1970-03-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, in French and in English-Mr. Laflamme.

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in French and in English-Mr. Leblanc.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-iings):: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43. I base my reason for obtaining an unanimous consent on the fact that during February unemployment in Canada increased from 6.1 per cent to 6.5 per cent of the work force, the culmination of a steady rise during the past several months.
What is particularly alarming is the government's refusal to take positive action to increase employment, and specifically to take steps which would enable:
1.	A greatly expanded drive to increase exports, and thus create more jobs.
2.	The introduction of tax incentives to increase productivity so that our products will be more competitive, sell more readily, and create more jobs.
3.	The Bank of Canada to give the lead in lowering interest rates, so that lower costs will lower prices, increase sales, and increase jobs.
I therefore ask leave to move the following motion under Standing Order 43:
That this House, comprising the elected representatives of all the people of Canada, consider and recommend a more effective method of increasing exports, productivity and sales, and thereby increase employment in this country.
I might add that since a number of important questions are involved in the motion which is to be considered by the House today, in the event of my being given unanimous consent to put forward this motion Your Honour might consider having it debated tomorrow, because the motion is of such importance that it deserves a full day to itself.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members know, of
course, that the motion proposed by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings cannot be put to the House at this time unless there is unanimous consent. I must inquire whether there is such unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Some hon. members agree but others express disagreement, and because of this the motion cannot be put.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 LABOUR CONDITIONS UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-ALLEGED ABDICATION OF RESPONSIBILITY BY GOVERNMENT

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the failure of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings to get unanimous agreement to proceed with his motion, I should like to ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the abdication of responsibility by the government toward the unemployed and those who will soon face unemployment by its failure to implement policies to reverse the
March 19, 1970
5212	COMMONS
Interpretation of Words of Minister staggering increase in national unemployment and the critical increases in certain regions of this country as revealed in statistics released today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has filed the notice required under Standing Order 26. Since receiving this notice I have given the hon. member's proposal very serious consideration.
It is hardly necessary to remind the House that under the terms of section 5 of Standing Order 26 the Chair is required to have regard to the probability of the matter in question being brought before the House within a reasonable time; in other words, that there be an opportunity for debate within a reasonable time.
I do not think it is possible for me to overlook the fact that we are currently engaged in a budget debate. The wide-ranging discussion which characterizes this debate normally provides an opportunity for discussion by hon. members of problems which are of national concern. Indeed, many of the speeches delivered in the course of the debate which started on Monday of this week have dealt with the continuing problem of unemployment. This continuing debate will, of course, provide the opportunity for debate contemplated by section 5 of Standing Order 26. In the circumstances I would not think the Chair could justifiably put the hon. member's motion to the House at this time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of an observation made last night by the Minister of Finance on a national television network, an interpretation that was false in every particular.
Yesterday I asked for the production of certain figures, as I had over and over again. These figures involved criticisms of the government's white paper on tax reform. The minister wanted to send over to me what he said were coupons. In reply to that observation-and these were my words-I said that I wanted the numbers, and that there should be no specialized count by the government of


what it wished to produce in answer to my question. The minister proceeded to interpret my views in a way that indicated-and I am not going to place it on Hansard-the level at which most of his thinking is done.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the latest unemployment figures now indicate a rate exceeding 6 per cent for the nation and as high as 11 per cent for the Atlantic provinces, which I believe are the highest over-all figures in some six years, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether his government is now considering some selective measures to expand employment, as is now being done in the United States?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: The hon. member should know that we have many types of measures to expand employment and to release from the over-all antiinflationary fight of the government those areas where unemployment is high. The federal government is putting hundreds of millions of dollars through the regional economic expansion programs in precisely those areas which have to be helped.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is pretty clear that the effects of the negative policies of the government in those areas are far exceeding any benefit from any positive policies. With regard to the country as a whole, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention to pursue a policy of increasing unemployment, particularly in view of these figures and in view of the prediction made by the Minister of Finance in his budget that unemployment would increase, by proceeding with the proposed restrictions on consumer credit?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is it the intention of the hon. member to stop beating his wife?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
March 19, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	5213
Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: Look, he is joking and unemployment increase-use OF WORKERS smirking.	from other countries


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you at least try to act like a Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would now agree that it is the policy of his government to deliberately create unemployment in the course of fighting inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What does the hon. member think?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the construction industry probably has a greater economic multiplier effect than any other industry in the country, is the government giving any consideration to reintroducing the hospital construction grants and vocational training school construction grants and extending the housing program in order to reduce the very serious level of unemployment which has now reached well over half a million?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, some days ago the minister responsible for housing indicated that the budget for housing would be considerably expanded.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that unemployment has now reached 6J per cent and the cost of living in February had gone up 5 per cent over last year, I should like to ask how much higher the cost of living has to go and how much more unemployment must we have before the government will recognize that its program is not working and reverse it?


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As unemployment has continued to rise at an accelerated rate despite the government's program which the Prime Minister has mentioned, are he and the government now willing to consider the constructive propositions and proposals put forward by the opposition for increasing employment through constructive measures?


An hon. Member:: What are they?


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the figures that have just been stated regarding unemployment, could he advise the House whether it is still his intention, as in other years, to import and bring into Canada people from offshore countries such as Jamaica, France and Belgium, particularly in view of the difficulties that students are having in finding employment this summer?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we propose to continue bringing in a relatively small number of labourers from the Caribbean. We do this because the Canadian labour market is not capable of providing for this need at the particular time. I do not regard this movement as one that is taking jobs away from available Canadians. If I did have that view I would not support the program.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a supplementary question. Would the minister give the unemployed people in Canada the opportunity to fill these jobs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as my hon.
friend knows, there is a very heavy seasonal demand for labourers in agriculture, especially in Ontario. Every effort will be made this summer, as has been done in the past, to recruit Canadian employees where they are available for these job openings. My hon. friend can be assured of that.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. Does he not now consider-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oxford.


George Harris Hees: I will be back.



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-SPEEDIER PROCESSING OF INSURANCE CLAIMS

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Would the minister increase his already good efforts to try to persuade the Unemployment Insurance Commission to expedite even more the handling of unemployment insurance claims which is a very serious problem in the industrial areas.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in the Oshawa area we

March 19, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry have already taken steps in anticipation of the predicted lay-offs due to the model changes. We will do everything possible to reduce the 2 per cent of claims that are not processed as expeditiously as all of us, including the Minister of Labour, would like to see them processed.



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-TRAINING AND RETRAINING OF YOUNG PEOPLE-PAYMENT OF ALLOWANCES

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration arising out of the questions on unemployment. In view of the fact that by far the largest group of the unemployed are very young people between the ages of 14 and 19, would the minister inform the House how soon we may expect the changes in the law and regulations affecting training and retraining and the payment of allowances to those persons obtaining retraining so as to remove the three-year waiting period for allowances and the other obstacles to the training and retraining of young people?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I shall not enter into a dispute about the statistics of my hon. friend, although I draw a slightly different interpretation from the unemployment figures than he does. I would say, however, in respect of his question that, as he knows, it is a most fundamental question relating to the distribution of available funds among the work force capable of taking training. At present consultations and research are being carried on with the provinces. We expect advice from the National Advisory Council on Manpower and Immigration. If any change is indicated, we do not feel it would be wise to make a fundamental change until we have had the best possible advice from these two sources. In other words, I do not expect a decision at an early date.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that, if my memory serves me right, some weeks ago the minister indicated that changes in the rules along this line were being contemplated, does the minister's answer now mean that such changes are not being contemplated but that he is waiting for some advice from somebody?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. I should like to check that recollection of my hon. friend. We have under very active considera-

tion changing another rule with regard to the manpower training program, namely, the length of time during which a person may take training, and we have made some other changes. But with regard to this very basic change, no decision will be taken at an early date and not until we have the most complete information we can obtain.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion a question. I am sure he must be disappointed that the figures in respect of employment in the Atlantic provinces are lower than they were a year ago. Does he feel that this is due to any failure on his part or rather that it is due to the arrogant and brutal policies pursued by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for St. John's East.



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-SUGGESTED EMERGENCY PROGRAM FOR QUEBEC AND ATLANTIC PROVINCES

Mr. James A. McGralh (SI. John's Easl):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that the program announced by the minister last week will not take effect in time to meet the current crisis, is the minister prepared to implement a program such as the winter works program to cope with the seriously high rate of unemployment in the province of Quebec and in the Atlantic provinces, which forecasts indicate will be even higher for the month of March?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, even if we were considering something like the winter works program it could not be implemented overnight. As a matter of fact, I believe we can achieve, through our special areas program, at least as much as could be done with the winter works program, and as quickly, and I see no point in seeking another formula at present.



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-ADVANCING OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS IN SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works. About three weeks
March 19, 1970

ago I asked the minister whether, in view of the fact that housing starts in Saskatchewan have dropped from 420 a year ago to 18 this year, advances have been made in the public works program-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering whether this is a supplementary question. Perhaps the hon. member might continue, but if the question is not a supplementary the Chair would normally give the floor to the hon. member for Shefford.


Stanley James Korchinski: If Your Honour will allow me to follow through with the question you will realize that it is very much a supplementary as it is related directly to the unemployment problem. Has the minister a report to make to the House indicating what projects have been advanced, as he indicated would be done, so that the unemployment problem may be solved? Could he also indicate at this time whether, in view of the fact that many people have moved from Saskatchewan to places like Toronto and Edmonton, such cities will fall into a special category?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is perhaps too long, but now that he has asked it the minister might wish to reply briefly. However, I do not think he should make a general statement at this time.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is quite prepared to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I have indicated to the minister that he should reply but I have invited him not to make a statement at this time.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: We are putting together a number of projects from a number of departments within the government, some of the work being anticipatory. We expect to make an announcement very shortly with regard to work that we can do in Saskatchewan.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whit-by):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Given the government's monetary and fiscal policies, is the Prime Minister happy with the current rate of unemployment or is he disappointed that it has not risen further?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think a question seeking to ascertain the degree of the Prime Minister's happiness or disappointment can be accepted at this time.


An hon. Member:: This is his day to sulk.
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Does he not consider that unemployment has reached such sufficient degree of seriousness that he should treat it with something better than sly smiles and wisecracks, the way he does in this House every day as if he cared nothing for the unemployed people of this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-SUMMER EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the unemployment statistics released today and the trouble which will be faced by students in finding summer employment, can the minister assure the House he will be making a statement on motions before the Easter recess regarding student and youth unemployment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I cannot give an assurance that I will make a statement but I can assure the House we will be getting jobs for students this summer and hope to do as well as last summer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I notice there are five or six hon. members who are seeking to ask further supplementary questions. I would like to suggest that we might give a few other hon. members an opportunity to ask their questions, following which we will return to this very important and urgent problem. I think that in fairness we should now recognize the hon. member for Shefford.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, as the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications is not in the House, I shall direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Since the appointment of the commissioner of inquiry to solve the postal dispute in Montreal, does the Prime Minister believe that the action taken by this investigator will lead to an early settlement of this dispute?

March 19, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hope so, Mr. Speaker.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation in connection with the program of wheat inventory reduction, or is the government intending to limit its authority to the rather meagre and sparse details of the vote appearing in the Supplementary Estimates?


Hon. Olto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the inventory reduction program there will be a number of regulations, both in connection with the item in the estimates referred to by the hon. member and also in connection with the Wheat Board Act.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was really referring to legislation. Possibly the minister might refer to that, Mr. Speaker, but I have a supplementary question as well. In view of the very serious allegations which have been made in the other place by a distinguished Saskatchewan fellow citizen of the minister, is it the intention of the minister to make a statement on motions outlining his views as to the legality of the procedure which is being adopted, and in making this statement will he indicate whether he consulted with the other former law professors, who are colleagues in the House, at the time the program was being arranged?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, of course in connection with any program such as this legal opinions are taken in advance. I do not have any intention of making any statement on motions to rebut what may, for all I know, have been a fairly offhand opinion.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS AND REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio. In view of the fact that western farmers must make their decisions now on spring seeding plans, can the minister inform the House if regula-

tions implementing the government's wheat acreage reduction plan will be issued prior to Easter, and will these regulations be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture in view of concern about their constitutional validity and the degree of effectiveness of the program?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not yet sure about the exact time for release of the regulations or the adopting of them. Of course we are trying to bring them forward as soon as possible, and we are very much aware of the importance of having them available as early as we can.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-REPLACEMENT BY ACREAGE PAYMENT

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister without Portfolio. In view of the fact that the DBS farm questionnaire shows that the farmers intend planting 18 million acres of wheat this spring, and thus the apparent failure of the government's wheat acreage reduction program, would the minister consider advising the government to drop the program in favour of an acreage payment in proportion to farm size, in order to make a more equitable distribution of the funds available?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has drawn what might be described as a fairly important erroneous conclusion from the DBS estimate. That estimate was based on the conclusions of farmers largely made before the program itself was announced. The DBS figures, however, did show that a very large amount of acreage was apt to move out of wheat into other crops, and the need to hold this acreage out of production rather than allow it to flood other areas of the market has emphasized the importance of the governments' program.


George Robson Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the DBS figures indicate that the farmers have already decided to reduce wheat acreage by 26 per cent, on top of the 15 per cent reduction last year-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the hon. member is entering the field of debate with the minister. If he has a supplementary question, perhaps it could be asked now.
March 19, 1970


George Robson Muir: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I was just getting to my question. Would the minister also give consideration to maintaining the present delivery quota system, instead of using the Wheat Board to coerce the farmers into following an unworkable plan of using summerfallow as a basis of wheat delivery?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe the hon. member for Regina East had a supplementary question.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-FURTHER ACTION TO STABILIZE FARM INCOME

John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that a considerable portion of the increase in unemployment announced today took place on the Prairies and is due to agricultural conditions, is the government presently considering any further plans to stabilize farm income in addition to the plan announced by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang)?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-AMENDMENT OF CASH ADVANCES LEGISLATION

Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that farmers must soon decide on their crop planting plans for this year, does the minister intend to introduce legislation to amend the cash advances legislation, which will have to be changed if farmers are going to follow the plan announced by the minister?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the cash advance legislation as it exists will continue to apply, and the eligibility of farmers for cash advances will therefore continue to be based on the wording of that legislation. The cash advance system itself will be continued.


Stanley James Korchinski: As a supplementary question, for clarification-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will have to go on to another subject in a moment, but the hon. member for Mackenzie may have a supplementary and then I will recognize the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


Stanley James Korchinski: Just for clarification, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the wording
Inquiries of the Ministry of the cash advance legislation relates to the total cultivated acreage rather than summer-fallow acreage or other specified acreage, does the minister not feel that that legislation should be amended at this time so that farmers will know whether they qualify for cash advances or not?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in fact the cash advance legislation refers to acreage in such a way that it will be possible to operate the legislation in connection with the program, with the delivery opportunities based on the acres specified for that purpose in the permit book.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM- COVER CROPS-QUOTA SYSTEM FACTORS

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister without Portfolio whether the regulations for the wheat acreage reduction program will allow farmers to put in cover crops rather than summerfallow? Further, will the minister advise whether under the new quota system consideration will be given to farmers who reduced their wheat acreage last year, and to farmers who have no wheat carry-over?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to include provision for cover crops within the regulations, allowing a farmer to put in a cover crop after July 15, a cover crop of any type provided he does not harvest it, and still count the land as summerfallow, or to put in a cover crop of oats early in the year provided that crop is turned down or cut prior to July 15.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS STATEMENT REGARDING POSSIBLE ACTION BY QUEBEC

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion uttered government policy last night, when he went outside his own field and stated that so far as a certain provincial government is concerned that, unless it has an over-all majority, any action by it that is not acceptable to the federal government will be subject to veto, and if the provincial government carries out its threat to act, having taken office and having the support of most of the members in the legislature, there would even be armed intervention on the part of the federal government?

March 19. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, without conceding that this reflects anything that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion might have said, I might say in reply to part of the question of the right hon. member that this certainly is not a statement of goverment policy. This government has no policy regarding separatism, except that it will not happen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister say that this outrageous doctrine the minister uttered, which actually violates our constitution, will not be carried into effect? This new form of veto announced by the minister, which would change the constitution, is something I have not heard before, and I thank the Prime Minister for saying that the minister was talking through his hat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion as to how many provincial governments have concluded agreements with the federal government in relation to the special areas program, and the minister replied that "there are no formal agreements on this." In view of his statement on March 11 that the first of these agreements will be signed with Newfoundland and New Brunswick very shortly, I would like to ask him how many provincial governments have now signed agreements with the federal government on this program?


Jean Marchand: The answer is exactly the same as yesterday, Mr. Speaker.



ASSISTANCE TO GLACE BAY HEAVY WATER PLANT

Mr. Rod Thomson (Bailleford-Kindersley):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker. In view of reports that heavy water will be rationed among Canadian atomic energy plants, will the minister say if the government is now prepared to grant assistance to the government of Nova Scotia to finish the Glace Bay heavy water plant?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, discussions are continuing with the province of Nova Scotia in this regard but there is nothing to announce at the present time.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister been able to find out if we can get heavy water from other sources for our atomic energy plants?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think we have been able to acquire some heavy water from other sources to help carry us over the short period, we hope, when we will have a shortfall of heavy water.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Further to questions that have been asked from time to time about the Robertson inquiry into shipbuilding, can the minister now say when this government, industry-based investigation will be completed?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I shall inquire, Mr. Speaker, and answer this question next time.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister replies will he go as far as he possibly can to indicate the disposition of this report and what the government intends to do, because of the very heavy lay-offs in what little is left of the shipbuilding industry in Canada and the fact that the men are leaving this industry and are leaving the country?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a suggestion to the minister which he has to assume will be taken under consideration.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the serious condition of unemployment, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour. Perhaps he does not hear me, but I will ask my question any way.
Could the Minister tell us whether he is in favour of increased unemployment as a means to help the Minister of Finance check inflation?
March 19, 1970


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that the question is acceptable in those terms.



HARBOURS


Mr. Waller C. Carter (SI. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can the minister say whether a decision has been made on the application from the Newfoundland government for a substantial loan to provide docking facilities at Come-By-Chance?


Jean Marchand: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


Walter C. Carter: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say when a decision will be made on that application?


Jean Marchand: Shortly, Mr. Speaker.



POLLUTION


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has any decision yet been made concerning legislation to limit the use of phosphates in detergents in Canada?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the
manner in which we will legislate to achieve this end which I have announced has not yet been determined, whether it will be a separate bill or an amendment to the Canada water bill, but we hope to have a decision on this question very shortly.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister make an announcement concerning this matter so that the committee on resources will not be involved in an exercise in futility, if an amendment is not to be made to the Canada Water Act?



PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I would address my question to the President
Inquiries of the Ministry of the Privy Council in his capacity as Government House Leader. Would the minister make arrangements to convene the Committee on Procedure and Organization just as soon as possible? With your permission, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to explain the matter briefly to the minister because the estimates are before most of the committees for discussion and some uniformity is required as to the procedure. Attempts have been made in some committees, and I speak from personal knowledge, to prevent opposition members making any statements whatsoever in the discussion of estimates.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member that the Procedure and Organization Committee held its organizational meeting yesterday and apparently discussed its plans for the balance of the session. I would remind the hon. member that I suggested yesterday to the House that it should make a general reference of the question of procedures to the committee so that it could carry on with this study but that his colleagues refused.



STRAIT OF GEORGIA-ISSUANCE OF DRILLING PERMITS

['Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I can answer this question without knowing exactly which French proposal is being referred to. Several have been made. Indeed, amendments and subamendments have been proposed. We would have to know which one the hon. member has in mind.']
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker, and I hope we can get a definitive answer to a question raised this morning in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. Have permits for oil drilling in Georgia Strait been issued by the federal government or, to his knowledge, has the government of the province of British Columbia taken any action in this connection?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, they certainly have not been issued by the federal government or my department, which would be responsible. To the best of my knowledge there have been no provincial permits issued, although I could not speak authoritatively on this subject.



Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.

March 19, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
Since conflicting accounts are reaching us from Niamey and since the Prime Minister is certainly informed by the representative of the Canadian government, could he tell the House whether information he has received allows him to guarantee that a cultural agency will be formed at the end of the conference in Niamey?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously, I cannot give this guarantee, Mr. Speaker. The issue depends on the discussions that are going on over there. Canada's position is quite simple. I hope hon. members of the opposition will support it and will agree that only Canada, a sovereign state, can participate as a member in international conferences.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Can he tell the House whether it is true that Canada has categorically turned down the French proposal, which would mean that she would not participate in the cultural agency that would be established?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I can answer this question without knowing exactly which French proposal is being referred to. Several have been made. Indeed, amendments and subamendments have been proposed. We would have to know which one the hon. member has in mind.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Will his quest for an approved container under the breathalyzer section of the Criminal Code soon be over?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: We are still looking, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the discussion that the minister had last Thursday with officials of the trade union from

Dunlop Tire and his subsequent telegram to the Dunlop Company on Friday morning requesting company officials to enter into discussion with provincial and federal counterparts to determine whether the plant should remain open, I wonder if the minister has received an answer to that telegram and, if not, what further steps is he planning to take?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The telegram which I sent, Mr. Speaker, was directed to the Minister of Trade and Development and the Minister of Labour of the government of Ontario indicating to them the representations I had received from the union officials and offering the co-operation of federal officials if, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, they decided a feasibility study or a study of the economics of the plant was justified at this point. To date, I have not received a reply.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In his discussions with the provincial ministers is the minister making the suggestion or raising the question of the desirability of having legislation at either the provincial or federal level which would make it compulsory for companies to show economic justification to employees for the closing down of a firm?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My communications did not cover that point, Mr. Speaker.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can the minister assure the House that the old pork barrel system will not be used in designating funds-


An hon. Member:: Newfoundland.


James Aloysius McGrath: We know all about it in Newfoundland; we have a Liberal government there.


An hon. Member:: Good point.


James Aloysius McGrath: Can the minister assure the House that the old pork barrel system will not be used in designating funds under the minister's special areas program-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member realizes that a question cannot be asked in those terms. Perhaps it might be rephrased.
March 19, 1970


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, it was an extreme provocation, Your Honour must admit. According to the announcement made by the Premier of Newfoundland, as found in the current issue of Maclean's magazine, $14 million of the $20 million designated for Newfoundland under the special areas program is to be spent in the riding of the Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: I want to get an assurance from the minister, Mr. Speaker, that moneys spent under this program will not be spent under the old barrel system of political patronage.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry but the question, even as rephrased, cannot be put. I am sure the hon. member realizes that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister wishes to rise on a point of order.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I only want to tell the hon. member that 75 per cent of the special areas are represented by Progressive Conservative members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order. The hon. member for York South.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Peters:: Does that mean they are not considered?


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order? Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. I have ruled there is no point of order. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for York South. The Leader of the Opposition is seeking the floor. He will be recognized after the hon. member's question has been asked.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
David Lewis: If I may
change the subject, Mr. Speaker, I will direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the very dangerous
Inquiries of the Ministry developments in Laos and Cambodia, is the government considering making representations to the United States government to avoid making Laos and Cambodia into another Viet Nam?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate under these circumstances that Canada should support any international efforts in this direction. This we are prepared to do.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government asked its representative in the area on the International Control Commission, who I understand would now be our person at Saigon, to keep careful watch over developments and to advise the government as to steps that may be taken to avoid a further escalation of the war in Indo-China?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is exactly in this kind of endeavour that we have been frustrated. If we had been allowed to operate as the International Control Commission was intended, it would have been possible to report violation of the ceasefire long since. We have been prevented largely because we cannot get the co-operation of the other members of the commission and partly because we have not been allowed access into the areas controlled by the Pathet Lao, for example.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My
question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the recent United States announcement that 60 per cent of the coastguard budget will be used to build a fleet of icebreakers, has the minister been able to ascertain from the United States government whether this means they do not recognize our sovereignty over Arctic waters?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to ask the President of the Privy Council what interesting propositions he has to place before the House between tomorrow and April 6, both inclusive?

March 19, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Hopkins


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can indicate with regard to tomorrow that we will be proceeding with the report stage of the bill with respect to supplementary pension benefits, government order 81. The business for next Monday and Wednesday will be announced, depending on progress on that particular matter. As already indicated, Tuesday will be the final allotted day of the period.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the minister consider using his considerable influence, about which he is so modest, with his colleagues on the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to use the estimates of the House which are before that committee as a means of securing a full and adequate discussion of those procedures of this House which have been the subject of discussion and need some examination?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the more orderly way of proceeding, particularly in relation to a committee dealing with the Standing Orders, would be by way of a general reference from the House of the kind I suggested yesterday and which I hope the hon. member might be prepared to accept.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the Government House Leader consider discussing with his fellow House Leaders the terms of reference of such a motion?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I could draw the hon. member's attention to the suggestion I made yesterday. I will be glad to have his comments on the terms of reference set out there.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, anything like that ought to be put before us in writing.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is already before the House in writing, Mr. Speaker. I should point out to the hon. member that Hansard is printed these days.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, March 18, consideration of the motion of Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) that this 
House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West)
(page 5051).
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, there is one particular subject I want to strongly emphasize in this budget debate. Parliament, and indeed all Canadians, should take note of the attack being made today on a very important segment of the Canadian science community.
At Rolphton, Ontario, there is a nuclear power demonstration plant which was built by General Electric for Ontario Hydro. Advice on this project was received from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Some very damaging remarks are being made today in certain parts of Canada with regard to nuclear power stations and these are reflecting on our science community. Canadians should be proud of the achievements of the people in our Canadian science community, particularly in the nuclear field. I refer to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. The professionals of Atomic Energy have contributed greatly to the installation of nuclear power stations which will produce hydro power in Canada. They have schools to train their technical people.
The science community of Canada has come a long way. What concerns me is that if this propaganda and these attacks continue against the technical and professional people of Atomic Energy and other segments of our science community, it is going to hurt our image abroad. These attacks are undeserving and should not be directed toward this responsible group. From time to time during the last five years this plant at Rolphton has in fact been producing electric power for the town of Deep River.
I now wish to deal with the subject of
housing. I wish to congratulate the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) in charge of housing for the provisions he has made for the people in the low income brackets of this country, namely those earning less than $8,000 a year, who qualify for CMHC loans. Those people in Canada wishing to purchase a home are told to obtain a mortgage under the National Housing Act from their bank or an approved lender of their choice, and that CMHC will be pleased to consider it for insurance upon submission to it by the lender. I have received representations from people in my area. I am sure other hon. members have also received these representations. The
March 19, 1970

lending institutions are not providing funds
for those people in the salary bracket over $8,000 a year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret I have to inform the hon. member that his time has expired, unless there is unanimous agreement that he may continue.
There is no such agreement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make some comments on the course of this debate, some observations upon the minister's budget.
I should like to begin by dealing with the impression the minister tried so hard to give that there were no tax increases in the budget. This is a false impression, because when inflation takes place and money incomes increase, it means that many Canadians will not only be paying higher taxes, but paying a higher rate of tax-having got into another tax bracket-notwithstanding the fact that in real terms their incomes may even have declined. Others will find that the value of the exemptions has been still further eroded. Again, Canadians who in the past have been considered not sufficiently well-to-do to pay income taxes, will find themselves paying tax as a result of inflation, as a result of an increase in their cash incomes, though they may well have suffered a reduction in terms of real income.
It is nonsense for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to pretend there is no increase in the rate of tax projected for the next fiscal year. It is nonsense in the light of the fact that for the next fiscal year he has predicted an unpredictable increase in the cost of living-an unpredicted decrease in the value of the dollar. The minister may have made no change in the former rates of tax, many Canadians will find themselves subjected to increased rates of taxation, even though they may have enjoyed no increase whatsoever in their real incomes. This might be called: How to raise income tax rates without even trying.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister did not forecast the degree of inflation expected to take place in 1970. He hopes it will be less than in 1969 when it was something over 4J per cent. The figures we have seen so far this year indicate a substantial increase in the cost of living during the current year. When the minister presented his budget in the spring of 1969 I

The Budget-Mr. Stanfield believe he forecast a rate of price increase of about 31 per cent. Of course, he turned out to be very wide of the mark.
There is a long tradition of bad estimating, bad prediction, on the part of this government. About the time I entered this House I recall the former Minister of Finance, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) predicting in the budget for 196869 that the increase in government expenditure would be held to 4i per cent. In fact, the increase turned out to be more than twice that amount. Then, during the financial crisis of February and March, 1968, which some people will remember, we were given a firm assurance by the present Minister of Finance, at that time President of the Treasury Board, expressed in the following terms as reported in Hansard of February 13, 1968:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to guarantee to the House that after the supplementary estimates are introduced during the year, and the year has ended, with the normal lapses which always occur, we will hit our $10.3 billion ceiling and will balance the budget this year.
Later, following the election campaign, in October of 1968, the minister said, after some introductory words which I do not need to quote, "This will leave a substantial deficit of $730 million." He was referring to the same year. It may be that following the tradition of his predecessor the hon. gentleman proved himself a sufficiently bad forecaster to be appointed minister of finance.
This year, after such a record, the minister is not making any predictions about the amount of the increase in the cost of living. He seems to have given up predicting. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, there are a good many of us who would like to see him give up being a minister. Let me say this: it is nonsense for the minister to try to pretend there is no increase in the rate of personal income tax in Canada this year. In fact, there will be a substantial increase, the amount depending upon the degree of inflation which takes place.
All this follows substantial increases in recent years-substantial but sneaky increases in taxation in 1967, 1968 and 1969. Of course, in the budget presented in the spring of 1968 a surtax of 3 per cent was imposed on both personal and corporate incomes. Last year, in the fall budget of 1968, the minister imposed an additional 2 per cent social development tax, limited to a total maximum-


Mr. Benson:: No.
5224	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in 1968 a surtax of 3 per cent was placed upon personal and corporate incomes. In 1969, the minister added a further 2 per cent social development tax. All this was in addition to the substantial increases in personal income tax brought about by continual and serious inflation. So, there have been severe increases in rates of taxation in addition to equally severe increases which have been brought about by inflation. I say these things in order to provide a little background to the budget which the minister has presented.
While he was preparing that budget the Minister of Finance knew perfectly well that the ordinary Canadian taxpayer has been getting a double whammy for the last two or three years. He has been subjected to explicit and overt increases in taxation and he has also been subjected to increases in the rates of taxation, as a consequence of inflation. The minister also knows perfectly well that the value of any exemptions has been substantially eroded. The real value of the $1,000 and $2,000 exemptions, for example, has been very, very substantially eroded as a result of the policies of this government.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
With this background of experience and with the outlook that the minister was projecting, one that included a further increase in prices, a further increase in the cost of living and further increases in real taxation, I say that a very reasonable thing for the minister to do would have been to give some tax relief to those on low incomes.
I had suggested that the minister should provide in his budget for tax rebates to those who are below the poverty line as defined by the Economic Council of Canada. I am advised that to provide relief simply to them, that to take those taxpayers off the tax rolls, would cost some $85 million a year. I am not talking at the moment about changing exemptions or about what would be involved in changing exemptions; I am simply talking about providing a tax rebate or a tax credit for those who are below the poverty line. I am suggesting that the minister should have proposed this as an interim measure pending the adoption of some more far-reaching tax reform.
If the minister were not prepared to go that far, then he should at least have been prepared to go some of the distance. He should have been prepared to do something that would give some relief to the taxpayers at the lower end of the scale. But far from doing

DEBATES	March 19, 1979
this, the budget that the minister has presented, in the context that he has projected-the context of higher prices-really envisages not relief for the low income earners or receivers but higher rates of taxation than those that existed in the past.
Then, there is the situation of the aged, which is well known. The adjustments provided are limited to approximately 2 per cent per annum of the basic pension of $75 a month. We all know that the cost of living has risen substantially more than this 2 per cent of $75 in each of the last several years, and there is no need to elaborate on this point. Here again, the budget of the Minister of Finance increases the burden placed on many of these people. But above all, the government has absolutely refused to make any change that would permit the GIS to be adjusted, at least in accordance with the cost of living rate.
A few weeks ago, in response to a question, the minister of health stated he had told the provinces that if they were prepared to supplement the old age security payments of the government of Canada, then the government of Canada would bear 50 per cent of this cost under the Canada Assistance Act. Any member of this government ought to know what chance there would be of this being done in the less well-to-do provinces, particularly in those provinces that are struggling to join the federal government's medicare program. This is a very unfair proposal, a proposal that I would say could hardly be put forward seriously, and one which was obviously beyond the reach of a good many provinces to accept. So much for the just society.
I suppose the minister justifies all this as being necessary in the fight against inflation. I suppose the minister will say that there is no group in society that has more to gain as a result of the government's bringing inflation under control; that there is no group in society that has more to gain by seeing inflation is limited; that there is no group hurt more by inflation. It is true that there is probably no group in society that is being hurt more by inflation. There is probably no group in society less able to protect itself against the rigours of inflation.
I would ask the Minister of Finance and the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp), why it is necessary in this country of ours, of which we are so proud, to ask these older people to bear such a disproportionate burden, such a disproportionate share of the real, actual cost of fighting inflation in this country. I say there is
March 19, 1970

no justification for this burden. This government, like the laissez-faire Liberals of the 19th century who objected to factory legislation that was designed to limit hours and conditions of work in the factories on the ground that this interfered with the workings of the unseen hand, these so-called middle 20th century Liberals, also object to doing something to take a little of the load off the backs of the elderly people on the ground that do to do so would interfere with the government's fight against inflation. What poppycock, Mr. Speaker!
I say that it is not necessary for the aged to suffer. I do not think the older people, or any of the rest of us, have to accept the "guff" that it is necessary for the elderly to suffer in the best interests of the country. This situation is not good enough. I should like to hear the Minister of Finance explain why it is necessary for these older people to bear this burden; why it is necessary for them to bear the brunt of this in the interests of fighting inflation. I hope that the minister will explain this not only to my satisfaction but to the satisfaction of the people of this country.
I have something harsh to say now, Mr. Speaker, but there are times when harsh things should be said. I do not want to direct my comments solely to the Minister of Finance; they have to be directed to, and accepted by, the whole government. I say this government is tramping on the faces of the poor and helpless of this country today. Look at what they are doing. Look at what they have done. How has the government fought inflation, apart from the ineffectual action they have taken, judging from the 1969 figures and the latest 1970 figures? What methods have they employed?
Traditionally they have fought inflation by raising taxes, particularly income tax. This, of course, has encouraged Canadians who pay these higher taxes to push for higher salaries or wages in the hope of being able to offset these higher income taxes that they have had to pay. Income taxes have been put up not over a period of just one year or two years, but each year that we have had inflation.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
What is the other method that the government has been using to fight inflation? They are great people for putting some slack in the economy. The former Minister of Finance, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), said in the fall of 1967 that this government was prepared to put

The Budget-Mr. Stanfield some slack in the economy if this were necessary to fight inflation. Since then, this has become almost a fetish with the government. It has become virtually a theme with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He said a while back that he was prepared to accept an unemployment rate of 6 per cent. That is exactly what he has got today, the highest rate in six years. I heard the Prime Minister say it is unfair to accuse this government of deliberately creating unemployment to fight inflation. What is unfair about it? What could be a more exact description of what the government is doing? If one follows a policy of slowing down the economy, it is inevitable that this will create unemployment, and one must accept the consequences of one's actions and intentions. This is certainly a deliberate intention.
We now come to the budget of the Minister of Finance. Is it not fair to say that the main thrust of his budget was to create more unemployment? I read the darn thing and I listened to him. I was trying to figure out why he presented such a budget at all. The only reason I could ascertain was that he was trying to convince the country he was going to create more unemployment and explain how he was going to do it. Otherwise he should have just filed some tables and let it go at that. He has done this although there is no excessive demand. I do not think there is anybody, including the Minister of Finance, who really argues that inflation in Canada is the result of excessive demand. The Economic Council of Canada pointed this out last summer, and that council received a severe attack from the Minister of Finance for making that statement. I think since then the Minister of Finance has pretty well had to agree that inflation is, in fact, not the result of excessive demand. I do not believe the Minister really pretends that it is.
The white paper-not the infamous white paper on taxation-of 1968 on the subject of inflation pointed out that the methods which had been pursued by the former Minister of Finance, and up to that point by the present Minister of Finance, were not satisfactory. That white paper recommended the appointment of a prices and incomes commission to advise the government as to how to fight inflation. Many times since that commission was established the government has pretended that the commission is really responsible for leading the fight against inflation in Canada. This has been the pretense and the
March 19, 1976

The Budget-Mr. Stanfield refuge of the government practically every time anyone has asked the government a question.
The Prices and Incomes Commission, particularly the chairman, has been very concerned about the amount of unemployment that would be created, and the length of time it would take to bring inflation under control, if the country simply followed the methods that were being pursued by the Minister of Finance to avoid this situation. It was to avoid the creation of unnecessary unemployment that Dr. Young recommended an attempt to effect an agreement on the voluntary restraint program. It was precisely for that reason he made this recommendation, and he made that very clear. I suggest that Dr. Young's point of view has obviously never been accepted by the Minister of Finance. This kind of guideline of restraint approach was rejected by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) in 1967 when he was the Minister of Finance. It has been pooh-poohed a number of times by the Minister of Finance in the intervening years.
The Minister of Finance buried the program or pronounced the funeral oration last fall when he said it would fail, even before the Prices and Incomes Commission had launched it. As I understand it, the purpose of this measure proposed by the Prices and Incomes Commission was to avoid the creation of further unemployment in the fight against inflation. This commission has gone to a lot of trouble and Canadians in business, as well as labour leaders, have also gone to a lot of trouble to try to formulate an approach and program to avoid the deliberate creation of more unemployment. It is very clear that the Minister of Finance is making the efforts of the Prices and Incomes Commission abortive, while at the same time saying that his program is supporting the recommendations of that commission.
It is obvious that the department and the Minister of Finance on the one hand, and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Prices and Incomes Commission on the other hand are pursuing different objectives. I assume that however little faith the Minister of Finance may have in the efforts of the Prices and Incomes Commission, Dr. Young and his colleagues have the support of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It is pretty clear that there would be a serious split in the ranks of the government on this issue if they really under -

stood what is going on and if they were not so preoccupied with some of the antics of the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Today we see alarming figures in relation to unemployment in the country. We know that in the United States, which has also been wrestling with the problem of inflation and is concerned about mounting unemployment, the authorities are starting to make moves designed to offset rising unemployment. Rather than making plans to inject more slack in the economy, the responsible authorities in the United States are considering something else.
I thought it was perfectly natural this afternoon, in light of these figures, to ask the Prime Minister a perfectly polite and reasonable question as to whether the Government of Canada was considering alternate measures under similar circumstances. What did I get for my pains? The right hon. Prime Minister's answer, which I hope does not reflect his attitude toward this problem-


An hon. Member:: It does.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the budget of the Minister of Finance and his announced intention to create more unemployment, certainly the attitude expressed by the Prime Minister here this afternoon is anything but cheerful news for the thousands and thousands of poor Canadians who are going to be unemployed because of the policies of this government.


An hon. Member:: He will be eating some of that white paper.


George Harris Hees: They have a good job until the next election.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Let us consider the poor Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). I am beginning to feel sorry for him. He is not here but he has been busy, he says, fighting regional economic disparity while his colleague the Minister of Finance and others have been busy increasing regional economic disparity.
The Minister of Finance may refer to his efforts to avoid this kind of problem by selective measures regarding government buildings in some areas of rapid growth. Some areas and cities, for example, Sault Ste. Marie, do not regard themselves as contributing to inflation. In any event, I do not think there is any evidence that the approach by this minister has been at all effective, and it
March 19, 1970	COMMONS
is probably only his stubbornness that accounts for him continuing it for another year. In any event, there can be no doubt about this. The minister's policy of being selective in respect of the economy and his belief in the necessity for increasing unemployment, have surely been effective in the areas of slow growth. These policies have surely been effective in those areas, as these figures we have seen today testify. These are the areas which are most in need of encouragement and they are the areas where the economy is most sensitive to discouragement.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I say that anything positive that has been done by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in these areas of slow growth has been not only overshadowed but exceeded by this inconclusive program of the Minister of Finance. It is not merely that the unemployment figures on the Prairies are higher than they were a year ago, but that the actual figures for employment are lower. It is not merely that the unemployment figures in the Atlantic provinces are higher than they were a year ago, but that the actual employment figure is down. This indicates very clearly and very statistically that the Minister of Finance has been more effective in creating unemployment in those areas than the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has been in creating employment in those areas.
Here again, we have an example of two ministers working at cross-purposes to one another. I did not realize that the Minister of Finance was such a hard guy to get along with. I knew he fought with us, but I did not know he fought with everybody else in the government. Here he is pushing a policy which is at loggerheads with the policy of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) and at the same time is making it impossible for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to discharge his responsibility. The result is that, instead of reducing economic disparity the two ministers together have somehow succeeded in increasing economic disparity in Canada. Now, the Minister of Finance is not proposing just to allow this particular process to continue to increase economic disparity at the present rate; he is not satisfied to go along with more of the same. He wants to increase the pressure on the economy of the country.
Not only is the minister apparently not considering what the United States has been considering for a long time, not only is he not considering simply leaving things the way
DEBATES	5227
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield they are and letting the Prices and Incomes Commission try to work things out in the existing context for the time being, but rather he has to create more unemployment. Surely with the figures we have in respect of unemployment, not just in the areas of slow growth but across the country, it would have been reasonable for the Minister of Finance to at least have held his hand and said we will wait for a while and see what Dr. Young can do. Yet, the government is deliberately tightening the screws further, is deliberately putting more slack in the economy as well as deliberately creating more unemployment. Surely, this is sadistic. I think actually the white paper itself would be sufficient to slow down the economy if Canadians and others really believed it would be adopted or if it were bulled through and adopted.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance say they are tough. They say they will stand up to pressure. I say not only are they tough but they are stubborn and cold-hearted. I do not want to pick particularly on the Minister of Finance. I say the government is cruel to extract more income taxes from the poor at this time. I say that the government is cruel in treating the aged in this way when they are in need of relief at this time. I say the government is cruel in creating more unemployment at this time.
The government is pursuing a course in respect of the poor, particularly the aged, and the unemployed which would be unthinkable under any other democratic government in the world today. That is the state we have reached. Surely, this is not a just society. It is certainly a slack society in a sense. Surely, at least in the light of the information we now have, the minister will stand up in the House and tell us he does not intend to tighten the screws further. Surely, in the light of these figures, he will not tell us he intends to pursue the program to restrict consumer credit.
I think the minister ought to tell us what he is going to do to relieve unemployment, particularly in the areas of slow growth. I think he should tell us what he proposes to do with regard to the aged and not just fob it off by referring to something that will happen some time in the future. Surely, in a democracy when people are in difficulty it is important that the government show that it has a little concern, a little soul. This is important for our country. I plead with the Minister of Finance to reverse himself. I plead with him
March 19. 1970

The Budget-Mr. Chappell to consider the plight in which these people are and to consider the plight in which the country is.


Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, the budget speech emphasizes the need to hold back expenditures at all levels to help combat inflation. I wish to take this opportunity to talk about a proposal which, if implemented quickly, would result in a saving or a deferral in spending of up to half a billion dollars. A new waterfront authority for Toronto is needed now so that we do not have to remain stalled in the past but reorganize and move into the future. An immediate restructuring of the Toronto Harbour Commission is essential and would lead to a substantial reduction in federal spending.
We have heard a great deal about the need for two-level or three-level governmental consultation and co-operation but little has been accomplished so far. Here and now, in Toronto, we have an excellent opportunity for four-level participation. In January, 1968, the Toronto Harbour Commission came up with a new and bold concept for the harbour and the central waterfront of Toronto. Seldom does a proposal contain opportunities to do so much for a city at so little cost and with so little risk, but it is bogged down by the same old jurisdictional conflict that plagues us so often when we seek solutions to our problems.
This is too important a project to be allowed to smother in confusion. We must take this opportunity to have a pilot project in inter-governmental co-operation and prove it can be done. It is easy to ask why they do not get together and co-operate. That criticism is easy to make and applies equally to international as well as domestic differences. We must find an answer which is acceptable to all. My colleagues the members for York North, Etobicoke and York West have all called for greater co-operation among the various levels of government. The hon. member for Etobicoke (Mr. Gillespie) has suggested a new authority in respect of all airports in the Toronto area. In this case, I shall propose a solution which contains the machinery to encourage and perhaps force co-operation and bring about results.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The bill I introduced on March 6 respecting the port of Toronto would, if passed, overcome the silly political maneuvering referred to in the Toronto Star editorial today, force the four levels of government to pull together as a unified force, overcome the existing

jurisdictional snarl and, above all, assist in the quick implementation of the bold concept which is the Toronto waterfront plan. The plan provides for the rebuilding of the harbour and the construction of a new inter-city airport and a harbour city. Bill C-195 proposes that representatives of the province of Ontario and of metropolitan Toronto be added to the commission so that elected representatives of the four levels of government, along with a respresentative of the Board of Trade, would sit as members on a new Metropolitan Toronto Harbour Commission. The Toronto harbour affects these four levels of government-in truth it affects all Canadians-but at present only the city of Toronto and Ottawa are represented on the commission.
While all agree a restructured authority is necessary to move ahead, it should not be as complex as the one suggested last week by Ontario premier John Robarts. He called for the establishment of a committee with representatives from the province, the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian National Exhibition, Metropolitan Toronto, the city and the Toronto Harbour Commission. This would substantially bypass the federal government, and I endorse the Toronto Globe and Mail editorial of March 17 which warned that with a complexity of this order nothing would ever be accomplished.
I expect that very few of us appreciate the impressive and varied achievements of the Toronto Harbour Commission. It has been a proven success, but there are impelling reasons to update its structure so that it may provide a larger harbour and airport in keeping with the final quarter of the 20th century.
I should like to review the history briefly. A natural harbour was created centuries ago by a sand drift from the Scarborough Bluffs. In 1834, Toronto was incorporated and set up a department to administer the harbour under a harbourmaster. Development was hampered because the railways owned much of the waterfront. In 1852, a major storm caused a break through the sand and created what later became the eastern gap or the ship entrance. The western gap was commenced in 1907. The city recognized the need to develop the harbour, and the federal government considered it wise to do so in the national interest.
In 1911, the Toronto Harbour Commissioner's Act was passed which set up a commission to provide for administration and a con-
March 19, 1970	COMMONS
ceptual waterfront development plan. On the application of Toronto city, the federal government passed the necessary legislation for their joint venture. The federal authority turned over to the commission the harbour, and all of its ownership including much of the harbour bottom, and the city gave up its docks and water lots. Since then the federal government and the city have been locked together as an economic and transportation unit.
The harbour boundaries were recognized in the act to be the east and west limits of Toronto extended into the lake as far as one mile south of Gibraltar Point, where the lighthouse is located on the island. The federal government contributed by building the western entrance, the ship channel and turning basin between the harbour and Leslie Street, the breakwater along Sunnyside Beach and, for some years, by dredging the eastern channel and harbour. The city supported the commission with substantial cash payments and guarantees for borrowing.
With this help the commissioners built Lake Shore Road, then Fleet Street, Sunny-side Park, part of the islands, a large industrial area in the vicinity of Ashbridges Bay between Cherry and Leslie Streets, the Island airport, at city cost, and later, in preparation for the Seaway, three new terminals. Since 1912 the commission has reclaimed about 1,700 acres of land on which the city now receives approximately $8 million annually in taxes. Many will be surprised to learn that in 1939 the Harbour Commission, as agent for the city, built Malton airport with Toronto and federal financing. All of this was accomplished by a five man group of commissioners, three of whom are appointed by Toronto city council, one by the federal government and the other by the federal government upon the recommendation of the Board of Trade.
In 1958, Toronto gave up the ownership of Malton airport to the Department of Transport in return for a 4,000 foot runway and an interest free loan to build a new hangar at the Island airport. In the last few years there has not been any significant spending by the federal government on the Toronto waterfront. Since the commission constructed the new eastern headland, dredging of the eastern gap has not been necessary. The commission has operated the port from fees and rental income and has, in addition, since 1963 carried the Island airport which has been operated at a loss for many years.
DEBATES	5229
The Budget-Mr. Chappell
Although the Island airport is extremely busy with substantially more take-offs and landings than Malton has, the operation continues at a loss because of poor access from land and absence of modem landing equipment. It is more than apparent that the land is too valuable for such limited use and for a flying school.
In summary, the Island airport is obsolete.
The city requires the land and part of the harbour shore to the north for a giant housing complex. The eastern gap is not deep enough for merchant ship traffic and must be replaced. An outer harbour must be built to meet today's demands and the inner harbour which is now out of date requires rebuilding in part and a transfer of other facilities to the outer harbour.
As I mentioned earlier, the commission in 1968 came up with a most imaginative but realistic plan for the development of the whole central waterfront. It deserves a place in Toronto's future. By an inexpensive method they propose to create these improvements by sucking sand from the shallow waters of the new outer harbour and by combining this dredged material with fill from construction sites to add over 1,000 acres to the waterfront. This new land would add to the Canadian National Exhibition ground, increase the recreation area of the islands' and help provide the site for harbour city to house about 75,000 people. It would make possible the modernization of the inner harbour, and would create a new outer harbour which would provide about 400 acres of dockage and give Toronto a new airport in keeping with today's demands.
These plans, as worked out between the
commission and the technical and advisory representatives of the planning departments of the city and the province, have won the acceptance and praise of all who have seen them. Because of the excellence of the engineering, the acre cost is low and the whole scheme seems economically sound. The sand to be dredged from the outer harbour would help create land for the new harbour city, provide access to the new city and the recreation islands, and create the eastern perimeter of the new outer harbour and a new airport.
The eastern headland for the new outer harbour is now between two and three miles in length and is being built at a fraction of the cost of standard construction, partly through the utilization of fill but mainly because of new design which traps the sand and creates gentle beaches or slopes to protect
March 19, 1970

The Budget-Mr. Chappell the new land. This new eastern harbour boundary fulfills a double purpose in that not only does it trap the sand and create beaches but helps to protect and stabilize the shores of the island. The commission has now reached the point where it cannot implement its plans or even see where it is going until the Department of Transport decides to dredge the new eastern entrance and approve the proposed new airport.
In December, 1968, the then minister of transport abandoned the plan for major enlargement at Malton, and since then the department has been trying to find a good site for a second large airport. The decision about the harbour airport need not wait until that decision is made because it would be the city airport and complementary to other airport service.
Originally, the commissioners proposed an airport at the south west side of Toronto Island at Gibraltar Point. There were objections that the flight pattern was too close to the air approaches to Malton. As a result the commission now proposes that the airport be located on the east side of the new outer harbour at the east end of Toronto. They suggest a runway of 7,500 feet with an approach parallel to the shoreline, but over the water, and almost a mile off shore so as not to interfere with housing, and shorter runways for smaller, short take-off planes. I think it is most important for us to recognize that although the Island Airport has substantially more plane movements than Malton has, there have not been any complaints with respect to noise or pollution. Even the small jets using this airport have not caused any complaints. Surely, this is because the planes are smaller, and take-offs and landings are over water.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The suitability of such a location has already been demonstrated. Fear of large planes has caused objection, but certainly it is practical if it is limited to aircraft which will not exceed a noise level compatible with residential use a mile away. The travel time to Malton Airport, now almost as long as a flight to Ottawa or Montreal, will not shorten in the near future, but can only get longer. It is inconceivable that advantage should not be taken of this location, and without delay, for an intercity airport. Because it is a short-range airport, freight would remain with the trucking lines and the Malton Airport.


Toronto, or more properly Ontario, will require a second major airport but if the lakeport is developed now, the second major port could be delayed. After all, we are talking of perhaps a half billion dollars. A little delay would give us an opportunity to develop a rapid transit system which would make it feasible to locate it further out and as part of an over-all regional or provincial development, and on land not required for Metro expansion. A large new airport should not just be located because the land happens to be available.
Consideration must be given to planned regional or provincial development including housing, services and highways, and perhaps also one or more satellite cities along a new rapid transit route which would be generated by the airport itself. The harbour airport would be relatively inexpensive. Four hundred and fifty acres instead of thousands of acres would be sufficient, and could be assembled from reclaiming sand and the utilization of fill at an estimated cost of not more than $25 million. A regular land-based airport would cost many times as much.
It would service the Toronto-Ottawa-Mont-real passengers who make up perhaps 40 per cent of the Malton traffic. It would be flying transit or Go-Air. The majority of passengers travel less than 450 miles, with most around 250 miles. This would cover Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal and perhaps later Toronto-New York. It would relieve the traffic at Malton and thus allow that airport to become a transcontinental and intercontinental airport, which would satisfy demands for several years, at a tremendous saving to the federal government. It would relieve multiplication of flights at Malton where the planes take off and land over densely populated areas, and thus prevent the impairment of the quality of housing.
If we count the economy of time for the public, and the efficiency of the business people travelling the Toronto-Ottawa-Mont-real triangle, billions of dollars would be saved. The travelling time from a downtown hotel would be perhaps seven minutes. By use of computers at various locations in the city, all tied to a master computer, people could board airport buses at these locations and step from the buses with their baggage directly to the plane. By checking in at city locations and taking a bus or rapid transit to the plane, we could use existing on-shore facilities and thus avoid the customary delays found at an airport, and the cost of substantial off-shore building. It is too late to
March 19, 1970
introduce this innovation at Malton, but there is no reason why it could not work for the new airport in the lake.
The U.S. Federal Aviation Report and other similar studies seem to verify that if deemed adviseable in future, a floating runway which would be further out in the lake could be tied to the first runway. This would only happen if technological improvements in noise and pollution control made it reasonable. Needless to say, such an airport would be of tremendous advantage to the Toronto business community and add to the desirability of Toronto as a convention centre. Cleveland has already demonstrated the advantages of a second downtown airport.
The whole development would provide Toronto with a new assessment of perhaps $2 billion. All of this is being held up by the jungle of jurisdiction. Although by the 1911 act the Commission became the owner of much of the harbour bottom, the federal-provincial agreement in 1960 muddied the waters to the extent that it is difficult now to say who owns the water lots to the west of the western channel, which is about south of Bathurst Street.
The plan was some years in conception and
development but this will appear like a glimpse of time before we move to achievement unless the nightmare of jurisdictional conflict is solved. The Ontario government has commenced construction of Ontario Place on some of the land where the ownership is not clear, and has recently announced an intention to build Harbour City. Ownership or claims to ownership of the land upon which Harbour City is to be built lie with five authorities, the province of Ontario, the city of Toronto, Metropolitan Toronto, the federal government and the Toronto Harbour Commission. Right now the commission cannot go ahead with Harbour City until the federal government agrees to dredge a new eastern channel, and it cannot proceed with the land fill operations for the outer harbour and the new airport until the airport is approved.
The Department of Transport has a special group looking for a second major airport site and another group studying over-all aviation needs, but there does not seem to be sufficient attention to this problem, namely, the development of the Toronto waterfront. In comparing federal expenditure on the Toronto waterfront during the last five years with its expenditure in Montreal and Halifax we see that Toronto has received very little.
5231
The Budget-Mr. Chappell
Recently the press reported an outcry against the possibility of planes flying over the eastern beaches, but I noted in a press clipping of December 16, 1969, that the De Havilland Company demonstrated that their new inter-city plane creates very little noise and pollution compared with present jets. I understand it is completely feasible to use the smaller and quieter 48 seat planes which will be ready by 1972.
The Harbour Commission has authority to expropriate and could perhaps proceed on its own, but on the other hand its record has always been one of co-operation and consideration for the needs of the community as a whole. In any event, however, it would still have to be financed by and be responsible to the four levels of government, and finally to the people. Again, according to the press, the major parties have been exchanging views, but will they reach a solution, and that soon enough, unless there is some definite and obvious approach?
In 1911, on the petition of the City of Toronto, the federal government legislated a joint venture between them which has worked amazingly well for almost 60 years. The Toronto Harbour Commission was the pattern for other commission ports. Now, it can be up-dated as a pattern for tri-level governmental endeavours. Metro Toronto and Ontario are, of course, equally interested.
The solution can be found in the three simple amendments to the Harbour Commissioners Act, contained in the bill which I introduced on March 6. In short they are:
1.	The name of the act could be changed to the Metropolitan Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act or the Metropolitan Toronto Water Front Act.
2.	Instead of the appointment of five commissioners, three by Toronto, one by the federal government and one on the recommendation of the Board of Trade, section 7 of the act could be amended to provide that one be appointed by the federal government, who should be an elected federal member from Metropolitan Toronto, one by the provincial government who should be an elected representative to the legislative assembly from Metropolitan Toronto, one of its elected members by Toronto Council, one of its elected members by Metropolitan Council, and one upon the recommendation of the Board of Trade.
3.	Section 5 of the act could be amended to provide that the boundaries would be from the east and west limits of Metropolitan

March 19, 1970

The Budget-Mr. Chappell Toronto. They could be extended later further to the west and to the east if deemed advisable. Needless to say, although the new commission would have full responsibility for the development, land created for parks or Harbour City would be turned over to Metro and Toronto. I just cannot imagine the Toronto Harbour Commission, or the province through its appointee, trying to take over and operate such a large part of the city.
o (4:00 p.m.)
I can understand some fear on the part of each government involved that they might be creating a monster they could not control but, on the other hand, all would be from Ontario and metropolitan Toronto and they would represent the city, the province and the country as a whole. They would be able to maintain constant liaison between the four levels of government and their technical and planning departments and the business community. They would hear the briefs, and have the power to act, but they would not be able to be unrealistic in that they would still require financing to some extent from the four levels of government and would still be answerable to the electorate. For those who are concerned about a blending of the costs or income of the various divisions of activity the authority, under its by-laws, could divide its jurisdiction into port administration and development.
Finally, I suggest that Toronto once again petition the federal government to have the federal act updated to meet present requirements. The first real step was the act of God which opened the eastern gap; the second was the petition from Toronto which produced the Toronto Harbour Commission Act in 1911. We cannot wait for another act of God, but Toronto could petition again for a change in the act. This single authority would relieve the fears recently expressed by metro chairman, Ab Campbell and Toronto Mayor William Dennison and I am sure gain their full support. I ask that the government adopt Bill C-195 as a government bill and have it referred to committee so that witnesses from the various levels of government concerned may be heard and, finally, the necessary legislation passed.
In conclusion, the purpose for this regional authority being so structured is to bring together in a practical co-ordinated way all the forces of government which operate in a geographic area known as the port of Toronto
IMr, Chappell.]
and to do so with a minimum of bureaucratic redundancy and financial outlay-only all the people would gain.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I sought to introduce a motion under Standing Order 26 to ask the House to consider the staggering unemployment figures released by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics today. His Honour decided that the debate should not be allowed on the ground that the House is now discussing the budget and that this gave ample scope for discussing unemployment or any other question. I was perfectly aware, of course, that the budget debate was in progress. My purpose in introducing the motion under Standing Order 26 was in the hope that we could get the government to answer specific questions with respect to the unemployment situation and to outline what steps it intends to take to deal with it.
We have been debating this budget since last Monday and there have been no statements from any ministers of the Crown, except the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) who introduced the budget. We have not heard from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) as to what his department is going to do about unemployment nor from the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) as to what changes are to be made in his program to deal with increased unemployment. We have heard nothing at all from the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), whose responsibility it is to deal with the underdeveloped areas of this country, areas where the figures show that not only has unemployment increased but the number of employed persons has declined. This means that not only have we failed to provide jobs for those entering the labour market, but we have not been able to keep in employment those who were employed a year ago.
Surely, the House and the country is entitled to some statement from these ministers but they have taken no part in the debate, they are not here-even the Minister of Finance is not here. The only minister present is the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) who was a former minister of finance. Like Frankenstein, he created the monster that he now sits and watches with misgivings lest it destroy those who created it.
The government cannot just sit and ignore this problem, Mr. Speaker. I think we have the right to insist that before this debate
March 19, 1970

finishes we get a statement from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration or the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The government cannot continue to shrug its shoulders and present an attitude of callous indifference to the appalling situation which obtains in Canada today.
The figures just released are something to touch the conscience of every member of this House. We now know the unemployment figure for February, 1970 represents 6J per cent of our labour force, that is 526,000 persons, up from 473,000 for February, 1969. When you get unemployment well over half a million, the highest unemployment we have had in Canada since 1963, and I think it is safe to say the highest unemployment figure of any industrial country in the world-


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not know of any other industrial nation in the world that has an unemployment figure even closely approaching 6| per cent. When we get an unemployment figure of that magnitude we are talking about an economic recession. The tragedy is, Mr. Speaker, that this is a government induced recession. There have been times in the past when recessions have crept up on governments and taken them by surprise. There have been recessions which governments could claim were brought about by world conditions beyond the government's control. But here is a recession which the government has deliberately manipulated and precipitated. Last December, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that the government was prepared, if necessary, to have 6 per cent unemployment-


Mr. Orlikow:: He has got it now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -in order to carry out its anti-inflationary program. As my colleague, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said only a few weeks ago in this House, in all probability it would be more than 6 per cent-it would be 61 per cent. Unfortunately, his prophecy was only too true and that is exactly the figure we have reached.
The Minister of Finance makes no bones about the fact that unemployment is one of the techniques by which the government hopes to stop inflation. In his budget speech he said that he anticipated some increase in
The Budget-Mr. T. C. Douglas unemployment. Then, he made this statement, which ought to be enshrined on his monument. He said:
We just cannot tell how soon or how far the slowing of growth in demand and in production will bring about a slowing down in price increases.
I say to the Minister of Finance, who I notice has just come in-


An hon. Member:: Now, he has just gone out.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In my opinion, this is the most callous statement ever made by a minister of finance. In essence, he says, "I don't know how much longer we will have to tighten the screws, how many more people we will have to throw on the scrap heap, how many more we will have to throw out of jobs or how much more economic slowdown we will have to perpetuate in order to stop price increases."
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The Minister of Finance ought to enter this
debate and tell the House how much unemployment he thinks it will be necessary to have before he will be satisfied and how long it will take before he comes to the conclusion that economic slowdown and unemployment are not going to stop price increases. If the government is going to persist in this policy, it must tell the House during this debate what it proposes to do about these unemployed people. Is the government prepared to create some employment by massive programs of construction of hospitals and vocational training schools? Both of these programs expire at the end of this month. The government could reintroduce them. The government could set up a housing program.
When I asked the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon about programs to help put the unemployed to work, he said there is extra money in the budget for housing. The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that not only is there not enough money, but that money alone is not the answer. Houses cannot be built unless interest rates decrease and unless funds are available.
Housing starts are falling off. That is
because the average young people, unless they have an income in excess of $9,000, have no hope of ever building a house or ever paying for it. Until the government is prepared to present a program with lower interest rates and will make investment funds
March 19, 1970

The Budget-Mr. T. C. Douglas available, it is not going to get the kind of construction program that will put the unemployed people back to work.
What does the government propose? It does not propose to do anything except to sit on its dignity. I think it is time we took a moment to look at what these unemployment figures mean. First, let us see what they mean by provinces. I said a little while ago that the unemployment figure was 6J per cent in Canada. In British Columbia it is 6.7 per cent. On the Prairies unemployment has risen from 3.9 per cent a year ago to 5.3 per cent in February of this year. This is the very area where crop conditions and the inability to sell the farmers' wheat has already caused economic dislocation. Unemployment in this area is at its highest peak in years. The figure in Ontario has risen from 3.9 per cent to 4.5 per cent.
In the province of Quebec the figure has
risen from 8.4 per cent to 8.7 per cent. The Prime Minister talks a great deal about combating separatism. I, personally, think that the unemployment figures are much higher than the figures announced today. The fact that 8.7 per cent of the work force in the province of Quebec is unemployed will do more to destroy national unity and to bring about disintegration of Confederation than any other single thing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The most dangerous thing that can happen in a nation is when any group of people gets to the point where they say, "We have nothing to lose". When a man is walking the streets, out of a job and with no prospect of getting a job, he will listen to any demagogue and any false proposition. If we want to promote national unity and hold this country together as a viable sovereign power, we have to see to it that the people in the less favoured areas of Canada have jobs and an equal opportunity to enjoy a good life.
In the Atlantic provinces in the month of February the unemployment figure was 11 per cent. Two weeks ago I was in Newfoundland where the figure is 13 per cent. I was told that in certain areas of Newfoundland the figure is 20 per cent. How can a spirit of national unity be maintained when certain parts of Canada feel that they are the Cin-derellas of Confederation? They are a long way from Ottawa. They wait for some expression of the government's concern. The only expression they have had from the gov-

ernment is the shrugging shoulders of the Prime Minister and the assurance from the Minister of Finance that he will keep on turning the screws until price increases stop.
If this unemployment figure is looked at by age groups, it is more alarming. In the group of young people from 14 to 19 years of age, 13 J per cent of them are out of work. In the group of young people 20 to 24 years of age, the figure is 8.9 per cent; almost 9 per cent. Almost one in ten of these young people are unemployed. These young people have their lives ahead of them. They are the ones who will be responsible for the future of this country. When these young people are unable to find employment, we are storing up a great deal of trouble for ourselves. Of the more elderly people aged 55 to 64, 6.2 per cent of that group is unemployed. Unless these people get back to work, they will be unemployable. Not many of them in that age bracket will be able to get a new job. These people are likely to finish out their days on welfare.
It is interesting to note that the length of
time that people are unemployed is increasing steadily. I refer to a question answered on March 4 this year, page 4364 of Hansard, which shows that the length of time that a person is unemployed has been increasing in the years 1967, 1968 and 1969.
This House should concern itself with the price that we are paying for the government's default. We should look at unemployment in terms of what it is costing this country. What is it costing this country in terms of lost production? The Economic Council of Canada, in one of its early reviews, said that every time we reduce unemployment by one percentage point, we increase the wealth production in Canada by $2 billion and that roughly one-third of that amount would find its way into the treasuries of the various governments of Canada.
The Economic Council of Canada said we should be able to keep unemployment at least at 3 per cent. If we could reduce unemployment to that figure of 3 per cent, we would increase the wealth production of this country anywhere between $6 billion and $7 billion a year, of which over $2 billion a year would find its way into the treasuries of the respective governments of Canada.
I listened the other day to the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) accusing the members of the New Democratic Party of always wanting new programs. He kept saying, where will you get the money? Mr. Speaker, this is where we will get the money. We can
March 19, 1970

get the money by using idle men and idle resources to create new wealth. We are throwing away $6 billion of $7 billion a year in wealth potential because this government has no program, no plan and no vision.
Unemployment is costing us money in terms of government expenditures. When you have 526,000 people unemployed it is costing the people of Canada money for unemployment insurance. For those who have used up their unemployment insurance benefits, there is welfare which is paid jointly by the federal and provincial governments. There is the cost of providing for those who have not been able to pay premiums for medicare and health insurance, the cost of providing them with health services. All this means a drain on the treasuries of this country.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
But the real cost of unemployment has to be measured in heartaches; it has to be measured in terms of human misery, the frustration and the insecurity which it brings not only to the unemployed themselves, but to their families. What does it mean to families whose incomes are reduced, who may not be able to make the monthly payments on their homes, who may not be able to provide their children with advanced education? What does it mean in terms of frustration, insecurity, lack of dignity? How can these things be measured? Do they mean nothing to the government? I sometimes wonder whether any members of this cabinet ever in their lives walked the streets of one of the cities of Canada looking for a job. I doubt it. I doubt whether they know or understand how an unemployed person feels. I am sure that if they did they would concern themselves much more actively about this problem than they have done to date.
What does the government intend to do about this matter? There are many things it could do. I notice that in the United States, where unemployment has reached a figure of 4.3 per cent, a figure which the President of that country thinks is much too high, they are releasing additional funds for public housing, not only to provide homes but also to provide jobs. Does the government here intend to follow a similar course? When we stop and realise that in Canada we need at least two million homes and that we have all the material with which to build them within our own borders, we are bound to ask ourselves what has gone wrong. Mr. Speaker^ if someone from Mars were to come here and find that we needed two million homes for our

The Budget-Mr. T. C. Douglas people, and that we had all the lumber and bricks, all the plumbing fixtures and electrical fixtures needed to construct those homes, that we had more than half a million people idle, but that we did not possess the initiative to bring those factors together, he would come to the conclusion we were mentally deficient.
The government has done nothing about unemployment. The Prime Minister answered us today by saying they were putting money into the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. It is true they are putting some money into that program, but the program is being nullified by the hostile economic climate in which it operates. How does one induce new industry into the underdeveloped areas of Canada to start new projects if at the same time interest rates are raised, government programs are cut back and consumer credit restrictions are imposed? The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is trying to help the undeveloped areas of Canada pull themselves up by their boot strings. At the same time, the Minister of Finance is cutting the boot strings, so they slide back to where they were, or even lower.
All this restraint, both fiscal and monetary, which the government has imposed has been carried on, according to the government, in order to stop the cost of living rising further. I would consider it a very high price to pay for stopping the rise in the cost of living, Mr. Speaker. But it has not stopped the rise in the cost of living. In fact, in February, if one compares the figures with those of the previous February, it rose by more than the average for the whole of last year.
The Minister of Finance, in his budget statement, said himself there had been no slowing down in the rate of increase of prices, wages and other income. So not only have we imposed upon the most defenceless group of people in Canada, the unemployed, the burden of fighting inflation, but we have not even begun to win the battle. The reason we have not begun to win the battle is, in my view, that the government has wrongly diagnosed the illness from which the body politic is suffering. The government has mistaken the symptoms for the disease. It continues to follow the false assumption that this country is suffering from too much money chasing too few goods when, according to the Economic Council of Canada, 20 per cent of our population live below the poverty level and another 20 per cent just above it. It is not a question of too much money as far as a very large part
5236	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. T. C. Douglas of the Canadian population is concerned. This country is suffering from a maldistribution of income, and the budget does nothing to alleviate that situation.
As a matter of fact, it does the opposite. It continues to levy income tax on single persons earning more than $1,000 a year, or on married persons earning more than $2,000 a year, in spite of the fact that the level of those exemptions was decided upon in 1949 and that since then the cost of living has risen by 65 per cent. Imagine a government which recognizes that old age pensioners who need it should be granted an income supplement, and which then proceeds to make them pay income tax upon what they received. This is why we in the New Democratic Party moved an amendment to raise the exemptions so that no person would pay income tax if he earned less than $2,000 a year being single, and $4,000 if married. The government refused to accept it. There is no relief at all offered in this budget to those in low income groups. No attempt has been made to redistribute income, or, to lift the burden from the shoulders of pensioners or veterans.
A second factor which in our opinion is causing the cost of living to rise is the failure to properly allocate our resources. Rising unemployment accentuates the problem, because manpower is one of our most important resources and more than half a million people possess resources which are not being utilized.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The third cause of rising prices is that two thirds or better of our price structure is not responsive to market forces or influenced by the law of supply and demand, but is an administered price structure. The government has never dared tackle that part of the economy which is dominated by monopolies and quasi-monopolies that set their own prices, generate their own capital, and control a very large part of the market.
The unemployment situation today has not come about by accident. It is not something that has sneaked up on us. It is something that this government has deliberately fomented and perpetrated. I say it is nothing short of criminal for any government to create unemployment as a deliberate policy and then refuse to do anything about it. A government that is unable to provide jobs for its people is worthy of censure. But a government that deliberately creates unemployment and then is unable to meet the problems created by

DEBATES	March 19, 1970
that unemployment is unfit to govern a country. I say that this government has a responsibility within the next few days either to present to Parliament a program that will provide jobs for the unemployed people of this country, or to resign.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in the course of the proceedings on the motion of censure I introduced in the House on February 19 last, the attitude and the statements of certain Liberal members from the Province of Quebec amazed me.
At that time, the hon. member for Rimous-ki (Mr. LeBlanc) upbraided me for having talked on poverty at some length. I admit that I did and I think it was my duty to do so. First, I must say that the problem does exist. Second, the question must be broached if we want to ascertain the causes, as it is not by deliberately ignoring a problem that we will make it disappear automatically. I do not think that having talked honestly about poverty could have aroused passions or been tantamount to demagoguery.
A far as the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard) is concerned, he said that I was intellectually dishonest. I say to him, through you, Mr. Speaker, that my intellectual honesty in the House cannot be questioned. When I deal with our farmers' problems, I am simply doing my duty. I never said that all farmers were beggars, but I must say I am tired of seeing that farm people always have to beg for their rights to be recognized and respected. As a matter of fact, this is one of the reasons why 25,000 producers of manufacturing milk have requested, through a petition I laid before the House on February 18, that an emergency debate be held on the milk situation. The purpose of that request was for those producers to obtain justice, and I think it behooved us to do what we did then.
Even though, on that occasion, the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote) said that this debate was nothing but idle talk, I still believe in our parliamentary system. In my opinion, Parliament is the very place where representativles must discuss great problems such as the dairy industry in Canada. If the hon. member really thinks that it is useless for the House to discuss problems regarding the Canadian people, I wonder how he can justify his presence in this House. I have confidence in this institution and in its discussions and that is why I am taking part in the debate today.
March 19, 1970	COMMONS
Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks about the problem of agriculture. I want also to submit to the government some suggestions that I would have liked to make on the occasion of the debate I just mentioned.
Estimates for the year 1970-71 reduce by $10 million the subsidies for price support of manufacturing milk, and this reduction especially affects the eastern farmers, those from Quebec in particular. And I would like incidentally to congratulate the Canadian Dairy Commission as well as its officials who, while doing their utmost to manage efficiently the funds voted to them by Parliament, must necessarily distribute the grants according to quotas and allotments provided in the estimates passed by Parliament after a recommendation by the cabinet, of course.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) states that there is a surplus of dairy products and that it is to curb production that grants to manufacturing milk producers are being reduced. In my opinion, farm workers are really the only ones to be penalized for their efficiency.	__
Yet, there is a surplus of workers on the labour market, since the unemployed number over 400,000. And, as far as I know, salaries have not decreased for that reason. I am very happy that there is some legislation to protect the workers in the other sectors of the economy.
There is also a surplus of professional people. How many of them are unemployed? Yet, their fees are certainly not decreasing. If farmers are not given some protection against market variations, I wonder what we shall come to.
Since 1967-68, the number of industrial milk producers registered with the Canadian Dairy Commission has decreased by 70,000. What has become of them? Did they all manage to get a job in other industries or did they simply become welfare recipients?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I do not believe that it would be a good thing for Canada to carry on in this way. I think it would even be better to spend $1,000 to $1,500 per farm per year to assist these small industrial milk producers so that they could be proud of making a personal effort rather than pay them $2,500 in welfare benefits so that they can live miserably, deprived of any personal initiative.
Farms do not sell any more. They are abandoned most of the time by settlers or farmers who have improved them for the past 20 or 30 years. I know that in different parts of
DEBATES	5237
The Budget-Mr. A. Lambert Quebec, some farmers cannot even give them away, when they had hoped to sell them towards the later part of their life in order to live decently.
Our country would still be better served by people concerned with helping themselves to a better life than by people obliged to stay idle. In my opinion, Canada cannot continue in this way. It is not economical.
Governments invite farmers to increase their production but when the effort has been made, they are penalized. This is the result of planning. The great planning experts seem to want to make a living the easy way. If that is their wish, they are fully successful.
The gap between the cost and the price paid by the consumer for a food product is wider than ever. Out of every dollar spent by the consumer, the portion of the farmer has decreased in every field of production. We must, therefore, come to the conclusion that the more the farm product is processed, the smaller the farmer's share.
Milk producers are not the ones to be held responsible for inflation. It is not with an average income as low as $2,000 per year that milk producers can buy anything at any price. On the contrary, they are the victims of inflation and the austerity measures of the government are a serious threat to their income.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) asks the people to produce more in order to flight inflation. That is what milk producers have been doing and the government is penalizing them for having complied.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few suggestions that could help us solve this tricky problem. I know the Minister of Agriculture knows some of those solutions and will influence his colleagues in the cabinet so as to bring the government to legislate as a true servant of the people, and not as a servant of high finance and economic dictatorship.
As regards the growth of purchasing power, I should like to congratulate the previous speaker for having dealt with this problem very intelligently and realistically. Indeed, he spoke about the lack of purchasing power among those who are really in need. I agree with all his remarks to that effect.
If sound common sense had its way, the purchasing power in families where the father is generally the only one to derive an income from his work would follow this rule: Equal work, equal pay. In a just society, one should add: everyone to his needs.
March 19, 1970

The Budget-Mr. A. Lambert
That is why I suggest family allowances should be increased according to the cost of
living. That would be a means of increasing the purchasing power according to needs. Then, more dairy products would surely be used. To pay allowances, instead of taking the money out of the pockets of the consumer by levying new taxes, the government should authorize the Bank of Canada to issue new credits, based on that production. The Bank of Canada should be authorized to loan free of interest the funds required by the Canadian Dairy Commission; this would spare dairy producers having to pay tribute money to credit controllers, chartered banks and finance companies.
The Canadian contribution to foreign aid in the form of dairy products must not be paid by the dairy producers alone. It is said that generally speaking, two thirds of the world population are underfed. Our surpluses could perhaps be used to help those people. Industrialized countries spend an average of $12 billion a year for the development of underdeveloped countries. On the other hand, those same countries spend almost $175 billion on national defence. The poor countries are growing poorer, and the rich ones richer.
Thirdly, by guaranteeing a better price to the producers of manufacturing milk the government would contribute indirectly towards paying the cost of a vast publicity program to encourage the Canadian consumer to purchase more dairy products in Canada.
Everyone knows how efficient publicity is. Thanks to it, a mixture of water, sugar and a bit of coloring-known as soft drinks-is sold for something like $30 per 100 pounds to the Canadian public while that same public, for lack of publicity, is loath to pay the producers of manufacturing milk $4 per 100 pounds.
Soft drinks sell at 75 cents a quart, whereas manufacturing milk sells at 10 cents a quart. In addition, the government might also distribute part of the over-production of manufacturing or fluid milk in schools, which would permit an easier disposal. They wonder whether it would be possible.
Figures speak for themselves. An experiment was conducted in the United States along that line, and an economist of the C.F.U. before the standing committee on agriculture stated the following, and I quote:
About 5 billion pounds of milk are consumed in the United States through food aid programs.
That program amounted to about $650 million and Congress increased it to $1.5 billion; and recently, the President of the United States had it increased to $2 billion for next year.

The American people are not stupid, after all. If it were not sound, I believe they would put an end to such a program.
The unfavourable remarks about the program implemented by the United States concern its inadequacy. That is the reason why the estimates for that purpose have been more than doubled.
We should seriously consider giving such a program a trial in Canada before stating it is impossible to achieve this goal to everybody's satisfaction. It would involve extra expenses, but they might be otherwise counter balanced, for instance, by keeping on the job a great number of workers now threatened with unemployment in industries connected with the dairy industry. Such workers would pay taxes to the government instead of being on social welfare. Therefore, I believe this would be a very good investment.
Finally, since the government, through its dairy policy, discourages a great number of dairy farmers, and not only the smaller ones, but also those producing over 200,000 pounds of milk annually and whose quota is not set in proportion to that production, and also since part of the milk produced will be sold below cost because of the export tax which is about 52 cents per hundred weight, as a result, the Department of Welfare will have to cope with an almost equal number of new customers. Where are we heading to?
If our surpluses of dairy products cannot help the underdeveloped countries, there might be another answer. They might, for instance, welcome machinery and equipment. In that case, we should set up as soon as possible an industrial development program in the fields which are most affected by lay offs of farm workers so that they may start working in some other field.
We should set up a program as efficient as that which aims at reducing considerably the number of farmers.
Lastly, and in the best interests of the country as well as for our own sake, we should improve the conditions of the farm industry by ensuring, in every sector of farm production, prices which will bring dairy producers an income at least equal to that of the people working in other sectors of our economy.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It remains a fact that agriculture does not concern farmers only, but many other people who earn their living in related industries.
March 19, 1970	COMMONS
Consequently, producers are not the only ones to benefit from the money spent on subsidies to the dairy industry; consumers do too.
I ask the government as soon as possible to revise its decision on the dairy policy and to increase the subsidies in order to guarantee dairy producers a better income, considering the higher production costs. The government should follow the suggestions offered in the numerous briefs submitted both to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and to the minister himself. Let there be swift action in order to prevent many dairy producers from going bankrupt.
During 1963 and 1964, the last years for which figures are available, the approximate average grant paid to the dairy industry under farm programs amounted to $28 per capita in the United States and $16 in the United Kingdom, while in Canada it only amounted to $11. We have therefore not overdone it in that field.
Since more than 50 per cent of Canada's dairy production is concentrated in Quebec, it is obvious that this province will be most affected by the reduced grant for dairy production. I do not really believe that the government wishes to hurt Quebec or to punish it, but just the same, it is that province which is the most penalized and which suffers the most from the dairy policy.
This attitude does not help to establish an atmosphere of trust and understanding in Canada. I think that at the present time it is more important to solve our economic problems and be fair to all the regions of the country than to lose some valuable time speaking of the constitution. If, with the best constitution that it is possible to have, part of our population is starving, will we be happier? Is that prosperity?
Mr. Speaker, our people are not less intelligent than others. In reading newspapers and analysing the situation, they have learned that the central government is preparing-as a matter of fact, it is all over and the decision is almost final, unless they listen a little to us-to reduce by $10 million the funds earmarked for subsidies to industrial milk production, while at the same time they are granting farmers in another part of the country over $100 million to get them to reduce their acreage. Well, some people are ready to exploit every such occasion to play the East against the West and the French Canadians against the English Canadians and they will take advantage of the situation, and this will have an adverse effect on the country as a whole.
DEBATES	5239
The Budget-Mr. A. Lambert
I therefore feel that because of all this we should stop to think before deciding whether really we should fight inflation at the expense of good-will between the eastern provinces, particularly Quebec, and the others.
On behalf of the 25,000 people who signed the petition I had the honour to table in the House, I ask the Minister of Agriculture to convince his colleagues of the cabinet that so many people cannot possibly all be wrong, that the responsible people who run farm organizations cannot all be wrong, and only the minister be right. If we really want an active democracy, we must at all costs take into consideration the recommendations of intermediary agencies such as the C.F.Y., the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Dairy Farmers and the Federation of Industrial Milk Producers of the Province of Quebec.
I assure the minister that he can depend on the full co-operation of our group in order to bring farm income up to that in the other sectors of the economy; that is something in which he sincerely believed in the past. As for us, it does not matter whether the political merit goes to the government or the opposition. Our opinion is that we must act quickly to release the "price-cost" vise which is now choking even the better off farmers.
Perhaps I will be told that it is easy for the opposition to criticize. I am convinced I have offered constructive criticism and also that I have made realistic suggestions. From the three roles: that of the opposition, that of the government or that of the industrial milk producers, I am convinced that the milk producers' role is the most difficult one.
During the February 19 debate on the dairy industry, I purposely avoided speaking about the report from the Standing Committee on Agriculture because my opinion was that this report should be examined by the House shortly. But since this report has not been studied as yet, I would call to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture a recommendation I have made before the committee. In fact, as reported at page 12 of issue No. 10 of the Minutes of Proceedings of the committee, my proposal went as follows:
The Committee recommends that the budget of the Canadian Dairy Commission be increased so as to guarantee to underquota producers registered at the Canadian Dairy Commission who have not exceeded their quota an income for 100 pounds of milk equal to that of 1969-70 increased by a sufficient amount to compensate for the annual increase of 5% to the cost index of goods and services.
March 19. 1970

The Budget-Mr. A. Lambert
Mr. Speaker, I do admit that my proposal was rejected by the committee but only because of the interpretation given to the Standing Orders of the House, which will have to be amended to ensure greater flexibility and efficiency in the committees.
Mr. Speaker, I would like now to say quite frankly, having worked a few months on the committees, what I think of their efficiency, so that we may find ways and means to improve them and so that Parliament might benefit therefrom.
Mr. Speaker, the government has greatly publicized the important part entrusted to the standing committees of the House. There was a time when I myself sincerely believed that hon. members would accomplish something worthwhile with this tool. But frankly I must admit that I am very disappointed at the lack of consideration given by the government to committee reports.
I am on the Committee on Agriculture which has a membership of 30. This committee has been authorized by the House to travel across the country to study farm problems on site.
The committee took two trips in 1969: one out west, the other in the east, but the report has not yet been tabled in the House. However, we visited a great number of regions, met hundreds of farmers and received numerous and interesting briefs which have not been of much use so far, so it seems.
This has brought me to ask myself certain questions. I am dumbfounded by the awful lack of logic I have witnessed in certain fields across the country.
In Newfoundland they had undertaken a fantastic project: the setting up of grazing-ground in a place where the Creator did not even want a single shrub to grow. It was intended to promote cattle breeding whereas at the same time in other parts of Canada entire farms are being deserted. There are thousands of such cases in Quebec and even in Ontario. And the government is prepared to give more than a $100 million to the farmers in western Canada to get them to put thousands of acres of very fertile land in fallow. Don't you think that we are living in an upside down world?
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
That is not all. In 1968, under a cost sharing program, ARDA spent several million dollars in the Bellechasse, Levis and Lotbiniere ridings in the province of Quebec for drain-


age purposes. Governments boast about reclaiming 80,000 acres of land to bring them into cultivation; on the other hand, every possible attempt is made to turn into productive land areas which are unsuited for cultivation; furthermore, production is impeded in those already under cultivation. This is what happens in Canada in 1969-70, which is utterly ridiculous.
Soon the government will announce a new dairy policy for 1970-71 without first allowing the House to study the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture which was tabled February 17 last. Mr. Speaker, the committee held several meetings, heard many interesting and capable witnesses, received very responsible briefs containing very sound proposals, with a view to finding a solution to the problem. In my opinion, all that amounted to nothing. That is why I have doubts about the usefulness of committees. Is their only purpose to send their members on trips?
Mr. Speaker, I should like now to deal with another subject of concern to my constituency, the textile industry. This week, I was supposed to meet with the manager of a plant which has developed to some extent and employs a great number of workers, but is going through a very serious crisis at present.
The textile industry is in a bad way. Indeed, a large number of workers feel insecure as a result of seasonal and chronic unemployment and low salaries. It is imperative that steps be taken to enable those mills to produce under human conditions, and to survive in the best interests of the area concerned and the country as a whole.
There was no mention made of that problem in the budget speech; that concerns and disappoints me. In answer to a question I put to him earlier this week, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) asked the opposition to make suggestions.
If he takes our suggestions into account in the same way as the Minister of Agriculture seems to take into account the briefs and recommendations of farm organizations concerning the dairy industry, I wonder whether he is serious when making such a request.
Unemployment increases from week to week, and the government seems happy about it. If, in order to fight inflation, more people have to be unhappy, I am against it. I represent a constituency located in a designated area, a special region, where the government must help industrial development in order to create more jobs. Now, not later than yesterday, 80 workers were laid off in one single
March 19. 1970

plant in Montmagny. The situation is becoming alarming, Mr. Speaker. What are we waiting for in order to protect our essential industries?
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to and read the speeches of the government members, and they seem happy with the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). They say, with a sigh of relief: Fortunately, the government did not announce any new tax or any tax increase.
They forget, however, the temporary 3 per cent income tax levied by the government and still in force this year, which means that it is going to be permanent. This is for the government a new and not too embarrassing method of levying taxes. So much the worse for the taxpayer who will have to pay the bill.
A temporary 2 per cent income tax was also levied last year. It has been carried over in this year's budget and will therefore become permanent. It is called the social development tax. Still, during the last fiscal year, it has yielded the tidy sum of $447 million to the government.
The purpose of the government in levying this social development tax was to establish the just society promised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and described in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the first session of the 28th parliament.
Through that 2 per cent tax, the people pay cash for social development they do not get, and they will have to pay a second time when the government decides to have them benefit from it, perhaps then by way of a C.O.D. That is a modern way for the government to increase its revenue in an underhand manner without suffering the unpopularity linked with new taxes. It is furthermore a marvelous opportunity to start an argument between the government of the province of Quebec and that of Ottawa-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. Without the unanimous consent of the House, the hon. member cannot continue his remarks.
Is it the pleasure of the House to have the hon. member for Bellechasse continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, we are trying to push through some extra speakers. I think the
The Budget-Mr. A. Lambert hon. member should be permitted to finish his speech with a sentence or two.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Very well. The hon. member for Bellechasse.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the House for such understanding and I shall not impose upon its good will.
I was saying that the social development tax has created an argument between the governments in Ottawa and Quebec, which in turn made people forget the real issue-economic security and utmost freedom for one and all. While the old-school politicians are bickering on this subject, the financiers continue to exploit everybody. But these manoeuvres sue drawing to a close because, more than ever, people are aware of what is going on and want to know the real problems so as to better assess them.
In ending my remarks, I should like to say a word about the $200 million which have been much in the news and on which the Quebec administration wants to put its hands. Officials of the Quebec government have stated that they would not conduct their election campaign on the back of the government of Ottawa with this matter of the $200 million.
And, as soon as they had made that promise, their speeches on radio and television were all on this subject.
Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain, namely that I, as a member from Quebec, agree that this money, which has been collected through the 2 per cent social development tax, should be used for the people of Quebec. I wonder, however, whether it would not really be preferable to abolish this tax until appropriate agreements have been signed for the benefit of the whole population, and not make use of those $200 million to create a surplus in the federal treasury. Since it is possible, through mere formulas, to dip into the taxpayers' pockets, could not the same means be used to reimburse them.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I have great esteem for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and for the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas) and usually I listen to them attentively as I did this afternoon. But I must honestly admit they disappointed me by put-
5242	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Mongrain ting me in a position where I could see the emptiness of their interventions, when they said only that there was unemployment- everybody knows that, of course-that the economy is going through difficult times-we are all aware of that also-and that the government is doing nothing. I would have expected really constructive criticism and that instead of blaming the government they would have made useful suggestions.
I was listening earlier to the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) who made quite a vigorous speech. I agree with a good many of his views but not with all. For instance, when he repeats constantly that the Bank of Canada could solve our problems, he may be right to a certain extent but that institution is certainly not a gold mine; it cannot cure all our ills.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
However, I do not want to dwell on that too long. Instead, I wish to take him to task, he who denied earlier indulging in demagogy or electioneering, claiming that he was doing rather something constructive, for having suggested that the $100 million in subsidies that the government will grant to western farmers would be somewhat unfair, at the expense of the rest of Canada. I think that was a mean remark. However, I appreciate the intellectual honesty of the hon. member for Bellechasse-


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Bellechasse rises on a point of order.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt my colleague from Trois-Rivieres, but if my remarks have been interpreted as a reproach to the government about western farmers, it is very unfortunate.
I never thought so. I said that it could be interpreted by our own people or exploited by others who are seeking to spread discord as likely to create dissension and give rise to prejudice. I want to make myself clear on that matter.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Bellechasse for his explanation, ibut I add that if he had wanted to show absolute intellectual honesty, he would have told the population why the government has granted a $100 million subsidy to western
IMr, Mongraln.]
DEBATES	March 19, 1970
farmers who, this year, will face an unusual problem which does not occur every year.
In extraordinary and disastrous situations such as this one, any government must take unusual measures. Then it must be explained to the Canadian people, especially those in Quebec-where there are so many demagogues who take advantage of such things and misrepresent them totally and unrealistically- that the ten provinces are interdependent and that if some of them, for example, are deprived of a decent standard of living, all the others must suffer for it.
Besides, that is why was established the equalization system under which the province of Quebec will be receiving this year $350 million, and more next year. Those are the things which must be stated when one wants to be honest. I do not suggest that the member for Bellechasse did it intentionally. It is probably because, as he was running out of time, he knew he could not say everything he wanted to say. I feel that those facts must be told.

I think, personally, I would be remiss if at the beginning of my remarks I did not convey to the government the gratitude of my fellow constituents, and especially of the three municipal councils that represent the three municipalities which form my riding, for having decided to designate our region, and also for having decided that our region would be specially designated. That is another thing that the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) could have mentioned since his own riding was designated, and specially designated. He could have added a word of thanks to the federal government, even if it is what we call justice distributive in French. It is a fact that the government has made a decision which probably represents the difference between poverty continuing for years and years and the achievement of a certain measure of prosperity, increasing little by little in succeeding years.

As far as the metropolitan area of Trois-Rivieres is concerned, it is in a rather strategic position since it constitutes the core of the province of Quebec. It has resources and an economic and industrial potential that are rather important.
For various reasons that I could not enumerate this afternoon, we have experienced during a few years some kind of stagnation. Now, the government has agreed to designate
March 19. 1970	COMMONS
our area and even make it a "special area". This augurs well for a future of real prosperity. When reading the newspapers from my area, one finds how pleased are some organizations, such as the Chambers of Commerce, including the Junior Chamber of Commerce, labour organizations and industrialists' and businessmen's associations, to see that the government has made this gesture. They are ready to do everything possible to take fullest advantage of the benefits made available by the government.
I therefore thank the government for I am convinced that I speak for all the taxpayers, for all my fellow-citizens in my area who are happy with the situation.
The hon. member for Bellechasse has said earlier that the federal government was not doing anything to help the farmers. Even if the federal government does not hand out all the grants to dairy producers-and I will not embark on that topic where I would be at a loss, since there is no farming in my riding- it has suggested alternatives for some rural areas in the province of Quebec. If the Quebec government would accept one or other of those solutions, the province would become highly prosperous, especially in the field of farming which is now stagnating.
For instance, when the federal government offers to develop a national park in the Gaspe peninsula or in the St. Maurice valley, they should rejoice, as a few million dollars investment could draw from tourists $15, $20 or $25 million a year, which would benefit people of these rural and surrounding areas. All people living along roads travelled by tourists would enjoy an increased annual income.
The member for Bellechasse is right when he contends that the present problem is an economic one. We must put an end to our barren quarrels on all aspects of the constitutional reform, as most of the time these are empty words spoken by lawyers striving for influence.
It is important to ensure to all Canadians their three meals a day. It is for this reason that the government is taking concrete measures such as the designation of special areas in order to erase regional disparities, to assist municipalities and to create conditions that will promote the setting up of new industries or the development of existing ones.
That is why the federal government is prepared to create national parks in Quebec, why it has implemented a retraining program designed to give a minimum of academic
DEBATES	5243
The Budget-Mr. Mongrain background to those who lack it, to provide those whose skills have become obsolete with new ones, to teach skills now in great demand to those who have none at all. Those are concrete measures for the ehmination of unemployment. The people do not want charity. I commend the government's decision to review its social legislation in order that, as soon as possible, all Canadians may have a minimum guaranteed income allowing them to live decently.
The hon. member knows the government is concerned with doing all these things. He will have become aware that government policy aims at the goals so well spelled out by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he said, in his own colourful style: If my neighbour is hungry and I give him a fish, there is no doubt that I have helped him but if I also give him a fishing-rod, he will be able to help himself.
This, in a way, is characteristic of this government's policy. To suggest that the present government is not doing anything to solve the present situation, is not true. Indeed, we should not forget that a cold wind of inflation is blowing on the whole world, including countries which were more prosperous at one time than Canada.
I am thinking, for instance, of England whose government has a philosophy that is very close to that of the NDP, of England that has a great deal of trouble trying to maintain some kind of stability. In fact, from time to time the workers protest. France which is a very prosperous country has succeeded due to a certain economic uncertainty, in overthrowing a giant named de Gaulle.
I might also mention Italy which is unable to form a government at the present time.
In Canada, we have succeeded at least in maintaining some sort of stability and in preventing the worst. It is true that there is unemployment in this country. However, if the government had not taken with our help the steps we know, the situation would be far more disastrous.
The opposition co-operated with the government about the implementation of social measures in Canada. In fact, the federal government spends billions of dollars throughout this country, all the year around, in order to maintam some economic stability. Were it not for this initiative and taking into account the crisis that prevails everywhere in the world, the situation would be very much worse.
March 19, 1970

The Budget-Mr. Mongrain
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I do not think it is correct to say that 6.7 per cent of our workers are unemployed compared to 5 per cent last year. We must ask ourselves if the international situation is not a little bit responsible for that. If no steps had been taken, would things be better or worse?
It is obvious that the government has failed up to now to eliminate unemployment. It is certain also that it will not succeed without the co-operation of provinces, manufacturers and labour unions. But at least it took steps to prevent the situation from becoming worse and even to improve it in several fields.
For my part, I am sure that I speak for all my fellow-citizens when I thank the government for its efforts in order to reduce unemployment. As a positive suggestion, one could perhaps ask the government to organize, if possible, summer camps for university students who want to work. Two birds could perhaps be killed with one stone. These students would first of all be given the opportunity to earn some money with which to pay their tuition fees. In this way, instead of loafing through the summer, they could work for the municipal, provincial or federal governments, helping to develop our natural resources, such as our forests and our lakes, and also to reduce air and water pollution.
The youth of today would like to see such an organization being set up. I recall that there was at one time in the United States an organization known as the Civil Conservation Corps, which was devoted to keep university students busy in summer camps. If I remember well, that was at the end of the economic recession of 1930-39. Outstanding results were achieved by that organization.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the hon. member for Bellechasse for having mentioned the chaos in the textile industry, and I agree with his remarks. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) as well as their experts are looking after that problem. Indeed, I had the opportunity to meet them on many occasions, and I would like to repeat what the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) has already said, and confirm what the hon. member for Bellechasse has just said. I therefore wish to remind our government that the situation is urgent.
There is in my constituency a textile industry which has 2,100 employees. When I meet the management, they tell me how much they

are concerned about the present conditions and they suggest some solutions which seem satisfactory to me. I would therefore ask the government to consider as positively as possible this urgent problem which is in danger of increasing unemployment.
Some companies, because they did not retrain their employees or did not modernize their equipment on time, are condemned to disappear. We have to resign ourselves to that fact. But there are others, and I am thinking of Wabasso Cotton in my constituency which has always had the latest equipment and the best working conditions. It deserves, on account of its efforts, some consideration from the government for itself and its employees.
It seems there are some 85,000 workers in the textile industry in Ontario and Quebec, a substantial figure. I will read part of a communication from the Canadian Institute of Textiles which I have here:
-the Canadian industry of yarns and cottons invested an estimated $10.9 million as capital or maintenance expenditures in 1968. The amount was $21.7 million in 1967 and, according to estimates by investors it will be $11.2 million in 1969.
Therefore, the textile industry made efforts to modernize its equipment and to give new training to its workers in order to meet the competition of countries where wages are 15 to 25 times lower than in Canada.
In spite of all these improvements, the textile industry is in deep trouble. Statistics show that in 1965, woven cotton and synthetic fibres produced by Canadian mills accounted for merely 57 per cent of the Canadian consumer market. The rest came from abroad. In 1969, this figure had declined to 52.5 per cent. According to the leaders of the textile industry, this is an alarming rate of decrease, and they suggest, after conducting studies on what is done elsewhere, that Canada is probably the only country which does not enforce quotas high enough to protect its industry. In their opinion, at least 65 to 70 per cent of the Canadian textile production should be absorbed by the Canadian market. In Japan, there are laws, they say, requiring those who import textile products to secure special permits from the government which grants them only if it is deemed essential to the development of the Japanese industry.
The problem is not that simple, Mr. Speaker, for we have to consider international trade and maintain a trade balance in this field. Japan buys more goods from Canada than we buy from that country, but it is inconsistent to let our textile industry deteri-
March 19, 197C	COMMONS
orate and its domestic market decline, when we are spending millions of dollars to try to boost the economy and set up new industries. It would be wise to maintain our existing industries. I therefore ask the government to take steps in order to increase the quota of Canadian consumption supplied with Canadian production. It is now roughly 55 per cent, including all products available. It should be increased to 65 or 70 per cent.
When it is intended to establish quotas, the industry should be advised a few years beforehand, so that it will know where it stands, and will be able to plan their investment budgets and have some idea of the kind of market it can count on. We would render it a tremendous service. In fact, we would prevent it at least from dying; it is a vigorous and open-minded industry, which managed to retrain its workers and modernize its equipment in good time. The others, of course, are still living under that basic law, that is, the survival of the fittest. Some people will always have to give up, as some farmers have. Indeed, while some farmers continue to prosper others are going bankrupt, because they are unable to manage with the means at their disposal.
I have another request to make to the government. At a time when my area, that of Trois-Rivieres, located in the heart of the province of Quebec, is on the threshold of a considerable industrial revival, having been designated as a special zone, when the federal government is prepared to give us also a national park, and when we are awaiting the decisions of a Quebec minister who is looking for periods and commas, when we need millions of dollars to get jobs for our people, I wish to call the attention of the government to the fact that Air Canada intends to curtail its daily service to Trois-Rivieres.
In the name of the municipal councils, Chambers of Commerce and businessmen at home, I wish to oppose Air Canada's decision very strongly, because we have built an up-to-date 6,000-ft. runway specially for Air Canada. The city has erected an air terminal that numbers among the most beautiful in Canada, whose design is probably the most modern yet. The government has spent considerable amounts of money to install an electronic control tower system designed to guide the landing of big aircrafts.
Many sacrifices have been made for Air Canada. That corporation is not justified, just because its operations are showing a deficit, to cancel its daily flights, and that for the
DEBATES	5245
The Budget-Mr. Mongrain following reasons: first, the federal government as well as the Trois-Rivieres municipality have invested huge amounts of money so that Air Canada would come into that area. Furthermore, the profits of the corporation must not be computed simply on the basis of the tickets sold in Trois-Rivieres. Finally, Air Canada certainly brings a large number of people from the metropolitan area of Trois-Rivieres, which has a population of 350,000 to 400,000, to go to Montreal by air rather than by car when they go on holidays for one, two or three weeks.
These are profits accumulated by Air Canada but which are not taken into consideration in its computation to see whether the Trois-Rivieres air terminal is economical or not, while they should be included because otherwise people will travel by Air France, Eastern Airlines or CP Air. People are under no obligation to travel by Air Canada but the fact that this corporation is there induces them to use its services.
I admit that when I started to travel along distances by air I used Air France planes with much pleasure but today when my friends and I travel by air, we go by Air Canada.
Air Canada has incurred obligations on account of government investments. It gets something out of the advertising made in foreign air terminals as it is a company which is to a certain extent financed by the federal government. Therefore, it should help designated areas to prosper by maintaining its service there.
I ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), as well as the whole cabinet, to use their influence in order that the Trois-Rivieres area may keep its airport and so that Air Canada will maintain its daily service there. Moreover, schedules should be drawn up so as to make air travel even more attractive to business men, for instance, who wish to make connections with flights to northwestern Quebec or to other countries.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take too much of the time of my colleagues but I would have had things to say about the famous $200 million. Quite a fuss is made about the whole thing in the province of Quebec and it is used as a means of stirring up the province against the federal government. Such utter irresponsibility.
This is not only irresponsibility but criminal dishonesty in many cases because those
March 19, 1970

The Budget-Mr. Mongrain $200 million were distributed to the citizens of the province of Quebec. That amount was not given as a lump sum to the government so that it would use it as it thought best. It was distributed to all the Quebec citizens, under the form of pensions or welfare measures of all kinds, the cost of which goes up every year. One will recall that that was precisely the objective of that social development tax. If we have no medicare in the province of Quebec at the present time, it is not the fault of the federal government which is ready to pay half of it. It is the fault of the Quebec government, it could have implemented it last July. Indeed, the government intends to levy a premium in order to implement it. It will therefore not cost the provincial treasury very much. The taxpayers in Quebec will pay the share Quebec should pay.
It is therefore unfair to accuse the federal government without explanation, of fiscal violation, or even of theft. That is irresponsibility! That is criminal demagoguery, when arguments are used that only serve to stir the ill-informed, the naive souls in Quebec, against the central government which tries to maintain reasonable prosperity in all the provinces.
The province of Quebec is the first to benefit, thanks to equalization payments, and also to the direct or indirect contribution of the Department of National Defence which spends hundreds of millions of dollars in Montreal. If Quebec were to separate, it would no longer benefit from that financial contribution, nor from the subsidies to hospitals, to CEGEPs, and all the other things it accepts without a word.
I cannot deal with everyone of those points for I see my time is almost up. I thank my honourable colleagues for their patience and I conclude by saying again that my own electors are most grateful to the government for having given us the advantage of those special measures, thanks to designated areas and "special areas."
In addition, my electors express their deep gratitude to the federal government for having thought of having a national park in the St. Maurice Valley.
I also ask the government to protect the textile industry, which is a very important one in my area, and to consider that problem as urgent as that of the farmers out west.
Now, I should like to speak with every precaution, because I should not like to show the weakness I have reproached to others.


Although I am in favour of the $100 million that will be spent out west, I say the textile industry in Ontario and in Quebec need help.
As for Air Canada, I trust the members of the government will be firm enough to see to it that it does not disappear from the area, at least not before we have alternative service as convenient as the one we already have.
I forgot to say that another service has been added to that of Air Canada which is financed by the federal government, namely a meteorological service which is useful to us in many fields and which we may not be able to keep if Air Canada leaves us.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburlon):: Mr. Speaker, my first reaction to this budget was that the government had missed the boat, if indeed it had any intention of ever trying to catch the boat in the first place. After listening for three days of debate on the budget, I realize that the government has not just missed one boat, but several boats. They have missed so many boats that I am inclined to wonder if they are going in the same direction as the rest of us. I wonder if the government is even remotely interested in going in the same direction that the Canadian people wanted to go. It is obvious that the government is going to continue to go its own way regardless of whether the Canadian people benefit from the exercise.
One thing that comes through loud and clear in this budget is that the government has decided that prosperity is too good for the average person in Canada. In this land of plenty, this land of lush forests, untold mineral resources, great challenge and unlimited opportunity, the Canadian people are given a choice between a demagog or nothing. Even as we debate this budget the government has brought in new legislation which it says will solve the problems of our agricultural industry. It is another smoke-screen. Anyone who takes the trouble to read the bill will see that this is more clear evidence of a demagog under the guise of helping the farmer find markets more readily for his produce. The bill contains provisions for the eventual takeover by the government of the means of production and absolute control over where and how the producer will market his produce.
Today's headlines state that there are 526,000 people unemployed in Canada. While unemployed workmen in the hundreds of thousands and elderly people on fixed incomes cry out for some small measure of
March 19, 1970

March 19, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Scott almost a hundred years we had a Post Office which delivered letters and parcels. When I was growing up, the postman was a respected member of the community who seemed to be above partisan politics and organized violence. The village post office was often the centre of social activity in the small communities across the country. Now, Mr. Speaker, we find that one of the defeated candidates for the leadership of the Liberal party has reorganized the Post Office. While he was in the process of making a shambles of the Post Office system he made such profound observations as "The practice of sending letters from one person to another person is becoming outmoded. Such things belong to a bygone era." Well, Mr. Speaker, he has proven that point beyond doubt. Mailing a letter in Canada from one person to another, and getting it delivered, does indeed belong to a bygone era.
The minister also closed many of the village and town post offices across the country-as a matter of fact he has closed some 1,200 of them-and told us this saves the Post Office some $2 million a year. We learn, however, that the Company of Young Canadians is getting almost $2 million a year to spend doing their thing. I wonder which is more important. We could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, calling attention to such examples of government efficiency as the recent reorganization of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, but in the face of the power-mad group sitting across the chamber any observations we make regarding the inefficiency of the government amount only to painful reminiscence.
This budget is just another straw piled on the back of the Canadian individual, the Canadian voter. Over the next two years we can expect to see more of the same, and the people are already getting tired of excuses in place of answers. We on this side of the House will continue strenuously to oppose the trend to government takeover of Canadian institutions and the suppression of individual freedom. It is not unlikely that two years from now those same voters will decide to cancel the present government's mandate and restore the concept of parliamentary democracy to this country.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, this budget reminds me of a story I heard about a man who was undergoing an examination after applying for life

insurance. The doctor asked him the usual routine questions before inquiring, "Have you ever had a serious accident?" The man replied that he had not. The doctor then asked him to undress for a physical examination, and in the course of it he was astonished to find a very long scar running down the man's side. "What happened?" he asked. "I was gored by a bull", the man replied. "I thought you said you had never had a serious accident", said the doctor. "I didn't", the patient replied, "The bull did it on purpose."
This is exactly how it is with the budget, now before us. At first sight, people are apt to believe that it could not have been done on purpose, that it was an accident. Large groups of citizens have been waiting and waiting for it with high hopes. They have been told over and over again that the government was reviewing the position of the various social security measures, that a review was in progress. They have been bombarding us with letters asking when this review would be completed. Surely, they thought, when the budget comes down it will contain measures to help us until the review is completed and long-term decisions are made.
People were stunned to hear the minister make the budget speech he did. Here are some of the points the hon. gentleman made. I myself was startled to hear them expressed in one short passage of the budget presentation. All this happened in 1969: (1) the rate of economic growth declined, (2) unemployment increased, (3) housing starts were fewer, (4) interest rates rose, (5) consumer debt rose, (6) wheat sales declined, (7) the cost of living climbed steadily and (8) the problems of the cities grew apace.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The startling thing is that the minister forecast that all this would continue into 1970 and he did not limit the period of its continuance. The minister himself forecast that all these ills would continue to get worse in the period ahead. He knew what he was talking about, because the policies of the government have made certain that this state of affairs will continue in the way it has for the last two years. The budget is the result of a complete lack of leadership over the last two years on the part of the government; and the people of Canada who need help have been looking in vain to the government to give this leadership.
March 19, 1970

What does this kind of budget mean? What will we be faced with as a result of the budget? Put briefly-others of my colleagues have dealt with this question at greater length-it means that this government is leaving the private sector of the economy free to continue to expand and to make larger profits regardless of the value to the public of that expansion. At the same time, government services such as health and welfare, assistance to education, pollution control and many other very necessary and essential services of value to the public are going to be restricted. That is what the policies contained in the budget are designed to do.
In the second place, this budget will bring on increased unemployment. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) said this was so in his budget speech and the most recent unemployment figures confirm it right up to the hilt. I do not know whether even the minister is prepared for the rapidity with which unemployment is increasing and is likely to increase. Here is the proof that unemployment is not an accident; that the minister's policies are designed for that purpose. I should like to refer to a clipping from the Globe and Mail that deals with some remarks made by the Minister of Finance outside the House. In addition to other unpleasant and unusal habits, the government has developed the habit of making its most important policy statements outside the House to the media without giving the members of the House the benefit of hearing them within these walls. Speaking to the Canadian Press on March 16, the Minister of Finance is reported to have said:
Unemployment slightly higher than that of 1969 may be necessary "if we are really going to beat inflation"-
His comment was made on a public affairs television program taped for broadcast yesterday.
"I certainly hope the steps we are taking will mean that unemployment won't be concentrated as it has been in the past in certain areas of Canada," Mr. Benson said.
"We are certainly taking all the steps we can to help areas in eastern Canada and eastern Quebec where unemployment is high."
The things the government has been doing to help-and I put the word "help" in quotes -are the very things that are causing unemployment and will continue to cause unemployment to increase in this country. I say this because the policies contained in the budget will mean increased unemployment. They will mean more lay-offs, just as there have been increasing lay-offs in the public
The Budget-Mrs. Maclnnis service. They will mean lay-offs in private industry, too. This past week unemployed rubber workers in one of the big plants near Toronto visited Ottawa. People are being laid off in industry after industry, yet the government feels there is no responsibility on its shoulders do to do anything concrete or worth while to correct the situation. This is why unemployment is mounting.
In the third place, these policies mean that the cost of living will continue to go up and up and up. It was up 5 per cent last year. I have already told the House what this means in terms of facts and figures, cold statistics, but what does it mean to the lives of men and women across the country? I wish at some time in this House we could have a day when members were permitted to say nothing except to read the kind of letters they receive. I know other members get them; I get them all the time. I should just like to read two of these letters this afternoon. Both are from Vancouver. I should like to read an extract from the first one, dated March 12, from a veteran of the second world war. He says in part:
On February 14th last, Mr. Les Benjamin and Mr. John Diefenbaker tried very hard to get Mr. Dube, Minister for Veterans Affairs, to give some sort-any sort-of answer as when-if ever-the government is likely to implement at least a small part of the Woods report as far as needy ex-servicemen are concerned but met with complete and utter evasion!
How cynical can some politicians get? How cynically disillusioned must any and every war veteran be! What faith in any politician's statements and promises can we place in them?? What sort of faith and belief in our governments can we pass on to our children and our grandchildren???
I have a much briefer letter from another veteran who resides in my riding. I received it the other day. He said: "As my member, you have a duty to get down to the House again and demand from the government to know when they are going to table the Woods report". He seems to feel that tabling the Woods report will be a step toward bringing about an increase in the pensions of veterans and their families.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Getting it implemented.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Getting it implemented
would. We have been receiving dozens and dozens of letters from people who are desperate. These are people who are the salt of the earth. They have devoted their lives to this country and they want to dedicate their children to this country, but all in vain. If it is in
March 19, 1970

Limiting of Foreign Ownership order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to leave the reading of the second letter until after the dinner adjournment, as I see it is now six o'clock. May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I
understand the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) seeks leave to revert to motions for the purpose of making a statement. Does the minister have the consent of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I should like, pursuant to the Prime Minister's statement of March 2, to inform the House of the government's position with regard to ownership in the Canadian uranium industry. That position rests upon the special importance of this industry in relation to the national interest, as reflected, for example, in the Atomic Energy Control Act and in a number of statements of general policy of which the most recent was made in the House on June 19 of last year. In light of that special importance, the ownership and control of enterprises in Canada engaged in the extraction and processing of this vital mineral are matters of important concern to the national interest and to Canadians generally. For this reason we propose to limit, by regulation, the extent of ownership of uranium-producing enterprises in Canada by non-residents of Canada.
The regulations will apply to any uranium property or plant in Canada which the Atomic Energy Control Board may determine to be producing, or to have the capability of producing, a specified quantity of uranium oxide per annum. They will require that by a specified date following such a determination by the board the property or plant be owned


legally and beneficially by a company incorporated in Canada.
The regulations will limit foreign ownership both in the aggregate and on the part of any individual or group of foreign investors. They will distinguish between existing properties of demonstrated productive capacity and those developed in future on the basis of exploration. Specifically, the regulations will set a limit of 33 per cent upon the aggregate foreign ownership of any uranium property of established productive capacity, and a limit of 10 per cent on the ownership of such a property which may be held by any one foreign investor or group of associated investors.
It is not our intention to limit the ownership of enterprises engaging in exploration, but when such exploration leads to the discovery of a commercially exploitable uranium ore body, the foreign ownership of the company bringing it into production will be limited to 33 per cent. In this case of a new mine, however, the regulations will allow the permissible 33 per cent of ownership to be held by the single foreign investor or group of associated investors which held it through the exploration and development phase.
With regard to existing mines, our regulations will be effective as from the date of the Prime Minister's statement on March 2, but will not be retroactive in the sense of requiring foreign interests then holding more of the ownership than the prescribed limits to divest themselves of those surplus holdings. However, any transaction which would bring either individual or aggregate foreign holdings above their prescribed limits, or if they are already above them would increase the amounts by which the limits are exceeded, will be precluded. Present foreign owners will be permitted to retain their existing holdings, but if they reduce them by sale to Canadians with a consequent reduction in the percentage of ownership in foreign hands, that reduced level of ownership will become the new permissible ceiling down to the prescribed limits of 10 per cent and 33 per cent.
Furthermore, we shall require, in the case of foreign holdings by an individual or group of associated investors amounting to 50 per cent of total ownership or higher, that while such holdings may be retained by their present owners, any transfer of them must be to Canadians only, down to the 33 per cent aggregate foreign ownership limit. Where individual holdings by foreign interests are now below 50 per cent, however, their trans-
March 19, 1970	COMMONS
fer to other foreign investors will be permitted.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
A further point concerns foreign enterprises now engaged in uranium exploration which have not yet established the presence of commercially productive uranium deposits. Such enterprises will be given a certain period of time within which to establish the commercially productive capacity of their properties in order to qualify for the exemption from the ceilings which will be available to present foreign owners of existing mines; otherwise they will be regarded as new mines. Finally, the government may wish to bring forward special conditions applicable to enterprises in which one or more foreign governments may have a substantial interest.
In this statement I have sought to inform the House as promptly and as fully as possible of the criteria which the government will apply in this matter. The preparation of detailed regulations reflecting these criteria, in the course of which there will be consultation with interested parties, will go forward with all possible speed and we shall make the results known as soon as possible.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, this is another occasion on which one is supposed to make an instant comment about something upon which the minister, hopefully, has reflected for some time. Let me just say for this evening that it has not yet really been made clear why the government should announce a particular policy with regard to uranium.
I think the House and the country are entitled to a more adequate explanation than has been given so that the question can be adequately judged in respect of why special regulations are required concerning uranium as distinct from other natural resources because, rightly or wrongly, it is generally assumed the government has other methods by which to ensure the regulation of uranium mining in Canada. Whatever differences of opinion there may be concerning whether there should be restrictions in respect of foreign ownership of resources in Canada, I do not think the government has yet made clear why special measures are taken with regard to uranium. The only explanation that has been available to any of us is that a transaction has taken place which provoked, or at least induced the government to interfere in a transfer that was proposed.
DEBATES	5251
Limiting of Foreign Ownership
I think the government ought to give the country a more adequate explanation concerning the step that is being taken, not with regard to the control of uranium mines but with regard to the control of the companies mining uranium as distinct from the control of companies mining other minerals in Canada. Second, I thought the minister would have given some explanation tonight concerning why 33 per cent is the magic figure to be used in limiting the extent of foreign ownership of a company mining uranium in Canada. It is not obvious to me, for example, why 33 per cent should be the limit when generally speaking, as a matter of arithmetic, something over 50 per cent represents actual control and there may well be circumstances in which something less than 33 per cent could actually provide working control.
We all know there are large corporations in North America and in the world in which less than 33 per cent control of the shares actually gives working control for all practical purposes. So I would think that in the very near future the minister ought to give a more adequate explanation concerning why 33 per cent is the magic figure. On the one hand, it might be high enough to permit the defeat of the purpose the government has in mind; in other words, it might be high enough to permit people from outside the country obtaining practical control over a company. On the other hand, it may be restrictive in respect of enabling a Canadian corporation which has a 51 per cent interest obtaining sufficient equity participation to make possible the opening of a mine even though it does not involve control. The 33 per cent might be unnecessarily restrictive.
As of tonight there does not seem to be very much sense in this particular figure being chosen. These are about the only instantaneous remarks I should like to make, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I too am somewhat uncertain why the minister chose to make this statement in the rather cryptic way it was made today. The whole issue of the government's concern about uranium leaves more questions unanswered than answered. I do not wish to argue about this. To begin with, however, I am sure there is a good reason for the government's move in this case. I am pleased that some action is being taken in this regard. I am somewhat unhappy that the government has not been more frank with us on this issue, because as
5252	COMMONS
Limiting of Foreign Ownership all of us know the government now has control over the export of uranium to an extent that it does not have over other industries. In many ways a better case could have been made for Canadian ownership of other industries rather than uranium.
I hope that if unanimous consent could be obtained for him to do so, the minister would fill in some of the details tonight since he has raised the question tonight. There are many questions in everyone's mind concerning why he has taken this extraordinary step. The only reason that comes to mind is that this measure would be a way to escape the extraterritorial conditions which might be imposed upon our industry if United States investors who would be subject to United States law came in at a time when the government might have in mind exporting uranium to a country of which the United States might disapprove. This is the only reason I can see for such a measure.
There does not seem to be any sense in it on the ground that the government does not have any control: the government obviously has control. I do not know what type of approach should be taken in this regard, but I should like the minister to be given an opportunity to answer tonight some of the questions which arise out of his statement, because it does not deal adequately with the problem.
I am disappointed that the minister did not see fit to provide us with a copy of his statement in advance. The members of the press gallery have copies of his statement, but Members of Parliament do not. This is a most serious matter and one in which the opposition is vitally concerned. We think the minister ought to take this House into his confidence and say something further. Although this probably is an unusual procedure, I believe it to be necessary. I think he should indicate the reason the government feels it should take such an extraordinary step. I hope there will be unanimous consent of the House to the minister being granted the right tonight to explain the situation.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I was greatly astonished to hear this unexpected though important statement.
As the previous speakers, I was shocked that copies of this statement had been released to the press while opposition mem-

DEBATES	March 19, 1970
bers were forgotten as usual. Tomorrow we will be able to read the minister's statement not in Hansard, since we will only receive it after the first sitting, but in the newspapers.
However, it would have been preferable to discuss briefly this government decision. I gather that the minister wanted to make this statement after the closing of the stock exchanges, so as to prevent speculation. But he might have trusted the opposition members and given them a copy of it.
The proposed measure designed to regulate uranium mines or production under foreign control does not seem to me to be a step in the right direction.
However, I was led to believe that the minister had left several doors open by allowing foreign interests to circumvent whatever regulations the minister or government wishes to apply.
I think we will have the opportunity of studying and analyzing that decision more thoroughly. We should therefore have the possibility of discussing this matter more fully with the minister in the very near future, perhaps before the House adjourns for the Easter recess.


Max Saltsman: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you would ask the House for unanimous consent to allow the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) to elaborate on the statement.


Gerald William Baldwin: We would be perfectly willing to agree to that, Mr. Speaker. I suggest, however, that we are now engaged in a debate and that this would be the proper forum for the minister to speak. If the minister wants to reply, that is fine. I would be willing to allow him the time which normally would be allotted to another member of his party, if he wants to speak. However, far be it from me to urge a minister of the Crown to speak.


An hon. Member:: No reaction.
Another hon. Member: He is speechless.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am prepared to recognize the hon. member for Vancouver -Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) if the hon. lady wishes to speak now.
March 19, 1970	COMMONS



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (page 5051).
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned at six o'clock I was about to read from a letter dated February 12 which I received from Vancouver. I want to read the letter because it is typical of so many that I have received from people on old age pension, from families of veterans, from people on low incomes with large families, and generally from people in difficult circumstances. The letter reads as follows:
I'm now 75 years of age and have to live on the supplementary pension of between $110 to $111. The landlord or caretaker has been putting the rent up and up for a tiny room,-and now it's a case of having a place to sleep but almost nothing to eat!
Have fought a heart condition and other ailments on my own for a long time-
Over 50 years ago I came from Scotland-then returned to stay in London during the last world war. My wages or salary when I worked were poor-so try as I did I couldn't save but very, very little. I heard that we'd be getting more money-up to $150.
She is referring here to the budget.
If this were so, I could manage very well indeed -but if it isn't, I thought I'd write the proper people in Scotland and see if it would be cheaper to spend the remaining years of my life there-
I am not a businesswoman and the sight of a form fills me with terror! And how I detest having to write and ask for more-too many already do this-
This is the letter of a self-respecting person who has spent many of her years in Canada and who now is hesitant to ask for what is her right if the government were doing the proper thing, that is, seeing to it that her old age is spent comfortably. But the answer of the government to this is a deaf ear.
A few days after this letter was written my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked the government for the one hundredth time whether they would consider some emergency measure to aid the pensioners before many thousands
DEBATES	5253
The Budget-Mrs. Maclnnis of them are starved out of existence. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) sat silent and made no attempt to answer the question. Then my colleague asked if there would be any action on behalf of old age pensioners during this parliamentary session. He received the reply we have received so many times, that this matter would be dealt with as part of the over-all review of the social security program. This is what we get all the time.
There is nothing whatsoever in sight for the people in this country whose incomes have shrunk progressively as the cost of living has gone up, and the people in whose homes there is fear because of increasing unemployment and what it means to their young people and more especially to the breadwinner. What is the answer of the government? Again I should like to quote from the Globe and Mail of March 16, where the Minister of Finance is reported as having said the following quite clearly:
This is a period when we need to sit tight for a few months and see what the results of actions we have taken will be.
It is extremely callous and cruel of this government to invite old ladies such as the one whom I quoted, and veterans such as the one who wrote to me, to sit tight for a few months and wait to see what happens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: This is a sit tight budget, in the words of the minister himself. It is a budget that dooms to despair the dispossessed people of this country and encourages the process of despoiling them. Meanwhile, to take their minds off their misery the government has devised something else, that is, to continue with the shining farce of a Prime Minister like a glowing star in the firmament who can be watched by people who try to identify with him. It is an exciting spectacle, the government hopes, and one that will be durable.
It is exciting to see a Prime Minister who can divide his Christmas holiday between scuba diving in the West Indies and skiing in the Alps, and to hell with the people. It is exciting to watch a Prime Minister who can keep up all these indubitably important athletic events and show his great prowess leaping with both feet off the ground to astound the Eskimos and Indians and all other people wherever he goes, a Prime Minister who can spend his time girl-watching in the House of Commons gallery, mixing with the stars both
5254	COMMONS
The Budget-Mrs. Maclnnis human and not so human, and taking the place of the Queen, the flag and whatever other symbols you like.
It would be funny if it were not so tragic. But it is not amusing when you consider that this is the government's substitute for real action. I notice the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) is amused. He is convinced that the government has managed to pull the wool tightly over the eyes of the people so they will never be able to see that this shining image is a substitute for bread, butter, security, health care, jobs, training for jobs and all the other things that the people need.
I am here to tell the President of the Privy
Council that I do not think the people are going to believe this forever. The mask is slipping already and people are able to see the hollowness and emptiness behind this government's policies. If it were not for patronage, the government would never make it stick; and if it were not for the publicity and propaganda that goes on, they would never make it stick either.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
But after a while people will discover that bread and circuses are no substitute for the kind of life we ought to be able to have in Canada, with our modern technology and knowledge and with really genuine leadership policies. I know the government thinks that this is a very bright way of carrying on, that this is a really clever policy, but as for the just society-forget it! The Prime Minister himself said the other day that he was not using the term now, that it had become a cliche. I think the real reason he is not using the term is that he-he is undoubtedly an intelligent person-cannot even pretend to himself that he is heading at all in the direction of the just society. I think he knows only too well that what he is heading for could well be called a great many other things, but by any intelligent person it could not be named the just society.
Another of the government's ideas is: For goodness sake, don't let anyone take Parliament seriously. Members of the government are building up the age-old idea which went so well in France for a while under Louis XIV, the splendid Monarch of the Sun, that "1'lStat, c'est moi". That served him well for a while, but eventually the people decided they wanted no more of that. I say that contempt for Parliament and contempt for the people

DEBATES	March 19, 1970
go together, and that we have had too much of both.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to use the
rest of my time to say what should be done in a constructive way, because although we have been emphasizing the ills of the government, the things the government is not doing, we also want to say what we think should be done by any government concerned with the well-being of people at this time. First of all, in this budget debate we tried very hard to have an amendment accepted that would exempt from income tax single persons earning less than $2,000 a year, and married people living on less than $4,000 a year. That is a pretty rough and ready determination of income tax exemption, but this is what we tried to do. We were crushed in that attempt by the overwhelming majority of government supporters whose hearts bleed for the people except when it is time to do something for them in a practical way. Well, that is out for now.
The second thing we tried to do in this
Parliament was to get interim increases for those people who are below the poverty line and for those people on government pensions, old age pensions, veterans pensions and others, pending the result of the government's review of the social security programs. You see, Mr. Speaker, while all this wonderful efficiency is going on and the government is building up terribly intricate machinery to look into all these things, the cost of living is steadily climbing and what people have to live on is steadily shrinking. So in all justice, if it were heading for the just society the government would be giving interim increases to keep these people abreast of rises in the cost of living until such time as a proper social security program was developed. But there again, the government will not do that.
In the third place, Mr. Speaker, we have said that the budget should have forecast a guaranteed income in the near future. Very shortly after this session began I asked about a guaranteed income and the Prime Minister replied that the government was not satisfied that this was a realistic step. I would like to ask, realistic for whom? It may not be realistic for the government. Why in the world should members of the government bother about a guaranteed income? They have one until the next election. I would not care to say how long that guarantee will last when the next election is called, unless in the meantime they mend their ways considerably. But for people on low income, a guaranteed
March 19, 1970	COMMONS
income is the first step to making it possible for them to maintain even the standard of living that they have.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I admit that a guaranteed income is not the whole answer. People say that some of us in the New Democratic Party regard it as a panacea to cope with all the troubles of people on low income. We do not. Until we get what President Nixon says he is after, until we get people off relief and welfare rolls and on to payrolls, we will not really progress too far. But with a guaranteed income we will have made it possible for people to exist. When every welfare and social work agency in the country worth its salt is telling the government in no uncertain terms that a guaranteed income is a must, when even the Deputy Minister of the Department of National Health and Welfare in testimony before the Senate Committee on Poverty says that a guaranteed income is a must, surely the government ought to know whether a guaranteed income is a realistic step. I say members of the government do know, but they are not prepared to trim their priorities in other directions to make it possible.
We say that a guaranteed income is a must, and along with it there ought to be a guarantee that a person is able to keep it. When small increases are made to pensions, the first thing that happens-just as outlined in the letter from which I read-is that the landlord takes the raise in pension as fast as the poor people get it. Therefore, in addition to a guaranteed income there must be a guarantee that a person is able to keep it; there must be legislation which will prevent the landlord, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker and the government itself from taking it away. The present government has a very bad habit: when it gives a small raise in pensions-which it has done once or twice-it is in effect robbing Peter to pay Peter. It may give a little bit in pensions, but it will take that little bit away from the veterans allowance. That is not the way to do things. The government knows better than that.
Sometimes people think that the government could not be so hardhearted and that it makes these mistakes unintentionally. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, they are not mistakes. These things are done on purpose. They are done because the govermnent does not care one fig for the low-income people. It regards them as surplus, as fit for the scrap pile and that is about all.
DEBATES	5255
The Budget-Mrs. Maclnnis
Another measure we want to see enacted would provide for guaranteed jobs and training for jobs. Yesterday I introduced an amending bill which, if adopted, would make it possible for married women, or single women if they are providing domestic service at home, to qualify for manpower retraining and the allowances that go with it. I see the minister shaking his head-I hope in agreement with the principle of the bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He talks a good fight.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I know he talks a good fight, but I would like to see him come through with action. That is always the way with the government. They talk all the way; they don't act. It is always jam tomorrow but never jam today. I say it is time we got the jam today for the people who need it. Sure, there is jam for Members of Parliament, for Senators and people in highly-placed jobs, for highly-placed civil servants and the coteries surrounding the various ministers, and over $100,000 for the Prime Minister's own staff. There is money for that kind of thing, but there is no money for the people who need it. Any civilization which begins at the top, giving rises in income to people who have a fair degree of income and security, has no right to call itself a civilization.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Off with their heads!


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes, off with their heads! We have not even emerged from the jungle and we have no right to call ourselves a civilization.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Nobody is doing that.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Some people call it a civilization, but it seems to me that is an exaggeration; I think that is the best word to describe it. As a fifth step we want to see the implementation of a fair tax system, a system of taxation based strictly on ability to pay. I know that with respect to the white paper on reform of taxation we will probably end up with the Minister of Finance backing down a great deal under pressure. I will make a bet right now that he will back down in those areas of the white paper which concern people who already have big dividends and big incomes, because they are people able to mount big and powerful lobbies. We should go back to the principle that people should be taxed according to their ability to pay, no matter from where they get their income.
5256	COMMONS DEBATES	March 19. 1970
The Budget-Mr. Comeau
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
In the last place I would mention-this is No. 6-a guaranteed industry which goes with a guaranteed income. We cannot have one without the other. Guaranteed industry means stopping all this business of trying to seduce private industry to come in here, there and everywhere and start up enterprises thanks to government handouts and incentives, and then the government thinking it has done its job. What the government will have to learn, and the other public authorities, federal, provincial and municipal, is that where private industry cannot provide goods or services because a venture is not profitable, the government, the public authority, will have to step in and do it.
I shall conclude my remarks in a moment, Mr. Speaker. These are the things we should be doing. These things should be in the budget. But on the contrary, this budget means a do-nothing drift for the country; it means disappointment and disillusionment for the great majority of people, and deepening despair for thousands who can see no way out. We in this party have no choice but to oppose to the best of our ability this retreat from even the idea of a just society.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) who dealt with problems very similar to those I will discuss tonight. He spoke of the textile industry, and of Air Canada, as did also several other members.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate through the courtesy of my colleagues, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) and the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). The relative importance of the loss of industrial capacity as a result of changing defence policy as has been evidenced in Nova Scotia, particularly in Dartmouth, coupled with the fact that only one of us could speak, has persuaded them to let me have this place, and I thank them and their constituents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Louis-Roland Comeau: Had they spoken, I am sure they would have made observations with respect to defence matters, transportation, probably the Post Office and other important matters. Mr. Speaker, many developments

have occurred recently which really make one wonder whether these are the results of a sensible policy of the government, whether politics are involved, or what is going on. I refer to recent policies of various departments which are widening, not narrowing, the gap between various regions of Canada. I will enumerate them later. The budget, which is the most recent of these announcements, certainly adds to this.
It is very clear that the budget speech delivered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), who was told to do so by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), will create further unemployment. What concerns me is that once again the government hits at the low-income groups; once again they hit the poorer people; once again they hit the least literate and the uneducated people; once again the Prime Minister hits at the rural people; once again the pensioners are getting a beating; once again the Prime Minister considers his just society just for the rich; once again the young people are forced to migrate to the cities, but now only to find that the prospects for prosperity and richness are not so rosy there either. This time our young and vigorous rural people go to the cities to become welfare recipients.
There is no problem with the rich, the well-to-do, the highly skilled and educated. However, it is interesting to note that even university graduates are facing difficulties. I could supply the House with specific examples, but will refrain from doing so. It is true that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has been established. It is also true that it has helped many industries in various parts of Canada, and I thank the minister for what he has done. I would also add that we might be worse off had his department not made money available. I should say that the efforts of the minister and his department are being undermined by the efforts of his colleagues. They do not give a darn about unemployment, Mr. Speaker; they do not give a darn about rural Canada. They have been told to cut back by the Prime Minister.
Let me illustrate by giving specific cases. We have the case of the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans). Mr. Speaker, I do not know what to say about him. He certainly has no concern for the people and no concern for postal services. Somebody remarked the other day that so-and-so had been the worst Postmaster General until this one came along. I am wondering what would have happened if this fellow had been elected Prime Minister. I
March 19, 1970

will not elaborate on that at present, though I have done so before.
Then we come to the Department of National Defence. This month Fairey Aviation is scheduled to be closed. Fortunately, I understand that negotiations are going on and the Dartmouth people might end up in a better position than previously as far as employment is concerned. Fairey Aviation is not a defence base, but the company is entirely dependent upon defence expenditures for survival. It employed over 400 people. The de-escalation of these expenditures is responsible for the situation in which this establishment now finds itself.
In another not unrelated area, I feel I should make some observations about the cutbacks in civilian employment within the Department of National Defence, again accentuated by the policy of the government. In this connection I am happy to have the minister's assurances that lay-offs that will have to take place as a result of the freeze of the defence budget will almost entirely be through natural attrition. However, it must be noted that if we bear our share of the forecast 10 per cent reduction by 1973, it will mean that the economy will have to get along on pensions as opposed to the working incomes of approximately 400 to 500 men in Nova Scotia. Some of this will be in my riding at Cornwallis. My warning is, "Don't turn the economy into a pension economy."
In order that hon. members may better understand the enormous impact on our economy that could result from the loss of industries dependent upon such activities, let me say that on the basis of the last completed survey, which I understand was in 1960, 44.7 per cent of household income in Nova Scotia resulted directly from federal expenditures, and 43.5 per cent of employment was directly attributable to federal expenditure. Any tampering with such a dependent economy has an obvious and immediate adverse effect. Now, where is the Department of Regional Economic Expansion? Where is the co-ordination between departments, if they are allowed to proceed in this way to create unemployment? Where is the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which is supposed to be the custodian of this type of activity?
Let us look at another area, transportation. To talk about an area I know best, the Mari-times, recently there have been two freight rate increases on the railways, and I understand another one is scheduled. We cannot begin to talk about reducing the economic
The Budget-Mr. Comeau gap without including transportation, Mr. Speaker. It is the key for Maritime exports to the rest of Canada. In addition to that I would include the harnessing of the Fundy tides. I believe there is a great future in that development.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
On the subject of transportation, I cannot understand why we do not have some planning. Possibly there is too much planning and not enough action. Where are the fast trains and other forms of modern transportation? What is being done to encourage people not to drive their cars in the cities every day? What is being done about the problem of pollution? Why cannot there be improvements over what we have had in the past?
The government of Nova Scotia has acted to improve ferry service between Nova Scotia and New England. The new ferry service will be instituted this June. Normally the terminal facilities are provided by the Department of Transport, but the federal government has said they will not provide any more money to Nova Scotia for this type of project. Therefore, it was necessary for the government of Nova Scotia to obtain a loan. We are glad this is being done by that government even though these facilities are normally provided by the Department of Transport.
Why is the responsible department not protecting the rights of these designated areas? Why are there not improved transportation and tourist facilities? The transportation of goods must be improved. There is great potential in the tourst industry in Nova Scotia and it should be encouraged in every way possible. The ferry service to which I have made reference is one way in which the Department of Transport could have assisted. While on the subject of transportation, I wish to make a brief reference to Air Canada. I listened with interest when the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres spoke about discontinuing air services in the city of Trois Rivieres. Is Air Canada going to be allowed to discontinue services at a time when business is increasing? This question is of particular interest to my constituents.
I am glad to see the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) here. The primary resource of the Atlantic area is fishing. However, the concern of this government is basically to reduce the number of fishermen. This is being done on both the east and west coasts. The government has allowed our
March 19, 1979

The Budget-Mr. Comeau resources to be depleted. Every day there is discussion on our resources being depleted but nothing is done about it. This matter has not been brought to the attention of the United Nations or the international conference. This question should be studied under the international law of the sea. Rather than protect our rights, this government is allowing foreign fishermen to deplete our fishing resources. They have imposed licences and are limiting the number of fishermen. This could cause a blackmarket. However, I do not wish to deal with that subject this evening. It is a shame to see the way the government is pussyfooting around these matters.
The main problem with the Atlantic economy and the fishing industry is that the government fails to realize the potential in that industry. The rest of Canada has not been made aware of the potential of that industry and the money that could be derived from it. Every day the subject of wheat is discussed because the western wheat farmers have been able to create national concern. However, this has not been done in the fishing industry. With the correct policies something could be done about the potential of the Atlantic area. Why is the responsible department not protecting the rights of this industry?
I now wish to deal with a matter of particular concern to my constituency. I refer to the textile mill in Yarmouth which employs 500 people, the largest employer in my constituency. One would not think the closing of a plant in Toronto would affect a little town like Yarmouth, but 18 per cent of the production of the textile mill in Yarmouth was for the Dunlop industrial division in Toronto. In terms of employment, this affects 18 per cent of the employees of that mill. When this fact is coupled with the bleak picture in the Canadian textile industry, the results are astounding. There has been much talk about the textile industry in the past couple of years. I wish to quote from an article which appeared in yesterday's edition of the Chronicle-Herald. This article was written following an interview with the president of Cosmos Imperial Mills. It states:
Cosmos Imperial Mills of Yarmouth will close unless the federal government acts immediately on a policy restricting textile imports from foreign countries, said company president E. D. James yesterday.
He said in a telephone interview from Hamilton that 500 employees in Yarmouth would be out of work soon because the company could not continue operating at a loss.

I wish to emphasize the following paragraph:
He said 50 per cent of the textile industry in Canada had been taken over by foreign imports, "In United States they complain because the government allows 12 per cent," he said.
The European Economic Community restricted textile imports to only nine per cent of the total.
"I don't advocate we stop imports but let's have a reasonable limit in view of all other countries of the world," he said.
And the same import restrictions should apply to the electrical and rubber industries, he said.
There were many men in Ottawa who thought that buying at the lowest price was always the best policy, he said. "But if no one makes money here, who can buy?"
I want to emphasize the words, "But if no one makes money here, who can buy?". If Canadians do not make money here, who will buy the textiles, rubber and electronic products that are imported? The article continues:
He said the recently announced closing of Dunlop industrial division, Toronto, was a serious setback -for Cosmos operations in Yarmouth.
Each year Cosmos sold between $750,000 and $1,000,000 worth of industrial hosing and belting to the Dunlop company.
Unless some way could be found to bring imports of fully manufactured goods from low wage countries into proper balance, the Dunlop closing would be symptomatic of things to come in other industries, he said.
For seven years the textile industry has been asking for a government policy, yet every time the minister is questioned about it he smiles and says "Soon." Why can there not be a quota the same as other countries have?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Louis-Roland Comeau: Why does Canada have to take a back seat in the fishing industry? Why do we have to take a back seat with regard to wheat? It should not be necessary to pay the farmers to stop growing wheat:	this is
ridiculous. Why do we have to take a back seat with regard to oil, textiles, electronic products and many other products?


An hon. Member:: Somebody else has
charge of the steering wheel.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Louis-Roland Comeau: The hon. member says,
"Somebody else has charge of the steering wheel". This makes sense. The economy of the country is not particularly good, as the budget speech has demonstrated, yet the atti-
March 19, 1970
tude of the government seems to be completely negative. They laugh it off. The ministers concerned are not even here. They take a back seat in external affairs.
On the subject of textiles, again, let us consider the Mexican deal. The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle) raised the question the other day because he is concerned about paper products. The Mexicans were exporting more textiles to this country than they were allowed, so the government decided to impose a surcharge. The Mexicans, in turn, placed restrictions on the import of paper products. So the decision was reversed; the Canadian government changed its mind and allowed the textile imports to continue.
The textile industry has been seeking a policy statement from the government for several years, without result. Each year the situation is allowed to get worse. One of these days the textile industry will have to be told either to go ahead or to close up. I wish the government would make this decision now so that we would know what to do. If it decides the factories will have to close their doors, the Canadian people will determine what attitude to take. Let me point out that these textile mills are located for the most part in designated areas. There are many in the province of Quebec. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) has raised this matter frequently in this House. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion is supposed to be the watchdog of the economy as far as these areas are concerned. Why has it not advised the other departments what to do? Why has it not co-ordinated their activities? It is true the department has made money available to industry, but its beneficial activities are offset by those of other departments.
There is one other matter on which I should like to speak briefly. It concerns control over foreign ownership about which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) had something to say earlier. Though I agree with some of the things the hon. gentleman said about the need to limit the entry of foreign capital, I certainly hope he and his friends do not go overboard in this direction. For those who come from Toronto, where there is plenty of industry established, it is easy to say: We do not want foreign capital here to provide employment. But anyone who comes from a province like Nova Scotia, for example, takes a more cautious view. In that province between 70 and 75
The Budget-Mr. Perrault industries have been brought in by an aggressive government, and foreign capital made this possible. When one realizes that in November, in Nova Scotia, the unemployment rate was less than that of the country as a whole, it becomes apparent that the introduction of foreign capital has produced good results in some parts of the country. So I warn the hon. gentleman not to go overboard in this direction.
I will end by saying this: You can take the boy from the country, but you cannot take the country from the boy. Let us not force everyone to live in urban centres where people are faced with housing problems, transportation problems, pollution and high costs. It has been estimated that between 103,000 and 106,000 people left the Atlantic provinces between 1961 and 1966. What bothers me most is the age of the people who are leaving; it is the age group 20-24 which is making up most of the emigration figure. The government should not wait until the people have left before it acts. The time to act is not after the people have gone to the cities. Let us attempt to prevent some of this movement to the towns; let us try to plan our cities; let us try to plan a total Canada. We are a growing country and, surely, every part has some potential.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I can only express profound regret that the spokesmen for the official opposition, who allegedly possess definitive answers to all the problems which afflict Canada, were so sadly unable to apply those solutions during the disastrous period when they governed Canada in late 1950s and early 1960s.
The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoke the other day, telling us how we should cure inflation and how we should reduce unemployment in Canada. In light of the right hon. gentleman's record as Prime Minister, that is something like an arsonist speaking on the subject of fire prevention.


An hon. Member:: Oh, you are funny.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: He is factual.


Raymond J. Perrault: I think the factual information which I hope to present will be illuminating. Tonight there is jubilation on the part of the official opposition about what they say are disastrous unemployment figures. What were the figures for the years when the right hon. gentleman's government held office? In 1958 the percentage of unemployment was running at 10.1. What is it in

March 19, 1970

The Budget-Mr. Perrault Canada tonight? About 4.7. Here are the figures for the other years:	1959, 9.4 per cent;
1960, 9.6; 1961, 11.3; 1962, 9.1. In 1963, things changed because the Liberals came into power. Unemployment began to go down and the problem was beaten by the beginning of 1963, as it will be beaten again by this government. Let us have no lecture from the official opposition, remembering its monumental ineptitude when given the opportunity to reduce unemployment in Canada or to battle inflation.
The former Prime Minister from Prince Albert was not even accurate in his quotation about the just society. When was the term "just society" first used? The right hon. gentleman said it was first uttered by Mao, and his Tory friends said, "Isn't that awful? Communism!" Mr. Speaker, the term "just society" was first employed by the Chartists of England in May, 1838, and the expression which the right hon. gentleman condemned was spoken out in support of equal electoral areas, vote by ballot, annual Parliaments, payment of Members of Parliament and universal suffrage. It was not Mao who thought of it; it was part of the great British parliamentary process. The right hon. gentleman should know his history better. Thanks to Liberal governments in this country, the ideals set forth by the Chartists have come into being in Canada. Let us not distort history.
The right hon. gentleman said, in effect, "If you will just let us have power again, everything will be all right." That is What he said in January, 1959, on the floor of the House of Commons. On the subject of unemployment, he said, "I mention these things just to keep the record straight rather than have it befogged by extravagant statements made in extravagant language." Well, we have heard some extravagant language from the opposition in the past few days, but this is what the right hon. gentleman said, as reported at page 62 of Hansard for January 19, 1959:
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I realize the situation and the seriousness of it. X realize the need of action being taken and I have pointed out the action that has been taken.
Action was taken all right; there was unemployment of 11.3 per cent.
It is one of those positions in which we find ourselves.
The government found itself in many positions in those days.
In the event that we place money into the stream and expand credit, there is an inflationary trend.

He did not possess that economic perspicacity the other night. He went on:
If we do not, we allow those who are unemployed to suffer. There is one of the major problems that economists have not been able to answer today, the unusual position with which we are faced.
Let the official opposition take the right hon. gentleman's words in 1959 to heart. The right hon. gentleman said that the situation required action on the part of all parties to solve the problem. The position is different now, is it not? There has been an unrelieved attack on the government at a time when there should be at least some degree of interparty unity in order to battle the problem that is facing this country.


Mr. Ricard:: You should have been here in 1960.


Raymond J. Perrault: We have inflation in Canada, and it is small comfort to the victims of this inflation to be reminded that most of the world is confronted with precisely the same challenge as that facing Canadians. The latest available data shows inflation increases for various countries. The Canadian position has been set out and described as absolutely disastrous. One member of the official opposition said the other day that Canada stands humiliated in every part of the world, which is just irresponsible overstatement. Canada's reputation is as high or higher than it has ever been.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Not in the United States.


Raymond J. Perrault: I challenge that statement. The following are the figures for the percentage of inflation per year in other countries; France, 6J per cent; Japan, 6 per cent; United States, 5J per cent. With regard to the United Kingdom, we had a lecture in economics from our friends at the other end of the chamber today about how Socialism has all the answers to inflation and unemployment. In the U.K. the percentage is higher than ours, at 5} per cent. So we are not alone. This fact should not make us complacent. Indeed, it should inspire us to do better. Others are convinced that some form of fiscal or financial magic by the Canadian government can solve these problems overnight. Every night following budget night people turn on their television sets and listen to a recent graduate from one of the universities of Canada giving a definitive analysis of the budget. These people have all the answers.
March 19, 1970	COMMONS
I suggest that they do a little more research into some of the figures they use, because between 1968 and 1969 federal expenditures rose from $6.09 billion to $12,058 billion. Provincial-municipal expenditures rose during the same period from $4,317 billion to $13,734 billion. Between 1958 and 1968 there was an increase in federal government outlays of 98 per cent. Over the same period of time, expenditures by provincial governments and municipalities increased by 218 per cent. As a result, the share of total expenditures accounted for by the federal government in 1958, which was 58.6 per cent, declined sharply to a 1968 level of 46.7 per cent of total expenditures. This is said to be a spendthrift federal government with an insatiable greed for taxation moneys. The fact of the matter is that during recent years the federal government has done everything possible to channel much of this money back into the provinces, so much so that the percentage of total expenditures is dropping.
It should be noted as well that there is a large increase in federal expenditures under the heading "Transfers to other levels of government". Between 1958 and 1968, these expenditures increased from $663 million to $2.4 billion, an increase of nearly four times. So that the image of a federal government with an insatiable greed for new taxes is false. In fact, there has been almost a 12 per cent decrease in the federal share of total expenditures in a ten-year period.
I should like to mention two matters of concern to the people of my province, and I think to many other people in Canada. British Columbia takes second place to no province in Canada in the contribution which her sons and daughters have made to the armed forces. Many of them live in my constituency and I would be remiss in my responsibility as a member if I failed to bring once again their plight and the problems of veterans in all parts of Canada to the attention of this House.
The Woods report contained 148 separate and distinct recommendations. It is 1,500 pages in length. It is an important document which has been given serious study by members of the Veterans Affairs Committee, meeting on 30 or 40 occasions. Having heard from veterans organizations in all parts of Canada, having held public meetings and cross-examined many witnesses, the committee is about to report. It is my understanding that hearings will terminate next Tuesday, and then the committee's report will be written. I hope 21774-55
DEBATES	5261
The Budget-Mr. Perrault the report can be brought to the House before the end of April at the very latest. When the report is tabled, I would urge the government immediately to draft appropriate legislation to enact into law needed reforms.
Some areas are of special, critical importance. We must as a first priority give attention to the plight of the multiple and severely disabled. The entire review procedure needs strengthening and improving. There must be major reform in this area. After two wars that exacted such an awesome and terrible toll of Canadians, the veterans and their survivors were told that a grateful nation would always remember. Those words will be but a hollow and cruel mockery unless we as members are prepared to enact the reforms which our veterans have required for so many years.
Together with other members I am disappointed that we have in this budget no increased funds for our senior citizens. In recent months I have engaged in frequent conversations with senior citizens and have made price checks in retail stores both in Ottawa and in my own constituency of Bur-naby-Seymour. It is a grim experience to talk with these senior citizens who are attempting to obtain the necessities of life out of meagre incomes which are being eroded by inflation. These are the people who built this country. They earned a dollar when it bought a dollar's worth of goods. Today they are the tragic and prime victims of an inflation which extends no special compassion or concession to them. I regret that they were not included in the minister's budget message and I hope they will not be forgotten for long. I hope that within a short period of time we will provide them with more assistance.
Surely in light of the inflation that has taken place in recent years, we should first of all upgrade senior citizen allowances to decent, liveable levels, and then attach these pensions to a special senior citizen cost of living index which will accurately reflect any changes which may occur in the living costs of the older people in our economy.
There are some features of the budget which are very commendable and have not been touched on by some speakers. The government proposals to extend by three years the existing fast write-off for water pollution control facilities, and to make similar depreciation rates available for facilities for reducing air pollution are good proposals. The fact that the line is being held on taxes is also
March 19, 1970

The Budget-Mr. Perrault good. The restraint on commercial construction that was introduced on June 3, 1969, and the two-year deferral of capital cost allowances on new commercial buildings will be continued. I would caution the government to watch centres like greater Vancouver, for example, where the boom is not all that superheated. If there should be any slowdown there, I hope the government will move quickly during the next few weeks to make sure that the situation does not deteriorate in that and other areas across Canada.
Today we were given two lectures-what I am about to say now is the gist of my message this evening-one delivered by the former Premier of the province of Nova Scotia, now leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). I am sure all of us were grateful that he had time to come back from his across-Canada white paper chase to address his remarks to us.


Gerald William Baldwin: This is beginning to hurt you now, isn't it?


Raymond J. Perrault: 

March 19, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Ritchie
This is the time for the leaders of those parties and their followers to demonstrate that they are capable of governing, yet all of us have been disappointed with their shrill, narrow criticisms. Has one word of warning been delivered by the Leader of the Official Opposition to his friends on Bay Street and the business community, urging co-operation in this way? Has one word of caution or restraint been breathed by the NDP leader to the great trade union movement to show restraint? It was done by Harold Wilson in Britain, but it has yet to be done by the NDP in Canada.
[DOT] (9:30 p.ra.)
What has been the opposition's attitude? One spokesman summed it up by saying, "It's not our responsibility to offer solutions; you're the government". It is their responsibility as well as ours, because inflation and unemployment afflict people of all parties. It is everyone's task to make sure that the battle is won. It is the responsibility of other levels of government to be more than carping, negative critics spending profligately on one hand and then accusing the federal government of irresponsibility. If the battle for more jobs and price stability is to be won, it will be won because enough Canadians of all parties believe Canada to be important enough for restraint to be shown and sacrifices to be made.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to follow the hon. member from British Columbia who was sent into compulsory retirement by that province. We have another non-budget by a non-minister on behalf of a non-government. Actually, the budget has no effect whatsoever on direct revenues or expenditures. How can you call it a budget when it continues the identical tariff and tax situation already in effect? The only changes relate to consumer credit and similar non-budgetary matters which could have been achieved through a simple Order in Council. As a matter of fact, similar changes were brought into effect under a former Liberal government in 1946 by a simple radio announcement. So anaemic is the budget in fiscal terms that it leads to the conclusion that the minister simply bowed to the pressure for a financial statement, and when he made the statement he had nothing to say.
The budget does answer some questions. It shows the patent insincerity of the government's demands for spending curbs. The gov-
[Mr. Perrault.l
eminent is spending $13 billion while it tells industry and labour to retrench. The budget clearly shows that the federal government is the major contributor to inflationary pressure. There is no other single agency in the nation which has such enormous spending power and directs it into so many non-productive channels. By far the major part of federal spending is directly inflationary. Private industry spends in order to produce. The government is the most gigantic consumer in the nation.
The budget also answers the question about the government's sincerity on the question of tax reform. At the very moment when the government has produced a series of tax reform proposals in a white paper which has been in the public domain for some months, a budget appears in which not one single proposal of the white paper is embodied. This leads to the conclusion that the governement has repudiated its white paper tax reform proposals. It is a fact that the budget represents a rejection by the government of the government's white paper on taxation.
Under the circumstances, it is difficult to see how the government can stand behind the budget and the white paper. It must disown either the budget or the white paper. None of the suggested reforms are given recognizition in the budget, and one can only suggest the white paper is no longer to be taken seriously. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) saw this difficulty and suggested there would perhaps be another budget in the fall. This stands to reason, since he can hardly say he produced a budget in the spring; he simply reissued last year's budget with a new cover. As the budget was coming out, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics reported a new increase in consumer prices. Obviously the government is not winning the war against inflation any more than it is winning the war against poverty.
All along the line this government's refusal to dissociate itself from academic abstractions and get down to the realities of Canada's problems has placed this country in the posture of a non-nation. While talking about the dangers of inflation the government calmly handed out a further $2 million to the Company of Young Canadians, an organization which countenanced revolutionary, subversive and violent activities among its membership. So far as we know, the same people are still running this Trojan Horse organization. The only conclusion one can draw is that somebody "up there" wants the Company of
March 19, 1970

Young Canadians very badly. No matter what the Company of Young Canadians does, it is apparently beyond criticism. Undoubtedly it has a function above and beyond that laid down in the terms of reference. What is the reason for the mysterious immunity which this completely useless organization enjoys? Why is it too hot to control? Why is it a sacred cow?
More and more policies laid down at Ottawa are reducing this country to the status of a non-nation. The Americans kindly take us aside and tell us which parts of the Canadian north they intend to take over. They produce reports saying Canadians want to sell water to the United States. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not one responsible Canadian has gone on record in favour of selling one drop of water to the United States. The solution in respect of the Canadian Arctic is simple. The Canadian Arctic is Canadian. The sooner this government so informs the people of the United States, the better. The Canadian Arctic is as much Canadian territory whether it be land, ice or water, as New York harbour is United States territory.
The United States has as much claim to Canadian territorial waters in the Arctic as it has to territorial waters in the Soviet Arctic, and I do not see them advancing that argument. There must be a reason. Somebody had better point out to the United States authorities in Washington-apparently this government cannot do it-that United States territory stops at the Canadian border and does not leap-frog the Canadian nation and come down again in the Arctic islands. A Canadian presence must be established in the Arctic and it must take the form of an immediate doubling of the number of Canadian military bases in the Arctic. That should not be hard; there are only two there now.
This government sat in total numbness, doing absolutely nothing while the United States turned off the tap on Canadian oil imports in the United States. Oil is one of the biggest stakes in the game of international power politics. Oil explains the presence of Soviet Russia in the Middle East. Russia is not in the least attracted by the justice of the Arab cause; it is attracted by Arab oil. Oil and natural gas explain the interest of the United States in the Canadian Arctic. There is no other reason. At the same time as they are asking our help to go into the Arctic, the Americans are shutting out Canadian oil. Even this government should be able to put
The Budget-Mr. Ritchie two and two together and come up with a convincing argument for a new United States oil policy. The United States is up to the old game of trying to get the golden egg with one hand and strangle the goose with the other.
I shall not go into a detailed discussion of this budget because it all went into Hansard when the minister brought down last year's budget. Anyone who wants to know the reaction to this budget has only to get Hansard and read what was said when the last budget came down. There is no change. It is the same budget. The only change is that the situation is a little worse all around; that is all. We have more inflation, more poverty, less national development and more wasteful expenditure. Apart from those few points, the situation is unchanged.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance two questions. In view of the strong argument in the white paper for raising exemptions, why did he not take the opportunity in this budget to raise exemptions? I also ask, in view of the large surplus he is predicting why did he not see fit to pass on tax relief to Canadians in the form of a tax reduction for the income tax payer? People in this country are entitled to tax relief. When one considers that Canadians are at this moment overtaxed, overcharged and underserved, one might ask what right the minister has to keep a surplus for himself. Surely it could have been passed on in the form of tax relief, at least to those in the lower income brackets.
The time has come for a reduction of federal expenditures and income tax relief to the overtaxed Canadian taxpayer. The western farmer, whose income has been reduced by 23 per cent in the past 18 months, due largely to the incompetence of this government and its lack of policy, is entitled to tax relief. One of the most disturbing things about the government is its apparent obliviousness to anything that is not neatly laid down in a task force report or government white paper. Let me say to the government that the world is not made up of task forces and white papers. It is a real world, with real problems, and the government is strikingly oblivious to these problems.
We have daily reports from the United States, particularly the New York area, of a tragically high death rate among children because of the use of narcotics. Two years ago from the same area we had similar reports about the high incidence of marijuana usage. There is no question in the mind of any intelligent person that the use of one type

March 19, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Ritchie of narcotic predisposes psychologically and physiologically the use of other narcotics. Narcotics users, particularly among the young, are not likely to be too particular about the type of narcotic when they are in search of the euphoria which narcotics provide. Yet this government has declined to announce policy to deal with what is rapidly becoming the most serious menace with which our society has to contend. We are an open society and we are therefore susceptible to the winds of change, the currents of social evolution and revolution sweeping the world. We are particularly susceptible to the reverberations of change taking place in our neighbour to the south.
The United States today is a society under attack. It is under attack from within. Its institutions, its authority, its freedom and its laws are being systematically undermined and destroyed by those whose mission is not the reform of society, not the overturning of society alone but the destruction of America itself. I do not think that is an exaggeration, because those who believe these things have put themselves on record as wanting America destroyed. We in Canada cannot escape these problems, but so far as this government is concerned they might as well be taking place on the moon. The government is oblivious to social change and disruption. We are particularly vulnerable because we are an open society. In the Soviet Union there is no drug problem because drug peddlers are shot. Secondly, no one can afford to buy drugs. In the Soviet Union there is no problem of revolutionary radicals because revolution is frowned upon. Those who last fall paraded in Red Square on behalf of imprisoned intellectuals were allowed to parade exactly 14 minutes. They are now in Siberia.
Some of the people who in the name of Marxism and Maoism have unloosed bloody riots in America should attempt to organize a protest in some of the countries where Marxism and Maoism are in effect. Let them try to organize public protests in Moscow, Peking or Cuba. Does anyone think there is no oppression in those countries? Does anyone think there is no oppression in Czechoslovakia, Hungary or Poland? The Chicago trial which has become the target of all the professional do-gooders in Canada and the United States was a model of propriety, an extravagant exercise in liberty and license compared with any trial ever held at any time in any Communist-dominated country, and yet the

professional apologists criticize it in the name of Marxism.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
On Sunday, March 15, at ten o'clock in the morning CBC radio staged a long, critical attack on the conduct of the trial in Chicago by Judge Hoffman. He was not of course referred to as Judge Hoffman but as Julius Hoffman, in order to undermine the respect listeners might have for the judiciary. They interviewed by telephone persons connected with the defendants who were allowed to use Canadian network facilities to attack the procedures of an American court. They quoted selected excerpts from the Bantam Book publication of the trial transcript which includes also a scurrilous attack on a judge who was attempting to do his duty under great difficulties.
One wonders why the Canadian taxpayer should be footing the bill for the dissemination of this kind of propaganda on the CBC. It was pure propaganda because only one side of the question was given. Not one word was said in defence of Judge Hoffman or his court. It may be that there is no defence of Judge Hoffman's conduct of the trial. The CBC is not in a position to know that. It is significant that if there was a defence, no one who could have given it was asked to be on that program. Secondly, and most significantly, the only question is whether the defendants had a fair trial, and that is not a question for the CBC to determine, particularly when it concerns a court proceeding in another country: it is a question for an appeal court.
The program made much of the alleged harshness with which defence counsel were treated by Judge Hoffman. Yet anyone who followed those proceedings knows that from the beginning of that trial the defendants, who are in each case professional agitators in their late twenties and thirties

one is in his fifties-went out of their way to disrupt the court, to hurl abuse at the judge and to mock at the very institution of justice. In that they were aided and abetted by their lawyers.
This is a tactic, with which we are all too familiar, which shows contempt for the institutions of democracy, yet these people are now being made heroes in the press and on the CBC. The tactics of disruption have been applied and are being applied in our courts deliberately to undermine. Canadian courts have followed the very commendable procedure of simply ejecting the disrupters.
March 19, 1970

I do not intend to dwell in great detail on this matter, but I deal with it because it raises fundamental problems in the protection of our institution and certainly it raises in a striking fashion the question of the responsibility of the media. As far as the CBC is concerned, there is no question that it acts with an absence of responsibility. Recently we had the National Film Board producing, at the taxpayer's expense, a full-length feature film starring one of those on trial in Chicago for organizing a large-scale, bloody riot at the Democratic Party convention. Why should Canadians pay the shot for making a hero of Abbie Hoffman, a professional revolutionary in his thirties posing as a leader of rebellious youth?
Those people who are persona non grata in the United States, who have broken the laws of that country, who are under indictment, are coddled and pampered by government institutions in Canada. One of the spokesmen for the defendants in the Chicago trial interviewed by the CBC took pride in the systematic disruption of courtroom proceedings in that country by stating that it was a political trial and that the defendants were right in treating it as a political trial.
The same charge has been made about a recent court proceeding in Canada. You do not have political trials in a democracy; people are tried for breaking the law. The laws are made by the elected representatives, and the suggestion that they should not apply to a hardcore band of revolutionaries is simply fascism. They, too, must be subject to the laws. If the laws are wrong, they can be changed by political action. Those who try to change them by violence should no longer be tolerated in our society.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but since it is nine forty-five o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 60 (6), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question on the amendment now before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Division
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
At 10.10 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, March 20, 1970