1970-03-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table today, in accordance with section 32 of the Anti-dumping Act, copies in the two official languages of the first annual report of the anti-dumping tribunal. The report summarizes the tribunal's findings regarding the impact of dumped goods on Canadian production in three inquiries conducted in 1969.


Mr. Baldwin:: I think the minister ought to read it all out loud.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. James McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, first may I be permitted to remind the House that today is the 17th of March, the feast of St. Patrick.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: That being so, perhaps the House will be disposed to demonstrate to this son of Ireland that charity which Irishmen the world over are noted for. With the unanimous consent of the House I wish to propose a motion under Standing Order 43. The urgent and pressing necessity for this motion is explained by the following circumstances. I shall be brief, as Irishmen usually are on St. Patrick's Day.
On March 11 the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion announced in the House the areas that, effective April 1, 1970, will be designated as special areas. These initial designations will be effective to the 30th of June, 1972. Agreements are to be signed with the provinces effective on April 1. The im-21774-45
mediate projects under these agreements will involve commitments of $200 million and are to be started within the next few months. The precise boundaries of the special areas are to be specified in the agreements.
Sir, the only opportunity allowed for debate in this House so far has been the short replies allowed to spokesmen for the opposition parties when this statement was made. The minister, according to the roster system, was improperly absent from the House yesterday. The Standing Committee on Regional Development will not sit, it now appears, before the Easter adjournment. This important matter, therefore, cannot be considered in committee before April 1. Accordingly, since Your Honour has ruled that Standing Order 5 is obsolete and that a member does not have to attend the service of this House, with the resultant corollary that we have no assurance the minister will be available for the budget debate or, indeed, before April 1 or at all, I wish to move the following motion which is seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That the statement of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion of March 11th on areas designated as special areas be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development: that the committee report back to the House thereon on or before Wednesday, 25th March; and that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion be ordered to appear before the committee during its sittings on the said statement.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see that the President of the Privy Council wishes to address the House on the motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's East. I must first ask whether there is unanimous consent on the part of the House so that the hon. member's motion can be put.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
I do not want to engage in a debate with the hon. member for St. John's East, but he referred to the fact that the Chair has ruled that Standing Order 5 is obsolete. To my recollection no such ruling was ever made. I think there was some doubt expressed with regard to part of Standing Order 5 which states:

March 17. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry Every member is bound to attend the service of the House, unless leave of absence has been given him by the House.
My suggestion on a previous ruling was that perhaps the practice of obtaining leave of absence from the House appeared to have been abandoned. There are a number of members from both sides of the House who for good reason are not here today and who, of course, have not obtained leave from the House. It was in this way the ruling was made. In any event, to return to the motion proposed by the hon. member under Standing Order 43, the motion cannot be put unless there is unanimous agreement. I have to ask whether there is such unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member has heard, there is not unanimity. I regret that the motion cannot be put.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, with all the humility of my Irish heart, perhaps Your Honour will allow me to withdraw that part of my remarks with which Your Honour does not agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimity, the motion cannot be put.



FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AGENCIES BILL


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-197, to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products.


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


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Can he inform the House when it may definitely expect to receive the white paper on foreign policy? Also, will he give an indication as to its format and the areas of concern it may be expected to cover?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I think the Prime Minister will be present later in the question period, Mr. Speaker. Possibly the hon. member could wait and repeat his question at that time.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since I see him sporting a green tie in honour of St. Patrick's Day, I hope this will result in a very happy reply. May I also be permitted to remind the minister and all sons of Erin that St. Patrick was a Scotsman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He was sent to Christianize Ireland, that is the only thing the Scots ever undertook in which they failed completely.
In view of an article by Mr. Lewis G. Smith which has been printed in the Congressional Record, placed there by Congressman Frank Moss of Utah, recommending the diversion of the Liard river system in northwestern British Columbia, the Yukon and Northwest Territories, I should like to ask the minister whether any studies have been made or are being made by the Canadian government, either on its own or in conjunction with private interests in Canada or the United States, in regard to diversion of water from Canada to the United States?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to find that my hon. friend is as badly informed about saints as he is about energy policy. With respect to his question, I saw the article and its highly speculative opinion, to which, of course, the individual concerned is perfectly entitled. There are no studies being carried on by the government of Canada in respect of the feasibility or otherwise of diversion for the purpose of exporting water to the United States.



CONTINENTAL POLICY-COMMODITIES INCLUDED IN DISCUSSIONS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. May I ask him what particular
March 17, 1970



energy commodities are being discussed in the talks that are going on between the government of Canada and the government of the United States in working out a continental energy policy?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, in the first place the discussions which will take place will not be concerned with a continental energy policy, whatever that may mean, but will be concerned with the question of marketing Canadian energy commodities and United States energy commodities on a bilateral basis. Discussions in regard to long-term arrangements have not in any particular sense commenced. There have been general discussions held since the presidential and prime ministerial initiative of last March. Most of the discussions of recent time were about the short-term question, which was settled by the unilateral decision of the President last week.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether uranium and hydroelectric power are within the ambit of the discussions that are going on?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, when we sit down to discuss the long-term arrangements in particular, I would envisage that the first meeting would, in the normal fashion, determine the agenda and the matters to be discussed. This agenda has not yet been decided. Certainly it could well be that uranium and hydroelectric power will be within the terms of that reference, but that has not yet been decided.



OIL-U.S. IMPORT RESTRICTIONS-EXPORT OF CANADIAN WATER

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Having listened to the general answers given by the minister, we should like some particulars. May I ask the minister whether the United States, in the negotiations that the minister has mentioned often in regard to the export of crude petroleum, has asked for or demanded export of Canadian water in return for any increase in the crude petroleum quotas which have been cut back and have so severely affected western Canada?


John James Greene: No, Mr. Speaker. At no time in any discussions that I or any of my officials have had with the United States 21774-45J
Inquiries of the Ministry has that country made an enlarged market for Canadian oil in the United States contingent upon the export of Canadian water, or even suggested such a possibility.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I put a further supplementary question to the minister. In view of the statement of the Prime Minister that the Canadian government is prepared to export water in any energy arrangement or negotiations with the United States, can the minister now explain the answer which he has just given?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary is obviously debate, and I should not think the question is acceptable in those terms. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.


Mr. Paproski:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Prime Minister, but I would like to pass until he comes into the House.



ERIN GO BRAGH

Steve Eugene Paproski: As I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, as an Irishman I would like to pay my respects to Irishmen, if I may, and dedicate these words to those people who would like to be Irish:
The Lord above made Irishmen for laughter.
Oh yes, and laughter sure is mighty swell, '
The Lord above made Irishmen for laughter But, with a little bit of luck,
With a little bit of luck,
A donnybrook would do as well.
The Irish wit was made for making merry,
To spread the life of joy in me and you,
The Irish wit was made for making merry But, with a little bit of luck,
With a little bit of luck,
A shillelagh has its purpose too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is pressing his luck.



OATS AND BARLEY-FINAL PAYMENT ON 1968-69 POOLS

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that the 1968-69 oat and barley pools have been closed for some time, would the minister indicate to the House when he will be in a position to announce the final payments to be made to the producers out of the surplus in the accounts?

March 17. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister wilhoul Porl-folio):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that the indications earlier were that these pools would in fact be in a deficit position, and that has in fact proven to be the case.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the Minister without Portfolio. Is he indicating by his answer to me that in fact there will be no final payments in respect of these two grains?


Otto Emil Lang: In respect of oats and barley, that is right, Mr. Speaker.



FINAL. PAYMENT ON DURUM WHEAT

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swifl Currenl-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Will he inform the House when the farmers can expect their final cheques in respect of the production of Durum wheat?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we are very conscious of the obvious desire on the part of these producers to have them at as early a date as possible. There is some difficulty in closing the Durum part of the pool without closing the whole wheat pool. We are looking into that problem to see whether they can be physically separated in terms of closing. It may be some time before it is possible to close the wheat pool as a whole.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, when the minister makes an announcement about final payments will he also issue a press release stating that this money is the farmer's own money and does not come from the federal treasury?



&quot;LIFT&quot; PROGRAM REGULATIONS- APPEAL BOARD

Mr. John Burlon (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister without Portfolio. Can he indicate when the regulations will be issued in respect of the program entitled "Lift", and can he also indicate when the appeal board will be announced together with its terms of reference?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a precise date for this at the present time.



HISTORIC SITES


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Has the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada taken any decision with regard to the recognition as a national historic site of the house in which Sir Wilfrid Laurier lived in Arthabaska, which is located in my riding?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will allow me to suggest that questions of this type are normally placed on the order paper. If there is real urgency, the question could be debated at the time of adjournment, and I undertake to see that it be considered as soon as possible.


André-Gilles Fortin: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
As he must announce soon the government dairy policy, will he stop discriminating against farmers from eastern Canada by reestablishing the $10 million grants he cut from his estimates-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will admit that this question is out of order in those terms.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, let me put it another way.
Could the Minister of Agriculture say whether, when he formulates the new dairy policy, he will think of the farms of eastern Canada and grant them the $10 million they have been asking for for a long time?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that the question has already been put in this way; however, the minister might perhaps answer it, considering the importance of the matter raised.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, an announcement respecting the details of the dairy policy for the 1970-71 dairy year will be made next week, I hope, but certainly before the end of this month.
March 17. 1970



WHEAT-MAXIMUM DELIVERY QUOTA PER SUMMERFALLOW ACRE

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, might I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. Does the government intend to have an absolute maximum delivery quota of eight bushels per summerfallow acre regardless of the participation of farmers in the scheme or disappearance of wheat out of storage stocks held by the Wheat Board?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in the statement announcing the program to the House it was indicated that the eight-bushel quota was based on an assumption that the eligible acres for delivery of wheat would total 53 million, and should the eligible acres fall as short as 47 million there could be a non-bushel quota.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. On the basis of the fact that the minister has indicated there was an assumption about the quota and in the event that the deliveries do not reach the eight-bushel quota and we do not reach the 250 million bushel delivery figure, will last year's summerfallow be taken into account in full in order to add a further quota?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The matter seems a bit complicated. It would seem to me that the question as asked has hypothetical overtones. I wonder whether the hon. member might like to rephrase the question.


Stanley James Korchinski: I would be quite prepared to do so, Mr. Speaker. I can quite understand why Your Honour is confused over the whole thing because there are no regulations at the moment. Because of the fact that there is an assumption on the part of the minister that there will be a certain acreage quota reached, will last year's summerfallow be taken into account in whole rather than the 25 per cent that he presently takes into account in granting some people extra quotas under the system he has announced?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. There is no contemplation of changing the degree of participation of last year's summerfallow for quota purposes. On the other hypothetical part of the question I am perfectly satisfied our hypothetical answers to date are adequate.
Inquiries of the Ministry POLLUTION



PHOSPHATE DETERGENTS-ASSISTANCE OF INDUSTRY TECHNICAL STAFF IN RESEARCH

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the offer from the soap industry to lend their technical staff to the minister's department to assist in developing pollution control measures, will the minister say whether the offer of such assistance has been accepted?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, so far as I
am concerned to date the offer is no soap. We have our own officials and experts and I think they are quite adequate.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, in view of the urgency of this matter to the people of the nation, would the minister say whether he would consider joint research being undertaken by the department and the soap industry which has a say in this situation?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, our officials have attended at the laboratories of the soap industry. We have seen what they are doing. Our own people are working very hard in respect of the research that is necessary, and I am quite convinced on the detergent question that the industry, faced with the need of intensifying their research to come up with phosphorous-free detergents, will be able to do the job in their usual effective way.



PHOSPHATE DETERGENTS-RESEARCH ON FORMULA N

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether or not formula N discovered by Professor Phillip Jones of the University of Toronto is being subjected to research by the department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Would you please tell me, Mr. Speaker, why that is not a legitimate question?


Mr. Speaker:: I might say that the question puzzles me no end. I have some doubts whether it is a matter of urgency. The hon. member seems to think it is, and in view of the fact that we are celebrating her particular day I am sure the minister will be anxious to answer at this time.

March 17. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources): We will attribute this answer to St. Patrick, and any shortcomings there may be in it will be his responsibility.
Formula N is, I understand, a patent formula, and my instructions are that to date the professor has been rather reluctant to provide his formula for public research until his patent rights are established.



SECOND VOYAGE OF &quot;MANHATTAN&quot;-LIST OF REQUIREMENTS

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister, on motions tomorrow or the next time he is in the House or in answer to my question now, make a statement concerning the Manhattan with regard to the regulations, the amount of the bond, the date of sailing, and other pertinent information?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: I would be very glad to do so. In fact, had I not missed the call for motions I would have given the House a partial list of the requirements today. I will be glad to table it in the House, if there is agreement.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister has indicated that he would have made a statement on motions if he had not missed the call. I think he has requested that Your Honour ask for unanimous consent to revert to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure the minister is asking for that. Even at this moment he seems to have some doubt. But certainly if the minister wants the House to revert to motions, it is up to the House to decide. Is that the minister's request?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker. What I did-I guess it is the effects of all the joy and so on emanating from the other side on St. Patrick's day that have caused the confusion -was to ask permission to table the first set of requirements for the Manhattan. It is not a statement, but I will be glad to make this list available.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: We are always being disappointed.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the minister agree to having the list appended to Hansard?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have no objection.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For list of requirements, see appendix.]



FISHERIES


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. What is the current status of the draft agreement with the United States about reciprocal fishing rights in each other's fishing zones?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: The matter is going to come up before cabinet later this week.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I had
a question for the Postmaster General who is on the roster for today but not in the House. Perhaps the acting minister might answer it. Could he advise whether anything is being done to resolve the dispute which has been dragging on in Montreal since February 3 in connection with the delivery of parcels and mail?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be glad to take the question as notice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Charlevoix on a point of order.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Since the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications should be here this afternoon according to the roster system, I should like to know if the government house leader would not make a special effort to summon him to the House to answer the members' questions concerning the postal dispute in Montreal, which has been deteriorating in the last couple of days. I would ask the Government House Leader to see to it that at the end of this sitting, at least, the Postmaster General comes to the House today as he is expected to according to the roster system.
March 17. 1970


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. Can he tell us whether the Postmaster General has resigned his post or has he been asked for his resignation by the cabinet, which is the rumour going around the Press Gallery.


John James Greene: What are you doing hanging around there? It is no place for a young fellow like you.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey Simcoe):: I should like to direct this question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it the intention of the government to phase out the Meaford tank range?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure this question should be asked at this time. Perhaps the hon. member might consider giving notice that he wishes to have it considered at the time of adjournment.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has he received a reply as yet from the Canadian Transport Commission regarding the investigation into the matter of the safety factor in connection with the lay-off of CNR maintenance of way employees?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, I fear I have not, but I will jog some memories on it and see whether I can get it for the hon. member in the next week or two.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I wish to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he is in a position to make a statement in respect of the use of the airways and air space of Canada by the United States Strategic Air Force, or a portion of it, in connection with exercises?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: It was not my intention to make a
Inquiries of the Ministry statement. We have put out a press release today. This is the normal operation which flows from the understanding with the United States authorities.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that understanding under the provisions of NORAD or outside of the purview of NORAD?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I believe it is within the general agreement pertaining to NORAD.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. In view of the Canadian authorization to the United States permitting Strategic Air Command to carry out low level training flights over Saskatchewan and Alberta, will the government consider advising the U.S. authorities that Canadian observers must be placed on board each flight and stationed at each of the ground installations in order to ensure that these planes carry no armaments and follow strictly the flight plans that have been filed with Canadian authorities?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I believe we have very good procedures that have been followed in the past and are being followed now. The Canadian authorities, of course, have complete information regarding the flight plans and proper altitudes. Everything is regulated, and I do not see any reason for departing from previous arrangements which have proved satisfactory.


John Stratford Burton: Did the
Canadian government, prior to granting approval for Strategic Air Command training flights over Saskatchewan and Alberta, obtain assurances that personnel under training would not be used in the Viet Nam hostilities?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: What nonsense!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Gerald William Baldwin: I have a question for the Prime Minister who has just come into the House. I can tell him that during his absence we were dealing with one of the lesser luminaries; we were discussing St. Patrick. Can the Prime Minister tell the House when it may definitely expect to receive the white paper on foreign policy, and will he give an indication as to its format and the areas of concern it may be expected to cover?

March 17, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry Righl Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): I may say, with regard to the areas of concern, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated on previous occasions that the white paper would be quite general in nature and that it would cover various aspects of Canada's foreign relations. With regard to the timing I can only repeat what he has said. He would like the white paper made public before the end of the session.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of a recent statement in a review of international affairs by Professor Peyton Lyon that Canada is taking "giant steps in the direction of continental isolationism and that cutbacks in the commitments of NATO and budget cuts in the department would indicate Canada is hellbent on a policy of non-involvement in world affairs"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member put his question.


Gerald William Baldwin: I recognize that the preamble to my question was lengthy. Will the Prime Minister say if there is any substance to this charge, and will these allegations be dealt with in the white paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that the question as asked is in order.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I put another supplementary question and try to come in the side door.


Mr. Trudeau:: Take your time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Thank you. Be my guest. In the light of recent experience of Canadian legislators in Washington when it was found that virtually all American Congressmen were amazed to hear of Canadian claims to Arctic waters and there was no knowledge that the Secretary of State for External Affairs had even advanced any claim in this regard, does the Prime Minister not feel that he must learn to speak out loudly and clearly on such issues and that our voice must not be muted?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is entitled to make only one speech in asking a question. The hon. member for Greenwood.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and I apologize for not giving him notice of it. Have recent events, including the attempted assassination of Archbishop Makarios and the murder of the former minister of the interior and defence and the consequent tension in Cyprus, necessitated any special measures or precautions on the part of the United Nations forces in the island, including our own troops?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Not specifically, Mr. Speaker, although we have been following the situation that has developed over the past few weeks very closely. No doubt if there were a change of emphasis on the part of the United Nations, Canada naturally would respond to whatever request was made. There is no indication at present that the situation warrants an increase in the number of troops we have there.



POST OFFICE


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
As the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications said yesterday that a report on the present postal dispute would be submitted to the cabinet, is the Prime Minister in a position today to tell the House whether the cabinet has made some decision about this dispute?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the cabinet has often made decisions. It has studied the question many times. The Postmaster General and Minister of Communications has been doing his best for several months to implement the policy adopted by the government. The situation is a difficult one. The cabinet meets often to discuss measures to be adopted.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
I would ask more precisely the Prime Minister to tell us whether, at the last cabinet meeting, any decision has been made and, if so, if it tends to maintain the present government policy in connection with-
March 17, 1970


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows he is not allowed to ask any question relating to cabinet decisions.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
I would like to know if the Prime Minister himself or the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications will make soon, perhaps tomorrow, a statement on the steps that the government intends to take to correct the abnormal postal situation in Montreal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say if this will call for a statement from the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications or from myself. I know that the government directly or indirectly keeps in close touch with the matter and that it acts in the best manner possible under the circumstances to bring back peace and harmony in Montreal. This does not necessarily call for a statement at this time. I do not say there will not be one, but none is anticipated at present.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether his government intends to take any extraordinary decisions to straighten out the situation prevailing in Montreal, which has become worse these past few days, especially since this morning?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know what is meant by extraordinary decisions. I think most of our decisions have been extraordinary.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
In view of the importance of that subject, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the government intends to get the Canadian armed forces involved in the present conflict?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmoulh-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In light of recent evidence that Air Canada is planning to cut back 21774-46
Inquiries of the Ministry its service to Sault Ste. Marie as a result of the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission to allow TransAir to operate a daily service between Sault Ste. Marie and Toronto, would the minister give instructions to the CTC that they enforce their earlier assurance that there will be no diminution of Air Canada flights and, failing that, would he ask the CTC to review its basic decision?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, my authority to instruct the CTC is quite limited but I would be glad to pass along his representations. My information is that the whole question is subject to review within the first year of operation of the new plan in any event.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate to the House at what point the government will reply to the request from the government of Ontario and from other interested and affected individuals and bodies as to its general policy, particularly in relation to these supplementary services?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, so far as I personally am aware, any representations from the government of Ontario have been made to the Canadian Transport Commission and will be dealt with through the normal procedures of that commission. I merely offer the perhaps gratuitous information that my understanding is that the CTC has indicated the new service will be kept under review and a full-scale hearing will be held within the first year of operations.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South Western Nova.


Mr.   Coir.eau@: Thank you, Mr. Speaker-


J. Michael Forrestall: I wonder if I might have one further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, in view of the principle involved-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might have a supplementary but we have reached the point where I have to caution hon. members that we are running out of time.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister whether he would find an opportunity to make an early statement to the House as to government policy with regard to permitting regional air carriers to enter into direct competition where Air Canada has indicated that they do not want to withdraw their services?

March 17, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the premise on which that question is posed is not, in my judgment, correct in that I do not know that Air Canada has said that it does not want to withdraw service. However, I will be very glad to explain the regional air policy on a statement on motions, or it is conceivable that within a short time I will be before the committee with the estimates of the Department of Transport and we could deal with it then, or in fact the CTC will be there as well.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South Western Nova.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has he been in contact with the provincial authorities in those areas where textile industries are affected, and when can we expect the long-awaited statement on the policy of the government with relation to the future of the textile industry in Canada?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I believe my officials have been in touch with officials of all provinces but I made promises to some provincial ministers. I do not know which province the hon. member has in mind. I said I would see them before announcing the policy.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
If I remember well, the minister stated on March 20, 1969, that the report of a study on the textile industry would be tabled in the House before the end of the year. Now, the findings of that study have not yet been published. Could the minister tell us when we will obtain that report?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the study was completed in December last. Since then we have had consultations with the representatives of the industry, the unions and the
provinces concerned. We are now drawing up that policy and we hope to be in a position to announce it in the near future.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the present stagnation of the textile industry-there are factories in my riding and some people from the management complained to me that almost every week they must lay off employees-could the minister tell the House whether measures have been taken or will be taken soon in order to help this industry through strict import control?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question many times. If the hon. member would like to co-operate with the hon. members for Sainte-Marie and Saint-Hyacinthe (Messrs. Valade and Ricard), I would be very happy to hear their advice before the policy is announced, not only after.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration related to the question I asked him yesterday. Has he any information today on the status of the Dunlop plant, particularly as it affects Cosmo-Imperial Mills in Yarmouth?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I explained yesterday that I have been in touch with the two Ontario ministers indicating to them the nature of the conversations I had with the union representatives and suggesting we would be ready to co-operate with any working committee or task body established to investigate the economies of closure or future prospects of the plant. That is with respect to the general situation. I am still awaiting information on the specific matter he raised and as soon as I receive it I will be glad to give it to him.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the min-
(Mr. Forrestall.]
March 17, 1970

Sill
ister's statement over the weekend that a slight increase in unemployment might be necessary to combat inflation, may I ask the minister if he is considering resigning from Parliament and joining the unemployed so that he might make his maximum contribution in the battle against inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that I do not think the minister should be allowed to answer.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Considering the importance that several members attach to the development of Foril-lon Park and the statement made yesterday by Quebec's Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, could the minister tell the House whether the development of this famous Forillon Park is a sure thing?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Just as the hon. member did, Mr. Speaker, I have read the statement by Quebec's Intergovernmental Affairs Minister. I am glad to see that he does not object to the Canadian government enforcing its legislation the same way in Quebec as elsewhere.



1976 OLYMPIC GAMES-ASSISTANCE TO VANCOUVER AND MONTREAL IN BIDS


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the right hon. gentleman inform the House what role the federal government is playing in assisting both Vancouver and Montreal in their bids for the 1976 winter and summer Olympic games, respectively? In giving his reply could the Prime Minister give us some idea of the financial arrangements the government has made with these cities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather complicated and lengthy question to answer. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is dealing with this matter. I myself have had some exchange of correspondence with both Vancouver and 21774-46i
Inquiries of the Ministry Montreal. I am sure there will be no objection in due course to tabling this correspondence, if the other parties agree. I am sure also that when a decision has been taken one way or another the minister will have no objection to stating the role the federal government intends to play. But until a decision is taken on the Olympics I do not think it is useful to make any further statements.


Gerald William Baldwin: The government need not issue a white paper on this.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the minister in charge of housing. In view of the statement by representatives of the Ontario Association of Real Estate Boards yesterday in Ottawa that there will be a substantial drop in investment moneys that banks and trust companies will lend on mortgages, is it the minister's intention to call these institutions to Ottawa to discuss this matter?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I thought I answered that question the other day but I will try again. No, there is no intention to call them to Ottawa in the present circumstances although we are in contact with each of the organizations to which the hon. member has referred on an almost constant basis.


John Gilbert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since there is $10 billion invested in pension funds, only 10 to 12 per cent of which is allocated to housing, what steps has the minister taken to divert more of these moneys to housing purposes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this question is of very wide import and ought to be answered by way of a general statement on motions.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Col-chester North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Inasmuch as the minister has had in his hands now for some months the recommendations of the four Atlantic premiers on trans-
March 17, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry port policy for the Atlantic area and as the CNR announced only recently still further increases in transportation costs, can the minister indicate when we may expect some action on those recommendations?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, to answer the first part of the question about my having the report from the Atlantic premiers, what the hon. member said is quite true. As a result of the report and in consultation with the premiers a federal-provincial committee was established with representatives from the four Atlantic provinces on it. It has now held four meetings, the most recent being the ones, I believe, of March 7 and 8. I was advised by them on Monday that they hope to give these recommendations to me within the next few weeks.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sf. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of representations from a number of interested organizations indicating that foreign vessels are dragging within the three-mile limit in St. George's Bay, an operation which is tending to destroy the inshore lobster fishery, will the minister indicate what action is being taken in line with the recommendation of the chamber of commerce there that the area from Cape Anguille to Cape St. George be closed to foreign vessels?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have one of our larger fisheries protection vessels in the area. It is making sure that these foreign draggers will not encroach on our three-mile limit within which the lobster fishery is carried on.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's statement on television over the weekend that unemployment will be higher in 1970 than it was in 1969, can the minister assure the House that high unemployment areas such as the Maritimes, Eastern Quebec and the Prai-


ries will not suffer from even higher unemployment in 1970 as a result of the government's anti-inflation policies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the question is of very wide import. It is of a very general nature and is not the type which ought to be asked or answered at this time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the minister is quite prepared to answer.


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 16, consideration of the motion of Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (page 5051) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Saltsman (page 5065).
Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. members of the NDP sought to minimize the dangers of inflation by saying that really inflation poses no dangers at all and that there is no danger of our pricing ourselves out of world markets. The financial critic of the NDP said copper prices had increased substantially, yet we still sell copper; nickel prices have increased, as indeed have the prices of all other raw materials, by a considerable percentage, yet we have no trouble in selling these commodities on the markets of the world. I most respectfully point out to the NDP through you, Mr. Speaker, that there is indeed a great danger, we shall price ourselves out of world markets if the terrible curse known as inflation is not stopped very shortly.
I ask my hon. friends to the left, is there not a danger of pricing ourselves out of the market for heavier machinery? Look at the Japanese steel that is invading our markets, even though we have some of the world's finest steel workers in Hamilton and other Canadian centres. Look at the competition in the automobile market. These Volkswagens we see running around come from Germany and our people are buying them because they are cheaper than other cars. Clearly, we are
March 17. 1970	COMMONS
pricing ourselves out of the world automobile market. That is why inflation must be stopped and that is why I agree with the government's policy relating to tight money. As a result of those policies there may be some unemployment in the country; bad though that may be for those who are unemployed, it would be even worse for the country if unemployment were to grow. If prices are allowed to go even higher and if inflation is not checked, unemployment will become greater. We shall not be able to sell our goods and services on the markets of the world or even in this country, because so many cheaper foreign imports will enter Canada. Also, we shall not be able to export.
Members of the opposition suggest the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has not done a good job in his budget because pensions for veterans and old people have not been increased. I think all members of the House wish pensions to be increased. We all know old age pensioners receive too little money. Most of us would like to double their pensions. But can any member of the opposition tell us where we are to get the money with which to increase these pensions? To be fair and reasonable, opposition members should suggest where the money is to come from.


An hon. Member:: From the $250 million surplus.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Someone on my left said something about a surplus. I believe the members of the NDP suggest that exemptions from personal income tax should be $2,000 for single persons and $4,000 for married.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I think any representative of any Canadian constituency wishes that could come about.


An hon. Member:: Then, vote for it.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: In the white paper the government has introduced, it is suggested that there be exemptions of $1,400-$1,500 for single people, if you take into account charitable donations, and up to $2,900 for married people. These deductions will cost the government approximately $1 billion. The Minister of Finance tells the people of Canada in the white paper proposals where he expects to get this money. Whether or not, we agree with these proposals, they are in the white paper. The minister proposes to obtain the money by increasing taxes for the middle income group and by imposing a capital gains
DEBATES	5113
The Budget-Mr. Whicher tax. My hon. friends to the left have suggested there should be a $2,000 exemption for single people and a $4,000 exemption for married people. I ask them in all sincerity where they think the government is going to get the $1| billion that this would cost the government in tax revenues. The government cannot continually print money.
There has been a lot of talk about the surplus we have this year. I do not say it boastfully, but this is the first surplus we have had for a long time. As a citizen of Canada, I am sick and tired of continual deficits. I ask hon. members to look at the amount of debt in Canada today. Of the amount required to run the country this year, 14.1 per cent will go towards paying the interest on the debt, but nothing off the principal. This amount is equal to that spent by the Department of National Defence. It is a large amount of money. Therefore, I am glad we have a $350 million surplus. If hon. members calculate this amount at 8 per cent, they will see that approximately $28 million in interest will be saved this year.


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


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I will when I have finished. I have not got too much time. I point out that the Minister of Finance will have an additional $28 million to spend next year which he otherwise would not have had. I think it is irresponsible when people try to make headlines in the papers across Canada or receive publicity on television by saying that they want a $2,000 exemption for single people and $4,000 for married people. Everybody wants that. My question is, why do they stop at $2,000? Why not make it $3,000 and $6,000? Figures are easy to throw around when you have no responsibility for governing the country, and no hope of ever governing the country in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I consider this to be irresponsible criticism by my friends to my left. I respectfully ask them to tell us where we are going to get the money in order to allow these deductons.
In my opinion, the financial critic of the Conservative party did an excellent job yesterday. His main theme was that the federal expenditures were not under control. He pointed out that this year we would be spending approximately $900 million more than we did last year, even though the present govern-
5114	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Whicher ment has said they are attempting to cut expenditures. If the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) had wanted to be fair, he would have said that the great majority of that amount is for fixed expenditures over which this government has no control whatsoever. We, in this country, are in a bind, Mr. Speaker, and we have to do something about it. The most important word in Canada today for politicians, whether at the federal, provincial, county or municipal level, is the word, no. For too long governments have said, yes, yes, yes to every request the people have made. Now, we have these huge expenditures which, to a large extent, are uncontrollable. I refer to the national debt and programs such as medicare and hospitalization. I agree that these programs are necessary, but they have to be paid for. This is one reason government expenditures are going to be $900 million higher in the year ahead.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance and the present government are attempting to control expenditures in this country. Since the time of Confederation, not just in Canada but in all the western world, the number of civil servants has increased by approximately 5 per cent every year. A government which will say we are not going to have additional civil servants to run this country deserves a medal. When the government decreases the number of civil servants by 10 per cent, they should receive two or three medals. This is what this government has done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: In my opinion, the government has achieved this objective in a dignified way. The government has had many problems to tackle. Removing the Bonaventure from operation was no easy task after millions of dollars were spent on it, not by this government but by a former government.


An hon. Member:: A former Liberal government.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: A former Liberal government is right. I am not proud of the fact that this money was spent on it, but I am proud of the fact that this government has had the guts to say we cannot afford it and has put it in drydock or done something with it. The government finally has had the initiative and the courage to say no. There are other matters also.
At one time I agreed with those people who were opposed to the government's deci-
IMr. Whicher.]
DEBATES	March 17. 1970
sion to withdraw half of our troops from NATO. Personally, I thought the government was wrong. I felt we had an obligation to help our friends in NATO. However, I say to hon. members that those troops have been there since 1945. How long do you want to keep them there? Should they remain until the year 2,000? They have to be brought back some time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member who has the floor should be allowed to make his remarks.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I don't mind the interruptions.


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


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I would be glad to, particularly from my hon. friend, but I do not have time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My question will be brief.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has only three minutes left.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And that's too long.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: As I pointed out, whether we agree with the withdrawal of the NATO troops from Europe or not, it is a retrenchment as far as expenses are concerned. The members of the opposition say the government should not do this. They say, keep on spending money, the sky is the limit; you can go to the Bank of Canada and print bond after bond. Then, they condemn us for raising taxes all the time. They cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. If we are going to cut down taxes, we have to cut down expenditures and this, within reason, is what the present government is attempting to do. I think they deserve credit for that.
Hon. members to my left know that I do not always support what the government does, but I think the Minister of Finance and the government are making a genuine effort to control expenditures in a most difficult period. I agree with the financial critic of the Conservative party that in spite of the fact we have cut back, maybe not as much as we should, inflation is still a terrible curse to this country.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Who started it?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: It may have been us, but it is still a curse, regardless of who started it.
March 17, 1970	COMMONS
With all respect to the Minister of Finance, controls are needed to combat inflation. We must have wage and profit controls in the same way as we did during the last war because, in my opinion, financially we are in a greater crisis now than at that time.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired, but I understand that the hon. member for Crowfoot would like to ask him a question. This can be done only with unanimous agreement of the House, since the hon. member's time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There is one "no". The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that there were not more ministers in the House to hear the speech of the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher). It is difficult to understand why, when we are debating a matter affecting the lifeblood of this nation, there are in the House at this time only four ministers of the Crown.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: This is indicative of something that I intend to deal with a little later on, namely the contempt that is shown Parliament by this government. In an apparent endeavour to emasculate the institution, when members speak on a matter as important as the budget, ministers are not present in the House.
The hon. member who has just concluded spent a great deal of time preparing his speech. He has had long experience in the legislature, and whether I agree with his viewpoint or not, he has a viewpoint to express. I deeply resent the attitude of the government members in not being present to listen to the remarks that he had to make.
I am not going to deal at any length with the budget because it does not exist. It is a model of fatuity which reminds me of a certain medical remedy, the placebo; a medicine that is given to humour rather than to cure disease.
With great respect to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), whose virtuosity is notable, I could give no better description of this budget than to use the words of Abraham Lincoln when, in 1858, he described a budget
DEBATES	5115
The Budget-Mr. Diefenbaker by saying it, "was as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death."
It is of interest to note that nothing is said now of the just society? Have you noticed that, Mr. Speaker? That was the slogan, but the other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said the time has now come to use that expression no more. The reason is obvious and apparent. A new slogan, which has not yet been developed as far as I know, is needed at this time.
Hon. members will be interested to know that in the book written by the Prime Minister and another entitled "Two Innocents in Red China", in describing how the communists operated he said:
The government never ceases to contrive new activities to keep hands and minds occupied. Long before one slogan has lost its force, another is invented-
Invented-that is a good word.
-to whip up popular enthusiasm. In this way the communist party always has ready some new triumph to astound the people.
The just society: let us sum it up. It has given Canada the highest disregard for parliament in the lifetime of this nation. The just society has given Canada the highest spending, the highest taxes, the highest cost of living, the highest accumulation of unsold wheat, the highest neglect of the prairie provinces, the highest lack of consideration for veterans and their dependants and the aged. No one can deny that.
Today the government speaks of a budget surplus. Yet, what is being done to meet the situation of the old age pensioner in this country who today is no longer receiving charitable assistance but who has paid for that which he receives? I speak as one who has not accepted the old age pension.
I should like to refer to some figures that appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail, and I want to get through this portion of my remarks as quickly as I can. With regard to the 4 per cent tax on taxable income to a maximum to $240 per person per annum, the amount that the minister expects to raise in 1970-71 is $1.17 billion. Other sources of funds for old age security will be $600 million from a portion of the federal sales tax, and $230 million from a 3 per cent levy on corporation income tax.
As a result, this year $1,905 billion will be paid to the elderly. What about the $95 million of the old people's money which is part and parcel of the $250 million surplus?
5116	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Diefenbaker Why is this amount not used to help 785,000 of the weakest among us, that elderly group that requires supplementary assistance to survive? If this amount were used it would mean an increase of $10 per month immediately. I ask the minister when he speaks to give some hope to these people who today find themselves hedged in by the legislative enactment of this parliament with only a 2 per cent additional allowance year by year as the cost of living rises today at a rate that fluctuates between 4 and 6 per cent. Their situation is serious.
It is difficult to get this government to realize how bad the situation is in western Canada. Business failures in Saskatchewan are double what they were last year. What action is the government taking in this regard? The hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) makes periodic peregrinations into western Canada and leads the people to believe that something effective is going to be done. But nothing is being done. I should like him to rise in this House and engage in some of the fiction that he places before the western farmers.
The western farmers have before them their earnings for the last two years. These they cannot touch. It is as if they were entirely burglar-proof. They can look at their earnings but they cannot touch them. Is it any wonder there is an aroused feeling, having been told by the members of this government in the 1968 election campaign: "If you produce the wheat, we'll sell it"? The government has done nothing effective. The government has taken the attitude of the Prime Minister who when in Winnipeg, with that customary sway of the right arm and turn of the head, said: "Do you expect me to sell wheat?" As a result of this attitude on the part of the government the farmers are in a desperate position.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I am not at this moment going to discuss the Wheat Board except to say it was set up by a Conservative government and deprived of its power on two occasions by successive Liberal governments. I think the time has come to add additional members to the Wheat Board. There should be a representative of the governments of each of the three western provinces to assure that extra effort and to impress upon the board the necessity for action. Secondly, I point out what I did yesterday, I would like to see the Minister of Finance get in touch with the banks who are today exacting the last pound of flesh

DEBATES	March 17, 1970
they can get in respect of loans made under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the rate of interest thereunder being 5 per cent. When the due date arrives and the farmers cannot pay because there are no wheat sales, they are being asked-coerced, I should say-to sign renewal notes at 9 per cent, 9J per cent and even more. It is difficult to understand why, when the great and powerful interests do this, this government seems prone to take no action to preserve western farmers and agriculture in general.
I am not going into the question of international affairs today. But, I must say that, go where you will, in all parts of the world, and you will find that Canada today occupies the lowest position in international prestige that she has in our lifetime.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) about those monumental words he uttered on T.V. the other day that morale is low in his department. Is there any wonder? I asked then whether he had a suggestion as to what might be done in order to improve it, and he smiled. I might suggest that his resignation would have that effect, Sir.
In so far as the white paper is concerned my opinion is that it is the greatest hoax of our history. What the government of Canada has done is place this white paper before the people to get them aroused. The number of letters and other communications that have been received by the minister is so great that it has taken him a whole month not to answer the question which I placed on the order paper on February 18. Surely, with the large staffs that Ministers have today as a result of the multiplication in numbers of the intelligentsia that permeate into every part of the various departments, they would be able to secure somebody who could count. There are so many of the intelligentsia, and I refer to them that way because that is what they call themselves-intellectuals-in the Prime Minister's office there is the suggestion that they are going to get a badge with "PET" on it so they will be able to identify one another.
The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) did not deal with the white paper. I would like to have heard from him how the small businessmen in Bruce are reacting to what is going to happen to them. During my term
March 17, 1970	COMMONS
of office the portion of the profits that was subject to the lowest rate of corporation income tax was raised from $20,000 to $35,000. Under the white paper proposals, profits over $20,000 will be subject to the higher rate than the minimum. I do not know how many people have written to the minister, but even his own members are disturbed. One of them wrote his constituents on the subject, saying he had gone all over the constituency and could only find one person who was in favour of the white paper. He is going to turn that letter over to the minister to be framed for posterity. If the minister would only announce the withdrawal of the white paper now he would do more for Canada, for Canadian morale and for the future of this country than anything else he could do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Today I wonder what the objective of the white paper is. I have read what the Prime Minister said in London on January 13, 1969 when he gave his view and his testimony to Canadian university students in the United Kingdom. One of the questions was this:
What society would you choose to make Canada? Socialist or capitalist?
Well, he had only graduated recently from the socialist party, so I can understand he had some difficulty in disassociating himself completely. This was his answer:
Labour party socialist-
This is the Prime Minister of Canada answering that question, which society he would choose and he refers to the Labour party socialist. He went on to say:
-or Cuban socialism or Chinese socialism-socialism from each according to his means.
And then the questioner said:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Would you support that?
The Prime Minister said:
Yes, in theory, but not entirely in practice.
Then, he went on to say it cannot be done today. He said:
-I think in history there have been some small communities who have done that, and I support this and admire it. I do not think it is workable under present circumstances.
There is still a lot of hate and violence and injustice and inequity and racial discrimination which we shall have to overcome before ever reaching such a state. But if you ask me if it is an ideal, a beacon, something which the world should have, yes I think it is.
DEBATES	5117
The Budget-Mr. Diefenbaker
Analyze those words, consider the effects of the white paper, and then come to your own conclusion.
I am sure the Minister of Finance has never read this, but it should be required and compulsory reading.


Edgar John Benson: You have never read the white paper.


John George Diefenbaker: Have you read it? Oh, the
minister has read it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I certainly do not want to interrupt the right hon. gentleman, but I must remind him, and he does not have to be reminded, of course, that he should address himself to the Chair.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when I see the attractive countenance of the minister over there, with that suavity that he possesses, it is hard to resist referring especially to him. I should not have put it that way. I should have put the question through you to the minister; do you have this view and have you come to this conclusion?
The Prime Minister then said:
I do not think it will ever reach it, and I do not think it should use violent means to reach it, because all this is a question of psychology in lay terms, but if we were only saints we would have this society, but we ain't.
Is that not an amazing series of statements -unbelievable. Read the Toronto Star of that date I mentioned in order to get the gospel according to St. Peter.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I have been here in Parliament a long while, and there is nothing greater that any of us could obtain than to be regarded by fellow members as a child of Parliament, of this institution. It has been said that Parliament was made for man, not man for Parliament. In government, however, only with government by discussion can there be government by reason. It has often been said how efficient a dictatorship is and how Hitler was able to do this and Mussolini do that; but while they were doing it freedom was lost. Parliament consists of the Queen, the Senate and the House of Commons. The Prime Minister is a political leader and not the head of state. I may not agree with the Prime Minister's policies, but as one who knows something of the position, I respect him both personally and in the position which he holds. I have refrained from saying what I am about to say because I have waited month after month
March 17, 1970

The Budget-Mr. Diefenbaker to ascertain what is actually happening here, and what objective the Prime Minister has in flouting Parliament as he does. What is the objective? I thought first the reason was that experience usually is required to hold the position of Prime Minister. The normal number of years in Parliament of men who become Prime Minister of Canada, I think is something like 17 years, and just a little higher in the United Kingdom.
For months I have felt that the image of this institution was being forced down and down. Tell me, sir, where this Prime Minister of Canada once spoke of this institution and what it means. An institution cannot be built unless the person who is Prime Minister upholds it at all times.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I supported some of the rule changes, but not all. Those that were effective I believed in, and others I opposed. Two years ago I sounded a warning that if we accepted these rules we would actually destroy this institution. But members drank from the poisoned chalice that the government brought before them; they accepted it. On February 28, 1968 the Prime Minister said that the government, as long as it is the government, has the choice of deciding the manner in which it wishes to govern. Sir, no Prime Minister can exercise the right to determine the manner of governing without destroying this institution. These expressions, "participatory democracy", "just society" -does the House know who used them first? Mao; these are Mao's words.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall not mention any member, but some members have spoken out against the policy of being mere pawns who shall speak and not be heard. In 1956, this Parliament was over-run roughshod. In 1968, the Conservative Party accepted the large number of changes in the rules. It fought rule 16A, and finally 16A was withdrawn and the government obtained the other rule changes. Some thought I was wrong when I opposed many of these changes. As soon as the government was able to secure 16A what did the Prime Minister do? He made the statement that the trap was set and the opposition fell into it. That is not the way to treat Parliament. Then, a few months later, by action of closure, whatever rights remained to private members were virtually ended by the vote of members across the way who joined

in applying a halter to the head of Parliament. Sir, it is contempt of Parliament to act in this way. Parliament is not show business. I am amazed at the answers given to questions by members of this government. I admire the capacity to answer questions in both languages which the Prime Minister possesses, but how does he treat the members of this House? He snaps his fingers. Parliament deserves better than that.
Parliament has the right not to be given flippant and unworthy answers. Today, the Speaker of this House is tied by the rules. The question period has become ineffective and innocuous. Nothing controversial may be said by members sitting opposite the government-nothing argumentative. The new rules have paralysed this House. I shall not read from the British Hansard but, in summary, questions in the British House are placed on the order paper in writing and then supplementary questions begin. That is when the government is required to answer. Today, this government hides behind the rules, gives answers, and then when faced with a challenging question that question is out of order because, apparently, we have established rules which have the effect of rendering this institution innocuous. Is it any wonder there are few members present? I want to make clear that they did not leave after I started to speak today; they left before. I think of a Liberal leader in the United Kingdom. I shall not name him. They called him the "chamber-maid". Every time he got up he emptied the chamber. The Minister of Finance knows to whom I refer. The members are absent.
When this institution becomes a place in which there is no difference of opinion it will die. I am forced into the opinion that what is happening is that while the government gives to Parliament a kiss of approval it is a Judas kiss because it is placing this Parliament in a position where across the nation people say, "What do you do there"; "What is it". This is the institution that represents the freedom of you and me, sir, and every Canadian. It is being pushed down and down while at the same time the Prime Minister makes statements such as this statement he made on February 4:
I might add that as far as I am concerned it is true that I am going to establish a presidential system and this is why I always address you as Monsieur le President and not Monsieur l'Orateur.
The question period is totally ineffective. When the members of the government answer questions which they think they answered in
March 17, 1970	COMMONS
error, they run outside and correct those answers on T.V. A revision is made even before the revised Hansard is published. We do not want this institution to be a cemetery operated by its own inmates. That is what is coming about.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
What about the roster system? Look down the list. The roster system has no place in parliament, but the Prime Minister said we were going to have it. There are more ministers in the Cabinet today than in all history, and fewer cabinet ministers in the House of Commons than in all history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: There are more ministers than ever now surrounded by more armies of assistants. Why do we sit in Parliament today? We sit to vote supply and nothing else because we have been supplanted by a group of self described intellectuals. I can almost describe them in the words of H. G. Wells as being of the Wellsian intellectual Samurai.
Wherever one goes in the world today, people will ask you about the government of Canada. They ask: "Have you a hippie government there?" I have always defended it because I do not know the characteristics of hippies. Sir, I had hoped that I would not have to speak out on this situation but I am impelled to do so by what is happening daily to this institution. The first intimation that this Parliament was going to be pushed out of existence occurred in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan).


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps before the right hon. gentleman continues I should bring to his attention that, according to the rules, his time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous agreement of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This was a frightful example of the way in which Parliament should not be treated. The hon. member asked on February 2, whether civil servants may make declarations on policy. I was here at the time and heard the Prime Minister answer, yes. There was no equivocation at all about the answer. Prime ministers cannot equivocate by saying yes, when they mean no. To do so is to destroy the whole basis of the relationship among Members of Parliament in the House. As reported in the Globe and Mail of February 3,
DEBATES	5119
The Budget

Mr. Diefenbaker 1970, the Prime Minister said that when heckling in Parliament gets heavy, he does not bother responding properly to questions. He said: "When the House starts running amok- I'll say yes to anything".
One begins to wonder whether, when "yes" is the answer, it means no. This kind of thing is contempt of the House of Commons. It was a flippant answer, but it was not flippant at the time it was given. I can imagine what would happen in the Mother of Parliaments if the prime minister were to say he fooled with Parliament. The Prime Minister said: "I said yes but I meant no", and the next day he wanted to change it to no. Richard Jackson said, in writing about the incident, that the Prime Minister had stated he wanted to substitute the teasing answer of yes for a more serious no. Is this Parliament or is this a seminar at a university? This is Parliament, sir. The Prime Minister is playing around with Parliament. What are the answers? Not since I read "Alice in Wonderland" as a boy have I ever heard anything like that answer. He said in effect that he said yes because he would say yes no matter what, when he meant no.
Sir, I would like to quote from that book: The Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this; but all he said was "Why is a raven like a writing-desk?"
"Come, we shall have some fun now!" thought Alice. "I am glad they've begun asking riddles- I believe I can guess that," she added aloud.
"Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it," said the March Hare.
"Exactly so," said Alice.
"Then you should say what you meant," the March Hare went on.
"I do," Alice hastily replied; "at least-at least I mean what I say-that's the same thing, you know."
Can you imagine, Alice in Wonderland and Parliament in Blunderland. That is what is happening here.
The passage from the book goes on as follows:
"Not the same thing a bit!" said the Hatter Why, you might just as well say that 'I see what I eat is the same thing as 'I eat what I see'!"
There is another portion in the book that I have to quote to you, sir. It goes like this:
How doth the little crocodile Improve his shining tail,
And pour the waters of the Nile On every golden scale!
How cheerfully he seems to grin,
How neatly spreads his claws,
And welcomes little fishes in,
With gently smiling jaws!
March 17. 1970

The Budget-Mr. Diefenbaker
I could go on and give further quotations to indicate the kind of frivolous answers that we have received which demonstrate this attitude to Parliament.
On February 13 I asked the Prime Minister a serious question about the subject of sovereignty in the north. We asserted sovereignty during my administration, but the present government of Canada played this sophisticated juristic game of saying, to begin with, that we are not sure whether we have it. Did you ever know a litigant to go into court and say: "I do not know whether I have any rights, but here I am and I want them". This is the frivolous attitude to Parliament. I said on that day:
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing hypothetical about the subject of Canadian sovereignty in the north. My question to the Prime Minister is simply this: Will the government ol Canada insist that there shall be no such voyage without the permission of the Canadian government?
The Prime Minister answered to that:
Mr. Speaker, we might insist that my grandmother should wear wheels,-
Of all the answers! Then he said:
-but it is still hypothetical.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: She might not have to have them.


John George Diefenbaker: Unless members in all parts of the House stand up for their rights, this institution will not much longer be the custodian of freedom. Every day the roster boys of the cabinet do not roster. Numbers of them are missing. Listen to this answer as reported at page 3078 of Hansard in answer to the following question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) put by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Howard):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence but in his absence I shall direct it to the minister answering for him today.
He went on to ask the question, to which the Prime Minister replied:
I regret to inform the hon. member that on Mondays nobody answers for the Department of National Defence.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Where are we going? I have a pile of these examples on my desk, Mr. Speaker, but I am running short of time. I will have the opportunity later in a future debate to complete the picture of the degradation of this chamber. It cannot be laughed off, and that is what is happening. I used to watch the Prime Minister with the admiration I still

have for him personally, but he does not understand Parliament. There is the trouble. Now, I am beginning to see that it is very difficult to follow him in these devious ways. While pretending to support Parliament, he contributes to its destruction. Have you ever tried to follow in a paper chase? The fox drops the paper here and there in order to delude. We have that in this institution, in the flippancy of this place. What do you think of the members, the Liberal members? I think some of them might want to identify as belonging to that classical group known as "the bums". Imagine speaking of his fellow members as bums. And then the opposition, well, we should not be here.


An hon. Member:: Nobodies.


John George Diefenbaker: We are allowed to look, we are allowed to watch, we are allowed to see. We get it without coloured glasses, too, though that is not always thought possible.
What did he say of the members of the opposition? "I think we should encourage members of the opposition to leave; every time they do the IQ of this House rises considerably." Is that the way to look at a nation -Oh, he has the support of some of them over there.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The former mayor of Toronto.


John George Diefenbaker: They laugh because that is the only way they get promotion, on the basis of the number of laughs-on the decibel meter.


Mr. Thompson:: Phil, come on over and join us.


John George Diefenbaker: All I have to do this afternoon is place before this House the danger to this institution. I have many more examples that can be given. Every member of this House is part of this institution. Every one is the inheritor of its freedom. Freedom has gone a long way in the field of human rights in the last six months by the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Drybones vs. the Queen. This House now has greater responsibilities than ever before to not pass legislation containing sections, paragraphs or even lines constituting a denial of the fundamental freedoms provided for in the Bill of Eights.
All of us are creatures of this institution. It requires the dedication that was spoken of by Sir John Eliot who sat in the House of Commons under Charles I. Of him it was
March 17, 1970	COMMONS
said he loved his country, England, with a passionate enthusiasm which Pericles felt for Athens and he trusted the House of Commons as no one else.
Sir, you sit in the Chair that was referred to by the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King in 1921 in these words:
The constituent elements of Parliament here represented do right in regarding the present moment as one of historic significance.
That is when the Chair was delivered.
There are under British parliamentary institutions two symbols of authority-the Crown, which speaks of the sovereignty of loyalty, the speaker's Chair, which speaks of the sovereignty of the people. That, under the aegis of the British flag, those two sovereignties have blended into one is a tribute not less to the character and devotion to duty of the occupants of the British throne than to the genius of the British peoples in the art and science of government.
Tomorrow, in the other place, there is a conference to honour the former leaders of that place. Among them will be the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen who, on the same occasion said:
This chair will embody for us British traditions, it will remind us from day to day, through the stern trials of the future, of British wisdom and British patience. In Canada we are not all of one race; a large part are of French descent. But I shall echo and anticipate the words of those who in the ceremony of this afternoon will especially represent French Canadians, just so far as to say that they as well as we of Anglo-Saxon blood are attached to the free institutions that we inherit from old England, that they believe as firmly as we in the essential rightness and fitness of the form of government that she developed and that now is ours.
Sir, I did not want to say what I have said. I have sat here, I have listened, I have watched, I have felt. I have been deeply concerned and am now about what is happening to this institution, for if it goes, freedom goes. That is the reason I spoke as I did today, from the heart.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, this budget proposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) last Thursday is not something new devised by the government. It is a continuation of the government's announced intention to institute a program of government restraint, government austerity. This program calls on the public sector of the economy to make all the sacrifices while it permits the private sector to go on its free and untrammelled way to make all the profits it can.
This proposal, Mr. Speaker, is one which the minister himself has admitted will mean
DEBATES	5121
The Budget-Mr. Orlikow sacrifices on the part of the Canadian people. The minister said, and I quote:
I anticipate some increase in unemployment. There will also be difficult wage negotiations. Some of these negotiations may issue in strikes-perhaps prolonged strikes-before settlements are reached.
My colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) was not exaggerating yesterday when he said that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) was urging employers to handcuff their employees, was urging employers to create situations by refusal to negotiate in good faith, to create tension and to have strikes. The minister knew what he was talking about, because unemployment is rising. The minister, of course, was not alone in talking tough. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in a press conference in December of last year said:
If people think we're going to lose our nerve, they should think again. We're not.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, it does not take much courage for the government to handcuff employees. It is not the cabinet ministers who are going to be unemployed or suffer as a result of inflation; it is the ordinary people, those who are least able to take the increased cost of living. It is those who will be unemployed who will suffer as a result of the kind of programs this government is proposing. The minister admitted himself that the program of restraint was failing to a large extent when he said in his budget speech:
There has been no slowing down in the rate of increase of prices and wages and other incomes. Costs continue to push prices up. Slower real growth has not yet reduced inflation.
There is no evidence and no belief by anybody except members of the government and a few of their tame so-called experts that this will happen. A commentator as sympathetic to the government as Anthony Westell, in discussing the minister's budget speech, reported in the Toronto Star of March 13, under a heading which I think is very apt, "Policies Will Cut Buying Power of Old and Poor", that the Minister of Finance said:
I'm not proposing any legislation on taxes or tariffs.
Mr. Westell comments:
But that's not the whole truth. His policies will in fact cut the purchasing power of the old, the unemployed and the other elements in the community too weak to defend their living standards.
The Budget-Mr. Orlikow
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
For these unfortunate people-a million or more Canadians-Benson's figures and forecasts mean exactly the same as a tax increase.
Later he says:
But the number of unemployed will increase by up to 80,000 from the present 500,000. For these people and their families the budget forecast means a cut from a living wage to inadequate insurance.
In other words, Mr. Westell agrees with my suggestion that those who will suffer most under the proposed budget are those who can least afford to suffer. About half a million people are currently unemployed. The figures for January, 1970, show unemployment at 485,000 people, as compared with 468,000 in January, 1969. The unemployment rate for male workers in January, 1970, was at 7 per cent. Figures relating to young people show that the unemployment rate for those between the ages of 14 and 19 is 14.4 per cent. For those between 20 and 24 years old the unemployment rate is 8.1 per cent. These figures are disastrous. I find it amazing that a government headed by a Prime Minister, who comes from Quebec should embark on policies which are nothing but a bonus to the aspirations of Mr. Rene Levesque and his parti Quebecois. These people want an independent and separate Quebec.
The Prime Minister said that, if necessary, he is prepared to see unemployment in Canada reach a rate of 6 per cent in order to check the danger of inflation. What the Prime Minister obviously has not faced is that a 6 per cent level of unemployment for Canada as a whole means an unemployment rate of 8 per cent in Quebec, a rate which could increase to 9 or 10 per cent. All signals show that unemployment will become worse. Last year private investment in Quebec rose an estimated 3.5 per cent over the 1968 level, while capital investment in Ontario rose by more than 23 per cent. This means that unemployment, already serious in Quebec, will become even more serious. The young people of Quebec, those coming out of Quebec universities and technical schools, will not accept that rate of unemployment. What the government is doing is this: it is deliberately fostering unemployment, in order, supposedly, to hold in check galloping inflation. By increasing unemployment in Quebec, it is inviting the people of Quebec to express their resentment against federalism by voting for that party in Quebec which believes in a separate Quebec. These policies stem from the Prime Minister

March 17, 1970
who was elected to foster Canadian unity. During the last election campaign the Prime Minister said that there is but one Canada. Now, his policies will destroy one Canada.
We can see what is happening. Housing starts for January, 1970, as compared with January, 1969, are down by at least 25 per cent. If adjusted on an annual basis the housing starts for this January indicate that
158,000	homes will be built this year, whereas last year we built over 200,000 homes. This building slowdown means unemployment. We already see that there is less work. Automobile plants are closing for a week at a time. That can only mean a reduction in the purchases of steel, nickel and copper, and further unemployment or short time work in those resource industries.
The budget proposed by the Minister of Finance indicates the determination of the government, led by a Prime Minister who compaigned in the last federal election on the slogan of a "Just Society", to continue its policy of restraints in the government sector of the economy while, as I said earlier, not calling for any restraint on the part of the private sector of the economy. These policies have done nothing to stop or slow down the rate of increase in our cost of living. Figures released a few days ago show that living costs increased in one month by half a point. The increase in the cost of living last year was about 5 per cent. This increase, one of the largest in many years, has of course been felt most acutely by those on fixed incomes, the pensioners, the recipients of veterans allowances, mothers allowances and blind persons pensions, all of whom have had to bear with the 5 per cent increase in the cost of living. Old age pensions have been increased by just 2 per cent. All this has been happening at a time when the accounts of the Minister of Finance show a surplus of several hundred million dollars. The minister's name ought to be Scrooge.
I want for a few moments to deal with what I consider a deliberate, unscrupulous and unprincipled campaign that has been carried on by the government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance with the active co-operation of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission. The government and all these people have called for wage restraints. They have blamed the working people and labour unions of this country for

March 17, 1970	COMMONS
supposedly refusing to co-operate in the program of wage restraints which, it is argued, is crucial in stopping our current inflationary spiral. What the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and those high officials I have mentioned have not told the Canadian people is that salaries in the private sector and for the top civil servants, which include those people I have mentioned, have gone up substantially more in terms of percentages than the wages of the working people in Canada; that the incomes of self employed groups such as doctors, lawyers, engineers and architects have gone up very much more than the wages of workers, and that the profits of essential and key industries in Canada have gone up by astronomical amounts.
Let me illustrate the point. The Governor of the Bank of Canada, who has made a number of speeches about the need for restraint, was until recently receiving a salary of $50,000 a year. Within the last year, I think, that salary has been raised to $75,000 a year.
I presume, although the bank has kept very quiet about this, that the governor's pension entitlement will be increased correspondingly. There is not much restraint in that kind of salary increase. I do not say he is not worth the money; yet it shows little sense for a man who has received that kind of increase to lecture people receiving $4,000, $5,000 or $6,000 a year about the need for restraint.
The Deputy Minister of Finance was making $27,000 a year in 1966. He is now being paid $40,000 a year. That represents an increase of over 30 per cent in the last three years. I do not think any worker in Canada has been able to negotiate that kind of wage increase. Yet the Deputy Minister adds his voice to those calling for restraint. The Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission is paid a salary of $40,000 a year, probably twice as much as he was paid when he was a dean at the University of British Columbia. I am not suggesting it is too much money, but I am suggesting that workers oannot be expected to take seriously lectures about restraint from people who do not show restraint themselves.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
About ten days ago, the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission made a speech in Saskatoon. I have not got the report in front of me, but I am sure I can paraphrase it accurately. He said that the whole policy of restraint would fail unless workers and their unions co-operate in the program. The same day his speech was reported in the
DEBATES	5123
The Budget-Mr. Orlikow Globe and Mail, a report prepared by H. V. Chapman and Associates Limited appeared in the financial section of that newspaper outlining what was happening to the salaries of executives. The article can be summarized as follows:
H. V. Chapman and Associates Ltd. reports the percentage of executives who earned more than $20,000 in salaries and bonuses rose by 9 percentage points to 40 per cent in 1969 from 31 per cent in 1968. The percentage rose by 8 points in 1966, 1967 and 1968 together.
The average increase in total remuneration was within a range of 10.1 per cent to 10.6 per cent, compared with 8 per cent in 1968, 7.9 per cent in 1967, 8.8 per cent in 1966 and 8.2 per cent in 1965.
That is what is happening to the salaries of executives in this country. Not a word has been said about this by the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance, all of whom are quick to lecture other people about what they should be doing. The unions representing civil servants believe with good reason that, although the government has not publicly announced this policy, it has set guidelines of 5 per cent as the maximum increases which civil servants will be permitted to get from the government as a result of negotiations. That is substantially less than the top level civil servants have received. I suggest that if the Minister of Finance really believed in the just society the Prime Minister spoke about during the election campaign, he would apply the same justice to all civil servants and not just those close to the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers and other top level civil servants. The increases in salaries at the executive level do not just apply to those I mentioned.
The increases in profits by the large companies in Canada are astronomical. Similarly, the increases in their prices are astronomical. Last year we had a good deal of discussion about the price of copper. Some weeks ago the government was gleeful because they supposedly convinced the copper companies in Canada that they should reduce by several cents the proposed increase which they announced in the price of copper. What the government does not tell the people of Canada, and tries to hide, is the fact that in the 13 months, January 1, 1969 to February 1, 1970, the price of copper rose from 45 cents a pound to 59 cents a pound, an increase of over 30 per cent, even after the government put some slight restraints on the copper companies. Is it any wonder the workers in the
March 17, 1970


who can least afford it. It will result in decreased production. What I am saying has been said much better and by much more reputable sources than I. It was said in the last report of the Economic Council of Canada. Possibly because the Economic Council of Canada has been honest, has taken its independence seriously and has called the shots as it saw them, it is having difficulty in getting government approval to hire the kind and numbers of staff which it needs. Meanwhile, others such as the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) in charge of housing and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) can get all the staff they need.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Let me read for the information of the Minister of Finance a couple of sentences from the sixth annual report published by the Economic Council in September, 1969. Note how correct they were in the light of what has happened since then.
Until some easing of price and cost increases takes place in the United States, Canadian policies to deal with domestic price and cost problems will be handicapped. Further fiscal and monetary restraint could conceivably simply result in higher rates of unemployment and economic slack with no more than marginal effects on current rates of increases in prices and costs. Moreover, tighter restraint in Canada this year is likely to have its main impact on the economy next year. And if excess demand pressures in the United States are brought under control by the latter part of 1969, the principal result of stringent demand policy restraints in Canada this year might well be seriously mistimed to push the economy into a poor economic performance.
The Minister of Finance ought to have listened to the Economic Council rather than to the Governor of the Bank of Canada or to his own deputy minister. What the Council predicted in September 1969 is happening in 1970.
In the few moments which are left to me, I want to return to the subject of the government's policy of restraint. Reports that the government has the active support of the business community need to be taken with a good deal of scepticism. The agreements made by the business community in those meetings with the Prices and Incomes Commission in February were full of loopholes. Price increases are continuing at an accelerating rate, profits are substantial; bank profits were never higher than they are today. It is not true, as has been reported, that all the provinces were in agreement with the government's policies. The submissions made by those governments disclose a great deal of
March 17. 1970	COMMONS
apprehension and disquiet. The provincial governments realise that they cannot hold the line; they realize that the services which they provide-schools, hospitals, roads, welfare and part of medical care-cannot be cut back and that the cost to the municipalities of providing essential services in an increasingly urban society will continue to spiral. They realize that municipal taxes in 1970 will increase as they have done in every year since the end of the war, and that in the absence of a reallocation of funds they will continue to be in a most difficult situation.
Let me quote from the submission made by the government of Manitoba to the conference of finance ministers held on February 16, 1970. Manitoba was faced by the insistence of the federal government that it co-operate in an attempt to persuade workers to accept a policy of restraint. If the latter cannot be persuaded, I suppose the next step will be to impose wage restraint, if not a wage freeze, upon the working people of this country. This is what the government of Manitoba said, and I commend this to the minister as a policy which he ought to have considered in the budget we are discussing:
Controls must be fair in their application. If wage and income controls are necessary, then controls on excessive profits are equally required. If the worker is to be restricted in his earnings, then profits must be equally restricted. If individual Canadians are to be denied wage or salary increases above certain levels, it is only plain justice-and common sense-that profits above given levels should be denied, by special taxation if necessary.
Compare that statement with the invitation extended to employers by the minister in his budget speech to be tough in negotiations with labour, an invitation which can mean only restriction-


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


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: As
a rule, however good a minister of finance may be, however well he may be able to keep expenditures and revenues in balance, he can never expect praise from the opposition, not even in the unlikely event of his announcing substantial tax reductions. The budget which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) presented to the nation on Thursday is the first in 20 years which did not contain any major proposals for income tax changes, and the first in 57 years without changes in tariffs, in spite of requests, some for increases and some
DEBATES	5125
The Budget-Mr. Badanai for reductions. It is clearly an anti-inflationary budget, designed to curb the rise of consumer costs and to protect those on pensions and others living on fixed incomes. It offers a better approach to the future for the great majority of Canadians.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) could find nothing better to say than that is was "a cold-blooded effort", while the official Conservative spokesman, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) practically rested his case after describing the proposals as "cold turkey", whatever that is supposed to convey.
The budget contains measures to control the terms of consumer credit in order to reduce inflationary pressure resulting from over-spending. It provides authority to regulate the extension of credit to consumers by banks, finance companies, loan companies and other lenders. But it would not apply to credit in respect of small purchases, nor would the restrictions apply to loans for business purposes, including farming, or for loans for construction or to buy a house. Student loans for education would also be exempt.
An important feature announced by the minister was that the existing write-off of expenditures on water pollution control facilities will be extended to December 31, 1973. The cost of these efforts to control pollution will be written-off at a maximum rate of 50 per cent. These provisions will also apply to measures to curb air pollution, presumably by controlling fumes from automobiles and aircraft. The dangers from pollution have gripped the imagination of men everywhere. It is not only a national problem but one of international concern. Every level of government and our neighbours to the south must co-operate with both money and ideas in a total effort to control the menace which knows no boundaries.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Not all savings and restrictions are good. The government's drive to fight inflation by cutbacks in some departments is to be commended as an example to other levels of government of controlling excessive expenditures where savings will not impair essential services to the people. But the cutting of personnel in that section of the department of immigration which has to do with actual contact with prospective immigrants abroad, and the reduction of publicity to attract immigrants from Britain and
March 17, 1970

The Budget-Mr. Badanai Europe, do not merit commendation. In my view, this economy can only produce doubtful benefits to a country that is still an empty land when one considers the drop in the number of immigrants admitted to Canada during the past 15 months.
If the government wishes to correct the impression that its immigration policy is a cold and hot water tap turned on and off according to the direction of manpower winds, it has to revert to its more realistic policy of two years ago. I cannot help but feel that our present policy in immigration is one of timidity and inadequacy. We seem to have forgotten that the main goal of an immigration policy is to promote immigration to Canada of as many persons of good character as possible and to keep out the trouble makers. A modest figure would be 250,000 a year, but certainly not less than one per cent of our total population, irrespective of religion or ethnic origin. We should also assist to the maximum degree the reunion of families, with particular consideration being given to applicants sponsored by relatives and friends.
I have a high regard for our present minister of immigration, but I am not impressed by statements to the effect that the reason for the decline in the number of immigrants from Europe is solely the improved economic conditions in western Europe. The present points system is not working in the best interest of Canada. It is too restrictive in its application to unskilled workers. There is still a great demand for them in the fields of mining and agriculture, and in the construction industry. There are some people who are opposed to large scale immigration on the ground that the job market cannot sustain any major increases; but these same people have failed to back up their conviction with any documented facts to prove their contention.
It has been estimated that 30,000 new business ventures have been started in Canada by immigrants during the past 20 years, involving some $400 million in working capital and creating thousands of jobs, to say nothing of the valuable contribution these businesses have made to the sum total of Canada's development. Fortunately for Canada, we have a Prime Minister who thinks of Canadians as individuals, as people, not in terms of their ethnic origin; a Prime Minister who is concerned with the problem of cementing Canadian unity.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronienac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, in rising at this time to make my small contribution to the budget debate I am reminded that this is
March 17. 1970	COMMONS
March 17, St. Patrick's day, a great day for the people of Irish ancestry. It seems to me, because of the ineffectual and mediocre nature of the budget, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in this Trudeau government is praying for a St. Patrick who would banish and expel all the serpentine troubles that are coiling and twisting around this government. These troubles will be the downfall of "Trudeaucracy". Most of the government's troubles are either of their own making or their own neglect.
What can I say about the budget? What can anyone say about it? It is barely worth a comment because it signifies nothing and does nothing for the Canadian people. Therefore, I believe we can call it a "ho-hum do-nothing" budget. It might have been part of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) and the Finance Minister's strategy to bring nothing forward at this time because in this same calendar year the Minister of Finance will attempt to perpetrate his notorious white paper upon the Canadian people. So, for the time being the Finance Minister says he is not proposing any legislation on taxes or tariffs.
Much as I should like to discuss the white paper during this budget debate, I shall not do so to any extent. I have other complaints of a vital and economic nature which I wish to make during the limited time I have the floor of the House. The Minister of Finance has said in his white paper that he will relieve many Canadians of the burden of paying income tax. That has merit. Why did he not begin to do that in this budget? I mentioned that he said he is not proposing any legislation in respect of tariffs. He said that possibly legislation will be needed by the autumn. Does he mean white paper legislation? The legislation in respect of his white paper proposals, if implemented, will mean the end of Canada as an influential, solvent, vigorous, manufacturing, land-owning and trading nation.
This Trudeau government, and the one before it under the Right Hon. Lester Pearson, have been creators of a man-made depression. The new Liberal concept of legislation, which now is a marriage made by that party with Marxist socialism, is sadly lacking. It lacks what it takes to govern a country like Canada. Here, we recall the strange anachronism of the Liberals in opposition in the winter of 1963 insistently clamouring about unemployment, at a time when there were
265,000	unemployed in Canada. I now refer to figures of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics
DEBATES	5129
The Budget-Mr. Alkenbrack for the week ending January 1970. These figures show that today, with the Liberals in power, there are over 485,000 unemployed, over 60,000 of whom are in Toronto. The Prime Minister, with a shrug of the shoulders and a gesture of his hand, says it is a calculated expectation and strategic fact of Liberal policy. There will be more unemployment. There will be unemployed Canadian farmers and bankrupt ones as well as a result of this government's former and present lack of policy and policy practices.
In the west during the past couple of years the Prime Minister has been saying, "Why should I be held responsible for selling your wheat". He did not hold himself responsible, nor did he sell any wheat. So, he now says, "I will give you money out of the public treasury to not grow any wheat and I will pay you at the rate of $6 an acre for those areas that you summerfallow and take out of production. It is quite a few years since I have worked on the farm in Richmond Township, Lennox County but the economics of farm operation still hold true. With the mechanized methods of today, one cannot summerfallow the wheatlands of the west nor the arable lands of any part of Canada for $6 an acre. I do not think that amount would pay for the gasoline or for the depreciation and the interest payments on the expensive machinery.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
However, enough of that, Mr. Speaker. We will leave the government wallowing like a wrecked and stranded tanker in the gulf of political bankruptcy and confusion. There are some things I want to say to the government regardinv their policies which affect the province of Ontario and my constituency of Fron-tenac-Lennox and Addington in particular. First of all, there are strong indications that this government is not looking after public works. The case in point is the construction of the Bath-Millhaven prison complex in my riding. For some time back we have heard that all is not well in relation to certain construction details of this prison and that there has been a lack of proper inspection by the Department of Public Works. I have in my hands a written complaint made to me by private individuals who doubt the soundness of the construction job being done by the general contractors, Argo Construction Limited and their various subcontractors. Here are some of the alleged discrepancies and divergencies from specifications. It reads as follows:
Building L. Footings are poured on top of granular fill not on bedrock according to specifications
March 17, 1970

The Budget-Mr. Alkenbrack and drawings. The 2" mud slab is to 2" thick, instead of 2" thick.
The 4" crawl space floor is 2" thick instead of 4" thick, which was authorized in the specification and drawings.
Buildings D, C and G. The south 40' of all these buildings bears the same construction defects as Building L.
Building F is the same. In all cases gravel has been used instead of going to bedrock.
Building S. The west half of the building crawl space has no reinforcing steel and this is contrary to specifications. The thickness of the concrete in all cases is not the thickness in the specifications and in all cases this occurs in crawl spaces where it cannot be seen unless investigated.
Kitchen Building. The east half of the crawl space floor is 50 per cent under the specifications both for mud slab and for the floor.
Guard Tower. The anchors that were supposed to go 5' into the bedrock were cut off with a torch. The concrete for this 40' high structure is poured on fill and not bedrock. The complete tunnel area is still visible sitting on top of stone fill instead of bedrock.
The above conditions, when considered present over millions of square feet of construction, would result in the savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars on the part of the contractor. J. L. Richards and Associates are the consultants. One B. Hilliard is reported to be the resident engineer who controls all the inspection and is paid by the government. Argo Construction is the general contractor for the Bath-Millhaven prison complex. I
I put this complaint on the record and hereby call upon the government to investigate it to the fullest with the object of correcting these alleged discrepancies. I have already placed on the Order Paper a private members notice of motion No. 393 calling for the tabling of copies of an inspector's report by the Minister of Public Works. Under the circumstances, I think that this should bring the government around to tabling and making that report public. The Bath-Millhaven prison complex will cost over $20 million and surely the Canadian people deserve value for their construction dollar in this case.
Another case where the government is not looking after business is the trade conditions arising from the wholesale adoption of the Kennedy round of tariffs under GATT. We find various Canadian industries reeling under the fierce international competition from low wage countries like Japan, Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong. This applies especially to the synthetic fibres industry in my area. Members of the House have seen what happened at Cornwall, the unemployment and hardship created there due to the invasion of Canadian markets by synthetic fibres coming from these low wage countries, and the total lack of interest in this problem by the Government.

I have received protests from the largest terylene plant in Canada, namely, Millhaven Fibres, situated in my riding and employing over 1,000 people. They are feeling the effects of this unfair competition. I have here a letter from Mr. Peter Humphreyes, resident manager of that plant, received today. I wish to quote parts of it as follows:
On October of 1968 the textile industry, both companies and unions, appeared before Prime Minister Trudeau and members of the cabinet to outline the major problems that imports from low cost countries were creating in the textile industry. They were assured that this problem would be dealt with soon.
Instead, a major re-examination of the situation surrounding the textile and clothing industries was decided on and the re-examination was to be completed by the end of 1969. The conclusions of this study have not as yet been revealed.
The major problems created by this repeated increase in imports is reflected in the fact that 20 per cent of all textiles and clothing in Canada now come from the low cost countries. Approximately 45 per cent of all textiles and clothing are imported into Canada so that the Canadian manufacturers are now supplying only 55 per cent of the Canadian market as compared to 70 per cent two years ago.
The increase in imports is not only having a disruptive effect on the textile industry in Canada, it is also having a disruptive effect of the livelihood of the 83,000 people who were in the textile and clothing industry in Canada.
Please note the phrase "who were in the textile and clothing industry in Canada,,< Many are still in it, but some are no longer there because of unemployment caused by foreign competition.
The letter continues:
We urge your consideration of an important industry which would be adversely affected in the future as far as continued operation is concerned. Consideration should also be given to the fact that this industry would be hard put to justify further capital expenditure to expand the economic climate of Canada without assurance that they would not be subjected to further increases in imports especially from the low cost countries.
Every member of the House will agree that in these cases, as well as in other industries in Canada, our industry must continue to have a certain amount of protection. This government joined the Kennedy round and GATT and thought they had done something big, but they walked away and left the door wide open. Our worst competition in synthetic fibres is coming from Korea. Their materials are being dumped on the Canadian market. I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin): What do we dump in Korea? We do not enjoy any privileges there. 1 doubt if our exports to Korea amount to even one million dollars a year. I call upon
March 17, 1970	COMMONS
the government to take greater control of the situation and limit the dumping of these foreign synthetic fibres in this country in order that our own people can still hold their jobs and make a living here, which is their rightful heritage.
My last complaint for today pertains to the vicious escalation of tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Welland Canal, aided and abetted by the policies of the present and preceding Liberal governments. It is coincidental that the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) brought up the same subject. This was not prearranged and it shows the importance of this matter to Canadians. The escalation of tolls in the St. Lawrence Seaway is a bad thing, and this includes tolls exacted on the Welland Canal. We built the St. Lawrence Seaway in the last decade-that is the fifth decade of the century-at what is now a fairly nominal cost to Canadians of less than $340 million. What a bargain Canada got there! There should be no tolls on this waterway, and this is not the first time I have stood in this House and said so. I pointed this out four years ago, and yet there have been two increases in tolls since then.
The St. Lawrence Seaway system, including the Welland Canal, is at present the only stretch of commercially navigable water in North America which is subject to user charges in any form. Tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway are no good for the economy of the heartland of Canada, namely, northern and southern Ontario. Not only do they increase the cost of all products manufactured by our industries, but seaway tolls are now beginning to increase the cost of our electric power, much of which is generated by thermal plants.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
On August 20th, 1963, I began to advocate a hydro generating plant in the riding that I represented at that time, namely, Prince Edward Lennox. I am now proud and pleased to see the beginning of the realization of that plant which will be built in South Fredericksburgh township in the county of Lennox, south of Napanee and west of Bath in the riding that I now represent, Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. We are now informed that this plant will be oil-fired and the oil will be supplied by marine transportation to the plant on the Bay of Quinte on the north shore of Lake Ontario. Neither the Ontario Hydro nor the manufacturing industries which will be using the power from this plant can afford to pay tolls on the oil and/or other fuels that the plant may use.
DEBATES	5131
The Budget-Mr. Alkenbrack
I have here a letter from Mr. Saul Laskin, the mayor of Thunder Bay, which I wish to put on the record as I think it is of vital interest to all Canadians. Mr. Laskin says:
Many people throughout Ontario believe that tolls on the international St. Lawrence Seaway and the all-Canadian Welland Ship Canal are matters of concern only to communities contiguous to those facilities.
But in a speech delivered before the Marine Club of Toronto on January 16, 1970, George E. Gathercole, LL.D., Chairman, Ontario Hydro, made it plain that such tolls should be of real concern to every user of electricity in this province- domestic, commercial or industrial.
As reported in the Globe and Mail on January 17, 1970, Dr. Gathercole in his statement made the following statements:
He expressed concern over the level of tolls levied on traffic in the Welland Canal and the St. Lawrence Seaway. The charge to coal shipped through the Welland Canal in 1969 was about $200,000.
While the figure is not high in relation to Hydro's total volume of merchandising, the Welland tolls are one of many pressures pushing the cost of electricity higher.
Mr. Gathercole referred to a statement in the report of the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association that indicated that increased tolls suggested by the federal Department of Transport could cost Hydro an additional $25 million for coal.
We would certainly oppose such an increase most strenuously and it should be clearly understood that additional tolls can only be met from one source-by the people of Ontario who use electricity.
I say, Mr. Speaker, including the people of Canada in general.
I thank Mayor Laskin of Thunder Bay for his letter and his support in the cause of the free passage of the commerce of our country on our great inland channel of contact with the whole world, the St. Lawrence Seaway. I and millions of Canadians look forward to the day when it will be free of tolls to legitimate shipping, as it ought to be.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Smith).


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the budget debate, only one representative of the Ralliement creditiste has had the opportunity to speak and I think that it would be time-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am paying very close attention to the distribution
March 17, 1970

The Budget-Mr. G. A. P. Smith of speakers. I think if the hon. member will consult the list he will see that he will probably be next and that this is a fair distribution of speakers. The hon. member for Northum-berland-Miramichi (Mr. Smith).


Mr. G. A. Percy Smith (Norlhumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the several members who have taken part in the budget debate for their excellent contributions. I was especially impressed by the remarks of the second last speaker, the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) and his remarks concerning friendship with our neighbours to the south. Mr. Speaker, you will not find much antiAmerican feeling in the maritimes, from where I come. Perhaps the reason is that there are more relatives of Maritimers in the New England states than there are Maritimers left in this country. I intend to be relatively brief and I think the hon. member who rose will have plenty of time to speak before the adjournment because I expect that my few remarks will not take more than 15 or 20 minutes.
In rising to speak in the budget debate, I would like to indicate my support of most of the budgetary measures proposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) on Thursday last. I think all Canadians agree that fiscal restraint must still be exercised if inflation is to be brought under control and kept under control. A balanced budget was, therefore, expected and desired. Actually, the forecast is for a considerable surplus.
The surplus of the current year, as well as the forecast surplus, indicates to me good financial management by this government. The hardships that inflation inflicts on persons with fixed incomes is well known, and I need not elaborate on that. The serious effects of inflation on international trade is also well known. We must maintain our costs and prices at a level which will keep our exports competitive in foreign trade, a factor which is extremely important to the economy of this country as one of the large trading nations of the world.
One speaker yesterday, I believe the financial critic for the NDP, indicated that we are competitive in world markets regardless of restraint on costs or by labour. However, he cited such natural resource commodities as copper, steel or nickel. In nickel, for example, Canada has had almost a monopoly in the past. Recent and apparently major finds in Australia may change this situation considerably. As soon as the prices of our

products rise too high, a substitute will be found or, as in the case of nickel, other countries or companies in other countries, simply increase the intensity of their search so that they will inevitably make a discovery.
The restraint on government spending in the past year is to be commended. It is an example to industry and to the country as a whole. I believe the figures will show that the rate of increase in government spending was 3.8 per cent or less than the increase in the gross national product. This figure, of course, excludes the cost of joint programs with the provinces.
It is, however, unnecessary for me to cite the serious consequences of inflation. The effects are well known to all members of the House and by all Canadians. The proposals this budget contains were expected. As one newspaper put it, the condition of the patient, meaning the economy of Canada, was unchanged. In other words, inflation is not yet under control. No increases in taxation were expected in the budget and none were forthcoming. It is the next budget, or at least the main one for 1971-72 that will be awaited with great interest, and I might add, with considerable concern.
We in Atlantic Canada, Mr. Speaker, and in my riding of Northumberland-Miramichi have often complained that the government of Canada, in placing controls on the economy, has been unable to do so except on a national basis. In the Maritimes, where unemployment is chronically high-about 10 per cent in this season of the year-we suffer from these controls and restraints, while not contributing to the problem of inflation. As a measure to offset this, this government set up the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I am pleased to note that substantial funds are provided in the present budget for this department.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Approximately $200 million is budgeted for the 1970-71 fiscal year. This department was promised during the last election campaign. We, in my riding, had great expectations of some swift action. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the economic ills of the Maritimes which have prevailed for so long cannot be cured overnight. In the past, perhaps, moneys have been spent there that might have sparked industrial growth but sufficient planning had not been done and in some cases the money turned out to be largely wasted. So, I realize that research and planning in depth is
March 17. 1970

required. However, almost two years have now passed and, at least in my riding, no results are yet apparent. We are told that studies and planning are going on.
I am concerned about who in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is doing the planning and what advice are they seeking and receiving. Are they seeking the advice of those who have wrestled with these problems for many years. I can say personally that no one has asked my advice nor, I think, the advice of any other member of Parliament. Perhaps our advice would be useless, but there is a chance that we might have something useful to contribute.
Any person who has held public office in New Brunswick has been greatly involved in trying to attract industry, because this is and has been our major problem for many years. Many Members of Parliament have been involved in the total economic problems of their province, town or riding for many years and know, or should know, something about the problems there. I do not discount the possibility of a fresh look with, possibly, new solutions being apparent to an outsider, if I may use the term, because as I say I have not been advised as to who was making studies, studies that are of intense interest to members. I do not know if these persons are students, college graduates or, in fact, if any have ever been in the Maritimes before. There are many maritime members whose advice might have been of some value. We have, for example, a member of this House who was Premier of New Brunswick for many years; another member is a former Attorney General of New Brunswick.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Hear, hear.


G.A. Percy Smith: Speaking personally, I was involved in the economic problems of my area as mayor of Newcastle, as President of the Board of Trade and as a businessman, for many years. We wrestled with the problem of how to attract industry. But we were always working without funds. Now that funds are available for this purpose through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion we, as members, so far as I know, were not consulted in any way or asked for any advice.
I am sorry to be somewhat critical of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) because he is not in the House today. On March 11 of this year, the minister announced the establishment of 22 special areas in eight provinces. Two of these are in 21774-47

The Budget-Mr. G. A. P. Smith New Brunswick, the areas of Saint John and Moncton. No one could quarrel with the need for special incentives in all or any part of New Brunswick. It was a disappointment to me, however, that none of the smaller centres which are most in need of help were designated. We had been led to believe that, in addition to the larger centres, there would be certain secondary growth centres designated as special areas. In fact, of the eight centres in Newfoundland-Labrador, six are to be in smaller communities. The others are at St. John's and Cornerbrook. My riding of Northumberland-Miramichi contains some of the lowest income and most economically depressed communities to be found anywhere in Canada. The designation of the towns of Newcastle and Chatham as a special area might well have attracted industry which would provide employment for members of the communities I have mentioned, and such a centre would, unlike Saint John and Moncton, be within a travelling distance for workers in the most depressed areas.
As mentioned by the minister in his statement of March 11, the special areas may receive assistance in providing an infrastructure of services which would be attractive to industry. The most important of these services in most cases will be transportation facilities. It was with pleasure that I read the announcement that the sum of $10 million is to be provided to start reconstruction of Highway No. 11 in eastern and northern New Brunswick which crosses my constituency. Another highway that should have high priority on any infrastructure of roads in New Brunswick is the one cutting across the central part of the province from Newcastle to Plaster Rock. This highway, now partly completed, if made an all weather road would open up the large central area of the province to which access has been very limited. It would connect the great potato farming counties of Madawaska and Victoria to the ports of the Miramichi.
However, the main transportation problem in my constituency, and one that we have been fighting to overcome for decades, is the lack of adequate water transportation. Our products are chiefly those from the pulpmills, sawmills and mines, and they are generally shipped to European markets, although some go to South American countries and the U.S.A. These industries suffer, as does our whole economy, from the refusal of the Department of Public Works to dredge an adequate channel to accommodate the larger ships that are mostly in use today. The ports of Newcastle
March 17, 1970

The Budget-Mr. G. A. P. Smith and Chatham are situated about 40 miles inland from the sea. The channel of the Mira-michi River is adequate, but there are one or two sand bars in the bay which prevent the entry of any but relatively small ships.
On many occasions over the years we have approached the Department of Public Works about this problem. I recall coming to Ottawa about ten years ago with a delegation to petition the then Minister of Public Works for improvements to the channel. Many delegations have since made the same request. The answer has always been in the negative. The negative reply has always been, "You show us the additional shipping and we will dredge your channel." Our argument has always been, "You provide the channel and we are sure the additional shipping will follow." In fact, we are now in grave danger even of losing the shipping we have enjoyed for several years. This is due to the trend towards the use of larger vessels.
I was perhaps able to accept this type of negative thinking from the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport. Now, the new Department of Regional Economic Expansion is expected to take a positive view in providing attractions to industry in the underdeveloped areas. It is supposed, in addition to financial incentives, to provide the facilities that industry would require.
Hoping for this positive approach to what I claim is our major problem in Northumber-land-Miramichi, another delegation from my constituency came to Ottawa almost as soon as this new department was organized. To date we have received the same old, negative reply. If the minister-I wish he were here today-is serious about providing a new approach, about providing an infrastructure of services, chiefly transportation, in the most depressed areas, I call on him in the strongest possible terms to take another look at this most pressing transportation deficiency in the only major port in eastern New Brunswick, that is, the dredging of the bottlenecks in the port of Miramichi-to a minimum depth of 26 feet.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
To return to the budget, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that in its attempts to combat inflation the government has realized that spending pressures have not been equally distributed across the country. The minister is to be congratulated for recommending the adoption of a measure that provides for higher


depreciation allowances on costs of commercial construction in regions of higher unemployment. He is also to be congratulated on his announcement concerning air and water pollution. The accelerated depreciation provision on devices, structures or equipment to reduce or prevent pollution is to be extended for a further three years: this is a welcome announcement. As the member for the constituency which embraces the greatest Atlantic salmon river in the world, namely, the Miramichi River, this was a most welcome inclusion in the budget. It remains to be seen, and watched with great care, that anti-pollution laws are strictly enforced.


Bernard Dumont: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for being so obliging as to recognize us in this far end of the House. I may say with all due respect that you are absolutely right in giving us the floor at this time.
I would first like to express my views on the budget speech in order to clarify certain points which, to my mind, are not clear enough and which too often cause useless discussions between the Ottawa government and some provincial administrations, particularly that of Quebec.
The main instance is the famous discussion on the $200 million that Quebec would like to recover while Ottawa intends to keep this income from the so-called social development tax of 2 per cent to use as it pleases, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has himself stated in the House.
Mr. Speaker, we must go back to 1939 to get a more comprehensive view of this matter. The then Premier, Hon. Adelard Godbout, had lent our taxation rights to Ottawa for the duration of the war, in view of the urgency of the situation. The war ended in 1945, and Maurice Duplessis, in his rather political statements, said that, for the sake of provincial autonomy, only certain taxation rights needed to be handed back to the provinces. Since the matter was profitable from a political standpoint, he did not demand that all the rights, transferred temporarily to Ottawa by Hon. Adelard Godbout, be returned too early to Quebec, so that he might thus cling to power.
Now, the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Jean-Jacques Bertrand, trained in the school of Hon. Maurice Duplessis who was defending that so-called autonomy, wishes to continue to beg for money that he claims is his own.
March 17, 1970

I feel there should be a round-table meeting in order to determine once and for all the tax jurisdictions of the federal and provincial governments. In the province of Quebec, the Creditistes have been improving the political awareness of Quebecers and in the last twelve years they have been successful in restoring the province's image through television programs. Soon, men of integrity will be elected to govern the province; their hands will not have been tied by electoral funds and they will have no financial curbs. They will proudly tell the whole population of Canada: Here is what we want to do. Let us stop our federal-provincial wranglings which, more often than not, are related to fiscal problems. What I have in mind, for instance, are the famous $200 million.
Here is, in my view, what should prevail in respect of this so-called social development tax. It seems to me that the central government should have frozen the $200 million until the Quebec government is in a position to accept hospital insurance. I suggest this course would have been more logical and the two governments would not have behaved like school children or immature adults. Canadians who are aware of this political verbiage say to themselves that we have not reached political maturity. French Canadians watch quietly this cock-fight that does not settle anything.
Mr. Speaker, in connection with existing problems in Canada, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has made a statement on a television program. Here is what has been said about it in a newspaper article entitled: "Mr. Benson agrees that an increase in unemployment is almost unavoidable", and I quote:
Perhaps it will be necessary to have an unemployment rate slightly higher than what it was in 1969 "if we want to check inflation", said Mr. Benson on television Sunday night.
o (5:40 p.m.)
Upon hearing statements like the one made by the minister, I become convinced that the problems will not be solved. In fact, to increase the unemployment rate is certainly not a step in the right direction. The time has come for all Canadians to work together in order to prevent such hardship amidst affluence.
In another article we read that 43 per cent of urban families are living in want.
Mr. Speaker, if the economic situation of 43 per cent of Canadian families is either one of want or one of hardship, I wonder why governments, federal and provincial, do not try to find a solution and do not stop 21774-47}
The Budget-Mr. Dumont dipping into the taxpayers' pockets. It should be decided whether it is the federal or the provincial government which should raise taxes. After all, the only problem with regard to the $200 million is to determine who has the right to collect them. Should taxes be levied by the federal or the provincial government? The first is too greedy; it imposes taxes and keeps all the money for itself. Hence all this ineffectual talk in Canada.
I maintain that the present government is not offering any positive solution. No problem is solved and instead of seeking complicated solutions it would have been better to put the Bank of Canada at the service of Canadians. Instead they have to pay taxes.
The saturation point has been reached long ago in Canada. Both in Ottawa and in Quebec no other solution was found than that of taxes and surtaxes.
In 1970, Canadians are not falling into steps. They are seeking another solution. Besides, we will be able to find that out on April 29. In Quebec we will see that the political education we have been spreading for 35 years now throughout the province will bear fruit. The surprise will be the miracle of the year. Overtaxed as we are, we do not accept any longer this financial system. Presently, without the permission of the capitalists who control the economy, even at the world level, and without leave from their servile officials in Ottawa, we cannot even breathe.
Therefore, we are against these taxes because, in my opinion, they are nothing but theft. They are theft, indeed, when they fall on taxpayers who have not enough money to buy the necessities of life, while goods are in abundance in this country. Taxes are theft when there are unsold products, when people are doomed to unemployment, when there is untapped productive power and especially when we note that it is impossible to sell products due to the lack of purchasing power.
In our day and age, taxes are a theft because they destroy the purchasing power, lead to an accumulation of products and deprive the population as much as inflation does. In my opinion, taxes should only exist to eliminate the excess of money in circulation when there are not enough products. When there is a lack of money, we do not need taxes but a redistribution of the purchasing power through the granting of a dividend or a compensated discount which would bring down prices to the real production cost.
I think there should be a different way of financing public investments, by the allocation
March 17. 1970

The Budget-Mr. Dumont of new credits according to the real needs and producing capacity of the country.
That is why the government's attitude is unacceptable. Indeed, even the Canadian Manufacturers Association maintain that Canadians will pay more for public services, since the government will draw an additional $500 million during the next five years out of the taxpayers' pockets.
The problem is thus to determine who will tax.
"It is patent theft", said the former president of the Canadian association of electrical appliances manufacturers, Mr. Ramsay.
"It is stupidity", said the president of the Montreal and Canadian Stock Exchanges, Mr. Charles Neapole. According to Mr. Neapole, the small Canadian companies will be the most affected by the proposed reforms as a result of the white paper and the new sources of taxation now proposed. As the matter stands, some companies like the Bombardier Co. of Quebec and other excellent Canadian companies will be affected, while others like General Motors which is controlled by American interests will benefit from the reforms suggested by the federal government.
For instance, in La Guadeloupe, in the Frontenac riding, where a snowmobile company was sold to an American corporation and overnight 300 workers were laid off. Attempts were made with the assistance of the union to find the owners of the industry and it was learned finally that they had fled abroad in a quiet hotel in Miami whose name was not known.
In the face of such shameless exploitation on the part of capitalists whom, in my opinion, take over our Canadian economy, it is time that the Bank of Canada be made to assist the Canadian people, so as to eliminate this economic system which interferes with our freedom and which binds us, although with golden chains.
Furthermore, we have been told that soon capital gains will be taxed. Let us not kid ourselves. We know fully well that it will be the consumers who will foot the bill. Prices will rise, which in turn will push upward the inflationary pressure. To operate and survive, a business must include in the price of the items it markets all its costs; otherwise, it faces bankruptcy. If one cost is not included in the price, the business loses money and eventually goes bankrupt.
It is impossible to tax effectively a capitalist producer, because his existence as a producer depends on his capacity or his ability to have

the consumer pay all the expenses generated by his business production.
Businesses will tend to inflate their prices according to additional taxes which the government will levy on them. It is impossible to believe that an unfair system will be improved with measures which will make it even more unfair.
With regard to capital gains on real estate, I submit that when we decide to appraise wealth in Canada, the home owner will be tempted to assess his property at the highest figure possible so as to protect himself or to minimize capital gains which could be obtained when selling his property later on.
However, if he puts a high price on his home, the chances are that the municipal appraisers will, in turn, step in and levy a higher land tax. There is thus no way of escaping from the recurring circle of problems.
On the other hand, if the home owner's appraisal is in keeping with the value set by the municipal appraisers, he will have to pay more taxes on capital gains than the profit he will make when he actually parts with his house.
In my opinion that is one of the ill effects of the white paper proposals. Mr. Fraser Robertson, in an editorial published in the November 12 issue of the Globe and Mail, notes the seeming disregard of the government for small businesses, because the white paper proposals result in discouraging small investors, in jeopardizing small businesses while favouring only the big monopolies.
According to this journalist, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) when bringing forward his proposals under the name of tax reform, obviously agrees with the view of the Economic Council of Canada to the effect that what Canada needs is to develop a few powerful monopolies likely to become the responsibility of other cabinet members. He knows complete disregard for small businesses.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Mr. Robertson adds that the disregard shown by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) for small business, more particularly the family-type businesses, reflects the arrogance peculiar to our times and our government.
Recalling that big businesses like General Motors and Massey-Ferguson had a modest start before becoming powerful monopolies, Mr. Robertson remarks that even in this era, big businesses are dependent on smaller businesses able to supply raw materials. He recalls
March 17, 1970

that General Electric, for instance, has to rely on more than 10,000 small suppliers.
Finally, without pondering on the Canadian situation for too long, I shall limit myself to a few examples showing that it is rather desperate. At the present time, there are in Canada two million children living in poverty;
350.000	women and 1 million children are on welfare. One urban family out of five earns less than $3,000 per year; the same goes for
160.000	rural families.
For these reasons, we Creditistes propose a minimum taxable income of $4,000 for married people, with a $1,000 deduction per child and a $2,000 deduction for single people. Moreover, the government should enact immediately a compensated discount so as to lower the cost of living and empower the Bank of Canada to make interest-free loans to municipalities, schools boards or for the establishment of any public service.
Moreover, so as to respect self-government and promote good understanding in Canada, each province should be granted, as was required by Alberta as soon as in 1935, the right to establish a branch of the Bank of Canada, so as to enable the provinces to finance, without interest, every public endeavour, thus promoting Canada's development while making financially feasible what is physically possible.


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker,
I am happy to make a few modest remarks on the budget speech given last week by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).
Through this budget, the government proposes various measures, various economic and financial programs to the House, in order to allow the members to put forth what criticism they see fit, provided it is objective, and serious, and that they ensure efficiency and dynamism in the administration of Canada.
The facts must be faced but, to my mind, it is a bad thing for criticism to be pessimistic only, and of such nature as to discourage the public. Occasionaly, it might be indicated for some of us to point out the weaknesses in a budget speech or in government programs. But, I do not approve of attempts being made to discourage the people by suggestions devoid of objectivity, useless suggestions that cannot help the Minister of Finance and the government to do even more efficiently the job they have done so well in the last few years.
What it amounts to is that we are asked to approve the government's general fiscal policy.

The Budget-Mr. G. LeBlanc We are not told to consider this policy as the most perfect one, as all members feel that any human organization is bound to have certain weaknesses, particularly when it comes to government policy and more especially as we work on what I might call human material.
And when we operate in this way it is difficult to use mathematical formulae entirely as they might be appropriate today but would probably have to be changed tomorrow due to the unpredictable evolution of all human activity.
The members of the opposition moved an amendment to criticize the government for failing to provide any tax relief for the poor and for taking measures to reduce consumer credit, which measures are likely to increase the difficulties facing Canadians and to increase the level of unemployment.
It must be acknowledged that these measures could be prejudicial to our workers for some time, but their purpose is to avoid a greater harm. In fact, it happens that the patient feels some pain when his doctor has to treat him for some disease. Another opposition party has also pointed out that the government should have considered the tax to be paid by single people whose annual income is under $2,000 and by married people whose annual income is under $4,000. In my opinion, the minister has already partly answered this question because it seems that after all these discussions we have had in these last few weeks about the white paper, which is not the statement of a final policy but a list of proposals, the small wage earners in Canada-as can be seen from the white paper-will be protected and that the strongest among the Canadian citizens, because noblesse oblige, will continue to hold the first place.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at J8 p.m.
Louis Guy LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker,
I intend to use the few minutes that I have left to comment on the budget speech and to make some general observations as well as
5138	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. G. LeBlanc others concerning my riding in particular and the province of Quebec in general. I shall deal with those subjects within the framework of Canadian policy.
While listening to the comments of a few opposition members, I wondered whether some of them did not see in the budget speech some sort of speech from the throne.
In my opinion a budget is a kind of retrospective of the economic situation of the year just ended as well as an account of expenditure with regard to revenue so as to ascertain if the country is doing well or not. In the light of these facts, estimates are made for the year just beginning.
However, a speech from the throne cannot be compared with the introduction of a budget. In the speech from the throne legislative proposals are set forth. This seems simple but I think it is important to say it again so as to better identify the subject under consideration, to respect more our mandate, to fully avail ourselves of the rights and privileges given us by the people in order to safeguard the democratic freedom with the greatest respect and chiefly never to give the impression to the Canadian people that we are not getting anywhere and that the government aims only at bringing forward its policy as if it were the only remedy to economic problems.
It is always possible to find some weak spots in it and here is the proof of it. The government sets out its policy so that it should be commented upon. I bring that up again in order that the democratic image of our country should be a subject of pride for all the people of Canada. It is important that all the opposition members-they can be at times somewhat noisy since they take advantage of their rights-do not give the impression that they criticize the government policy only for the sake of saying that everything it does is not good and-which is more serious-forgetting meanwhile to make suggestions.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
All those who heard the Minister of Finance last week, have read the newspapers and discussed the highlights of the budget. The Canadian people generally and the hon. members in particular have them present in their mind. They deal with economic and financial conditions, with the needs of the government with regard to the development of Canada, so that we may co-operate for the welfare of Canadians.

DEBATES	March 17, 1970
Our sources of tax revenue, the allotment of public funds for next year, the federal statements of receipts and expenditures concerning public accounts and restrictions on consumer credit will soon, be the object of legislation, as indicated by the minister. Then all hon. members will be in a position to discuss the new policy on consumer credit as well as its effects, the various proposals concerning special accounts and loans, in the light of some precedents set in Canada and finally the problem which I consider as the most complex, that of differed amortization, and amortization of expenses incurred to fight pollution.
I would like to go over the most important aspects of the budget brought down last week, which gives all members of Parliament and all Canadians, of any political party, every reason to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the government.
It is advisable and necessary to point out that taxes have not been raised for the first time in many years. The speaker who preceded me this afternoon, the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Dumont) discussed at length the bad effects of taxes in Canada, and he said that the government could govern without taxing. As he has been repeating for many years, he explained by what legerdemain he could replace taxes. But to my knowledge, there are very few countries, I should perhaps say there are none, that have used the legerdemain advocated by the hon. member for Frontenac.
A few days ago, the leader of his party, to whom I always listen with the utmost interest, was discussing provincial politics with a CJBR Station announcer in Rimouski and praising the merits of his party. To the people of my region he gave as a case in point the economic accomplishments of the two Social Credit governments in Canada, those of British Columbia and Alberta. To my knowledge, these two governments which are, if not the two most dynamic, at least the wealthiest, have not applied the policies of the Creditiste party. As a matter of fact, they are still using the coins and bills printed by the Royal Canadian Mint here in Ottawa close to Parliament Hill.
Why are those two provinces among the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest in Canada? I believe it is because British Columbia has a much milder climate than Quebec, which certainly affects the dynamic and efficient development of natural resources.
March 17, 1970

And Alberta, a pre-eminently agricultural province, has been developing for some years rich oil fields that may contribute to its prosperity.
For the first time, the budget does not provide for any tax increase. Maybe the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Dumont) would have been happy if there had been. For the first time also in many years, the budget shows a surplus, which is a sign of a sound financial administration and we should all be happy about it. The government has succeeded in attaining this object which was one of the priorities in its program during the election campagn of 1968.
For the first time again in years, the net amount of the national debt has been reduced. This is another point that we should take into account. In addition, we should keep in mind the efforts made by the government to maintain public expenditures within certain limits and to increase efficiency of public services, as well as in the administration through use of modern techniques, in the best interests of Canadians.
For years, opposition members have been claiming that the government establishes no priorities, as would be essential, whereas the government does have priorities. Since the beginning of the session, the government has been stressing priorities for expenditures, as can be ascertained by merely reading the budget speech made by the Minister of Finance.
In my opinion, highest priority goes to regional economic expansion, with a credits increase of $52 million. Next comes the program on behalf of Indians and Eskimos, with a credits increase of $34 million. In third place comes the retraining of manpower on which a credits increase of $24 million will be affected. Those who are afraid of unemployment can always take advantage of the manpower retraining program, so as to earn a decent living in a new trade.
We should not forget either the industrial and development incentives for which an increase of $12 million is provided. The government's appropriations for low-cost housing will amount to about $200 million. The government will provide an extra $15 million to help the have-not countries. The budget speech constantly emphasizes the war on poverty, first of all in Canada, and then in other countries.
And a last priority which has made the headlines in the newspapers and been the main topic of speeches given by politicians at
The Budget-Mr. G. LeBlanc all levels of government for some time is the fight against water and air pollution.
Some months ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) warned the Canadian people that if they failed to resort voluntarily to anti-inflationary means, the government, for its part, would take the necessary action.
Today, following the speech of the Minister of Finance, we realize that the government was serious, consistent and showing much intellectual honesty.
That is why we can proudly state-and again I say it-that the Minister of Finance, following such warnings, was the first in years to bring down not only a balanced budget but also one that showed a surplus. He clearly states that he intends to achieve the same thing in 1970-71. This is the reason why he managed to obtain a $250 million surplus.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
No wonder that I am proud to be a member of the Liberal party. All Liberal members are proud to support the government and, on occasion, to offer it some suggestions. The Liberal back-benchers are sometimes blamed for not expressing very often their views here in the House. We do however sometimes express them. While the opposition members may be more vocal than we are, we do sometimes happen to be a silent opposition. I am proud, on behalf of my electors, to belong to this kind of opposition for the Liberal members take advantage of every available means to provide the government with constructive suggestions. Far from wanting to destroy things or to dishearten people, our purpose is to bring encouragement and help.
There are regional problems and other relevant questions we would like the Minister of Finance to give special consideration to, following the enforcement of the budget policy. They deal with the protection the poor are entitled to get and with the ways and means of helping them.
Furthermore, we should consider helping those who are commonly called the middle-class citizens. If we consider the white paper proposals, it appears that if the tax policy were to be applied as it is set out in the white paper, 750,000 Canadians who, at the present time, pay taxes, would no longer pay them. Furthermore, three million Canadians would pay a lot less taxes. This is the proof at any rate that the Minister of Finance and the government, when preparing the white paper, did think of the poor.
5140	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. McGrath
In my opinion, the minister should also provide for certain measures which would tend to lighten the tax burden of middle-class citizens.
Among those who make between $9,000 and $25,000, we have the owners of small businesses, professional people, the experts Canadians go to for help. It would impose hardships on those citizens to have to pay tax on income they have not yet collected, when they already have a difficult time paying income tax on what they have already received.
The minister could give special attention to the fight against poverty, tax deductions and consumer credit.
With regard to the social policy-and here I am thinking of the amendment to the Progressive Conservative party and the subamendment of the New Democratic Party- we were told in the Speech from the Throne that a white paper on the basic policy of the government would be introduced. To date the government has proven its sincerity by supplying us with those white papers ahead of time. I think that this white paper will soon be introduced and all the members will then have the opportunity to discuss the means that should be taken to improve the lot of the old, the widows and the sick.
Before concluding my remarks, I should like to say a few words on some regional problems. It has often been said that in our area, in eastern Quebec, the lower St. Lawrence area and the Gaspe Peninsula, we had been chosen as a pilot area. I have already said I was afraid regional development programs devised for those areas, under federal-provincial agreements, would use us as guinea pigs.
Following the developments of these last months, I wonder whether an agreement between Quebec and the federal government is really being prepared. I believe that in our area we will not even have the opportunity of being used as guinea pigs, as the proposed development will probably not be carried out. In fact, I wonder whether, on account of political reasons-rightly or wrongly-this scheme will not be implemented on a Quebec scale only, with the danger that we will remain a marginal area.
[English}


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, there are many people in Canada who disagree with the government's contention that inflation is the No. 1 problem facing

DEBATES	March 17, 1970
our country today. I subscribe to the view that the No. 1 problem in our country today is not inflation but regional disparity and its consequences. Yet the government continues to propagate the myth that inflation is our No. 1 problem and it continues to implement a program the effect of which is to increase unemployment in this country.
The unemployment figure has now reached critical proportions in many areas of the country. But the government goes on its merry way. Unemployment in the Atlantic provinces is already in excess of 10 per cent. Our national unemployment figure has exceeded 6 per cent. In my own province of Newfoundland there are many who believe, and I am one of those, that unemployment has exceeded 20 per cent. In spite of this, the government continues on its merry way, blind to the consequences of programs that it pursues which will drive unemployment rates still higher.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, it has been said before, and it bears repetition, that inflation may be a serious problem. No doubt it is. I certainly have no doubt that it is a serious problem in the "have" provinces of this country. There is no doubt that inflation is a grave problem in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. But I think it is fair to say that for those of us in the rest of the country, when these provinces call the inflationary tune the rest of the country is forced to pay the piper.
On the eve of the budget which is now being debated in this House the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) made a statement in which he outlined the government's program to deal with the very serious problems of regional disparity. The program was contained in the minister's statement made in the House on March 11. The only opportunity for members of this House, the representatives of the people, to comment on this new policy was in a brief statement in reply that a representative of each of the opposition parties was permitted to make under our rules after the minister had made his statement.
The House is being denied the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to examine this program. Indeed, I can say that the House has been denied an opportunity since the beginning of this session to examine the programs of the government designed to cope with the very serious problems of regional disparity. The problem was referred to just a few days ago by a very prominent economist from the University of
March 17, 1970

Montreal. It was reported in the Globe and Mail of March 7, and paraphrasing his speech they said:
Canada has a highly developed set of federal and provincial legislation designed to reduce the income gap between the various regions of the country. Planners in other advanced countries regard the Canadian machinery with admiration and envy.
The only problem is that it doesn't work.
In spite of statements made by experts in the country about the seriousness of regional economic problems, the House is denied an opportunity to examine what the government is doing and its policies to cope with these problems. Mr. Speaker, coming from one of the most regionally disadvantaged provinces of the country I can say that with feeling. We have tried, unsuccessfully, to get the government to tell us the details of what its plans or programs are. The only way we have an opportunity to do this is by debate in the House, the House reverting to Committee of the Whole, or in the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
In his statement the minister announced that the new program would cost more than $200 million and that this money would be committed to aiding the 22 special areas, as the minister referred to them, across the country including three of the four Atlantic provinces, eastern Quebec, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, before June 30, 1972. According to the minister's statement, press reports and the pronouncements of politicians in the various provinces, the program is to come into effect on April 1, and we are told that two of the provinces-Newfoundland and New Brunswick-will be signing agreements with the federal government before April 1, 1970.
The program has two major aspects, as I see it. First, it is designed to provide federal aid to provincial and municipal governments, to community infrastructures-that is a beautiful $64,000 word which covers a multitude of sins -in certain areas of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Second, the program is designed to provide federal incentives to private enterprise (a) for developing resource-based industry in the northern Prairies and parts of Ontario and Quebec, and (b) for providing alternative employment for those affected by the decline in the potash and wheat industries in Regina and Saskatoon.
Now we are told that the $200 million mentioned by the minister is to be devoted entirely to the first aspect of the program, that which deals with aid to provincial and

The Budget-Mr. McGrath municipal governments for community services-the so-called infrastructure. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we do not know whether this is to be in the form of loans, grants or both. We have no way of knowing, and we certainly have no way of finding out in this House from the elusive Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who shows nothing but contempt for this House when he is here by refusing to answer questions.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it is worth while to note that there is only one minister present in the House tonight and less than a baker's dozen of his colleagues. I would suggest this is indicative of two things: (a) the arrogance of this government, and (b) the contempt it holds for those of us who are trying to represent the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Shameful.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in his budget speech, which hon. gentlemen opposite have tried so desperately to defend, referred to the allocation of this money. I quote from page 4744 of Hansard:
-about $50 million more for loans for regional economic expansion, on which all of us place high priority.
This is supposed to be the government's approach to this problem upon which they place such high priority. The Minister of Finance in his budget talks about $50 million. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in his statement to the House talked about $200 million to be spread over the next two years.
[DOT] (8.40 p.m.)
There are a number of questions to which we demand answers. For example, are these funds for the incentive part of the new program? We have no way of knowing, and as of this moment we do not know. We know that the $50 million figure differs substantially from the increase of $37 million in loans shown in the departmental estimates.
Again, this is a matter of detail and we want the opportunity to question the Minister of Economic Regional Expansion, the Deputy Minister and senior officials about this matter. It would seem, if we can judge from the tip of the iceberg that is protruding, that this is a major policy announcement. Obviously, the program is committing major sums of money and clearly this House is entitled to discuss it fully.
5142
March 17, 1970

The Budget-Mr. McGrath


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is what hon. members are supposed to do during this debate, Mr. Speaker. During the budget debate hon. members may discuss more or less what they like.


James Aloysius McGrath: We have been denied an opportunity to discuss this matter.


An hon. Member:: What?


James Aloysius McGrath: We have been denied the opportunity to discuss the details of the program. If my hon. friend on the government side of the House, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and his colleague will restrain themselves, I will explain why I say that.


Mr. Lind:: Speak up, then.


An hon. Member:: Where is the minister? How can he reply?


James Aloysius McGrath: We have been continually frustrated in our attempts to find out exactly what this government is doing in all areas and in the area of regional economic expansion especially.


Gerald William Baldwin: We are being ruled by the secret society.


James Aloysius McGrath: This is the government of the big secret. We have asked repeatedly, by various procedural means open to us, that a meeting of the Standing Committee on Regional Development be convened in order that it might deal with the estimates. Of course, the Minister of Agriculture can say that the estimates have already been referred to the committee. Everyone in the House knows that, just as everyone knows the estimates need not be referred back to the House until May 31.
Some may say the matter is not urgent. I submit the urgency has been increased by the announcement of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion a few days ago that the program is to take effect on April 1, at which time the House will be adjourned for the Easter recess. It has come to our attention that the committee will not meet this week. A meeting of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure has been announced for Thursday, but obviously the full committee will not meet this week. Early next week the House is to adjourn for the Easter recess. We have been frustrated in our attempts to find out who is responsible for calling this committee together. It is a well-known custom of this 

House that committees meet to consider estimates at the convenience of the minister.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: With all respect, that is not correct.


James Aloysius McGrath: With all respect, that is correct, and the minister knows it. It is a custom of this House. Consequently, it is logical to assume that this committee has not been convened, (a) because the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion does not wish his estimates to be examined, and (b) because the minister obviously has something to hide.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: The government controls the machinery.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister was in the barber's shop all afternoon.


James Aloysius McGrath: If the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion wants to come to the House and deny these allegations, I am sure hon. members on this side will give him unanimous consent to be heard; that is, assuming he can take time out from his sorties into Quebec.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: You never had it so good.


James Aloysius McGrath: Since the session began last fall the Standing Committee on Regional Development has met once, despite the repeated attempts of the members of that committee to convene the entire committee if for no other purpose than to elect the chairman and vice-chairman.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


James Aloysius McGrath: We have had one meeting. That meeting was called to deal with a relatively minor amendment to the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There was a chairman at that meeting.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, we know the government does not wish its program to be examined before it becomes effective on April 1.


Mr. Pringle:: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question now, or later?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my time is limited; otherwise I should be only too glad to entertain a question from the honourable and distinguished member from British Columbia who has played such an important but
March 17, 1970

frustrated role on the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, who has seen some of his recommendations ignored by the government and, indeed, sent back to the committee because they were not acceptable to the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


M. Ervin Pringle: Hurray! Up the Bullet!


James Aloysius McGrath: I admire the hon. member's tenacity. Most hon. members have become so frustrated that they find it difficult even to attend meetings of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications in which my hon. friend has played such an important role.
We believe that if this House under its new rules is to function properly and effectively, committees must meet frequently and there must be, as my colleague for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has said, new machinery to make certain they meet-because it is obvious that the present system does not work.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We think it does.


James Aloysius McGrath: There must be new machinery whereby we are able to see that committees meet frequently to discuss estimates and major statements of policy before those policy statements are implemented. The Government House Leader ought to have the courtesy to be here tonight. The Minister of Agriculture displays that courtesy.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: He is the only one.


James Aloysius McGrath: That minister and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion flippantly and sarcastically reply to our questions by saying, "The estimates have already been referred to the committee."


An hon. Member:: Come off it, now.


James Aloysius McGrath: I ask my friend from British Columbia who interrupts me: What mechanism is there to make certain the committee is called together, and the minister is called before the committee at its convenience and not at his?


An hon. Member:: That is a good question.


Gerald William Baldwin: We have the rule of the autocrats.


James Aloysius McGrath: Why is this committee experiencing so much difficulty in getting down to work? What is the problem? What is the reason behind this? Is it to provide time for 21774-481

The Budget-Mr. McGrath the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to go into Quebec and talk as he has been in the past few days and interfere in that province's politics? Is that the reason? One can only assume that this committee has not met because someone on the government side of the House has given instructions for it not to meet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


James Aloysius McGrath: If the committees of Parliament are to be effective, and indeed if Parliament itself is to be effective, we must have as our right the opportunity to scrutinize government policy in committees. This right becomes all the more important when a minister makes policy statements which are vague- such as the one made on March 11-nebulous and beyond the realm of understanding. We must not be content to sit here frustrated in our attempts to exercise our rights as Members of Parliament to ask for explanations as to what the policy is all about. This matter is all the more urgent, Mr. Speaker, because the program announced a few days ago is to take effect when Parliament is in recess. When we return, it will be a fact. There will not be much point in getting details of it then, because it will be too late.
It took Ireland 900 years to gain her independence. If I could, I would reiterate for that long that the government and this House must provide a new mechanism: it must devise a new means if Parliament is to mean anything and not be the farce that this government is making it. Committees must be able to work effectively and efficiently and be free from the sometimes sinister hand of the government.


Gerald William Baldwin: The best way to do that is to have a new government.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You tried that, and lost.


James Aloysius McGrath: If the government continues like this, the people of Canada will provide that mechanism. Before I resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) which reads as follows:
-and, more specifically, this House regrets that the proposals do not exempt from income tax single persons earning less than $2,000 and married persons earning less than $4,000 per year.
We in this party believe that the subamendment means only that single persons earning less than $4,000 a year should be exempt from
5144	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Broadbent income tax. We do not feel it means that the basic tax exemption for all taxpayers should be raised to $2,000 and $4,000 respectively. We therefore believe the subamendment is consistent with the amendment moved by my friend the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). Consequently, we in the official opposition have no hesitation in supporting the subamendment.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the budget that we now have before us in the most clear and unequivocal fashion reveals the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Liberal Party of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The solution which that party presents to the people of Canada to the problems which our country faces is that we must in some paltry fashion tighten up consumer credit. If one reads the budget carefully, it will be seen that even in this nefarious enterprise only a half-hearted attempt has been made. Any serious economist would suggest that the recommendations in the budget to deal with consumption are not really effective. If the government wanted to put teeth into it, they could do what was done in this country in the early 1950's. Even operating under the assumption therefore that the economic problems of this country should be approached by reducing consumption, if we look at what the great old party on the government side of the House has proposed, we find a vacuous approach.
The budget is one more step in this government's neurotic two-year preoccupation with inflation which has not resulted in stable prices but in thousands of jobless persons throughout the country. The very important point that needs to be, and is recognized by anyone with a two-year university level of education in economics is that in a modern economy a government does have a choice. In fact, it has two choices. The economy can be geared so that society will be fully employed or, as I said a minute ago, there can be a neurotic preoccupation with price stability.
In the history of this country we have had governments which have consistently made the second choice. It is not necessary to rely on my partisan judgment for this: anyone can look at an economist's textbook on the history of economic practice in this country to make that discovery. I wish to quote from a source which at one time was very dear to the government. I am referring to Mr. John
[Mr. McGrath.)
DEBATES	March 17, 1970
Deutsch, the former head of the Economic Council of Canada. I shall read what Mr. Deutsch had to say about the deliberate attempts by governments of this country to manage the economy based on the assumption that what is needed most is price stability as opposed to full employment. In an article written in 1968, Mr. Deutsch, in comparing Canadian and American governments with their western European counterparts, pointed out that European governments
-have been highly sensitive to unemployment, and they have used monetary and fiscal policies very actively to keep the unemployment rates at low levels.
The result of this, he observed-and this is a deliberate policy on the part of western European countries-is as follows:
Over the past ten years ... they have generally succeeded in keeping the unemployment rate within a range of X to 2) per cent of the labour force.
He noted that in Sweden, in particular, unemployment in the past decade has rarely exceeded 1| per cent. During the same period unemployment in this country averaged about 5 per cent. I emphasize that this is a matter of deliberate government policy. Governments in this country have incessantly, foolishly and criminally opted for price stability over a fully employed economy. The increasingly evident result is unemployed Canadians. Canadians living in the Maritimes, Quebec, and now more and more in Ontario, the Prairie provinces and British Columbia are becoming unemployed. The recent figures are: the Atlantic provinces, 10 per cent; Quebec, 8 per cent; Ontario, 4.2 per cent; the Prairies, 4.6 per cent; British Columbia, 7.3 per cent.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The atmosphere of unemployment is a disastrous one for people to grow up in, yet the most recent figures indicate that unemployment is now spreading to Ontario, the Prairies and British Columbia. This is a direct consequence of the policies this government has pursued for the past two years. The results are very evident in a constituency like my own where until the last couple of months we enjoyed full employment. Now, employment is beginning to decline. Automobile sales are declining. As an interesting sidelight, I might point out that imports of European automobiles have increased significantly during the last few months. Perhaps the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission should get in touch with those who run the auto-
March 17, 1970	COMMONS
motive industry and find out why they do not lower their prices.
One of the government's objectives is to bring about a reduction in prices, but anyone with an elementary knowledge of present-day economics knows that the big corporations are in a position to set their own prices; they are able to wait for decades, if necessary, before responding to the kind of fiscal and monetary policies which the government is operating. They dominate markets rather than respond to them.
Why is the government's deflationary program not working? It is obvious that it is not working, and I wish the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) had taken the advice of even some of his own economic advisers on this question. It is not working because current inflation is not caused by excessive demands on the economy. It is foolish to compare what is happening in the economy today with what happened in the fifties. In the early fifties there was, indeed, an excessive demand upon the economy; we were catching up in the production of consumer goods after the big lag during the second world war. The Korean war cut into the production of consumer goods. The labour force was fully employed, and too many dollars were chasing too few goods.
Today the situation is entirely different. There are plenty of goods waiting to be purchased, automobiles and manufactured products of all kinds. But they are not being bought. If hon. members will read what is contained in the sixth annual report of the Economic Council of Canada they will find that this is spelled out in detail.
My point is this. Though it is difficult to quantify these things, it is probable that 90 per cent of the inflation in this country is due to the inflation in the United States where it is the product of excessive demand. United States involvement in the war in Viet Nam has meant the diversion of a high percentage of its productive resources into military enterprises, leaving a gap in civilian production. In that country there are, indeed, too many dollars chasing too few goods. The United States is suffering from inflation, and we have inherited it in this country. I suppose the most practical early approach, the most realistic counsel to give this government would be to advise the United States to get out of the war in Southeast Asia. This would be the quickest approach to dealing with inflation in Canada. The result of the government's callous and outdated approach to a modern
DEBATES	5145
The Budget-Mr. Broadbent economy is bound to be even higher levels of unemployment, even more men, women and children suffering in a way which is altogether unacceptable.
One of the excuses put forward by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is that if we did not take action to deal with inflation, Canadian exports would suffer. Once again, this is hogwash. Export figures for last month are up by 16 per cent as compared with a year ago; we have no problem in the export field. Besides, 70 per cent of our trade is with the United States, and the United States, as I pointed out a minute ago, is suffering from a higher rate of inflation than ours-theirs is running at about 6 per cent and ours is running at about 4.5 per cent. So we can expect to continue to trade with the United States in terms of the prices of our potential exports as long as inflation there is running ahead of our own.
What are we to conclude from the government's brilliant economic performance so far? The only conclusion I can reach is that they do not know what they are doing. They are following the old-fashioned conservative method of governing the economy, but even the application of this method is faulty because they have incorrectly diagnosed the present situation. This is the view of the Economic Council of Canada, as I pointed out a few moments ago.
What should be the economic objective of the federal government in this country? In my view it should be the same as that of every civilized country in western Europe: there should be a consistent, determined and intelligent approach to creating an economy in which there is full employment. Never, to my knowledge, has a government of this country presented us with a white paper on full employment, for example; it has always been on the subject of price stability, or something equivalent.
We in this party do not hold the view that inflation is something about which one should not be concerned. Of course, there is some concern. But we think in terms of priorities. The human priority, full employment, should come first. We must then be intellectually honest and admit that if there is to be full employment there must also be some measure of inflation. But let our primary aim be full employment, and then let measures be introduced to deal with the situation of those who-will be affected by the inevitable inflationary pressures accompanying it.
March 17, 1970

The Budget-Mr. Broadbent
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Once again, there are no great mysteries about what ought to be done in this area. First, we should take measures to protect those on pensions, whether government or private. We need laws, applicable to private concerns as well as to government institutions, which will ensure pensions to people who have worked all their lives, based on income during the best ten years of their employment. They should contain escalation clauses which would correspond to the real increases in inflation, not to some arbitrary percentage level which is inevitably set lower than the actual rate. We need to protect people in receipt of pensions if we are to acknowledge that inflation will be with us in a full-employment economy.
The amendment we have put before the House would make some minimal move to provide relief for these people by raising tax exemptions from $1,000 to $2,000 for a single person and from $2,000 to $4,000 for a married couple. This would provide some real assistance to people confronted with inflation. Instead of providing this relief, the government has produced a nice white paper, in connection with which it is going to indulge in all kinds of extravagant propaganda for two years. It will then come along as the great beneficent father of the country and perhaps make a move in the direction which I have suggested.
I would ask the government why it does not make this move now. If, as the Economic Council of Canada has pointed out, these people are living in poverty, and I am tempted to say one hell of a lot of the rest of us are well off in this country, why not make a concession at this point instead of waiting another two years? We do not need to wait!
Another measure which would have to be taken to protect the people in an inflating economy relates to the barbarous trade union laws in this country. Something like a mere 40 per cent of our working force is unionized, a horrible shame in comparison with other industrial societies. For example, in Sweden some 90 per cent of the working force are members of trade unions: lawyers, doctors and other professions are proud to associate themselves with the labour movement and to be members of a union. This is something that we in this country must encourage. We must get virtually all our working people into a strong bargaining position so that they will be able to cope with price increases.


A third measure that could be taken is to unpeg the Canadian dollar. Because of our pegged dollar, whenever the United States economy is affected by inflation ours has to respond by making sure that our interest rates are just a little higher. In short, our economy has to respond to whatever the economy of the United States does. Therefore, one of the steps which would give us a little higher degree of independence would be to unpeg our dollar and conduct a vigorous, imaginative program to develop industries which are not directly dependent upon U.S. trade but would produce economic ties with other countries. These are four measures that a government of this country primarily concerned with full employment could take to protect those who experience difficult times as a result of the inevitable inflation that goes with full employment.
The final point I should like to make is that this budget fails entirely to encourage the development of the public sector of the economy. One of the most important methods of simultaneously protecting people against inflation and equalizing life opportunities for people in Canada is the provision of public or community goods and services. If we build public swimming pools, parks and universities, average and poor Canadians benefit as much as the rich. If we remove pollution from our water and air, preserve and build attractive cities, expand our hospitals, increase our medical research facilities and build at public expense more houses, on this economy we will have a substructure that will enable people to have real, human benefits at their disposal whether or not the economy is an inflated one.
This is extremely important. The more we rely upon market conditions to ensure production and distribution of goods and services, the more we put people in a very dependent position in terms of dealing with inflation. We must move much further in the direction of providing public goods and services so that people in society are not put in the position of having to compete in the marketplace for these goods and services. As a result, they would not suffer when confronted periodically with inflationary pressures.
I have made four or five suggestions about what could and should be done in this country of ours in a period of full employment when people are subjected to inflationary pressure. May I repeat that the government of this country has been an utter disaster from the point of view of economics.
March 17, 1970

It has been a complete and utter disaster when you consider that on a per capita basis we have one of the richest societies in the world. The government is still relying upon the most outmoded kind of thinking, and upon what should be the most outmoded moral position, in managing our society.
This budget should not be seen simply as a stand pat document which should more or less be accepted as one other document put out by a banal government. The budget should be seen and talked about for what it is-as the most current symbol of a government that does not know what it is doing and has no interest in changing the power structure of our economy, something that is necessary in order for Canadians to move toward a more civilized kind of existence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto).


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) on a point of order.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, since the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) was not present today on his roster-assigned duty, and was not present at two committee meetings at which he was to be the star witness, may I ask whether he would like to make a statement on the emerging catastrophic situation in Montreal? I am sure the House would give unanimous consent to revert to motions for the purpose of his making a statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. According to my knowledge of the rules, this is not a point of order. The hon. member for York East.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Then may I ask why Your Honour called "Order" before you ascertained whether there was unanimous consent of the House?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for York East.


Mr. Otto:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) on another point of order.
The Budget-Mr. Otto


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) raised a point of order and asked whether the House would consent to revert to motions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. That is not a point of order.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Please! Let him finish.


Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka on a point of order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, all I was trying to say was that that question ought at least to be put to the House.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. There is no unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: There is no unanimous consent.


Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather disrupting occurrence, because I thought I was going to have the pleasure of speaking to my friends here in camera, unreported by the press, and I could put the government over a barrel.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Steven Otto: Something is happening. I dare say it has something to do with an announcement to be made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are
you the new Postmaster General?


Steven Otto: No, I am not the new Postmaster General and I cannot seem to get the message across. I very much regret-


An hon. Member:: What is your colour tonight?


Steven Otto: I very much regret I have to speak when other members are anticipating something of great portent. I was trying to

March 17, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Otto make amends over a period of a year and a half during which I have been accused by members opposite of somehow deserting them, as if I were a member of their party. The fact is I am a Liberal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That does not excuse you.


Steven Otto: Being a Liberal does not at any time prevent me from speaking out if I disagree, as I intend to tonight, with government policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   Olio@: I shall limit myself to the question of inflation and the so-called measures that have been taken by the government to control inflation. I fully realize that this problem is very serious and has to be faced. Like the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broad-bent), I say this is a problem that cannot be disregarded and that the measures which have been taken up to this time have been absolutely useless.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   Olio@: My good friend and colleague the Whip said recently I had apparently returned to normal. I should like to assure him that I have always been normal. Whenever reform measures are brought before the House which form part of Liberal philosophy, I support them. I supported the Criminal Code amendments and I now support the white paper which I think is a good social document. This is not the issue at stake. The issue at stake is that we as Canadians are bound to face inflation every five or six years. We are told it is about time to get down to physical flagellation in order to control inflation.
All these flagellists, including the minister, Mr. Rasminsky and all the experts, tell us we have sinned. What have we done, that we as Canadian people constantly deserve to be told that every five or six years we must restrict our economic enterprise and confine ourselves to lesser production? We are told not to grow crops and we are told not to do other things. This is not a country for negative thinking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven Otto: Negative thinking does not work. It may have worked 15 or 20 years ago but it does not work today. Let us consider some of the recommendations made by authorities as high up as Dr. Young, Mr. Rasminsky and

others. They say we must tighten money and we must restrict credit because this will have a beneficial effect on enterprise by making industry produce less. If these gentlemen were out in the commercial world they would realize that a restriction or a lessening of sales by any corporate enterprise is equivalent to automatic suicide because it results in a decrease in employment and production. There is only one result of decrease in sales, and that is bankruptcy.
These people still think businessmen should restrict themselves, confine their sales and produce less. This cannot be done. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) had been out in the commercial world as I am from week to week, he would know this is not possible.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: He would be getting $40 a week.


Steven Otto: What is the consequence of this attitude? The banks, of course, have tightened up. They have said to the businessmen that they cannot have money because the banks are short. The businessmen know they must produce and increase sales, so they go to the friendly IAC-the Industrial Acceptance Corporation. That outfit says that this is a new and strange creature. They offer to help out businessmen by giving them money to purchase brand new equipment and machinery. They offer to factor their inventories at a charge of only 2 per cent per month. That is quite decent: if you calculate it for a year, it is only 22 per cent.
Then the manufacturers ask how they will dispose of their products. The finance company says not to worry because they will get customers. They in turn go to others and ask how they would like to buy these goods with money they will lend at only 18 per cent. I have in mind the entrepreneurs and the consumers, but the giants who get the profits are the finance companies. This all occurs because the minister says to the banks and finance companies that we must tighten up because we do not have the money.
I was a member of the Banking and Finance Committee when this situation occurred. This was the craziest snow job ever sold us as Members of Parliament. We were told we had to compete in the money market and that we must have a free interest rate in order to obtain investments in mortgages. How nice-the banks were going to invest all their money in mortgages in order that we might finance business enterprises and their inventories. We said fine, go ahead and finance these
March 17, 1970

companies in that way. Before we knew it, there were Chargex cards and Scotia Plan cards flying all over the place. We then found that was where the money at 38 per cent interest was going.
These banks which were originally vested with the right-almost a monopolistic right- in Canada to look after this service, we found to be derelict in this duty. There are two answers to the situation, and this does not involve instructing banks to restrict lending. If we are to give banks the monopolistic privilege of providing this money, which we have done, we must see that the interest rate is controlled, or insist that the money is placed where it is needed rather than where it can make the most profit. I have no objection to this, but the only other alternative is to throw banking wide open and get away from the branch banking system. Perhaps we should adopt the United States system of competitive banking. I have no objection to that, but in one way or another something has to be done.
The inflation illness which we suffer cannot be blamed on the working man or labour unions. It is due by and large to the fact that control of financing is left with the banks under a monopolistic system. Unemployment has been referred to time and time again. We must consider the consequences of unemployment today. The use of unemployment today, either directly or indirectly, as a tool to curb inflation cannot be tolerated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven Otto: Unemployment today has a much more serious consequence than it had 20 years ago. Unemployment today can no longer fit into protected groups. Today we belong to trade unions, and if one is a carpenter and is fired or laid off, his dignity is lost because he can do carpentry and nothing else. He loses his status and his earnings. This is a tragedy because the man who suffers from unemployment requires years to recover. He will never again be as productive as he might have been. The minister should carefully review his definition of unemployment in relation to how serious this situation can be.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
To say we may require 7 per cent or 8 per cent unemployment is just absolutely unbelievable. It is said that we are taking more out of the economy than we are putting into it. I believe that is true. That is the reason for inflation. We are talcing out more than we are putting in. The answer is not to take
The Budget-Mr. Otto out less; it is to put in more. Labour has no objection to this. Canadian labour today is about ninth in the world in productive capacity, after Italy and France. I believe it has a rating of 2 according to CNTU reports and DBS.
But what do we do with labour? First we say we do not really recognize unions; we say that a union is a quasi legal thing. Then we say you are still allowed to stop production and use the stoppage of work as a tool to negotiate, as if the negotiation was between labour and management. The fact is there is no management-labour dispute. Management will always pass on the cost. The dispute is labour-consumer or labour-labour. That is the conflict today.
It is about time this government put its mind to work and developed a system by which these disputes will be solved without a work stoppage. The consequence of a work stoppage is long-lasting. First, there is the lack of production. Heaven knows, we are short in production. Every year we lose out in respect of production because of work stoppages. When this happens, labour has to dip into its savings; it is no better off. Production suffers.
The most serious consequence is that if the labour dispute is settled over a long period, there is resentment; management and labour no longer see eye to eye; they are enemies instead of friends. There cannot be good production when there is that type of feeling. If this were 1930 I would say that there is no other method by which to solve a labour-management dispute, but this is 1970 and there are many ways in which it can be done. There is even the very simple method of abolishing unions and saying what firms shall be unionized. If there is no contract, the profits made during the period in which there is no contract could be turned over to the government. Management would have nothing to worry about because at least it would not have to close its factories or dig into its reserves. Labour would still be earning, we would still be producing and people would receive the benefit of this.
There might be thousands of other ways, but we should apply our minds to the essential question that so long as wages and prices increase at a more rapid rate than our gross national product, we will have inflation and it does not matter which economic philosophy is used. The budget indicated some controls over consumer loans. I grant that if any segment of our fiscal or economic policy has a great influence on inflation, it is the creation

March 17, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Otto of money because, indeed, consumer financing is the creation of money. Whether we think of it in direct or indirect terms, that is what it is. If you tell a man that he can buy goods and pay for them from his future earnings, you hypothecate his productivity and that is the creation of money. This has a great bearing on inflation. But to say that he must provide 20 per cent of the price and set a time limit for payment is of no consequence.
The finance companies promote the lending and borrowing of money. Your friendly HFC will lend you all the money you need in order to get out of debt. You do not have to pay interest on the debt but you do have to pay. They promote this. They are not worried too much. If a man cannot pay, they obtain a garnishee on his wages. The original law of bills of exchange and court procedures had to do with commercial borrowing, bills and bankruptcy; it had to do with people in business. They were in the commercial world and they were the ones who had to suffer the consequences of non-payment. It was never meant, and should not have been meant to be the tool of the finance companies to use to collect debts which they themselves promoted.
The solution is not in provincial hands; it is right here. All that we, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government have to do is simply amend the Bills of Exchange Act and the Bankruptcy Act and say to the finance companies that if they promote the lending of money, they must collect it by promotion and be careful where they put it. They should make sure that the man is a good risk and not lend to him merely because he is a good fellow and then have recourse to garnishee proceedings. That might have some effect.
Let me in the few minutes remaining review some of the points I have made. Over a number of years we have had to tolerate less production from time to time so we might surmount the problem of inflation, but the problem has not been surmounted. We are now in the position of applying the same old remedy in the same old way even though it does not work. The essence of reform is to have a proper appreciation of the situation in order to find out what are the circumstances, and then apply measures and not just say we have measures which we are going to apply such as telling farmers not to grow crops and manufacturers not to produce. In essence, that is the reason for inflation.
In conclusion, as I say, I can imagine that some of these remedies would apply to many other countries. However, the statement that we import 90 per cent of our inflation from the United States does not stand up. If the United States is indeed involved in an expensive war, it obviously also can afford to be involved in lunar trips and expensive mineral exploration. A country which is hamstrung in respect of productivity could not afford to do this.
There is absolutely no need for Canada to be too seriously affected by United States inflation. I believe it is our own doing. It is up to our government to take a positive approach. It must say, first, that it will help business become more productive and will make money available to it at reasonable interest rates in order that business can improve its plant, it facilities and its production.
We should invite expertise in management and at the senior executive level from the United States or elsewhere so that Canadians can be trained to do a better job. The government should also come to a definite decision and policy in respect of labour. It is very nice to have our minister go from place to place in order to settle strikes, or to be there when they are settled-but that is not policy. We must have a policy in respect of what we want to do with labour and how we can make it more productive. We must remember at all times that the issue now is not that we should take less out of the economy, but that we should put more into it. We should enjoy the standard of living, with our productive capacity, to which we were entitled and not a standard of living dictated by restriction.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: To the Senate!


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, in the couple of minutes that remain before the vote takes place I want to say that I agree in part with what was said by the previous speaker. One of the great problems facing this country at present is inflation.
My contention is that one of the greatest contributions to inflation at present is the high tax burden that Canadians are bearing. During the last 18 years the total tax burden on Canadians has risen from just over $6 billion to approximately $26 billion-a fourfold increase in a matter of 18 years. The most serious factor in this tax load and the

March 17, 1970	COMMONS
greatest single increase in the various forms of taxation has been hidden taxes. The result is that there is a tax factor in everything that Canadians buy.
There is now a sales tax at the federal level in most provinces, and some municipalities have a hidden sales tax in the price of everything that the Canadian consumer buys. The result is that there is an erosion in the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar to the extent that it is becoming more and more difficult for the average Canadian to bear his tax burden.
It is true that there are some Canadians who have a vested interest in inflation. Those who have real estate property of considerable value are in the position to ensure that the property increases in value. If they were fortunate enough to borrow money in the past to purchase that property, they can pay back the debt from the appreciation on the real estate property. More important still, the government itself has a vested interest in inflation.
I am convinced that they can never be completely convincing in their fight against inflation while this is the case, because as the years go by and inflation increases, the real value of tax exemptions which are set in constant dollars depreciates.
The result is that the tax load on Canadians automatically goes up without the government having to refer to Parliament to increase tax rates. In the last few years the government has been in a very satisfactory position so far as receipts are concerned and this government and its immediate predecessor-which was composed of the same people, shuffled about a bit-have been responsible since 1963 for what people have called the drunken sailor period of expenditures of the federal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: We are now paying for this expenditure. The government has made commitments over the years. I see that it is a quarter to ten, Mr. Speaker, but I will continue my speech until the subamendment is eventually disposed of. The government, as I have shown, having a vested interest in continuing inflation, is not a convincing body to attack the problem of inflation which is now making life economically difficult for the vast majority of Canadians.
As has been pointed out by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), inflation falls heaviest in those areas of Canada
DEBATES	5151
The Budget-Mr. MacLean where the economy is far from buoyant and where unemployment figures are high.
Mr. Speaker, I see you have noticed that it is a quarter to ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) rising on a point of order?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions, so that I can make a statement.


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister is seeking the unanimous consent of the House for the purpose of reverting to Motions.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we and other distinguished people, have been waiting most anxiously for this particular moment, but there is one difficulty. Under the Standing Order the bells will ring for 15 minutes, following which there will be a vote, at the completion of which there will be no opportunity for members of the opposition to comment on the Prime Minister's statement.
If it is understood that any unanimous consent which is given includes the right of hon. members representing opposition parties to make their response to what the Prime Minister has to say, this will be fine. We think that if the Standing Order is to be suspended, it should be suspended to the extent that will permit this to be done.


Mr. Speaker:: I would have thought that this is the basis upon which a return to Motions would be agreed to by hon. members. I suggest that as part of the agreement which is now being suggested, the bells should still ring for 15 minutes whenever we reach the point at which a vote is to be taken under the provisions of section 6 of Standing Order 69. I understand that subject to this agreement there is unanimous agreement that we revert to Motions.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House of a decision that has been taken in an

March 17. 1970
Montreal Postal Dispute attempt to solve the postal dispute that exists presently in Montreal.

The essence of it is a recommendation of the Privy Council which has been adopted today and which I would be prepared to table in the House. I might read the operative paragraph of it, which would permit any of the opposition spokesmen to contribute to this very difficult problem in a constructive way.


An hon. Member:: We will decide how we are going to contribute.


An hon. Member:: Read the statement.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister

that is me-


An hon. Member:: So far.


An hon. Member:: Was there ever any doubt?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -advise that H. Carl Golden-berg, Esq., of Montreal, Quebec, be appointed a Commissioner under Part I of the Inquiries Act to inquire into the contracts that have been entered into-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: My God; the mail will never get through now.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -for the vehicular delivery of mail in Montreal with effect from April 1st, 1970, and the status and rights of all employees presently involved in vehicular mail deliveries, including their collective rights, to report thereon and to recommend such measures in that regard as he considers equitable and desirable for the restoration of normal and effective service in Montreal.


An hon. Member:: Kierans resigns.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say-


An hon. Member:: Did we sit up all night to hear that?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: -what other hon. members have said in this House before, that this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has reached the ultimate in contempt for this Parliament. I received this innocuous statement one and a quarter minutes ago. I am supposed

to respond to it with all the seriousness of an elected representative of this Parliament, and I say to him that this is contempt for this Parliament.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Explain.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: It may be clever among certain circles, but in the long run it will not do much for him as a one-time apostle of participatory democracy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There should be order in the House.


Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: How
can you have it with a man like that over there?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we should try, anyway. The hon. member for Hillsborough has the floor, and I suggest his remarks should be directed to the statement made on Motions by the right hon. Prime Minister.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I had thought, Mr. Speaker, as a fairly substantial grammarian, that when I said "to him" I was in fact addressing you in the first person and him in the third person. I would not have thought, sir, of addressing any remark in this Parliament to anyone other than yourself.
I should like to say that the Prime Minister, who was expected to speak earlier today, has shown his usual contempt for this institution. I would say, further, that the document which he has presented shows his lack of compassion for the problem bothering many many people. I would say to him, further, that if he regards this-is there someone who would like the floor, Mr. Speaker?


An hon. Member:: Just ignore him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member would direct his eyes to the Chair, I would suggest that he continue his statement. I wanted to suggest a moment ago that the hon. member's statement, under the Standing Order, should be directed to the statement made by the right hon. Prime Minister.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it would be much easier for me to direct my statement to his statement had I seen it prior to the last minute and a half. I would say, sir, that the courtesy of this House surely would suggest, if not re-
March 17, 1970

quire, that spokesmen for opposition parties be apprised of documents of this kind before the last minute.
I would say to the right hon. Prime Minister that if he, in the face of a situation in Montreal which is crippling the mail service of this whole country and which is denying the people of Canada's largest city mail service week after week, can satisfy himself with such an innocuous document as he has designed to deliver to us tonight, his doctrine of participatory democracy has been left by the board long, long since.
I should like to know, sir, on this difficult day and yesterday when all these trials were upon us, why the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans)-who, surely to God, should have responsibility for these matters-has been silent. He did not present himself today to the Transport and Communications Committee at 9.30 and at 3.30. He did not present himself to this House today when he should have been available for questioning. I wonder why these people were not available for questions. I wonder how long the people of Canada should wait for mail service to be available for the people of Montreal and for the hundreds and thousands of Canadians whose mail service is dependent upon transit through Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, one of the distinguished and most literal members of the press gallery some days ago described the member for Hillsborough as being a Biblical character. Perhaps I am. Perhaps my appearance does that-


Mr. Drury:: Jeremiah.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: -or perhaps I have the capacity for forecasting ills which others will not admit.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: But I say to the Prime Minister, who with his usual calculated insouciance comes in here at the last moment, and to the Postmaster General, who with his studied and careful arrogance moves in at a later stage, that the people of Canada are wondering when their parcels-


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. I have to remind the hon. members that we are on Motions. The statement has been made, and I take the liberty of reminding the hon. member that the Standing Order requires that the comments be brief. I hope he will
Montreal Postal Dispute comply. I say very seriously that perhaps the hon. members might like to give some thought to bringing his comments to a close.


An hon. Member:: Amen.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I have been in this Parliament for 13 years and it has not been my practice to detract from the statements of other members by jeering or interference. I would say, sir, with all respect-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that they should give the Chair an opportunity to hear the hon. member's remarks.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I was going to say, sir, that in the years I have been here I have never found it necessary to interject from a seated position against any observation made by any hon. member. I would say that in the face of a grave national emergency-the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) smiles here; he is a great smiler.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: He smirks.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: My friend says he smirks. When the people of Canada find it impossible to get their mail through the great distributing centre of Montreal, I say it is not a laughing matter. I would say, sir, that the measures which the Postmaster General threatened, then withdrew, indicate something less than a very appropriate or well-ordered minister of government. I would say, further, that when this government finds itself incapable of rendering to the people of Canada one of the most essential services, namely the delivery of mail to all the people of Canada, it should not be the object of smart aleck remarks by the Prime Minister and shrugs and smiles by the President of the Treasury Board.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the situation which has developed in Montreal is a national disaster.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am just wondering whether we are not going beyond the limits of the dignity of the House by permitting hon. members to attend who are not properly attired.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 17. 1970
Montreal Postal Dispute


Mr. Speaker:: I realize it is St. Patrick's Day but I cannot accept the hon. member's dress.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the situation in Montreal with regard to the delivery of mail has developed into a national disaster. In Canada's largest city, a city containing 10 per cent of our population, for weeks parcel delivery has been at a virtual standstill. Although this disastrous situation has existed for several weeks, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) waited until 9.50 tonight before making the statement alluded to by my hon. friend for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie). We had no opportunity to consider it until it was made. The statement says nothing. Why is there a crisis in Montreal? There is a crisis because the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) has ignored the advice of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), the advice of members of the opposition and the advice of the arbitrator appointed to look into the dispute between the Post Office and its employees. The fact that there is that dispute ought to have warned the government that the Post Office today and for some years past had lacked personnel who understand the simple fundamentals of labour-management relations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: What is the dispute about? Very simply, it hinges around men who have worked anywhere from five years to 20 years delivering mail who feel that as a result of the decision of the Postmaster General to award, not one contract but five different contracts they will lose the jobs they have held for many years. Most of these men are too old to find new jobs. That, of course, is not something which would concern the Prime Minister. He has never had to worry about a job; neither has his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). This is something that concerns others, Mr. Speaker, and what has happened has resulted from the Postmaster General's lack of understanding and his lack of compassion for those who will lose their jobs.
What does the Prime Minister propose in his statement? In this serious situation he proposes that Mr. Carl Goldenberg be appointed a commissioner to inquire into the problem. Mr. Goldenberg is an expert and has brought to a successful conclusion a number of important tasks of a similar nature to which he has been assigned in
[Mr. Speaker.)
years gone by. We all hope he will be as successful in settling this dispute as amicably and quickly as he has settled others in the past, and we wish him well. I submit that if the Prime Minister were concerned about settling the dispute between the Post Office Department and its employees justly and fairly, instead of appointing Mr. Goldenberg as arbitrator he would have asked for and received the resignation of the Postmaster General.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, we see, in the light of the present situation, that the postal service is badly organized.
However, the government has taken action to meet a difficult situation. I think that was the right thing to do under the circumsances and it would be untimely to be critical of the postal service. We should rather wait for the investigator's findings.



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, the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (page 5051) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Saltsman (page 5065).
Mr. Speaker:: It being after 9.45 o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 60(6), to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question on the subamendment now before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said subamendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the subamendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.
March 17. 1970

Division
++NAYS
Messrs:


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the subamendment lost.
At 10.35 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

March 17, 1970



APPENDIX

[Stage Direction]
16 March 1970.


[Stage Direction]
1.	The ship to be drydocked for full condition survey by a steamship inspector; or, in lieu thereof, a detailed report to be produced of such a survey made since the ship was last in ice by a surveyor of Lloyd's Register of Shipping or of the American Bureau of Shipping, showing the hull, propellers and rudders to be in satisfactory condition and the ship to be still in class.
HULL:
2.	Ship to be in possession of valid Safety of Life at Sea and Load Line Convention Certificates.
3.	Hull of ship to be subdivided to give a one-compartment standard of subdivision.
4.	Hull to be reinforced for operation in ice and be fitted with an icebreaking bow and ice belt.
5.	Rudders to be strengthened and protected with ice horns for operation in ice.
6.	Still water bending stress in hull not to exceed four tons per square inch for all conditions of operation.
7.	Stress level of hull when breaking ice not to exceed the vessel's design stress.
8.	Quantity of fuel oil carried to be restricted to the bunkers required for the voyage of the ship and the supporting icebreaker.
9.	Where cargo tanks are used for the carriage of bunker fuel, only center-line tanks remote from the ship's side to be used.
MACHINERY:
10.	The ship to have sufficient propulsion power to operate in heavy ice conditions which shall in any case not be less than recommended by the latest published rules of Lloyd's Register of Shipping or the American Bureau of Shipping for
a vessel of its size classed for operation in ice. The astern power to be at least 35 per cent of the ahead power and be capable of being applied continuously for at least 20 minutes without overheating of the astern turbine.
11.	At least two boilers to be available for propulsion which are to be well secured to the ship's structure and provided with collision chocks of adequate strength to prevent movement of the boilers when the ship is brought to a stop from full power by ice. The steam pipes between the boilers and machinery to be supported in such a way that heavy shock and vibration may be absorbed without damage to the piping or machinery.
12.	Main machinery and essential auxiliary machinery to comply with the highest requirements of the latest published rules of Lloyd's Register of Shipping or the American Bureau of Shipping and shall be properly secured to withstand shock when navigating in heavy ice.
13.	Means to be provided for disconnecting either of the rudders in the event that one becomes damaged or inoperable and at least two independent sources of power to be available for the steering gear.
14.	The sea intakes and condenser inlets to be provided with steam or air lines, or other adequate means for removing any ice that may collect therein.
15.	A marked gate valve shall be fitted to the deck above each tank in which oil is carried. This valve to be in an accessible place so that a hose or pipe may be readily connected, and to have a diameter of at least six inches and may be fitted with a readily removable blank flange.

[Stage Direction]
AND PERSONNEL:
16.	A complete set of up-to-date charts to be provided including charts of the largest scale available for the intended area of operation together with up-to-date pilot books, tide tables, lists of lights and sound signals, radio aids to marine navigation and similar nautical publications and associated ancillary equipment.
March 17, 1970
[Stage Direction]
17.	The ship to be equipped with a gyro compass installation consisting of main and emergency gyros with steering repeaters at all steering positions and bearing repeaters suitably located and equipped, both gyros being suitable for high latitude operation and provided with spares and maintenance and operating manuals.
18.	A marine radar installation to be provided consisting of at least two radars which meet performance standards of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention 1960 and are suitable for operating under severe weather conditions. Short range high definition capability and long range navigational capability of 45 miles or more to be provided. Spares and maintenance and operating manuals to be provided with each radar set.
19.	An echo sounder installation to be provided consisting of two echo sounders each having shallow and deep sounding capability. Both sets to be provided with
spares and maintenance and operating manuals.
20.	One Loran AC receiver to be provided with associated lattice charts or rate tables together with spares and maintenance and operating manuals.
21.	Rudder, engine revolution and rate-of-turn indicators to be provided at the conning position.
22.	In addition to the normal radio communications facilities meeting international requirements and standards, VHF bridge to bridge radio telephone capability in the maritime mobile band to be provided.
23.	Auto pilot equipment, if used under difficult navigation conditions, to be capable of immediate manual override and a crew member assigned to steering duties to be at the steering position.
24.	An officer experienced in navigating in ice to be on board; and the crew to include personnel competent to maintain the navigation aids and equipment.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 18, 1970