is ironic. It seems to me, looking across the country, that no Prime Minister has done more-
April 23, 1970


Mr. Cafik:: You are right.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -to contribute to disunity in two years than has this Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: Right again.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The work of the B and B
Commission is important. I am one of those who are going through the process of attempting to learn the French language. I wish more MP's would do so. But we are only fooling ourselves if we think that bilingualism and biculturalism alone will keep Canada together. They will not. They will not keep Quebec in Confederation; they will not keep the people of western Canada happy.
To keep Canada together as a nation we need social and economic reform-measures which will bring equal opportunity to everyone in this nation. A person living in the maritimes or in rural Quebec should have as good an opportunity as one living in Vancouver, Montreal or Toronto. All regions will have to be equal partners in Confederation if this country is to continue as one union until its 200th birthday. To find out whether or not the government's regional economic policies are working, all one has to do is travel about the country. They are not. This is one cause of the rising tide of separatism in Quebec. People are upset because unemployment has risen to 10 per cent and is still increasing. The federal government is showing no leadership.
Quebec is not the only province which is unhappy and alienated. Go out on the Prairies from farm to farm, from small town to small town. You will find widespread discontent. People are asking: Why has Ottawa forgotten about us? Why is the man who proclaimed national unity, a new approach in politics and a new deal bringing about unemployment on a scale we have not known in this country for so long? This is the threat to national unity. When people are desperate they will seek alternatives, any alternatives. They are ready to try almost anything because, they argue, nothing could be worse than the conditions they are facing.
This is where Parliament ought to come into the picture. I believe we ought to be more relevant to the issues confronting the people of Canada. We must chart a new course, get out where the people are and concern ourselves with the things the people are talking about and doing. If we fail, they will seek alternative arrangements and alternative
The Budget-Mr. Buchanan means of solving their problems. Right here is the challenge confronting each and every one of us.
As a Parliament and as a nation we must examine our role in the international community. Canada is respected as a middle power and could probably be doing much more to lead the world toward a more stable international community. We ought to be reviewing our foreign policy, and moving as rapidly as possible toward such things as the recognition of communist China, supporting its claim to representation at the United Nations. We should strengthen the United Nations and work to make it a more meaningful international body, one with some measure of sovereignty and capacity to act.
We must do all these things quickly, because people today will not wait. They know we have the resources, that we have a rich country with an advanced technology. They are asking why, in these circumstances, 20 per cent of our people should be living in poverty. Why does unemployment have to be at such a high level? People are asking these questions, and we must move faster to find the answers if we want to keep this country together. I hope the government remembers this, no matter what happens in the Quebec election next Wednesday.


Mr. Judd Buchanan (London West):: Mr. Speaker, my comments are somewhat in the nature of a pot-pourri, as there are several subjects on which I should like to make brief remarks. The first relates directly to the contents of the budget which we are discussing. I was most disappointed that some additional provision was not made for our needy senior citizens. In my remarks on the budget in the fall of 1968 I urged that the government give serious consideration to discontinuing the payment of the family allowances on the first and only child in each family and, instead, use the funds saved by this change to double the guaranteed income supplement which we pay to needy senior citizens.
This would ensure that all Canadians over the age of 65 would receive a minimum income of approximately $150 per month if single, or $300 per month if married. I would suggest that this is the minimum income needed for survival in today's society at any decent level. I believe strongly that we have a very great obligation to these senior citizens who worked and built this country throughout the depression years and the war years which followed, when pension plans were virtually unknown.

The Budget-Mr. Buchanan We are not rewarding our senior citizens properly for the services they have performed for Canada. I realize that we are all anticipating some changes in this area after the introduction of the government's white paper on social policy, but it might well be a year or more before we see any substantive legislation flowing from that document. Someone remarked the other day that inflation is a tax, and one which bears most heavily on those who can least afford it, our senior citizens. I feel strongly that we should be doing something to assist these people now, not a year and a half or two years from now.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Like many of my colleagues, I am looking forward to seeing the government's white paper on social policy. Like many, I share a feeling of malaise in that although we are spending billions of dollars to provide for the health and welfare of Canadians we are not, in all too many cases, really giving adequate assistance to those most in need of it. Because of the universal nature of so many of our programs, too much provision is made for those who really do not genuinely need it, and those who are in need are inadequately provided for.
I recently finished reading Ian Adam's "The Poverty Wall", and any concerned Canadian cannot help being depressed by the deprivation and grinding poverty in which five to six million Canadians live while the rest of us enjoy relative affluence. I would recommend this book to all members of this chamber to assist us in gaining a better perspective of the society in which we live. The stereotype of the welfare recipient is a healthy male, sprawled in an easy chair before a flickering television set and fondling a bottle of beer bought with his welfare money.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Like some of your
constituents.


J. Judd Buchanan: Maybe they are yours. It is this sort of stereotype, Mr. Speaker, which I believe has given too many Canadians a distorted view of the society in which we live.
The May-June issue of Canadian Welfare carried a study which had been carried out by Professor Steven Peitchinis at the University of Calgary. Even in the prosperous province of Alberta there were approximately 94,000 persons receiving some form of social assistance at the time of the study. In the area of Calgary, where the study concentrated, there were just under 19,000. Professor 
DEBATES	April 23, 1970
Peitchinis profile of that group is revealing nnd it confirms what many social workers have been saying all along.
Why were these people dependent on welfare? Almost half, 45 per cent, were ill, incapacitated or unable to work because of age. Sole parents with children dependent on their care comprised 40 per cent of the sample. In the first draft of this study "sole" parents was spelled "soul"! However, it was corrected in the later version. The employed whose earnings were inadequate took up 10 per cent. Finally, those able to work but temporarily out of work for any reason numbered 10 per cent. This latter category includes those willing to work, at least temporarily, but unable to find a job. These findings would certainly seem to contradict the traditional image of those in receipt of social assistance.
Another area upon which I would like to comment concerns student loans. Loans are now provided for full-time students. Parttime students are denied these loans. Often part-time college students live in more genuine need than do full-time students. Frequently they are older than most of their colleagues, and they are almost never supported by wealthy families; indeed, that is why they are securing their degrees the hard way. Although they work to maintain themselves in school, many part-time students make only enough money to pay taxes and to support a wife and family but not enough to pay for tuition and books. They are classic examples of people reaching for betterment through higher education yet they are, if anything, discouraged from continuing studies that often take a decade to complete.
These are among the more enterprising members of our society. The government replies to their industry by ruling them ineligible for student awards. Frequently if sufficient funds were available the average, parttime student would accelerate his or her program to a full-time status. I would urge, Mr. Speaker, that the government look at this legislation and endeavour to make loan facilities available for the part-time student who is struggling to improve his condition as well as for the full-time student.
Almost one month ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) presented his proposed sports policy for Canadians in this House. That paper has my fullest support. This program may well reach millions of Canadians in more tangible ways than most government concepts do. Clearly
April 23, 1970

the key to success of the sports policy will be money. The policy paper points out on page 44 that "we have a number of new projects to finance, and our budget level is the same as it has been for several years now." It was my suggestion in this House in November, 1968, that contributions to amateur sport be brought within the definition of charitable donation and made tax deductible. I urged that the appropriate section of the Income Tax Act be altered as quickly as possible. Much to my amazement, it was not done.
I am, however, gratified to learn that the proposed sports policy attaches a priority to this proposal, and that the federal departments involved are being consulted about "the formulation of an additional charitable tax deduction clause for donations towards a furtherance of sport and recreation in Canada." I believe that granting tax relief on donations to sport will spur contributions to individual sports groups and will enable sports in Canada to focus its limited resources more effectively. I would urge that the charitable deductibility clauses not be as restrictive as is suggested in the white paper on tax reform, which proposes that national amateur athletic associations only be added to the list of eligible charitable organizations. I believe that many local organizations are deserving of the same treatment and support.
A perceptive individual remarked that man is a peculiarly constructed animal who cannot read the handwriting on the wall until he has his back to it. That is precisely the position in which man finds himself today with the world population explosion. We live on a smallish planet with a strictly limited supply of everything, including air, water and places in which to dump sewage. There is no conceivable way in which it can be made bigger. Yet we are adding 180,000 people to the globe's humanity each and every day. We are now at more than three billion, and within 30 years it is estimated that we will have over seven billion people on the face of this earth. The figures into the twenty-first century are staggering. However, they are academic since this gross overcrowding will not come about; it will be solved by mass starvation, war or family planning. Hopefully, thoughtful, concerned humans will opt for the third alternative.
I realize this is a difficult area for many people from the point of view of conscience, but I would like to urge a couple of minimal steps. The first involves research only. Canada could perform unique service to
The Budget-Mr. Buchanan international research in population control and family planning, a field which has not been thoroughly explored. This should be a top priority item on the agenda of our new International Development Research Centre.
The second method in which Canada could assist is by providing money for the existing multilateral funds-the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. These are not organizations which try and foist family planning on anyone or any nation. They are responsive in nature; they meet requests from countries which seek their assistance- developing countries which are becoming more and more alarmed as they see minimal economic progress vanishing under the impact of burgeoning populations. I would strongly urge on our government action in these two areas.
I am afraid that if we do not, by default we will have to share the responsibility for uncontrolled population growth which will impair individual rights, jeopardize national goals throughout the world and threaten international stability.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would urge that our government take immediate steps to increase the guaranteed income supplement for senior Canadians and, if required, make adjustments in the present family allowance payments to compensate for this outlay. I believe that the act and regulations providing loans to university students should be amended to permit needy part-time students to receive assistance as well. We should allow donations to organizations sponsoring amateur sport to be tax deductible. I am convinced that they have as legitimate a claim to tax deductibility as some of the organizations and groups which currently enjoy this status.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
In addition, it is my understanding that recent studies have indicated young people who are actively involved in sports are far less likely to become involved with drugs and drug addiction. By encouraging the financing of amateur sports we would not only be improving the health of Canadians but would be helping to solve another major problem facing our country. Finally-and this is significant for the long-run survival of mankind-I would urge that the government take immediately the minimal steps I discussed earlier to assist the International Development Research Centre and the UN organizations involved with population research and planning.
April 23, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Nesbitt Mr. W. B. Nesbill (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, after a period of two years in which this government has been in office it would seem it is time we looked at ourselves in Canada to decide where we are going and where we are at, as some people say. It seems to me that society in Canada can no longer be accurately called the just society, but rather the controlled society. While I have heard some people refer to the present government as being comparable with the government of Louis XIV of France, I could not possibly agree with this because, authoritarian as that government might have been, at least it did accomplish something for the European continent. I would much rather compare the government with that of Louis XV, because the antics of some of the members of this government much more resemble the age of Louis XV in which very little was accomplished other than a great deal of travel and pleasure.
It is very evident that the government seems to have some sort of scheme or plan, as is sometimes said, about what is to be done with our society and our country, while very little attention seems to be paid to the increasing cost of living with its consequent hardship on those with fixed incomes and while very little is done to deal with our financial and other problems except an attempt to cause panic and confusion by the so-called proposals in the white paper and the consequent drawing in of the horns of all business oraganizations.
Nevertheless, the government found plenty of time to present legislation in the last two years, some of which unfortunately has been passed by this House, which had little to do with the urgent critical problems but which had something to do with some more distant and perhaps not so distant schemes. I refer to the attempt by this government to put the lid on all criticism of the government whether in this House or outside it. After all, it is an attempt to perpetuate itself in office.
I have often heard the party which forms this government characterized as the three "p's"-power, patronage and perpetuity. It is the last of these three adjectives with which I wish to deal this evening. I should like to refer to the debate held in this House last Tuesday in which we dealt with the attempt by two senior ministers of the government to muzzle the Auditor General. This, of course, is a culmination of the government's efforts to muzzle Parliament and suppress criticism outside Parliament.


The first and most effective step in this-regard when the present government came into office was to remove from this House control over government spending. After all, this was the original object of Parliament, from the time of King John. In those days Parliament was designed to check the king's power to raise money and to have some say concerning how he spent it. This power was removed from this House over a year ago. Normally in this House we had the right to speak on the spending estimates of the government. These estimates have now all been removed to the committees on the pretext that they will receive more detailed study there.
We know what has happened. With so many committees meeting, the press-which of course is the opposition's only weapon-is unable to distribute itself around sufficiently to cover the discussion of the estimates. The approach of this government was to say that we can discuss the spending proposals and policies as much as we like, but that we must be finished by late May and if we have not finished by then we have no power to do anything about it. In the days prior to the introduction of these rules the opposition, in an emergency, had some control over the government through the discussion of the estimates and supplementary estimates because the procedure of closure for all practical purposes was unworkable. Therefore, the opposition had some control. That, however, no longer is the case.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said at that time, they baited the trap and the opposition fell for it. I must admit that the Prime Minister was very right, because, a smokescreen having been raised in respect of the so-called rule 75C, the real danger was slipped through the House in the form of the removal of the control over government spending. That was the first stop. A number of things have happened since then. We had the hate bill. No one will quarrel with the first part of this bill in respect of genocide, and we need not discuss the second part. The third section resembles the procedure of the Torquemada in the days of the Spanish Inquisition. I refer, of course, to the fact that if someone should think you might have some political propaganda at election time, they could go to a judge and present a statutory declaration in respect of hate propaganda, a warrant to seize the literature would be issued and then seven days later you would
April 23. 1970
have a right to defend yourself. If this does not resemble sixteenth century Spain, I do not know what does.
Then we have Information Canada. This is the next step. It is a new step. It is said that this is being done in order to save money by avoiding the duplication involved in various departments putting out information concerning what the government is doing. It all sounds lovely, sort of Pollyanna. Then what do we find? We find that Jean-Louis Gagnon, who according to "Who's Who" is a former head of the Liberal propaganda agency in the province of Quebec, is in charge. One can hardly blame people for being a little suspicious of this agency under the circumstances.
Then we have the new CRTC regulations concerning Canadian content. It is like being against motherhood, or something, to be against this. It sounds lovely. But it is only necessary to look at it a little to see what happens.


Norman Augustine Cafik: What do you know about motherhood?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Suppose a small radio station should be on the borderline in respect of Canadian content. Then the Gestapo, if we want to put it that way, or the CRTC could go to this station and say, "You are coming up for a new licence in a few months. You are pretty close to the line, but we have a number of clips or tapes from Information Canada, and if you want to get in good with the board you can play these government information clips; that is how you can get along". This is the situation.
Any one of these things by themselves might be fairly bad, but one could probably live with them. However, when they are put together it is not difficult to imagine what the result can be. The scheme of government control over information does not end there. We have Bill C-197 which will be up for discussion again. This is an agricultural bill. It is a nice thing. It sounds lovely on the sin-face. It would appear that the farmers are to control marketing as has been done so successfully in the provinces. Many people think that is what this is all about. But what is the situation? Here we are to have boards, not composed of people elected by the producers but of people appointed by the cabinet. That is the situation. The cabinet will decide everything that happens from the day the seed is planted until it is grown. The agricultural producers have no say whatsoever. It sounds something
The Budget-Mr. Nesbitt similar to what Khrushchev did in the Ukraine back in the 1920's. That is how it is.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
There are other things one could refer to, to show what has been flagrantly done to control or interfere with the politics of the provinces. We have two faltering governments in two provinces governed by provincial Liberal governments; one is Newfoundland under the leadership of Mr. Smallwood, and the other New Brunswick; and today we heard the announcement that $62 million would go to New Brunswick, to help out, and $82 million to Newfoundland. Of course, that is very helpful to those governments which are in some trouble, as I understand they are, but it is hardly fair to the people of western Canada who are in pretty desperate straits these days. The government just seems to hold out no hope to western Canadians.


An hon. Member:: How about the heavy water plant?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I do not know why this should cause anybody much surprise, Mr. Speaker, because the present Prime Minister arranged the blueprint of this long ago, as anyone can see who takes the trouble to read it. Back in 1961 the past president of the NDP, Professor Michael Oliver, published a book called "Social Purpose for Canada". I will not deal with details; anyone can get it out of the library and read it. Anyone reading it will see that circumstances at present are unfolding just as set out in Mr. Trudeau's essay in that book. Someone reading it might call it "Mein Kampf." I would not call it that; the Prime Minister has a much more literary style than the author of that book. I suggest that you could compare the author to a sixteenth century Renaissance author of a book on political science called "The Prince". This one might be called "The Canadian Prince." Everything is laid out in it. There is another little matter I should like to deal with which relates to what I have just said.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead; you have our permission.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Recent trends in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation particularly in news and public affairs programs, certainly give me some cause for concern and create some cause for alarm. I listen constantly to the CBC and many of the programs of that organization are very good-outside of the public affairs programs. I have been listening

April 23, 1970

The Budget-Mr. Nesbitt to comments on the provincial elections at present being held in Prince Edward Island and Quebec. Nobody by the greatest stretch of the imagination could call these programs that come on at eight o'clock in the morning under the heading of news and "Preview Commentary", and deal with so-called free interpretation of the news, anything but outright propaganda. These trends in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are particularly ominous, Mr. Speaker, because the CBC has a long and odious record of expertise in propaganda, distortion and outright lying in the so-called news and public affairs programs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Don't be so kind.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am just listening to my friends on my left. They used to have a proprietary right in that organization, almost.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: As they say, Mr. Speaker, those were the days. But things are changing.


An hon. Member:: At least we were
intelligent.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: My hon. friend from Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) is making some remarks behind me. We used to hear the "independent" views of Michael Oliver, a professor of political science at McGill. Finally, even after he was made president of the NDP, it turned out that he was still being described as a nice little professor of political science. I wonder what would have been said from that quarter if the president of the Liberal Association or the Conservative Association had appeared in a similar capacity.
In any event, may I briefly now refer to a speech by a very eminent man who was a member of this House and a former parlia-metary secretary to a Prime Minister of Canada. I am speaking of the former hon. member for Leeds, Mr. John Matheson, who now is an eminent judge. Mr. Matheson made a speech to the Canadian Club at Winnipeg on Thursday, December 8, 1966. He spoke about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. May I quote one or two excerpts from that speech. He was talking about CBC program and had this to say:
A series of programs seemingly calculated to rake the French-English issue, included six interviews on the subject with four separatists and two English speaking Quebeckers, reacting with emotion. In addition some 12 French Canadians were hot-seated, pilloried, mocked or their comments distorted.
These, of course, were the days probably when Mr. Rene Levesque, that great advocate of Canadian unity, was one of the leading spokesmen on the French network of the CBC. Despite complaints, he kept appearing just the same as a purveyor of the idea of national unity. On page 6 of Mr. Matheson's speech the subject of drugs is dealt with. Incidentally, because of the position he occupied Mr. Matheson had plenty of opportunity to have his remarks well documented and researched. I find them very helpful. This is what he said about the question of drugs:
Two major programs stressed the delights of drug taking, glue sniffing and LSD, without adequately portraying the serious dangers.
Some 80 items touched on American subjects or on the U.S.A. itself. 62 were either overtly antiAmerican or played on TT.S. problem and ills. 16 items dealt with the Viet Nam war.
And so on. Lower down on the same page Mr. Matheson had this to say about programs on communism:
On 14 programs communism was given sympathetic treatment. Not once in two years was there any substantial criticism of a communist country or of communist philosophy.


An hon. Member:: What about the communist conspiracy?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That's right. Just wait; I have a few more comments to make. I cannot help hearing the remarks of my friends on my left I ask any of them to provide me with one bit of information by which they can show me that the foreign policy of the CCF or NDP at any time has varied one iota from that of the Kremlin.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Another matter raised on page 7 of Mr. Matheson's speech is the following:
An estimated 69 items dealt with government institutions, parties or personalities-10 only from a favourable viewpoint. 48 were critical, undercutting institutions of government and/or satirically critical of members of the Liberal, Conservative, Social Credit and Creditiste parties.


An hon. Member:: Hooray!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Having read these remarks, may I now refer to another little item-I must watch my time, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: We're watching you.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: May I now deal with a little matter that relates to the credentials of spokesmen of the CBC, because I submit that
[Mr. Nesbitt. 1
April 23, 1970	COMMONS
on occasion over the year they have been outright falsified. I have a little notation in my hand dated February 7, 1961, dealing with Mr. Arnold Beichman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I guess they know who he is; I am referring to my friends to the left over there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The notation is to the following effect. In October, 1960, the CBC's Toronto office decided to do a television broadcast concerning the Canadian delegation and Canada's role at the United Nations. May I point out that there was an excellent CBC correspondent at the United Nations, namely Mr. Stanley Burke. But he was in no way consulted. A producer in Toronto by the name of Clifford Solway went to New York from Toronto and hired Mr. Arnold Beichman to do the telecast. Mr. Beichman was introduced as a "special correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor". I did not see the telecast since I was in New York, but I heard a great deal about it and the content was apparently highly inaccurate and very derogatory with respect to the role of Canada and the Canadian delegation at the United Nations. Since the impression was given that Mr. Beichman was the United Nations correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor, naturally a great many people took Mr. Beichman's remarks very seriously indeed.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The Globe and Mail published a prominent editorial concerning Mr. Beichman's remarks on October 27 last. As a matter of fact, the editorial noted that Mr. Beichman's remarks should be carefully considered because of the very important newspaper that he represented. The fact is that Mr. Beichman did not represent the Christian Science Monitor at the United Nations or anywhere else. He was accredited to the United Nations as correspondent for the AF of L-CIO News, and as far as I could discover he was unknown to the United Nations' press gallery.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Speaker, on a question
of privilege-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) on a question of privilege.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, in case the hon. member's pronunciation is leading to any
DEBATES	6239
The Budget-Mr. Nesbitt delusion in the House, I just want to say I am not with the Christian Science Monitor or the AF of L, or any of those things. I am just the Member of Parliament for Vancouver Quadra.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have no intention of referring to the hon. member as otherwise. Now, Mr. Speaker, this matter was drawn to the attention of the CBC. But a couple of weeks later they had an advertisement in the Globe and Mail for a discussion on anti-American feeling in Canada, in which would take part Mr. Arnold Beichman of the Christian Science Monitor. Of course, there could be no mistake then. In 1968 I got a telephone call from the CBC at my office in Woodstock. They wanted me to take part in a panel discussion on Canada-U.S. relations at the Couchiching conference. I inquired who would be taking part and there were several people mentioned, including Mr. Pearson, the former Prime Minister. Then they said, "We have a wonderful man, Mr. Arnold Beichman, United Nations correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor." I will not say here what I said over the telephone, but I should have been smarter, Mr. Speaker. I should have said, "Oh, yes," gone there, and done the unveiling on television, but I missed out.
Why is this man being chosen all the time for television appearances? Either he has friends in the CBC, which is quite likely, or he sets out a viewpoint which is sympathetic to the viewpoint of those in charge of CBC public affairs programs. I could mention many more. I have already mentioned Mr. Levesque. To indicate how good the CBC is with propaganda, there are these relentless attacks on the United States of America. Nobody objects to their countries being criticized, including friendly countries, but no other country is the subject of these attacks day in and day out except the United States of America.
I mentioned this in the House previously and I got a nasty letter from Mr. Fraser, the vice-president of the CBC at the time. I told him that if he could show me one program that was even neutral to the United States I would be glad to withdraw my remarks, but I heard nothing more about that. I have heard programs broadcast by Radio Moscow about the United States which were moderate compared with CBC programs.
One good example recently of such a CBC program was a telecast showing the horrors of the Viet Nam war and the terrible things
6240	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Nesbitt the Americans were doing. All of us know that wars are pretty tough things, and some of us have served in wartime. We know that if people want to take pictures of bad things they can take plenty of them. This show had a particularly atrocious picture of a small child, burned black, on the steps of a public building. However, Mr. Speaker, I have a pretty good memory. That picture was on the cover of Life magazine in 1940, showing the bombing of Chunking.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Does that justify the war?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the courtesy of the House, but I know there are other members who wish to speak. I have virtually completed my remarks, in any event.


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to take very long but I should like to go back to the earlier stages of this long drawn-out budget debate. Several weeks ago when the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) presented his budget, he came in for a great deal of criticism. The budget was criticized because it made no provision for the old age pensioners, and it is with this aspect that I wish to deal.
It seems that in the last few days of the budget debate speakers have strayed from the direction in which the debate started. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, a couple of amendments centered on the absence of measures for the relief of people on fixed incomes and, in particular, the senior citizens of this country. Some members from the opposite side of the House said they deplored this failure, and others spoke of their disappointment in it. I am sure there are not very many who deplore it or are disappointed, because most members realize the financial limitations under which governments must work.
We all agree, I am sure, that we are in favour of dramatically increased pensions for senior citizens, and in the next few minutes I hope to deal with how we may achieve this. Just after the Minister of Finance made his budget speech I visited the Old Timers' Club at Turner Valley, Alberta. Naturally, the people there were concerned about the level of the old age pension and the fact that so many of them find it more difficult to get by
today than when they first retired, even though their pensions are now somewhat higher. A number of them asked me how the government is ever going to be able to pay back those people who bought government bonds. I was pleased to be able to tell them that as a result of this budget and the government's efforts in the last year there have been two successive surpluses. This means that money will be available for the payment of the debt which governments have been incurring for the last 13 or 15 years through deficit budgets.
I,	like most hon. members, am aware of and concerned about the plight of many individuals and families who rely in whole or in large measure on the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement for their source of income. It is amazing how so many people are able to exist on such an inadequate sum. All of us who are members of this House receive letters from these fine citizens outlining the various situations in which they find themselves. I recently received one such letter from a gentleman in Bellevue, Alberta. He stated in part:
It is not so difficult when two people are both receiving old age benefits, but like myself it is quite difficult. My spouse, who is much younger than myself, does not receive the old age pension. I also have a daughter attending high school. We are all supporting ourselves on this. Hard to believe? We pay our gas bills amounting to $10 per month, light bills amounting to $5, medicine which is from $5 to $10 a month, constant home repair expenses, and many others. In the end, we do not have much left for the high standard cost of living, as you can well see.

We old age pensioners, who have built the Canadian economy should have a right to a little free care, but as you can see we are at the bottom of the pile.
People such as this deserve to be admired. But while we admire them we should not be content with leaving them at the bottom of the pile. The fact that they do get by is not reason enough for not increasing assistance to them. They manage to maintain themselves only by making sacrifices which the rest of us would not be prepared to make. Of all the groups in our society, one of the most researched is the aged, as we classify the group to which those over 65 years of age belong. Many studies and many papers have been written about the problems of this group, not only in this country but in the United States and other nations of the world. Almost without fail, the studies conclude that the single, most serious problem facing individuals over 65 is the financial one. A
April 23, 1970

The Budget-Mr. Sulatycky large proportion of our pensioners simply do not have enough money to provide them with an adequate and decent standard of living. Indeed, as a group our aged would have to be classified as poor. The poverty of the aged is as well-rooted as that of any other single group. The Special Committee of the Senate on Aging which conducted its studies relating to the aged in Canada during the year 1966 found as follows:
Without question the most serious problem encountered by the Senate committee in the course of its investigation was the degree and extent of poverty which exists among older people.
Even though, since the Senate committee made its report, many old age pensioners have received additional benefits of up to 40 per cent of their pension under the provisions of the guaranteed income supplement, a great many of them still do not have the income necessary to support themselves and, in many cases, their families. This is a situation which we as concerned Canadians, which we as representatives of the people should not tolerate. I am sure all hon. members agree that further aid must be given to the aged in those cases where it is required. The question then becomes, what can we do and how can we do it?
When examining the possibilities of increasing aid to the aged we must, of course, look at the financial implications to the economy as a whole. In the last year for which we have complete records we spent approximately $1,300 million on the combined old age pension and guaranteed income supplement. Of that total, approximately $250 million, or one-quarter of a billion dollars, was the amount paid out under the guaranteed income supplement. It is interesting to note that the total paid out under the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement amounts to 10 per cent of the total expenditures of the federal government. Having these figures before us enables us to see precisely what the possibilities may be and the limitations within which we can honestly advocate an increase in payments to the senior citizens of this land.
It is obvious, for example, that we cannot apply a simple formula such as a 100 per cent across the board increase. We simply cannot say that we will double the pension and double the guaranteed income supplement, because the federal government budget just cannot spend another $1J billion. There is just not enough money in the federal treasury, nor are there sufficient sources of reve-

nue for the government to be able to apply such a simple formula. It is obvious that something less will have to be done. If the increase should be 10 per cent in the pension and in the guaranteed income supplement, it is obvious that will not solve the problem which I submit has to be solved. What has happened is that we are using a lot of our resources which have been set aside for social purposes in a way that does not benefit the people who should be receiving benefit.
o (9:30 p.m.)
This afternoon in one of our committee meetings we heard evidence that I am sure was shocking to all members present. According to the witness-and we have no reason to doubt him-in a community of 1,500 people in northern Alberta, 80 per cent are on welfare. It costs an average of $30,000 per year to maintain each family on welfare in that community. That is a substantial amount of money. This amount includes not only the funds spent on the family but also the administrative costs. I think an example such as this is all that is required to point out that our system of social security must undergo a complete revamping. When we pay $30,000 to support a family which probably should be able to get by on $7,000 or $8,000, we are not making the best use of our resources.
I am heartened by the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) is making a complete study of the social security system of this country. Within a very short time the minister will be presenting a white paper outlining how we can rationalize this system which we have created through what can perhaps be termed an ad hoc approach to problems. This is what we have done over the years in dealing with people who require assistance because they are not able to look after themselves-the senior citizens of this country. We have built a system which is no longer making the best use of our funds.
I am convinced that by taking a rational approach and trying to co-ordinate the various loose ends of the social security picture we can save money and at the same time increase the benefits to groups such as the old age pensioners. It is obvious that if the Minister of National Health and Welfare is able to obtain only $500 million from his colleagues on the Treasury Board, as some people fear he may, this amount will enable him, without affecting a saving anywhere else in the social structure, to triple the
April 23, 1970

guaranteed income supplement. By doing this, every person who qualifies for the guaranteed income supplement would be assured of an increase in excess of $150 per annum. Most people who have studied this problem, not only in Canada but in the United States, agree that if the government can provide a guaranteed income supplement of approximately $150 per annum for old age pensioners this would enable them to live in decency. I repeat that I look forward to the approach which the Minister of National Health and Welfare is taking. I am sure it will result in a substantial increase in the pensions of our senior citizens. I am sure that hon. members from all parties will support this measure.
One other matter in relation to old age pensioners which I feel should be discussed relates to property taxes and rents which senior citizens must bear. As hon. members know, a very large portion of property tax is made up of the amount of taxation required to support education. The senior citizens who have lived in this country for many years have to a great extent been responsible for the building of this country. They paid for the education that most of us in this House and which most adults in the country have received. Yet these people are still being required to pay for the greatly increased educational costs which we are undertaking today.
It is my belief that the government should consider easing the property tax burden and Tental burden on old age pensioners through some form of allowable deduction for income tax purposes. Perhaps the entire amount of property tax which the old age pensioner pays on his residence, or a portion of the rent could qualify as a deduction from income tax. There are other possibilities. Perhaps this amount could be related; however, it is unlikely that the federal government could do this directly. It may be necessary for the federal government to provide some incentive to provincial governments to ensure that they institute programs to ease the property tax burden and the rent burden on our senior citizens. I commend this suggestion for the minister's consideration.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the Introduction of the white paper on social security. I hope it will provide very substantial increases in the pensions of our senior citizens.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I had intended in this debate to focus and zero in on three specific issues, but in view of
The Budget-Mr. Cafik the fact there are only five minutes left, I shall confine myself to one. That is need for federal and provincial legislation to ensure a greater degree of Canadian ownership of Canada's natural resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: The basic development of Canada's resources in the past has largely depended upon the extent of foreign investment that has been brought into this country. This has largely taken the form of equity investment. If steps are taken to dissuade or dry up this foreign investment, corresponding steps must be taken to encourage Canadian individuals and institutions to replace this missing capital with their own risk dollars.
I believe that legislation is required to make it possible for many of our institutions to take the necessary steps to assist us in achieving self-ownership. Insurance companies have millions and millions of dollars in reserve, but are prohibited by law from investing in a way that will help us achieve that objective. They are limited to the investment of 15 per cent of their reserves in equity stock, and only then under very stringent rules. For instance, they can only invest in a firm with a five-year history of earnings. This is but one of the many restricting limitations. A change has to be made in this regard. A portion of such funds must be made available for equity investment in risk ventures.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Then there is the money tied up in federal and provincial funds, a great deal of it-as one example the Canadian Pension Plan investment f und. In this particular case, $1,280,788,000 was given to the provinces for investment in 1968. Their investment transactions do not include investment in equity stocks. I believe laws should be passed which would allow this to happen. The money is being used at present to support provincial and municipal bond issues and investments of that type. I believe it should be required that a significant proportion of these funds be used for investments in areas of development which would maximize Canadian participation in our own future.
In my view it is better for levels of government to borrow foreign capital from banks than it is to admit the same amount of capital into Canada by way of investment on an equity basis in our primary resource industries. The Canadian Development Corporation

April 23, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Cafik will be of help in this regard, but it is not a cure-all-it is no magic formula. Other steps need to be taken.
Wealth is the consequence of three things- first, the God-given base resource or material; second, the application of capital and, third, the application of labour-thus transforming God's gifts into something more valuable or desirable. Labour and capital have the right to their reward, but our natural resources are, in my view, the common heritage of all mankind; in a special way they are the common heritage of those who live in the nation where those resources are found. If we do not recognize this now through legislative steps, something more drastic will have to be done at a later date to rectify the situation.
In short, I believe we must take action to assure the future of Canada for all Canadians. I believe legislation is required to accomplish this.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It being 9.45 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 8 of Standing Order 60, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 9.45 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, April 24, 1970