1970-03-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (for Mr. Tolmie) moved: that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, presented to the House on Friday, March 13, 1970, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43 to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the accelerated rate of increase of the consumer price index-the cost of living-during February, which raised the general level of prices in Canada 5 per cent above the level of a year ago, and particularly, the refusal of the government to apply sanctions against those who raise prices by more than the government's guideline, thus enabling sellers to continue to raise prices by whatever amount they desire, and making impossible the control of inflation.
I therefore move the following motion under Standing Order 43:
That this House, comprising the elected representatives of all the people of Canada, consider and recommend a more effective method of controlling and keeping within reasonable bounds the accelerating increase in the cost of living.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the proposed motion. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 unanimous consent is required. Is there such unanimity in the House at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put at this time.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



CANADIAN WELFARE COUNCIL REPORT-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask, under Standing Order 43, for unanimous consent of the House to put forward a motion which I think will be greeted with approval by all hon. members. Recently the Canadian Youth Council made public a report on youth policy which I feel should receive the immediate attention of all members of this House. Therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), I wish to move the following motion:
That the report on youth, published by the Canadian Welfare Council on Friday, March 6, 1970, be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, for consideration and report.
I may say that I gave the minister notice of my proposed motion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Again I must remind hon. members that the motion proposed by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not the unanimity required under the Standing Order; therefore the motion cannot be put at this time.



CANADA GRAIN ACT


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-196, respecting grain.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
March 16, 1970
Questions
PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS	CONSULTATIONS RESPECTING POTASH

[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government Notices of
Motions:
March 13, 1970-The President of the Privy Council: That in relation to S. 22 of the Representation Commissioner Act, Statutes of Canada, 1963, C. 40, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be empowered to review the provisions of the Representation Commissioner Act and recommend to the House any amendments, alterations or modifications thereto that to the said Committee shall appear to be necessary or desirable.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Skoreyko: 1.	How many (a) primary incentive grants (b) secondary incentive grants, have been approved to date by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and on what basis, under the terms of the old Area Development Incentives Act or under other legislation?
2.	Under (a) and (b) above, what is the name, the proposed location and the type of industry or other commercial enterprise to which grants were extended and what was the amount involved in each case and in total?
3.	How many applications for incentive grants have been rejected by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, to date, and what were the types of business enterprise and place of proposed location involved in such unsuccessful applications?
4.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion any plans to extend or alter the boundaries of the area currently designated as eligible for incentive grants?


Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1, 2 and 3. The Area Development Incentives Act did not provide for primary and secondary development incentives. Details of operations under the Regional Development Incentives Act are tabled monthly.
4.	Not at this time.


Mr. Burton: 1.	Did consultations take place between the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada concerning trade and prices of potash shipped from Saskatchewan to the United States and, if so, on what dates?
2.	Where did the consultations take place and who represented each government at such consultations?
3.	Who requested the consultations in each case?
4.	What representations were made by the Government of Saskatchewan at each of these consultations, and what was the view of the Government of Canada regarding such representations?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: 1. Yes, a number of consultations were held with the Saskatchewan authorities.
2.	In addition to meetings in both Ottawa and Regina, consultations were conducted by telephone on a number of occasions. These consultations were conducted at both the ministerial and official levels.
3.	Both Saskatchewan and federal authorities initiated individual consultations.
4.	The consultations form part of the continuing interchange of information between the federal and Saskatchewan authorities on potash problems. As these exchanges are continuing, it is felt that the precise views and opinions expressed should remain confidential.


COST OF LIVING INCREASE IN PRIVATE PENSION PLANS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Will the federal government consider legislation whereby private pension plans will be escalated in accordance with the Consumer Price Index instead of remaining constant as at present?
2.	Will the federal government consider subsidies to fund the increase in private pension plans rfl necessary?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliameniary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. No.
2.	No.


&quot;NATIONAL PRESS CLUB LEASE
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1.	Has the Department of Public Works leased space in the government-owned building located at 150 Wellington Street, Ottawa, to the National Press Club and, if so, what are the terms and conditions of such lease?
March 16. 1970

2.	Was the lease noted above made under the authority of any regulation or other instrument and, if so, was such regulation submitted for approval as required by Section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights?
3.	Does the Department of Public Works rent or lease space in any government-owned building to any other organization that excludes any persons from membership by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex (see Section 1 of the Canadian Bill of Rights) and, if so, in what buildings and to what organizations?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: The answer to the first part is yes, we did lease to the National Press Club the entire second floor comprising 3,890 square feet for five years from June 1, 1967 to April 30, 1972, for $600 a month. The National Press Club also pays for taxes, electricity, cleaning, toilet room supplies, garbage removal, and for office partitions and counters.
The answer to the second part is the lease was made under the authority of section 39 of the Public Works Act and Order-in-Council 1967-53/174 which authorizes the Minister of Public Works to:
-execute on behalf of the Crown leases of lands and buildings under the administration and control of the Department of Public Works and not immediately required for public purposes, where such leases do not exceed a term of five years, the rental in each case to be determined by the Minister of Public Works.
We are advised by our legal section that an Order-in-Council is not a regulation and therefore does not have to be approved by the Minister of Justice as referred to in section 3 of the Bill of Rights.
The answer to part three is probably so, for example, the Boy Scouts.


REPLACEMENT FOR INDUSTRIAL CONCILIATION BOARDS
Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government advise what will replace the conciliation boards that are recommended for abolition in the report of the Woods Task Force on Industrial Relations?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: The intention of the Government with respect to the policy issue posed by this question will be made known when a bill to revise the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is introduced. An intention to introduce such a bill was announced in the Speech from the Throne.
Questions


PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION PERSONNEL
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who are the members of the Prices and Incomes Commission?
2 When were they appointed and for what period?
3.	What is the annual salary of each member?
4.	Were some members in the employ of the federal government before appointment to the Prices and Incomes Commission and, if so (a) who were they (b) what position did they hold prior to their appointment (c) what salaries did they receive?
5.	Of those members not in the employ of the federal government before appointment to the Prices and Incomes Commission (a) what position did they hold prior to their appointment (b) what salaries did they receive while holding this position?
6.	Have the members of the Prices and Incomes Commission divested themselves of all financial interests in business?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. J. H. Young, Chairman; P. Gerin-Lajoie, Vice-Chairman; G. E. Freeman, Commissioner; G. V. Haythorne, Commissioner.
2.	The members of the Prices and Incomes Commission were appointed by Order-inCouncil P.C. 1969-1249 of June 19, 1969, and their terms of appointment expire on December 31, 1971.
3.	J. H. Young is receiving remuneration within the range of a DM 3 ($37,000-$40,000). P. Gerin-Lajoie is receiving remuneration within the range of a DM 3 ($37,000-$40,000). G. E. Freeman is receiving remuneration within the range of a DM 1 ($28,000-$33,000). G. V. Haythorne is receiving remuneration within the range of a DM 1 ($28,000-$33,000).
4.	(a) George V. Haythorne. (b) Special Adviser to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, (c) Salary-DM 1 ($28,000-$33,000).
5.	(a) J. H. Young, Dean of Arts, University of British Columbia; P. Gerin-Lajoie, Member of the Quebec National Assembly; G. E. Freeman, Chief of Research, Bank of Canada, (b) The salaries of persons prior to their joining the Public Service are not within the official knowledge of the Federal Government.
6.	Information on the private financial holdings of public servants is not within the official knowledge of the Federal Government.

March 16. 1970
Questions


DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS IN PENITENTIARIES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,083
Mr. Orlikow:: 1.	What is the total number of persons in Canadian penitentiaries that have been convicted and sentenced under the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Sections of the Criminal Code?
2.	(a) How many of those so sentenced have received paroles (b) how many have violated their paroles (c) how many have been re-convicted while on parole and was the offence the same?
3.	What is the average stay before parole is considered?
4.	What programs are made available to these persons while they are incarcerated?
5.	Has the medical profession been consulted as to treatment being given and, if so (a) haw many have received such treatment (b) how many failed to make progress (c) have any persons been denied such treatment if such treatment was recommended?
6.	Has the government taken any steps in this direction?
7.	Have the inmates choice in case they wish to seek out such treatment and, if so, what provisions have been made?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: 1.	Sixty four as of February 24, 1970.
2.	(a) Twenty one. (b) Eleven, Breach of terms and conditions of parole, (c) One, No, offence of common assault.
3.	Cases are considered as soon as possible after admission, in any event within six months thereof, and the parole review date is fixed. Average stay before release to parole has been eight years, five months and 17 days.
4.	Programs of education, vocational and trades training, social education, citizen participation, religion and recreational training.
5.	Yes. (a), (b), and (c). Statistics are not available as to the numbers who have received treatment nor of any who may have failed to make progress. No persons are known to have been denied treatment recommended.
6.	Yes.
7.	Yes-inmates may avail themselves of the psychiatric facilities available in our major institutions and more specific therapy is at times available.


CULTURAL EXCHANGES BETWEEN CANADA AND BELGIUM
Mr. Asselin: 1.	Has the Department of External Affairs budgeted for a program of cultural exchanges between

Canada and Belgium and, if so (a) in what amount (b) what are the details of such budget?
2.	What amount is the Belgian Government allocating to this program?	**


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Cultural exchanges with Belgium come within the program of cultural relations with Francophone countries. The program budget for Belgium this year is approximately $80,000 and is composed of $50,000 for academic exchanges, $25,000 for exhibitions and other activities of a cultural nature and $5,000 for other cultural exchanges (book presentations and visits).
2.	The exact figures and statistics which represent Belgian's contribution to the agreement could only be given by the Belgian authorities themselves.


ESTABLISHMENT OF FEDERAL COMMISSIONS AND TASK FORCES 1950-70
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many federal commission and/or task forces have been established in Canada during each year 1950 to 1970?
2.	What was the responsibility of each?
3.	What is the cost of each to date?
4.	What is the additional anticipated cost of those in progress at the present time?


Yves Forest: 1, 2, 3
and 4. See answers to questions 2,685, tabled October 22, 1969, 397, tabled February 9, 1970 and 383, tabled March 11, 1970.


AGRICULTURE-RETIREMENT AND REHABILITATION PROGRAMS
Mr. Southam: 1.	In the government's program to assist those who wish to retire from the agricultural industry with dignity, what steps, if any, are being taken to meet this objective?
2.	What particular department or agency is charged with this responsibility?
3.	For those farmers wishing to rehabilitate or stay behind in the agricultural industry, what action is being taken to assist these people to develop the kind of farm units and managerial skills to earn a good life for themselves and their families?
4.	What particular department or agency is charged with the responsibility to meet this objective?
5.	When will this program, in each case, get under way?
March IS. 1970


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1.	There is no program in effect at the present time with the objective as outlined. The Main Estimates for the fiscal year 1970-71, tabled on February 11, 1970, include, under the Department of Agriculture, an item of $10,000,000 for agricultural adjustment. Any programs that may be established under this Vote will be announced in the usual manner.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The government has a wide range of programs to assist farmers to develop economic units, such as the Farm Credit Act, the Agricultural and Rural Development Act, an agricultural research program, etc.
4.	Answered by No. 1.
5.	Answered by No. 1.


RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS AS LEGAL ENTITIES
Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider, in the public interest, the advisability of amending the present legislation so that trade unions will be recognized as legal entities in the same manner as individuals and corporations?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The intention of the Government with respect to the policy issue posed by this question will be made known when a bill to revise the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is introduced. An intention to introduce such a bill was announced in the Speech from the Throne.


PROVISIONS FOR THE USE OF INJUNCTIONS IN LABOUR DISPUTES
Mr. Robinson: Is it the federal government's intention to continue the provision for the use of injunctions in labour disputes and, if not, for what reason?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The intention of the Government with respect
Location
Butter Cove, Highlands Castor River Corner Brook
Corner Brook Crabbes River Curling
Eddies Cove East
Questions
to the policy issue posed by this question will be made known when a bill to revise the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is introduced. An intention to introduce such a bill was announced in the Speech from the Throne.


COMPULSORY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SYSTEM
Mr. Robinson: Is it the federal government's intention to continue the role of (a) the strike (b) the lockout, in a compulsory collective bargaining system?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The intention of the Government with respect to the policy issue posed by this question will be made known when a bill to revise the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is introduced. An intention to introduce such a bill was announced in the Speech from the Throne.


P.E.I.-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES UNDER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1970-71
Mr. MacLean: What is the estimated expenditures to be made by the federal government under the Development Plan for Prince Edward Island in the 1970-71 fiscal year?


Abram Ernest Epp: Budgetary expenditures, $11,000,000; loans, $10,000,000.


HUMBER-ST. GEORGE'S-ST. BARBE CONSTITUENCY-PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
Mr. Marshall: What projects are planned by the Department of Public Works for the coming year in the constituency of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe?


Arthur Laing: Project
Minor dredging Wharf repairs
Federal Building-Renewal windows and exterior doors
Harbour improvements to complete Minor dredging Wharf repairs Winch-Minor repairs
5036	COMMONS
Questions
Location
Eddies Cove West
Eels Hole, Highlands
Flowers Cove
Green Island
Green Point
Lark Harbour
McKays
Plum Point
Port au Choix
Port au Port
Port Saunders
Rocky Harbour Cove
Rocky Harbour, Woody Cove
St. Barbe
St. George's
St. Pauls, Hickeys Cove St. Pauls, Iron Cove Sallys Cove
Seal Cove Brook, Heatherton Trout River


DOG POUND, ALTA.-CLOSING OF POST OFFICE
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	In light of the answer to Question Number 752 Parts 6 and 7, printed in Hansard, January 28, 1970, on what date did the Post Office Department reach the decision to close the post office at Dog Pound, located in the constituency of Palliser, Alberta?
2.	On what date did the Department notify persons to be affected by the impending closure of its decision?
3.	Did the Department receive any representations opposing its decision to close the post office at Dog Pound Alberta and, if so (a) what was the nature of such representations (b) how many such representations were received?
4.	Was any reconsideration given to the Department's decision in light of representations received and, if so, what was the nature of such reconsideration?
5.	Are there any other post offices located in the constituency of Palliser, Alberta, under consideration for closure and not listed in the answer to Question Number 752 and, if so, where are they located and what is the proposed date of such impending closures?


Hon. Eric Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: 1. December 8, 1969.
2.	January 19, 1970.
3.	Yes. (a) Letters and a petition were received protesting the decision to close the Dog Pound post office, (b) 37 letters, 1 petition.
4.	(a) Yes; (b) this case was re-examined at the Headquarters level to ensure that a

DEBATES	March 16, 1970
Project
Minor dredging Minor dredging Wharf repairs
Breakwater approach repairs
Minor dredging
Wharf repairs
Minor dredging
Wharf-Minor repairs
Wharf reconstruction to complete
Improvements to Loading Ramp area
Wharf-Minor repairs
Minor dredging
Minor dredging
Wharf repairs
Wharf repairs
Minor dredging
Minor dredging
Minor dredging
Minor dredging
Breakwater repairs
just decision had been made and there was no deviation from our established policy.
5.	No.


BOYCOTTING AND SECONDARY PICKETING IN STRIKES
Mr. Robinson: Is it the federal government's intention to allow boycotting and secondary picketing, as well as picketing, as methods of exercising pressure during a strike and, if so, for what reason and under what circumstances ?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The intention of the Government with respect to the policy issue posed by this question will be made known when a bill to revise the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is introduced. An intention to introduce such a bill was announced in the Speech from the Throne.


INFORMATION ON TENDERS
Mr. Cyr: When a department issues a call for tenders with respect to a service to the public, a leasing arrangement or a construction project (a) must the names of the bidders and the amount of each bid be kept secret (b) may bidders attend the opening of tenders and learn the amount of each?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: (a) No, except for those cases where a high national security classification
March 16, 1970

might prevail, (b) Yes, if it is a tender for a construction contract Tenders for the supply of goods, services or leasing arrangements are not publicly opened, but interested parties may determine the results by applying to the responsible department.
Questions


CENTRAL NOVA CONSTITUENCY-PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
Mr. MacEwan: What projects are planned by the Department of Public Works for the fiscal year 1970-71 in the constituency of Central Nova?


Arthur Laing: Location
Aspen
Bickerton West
Caribou Caribou Drum Head
Ecum Secum (Guys City)
Ecum Secum (Halifax City Bayport)
Ecum Secum (Halifax City West)
Eureka
Hopewell
Merigomish
Merigomish
Moser's River
New Glasgow
New Glasgow Pictou
Pictou
Port Bickerton East Port Bickerton West River John Seal Harbour Scotsbum Sheet Harbour
Sherbrooke Sherbrooke Skinner's Cove Stellarton
Stewiacke
Thorbum
Toney River Toney River Trenton
Upper Musquodoboit Westville
Project
Post Office-Painting and grounds Post Office-Paving, general maintenance plus overhaul summer heating Maintenance
Dredging, Departmental Plant Breakwater repairs Wharf repairs Wharf repairs Breakwater repairs Post Office-General maintenance Post Office-General maintenance Post Office-General maintenance Dredging, Departmental Plant Federal	Building-General	maintenance,
sewage plant
Federal Building-General maintenance, replacing aluminum doors, heating maintenance
Federal Building-Air treatment Federal Building-General maintenance, entrance windbreak Pier "C" Bulkhead Wharf repairs Wharf repairs
Post Office-General maintenance West Breakwater-Repairs Post Office-Repairs
Federal Building-Well repairs, general maintenance
Federal Building-Alterations
Federal Building-General maintenance
Dredging
Federal Building-New entrance doors, general maintenance, heating equipment Post Office-General maintenance, plus summer overhaul heating equipment Post Office-Interior and exterior painting, general maintenance Dredging Wharf repairs
Post Office-General maintenance, conversion to oil
Post Office-Paving, general maintenance Federal Building-Furnace repairs, general maintenance.
5038

March 16, 1S70
Questions


RIGHT TO CROSS PICKET LINES
Mr. Robinson: Is it the federal government's intention to allow unionists the right to cross picket lines other than those of the union to which they belong?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The intention of the Government with respect to the policy issue posed by this question will be made known when a bill to revise the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is introduced. An intention to introduce such a bill was announced in the Speech from the Throne.


LABOUR DISPUTES-MEDIATION REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider the advisability of giving the Minister of Labour the necessary power or discretion to satisfy the mediation requirements of a labour dispute where the parties with the aid of a conciliation officer fail to achieve settlement?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The intention of the Government with respect to the policy issue posed by this question will be made known when a bill to revise the Industrial Relations and Disputes
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public
Location Grand Falls
Harrys Harbour Hopedale Kings Point L'Anse Amour L'Anse Amour L'Anse au Clair Main Brook Nippers Harbour Nippers Harbour Postville Red Bay Roddickton St. Anthony Bight Sops Arm Woodstock
Investigation Act is introduced. An intention to introduce such a bill was announced in the Speech from the Throne.


EXPRESSION OF EMPLOYEES' WISHES BY SECRET BALLOT
Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider, in the public interest, the advisability of providing legislation whereby employees may have the opportunity to express their wishes freely in the democratic process of a secret ballot where all matters of policy, personnel, certification and strike votes are concerned and, if not, for what reason?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The intention of the Government with respect to the policy issue posed by this question will be made known when a bill to revise the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is introduced. An intention to introduce such a bill was announced in the Speech from the Throne.


GRAND FALLS-WHITE BAY-LABRADOR CONSTITUENCY-PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
Mr. Peddle: What projects, large or small, will be carried out by the Department of Public Works in the coming year in the constituency of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador ?
Works):
Project
Federal Building, Alterations and additions to loading ramp
Wharf repairs Hoist
Wharf repairs Wharf repairs Slipway repairs Slipway repairs Wharf repairs
Post Office-Exterior painting Breakwater repairs Wharf repairs Wharf repairs
Post Office-Exterior painting Dredging (to complete)
Wharf repairs Wharf repairs
[Mr. Laing.)
March 16, 1970


REMOVAL OF LABOUR DISPUTES FROM JURISDICTION OF COURTS
Mr. Robinson: Is it the intention of the federal government to remove labour disputes from the jurisdiction of the courts, a basic civil right and, if so, for what reason?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The intention of the Government with respect to the policy issue posed by this question will be made known when a bill to revise the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is introduced. An intention to introduce such a bill was announced in the Speech from the Throne.


QUALITY OF TELEGRAPH SERVICE
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Is the government currently making a study of the quality of telegraph service in Canada and, if so (a) what departments are conducting such study (b) what is the nature and purpose of such study?
2.	Since the merger of CN-CP telecommunications (a) how many offices have been closed (b) how many employees have been released (c) how many complaints regarding service have been received?
3.	In the Atlantic Provinces, how many telegraph offices remain open after 6 p.m.?
4.	What are the hours of service in the telegraph offices at Charlottetown, Saint John and Moncton?


Eric William Kierans: 1. Yes.
(a)	The Department of Communications with the cooperation of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, (b) The study is intended to survey the public telegraph message service with regard to the impact of new technology and of competing public telecommunications systems. It will also be concerned with the needs and interests of users of the system and with the views and policies of the operating companies.
2.	(a) 34 C.N. Offices and 43 C.P. Offices;
(b)	38 employees released by C.N.R., 9 employees released by C.P.R. (c) 24 complaints.
3.	Four offices remain open after 6:00 p.m.
4.	Charlottetown: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily except Sundays and holidays. Saint John: 8:00 a.m. to midnight Monday to Friday. 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays. Moncton: 24 hours daily.


COMPULSORY CONTRIBUTIONS BY EMPLOYEES TO POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Robinson: 1. Will the federal government consider, in the public interest, that employees should not be obliged 21774-411
Questions
either directly or indirectly to contribute financially toward a political party and, if not, for what reason?
2 Will the federal government consider, in the public interest, that union checkoffs for political parties should be abolished, and, if not, for what reason?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The intentions of the Government with respect to the policy issues posed by these questions will be made known when a bill to revise the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is introduced. An intention to introduce such a bill was announced in the Speech from the Throne.


REGISTRATION OF DAIRY PRODUCERS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	How many dairy producers were registered with the Canadian Dairy Commission for production years 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70?
2.	What reduction in the number of producers registered has there been during the 1969-70 production year?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. The number of producers registered with the Canadian Dairy Commission for subsidy since the Commission started operations on April 1, 1967, are as follows: 1967-68, 168,466; 1968-69, 109,799; 1969-70, 98,346.
2. The only reduction since April 1, 1969 in the number of producers registered for subsidy has been as a result of quota reallocations. Such reallocations, which would result in the cancellation of the quotas of the previous quota holder, total 5,441 to February 20. The number of quotas cancelled would be less than that since in some cases the reallocated quota was divided among two or more persons.


ROLE OF CONCILIATION OFFICERS IN LABOUR DISPUTES
Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider, in the public interest, the advisability of amending legislation so that conciliation officers could remain seized of a dispute with the express approval of one party to the dispute only and, if not, for what reason?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The intention of the Government with respect to the policy issue posed by this question will be made known when a bill to revise
5040	COMMONS DEBATES	March 16. 1970
Questions
the Industrial Relations and Disputes In- Because of the exempt status of such publi-vestigation Act is introduced. An intention cations, it has not been considered necessary to introduce such a bill was announced in to keep on file the names of the publications the Speech from the Throne.	and their editors.


OECD MEETING-WITHHOLDING FROM DISCUSSIONS OF &quot;SENSITIVE&quot; ITEMS
Mr. Howard (Okanagan: Boundary):
What are the so-called "sensitive" items that Canada is withholding from discussions at the May 21 meeting of OECD representatives?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Canadian provisional offer of tariff preferences for imports of manufactured and semi-manufactured goods from developing countries, along with the offers of other prospective donors, is still being discussed internationally both in the OECD and the UNCTAD. The latter organization is scheduled to begin its detailed examination of the various preference proposals of the developed countries at the end of this month.
While these discussions are in progress it is difficult to predict precisely what items will ultimately be excluded from the Canadian preference scheme. We have indicated, however, that we will not grant tariff preferences on product for which we have negotiated or are asking for a quantitive restraint on exports to Canada from any country. The exclusion of these products is of course consistent with the generally accepted view that the donor countries should not be expected to extend tariff preferences on products which are being imported into their markets in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten market disruption or serious injury to domestic producers.


QUEBEC PUBLICATIONS LIABLE TO SALES TAX
Mr. Fortin: What is the name and who is the editor of each Quebec publication, daily newspaper or weekly newspaper which is (a) liable for the 12 per cent tax (b) not liable for the 12 per cent sales tax?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: All magazines and literary papers unbound regularly issued at stated intervals not less frequently than four times yearly, and all newspapers are exempt from the 12 per cent sales tax.
[Mr. Mackasey.l


LAND DEVELOPMENT DIRECT GRANTS, MANITOBA INTERLAKE AREA
Mr. Simpson: 1.	What was the amount of direct grants to farmers as indicated at page 30 of the 1968-69 Annual Report of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion with respect to land development in the Interlake Area of Manitoba?
2.	What was the total cost of implementing the land development program?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. $120,000.
2.	$136,060.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Since January 1, 1968 have studies (research or otherwise) been undertaken by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and, if so, what are the names, addresses and occupations of each person working in a consultant capacity from outside the public service on each such study?
2.	Which of the studies are completed, and of those not completed, when is the expected completion date?
Return tabled.


RESEARCH, CMHC
Mr. Comeau: 1.	In 1968-69 and 1969-70, what were the estimated sums spent on research in Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and what was the purpose of each research project?
2.	How much money was actually expended according to Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures?
Return tabled.


AILMENTS CAUSED BY NOISE
Mr. Mather: 1.	Is consideration being given to stepping up efforts to combat ailments caused by excessive noise in industry and traffic?
2.	What is being done at present in this field at the federal level?
Return tabled.
March 16. 1970


FEDERAL EXPENDITURES FOR HEALTH SCIENCES TEACHING FACILITIES
Mr. Orlikow: In each of the last ten years, what have been the federal expenditures on the planning, building and equipping of health sciences teaching facilities from each of the following (a) hospital construction grants (b) national health grants (c) general public health grants (d) National Research Council (e) Medical Research Council (f) Health Resources Fund (g) others?
Return tabled.


STORAGE OF DAIRY PRODUCTS
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	To whom has the Canadian Dairy Commission paid money in the past two years for shortage of agricultural products?
2.	What amounts were paid in each case and in what provinces were the firms located?
3.	Have any of the storage companies had the responsibility of promoting sales of the stored products?
4.	Which companies are directly involved in the processing, storage and selling of agricultural products?
5.	What is the cost of storage of each agricultural product, per month, in each location?
Return tabled.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask when question No. 221 in my name, which was placed on the Order Paper on October 23, will be answered. It is neither a difficult nor lengthy question. It simply asks how many deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers there were in the employ of the government at certain periods and what their salaries were. It is asked because some civil servants wonder whether deputy ministers and their assistants are showing as much restraint in salary demands as they are. They wish this question to be answered.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I shall make inquiries and see whether this question can be answered on Wednesday next.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I do not like to rise again, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to refer to the fact that on February 18 the following starred question, No. 1,265, was asked:
How many letters, telegrams and/or other communications criticizing or condemning the white paper in whole or in part have been received by the Minister of Finance since the 1st of January, 1970?
This government has no trouble with big numbers when it comes to expenditures, and I see no reason why this further egregious
Inquiries of the Ministry example of contempt of Parliament should be tolerated. The government does not want to produce this information. If a starred question means anything, it means that an answer must be given within two or three days, which is the normal period. Under the circumstances, having brought this up before, I appeal to Your Honour as the custodian of the rights of Parliament to see that these rights are not contemptuously disregarded by the government of this country.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance the right hon. member's kindly interest in his career.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


George Harris Hees: I have a question I wish to direct to the Prime Minister. Was the Minister of Finance expressing the view of the government when he said yesterday on a CBC public affairs program that unemployment higher than that of 1969 may be necessary if we are really going to beat inflation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: He certainly was not expressing policy, Mr. Speaker. He may have been trying to read a crystal ball.


George Harris Hees: As I asked the Prime Minister if the minister was expressing the view of the government, I take it from the Prime Minister's answer that he was. I wish to ask a supplementary question. As unemployment has already reached 6.1 per cent of the work force, how much higher does the government intend to let unemployment rise before it takes steps to change this very serious trend?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we hope it will not rise as high as when the hon. member was a minister.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, another supplementary question. So far I have just had the smart-alec answers which the Prime Minister specializes in and which show that he cares not one whit about unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary, he should ask it.
March 16, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that the answer necessitated those tew words of mine. Since the Prices and Incomes Commission has made it very clear in the past several months that it is completely unable to persuade the leaders of organized labour to give the cooperation which is so necessary to the success of the anti-inflation program, has the Prime Minister now decided to take the action which he suggested on January 23 he would consider taking, namely, holding a private meeting with the leaders of organized labour to try to persuade them of the necessity of making their contribution in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let me reply first, Mr. Speaker, to the way in which the question was phrased. I do not agree that the Prices and Incomes Commission has not succeeded in persuading these people; the operation is not yet over. As to the second part of the question, I shall be having a meeting with the representatives of the main trade unions in Canada shortly-I believe it will be a week from today. They will be coming to Ottawa to present their views to the cabinet on this subject.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, the Prime Minister knows that this meeting is one which is held in routine fashion every year, and that this subject will not be discussed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the contrary, we shall be discussing it.


George Harris Hees: It is a routine matter. You know and so does the Minister of Labour.



INFLATION-ACTION TO CONTROL COST OF LIVING INCREASES

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding the figures just released concerning the cost of living index which, for the month of February this year, indicate that the cost of living has risen 5 per cent compared with February of last year. In view of the disastrous consequences this has for Canadians generally and for those in the low and fixed income groups particularly, will the Prime Minister tell us what action the government proposes to take to deal with this sharp increase in the cost of living, one which seems to indicate that a slowing down in the rate of these increases is not taking place as the Minister of Finance anticipated?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance dealt 
with this very question in his budget presentation. I understand that during the next several days we shall be discussing this particular matter, and I hope the opposition will show in what ways they think the situation can be improved.


John George Diefenbaker: You certainly need help.


An hon. Member:: Wait until you see oui
amendment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that the government's policies of restraint have apparently not slowed down the rate of increase in the cost of living, does the government intend to introduce new and different measures or does it intend to continue using methods which so far have been demonstrably lacking in success?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is a rhetorical question, Mr. Speaker. The subject was dealt with by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech only two days ago. The hon. Member should have been around.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the Prime Minister trying to be smart provided he is accurate. I was here. I was in my place-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But perhaps not here in mind.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I see the Prime Minister tapping his head. Well, I am not where the Prime Minister is tapping. There is a vacancy there, but I do not intend to try to occupy it.



PENSIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the latest rise in the cost of living and its effect on old age pensioners, will the government reconsider its timing in connection with whatever it intends to do about the old age pension? I ask this question in the hope that something might be done at this session of parliament.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: As I have indicated many times to the hon. member, the old age pension, along with all income maintenance programs, will be dealt with in the white paper embodying the government's position.
March 16, 1970


Stanley Howard Knowles: Bearing in mind previous answers to the effect that this white paper may not be brought down until toward the end of the present session, would the government reconsider the timing so that the white paper might be presented earlier and something might be done during this session to increase the amount of the old age pension?


John Carr Munro: It is our hope that the white paper will be brought down before the end of this session.


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the Secretary of State has a surplus of some $35 million in his budget, can he persuade his colleague to give some of that money toward increasing old age pensions?



POST OFFICE


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications.
Since the meeting held during the weekend concerning the postal dispute paralyzing the Montreal area, can the minister tell the House how the matter stands?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I will report to the members of the cabinet later today and I think that a statement will be made tomorrow.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the Canada Grain Act may suggest various areas where high protein grains may be grown and will also suggest other areas where feed grains may be grown, does the minister intend to proceed with the legislation prior to any decision that the agricultural committee may be asked to make on the entire feed grain question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to say that. The bill
Inquiries of the Ministry was introduced in the House and given first reading today. I would hope that we would get on with the second reading and discussion in the standing committee very soon. I see no conflict in connection with these two matters being considered concurrently.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that the minister is himself not clear as to what direction the bill will take, would he be prepared to recommend to the agricultural committee that a further study be made if the bill that he has introduced is found to conflict with the decision of the agricultural committee?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I could predict that in advance. I would be very interested in the recommendations of the committee with respect to these matters.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF TASK FORCE

Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary or related question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the urgent need for a co-ordinated agricultural policy, particularly in the areas of production and marketing, can the minister advise the House when the long overdue report of the agricultural task force will be released?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as soon as it is printed. I have stated that to the House, I think, three times.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In addition to the act regarding grain, has the government anything useful and constructive to offer as to how to sell grain?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but it might be addressed to the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has the Ontario government been in communication with the minister or any of his colleagues with a view to calling a meeting to explore the possibility of finding some alternative to the shutdown of the Dunlop plant which is threatening the jobs of some 600 people?

March 16, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have, as the hon. member knows, had a meeting with the union officials at the Dunlop plant. The members of the union expressed considerable disquiet at the lack of information in regard to the economics behind the closing of the plant, and indicated that perhaps a working committee or task force might be set up to examine with them the justification for the plant closure. I have wired the minister of industry and the Minister of Labour in Toronto, bringing this point to their attention and suggesting that, if they wish to take action along these lines, from the federal point of view we would be happy to co-operate.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the original question directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration with regard to the closing of the Dunlop plant. Can he assure the House, either through a statement on motions or by other means, with regard to the possible effects of the closing of the Dunlop plant, particularly as it affects the textile industry and Cosmo-Imperial Mills in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



MANPOWER


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norlh):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that thousands of students at the various universities of Canada are unable to find employment this spring, is he prepared to accept the suggestion that members of the manpower offices visit the universities to try to place these students in jobs for the summer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, We follow every good suggestion and will consider what further we can do on university campuses where we do not have at the present full-time manpower counsellors.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question about jobs for summer students. Will the minister [Mr. Brewin.l
take steps to ensure that his officials do not provide jobs for students, important as they are, that could otherwise go to unemployed workers with families during the summer months?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is making a representation to the minister and he has to assume it will be taken into account.



OPERATION RETRIEVAL-DISCONTINUANCE OF VISITS BY OFFICIALS TO U.S. CAMPUSES

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary and related question on this whole business of student employment. I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he and his departmental officials have given any consideration to changing the dates when officers of Operation Retrieval are visiting various United States campuses since their visits are often delayed beyond the point where their services can be made available to graduates of United States universities who are in fact Canadian citizens?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have discontinued our field visits to the United States universities.



POSITION OF FAIREY AVIATION EMPLOYEES

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmoulh-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would the Minister indicate whether or not he or his departmental officials have any information about the future of Fairey Aviation and its employees, particularly in light of the suggestion that there seems to be a lot of misinformation filtering back to the employees at Fairey about a takeover by Bell?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take that question as notice and try to give the most up-to-date information to my hon. friend tomorrow or later in the week.



AGRICULTURE


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he will take
March 16. 1S70

action in connection with something that has become very general throughout the prairie provinces, namely, that when payment becomes due on loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act the banks are now insisting, not on the 5 per cent rate provided under the loan but on 8J, 9J, and even higher interest rates. They are insisting that people who have borrowed money pay additional interest. This is unjust and unfair, and I ask the minister to get in touch with the banks in order to remove from the shoulders and backs of western farmers this additional interest because they are unable to pay instalments due because they are not able to sell their wheat.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to discuss this further with the Minister of Finance who is responsible for the administration of the Farm Improvement Loans Act.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Minister of Agriculture responsible for agriculture lend his own support to action of this kind?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in my discussions with the Minister of Finance my interest as the Minister of Agriculture will be very apparent.



DAIRYING-DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW POLICY

André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Can he indicate today when exactly he will announce the dairy policy for the next production year?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, but it will be before the end of this month.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Edmonton-Strathcona.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona but I believe the hon. member for Lotbiniere has a supplementary question.

Did the hon. member for Lotbiniere wish to ask a supplementary question?
Inquiries of the Ministry


André-Gilles Fortin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Considering the increasing concern of dairy producers in Quebec and eastern Canada and the promise by the minister that he would announce this policy well ahead of the new dairy year, could he tell us when he will announce this policy before-


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member is merely repeating his first question.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. Hu Harries (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. What steps has the Canadian government taken to participate in the program launched by the United States government through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to survey by space camera the resources of North America and, more particularly, how is Canada to receive the important resource information about Canada that will inevitably flow from this survey?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question posed by the hon. member is an interesting one. I am wondering whether it is not the type of question which could, with profit, be considered at the time of adjournment.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Cenlre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has Canada received any notification or information from the government of the United States or has Canada made any request for information concerning the intention of the United States government to launch satellites that will cover large portions of Canada and their own country and through the use of infra-red cameras and so forth will make an inventory of mineral deposits in each of our countries, and will we be involved in this scheme?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this is a question that normally would be placed on the Order Paper.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, a number of members of the House spent several days in the United States last week. The hon. member for Edmonton-

March 16, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry Strathcona was ruled out of order when he asked a question on this matter, and I thought that by wording the question differently and directing it to a different minister you would allow it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Edmonton-Strathcona was not ruled out of order. I would suggest to the hon. member that this is the type of question that might be considered at the time of adjournment. In fact, both questions might be considered at that time.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General who is so reticent today but so garrulous yesterday at his press conference. It has to do with the postal situation in Montreal which on March 5 he described as normal. Can the minister advise what steps, other than the embargo on parcel post into and out of Montreal and the threat of armed guards, he has in mind to solve this chaotic situation?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member has given me the opportunity of rectifying a statement. The phrase "armed guards'' is not in my vocabulary and never has been. In answer to a question to that effect I said in French:

The required security services must be provided.

I am told by my colleagues who were there that at the end of the press conference the question was shouted or was posed, when I was leaving, "Would you employ armed guards?" I did not hear that part of it and I simply said we will do whatever is necessary, which the government will do. I expect, as I said earlier to the hon. member for Lot-biniere, to raise certain proposals before my colleagues later today.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I observe that perhaps making statements in the House is not such a dangerous idea after all. Could the minister advise whether he gave any consideration, instead of paying compensatory goodbye bonuses to the men, to trying to do something to guarantee them job security?


Eric William Kierans: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I made it quite clear that the earlier promise I had made that I would accept the responsibility for finding employment for all of those with more than five years service was still valid, even though it was a great deal more difficult because the unions had refused to co-operate, and that by various means I would still undertake to make that guarantee. However, it still does require the co-operation of the unions so that the various seniority lists of the department and of the unions themselves jibe.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he now believes the situation is sufficiently serious in Montreal to ask the Minister of Labour to intervene?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can he say whether he has received yet the report from the seven top medical experts who recently spent a week under the auspices of the Food and Drug Directorate studying the side effects of oral contraceptives used in Canada?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have not received their formal report. I have been brought up to date on the nature of their discussions.


Winona Grace MacInnis: May I ask the minister whether this report will be made available to the public and, if so, when?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if that is a suggestion I will take it under consideration.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Will he advise whether the minister has received representations from the fishermen in the St. George's Bay area of Newfoundland asking for assistance to close the bay to some 64 draggers interfering with inshore fishing which will tend to destroy the lobster fishery there, and has any action been taken?
March 16. 1970


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, to date the Minister of Fisheries has received no word from the chamber of commerce or the fishermen's organizations, but we understand from news reports that such representation is being presented. Our officials advise that the lobster grounds are almost entirely within the three-mile limit and most of the draggers that are in the area are in the eight to ten-mile limit. The department's large patrol vessel, Cape Friel, is maintaining a continuous patrol in this area and we are trying to watch the fishing as closely as we can. We will keep the hon. member and the people in that area informed.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker I have a question for the Government House Leader. He was good enough to offer very graciously to act as my advocate in trying to arrange a meeting of the Standing Committee on Regional Development so that we would have an opportunity to examine the estimates. My question to the Government House Leader is: Has he had any success in this advocacy? Since that time the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has made a very important statement and I understand that the committee will not be meeting this week and it looks as though we will not have the opportunity to examine the minister's statement or the estimates before the Easter recess. I wonder whether the Government House Leader is as generous today as he was last Monday?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, my advocacy continues.


An hon. Member:: But not your generosity.


James Aloysius McGrath: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister arrange for the committee to meet before the Easter recess so that members of the House will have an opportunity to examine the important statement made in the House by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on March 11 and also other items of interest to be found under the departmental estimates?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be reluctant to issue instructions to any committee but will be glad to bring to the attention of the chairman of the committee the hon. member's suggestion.
21774-42J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister set about the task of convening the Committee on Procedure and Organization and have referred to it the question of some means by which a committee can be called without awaiting the permission of the House Leader?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to have misunderstood this as he has misunderstood other things. I do not arrange when committees meet.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, according to the roster the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is supposed to be in the House today. I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Can he tell us whether the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion will be in the House tomorrow so that hon. members will have an opportunity to question him on the statement he made last Wednesday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did not hear the question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure I can take it into consideration from the record.


James Aloysius McGrath: I would have no difficulty repeating the question. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that we will have an opportunity to question the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion tomorrow on the very important statement he made in the House on March 11? He is supposed to be here today under the Prime Minister's roster system. Perhaps the Prime Minister could take some disciplinary action against the minister.



CANADIAN WELFARE COUNCIL REPORT-STATEMENT BY MINISTER

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the report on youth policy published by the Canadian Welfare Council, is it the intention of the minister to make a statement on motions regarding this matter before the Easter recess?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, but I think this is an appropriate subject matter to direct later to my colleague the Secretary of State.

March 16, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Will the minister undertake to have this report referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


John Carr Munro: Again, I think that youth policy in the form in which we are investigating the matter at the federal level falls within the responsibility of my colleague the Secretary of State. I would suggest the hon. member direct the question to him at a later time.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether there is a minister of the Crown in the House today to answer for the Secretary of State who is away on government business. There is supposed to be someone on duty in his place. If there is, would he take as notice the matter of a progress report to the House on the status of the report of the task force on the whole question of youth and its participation in the government process?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to ask the Secretary of State to report to the hon. member on his return.



POLLUTION


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister planning an anti-pollution educational-type display for community fairs during this summer in view of the widespread interest in this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that this kind of question, which is general in nature, should be placed on the Order Paper. If there is urgency, the matter could be considered at the time of adjournment.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Prime Minister. Was the Secretary of State for External Affairs expressing the view of the government when he suggested in a television interview that the Prime Minister might be responsible in part for the low morale in his department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
(Mr. Munro.)


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister tell us if he is developing any plans to reverse the serious morale problem he spoke of on television on Saturday as having a serious effect on the work of his department, according to the minister?


Mitchell William Sharp: One of the things I said was that I hoped all present in the House will not indulge in unfair criticism of diplomats.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question arising out of the answer. I listened to the minister on Saturday with great interest as he got himself into difficulty. In view of his admission that the morale of his department has fallen, would he say what action is being taken in order to raise morale?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Does he intend to implement the recommendation made to the federal government by the Canadian Consumers Council to the effect that the 12-cent sales tax on margarine be abolished?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we have had many representations regarding that.


FINANCE
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the important statement made yesterday by the hon. member for Trinity concerning the government's tax proposals, have these proposals yet been discussed in detail by the cabinet?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
March 16, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry
MANPOWER	HEALTH AND WELFARE


PROGRAM TO ASSIST FARMERS
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. On February 24 I asked the minister whether, in view of the fact that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) has announced a two-year holiday without pay for farmers, his department has planned a crash program for these people who will necessarily come on the labour market or whether they are to get a sabbatical from his department also. At that time the minister replied that he would like to take the question as notice. Now that he has had three weeks, would he answer that question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I
thank my hon. friend for his patience. If he is referring to the acreage program announced by the Minister without Portfolio, no such crash program is being prepared by my department.


POST OFFICE
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications. Did the minister approve circulation of a letter which went out from his department to all postal employees concerning the offer made by the department in respect of the wages and working conditions which are being negotiated at the same time with the postal unions concerned?


Eric William Kierans: Yes. We believe the employees of the Post Office should be fully informed.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he has received complaints that such conduct on the part of the department is an unfair labour practice and one which can only prejudice the meaningful discussions going on between the department and the employees?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, we see nothing unfair in providing the employees of the Post Office with full and fair information on the facts.


MEDICARE-TERMS OF NEW BRUNSWICK'S ENTRY INTO PLAN
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of some haziness concerning New Brunswick's entry into medicare, may I ask whether the minister will confirm that the federal government's contribution will be exactly 70 per cent and advise whether there will be any other special arrangements for that province?


John Carr Munro: Calculations have been going on for some time to determine the precise percentage. It is certainly well over 50 per cent but whether it is precisely 70 per cent I cannot advise the hon. member at this time. I might be able to do so later.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the minister know of any other special arrangements that were made with New Brunswick about medicare?


John Carr Munro: No. New Brunswick is treated no differently under the Medical Care Act than any other province.


POLLUTION
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In light of the very extraordinary circumstances surrounding the events following the sinking of the Arrow in Chedabucto Bay, has the cabinet now decided on or given full consideration to the matter of compensation for those who have been affected?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am afraid I cannot add anything to what the Minister of Transport has been saying on this matter, Mr. Speaker.


PROHIBITION OF OIL DRILLING ON CONTINENTAL SHELF
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the government decided on a new policy regarding offshore drilling on Canada's continental shelf in light of the experience of the disastrous spill off the coast of Florida, and is

March 16, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry the government prepared to prohibit offshore drilling on Canada's continental shelf because of the very serious pollution threat?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the hon. member is asking the government, the Prime Minister, or the responsible minister to make a general statement of policy. I do not think the question in those terms could be accepted.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might ask a different question, a related question. The original question not having been accepted for procedural reasons, the hon. member could ask a different one.


SECOND VOYAGE OF &quot;MANHATTAN&quot;- CHANGE OF PLANS
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the oil slick around Alaska, has any thought been given to a change in the plans with reference to the Manhattan again going through the Northwest Passage, whether with or without the permission of the Canadian government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can report no new development on that subject.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the Prime Minister be prepared to discuss this with the American government, in view of the fact that they themselves consider the oil slick in the Alaska area to be a serious situation?


PHOSPHATE DETERGENTS-DISCONTINUANCE OF RADIO AND TELEVISION ADVERTISING
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State may I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio from York-Scarborough. In view of the fact that most Canadians agree with the government that we should not continue to use detergents with high phosphate content, would the minister take up with the CBC and the CRTC the possibility of discontinuing radio and television commercials that urge Canadians to use these detergents?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I shall be glad to bring this matter to the attention of both the CRTC and the CBC, Mr. Speaker.
IMr. McGrath.]


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Acting Secretary of State with, I am sure, the approval of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the acting minister ask CBC television whether its reporter now visiting in Trinidad could seek interviews with people other than terrorists, troublemakers and other forms of trash?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I will convey that message, and I am sure that in the tradition of journalistic objectivity the CBC will want to do that.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister arising out of discussions and questions directed to him last fall by the Leader of the Opposition and myself. Is it the intention of the government to introduce a measure to increase the capacity and efficiency of the Auditor General and his staff to deal with the many misdemeanours in government spending, and will a new statute bring his salary into line with that of deputy ministers in other departments?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on the list of bills for the third part of this session there is a bill to amend the Financial Administration Act if, of course, the House can get on with that bill before the end of the session.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the intention of the government to introduce a special statute dealing with the office of the Auditor General, as was proposed and partially accepted by the government last fall?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, disclosure of the contents of any bill dealing with the Financial Administration Act, which of course sets up the office of the Auditor General, would have to wait until the bill is given first reading.
March 16, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	5051
The Budget-Hon. M. Lambert [Translation]	[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
AUDITING OF CROWN CORPORATION	GOVERNMENT ORDERS


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Privy Council.
Could he tell the House whether he intends to include in the legislative proposal a provision to the effect that the Auditor General would be empowered to audit the books of all Crown corporations?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, one must wait for the introduction of the legislative proposal to know what its provisions are going to be.


APPEARANCE OF HOCKEY CANADA REPRESENTATIVES BEFORE COMMITTEE
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the minister is about to make a major policy statement on Canadian sport I would like to ask whether he has reached any decision regarding a request I made some months ago to have Hockey Canada representatives appear before the appropriate standing committee?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not come to any decision with respect to that matter. It is hoped the sports policy will be made known to the House very soon.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. The hon. member for Lisgar.


MANITOBA CENTENNIAL
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, last Monday I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who unfortunately was not in the chamber, whether he would continue the practice of paying the fares of the visiting teams to the final games of the Canadian amateur baseball championships. Would he give that his consideration?


John Carr Munro: If I am accurate I believe the answer is in the affirmative, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, March 12, consideration of the motion of Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) on Thursday evening, and having spent some 25 minutes in comment upon his budget I find, on reviewing the remarks I made at that time, they were more accurate than I could have dreamed. I wish, first, to briefly recapitulate my remarks on the nature of the budget.
First of all, I think we will agree that the intensity of inflation today is due in large measure to the failure of the federal government and the provinces to settle priorities for the main government spending programs, particularly in the fields of health, education and social welfare. Second, we would agree that the government's monetary and fiscal measures have not had any noticeable effect on inflation up to the present time. This is evidenced by the present level of interest rates and continually rising prices. Today, we have a clear indication of a further rise in prices, and the monetary and fiscal measures which were supposed to be so effective have failed to make any impression whatsoever on what we consider to be the main yardstick of inflation.
Mind you, Mr. Speaker, I think it is also agreed that the monetary and fiscal measures of the government are causing an economic slowdown, and this is evidenced by rising unemployment. So, we have this strange paradox that we are in a highly inflationary period, with interest rates at an all time high, and we are building up more and more unemployment.
The third point I made was with respect to control of government expenditures. In his budget speech, and again on television, the minister laboured to emphasize that he and his colleagues have got their expenditure programs under control. Frankly, that is more apparent than real. After all, Mr. Speaker, the estimates for 1969-70 showed an increase
March 16. 1970

The Budget-Hon. M. Lambert in federal government expenditures of $1 billion-$1,000 million dollars-and the estimates tabled the other day for 1970-71, without taking into account any supplementary estimates which may be filed, already provide for a further increase of $900 million. If that is having our programs under control, then I wonder what it would be like if they were not under control? After all, the mammoth cut-backs announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last summer for certain departments, and particularly the personnel of those departments, are frankly non-existent. When you increase spending programs by $800 million or $900 million in your main estimates, with anywhere up to a quarter million dollars coming in on your supplementary estimates, then there is no question but that the government has not got the spending programs under control.
I wonder whether we will get further indications from the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) or anybody else representing the government that certain open-ended programs such as medicare, post-secondary education, hospital insurance and the Canada Assistance Plan will be blamed. Those programs were blamed by the President of the Treasury Board the last time he made his confession that the government's figures were wildly in error.
The next item I referred to was the consumer credit controls which will have the most effect on the consumer durables, with the highest incidence in Ontario and Quebec. This is a strange method of fighting present day inflation, by reverting to the means used at the time of the Korean conflict in 1950-52 when inflation was of a different sort. We know that at that time there were too few goods and services chased by far too much money but today the dollars are not chasing too few goods because, in some lines, there are distressingly high inventories. I will admit there is a fair amount of money in certain sectors but in others, for instance in western agriculture and among the lower income groups there is not that much money. Yet what we are to be asked is to encourage more unemployment and have more economic slack because those results would flow from consumer credit controls.
Then, there is the failure to fight high unemployment in the textile industry by not implementing the recommendations of the Tariff Board which were in the minister's hands in ample time for decision and action in the budget.

The next item is the failure to provide relief against inflation for persons on low income and for old age pensioners by granting them an increment to the general income supplement. This, in itself, need not make such heavy inroads on the revenue of the government because some form of tax credit could be granted, as spoken of by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for persons with low incomes, that is those with any other form of revenue than old age pension.
I did say that we agreed with the minister's proposal with regard to water and air pollution control but that is about the only part of the budget we approve.
On the basis of my remarks the other night, Mr. Speaker, I move:
That all the words after "House" be deleted and there be added the following:
Regrets that the budgetary proposals of the government fail to provide any tax relief for persons of low income, fail to recommend any increase in the guaranteed income supplement to the old age security pension, and those which impose consumer credit controls will not only fail to curb inflation but will contribute materially to increasing unemployment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What do you think of that, Ben?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to the question of consumer credit controls. The minister has indicated that he wishes to consult with credit granting institutions of one kind or another and then bring in his regulations in six or eight weeks. This is an odd way of doing this because, in the interval, there could be such a splurge of buying in certain lines that an artificial shortage could be created and you would have a continuing pressure on the commodities in question. In other lines, there could be an exhaustion of the demand for many months to come because of a tendency to buy ahead of time. Therefore, you would have a complete and utter slack in those particular industries or areas which provided services.
We do not know what kind of controls we are going to get and depending on the nature of these controls there may be all sorts of evasions. In the weekend press we read suggestions for getting around some types of consumer credit control. When we look at the auto industry, which is a basic industry, we know it certainly will be the bellwether as to the level of prosperity in the country. At the weekend the president of Ford of Canada indicated that sales across Canada were down
March 16, 1970	COMMONS
20 to 25 per cent as a whole for that company, and I am sure that they are in the same position as all the other motor companies. We have seen that motor car sales have varied from a decrease of 16 per cent to perhaps a bit more than 30 per cent since January 1. Why would the minister want to impose consumer credit controls on that industry which is already suffering a one-third decrease in volume. This is quite incomprehensible. It is also incomprehensible that the down payment should be limited to 20 per cent and that the maximum repayment period should be 30 months.
In this morning's Gazette there is an item cited by John Meyer, which shows that in the Montreal area the average down payment for automobiles is 25 per cent, which is more than will be required under the controls. It also states that the maximum average repayment period is 29 months. This is less than is proposed by the government but still there is inflation, there is no doubt about that. It is incomprehensible that in an industry which is already suffering from a decline in sales, the minister would introduce consumer credit controls in order to control inflation. His terms of repayment and the amount of the down payment are actually lower than those prevailing in the industry. Does he think that under his proposals there is going to be any greater control? Hardly. In arriving at these figures of 20 per cent down with a maximum of 30 months repayment period, I should like to know if the government has tested the situation in the Toronto-Hamilton area, for instance, or Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver or Halifax to see if these figures are not actually less than the conditions prevailing in the market. If so, the whole exercise would be completely an exercise in futility with no results whatsoever and this is what I wanted to know.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Another point with regard to consumer credit controls is this: they strike at purchasers from all income levels. The automobile dealer or furniture store dealer selling consumer wares will not ask the potential purchaser, "Are you earning $6,000 or $9,000 a year, or $15,000?" I suppose the requirement for a down payment would then depend on what the customer is earning. Yet is it not true that an across the board requirement for a 20 per cent or more than 20 per cent down payment will affect the man earning $6,000 a year far more than the man earning $15,000 or $20,000? Therefore, who is hit again by
DEBATES	5053
The Budget-Hon. M. Lambert this requirement? It is the man in the moderate and low income group who must carry the burden of the restriction. After all, the man earning over $12,000 a year, if you want to take that figure, has the necessary cash or credit reserves, and he can obtain the additional cash quite easily to cover the increased down payment requirement. But the poor fellow earning $5,000 or $6,000 a year cannot do that. He again will be the one who will say, "I shall have to put off buying that car until next year." On the other hand, the fellow with the greater income could not care less; he has to dig down a bit deeper. He has the cash and he makes the purchase. So, it is the poor little man with the lower income who again will feel the punch of this consumer credit restriction.
I was disappointed that the budget speech did not immediately refer to the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. The minister had high hopes with regard to the report. The committee had been charged by this House to inquire into the question of high interest rates and related problems of inflation. The report is tabled but no reference made to it at all. I think the minister should have referred to it in his speech, because it contains certain recommendations which are useful. I do not agree with all of them; after all it is a majority report and some recommendations I should hesitate to accept. For the edification of hon. members I think we ought to look at that report which contains some citations from various reports of the Economic Council of Canada. These reinforce the point I made the other night that inflation is not something that suddenly cropped up during the past year, although if you look at the frenzied actions of this government you might think it had suddenly discovered inflation under its pillow. After all, serious inflation has been with us now for the past five or six years. Has this government done anything about it? No. It is only in the last year or so that it seems to have paid more than lip service to fighting inflation. May I transgress on the patience of the House and read extensively from that report, because I hope that more attention than has been paid to it in the past will now be paid to it. I am reading from Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 14 of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. At page 6 is found the following:
Your Committee has conducted its investigation of interest rates in the context of the economy
March 16, 1970

The Budget-Hon. M. Lambert of 1969: an economy struggling with an inflation which has already produced dangerous social effects, distorted national goals and weakened Canada economically. Inflation distorts the normal working of the market place rendering the price mechanism defective; it is destroying the Canadian market for long term obligations preventing governments from raising social capital for housing and other objectives; if our inflation exceeds that of our most effective trading partners, bearing in mind that two dollars of every five dollars of goods which Canadians produce are sold abroad, it will cause our foreign markets to shrink and imports to have additional advantages on the domestic market, (deprive Canadian producers of the benefit of production on a large scale with the low costs that result) and will cause unemployment; worst of all, the impact of inflation on the real incomes of Canadians is discriminatory and works most unfairly against individuals who live on fixed incomes, generally the weakest members of our society.
This has been echoed and re-echoed so often that I think the minister ought to have made some reference to the report. I continue reading from it:
Today's inflation has tended to institutionalize itself as a persistent and would-be permanent guest in our system, through, among other factors, the wide-spread development of an inflationary psychology.
In reviewing the evidence of the Economic Council of Canada we note that the Chairman of the Council told the Committee on October 6, 1969:
And the report quotes what the chairman of the council told the committee as follows:
'You will recall that in 1966 we were approaching the crest of a construction boom...
Thus back in 1966 the long-term economic advisory body established by this government's predecessor was issuing warnings. The Economic Council also warned as follows:
-'the emergence of a number of general underlying factors which have created an environment less favourable to the maintenance of a good record of price and cost stability than was the case in the earlier years of the current economic expansion since I960'.
The committee's report continued as follows:
The Council's Fourth Annual Review in 1967 was prepared at a time of some moderation of growth in the economy. But this Review emphasized that 'an early resumption of stronger general demand expansion from the present situation would clearly lead to an earlier reappearance of significant price and cost pressures that took place over the great expansion in 1961-66'. On the basis of its appraisal of the basic economic situation at that time, the Council went on to elaborate;
'We believe that underlying conditions are favourable to continuing strong demand growth and that following the recent shorter-term adjustments which have been evident in various parts of the economy, great care will be required to avoid the emergence of excessive general demand pressures.

The committee noted, as did the Economic Council of Canada and other witnesses appearing before the committee, that there was a good deal of inflationary pressure in Canada as a result of conditions prevailing in the United States. The committee commented on this in its report. In its evidence of October 6, 1969, the Economic Council of Canada stated as follows:
The Council also notes that the overheating of the U.S. economy has contributed to a much more marked 'inflationary psychology' in both the United States and Canada. In the words of the Sixth Annual Review-'Expectations of continuing substantial price increases are currently being taken increasingly into account in the markets for some goods and services (for example, in such fields as construction and land purchases), as well as in the markets for labour and capital. In these circumstances, resistance to price and cost increases tends to be reduced.' This has complicated the difficulties of restoring reasonable price and cost stability in Canada.
It noted further that:
In approaching the policy setting appropriate to achieving good performance in the economy the Council has based its approach on an essential premise since the First Annual Review. This is the premise that it will be very difficult indeed to achieve high standards of performance in relation to our basic and social goals under conditions in which there is poor performance in the world economy-and in particular, in the U.S. economy. We have made it clear that the Canadian economy cannot be effectively insulated from major price movements abroad. The scope for unilateral action within Canada to contain inflation is limited.
e (3:20 p.m.)
Further evidence is attached to appendix A of the report. There are two tables attached to appendix A of which I have copies. I hope the House will give permission to including these in the record. They show a comparison between Canada and the United States in so far as the changes in the gross national product price index as well as central government interest rates, money market interest rates and consumer and price changes for about ten countries including Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden and others. They are very instructive tables.
I wish to quote from the appendix because the tables only become relevant if the reference to appendix A is made. This is an extract from the brief of the Economic Council of Canada presented to the committee on October 6, 1969. I am quoting far more than I had intended, Mr. Speaker, but it is necessary in order to transpose into this debate the conclusions and basic evidence of the Stand-
March 16. 1970

ing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. After all, this budget was produced as an anti-inflationary budget. It has done very little. Therefore, I want to relate the government's approach to the situation as seen by the committee, and the recommendations the committee made with regard to that particular situation.


Mr. Benson:: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question? I wonder if the hon. member would object to having the whole report of the committee attached as an appendix to today's Hansard? I would be very much in favour of this.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is subject to the desire of the House, Mr. Speaker. I make certain reservations with regard to some of the proposals of the committee. If it will shorten the proceedings, perhaps the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs could be made an appendix. However, the report is 27 pages in length. This is a great deal and I hesitate to agree with what the minister has suggested. I would prefer to make the citations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we should try to clarify this point immediately. My understanding is the minister has suggested a certain document be appended to today's Hansard. There is some difficulty in doing this. The alternative is that certain tables be printed as part of the hon. member's speech. That, of course, is breaking with practice and tradition. As hon. members know, the only way members can have statistics included in their speeches is by reading them so that they will appear on the record.


An hon. Member:: Or by consent.


Mr. Speaker:: It is a practice which has been extended to cabinet ministers as part of formal statements, but not to members in the course of a debate. However, if there is unanimous consent that the tables to which the hon. member refers be included as part of the hon. member's speech, of course this will be done.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that, rather than having the report quoted extensively, it would be simpler for the House to have the whole report of the committee attached to Hansard. If Your Honour wishes to revert to motions to make it perfectly legal, I would request that it be attached to Hansard.

The Budget-Hon. M. Lambert


Gerald William Baldwin: I would like to vary that, Mr. Speaker, and suggest that we revert to the minister's speech and the minister can attach it. He put in everything but the kitchen sink and he can put that in, too.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to put the kitchen sink in as well. The hon. member was referring to the report so extensively that I was trying to do the opposition a favour by suggesting that the whole of the report be attached to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair should get a direction from the House on the point to which I have just alluded. Hon. members realize the main difficulty about including long tables as part of an hon. member's speech is that if this became the normal practice in our debates, there could no longer be an assurance that Hansard would be published from day to day and delivered to hon. members at the usual time. I believe this is one of the practical difficulties. If there is unanimous agreement, it will be understood that the table referred to by the hon. member will be printed in Hansard as part of the hon. member's speech.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I was simply suggesting that the report be attached as an appendix to Hansard and the hon. member could quote from the report what he wished, provided the whole report was attached as an appendix to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The only alternative is for the hon. member for Edmonton West to read whatever he wants included in Hansard, even if it takes a little more time of the House.


Mr. Richard:: I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that I am the only one in the first row on the government side to support the hon. member. I support him entirely.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: 
Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is there is no agreement to allow the hon. member-


Edgar John Benson: I stated the situation. I am quite willing to have the whole report attached as an appendix to Hansard. It would save the hon. member the time of reading the statistics.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Will it be attached or should I read it?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member will now have to read it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It reads: TABLE I
Percentage change in gross national product price index 1965 to first half 1969.


Mr. Saltsman:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Waterloo rises on a point of order.


Max Saltsman: I want it clearly understood that the House unanimously agreed to permit the hon. member for Edmonton West to insert that table in the record as part of his speech. The only exception has been the Minister of Finance who has been insisting that the entire document be inserted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have
already gone through the point. The hon. member for Edmonton West has the floor.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I continue:
Year	Canada United States
1965	3.5 1.9
1966	4.6 2.7
1967	3.4 3.2
1968	4.0 4.0
1969 (First Half)	3.7* 4.5
*On the basis of the	unrevised National Aecounts; quarterly figures	on the revised basis have
not yet been published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.

DEBATES	March 16, 1970
I continue reading from the brief of the Economic Council:
In terms of the GNP price index-the broadest index of price increases taking place in the whole economy-it might be noted that the highest rate of price increase in Canada occurred in 1966.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Mind you, Mr. Speaker, this is based on the first half of 1969. Now that the figures have been published we can see that the highest-ever increase took place in the latter half of 1969, showing an increase of between 4.5 and 4.75 points by the end of the year. We also know why the index rose so sharply in 1966. This was the year in which some of those rather fantastic wage settlements were agreed to in certain key sectors of the economy.
From the table it will be seen that the GNP price index increased 4.6 per cent in 1966. For the first half of 1969, as against the first half of 1968, the rate is 3.7. In the United States the highest rate of such increase occurred in 1969. In the United States there has been a steadier build-up toward higher rates of price increase.
Appendix B is a table entitled "International Interest Rates and Consumer Prices". It is one page in length and I would ask the leave of the House to include it at this point in the record. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that apart from a few more references to certain points which were raised in the committee's report I do not intend to read any more.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Edgar John Benson: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have noticed that he does not have the leave of the House to proceed as he proposes and I suggest that again he would be required to read the table.


Edgar John Benson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not really want to stress the point-the only thing I was trying to say was that if the hon. member wishes to quote extensively from the report of a committee of this House, the government is willing, as I have indicated, to have the whole of the report attached as an appendix to Hansard. I still believe this is the reasonable way of doing it. However, if the hon. member wishes to take certain pages out and have them inserted in Hansard on his own responsibility, that is fine as far as the government is concerned.


Gerald William Baldwin: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I draw it to your attention that the
March 16, 1970

minister made a speech a few days ago, selectively placing on the record items which happened to appeal to him and to the government but which did not show the true picture.


Edgar John Benson: May I say in that regard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. minister. I regret that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) should be placed in his present position but the Chair has no alternative but to repeat its suggestion as to the way in which this should be handled.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is the first time I have found that it was necessary to secure unanimous consent before a document could be placed on the record. General consensus has always been sufficient. In any event, I will read it.
First of all, the table considers bonds and yields under the heading "Central government". Figures are given for 1963-no month is specified-and for May, 1969. Then, there is a column under the second heading, "Yields", showing the percentage change. This comparison is also made in respect of the money market over the same period. Interest rates and percentage changes are set out. The same procedure is followed under a third heading "Consumer Price". Here, the comparison is made between the period from 1963-no month given-to May, 1969, and the position at the second quarter of 1969.
With the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker, I must say it has never been the practice of this House to require unanimous consent to inserting a document in these circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: I have thought about the matter. This is not the first time the question

The Budget-Hon. M. Lambert has been raised as to whether tables or figures can be put on the record. The rule has long been established-and I am assured of this by the advisers whom I have consulted in this regard-that this is a privilege which is reserved, perhaps, for ministers making statements, and that hon. members taking part in a debate cannot have tables of statistics or figures appended to Hansard or included in their speeches as read unless the House, being master of its own rules, agrees unanimously. This is the practice which has been followed, rightly or wrongly. As I said, I am sorry the hon. member is placed in this position, because we are losing time in this way. But I am afraid there is no alternative before the hon. member but to go through the ordeal of reading these figures and tables.


Edgar John Benson: As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would be prepared to give unanimous consent, with the caveat I mentioned earlier. I would much prefer to see the whole of the document printed. The hon. member does not appear to want this. Anyway, you have unanimous consent.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Very well. Just to clarify the source of this information, may I say that these figures come from the International Monetary Fund-the international financial statistics for August, 1969. Their paternity is impeccable.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my understanding that the paternity of the figures having been established there is now agreement that they should be printed as part of the hon. member's speech.
[Editor's Note: Table referred to follows.]


APPENDIX B
[Stage Direction]
Extract from the Brief of Dr. E. P. Neufeld, presented to the Committee September 30, 1969:

[Stage Direction]
Central Government	Money Market	Consumer Price	Bond	Yields	Interest Rates	Percentage Change	1963	May 1969	Percentage	Percentage	From 1963	Year EndedChange	1963	May 1969 Change	to May 1969 2nd Qtr. 1969	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5) (6)	(7)	(8)United Kingdom	
5.59	9.08	62	3.66	7.83	114	27	6Netherlands	
4.22	6.75	60	1.94	5.50	184	35	8Sweden	
4.45	6.82	53	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	26	3Canada	
5.07	7.54	49	3.57	6.74	89	21	5United States	
4.00	5.85	46	3.16	6.08	92	19	5Switzerland	
3.25	4.58	41	1.75	4.25	143	22	3France	
4.97	6.53	31	3.98	8.96	125	23	6Belgium	
4.98	5.90	18	2.28	4.25	86	23	4Germany1	
6.00	6.50	8	2.97	1.63	-45	16	3Unweighted Average	
4.73	6.62	41	2.91	5.65	99	24	5
Source: Rates as shown in International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, August, 1969. 1 Local government bond."
5058	COMMONS DEBATES	March 16, 1970
The Budget-Hon. M. Lambert
March 16, 1970	COMMONS
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There are two other points I should like to make. In the report, there is the same note of caution sounded. I refer now to the testimony introduced by the Governor of the Bank of Canada I refer hon. members to page 10 of the report. There is also a section on incomes, productivity and prices on the same page which I would commend to hon. members. This is part of a recommendation, and I shall quote from it very briefly.
We were particularly interested in the view that labour and management in certain key industries referred to by Galbraith as the "industrial heartland" agreed to wage settlements perhaps at times no greater than their own productivity increases but greater than the average productivity increase for the economy. Such a practice would have the effect of encouraging other less productive industries to follow the wage pattern of the pace-setting industries. When such wage settlements are accompanied by corresponding price increases there is an inflationary cost-push. We recommend that a study in depth be undertaken of the influence of wages and prices in key industries on the Canadian economy. Similarly, the importance of the service industries, employing about 50 per cent of the labour force, seems little understood as a factor in inflation. We think more research is needed.
In the light of this recommendation and many others along similar lines, I would have expected some indication from the government that it would direct the attention of the Economic Council to this question. How does one measure productivity in actual fact, particularly in the service industries? It is very simple to determine productivity levels in industries which produce goods, and to ascertain whether increased productivity is, or is not, the equivalent of wage increases. One can determine the effect of changes in levels of wages and productivity. We have had considerable experience in doing this. But with regard to the service industries we encounter obvious difficulties. For instance, my hon. friend from Calgary North might increase his fees as a lawyer, or my hon. friend from Orillia might increase his medical fees. But how can we tell whether there has been a corresponding increase in productivity? Of course, I am pulling the leg of my hon. friend from Calgary. But how can we tell whether an increase is justifiable?
For example, how can productivity in the field of education be measured? There have certainly been great increases in salaries in the educational field. Has there been a corresponding increase in productivity? It is an entirely unknown subject, but the impact of changes of this kind on the Canadian economy is immense. It is noteworthy that in the
DEBATES	5059
The Budget-Mr. Saltsman eyes of the Economic Council more than 50 per cent of those gainfully employed in Canada are engaged in the service industries. We are, therefore, talking about inflation at a time when we lack knowledge of the subject. I would have thought that the government could take this particular point and ask the Economic Council to direct its attention to it. Alternatively, the government itself could have taken steps through its own research facilities to see whether something could be done to determine what is true productivity in certain service industries.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
There are many other recommendations to which I should have liked to refer, as I say, but I feel that I have transgressed on the patience of the House. Again, I refer to the motion that I have put, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque, (Mr. MacLean), and I urge its acceptance by the House.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, the first impulse I had on reading the minister's budget was to shrug my shoulders. This is a characteristic stance of the government: rather than produce answers it would prefer to shrug its shoulders. The budget was so empty that it hardly seemed worth the effort to comment upon it. However, by saying nothing, this budget says a good deal, and a good deal that is unsatisfactory.
One wonders what to call a budget-maker who is not satisfied with creating half a million unemployed but indeed seeks to augment that figure, and to do so in the name of the nation. What kind of budget is it that has to increase unemployment in Canada to achieve the objectives of the minister's policies?
What does one call a government that produces such a budget? I think we would be justified in calling it callous, indifferent-


David Orlikow: Heartless.


Max Saltsman: Yes, heartless. We would be justified in using many other names, but I think that the government ought to be called stupid. I say that because the budget tells a nation which has 20 per cent of its population living in absolute poverty, and many more at some undefined level of poverty, that the government has no intention of helping the poor, of helping the old age pensioners. The budget indicates that the government has no intention of living up to is advance billing that it would create a just society. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is telling the country that the way to help the poor is to create
5060	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Saltsman unemployment. I should like him to explain that philosophy to me. Better still, let the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) explain to me how we can fight poverty by throwing people out of work. It is a philosophy I just do not understand.
The housing crisis in Canada is worsening year by year. Housing starts this year are way down. Some houses are just being completed, but the projection is that housing starts this year will be down compared with last year, and the inevitable result will be that rents will rise to even higher levels than they are at the present time. In face of this situation, the budget, in effect, tells the nation: "Don't worry about housing. The government will make a little money available in the public sector, but there is nothing or very little for housing in general in Canada".
We are living in an environment that is being polluted. People who are examining the problem are warning us that our society, our civilization, our very lives are in danger if we do not do something to stop pollution. Yet this budget continues to grant 50 per cent write-offs to industry, for anti-pollution devices, perpetuating the practice of the past. This has been found an inadequate measure because it does not really deal with the problem or with the urgency of the situation. There is so little in this budget that the government had to grasp at these meagre, minor items in order to show that some matters at least have been given thought. But thinking is not enough; we have to do something about our problems. This budget gives no indication of any conception of the task ahead of us.
Our urban municipalities are in desperate need. As far as they are concerned, the budget says, in effect: "Tough luck; the government has other priorities". There is no recognition in the budget of those problems that face urban society, a society in which the majority of the people in Canada live. Are we going to wait until our cities are destroyed before the government takes action? Can we not learn anything from looking at the situation of cities in North America, where some are already virtually destroyed and the cost of recovery is almost beyond comprehension? Although time is on our side in Canada, it will not continue to be with budgets of this kind.
While the government takes pride-or so it says-in increasing its expenditure on regional development, it cuts its own throat and sabotages its own efforts by maintaining a high level of unemployment, creating particu-

DEBATES	March 16, 1970
lar problems in disadvantaged regions of Canada. The government might just as well throw money down the drain. We do not begrudge the money spent on regional development; in fact, we think more should be spent. But the only way to make this expenditure effective is to have full employment. If you allow the economy to drag its feet at a time when you are pouring money into regional development, at best all you are doing is preventing the situation from getting worse. Certainly, you are not improving it.
How does one justify bringing in this kind of budget? I can say with a great deal of sadness that I never thought I would see a government in Canada bring in a budget proposal which, in the words of the budget, offered an invitation to union busting in Canada. Never before have I seen a budget that used such language, language which indicates that Canada is going to have labour strikes. It is as though the government wanted strikes to take place, as though the government is telling employers in this country to encourage strikes. This is something which is particularly incomprehensible. One of the members of the press gallery asked me why I was of this view. He said he realized there were indications of this in the words used by the minister, but he asked me why I would say the minister was inviting people to start strikes. I replied that he had only to take a look at the minister's behaviour when he did not want a strike to take place. We have seen the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mack-asey) rise in his place in this House when he was concerned about a strike that was in the offing, and at no time did he acknowledge the possibility that the situation could not be worked out without resort being had to that ultimate weapon, the strike. I suggest that if you want to solve labour troubles you would not use the kind of language used by the minister in his budget statement.
The budget also indicates the government is going to fight inflation by controlling consumer credit. Some people are saying that these controls will not work; others say that they will hurt the poor. Frankly, I do not think they will work, and I do not know why the minister made these proposals. The evidence is that if it looks as though they are going to work, then the merchants will find ways around them and make sure they do not work. If they work at all it will be the poor who will suffer, those who are least able to bear a cut in consumer credit. I am not going to spend very much time on this item, beyond
March 16, 1970

pointing out the foolishness of such a proposal. I suggest it has no real value apart from scaring everybody out of their wits that the minister is going to take some action.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
If we look at this budget in an over-all way we should not be surprised if the poor, the disadvantaged and the idealists of our society are not grateful to our Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). It is one thing to call for sacrifices in our society, even unemployment, if some case can be made for it, and if people understand that the sacrifices are leading to something worthwhile. This nation has never been remiss in carrying a burden if it was necessary in the interests of the nation. This unemployment is absolutely unnecessary. This is a worthless device and cannot possibly achieve the objective the Minister of Finance is trying to achieve through it. The Minister of Finance is asking us to suffer without cause, and no one is going to support that kind of situation.
Shortly before the budget address, an esteemed gentleman of the other place indicated that there was going to be an increase in supplementary pensioners to old age pensioners, and most of us thought this was the real news. We thought that this gentleman had got this information. This made a lot of sense, particularly since we had a greater budgetary surplus than the minister anticipated. We felt it would cost the government a relatively small part of that surplus to increase these pensions. It was a major disappointment to find that even this one thing which the government could have done for some of the people of this country was not being done. There was no question of the government not having the money, because the money was there. In view of the minister's straightforward determination to fight inflation, regardless of what it costs the people of this country and regardless of the possibility of success, no action was taken to increase old age pensions.
If there had not been enough surplus to take care of this increase in old age pensions, veterans pensions and housing in Canada we might understand, but there is a great deal in our economy that this government is throwing away. I presume if somebody went around burning money on our streets or actually throwing it away people would think he was mad and lock him up. When the minister does the same thing they do not lock him up because when he does it he is protected by his office. Why do I say this, Mr. Speaker? It

The Budget-Mr. Saltsman is not easy to calculate the cost of unemployment. I do not think anyone has made any definitive study of what unemployment costs, but there are some indications of its dimensions. In the year 1967 a study was conducted by the economic council which indicated that the level of unemployment at that time, a little over 4 per cent or somewhat less than it is today, resulted in a 5 per cent loss in our gross national product and a loss of 10 per cent of anticipated government revenues.
What does 5 per cent of our gross national product mean to us today? The unemployment figure is higher and presumably the amount would be greater, but let us stay at the lower figure. We are talking about kicking away or burning up $4 billion in potential production in goods and services which this nation might produce under a better policy.


An hon. Member:: Under a perfect policy, you mean.


Max Saltsman: Not just under a perfect policy; I am still considering 3 per cent unemployment, and I am prepared to accept that as a maximum. I am not talking about wiping out unemployment completely, although I think that could be done. I am not going to suggest that. I want to stay with the minimum average so no one can accuse me of exaggerating these figures. These are absolute minimum figures. We have lost $4 billion of our gross national product in goods and services that the people of this nation need desperately.
What does this 10 per cent loss of government revenues represent? We are talking about over $1 billion that we are throwing away. We have not got the money to fight pollution, to help the old age pensioner, to build houses and to help cities, but we can throw revenue away without any thought. The problem is not that there is a shortage of revenue, the problem is a result of the government being wasteful and stupid in its policies. If it pursues them, we will never have any resources with which to build a better society. It is incredulous that this should be done in this modern age. If the minister of any European country were to set out to create this level of unemployment he would be run out of town on a rail, smoking his pipe and all. It is just unbelievable that the government of Canada would do this to the people of the nation.
When people ask me why we have so much unemployment in this country, I say we have it because the government wants it. These
5062	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Saltsman people do not really believe me when I say that we have unemployment because the government wants it and has decided to have it. They say, would my government do that to me and I have to say, yes. I suggest that the government has adopted this course, but I do not know whether one could really call it "his government" when it acts in this way. This government has created this problem intentionally and deliberately.
I do not want to suggest that the 1967 study by the Economic Council is the only one. There was a study done by David Slater under the title "Economic Policy and Economic Research in Canada since 1960" published in the Queen's Quarterly in the spring of 1967. It talked about the five year period in Canada between 1958 and 1962. It suggested that because of the high unemployment which resulted from government policies the nation lost $15 billion in production. So, in some ways, we are not dealing with a new phenomenon or new stupidity. We are dealing with an ongoing policy.
I, for one, cannot listen with any degree of civility to people on the other side of the House who tell me we cannot afford things. They always ask where we are going to get the money. That is always their cry. Where are we going to get the money for old age pensions and where is the money going to come from for housing? Those hon. members always use this as a quick taunt. It is obvious where the money is going to come from. Immediately following a cutback of waste, there would be money for these things.


An hon. Member:: Is that the way the
socialists do it in England?


Max Saltsman: I am getting a little tired of you people trying to answer these questions of ours in that way. You try to argue that it is better to create unemployment, and you try to argue away these figures regarding the amount of money we are losing. I do not care what name you call my policy, my suggestions or the suggestions of my party, you should-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would like to direct his remarks to the Chair.


Max Saltsman: Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest to the hon. member that he would be much better off if he were to listen to some of the arguments. He might then learn something instead of behaving like an automatic puppet with a

DEBATES	March 16. 1970
sort of a built-in gramophone which says "socialist" every time he hears the truth.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
When we are talking about the present level of unemployment, we are talking of something like 500,000 people unemployed. This does not tell the whole story, just as the figures I quoted do not indicate the full losses taking place in our society. When there are half a million people on the unemployment rolls, there are many people on short time who do not appear as unemployed. Many people who withdraw from the labour force do not appear as a statistic. Not only is there the matter of the cost of unemployment but also the extent of unemployment. These are some of the things about which we must be concerned. I talked briefly about the direct cost in lost production unemployment occasions. That is not the only cost, because when people are thrown out of work they cannot be allowed to starve. Unemployment costs go up and welfare costs go up. I know these costs are difficult to calculate but I appeal to the common sense of people who, without a calculation, can see the devastating effect unemployment has on society. The use of unemployment as a weapon for any reason is so outmoded and criminal that I am always shocked when this government resorts to it.
It is not the working man alone who suffers in these circumstances. He is not the only victim of this cure. Everybody suffers. The businessman suffers just as well as the working man. Let us make no bones about that. If the working man does not have an income he is not spending money and buying things. Many people are dependent on the ability of the working man to spend money. I once made a speech to a chamber of commerce in which I suggested to those gentlemen that in their own self-interest they should join the New Democratic Party. As one might well imagine, they were not all convinced by my argument. However, my point is that since the New Democratic Party advocates policies which are good for the ordinary people of this country it is also good for business.


An hon. Member:: In your opinion.


Max Saltsman: In my opinion. That is why I am here. Everyone suffers. The government suffers because the revenue does not come in and people suffer because tax rates have to be higher. I have no objection to taxes that provide goods and services for people or taxes
March 16, 1970

that are necessary for transferring income from those who can afford it to those who need it.
I have no objection to this sort of thing, but I do object to seeing taxes levied in this country when the effect of them is being destroyed by the ineptitude of the government. Taxes which are higher than they need be can create unemployment which destroys much of the tax base and makes everyone pay far more than they need pay. As a result, we have a lower standard of living for everyone. This type of policy produces a lower standard of living for everyone and the country does not grow the way it should. There is great uneasiness among the people because they vaguely sense that the country is not meeting expectations. The members of the government cannot be completely mad. Presumably they have some kind of argument they can use in an attempt to justify what they are doing. There must be some kind of reasoning behind the incredible waste of people and resources. 1 do not like to think that the Minister of Finance likes to see people suffer. I think he is a pretty decent and human man, despite his other failings. So what is it that brings a government to create problems of this type? What would bring the government to say it has to cure inflation even if it means everybody's back must be broken in order to do it?
No one will argue that inflation is not a problem. It is a problem and one with which we must deal. But we argue that the whole problem should be placed in perspective. Let us take a view which makes some sense rather than the sort of myopic view that exists on the other side of the House. They seem to put on blinders so that they cannot see anything other than the writing inside the blinders which says "inflation, inflation". In my view, the real problem is not inflation, it is the government's refusal to adapt to inflation. This is the crux of the entire problem. Today people are more concerned about unemployment, about their future prospects, and about a recession into which they feel we are in danger of sliding, than they are about the rise in prices. A few months ago I would not have said that because an hysteria had been created in our country about inflation. One just could not talk about it. Everyone was concerned about prices. Now, they are beginning to see what happens when the government brings in the kind of Draconian measures it has. They say that inflation is not the only evil in the world. It is a problem but it is not the only problem.
The Budget-Mr. Saltsman
It is pretty hard to convince the person who is being thrown out of work that this is good for his soul and is good for the economy. He does not understand that. It is small wonder he does not understand it, because it does not make any sense. I shall not quote all the references I have lest the minister suggest I include the entire book, the entire journal or whatever it might be.


An hon. Member:: He has gone with the wind.


Max Saltsman: Yes. The minister has gone with the wind. Let us not be too hard on the minister because I notice he is coming back. He might learn something from this speech.


An hon. Member:: You are an optimist.


Max Saltsman: I am always an optimist. We in this party are always optimists. We always hope that perhaps we can persuade others to see the light. Much of inflation is imported. We know that a good deal of the inflation we have arises from the fact that the United States economy has been suffering from a very high rate of inflation. Much of it arises from structural changes. One need only to look at the composition of the labour force to see what I mean by structural changes. Just as people moved from agriculture into goods producing industries, now people are moving from the goods producing industries into the service sector of our economy. Nearly 60 per cent of our labour force is in the services sector. Agricultural productivity increased enormously. The people improved their productivity at an enormous rate until it worked to their own disadvantage.
The same is true in respect of the goods producing sector involving people who manufacture cars, washing machines and so on. There has been an advance in those areas, but when we come to the service sector, where most of our people are, the productivity increase is not as great. Even if we were able to keep farm prices constant and were able to keep industrial prices in the goods producing sector constant, there would still be a push from the service sector as it tries to keep up with the rate increases in the goods producing sector.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
This is not a short-term matter. I might point out that I will be introducing an amendment shortly that will deal with some of these questions. So, we are faced with a long-term structural change in our society which in
5064	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Saltsman essence is inflationary because as the people in the service sector seek to keep up with the people in the goods producing sector the push increases. We will have to accept price increases in that sector if there is going to be any justice in the distribution of incomes in our society. We cannot talk that away, and it will be there for a long time to come.
Having said these things, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that we do have some measure of control, and we should of course use every measure that is open to us, provided it is effective. I am not saying that we should fatalistically accept inflation. I am simply saying that we should accept realistically that portion of inflation about which we cannot do anything, and then go to work on that element of inflation over which we do have some control.
If we are going to do that, we will have to go beyond the sort of vague, voluntary restraints of the Prices and Incomes Commission. Even the people who talk about voluntary restraints know they are not going to work. These people are groping, and I wish them luck. I hope that out of their gropings does come something, but let us not kid ourselves. Voluntary restraints at a time such as this, and with the kind of problems facing us-the long run inflationary factors facing us-are not the answer.
The minister goes on to suggest, and he also does this in newspaper articles, that we are in terrible danger of pricing ourselves out of world markets. This is one of the minister's holy cows. If he cannot scare the heck out of people by saying "inflation", in that special tone he uses, then he says we are pricing ourselves out of world markets. Those are magic words and they are supposed to get everybody off and running. They are supposed to make people say, "The minister knows what he is doing. We had better listen to him."
What evidence is there that we are pricing ourselves out of world markets? Copper? We have increased the price of copper over and over again, and we can sell all the copper we can produce at astronomically high prices. In fact, the price of copper is determined internationally, and we are having a heck of a time trying to get other countries to agree to hold down the price in Canada. Copper is not being priced out of international markets, and the price of copper bears very little relationship to the wages being paid to our copper miners. Nickel? I do not see any danger there of pricing ourselves out of international rnar-

DEBATES	March 16, 1970
kets. Our problem is that we do not have enough nickel to export. Coal? Gas? Oil? The reason we are not selling oil in the United States is not because we priced ourselves out of that market. We are still producing oil at one-third less cost than the Americans. It is because they pushed us out of their market.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Because we are too competitive.


Max Saltsman: Because we are too competitive. So, where is this evidence that we are pricing ourselves out of world markets? Automobiles? We are not pricing ourselves out of the automobile markets.


Mr. Whicher:: Shirts.


Max Saltsman: Oh, you found one. You found shirts. The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) has found an item. He has found shirts. Are the wages in the shirt industry inflationary? Can you tell me wages in the shirt industry are so high that we are pricing ourselves out of the international markets?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: They are higher than in Japan.


Max Saltsman: So, do you want our wage rates to go down to the level of the Japanese? Do you want us to increase unemployment until that happens?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate again to interrupt this interesting dialogue between the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) and the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), but I would appreciate it if the hon. member for Waterloo would direct his comments to the Chair.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Bruce has a tendency to stir things up this way, and I welcome his interruptions because they show the vacuity of his thoughts. Now, if we look down the list of our industries we see that we are having some difficulty selling heavy machinery, not only internationally but on our own markets. It is not because this industry is not competitive. It is because the government has allowed foreign heavy machinery to enter our markets, machinery that is subsidized by foreign countries. This gives that machinery an unfair advantage. The situation has nothing to do with the productivity or wage levels of our industry, but it has a great deal to do with the policies of the government, which allow foreign subsidized machinery imports to
March 16, 1970

cut the throats of Canadian manufacturers. This is one of the things that should be examined.
Steel? Are we not competitive in steel? We are one of the most efficient steelmakers in the world. Canadian steelmakers are the best in the world, without exception, and the people who work in that industry can be justly proud of the contribution they are making to the national economy. Where is this pricing out? Sure, in shirts and underwear, but there is no way we can compete in those areas in normal circumstances. So, let us not throw in some of these little dodges that do not really deal with the main argument.
We have problems in productivity, but let us look at the real causes. They are not wage increases. They are U.S. branch plants that kill productivity in this country by the way they market goods, by the way they destroy efficiency, contrary to what is often said by the government about how effective American investment is in Canada. Very often this American investment is disruptive and destructive of any efficiency, with a few exceptions.
We have a fixed exchange rate that throttles our ability to pursue an independent policy. Even bankers now agree that our exchange rate should be a floating rate, and although I hesitate to put myself in a position of agreeing with bankers, this is one thing upon which we can both agree. I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House on things such as these, Mr. Speaker, and with the indulgence of the House I would now like to deal with other matters.
We in this party say that the first thing that has to be done in this country is to get rid of unemployment. Unemployment is unacceptable as a policy. We must then move in the direction of controlling inflation in a realistic way. We propose that we really start the war on poverty, and that we start doing something about pollution. We propose that we increase what we are doing for old age pensioners and veterans, and that we do this by tax cuts, by getting more money into the hands of the people who need it. I am not hung up on what kind of formula we use to do this, as long as we do it. If we pursue intelligent policies it is possible to have tax cuts for many Canadians today.
We need policies that will use our resources in a much better way. We should recognize that these things are not going to be done easily, that we are going to need a real
The Budget-Mr. Rondeau incomes policy instead of this business of hoping that by creating unemployment you will indirectly affect some of the pressure points in our society. That is not good enough. It is too unfair. It is a form of cowardice, a refusal to face up to the issue.
If there are sectors that are exerting these pressures then we should deal with them directly-that is the only fair way-instead of applying the lash to everyone, those who need it and those who do not. I suggest nobody needs it. We have to have an incomes policy that will contain inflation. This will help get the economy of the country moving. We live in a country that is rich in resources, that has great potential. We can create a great society, not only for ourselves but for other people in the world. The waste and abuse of those resources is something that will be hard to justify, not only to our own people but to the many people throughout the world who need our help. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following subamendment, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"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."
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, for days we had been waiting for the budget speech by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), and we finally heard it last Thursday.
To my mind, the budget speech is a colossal joke, a hoax, as stated by financial analyst John Myers in today's Montreal Gazette.
Two items stand out in this budget: first, a threat of consumer credit restrictions and, second, a delay in implementing the recommendations of two Tariff Board reports, one on live turkeys, the other on polythene.
For two weeks, people in Quebec have been talking of Bourassa's pants. Starting today, I think we should talk of Benson's turkeys as the budget tabled last Thursday is a real turkey.
The Canadian people have been served cold turkey, because this budget does not propose any progressive action to help consumers and small wage-earners. No action is contemplated to bring down prices. Nothing has been provided to assist eastern farmers, to reduce
March 16. 1970

The Budget-Mr. Rondeau interest rates, to curb inflation, to cut down taxes, to alleviate the burden of big families by giving them allowances, to help the old who have to go through all kinds of hardships, in view of the small pensions they receive now, while consumer prices keep on going up. In addition, nothing has been announced with a view to reducing expenditures in the national defence field.
The budget includes no measure to finance public capital in Canada through advances by the Bank of Canada; no measure authorizing provinces to borrow at a nominal cost from the Bank of Canada in order to finance public capital; no measure to wrench Canadians free from the strangle-hold of high finance which now controls credit, usurpating powers of sovereign governments and imposing its will upon every one of the country's ministers of Finance; no measure to prevent continuing take-over of the Canadian economy by foreigners. The litany could go on for hours and hours, Mr. Speaker, without discovering anything constructive in the budget speech made last Thursday night by the Minister of Finance because it contains only pious wishes.
We have to tighten our belts, said he! We must reduce expenses and fight price increase and, in a national effort, reduce the price increase rate. It is a pious wish, but the Minister of Finance did not tell us how to reduce the price increase rate. Why do prices increase? It is because costs increase. To reduce prices, one must therefore reduce production costs. Well, what makes up the production costs? Firstly, the workers' wages. What steps has the Minister of Finance proposed to reduce them? The budget speech does not say anything about that.
Secondly, business profits also play a part in production costs and in prices. What action has the minister recommended in order to reduce corporate profits? None! What steps does he then intend to take so as to reduce the profits of companies which have already decreased last year? He did not say.
The cost of money is also a factor in price increases. The interest on bank loans, to which producers must resort at the various stages of production, is one of the main causes of the upsurge of prices and it is an important factor in connection with the cost of goods and services. What measures has the Minister of Finance announced in order to have the cost of bank loans curtailed? He did not say so. His budget speech did not contain anything.
The Minister of Finance said Thursday night, and I quote:
There are some recent glimmerings of evidence that the rate of increase of prices is no longer rising.
Yet, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics announced Friday night that the cost of living index had gone up by 0.5 per cent during January. At that rate, the annual increase would be of 6 per cent, while last year was 4.6 per cent.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The least we can say, Mr. Speaker, is that the Minister of Finance failed again in his estimates. He is a very bad prophet. In his speech, he also said and I quote:
Personal saving has declined during the year.
"Personal saving has declined". What does that mean? That the consumer, in order to buy goods and services needs more and more money due to rising costs. He is less and less able to put money aside. Now, it is with savings that houses are built, that common and preferred shares are bought to ensure business expansion. Thanks to personal saving new businesses are started and employment is created.
The Minister of Finance has pointed out that personal savings have decreased. It is therefore not good news!
The Minister of Finance has also stated and I quote:
In our foreign transactions, we had in 1969 a rather substantial increase in the deficit on our transactions on goods and services... Wheat sales were substantially lower.
The Minister of Finances did not have to remind us of it because the government has just decided to pay subsidies totalling some $100 million to western wheat producers to let their lands lie fallow.
The provinces which are compelled to borrow on foreign markets in New York, London, Germany, Switzerland and elsewhere must have been surprised when the Minister of Finance stated and I quote:
The Canada Pension fund has been a lifesaver in meeting the needs of provinces, municipalities, school boards and other public authorities during a difficult period.
Why then must provinces and municipalities get loans from foreign countries? Is it because money is scarce in Canada or that the conditions imposed by the Canada Pension fund and other lenders are harder to meet than those imposed by foreigners? This does not make sense. Everybody knows that

March 16, 1970	COMMONS
money and credit are available and that bank loans can be obtained. It is known that dollars, francs and pounds sterling in circulation are the fabrication of banks, which used pen and ink, and at a ridiculous cost of production, but whose price is fantastic: an annual interest of 10 per cent or more. But if the Canadian banker is as capable of creating credit as his German or Swiss counterpart, he is also capable of producing millions in bank credit from his ink bottle. Why must the federal government, the provinces and the municipalities ask foreign bankers to do something that could be done by Canadian bankers? Why do foreign bankers lend money to Canadian provinces and municipalities? They do because they are convinced that Canada, its provinces and its municipalities are able to refund their loans at maturity and to pay the interests when due, because they have real and considerable assets as well as immense and enviable natural resources.
They know that Canadian industry and Canadian workers can produce true wealth, the basis of any financial credit. However, if bankers in other parts of the world know that, Canadian bankers should know it as well. If foreign bankers are in a position to lend money to the Canadian people, because they have faith in their productive capacity, Canadian bankers, for their part, should have the same faith and provide the credits requested by them.
Here is another finding of the Minister of Finance, and I quote:
Employment will continue to rise, but more slowly than in 19S9, and I anticipate some increase in unemployment.
For most Canadians, as they rely solely on their work to earn an income allowing them to provide for their families, this is a very sad omen. Besides being a false prophet, the Minister of Finance is also a prophet of doom and gloom. He informs the Canadian people that unemployment will increase in 1970, and this, without any apparent worry, but rather serenely, almost triumphantly. He believes that unemployment will force workers to accept lower salaries and longer working hours.
This is simply being cynical at the expense of the vast majority of workers, in order to please the true power holders who control the economy and the politics of our country. There is the financiers' government hidden behind this visible government. It is high finance which obliges the Minister of Finance to lay off workers and which instructs the government to curtail consumer spending. It is high finance which instructs the govem-
DEBATES	5067
The Budget-Mr. Rondeau ment not to lower taxes and rates. Everything is conceived and controlled by high finance to which all governments bow.
Finally, the minister suggested to us that we were slowly drifting towards socialism, towards state capitalism, perhaps dictatorship. But, since the state is under the control of high finance, soon we will find ourselves under a financial dictatorship which will not be concealed any more as is the case now, but which will show truly what it is: the master of our lives and our destiny.
Last year, the government had legislation passed in order to lower the net income of insurance companies by imposing a higher tax on their profits. However, it is public knowledge that insurance companies are one of the most important reservoirs of capital where house builders get their money. Therefore, by a deliberate move, the government has shut off that supply of housing capital so necessary to Canada.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The housing demand is increasing all the time. More and more houses are needed. What does the government do? What does the Minister of Finance suggest to provide Canadians who want to build a house with the necessary capital? Loans granted by the state.
The state is substituting itself for private capital suppliers. From now on, it is the state that will lend capital to people wishing to build a house. Almost total government interference exists in the housing field, which is a private one, if there is still a private field left.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) so justly points out, the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. It should have no business either in the housing field. It interferes with it nowadays because it has forced private lenders to give up that field.
The government forced them to do so because it had a reason for doing so. Indeed, the idea is to make the state the most important owner in Canada. Canadians must now rely on the state to house themselves.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a socialist and marxist measure, that we reject. Canadians, most of whom are still in their right senses, reject it also.
As to the measures advocated by the Minister of Finance, in order to restrict consumer credit, they tend to regulate conditions of credit granted to consumers by various lending institutions. The minister concluded his

March 16, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Rondeau account on that question with the following word, and I quote:
I would expect the government to he in a position to introduce the legislation in about six or eight weeks.
The Minister of Finance having admitted this, the financial reporter in the Montreal Gazette said that statement was nothing but a monumental bluff. Indeed, one could read this in the March 16, 1970 issue, and I quote:

Credit controls: bluff now but action if really needed.
Mr. Benson could still take direct action if he felt his bluff wasn't succeeding. There is nothing to prevent him from bringing in a draft legislation, effective of that date, with the details to be settled later. If he does, though, he'll have to make the controls more restrictive than so far indicated if they're to have the effect he wants. As matters now stand, the controls aren't as restrictive, in some instances, as existing practice.
It's one thing to risk a strike when inventories are high and goods still being moved. Quite another with inventories down to manageable levels and the steam taken out of what consumer demand there may be. With inflation being sustained by the push of rising costs, rather than the pull of rising demand, the object of the exercise has to be to contain the largest single contributor to the former, excessive wage increases.
Not every one is prepared to give Mr. Benson the credit for what could be a monumental bluff. It's thought to be too subtle in concept for the man who produced-the White Paper with its uncompromising blacks and whites.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what should be done? What steps should the government take to deal with the deplorable economic and social situation in which we now live? Calling elections, replacing the federal government by a Progressive Conservative government, would make no difference. The Progressive Conservatives admit themselves that they have no solution. Besides, they have proved their incapacity to face the problems of inflation or increased prices. They have nothing new to propose.
Here, Mr. Speaker, is what the spokesman of the official opposition said in the House Thursday night, as reported at pages 4750 and 4751 of Hansard for March 12. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said this, and I quote:
The monetary and fiscal measures used so far by the government have brought us to the present point, growing unemployment but no real effect on prices and interest rates. As a matter of fact, it is rather ironic-
And one member intervened, saying:
What would you do?

And the hon. member for Edmonton West replied:
What would you do? It is the government that has caused this.
That was the reply of the spokesman for the official opposition. It is someone else's fault. They have no solution, no remedy to suggest, save to pay: Be patient, tighten your belts, put up with your fate since you have elected the Liberals. Elect us, as soon as possible, but we still do not have any new solution.
Before bringing my remarks to a close, Mr. Speaker, let me put forward Creditiste solutions. First of all, we suggest that the control and the issue of credit in Canada be removed from private banks which now have the power to finance the wealth of Canada, to create money and lend it to the government, instead of earning it.
First of all, the federal government should, through the Bank of Canada, control the money circulating in the country and do so by depriving the banks of a power which is not theirs but that of the people of Canada and of the government which is in turn responsible to the people.
We would like the Bank of Canada, a monetary body, to enable finance to reflect the Canadian reality and the Canadian wealth. The Bank of Canada ought to finance capital and public works at the administrative rate of J or J per cent.
The Bank of Canada should enable the provinces to finance bridges, highways, aqueducts, sidewalks, sewers, schools, gymnasiums, and so on. But no, our federal government is tied down to the task of serving the interests of big business thus compelling our public institutions, such as provincial governments, municipalities and schoolboards, to grovel before the big business tycoons and to pay interest rates up to 12, 14 and 15 per cent as such is now the case. Canadian citizens are now, by way of taxation, paying three times the price of every bridge, road, school, gymnasium, sidewalk, aqueduct, or sewer network which is built in the country.
It is high time, Mr. Speaker, to stop laughing at the Ralliement creditiste, for it is the only group in the House that has ever had the guts to put their fingers on the sore spot of finance. Why is it so? Because they do not owe their seats to election funds and to the finance companies that pay into them.
March 16. 1970

[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
If the Bank of Canada were allowed to supply public capital at a nominal rate of interest, prosperity would come to Canada. Banks should be permitted to borrow from the Bank of Canada so that they can in turn advance money to producers, as savings are at a low ebb just now due to the immense popularity of federal and provincial government bonds as well as school board and municipal bonds.
For instance, when private enterprise requires capital to expand and to increase production at a more reasonable cost, it has to borrow on the financial market. Why? Because the federal government does not authorize the public sector to put savings at the disposal of the private sector.
We know that some municipalities and school boards of the province of Quebec have now to borrow at a rate of 14 per cent. Provincial governments should unite and ask the federal government to change its financial system, because it no longer meets the provinces' needs. It is no longer in step with production which is not lacking for the time being.
In Canada, in 1969, production amounted to $79 billion, whereas an amount of $50 billion was paid out in wages and dividends of all kinds. How is it possible, with a purchasing power worth $50 billion, to use up production worth $79 billion? It is like trying to square the circle.
The Canadian people is left with the alternative of borrowing on their future, of mortgaging their future earnings and wages.
In 1960, our gross national product stood at $30 billion and in 1969 at $78 billion, which means that it has more than doubled during that period.
On the other hand, the national debt which amounted in 1960 to $20 billion increased at the end of 1969 to $39.9 billion. Production has doubled in 10 years, but so did the national debt.
The more the Canadians work, the more they develop the country and the more they go into debt. More and more, we are mortgaging our future, the future earnings, in order to live today, because according to the present system, the Canadian people are told: Buy today yesterday's production with tomorrow's money. Why? Because the purchasing power, the economic system, the financial power do not correspond to the production power. The Creditistes want to make the purchasing power equal to the production power.
The Budget-Mr. Allmand


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: In connection with this budget there are certain aspects upon which I should like to congratulate the government, and others upon which I will reserve judgment.
I should like to congratulate the government on the fact this is the first time in 13 years, I believe, when there have been no tax increases. I should also like to congratulate the government on the fact that this is the first time since 1956 that the government has balanced its budget and shown a surplus. This indicates good economic management. Third, I should like to congratulate the government on its attempt to hold the line in government spending and achieve greater efficiency in the public service.
The chief critic for the Conservative party declared that government spending was out of control. This is not the case. The figures show that expenditure which is purely under the control of the federal government increased by only 3.8 per cent last year, less than the total increase in the gross national product. It is true that the cost of programs which are shared with the provinces increased at a faster rate but, as we know, the federal government does not have full control over those programs. However, attempts are now being made to negotiate a system by which expenditures of this type can be better controlled.
I should further like to congratulate the government upon the priorities established in its spending programs. Looking at the estimates we can see the directions in which the government places its highest values. Provision is made for an increase of $52 million in the estimates of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion; there is an increase of $34 million in the sum available for programs for Indians and Eskimos; an increase of $21 million in the estimates for programs affecting manpower retraining; an increase of $12 million in provision for industrial incentives and development; the shift of $200 million into public housing, and an increase of $15 million in programs for external aid.
Examining these estimates we see that the emphasis has been placed on programs to relieve poverty both at home and abroad. Finally, I believe the government should be congratulated upon the initiative it took in producing incentives for the control of both water and air pollution. I should like to refer at this point to an article written by Mr. I. H. Asper. I do not often refer to his comments on tax and budgetary matters because I do

March 16, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Allmand not always agree with them, but what he had to say in his column on March 13 was significant. I say it was significant because most of the time Mr. Asper criticizes the government. I should like to quote from his column as it appeared in the Montreal Star.
Budget night. 1970, produced no tax surprises but, in spite of that, the budget speech must be regarded as a most significant economic document. Its importance stems as much from what it implies as from what is says specifically.
It is now more than six months since Prime Minister Trudeau warned the public that unless it voluntarily restrained its inflationary demands on the economy, the government would act. Anyone who failed to take that and his subsequent warnings seriously, will realize after last night's budget speech that the government means business.
Later, he writes:
Mr. Benson has established several precedents with the third budget address he's delivered since assuming the finance portfolio. He becomes the first finance minister to have produced a balanced budget, indeed a large surplus, in thirteen years. As well, he now proposes to repeat that remarkable feat for 1970-71, indicating a budget surplus for next year in the order of $250 million.
Still breaking records, he introduced the first budget since 1913 in which there were no tax rate adjustments. And of more current interest, he becomes the first minister to introduce consumer credit controls in peace time.
This comes from a man who usually criticizes the budgetary and tax policy of this government. On this occasion, he has a good word to say for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).
I began by saying there were certain matters upon which I would reserve judgment. These have to do with inflation. I am not an economics expert. I suppose most of us in this House lack an expert knowledge in this field. We are guided by the initiatives which experts are suggesting around the world. In Canada, we find that the present government is taking many steps to control inflation. The Prices and Incomes Commission has been established. Initiative has been taken in the fields of fiscal policy, monetary policy and credit control. Despite this, we see that prices continue to increase.
The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have stated that if these measures did not work, and if the private sector did not co-operate with the public sector, it might be necessary to use other means of controlling inflation. I reserve judgment on this question because I am not an expert. I hope these measures are successful. I know we are doing as well in Canada as others are doing outside our borders, because the rate of inflation in Canada last year was
[Mr. Allmand.J
slower than in many other countries in Europe, Latin America and elsewhere. The situation in the United States, for example, was worse.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The charge that the government has deliberately sought to create unemployment is ridiculous. No government wishes to cause unemployment. As a matter of fact, what this government is doing will prevent unemployment in the long run, that is to say it will lessen the possibility of unemployment on a far greater scale than exists at the present time. We find ourselves in an inflationary situation and limited in what we can do about it. Other countries of the world who are trying to tackle inflation are doing what we in Canada are doing. Some of the measures taken unfortunately cause temporary unemployment. But the choice, as the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have often said, is not between a cure for inflation now with no unemployment and long-term curtailment of inflation; the choice is between measures to control inflation with some unemployment now and massive unemployment in the future if these measures are not taken.
The critic from the New Democratic party stated that this approach was a false one, and he called the government stupid. As a matter of fact, he spent much of his time calling the Minister of Finance names. I fail to understand his approach. He almost seemed to suggest in his address that we can continue to increase the price of copper, wood products and many other things and not worry about world markets; that we have a monopoly of these resources and no matter what the price we will sell them abroad.
I would suggest that if we were to rely on this type of approach we would soon find ourselves in an extremely dangerous situation, with massive unemployment as a result of the loss of our markets abroad. In addition, we would be unable to compete against foreign products in Canada unless we raised high tariffs against them. Nobody wants to create unemployment. If we had been able to curtail inflation in past years, we would not have any unemployment. But the fact is that inflation is here and we have to take measures to combat it.
Unfortunately, a byproduct of such measures is a shifting that causes temporary unemployment. The government is taking measures to attempt to counteract this unemployment. The government is devoting greatly increased expenditure to regional economic
March 16, 1970

expansion, to manpower retraining, to industrial incentives and other things. Although the anti-inflation measures may have the effect of bringing about certain unemployment in some parts of Canada, the government is still spending a great deal of money in other areas of the country in order to retrain workers who can be redirected into other employment and thus enable us to expand the economy in parts of Canada where it is slow.
Although the representatives of the three opposition parties were very critical of the government in this area, they really did not put forward any solutions. It is the same old thing: it is very easy to knock down and to criticize, but we find no Solomons on the other side of the House who have the solutions.


Louis-Roland Comeau: You weren't listening.


William Warren Allmand: Yes, I was, and I took some notes. As a matter of fact, I do not see too many people from the opposition parties in the House at this moment. The member who gave the speech and was so critical of the government left as soon as he had finished.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege; the hon. member has no right to make that statement. I was called out for a telephone call and an interview, and when I left the House there were far more members on this side of the House than on the other side. Personal criticism will not get the hon. member anywhere, particularly when it is false.


Mr. Lundrigan:: There are only 11 members on your side now; even the minister is not here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace has the floor.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member for Edmonton West; I was not referring to him but to the critic from the New Democratic Party.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You mentioned me.


William Warren Allmand: I did not, but perhaps my hon. friend misunderstood. I referred to the member from the NDP who had criticized the government, and I said he was not here at the present time. In any event, I did not hear any solutions to these problems put forward from the opposite side of the House. These hon.
The Budget-Mr. Allmand members were very quick to criticize and to call the minister stupid and other names, but this type of remark will not be accepted by the Canadian people. The Canadian people have more sense than to do that.
The critic for the New Democratic Party suggested that the income tax exemption should be increased to $2,000 for a single person and to $4,000 for people who are married. He also suggested there should be tax cuts. At the same time, he suggested that old age pensions should be increased, as should other government programs. The Canadian people realize this cannot be done. They have a little more insight than the hon. member appreciates. They know you cannot reduce tax revenue, increase tax exemptions, have tax cuts and at the same time spend more money. You cannot, that is, unless you are prepared to continue to go further and further into the hole year by year, at the same time feeding the fires of inflation.
The same thing can be said about the amendment moved by the Conservative party. Their amendment criticized the fact there was no relief granted in the budget to people on lower incomes and those in receipt of old age security. On the other hand, their spokesman did not suggest any way to make up the money that would be lost by increasing these particular exemptions.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Why not use the surplus?


William Warren Allmand: Well, I should like to hear some figures in this regard. It is easy to suggest increasing exemptions for those in receipt of old age security and on low incomes; but I did not hear the hon. member put forward any figures as to cost. Will the cost of these exemptions correspond with the surplus for which the government has budgeted? At the same time, can they be coordinated with other measures that are being put forward to fight inflation?
Since this is a debate on economic policy, I want to refer to economic conditions in the area of Montreal that I represent. There are many economic problems in Montreal and Quebec as a whole that are very distinct from other places in Canada. At the present time, investment in Montreal is down to a greater extent than it is in Ontario and in the west, and unemployment is higher.
Many opinions have been expressed as to the causes of this, and fairly general agreement has been reached on some of them. First of all, there is the present political instability, an instability that has existed for four or five
5072	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Allmand years now. Second, we have had a great deal of lawlessness and violence in Montreal during the last three or four years. Third, there has been a disproportionate amount of labour unrest.
The first two causes-political instability and the amount of violence in Montreal-might diminish to a great extent if we could settle some of the political problems that will be tackled in the approaching provincial election to be held on April 29. It is my hope that Quebec can elect a strong majority government which will give high priority to economic problems and will enable us to forget for a while some of the nationalistic issues which have been put forward as solutions for a long time now.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We can hope!


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member is from Saskatchewan and I do not know if he is aware of the political situation in Quebec, but for too long have some of the political parties in Quebec been putting forward nationalistic solutions to Quebec's economic problems. I think we in Quebec will have to take the bull by the horns and try to strengthen the economic base and put a high priority on employment, technological change, and so forth, so as to make Quebec economically strong.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I also mentioned labour unrest, and Montreal seems to have been particularly plagued in this respect. We have had several strikes in essential services which have been extremely harmful to the public as a whole and also to the working class of Montreal. When policemen, firemen, hospital workers, teachers and postal workers go on strike, they not only risk the safety of the general public but also the safety of themselves and their families. They also harm the general image of their society and make it more difficult to attract investment and jobs.
Last year the Woods task force on labour relations tabled its report in the House of Commons. It was tabled approximately one year ago and it suggested several ways by which we might deal with harmful strikes and other shortcomings in collective bargaining procedures. Of particular importance in that report were the following measures. Dean Woods and his associates suggested measures to, first of all, protect the public against the abuses of unionism and, second, measures to protect the workers-the members of the union-against the executive or

DEBATES	March 16, 1970
administration of unions and, third, measures to protect the unions themselves. I think all three areas are important if we are going to have a sound economy and a stable labour movement.
I should like to refer to some of the recommendations in that task force report because I thought it was an excellent report. To begin with, that report suggested that the Canadian Labour Relations Board be given greater discretion in determining the original bargaining unit, and changes in established bargaining units. It also suggested changes in union certification requirements and in successor rights provisions. If we had specific successor rights provisions in our law now, perhaps we would not be having some of the problems we do have in Montreal with the postal disputes. There, we have a classic case of problems which arise from succession rights of unions, where one bargaining unit is going to be replaced by five bargaining units, or five companies replacing one company.
Then, the task force had recommendations for the protection of the union members. It suggests union member protection from unreasonable initiation fees, dues and assessments; a "Bill of Rights" and independent judiciary for union members; regulation of conduct of ratification and strike votes; widened union accountability to employers, members and others, and regulation of union political expenditures.
Then there is a very good recommendation that there be a public interest disputes commission to assist in handling potential emergency disputes, and in particular to protect the interests of the public. Many people have felt that more should be done in this area. I do not know whether the public interest disputes commission would be the best way of protecting the public, but it is certain that in some labour disputes the public suffers more than either the employer or the employees and something should be done to protect them.
Another very good recommendation is that we have six months advance notice of industrial conversion causing permanent displacement. We have had several instances of that in Montreal. There was the Vickers case and there is a case now in Toronto-I forget the name of the company-where the workers in a tire factory are being laid off without sufficient notice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Dunlop.
March 16, 1970	COMMONS


William Warren Allmand: Yes, the Dunlop case. There have been two or three of these cases, and this is another provision that could be brought into our labour relations law. I understand that the government is working on the recommendations of the Woods task force report and that a new Labour Relations Act is being prepared. I think this is good and proper, Mr. Speaker, but I hope the government will take up some of the points to which I have referred and that we will see the legislation in this House very soon.
When I ask for new and better labour legislation, I do not presume that legislation alone will solve all our labour problems. When men go on strike or when they resort to violence we should understand that there are probably causes behind this behaviour which are not easily seen. We cannot always presume this action is based on labour greed or a quest for power by labour unions. We cannot make that presumption, as some people in this country have. When men resort to violence or illegal strikes, it is because in many cases they are afraid they are going to lose the jobs they have had for a long time or that they have a basic feeling of insecurity. They have seen other men who have worked for five, ten, 15 or 20 years on the job and then put out of work with hardly any notice and no compensation.
When men with families are faced with situations like these, they sometimes do not act as reasonable men. Sometimes they wildcat and sometimes cause violence. It is for this reason that in amending our labour legislation we have to try to put forward solutions which will not only deal with the symptoms but also with the causes. Of course, in dealing with these causes some of the action by the government will have to be in the area of social policy. I will deal with that in a few minutes.
I think one of the other reasons, and I referred to those, that we are having some economic difficulty in Quebec is the result of some of the excessive nationalism. When the Prime Minister put forward his charter on human rights a few years ago and suggested that it be included in the constitution, I supported that proposal with great enthusiasm because I felt this sort of thing was necessary to Canada. We have seen during over 100 years that the provinces, municipalities, school boards and even the federal government cannot be relied on to protect civic rights or basic minority rights. I think it is essential that we have such a charter of human rights in our constitution, not just for
DEBATES	5073
The Budget-Mr. Allmand sociological purposes or human rights purposes, but also for economic purposes, and that is why I mentioned it during the debate on the budget.
Some hon. members today, and in their speeches outside the House, have asked why the budget did not deal with welfare measures, and other social programs. The budget is not a Speech from the Throne and it is not supposed to be a comprehensive legislative measure. The budget is supposed to deal with certain economic conditions. It reports on last year's economic record and looks forward to next year's economic legislation. It is not supposed to be a comprehensive legislative program.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Oh, that is what it is.


William Warren Allmand: That is what it is, and I am surprised that members in the opposition should think otherwise. If you look at the budgets for the years when the Conservative party was in government you will see that they thought it was the same thing. They never pretended that it was a comprehensive legislative program.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


William Warren Allmand: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will he be sending a copy of this speech to Senator Croll?


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member refers to Senator Croll. Senator Croll was probably speculating on the budget. I was speculating on the budget. We were all speculating on the budget.


An hon. Member:: Does he not know that these things are not dealt with in the budget?


William Warren Allmand: Sometimes they are and sometimes they are not. Some members in the opposition are putting forward the idea that the budget should deal in a comprehensive way with social welfare programs. That is not so. The government has already announced that it will bring forward a white paper on social policy this year, and it will deal with social welfare measures in a comprehensive way. I think this is proper. We have had enough stop-gap programs and ad hoc welfare measures with hon. members using these welfare measures as political footballs. I think once and for all we should have a concentrated and co-ordinated welfare program. That is
March 16. 1970


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is
the same thing under another name.


William Warren Allmand: No, it is not the same thing. Under the means test system an administrator would be sent to a person's house. He would evaluate everything the person owned; he would look at the bank book and would check on all the person's property. The means test took account of the full value of the property. Many means tests are still based on this, but the guaranteed income supplement is not administered in that way.
There is a choice to be made. If we are to continue with a universal welfare program we will not be able to help many people who require help and therefore may have to make a sacrifice in some areas in order to help these people. I recommend to the minister who is drafting the white paper that we move into a selective welfare program. I do not think this need involve a means test. I would hope that the white paper on social policy would deal with youth and some of the terrible problems which confront youth today. We have a pension and guaranteed income sup-

plement provisions for our older people, but many of our young people today are dropping out of high school because some of the courses do not suit their needs. Some are even dropping out of college. They do not qualify for the manpower program and do not have families on which to rely or do not wish to rely on their families. There is no adequate program for these people. Some of them live under terrible conditions. I think that if we have a comprehensive policy in respect of family allowances and pensions, we must also have something for the people over 18 years of age who have not yet become established.
It is sad to see how some of these young drop-outs and other people who have not yet been able to find themselves are living in our large cities. Some of them live in hovels; some of them have taken to the use of drugs-


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


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville (Mr. Nystrom)-External Affairs-Viet Nam war-sale of weapons to United States; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Sko-berg)-Agriculture-Investigation of removal of serial plates from imported tractors; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding)-Pollution-Availability to Committee of provincial briefs on control.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Saltsman.
March 16, 1970	COMMONS
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ramble on for 15 or 20 minutes and hopefully in that 15 or 20 minutes place on the record two or three feelings I have as a young Canadian who is very concerned about the direction of our country and the future of the young people living in Canada as well as about present generations. I listened to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) and found it difficult to realize he comes from one of the poor provinces of Canada. Perhaps in the last few months a great economic revolution has taken place in that province and things have really improved to the point where he can now stand in his place and feed us the kind of staid, old, political garbage we would expect from an older, staid, retired politician and not from a relatively young Canadian.
I believe that earlier the hon. member alluded to the fact there were not a great many members in the House. I wish to draw attention to a fact. The fact is that at the present moment I am taking part in a debate and will be speaking to a House in which there is only one minister present. None of the big guns are present. None of the people who have designed the present policies which are being imposed upon the Canadian nation are present. None of the people are present who should hear what members have to say, including the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is not here. I am sure he will not waste his time tomorrow reading my speech and yet he does not even come to hear me. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) is not present. The second minister of the great Trudeau trio, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) is not present and neither is his sidekick the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier). The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) is not present. I am trying to point out that these are the people who make the decisions and not one is in the House to hear hon. members present their observations.
Apparently I must have touched a very sore spot because some members who seldom rise from their places are a little roiled. Even the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) is a little annoyed that I made the observation I did. I should like to see the minister, as a good maritimer, stand in his place and take issue with the Benson budget.
The major reason I stand in my place today to speak on the budget is the fact that I think
DEBATES	5075
The Budget-Mr. Lundrigan the whole effort of the government reflects a great deal of insensitivity to the average Canadian. I feel, for example, that the Minister of Finance, perhaps not on his own but through prodding by some of the heartless members of the government, is either deliberately directing Canada along a suicidal road to economic disaster or is not aware of the direction in which the country is being led because of a political game. I mention a political game because some people say the government is playing a game of calculated politicking in which they will put on the brakes after starving many Canadians economically for two years. For two years, they will starve the people economically as a deliberate political move and in the last year of their tenure they will give some form of benefit in order to ensure their re-election.
I feel very seriously we are headed in the direction of man-made depression. We have had a depression before. I shall allude to the two hon. members from Calgary because I understand they are very familiar with the depression years and could tell me in great detail why the depression took place. They know the economic and other circumstances over which we had no control. I am not sure that is the situation at the moment. I feel that if I could get the Minister of Finance to read my speech tomorrow he would agree with me that my province is paying a very much higher price for the anti-inflationary policies of the government than perhaps any other province in Canada. We are literally bleeding to death as a result of the policies of this present government.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
At the moment, Mr. Speaker, I feel that we are getting government by illusion-and the Canadian people are becoming pretty disillusioned with this government by illusion. Let me point out to hon. members, those who want to listen, some of the kinds of images that are being created, some of the impressions and illusions being created in order to justify the policies of the government. For example, the Minister of Finance indicates that our major problem is inflation and that we have to continue to fight inflation using as our main tool the creation of unemployment. He says we must do this if we are not to have a recession. But I believe that somewhere in his budget speech he indicated that we have not affected the inflationary situation. We have not put the brakes on, and we have not slowed down the increase in the cost of
March 16, 1970

The Budget-Mr. Lundrigan living. He did not have to tell us this because it has been proven by the facts.
Then in his speech he turned around and argued that if we had not done this we would have had more inflation, with a greater tendency toward a recession. So the minister admits that we have not licked inflation, but nevertheless he says we have to continue on the road he has mapped out, because if we do not, then no one can imagine the consequences. Members of the government are trying to create a scapegoat, a dragon that really does not exist. They are trying to convince the Canadian people that beating inflation has to be the major objective of the government.
Let me mention another illusion which is being created by the government. I only wish the Minister of Finance were in the chamber to answer my next observation. The government indicates that our policy has to be antiinflationary. Why does it? What is the major reason for that? In a well calculated television program yesterday, the Minister of Finance said:
-If you are really going to help the people on fixed incomes, the people who are not organized in labour, the ordinary people in the country, the way you have to help them is through controlling inflation.
In other words, he says that if you are really going to help the small, poor, seasonally employed, average Canadian, the fellow on a fixed or low income, you have to do this by fighting inflation. We have to put on the brakes and slow down things. But the minister did not tell the full story. He did not say that when you do that, what you are doing with the man on a small fixed income is putting him out of a job altogether. An hon. member opposite shakes his head. The hon. member is not listening, or he is not very smart, not very bright. I am sure the hon. member does not want to say he is not able to see what I am saying. He will not face the facts.
The government is saying to the nation, "We are setting up this kind of battle; we are getting our troops mobilized in order to help the little man." Mr. Speaker, the way they are helping the little man is putting him out of work. Right now he is paying too much for his whistle, paying too much for his goods. The Minister of Veterans Affairs is the only minister in the House at the moment. I would like him to repeat this question to the Minister of Finance: Isn't it better to pay a little higher price for your produce than to have no

income at all? The alternative is not to give the average Canadian any income, but this is the choice the minister is making. Yet he still tries to tell the average Canadian, "This whole battle we are now waging is being fought on behalf of you, the average Canadian." This is so false as to be completely untrue. It is totally false.
I say to hon. members opposite, don't come down to my province and tell the 20 per cent of the people who are unemployed there that the Minister of Finance is breaking his heart trying to solve their problems. Don't tell the people of the Atlantic provinces, who are now suffering 12 per cent unemployment, that this is the reason for the great effort on the part of the Minister of Finance. And don't try to tell the 6 per cent of Canadians at large who are presently unemployed that this is the basic objective of the anti-inflationary policy. Let us just look at this again for a moment, Mr. Speaker. The people in Canada for whom the anti-inflationary policy is designed are being put out of work. That is the way they are being helped.
The people in the $10,000, $12,000, $15,000 and $20,000 a year bracket, the professional people, the trained people, the people in the highly industrialized areas of Canada, are not affected by this policy. The seasonally unemployed are affected by it, the untrained people, the average small farmer. As a matter of fact, the average small farmer will have lots of time next year to sit down, bite his finger nails and watch the Canadian-produced television programs provided by the Secretary of State.
We must think of these people. We have the fishermen to consider; we have the people who have been forced out of work by automation. Forced redundancy I call it. Just look at what the Department of Transport did in my own town of Gander. They laid off four people with 25 years' service each and told them to go to Manpower. They could just as well have told them to go to hell.


An hon. Member:: Is there any difference?


John Howard Lundrigan: I cannot tell you the constituency of the hon. member who sits across the way. Lots of Grits sit around there on the backbenches coaching each other from their seats. I would be very interested to hear what they have to say in debate; and if they need somebody to give them a hand, I will write some of their speeches for them.
Now I am going to take issue with the third illusion, which really burns me as an eastern
March 16, 1970

Canadian. In that television program yesterday the Minister of Finance was asked what would be the effect of his anti-inflationary policy on the slow growth areas of the country. He said that we should not worry about this. I am paraphrasing his answer. He said that we have all the answers to that one because we have everything set up. He said:
I certainly hope that the steps we are taking will mean that the unemployment won't be concentrated as it has been in the past in certain areas of Canada.
A little later on when asked a similar question, he said:
We certainly are concerned. We've put into retraining programs, for example, tremendous amounts of money in order to help the people in the Mari times-
All the way through his budget speech he referred to the great regional development program. Mr. Speaker, let me just set the record straight because the minister has deliberately misled central Canada. He has not misled us, because we are aware of the facts of the situation with our 20 per cent unemployment; but he has misled central Canada and western Canada into believing that the government right now has all kinds of money floating into the Maritime region. Hopefully, he means the Atlantic region including Newfoundland, the region suffering most because of the slowdown in the economy.
This kind of statement the minister is making is totally untrue. First of all, we had the establishment of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. It took a year for the government to set it up, and now it has come forward with the industrial incentives act. That piece of legislation, since the department was created, has turned over $200,000 into my province, which is just about enough to build a good bin in which to store some of the surplus western wheat.
Now, the day before the minister introduced his budget, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion announced, "We are going to put $200 million into the economy of Canada in slow growth areas." There will be $200 million to solve the regional disparity problems of Canada. That statement was made the day before the budget in order to justify the Minister of Finance getting up in this House and going to great lengths to try to convince Canadians they should not worry about the slow growth areas because the government has special programs for those areas. This is totally contrary to the facts.

The Budget-Mr. Lundrigan [DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Let me place on the record a couple of illustrations to point out to the House the reason why I say the minister is not stating the facts when he makes this kind of statement, when he is feeding the House this kind of political garbage in order to try to justify his own inadequacies and the inadequacies of this government. For example, the proposed fisheries budget has been cut by 15 per cent. This is the budget which affects eastern and western Canada to the greatest extent, the two extreme areas of the country. Last year approximately 50 per cent of the wardens of the rivers of the east coast of Canada were scheduled for lay-off, and they were the people who supervised the great salmon runs.
Again under fisheries, another illustration of the way the budget amd the fiscal and monetary policies are applying equally to all of Canada will be appreciated especially by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). It is the kind of thing I have seen so often since I came here. For the past 70 or 80 years $3,000 has been allocated to an annual fish fair at Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. This year the minister has tried to justify the elimination of this grant on the basis of the restrictions on our economy. We have had cut-backs to the point where pollution has been allowed to destroy resources in one part of Newfoundland on the basis that fiscal policies could not justify expenditures in this area. In the area of protection of our resources and the pillaging of our fisheries by foreign fleets, the minister says that we cannot get protection, we cannot get boats and planes because the money is not available.
I wish the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) were here so that he could justify the way he is literally slaughtering the fishermen of all the provinces of Atlantic Canada. I could name, if I had the time, places like Musgrave Harbour, Fogo, Twillingate, Green Bay and Badgers Quay-all beautiful fishing areas-and a dozen places where they have great fishing resources and practically every individual depends on fish. Ever since the beginning of Confederation federal governments have been rather generous in the allocation of funds to provide fishing facilities. But this year the minister says, "You have the new fish marketing act now and the facilities are justified; but we are sorry, our budget will not permit it and we are not going to give you the facilities you need even though they are justified."
5078	COMMONS DEBATES	March 16. 1970
The Budget-Mr. Lundrigan
In my own town the Department of Transport laid off four people each with 25 years of service. These men had fought overseas with the armed forces and had then come back and joined the department. First they worked for the provincial government and then it merged with the federal government, fortunately or unfortunately, but after 20 years of work with the Department of Transport these men were laid off. They were told to go and see the Manpower office which might be able to find work for them up around the coast somewhere. Again, I have received a copy of some of the proposals made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) for putting the airport aspects of the department under a Crown corporation. One of the reasons he came through with this idea was to indicate that he feels that airports should pay as they go.
We have one of the greatest air terminals in Canada, the azimuthal centre of aviation in the western world, you might say. It is recognized internationally for its facilities and its location, and in some ways it is the aviation centre of the western world. Here we have landing fees four times as high as those in Bangor, Maine, and the minister threatens to increase them. I have written him in detail showing that if the government were less greedy about landing fees and more interested in promoting international aviation in Newfoundland, a lot of the economic ills in the whole east-central part of my riding could be solved. I guess I am just wasting words in mentioning this matter because there is not much interest in it.
I could mention parks, but the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) may want to develop the matter of lack of government initiative in this regard. I could mention the Post Office. We are losing 200 post offices, though we are saving a few because apparently it is cheaper to keep them open than to close them. The cutback in service is so bad now in my province, in the whole federal area, that we are wondering whether the terms of our agreement in 1949 really permitted the federal government to back out of its contract. I wonder if we have any contract, any constitutional arrangement with this government of Canada, or if it is acting unilaterally with little or no regard for parts of Canada such as my province.
Referring to the Manpower Department, somewhere in the budget speech the Minister of Finance said that a lot of money is being spent on retraining and a lot is going into the

Manpower Department in order to help people overcome their inabilities or incapabilities as workers. In some Manpower offices in Atlantic Canada there is a restriction on the number of phone calls officers may make. If they have to phone a fellow who lives 30 miles out of town to tell him about a job, sometimes they have second thoughts about it because of their budget. Mr. Speaker, I have talked about several illusions and now I would like to refer to something else that is bothering me. In his presentation of the budget-if you want to call it that-at page 4741 of Hansard of March 12, the Minister said that the request to the chartered banks to have special regard for borrowers in the less prosperous areas of the country is another way in which the government is helping the disadvantaged areas of Canada. He said to Canadian people across the nation, to the people in the galleries and the press that we have special programs to set up to help people in the disadvantaged areas. What a lot of nonsense! I suppose if I were to say that the minister was lying through his teeth I would be ruled out of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I don't think so; not under these conditions.


John Howard Lundrigan: I suppose if I were to tell the truth and make that statement I would be ruled out of order, so I will refrain from making it. This Benson statement, is a nasty thing to present to the people of Canada. Last year, under the Small Business Loans Act we received three loans in the province of Newfoundland while 841 went to the other provinces. Yet the minister tells everybody that the government has special monetary policies to help ease the credit situation in Atlantic Canada. What a lot of nonsense, Mr. Speaker!


An hon. Member:: How many applications were there?


John Howard Lundrigan: The hon. member asks how many applications there were. Well, two or three days ago a young Newfoundland promoter came to my office and indicated that he went to the bank to negotiate a loan but the bank refused him a loan under the Small Business Loans Act and offered him a demand loan, the sort which they can recall any time. Every single day members in this House get letters from fishermen who cannot get loans under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act because the government has not issued any instructions to the chartered banks to ease credit.
March 16, 1970

[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The minister speaks about the special arrangements being made for the province of Newfoundland and the east coast of Canada, but actually the same policies apply right across the nation; they apply to every nook and cranny of Atlantic Canada to just the same extent as they apply to Ontario. The minister no doubt says to the people of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, "You will have to excuse us and accept our policies, because we are doing everything we can to meet the needs of the people on the east coast." What utter nonsense to tell our people that, when 20 per cent of our population down east is unemployed.
Let us consider for a moment the white paper on taxation. One of its major points relates to the rate at which corporate profits are to be taxed. As a result of that provision, protection enjoyed by small businesses and enterprises is to be lifted. Mr. Speaker, that will kill our businesses in Atlantic Canada. All our businesses axe small. We do not have the large corporate clusters they have in Ontario or the industrial complexes of other parts of Canada. Our businesses are small, and they will be ruined. We have many mines in our area. The mining industry is one of our great resource industries. And what will the Minister of Finance do to the mining industry of Canada? He will abolish the so-called three-year tax holiday and mining entrepreneurs undertaking exploration will pay taxes in the same way all other industries pay them.
The mortality rate of investments in exploration ventures is tremendous. The minister will reduce the incentive to nil, because mining entrepreneurs will have little reason to undertake exploration. Let us look at the construction industry. We have a little construction industry in our area. The minister may say that only the industry in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia is being hit with the two-year depreciation provision and that that provision does not apply to other provinces. That is true. However, the fact of the matter is that capital cost allowances restrictions apply to the same extent in my province as they do in Ontario. The provisions respecting capital gains will apply to our province just as to all other provinces. The provision regarding taxes on private homes is the same. Frankly, I think the Minister of Finance is talking a lot of political garbage because he is feeding the people of Canada with information which, I submit, is not factually accurate.
21774-44i

The Budget-Mr. Lundrigan
You know, Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the Minister of Finance telling the people of Canada everything the government is doing for the people in my province. The result is that those who were not quite poverty stric-kent are now completely poverty stricken. How can I explain to the people in the town where I grew up what the minister means? The town has 2,200 people and they are the most industrious in Canada. It used to be that when you could not get work in Newfoundland you went to Toronto. But the people no longer do that; there is no work in Toronto. Then the minister tells us what great policies this government has. If I had as much red blood in my veins as I should have, I would be across the House after him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. gentleman to tell him his time has expired.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I, with the consent of the House, continue for a moment?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is this
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Howard Lundrigan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace read his speech in which he touched on the opposition's point of view. At any rate, he read his speech and suggested to the House that the government has no alternative except to follow its present course. I see he is rising on a point of order-no doubt to say he did not read the speech.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that I did not read my speech. Perhaps if the hon. member read a speech now and then we should hear something a bit more constructive.


John Howard Lundrigan: The difference between us, Mr. Speaker, is that the hon. member speaks with his lips but I speak from deeper down.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Really, Mr. Speaker!


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I take it the hon. member who is very excited is the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard), someone I have not seen in the House before.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Lundrigan) has the floor.
5080	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. McBride


John Howard Lundrigan: May I say in conclusion a word about inflation. Canada is not the most highly industrialized nation in the nation; actually, we in Atlantic Canada are living in a relatively underindustrialized part of the world. I suppose what the government is doing is correct, if you look at the matter in a bookish sort of way. Perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should never have entered politics but remained an academic: he could have stayed in some library and written books. There may be theoretical justification for his policies, but what are the facts? We are a young country, a developing country. We have great resources which need to be developed. We need incentives to permit every Canadian entrepreneur, every Canadian with a bit of backbone, to develop our resources and our industries. Certainly this is not the time to put on the brakes. I am afraid that our muscle may turn to fat if the government continues with its present policies.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Not at all.


John Howard Lundrigan: I suspect the hon. member will wish to speak after supper, Mr. Speaker.
I shall be here to listen to him.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark and Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members know, in this budget debate we have freedom to cover the vast range of human concern with which a government of a vigorous nation must concern itself in a technological and complicated age. As always, we must recognize that within this House, as well as within our society generally, the old adage applies: A lot of today's frustration is caused by a surplus of simple answers coupled with a tremendous shortage of simple problems. Of this fact I am well aware.
There are no slick solutions to society's ills and no glib analysis within it. Those who assume that we can revert to a sort of primeval simplicity are still clinging to a rear-view mirror view of the world. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) has
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
DEBATES	March 16. 1970
pointed out in an excellent manner the basic concern that must face all hon. members who deal seriously with the budget issue; that is, if we want to spend more we have to tax more. We cannot simply demand more advantages from government without facing the situation of more taxation, or vice versa. I will not make any more reference to that aspect of the matter because it has already been dealt with by other hon. members. The hon. member seated directly in front of me did that capably earlier this afternoon.
It is inevitable in any society that the majority of the populace, if given a choice, will prefer to cling to that which is familiar, the familiar laws and traditions, even if they know them to be unjust, rather than risk the new because the new is always the unknown. Marshall McLuhan has reminded us that we are always one step behind in our view of the world because we are benumbed by any new technology.
Because of today's terrific speed-up of information, we have a chance to apprehend and to predict. Certainly the most exciting aspect of all is to influence the environmental forces controlling us and thus, in a certain sense, win back control of our own destinies. I should not use the term "win back" because I firmly believe if we look through the pages of human endeavour as far as history is concerned, we see that man has never controlled his own destiny: there have always been forces and factors beyond our control. But we do have technological levers and tools now at our disposal which give us a great potential to direct our own future.
I wish to spend some time referring to a few of the frustrations and issues which face a backbencher such as myself and perhaps also backbenchers on the other side of the House; indeed, some of them may apply to this country as a whole. First, I want to put on the record that in my opinion Members of Parliament from all parties work far harder, have more responsibilities and more opportunities for creative participation in policy than is generally believed, understood or known to the Canadian public. Second, there is in Canada a kind of a schizophrenic attitude toward elected members. On the one hand, the public seems to assume that Members of Parliament are a useless, self-seeking, lazy lot; on the other hand, we are confronted with the attitude of: Why don't you do more. Why don't you lobby, research and plan more? Why don't you participate more in the constituency, read more letters and represen-
March 16, 1970	COMMONS
tations, be better informed and prevent old errors from being perpetuated, stop favouritism, help us, defend motherhood and fight evil, etc.? All of these are important. I am sure all hon. members agree with this.
It is at this precise point that the stark irony comes into the situation. To pursue all of the opportunities and responsibilities that come to all members of this very distinguished chamber, we are granted the great machinery or equipment of one small cubbyhole for an office, a telephone and one secretary. We are then told by our constituents: Go to it fellows; you need to change the world.
In my own case I have upward of 60,000 constituents spread over more than 2,000 square miles. As hon. members know, there are approximately 17 major standing committees where, if time and research permitted, an hon. member could make a real and genuine contribution. To this we must add the numerous caucus study committees where a backbench Member of Parliament can have a real input in policy.
We are desperately limited in the information services that are available to communicate with our constituencies. It is difficult for a member to find time and indeed secretarial help to send sufficient information and to write an adequate number of letters to constituents. More limited still are the duplicating equipment facilities which must be used for providing information to constituents. We are not provided with proper equipment for this challenging and creative job. As far as communicating with the public is concerned, we are to all intents and purposes at the mercy of newspapers, in rural areas weeklies and in other areas dailies, and other media.
It is necessary for the newspapers to make a profit: they are running a business. These newspapers are governed by editors who are not even here. They are not elected and are therefore not responsible to the people in the same sense that we are. They cannot possibly adequately assess what is going on here unless we are to assume that remoteness from familiarity with the facts makes for objectivity. These are some of the frustrations I experience as a Member of Parliament.
Some hon. members know my professional background was as an agriculturist and, latterly, as a clergyman. The facilities in so far as equipment and space for secretarial staff that were available to me as a clergyman were far superior to those which are available to me as a Member of the House of Commons.
DEBATES	5081
The Budget-Mr. McBride I am sure hon. members who came from distinguished law offices and other professions had the benefit of even better facilities. If we are going to complain that there are inadequacies in the system, there falls upon our shoulders immediately the necessity of suggesting some solutions.
0	(8:10 p.m.)
I would therefore, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, suggest ways in which this situation could be improved. It seems to me that every Member of Parliament requires at least the following personal staff if participatory democracy is to continue to flourish in Canada. First, each of us needs a top-notch secretary-most of us have one already-plus a pool upon which to draw as necessary. And there is a sense in which this, too, is already available. Second, each of us needs a full-time constituency worker to follow up in more careful detail the requests which come from individuals and groups in our constituencies. Third, each of us needs a top-flight research worker to prepare background information in order that members can make knowledgeable and useful contributions to debates in this House and to the work of the committees. I want to identify myself, first of all, with this need. Perhaps my speeches and contributions demonstrate this need.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Murray Arndell McBride: I am willing to recognize this. It is up to hon. members opposite to judge their own speeches themselves. If we are to take seriously the mood I have found around the House of Commons to the effect that major decisions ought to be made by those who are responsible to the people, namely, by those who hold seats in this chamber, we must be willing to make this research assistance available to all hon. members. I should like to know-and this is a rhetorical question-how one can make an informed decision in the complete absence of research staff.
In the House committees we are faced with 17 areas of major concern. Few of us can ever expect to attend all these committee meetings.
1	myself belong to three committees of the House at the moment and I have reached the conclusion that an hon. member can only do a really useful job on one committee. This means that when I go to my constituency and meet with people who have a wide variety of concerns, I find myself abysmally ill-informed about at least 14 of those major fields of interest with which the House is dealing. I
March 16, 1970

The Budget-Mr. McBride suggest to hon. members opposite that some of them may be equally ill-informed,


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member a question, if he would permit me to do so.


Murray Arndell McBride: I would be pleased, after I am finished. I do not want to sacrifice my time; the hon. member will appreciate this.


Paul Yewchuk: Does that mean I have to listen to your whole speech?


Murray Arndell McBride: Yes. Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for me to understand how the myth has grown up that backbenchers have no opportunity to put forward their views. The sad truth, and I use that adjective purposely, is that these opportunities have become so numerous that the House and its committees are constantly subjected to views which demonstrate only one thing, namely, that most members have not had the time or the opportunity to place themselves in command of the relevant facts before offering their contributions to posterity via the Hansard record. Again, I do not hesitate to identify myself as one of the offenders here, because I hardly ever go to a committee meeting confident that I have done sufficient homework before I attend, or before I speak in the House. I suppose this occasion is no exception.
On December 15 of the present session- and here I turn to another subject-I was privileged to place a motion before this House for debate. The report of the debate appears at page 1981 and following pages of Hansard. The motion read as follows:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the advisability of including the counties of Renfrew and Lanark as a suitable and necessary extension of that portion of northeastern Ontario which is now a designated area under the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Act.
As the House knows, last Wednesday this motion, together with other efforts put forth by my hon. friend from Renfrew North (Mr. Hopkins) and myself, bore fruit. Renfrew, Arnprior and Pembroke were declared special areas under the legislation establishing the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. For the purposes of this legislation, a special area is one in which special action is needed to promote economic expansion and social adjustment because employment opportunities are exceptionally inadequate either within the area itself or within the larger region of which the area forms a part.


Renfrew county is the largest county in Ontario. It has a significant potential in two directions especially-forest-based industries and tourism. It was primarily to enable the development of the forest-based industries that these locations were declared special areas. The benefits in growth and employment which will now accrue to the whole county will be limited only by the extent to which local, county and municipal representatives together with present and prospective industries take advantage of the opportunities which have now come to our region as a result of a lot of people working hard over a long period of time. The over-all development plans which the county of Renfrew had developed over the past few years played no small part in assisting in this decision.
So last week was a big week in Renfrew county, and even the most entrenched antiFrench bigot is forced today to have second thoughts before continuing to decry the fact that this country has among its leaders men like our aggressive and capable Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Murray Arndell McBride: Hon. members will immediately recognize that my motion of December 15 referred to "Lanark and Renfrew". So while I may be hero for a day in the Renfrew portion of my constituency, quite the reverse would naturally follow in Lanark. In Lanark county I am in the unhappy position of being like a parent who has two children, both of whom need new shoes, and who is able only to afford new shoes for one. The result is that one child is happy and the other is not. I suppose this is the inevitable problem of both a parent and a politician. To win half the case, or to get one pair of shoes only, is only half the battle and the needs of the child who remains shoeless must now receive all the more attention.
I turn now to another subject-Canada's participation in international population control programs. Most hon. members are aware, I suppose, that the Canadian Development Agency has begun talks with the International Planned Parenthood Federation, with officials of the United Nations organization which is concerned with control of population and with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, as well as with the World Bank and other organizations which support programs of this type. Also, the CIDA has enlisted the services of Dr. G.
March 16, 1970	COMMONS
F. Brown as special adviser in public health and population. Dr. Brown, as again many members of the House will know, is known internationally for his work in family planning programs.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
There has been some discussion in this chamber, and considerable discussion outside the chamber during the last week or so, in connection with the Canadian contribution to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. The agency has very recently been reorganized, and only now is the United Nations Fund for Population Activities in a position to accept an expanded role and the increased contributions to its work that will come.
Hon. members of the House might be interested to know that to date there are very few countries that have made contributions to the fund. Among those that have not yet contributed are Great Britain, Japan, the Scandinavian countries and, as most of us are aware, Canada. I know that this matter is under consideration but as a member of this chamber I would urge in the strongest possible terms that this government on behalf of Canada co-operate with and participate in the program of this United Nations agency. It is of significance to note that the government is about to bring down a statement on foreign policy in this House, and in this connection I would urge upon the government that this co-operation form an integral part of that over-all statement.
Finally, turning to a fourth and very brief aspect of the remarks that I want to put before the House in this budget debate, it seems to me that some of the mail that members have been receiving-I cannot speak for others but I can speak for myself-on such issues as the government's proposals for tax reform suggest some things that really are not true. I am referring to the fact that I frequently hear it said that there are certain corporations-corporations that declare that they are small in size but which perhaps more accurately should be described as medium-sized or even large corporations-which insist that they are the legs upon which Canada has moved forward. For example, it is said that there are the institutions that have made this country what it is.
Last evening it was my privilege to be in the town of Carleton Place to participate in a forum on some of the social needs of our nation. Those present saw a film that had
DEBATES	5083
The Budget-Mr. McBride been produced by the National Film Board on the subject of poverty. As we all know, one person in five in this country lives in poverty. My participation last evening in this forum made it very easy for me to get up and say that here we had classically demonstrated the paradox of our time. Many of us have entered politics, working at the endeavours that we now pursue, precisely because we were unhappy with the kind of Canada that exists. We think that things ought to be changed, that we ought not to live in a nation where one in five are poor. I suggest that those who want to take credit for building the nation should also recognize that they have to take credit for building it all-the bad as well as the good. They must at least be sufficiently open-minded to admit that there are areas that can and must be improved.
One of the things that has inspired in me the most cynicism since I have been a member of the House of Commons is the recognition that there is an incredible lack of vision among some Canadians. When it comes to doing such a puny, minor thing as attempting to move the tax burden so that it is more adequately based on ability to pay, taking a slight piece of the load off the shoulders of people of low income and placing it-obviously-on the shoulders of those of higher income, the failure of many people in various parts of Canada to support this move, one that I think ought to be supported by all people of vision, is nothing short of appalling.
Those of us who believe there is a basic need in this country for legislation that will more fairly reflect the concerns of an enlightened people in an enlightened age also believe that such issues as the white paper are open to discussion. But we are not in agreement with the kind of hysterical reaction from some sources by people who label this attempt to shift the burden of our laws as somehow extremist. Sometimes we are called fascists, sometimes we are called communists. We are even accused of trying to sell out the state, and all kinds of weird and wonderful things. I for one want the record to indicate that it is high time we in Canada showed a little more concern for those who cannot protect themselves.
The reason I became a member of the Liberal Party is that I am convinced that in a technological age you cannot have true and small "c" conservatism because it is an anachronism that cannot work. In today's society you cannot adopt the philosophy of every man for himself and the devil take the hind-
5084	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Schumacher most. Some kind of adjudication must be made. There must be a referee, because all men are not equal. Each man is not able to care for himself.
It also seems to me that in a society such as ours you cannot expect a corporation or some other institution to pick up this particular ball; it must be done by the government. It remains a case of how best and how most creatively and usefully government can perform its responsibility of redistributing in a very real sense national income so that all Canadians have a share in the wealth that is Canada.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member now permit the question I wanted to ask him? I was interested in the list of things that he needed as a member in order that he is as well served here as he was when a minister. Would he care to add to the list a small pulpit that he could place on his desk when he speaks?


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: 
An hon. Member:: Cut back on production.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Why don't you cut back on the production of your tongue for a while?


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I would suggest that the fact remains that our agricultural industry exists to sell these products, not to store them. If we have a critical problem of storage in this area, we have a serious problem that begs an answer. Some hon. members might feel that we have talked long enough about wheat and that we should get on with other things. I agree with that up to a point, but until we solve the problem and until we are able to get back our rightful share of world markets for agricultural products we have an obligation to keep talking, and we have an obligation to lay the governments consummate ineptitude out in the open and let the Canadian people pass judgment.
This budget appears to be designed to accomplish two objectives, both of which are suspect and both of which contain hidden and sinister portents of disaster. The first purpose was loudly proclaimed by the finance minister as a master-plan whereby the government and all other segments of the economy would cut back drastically on spending; that is, the government would cut back on expenditures and the private sector would cut back on buying. This, he admitted, would slow up the
DEBATES	5085
The Budget-Mr. Schumacher economic growth of the country and after a while, presto-no more inflation. Everyone would be suddenly healthier. The minister appeared to be surprised when he was told that the Canadian economy was already in a state of decline. After these last few years of Liberal rule, surely the last thing we should have to do now is artificially depress the Canadian economy.
There was no mention of housing in the budget, so presumably after a period of time there will suddenly be houses. There was no mention of poverty, so obviously everybody will be suddenly richer. There was no mention of wheat sales in this document, so we are left to conjure up visions of foreign buyers beating a path to our shores. These are beautiful visions, and I find it difficult to pull myself away from the intent of this document and back to the mundane world of reality. The realities, though, are quite different from this government's fantasies and pipe dreams. The reality of honest government is quite different from the tactic of bulldozing ill-conceived legislation through this House with completely misguided power.
The second hidden danger in the budget became immediately apparent when the finance minister proudly proclaimed that there were no new taxes or tariffs in this document. Even those guileless souls who dwell in the nether world of Liberal economic philosophy would not tumble to this little gambit. Why would those fearless plunderers on the other side of this House fail to take advantage of this golden opportunity to thrust their hands deeper into the pockets of the Canadian taxpayer, this flowing, bottomless well from whence all riches flow? Why should the Liberal tax grabbers spare the uncomplaining hordes of plundered and harried Canadian taxpayers? I suggest this is because there is a bigger haul in the offing; there is a bigger pot at the end of a brighter and gaudier rainbow. The lavish fiscal policies of this government should not be supported by a token gesture, by a mere several hundred million dollars. They are even now reeling under the public outcry over the scope of that iniquitous tax white paper, and this budget is calculated to smooth the ruffled feathers.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
It is calculated to deceive the unsuspecting victim into believing that he has been reprieved that that great federal tax axe is not going to fall. What a change of pace it would have been, what a refreshing breath of
March 16, 1970

The Budget-Mr. Schumacher sanity, if the government had announced that instead of the sham of offering "X" number of dollars to the farmers not to grow wheat it would use that money to subsidize the Canadian wheat market. What a stroke of genius it would have been had the government chosen to do the obvious.
Under the proposed system, called LIFT- which I believe translates into Lower Inventory for Tomorrow-we will end up with the same wheat we now have in abundance, plus the reduced new crop that will be harvested in the next season. Those acres not under cultivation will be in serious danger from the elements. I should not have to remind even the members of this House from eastern Canada of the effects of the last dust bowl tragedy that befell the Prairie provinces some years ago.
How much better it would have been had the government announced that it would overhaul the Canadian Wheat Board, revise its operating procedures, update its terms of reference and bring the grading system in line with other world wheat selling countries. Other wheat producing countries have changed their wheat marketing techniques and procedures to stay in the market. What good reason can the government give for failing to read the clear signs that other countries read and heed? If we are to be kept out of world markets because we will not change, what will it take to make us change? What will it take to make us wake up?
Some of the philosophical implications implicit in this budget, Mr. Speaker, are cause for alarm, and I suspect that they are indicative of panic. We are told that to solve the great economic problem of inflation it is necessary to add appreciably to the already serious problem of unemployment. Are we to extend this philosophy into other areas? If some sections of the country are depressed, should we depress the richer provinces until they are down to the level of the less fortunate? Should we cure ignorance by closing all schools in the country until all citizens are equally ignorant?
A close examination of any recent government legislation will prove that this is a dangerously valid analogy. It is beyond the grasp of a reasonable mind why the government, in the face of the critical, humanistic problems gripping our country today, should attempt to create stiU another federal agency and should provide still another drain on a strained economy, instead of facing up to its mandate.

We do not need a new agency to promote and foster the use of standards; we have a perfectly good standards agency already. Is this yet another smokescreen being thrown up by the government to take the public mind off the inanities in this budget, or to take some of the pressure off the campaign to ram the confiscatory tax reform legislation through this House? It seems strange to me, and I daresay to most members on both sides of this House, that one of the richest countries in the world cannot get along without repressive and suppressive economic policies.
It is a sad but true fact that this budget will be our economic guideline over the next few months. We wiU have to prop it up wherever possible and try to make it do. But I must go on record, Mr. Speaker, as being unalterably opposed to applying negative measures to solve positive problems. If the minister is expecting any bouquets for this latest budget, he can be assured that he will get them in abundance from this side of the House, but I must warn him that I sincerely hope he has a fondness for ragweed.


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I will be able to complete my remarks in a very short time. I shall touch briefly on four aspects of policy; the budget as it has been presented to us, the associated austerity program, the white paper in so far as it relates to the matter before the House, and the present level of taxation in Canada.
Unfortunately, the minister is not here tonight. I believe he is in the counting house counting out his money. However, perhaps the most suitable thing I could do would be to quote for the minister the words of Franklin Pierce Adams who said, "Count that day when, turning on its axis, this earth imposes no additional taxes". At least this budget has the merit of being a considerable change from the pattern of Canadian governments from the days of the government of Louis St. Laurent. These previous governments consistently overspent. If there is one saying that could be applied to the many Liberal governments preceding this one, it would be one of Josh Billings whose advice was, "Live within your income even if you have to borrow money to do it".
Because the white paper is under discussion we realize that this budget is an interim measure. I do not think any of us were really surprised that it did not contain many changes. Speaking within that context, however, I congratulate this government without reservation for having the courage to impose
March 16, 1970	COMMONS
austerity on Canada and for having the courage to be unpopular, because we cannot amend the Canadian economy and we cannot curb inflation by following the policies of the past decade or 13 years of overspending.
Some government had to have the courage to tell the people that we can spend only what we take in and that preferably for some time we should spend less. I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) for reducing the public debt for the first time since 1957. I also congratulate him for bringing in a budget which contains no Ways and Means motion, the first of its kind in this nation since 1913.
I have spoken of what I consider to be the necessity in this country to curb spending and to curb taxes. I think it might be wise for hon. members of this House to consider who is curbing taxes and who is curbing spending, and what levels of government are not doing so. I have a few figures I should like to quote to the House from the report of the Tax Structure Committee of the Federal-Provincial Conference of Prime Ministers and Premiers on February 16 and 17, last month.
In 1952 the total tax take of Canada federally, provincially and municipally divided roughly into these percentages: 18 years ago in 1952 the federal revenue was 73 per cent, the provincial revenue was 15 per cent and the municipal revenue was 12 per cent. Then by 1956 there had been a considerable change; the federal share of the tax take was down to 69 per cent, the provincial revenue had increased to 18 per cent and the municipal revenue had increased by 1 per cent to 13 per cent. Then we come to the year 1960; the federal share was down to 62 per cent, the provincial share was up to 21 per cent and the municipal share was up to 16 per cent. For the year 1964 the relative figures are 57 per cent, 28 per cent and 15 per cent. In 1968 the federal share was 52 per cent, the provincial share was up to 33 per cent and the municipal share was 15 per cent.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
This paper, Mr. Speaker, was projected to 1971, and we find here again the federal government taking only 52 per cent of the tax revenue of Canada, the provinces continuing to increase their take to 35 per cent and the municipal groups, whom I think many members will agree are badly in need of more finances, down again to 13 per cent. Who is curbing spending in Canada and who is curbing taxation? Is it the federal government,
DEBATES	5087
The Budget-Mr. St. Pierre whose share of the tax take has dropped from 73 per cent to 52 per cent, or the provincial governments whose share has risen from 15 per cent to 35 per cent?
These figures can be expressed in another way, as a percentage of the GNP in terms of taxation. These, of course, show the same thing in different figures-a steady decline in the federal government's rate of spending compared with the total national product. In the early 1950s Ottawa was responsible for spending 17 per cent of the GNP, in 1958 16 per cent, in 1962 15 per cent, in 1967 14 per cent, and the forecast for next year is 13 per cent of the gross national product.
I bring this before the House, Mr. Speaker, because some of our friends in the provincial legislatures enjoy nothing better than to have Ottawa as a whipping-boy. I think members of this government and other members of the House should remind the provincial authorities and the people who live in the provinces that if they want to curb spending and taxation, "don't look automatically to Ottawa; look right in your own backyard and see who is overspending." I do not want to go further on that matter at this time, Mr. Speaker, but to return-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Would the hon. member
permit a question?


Mr.   SI Pierre@: Yes.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am always very interested in listening to the hon. member for Coast-Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) and I appreciate his point, but I question the adjective "overspending" that he uses, and the difference between that and increased spending. The hon. member makes a lot of sensible contributions to debate in this chamber. From his figures that I have jotted down, would he not agree that the increase in the percentage of the spending by the provinces also reflects the increase in the obligations of the provinces in this period from 1952 to 1971? Does he not agree it may not be overspending, but is obviously an increase in spending because of their increasing responsibilities?


Mr.   SI Pierre@: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's remarks, but it is overspending when the provinces go into debt, as most of them have at present. There are exceptions, but most of the provinces are going into debt.
Some hon. members have said that we are having a non-debate on a non-budget, and admittedly this budget is a holding operation
March 16, 1970

The Budget-Mr. St. Pierre while the white paper on tax reform remains in the field of public discussion. I am neither going to defend nor attack the white paper. I do not think this is the time for that, but at this time I feel I have to mention some of the criticism which I am receiving of the white paper, largely from the business community of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the white paper deserves good criticism, and it deserves a lot of criticism. It deserves intelligent criticism, and I am happy to say that in my office I am receiving some. But I would be less than honest if I did not say that I am alarmed by some of the emotional rant which is being issued by businessmen and business organizations, whom I would have expected could have provided much more sober judgment and a much more sound, fundamental, common sense examination of what that white paper represents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul St. Pierre: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, if I were among those given a choice of whether business was best left in the hands of private individuals or run by government, my impulse-as always-would be toward the private individual, and I hope it will remain there. But frankly, from the calibre of some of the submissions that come to me from supposedly responsible business organizations I am beginning to think that if I have a choice of trusting the economy of Canada to them, or trusting it to the government, I will perhaps have to lean toward the government.


Mr. Flemming:: That is a great surprise.


Paul St. Pierre: You would not be surprised if you saw some of the mail I am getting. To quote the late famous Bob Edwards of the Calgary Eye Opener, "Never criticize a man for his grammar or a woman for her morals." But I am still shocked when a businessman, heading a responsible organization, has so little grasp of grammar that literally I cannot understand what he is trying to tell me, and when I write to him and ask for an enlargement or clarification of what he is saying, he is still not capable of clarifying it.
In fact, I think many of them are running poor businesses, and I think possibly the white paper is providing them with an excuse to their stockholders as to why they are about to go broke. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have had in the course of this-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Do you think they should?


Paul St. Pierre: Yes, I think the inefficient should go. I am in favour of the inefficient people going broke, and of efficient people doing good business.
We have had the usual contribution tonight from our friends in the NDP, which is that there are not really any problems in Canada that cannot be solved by taxing people less and spending more. Frankly, I cannot be bothered examining these suggestions too deeply, except of course they are popular words. And if words were meat and potatoes, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that party would by now have provided enough to feed the world and we would all be fat. But unfortunately the facts of life remain before us and they are not going to be removed by the words of the New Democrats whose answer to everything seems to be: spend more and tax less.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to move to my final point. This concerns the general level of taxation in Canada. Many of the critics of the white paper, who I think are either being less than discerning or less than honest, insist that the white paper is a method of increasing taxation in Canada. The fact is that the white paper is concerned with the fair distribution of the load of taxation in Canada. That is its central purpose: it needs no other purpose. As to the total taxation load, this can be adjusted upward or downward even if the white paper is accepted in its entirety, which is highly unlikely, or whether the white paper is accepted in an amended form; or it can be done, as it is always done presently, under the taxation system as it exists now.
The level of taxation is not really a function of the white paper debate, but it is the general level of taxation on which I wish to speak for a few minutes. I think there is a real, legitimate concern, common to all members of the House as to what general level of taxation is supportable in this country before the initiative of individuals is stifled.
There are any number of people who are writing to hon. members telling them they know where it is, it is in the white paper, or else they claim it is not. Indeed, some of them who write leave me with the impression that the introduction of the graduated income tax in 1917 was the end of individual initiative in Canada. The facts do not appear to bear this out. But there is a point-I do not claim to know where it is; I do not know who the wise man could be who does know-beyond which taxation cannot rise.
March 16, 1970


Mr. Alkenbrack:: We have already reached that point.


Paul St. Pierre: Another hon. member says we have now reached that point-another wise man! I wish I had his omniscience. I am a simple man and I do not have answers to everything. I have the questions to which I seek answers.
The late Northcotte Parkinson claimed that the effective level of taxation was 10 per cent. He went further: it was his view that the ordinary citizen did not care if it was taken from him by the government he elected or by a bunch of bearded men who held the mountain pass. It was all the same to him; the 10 per cent was what he was willing to part with, whether to the robber for the government or to one of the freelance men of the woods.
We have long passed Mr. Parkinson's level. The taxation take of the three levels of government in Canada is now in the region of 35 or 36 per cent. We are told that in the United States it is far lower and that our young people will rush down to that happy land of health, wealth and high living as soon as any of the proposals of the white paper are introduced. However, the facts do not bear out that assertion. In 1969, 30 per cent of the American gross national product was going into the hands of various levels of government in taxes. In the last quarter of the last year the percentage of the American gross national product passing through the hands of the various levels of government reached, by odd coincidence, 35 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, can we indefinitely support taxation at 35, 36, 37 or up to 40 per cent? Where is the ceiling? We do not know, but I say we must always remain conscious of the fact that there is a ceiling. To me, every taxation can be likened to a cumulative poison-we are pretty sick before we find out we have had too much of it. We do not have the opportunity of rapidly comprehending the danger. It is not like stepping in front of a speeding truck where, if you make an error in judgment, the impact and punishment is immediate; it is more comparable to the ingestion of mercury poisoning in your food.
The taxpayer is not going to give the government clear notification of when he has had enough. He is not going to say, "Thirty-five per cent of my money you can take, but at 35.5 per cent I will stop paying." There will develop here a vague, persuasive discontent;
The Budget-Mr. Moore it will be a sickness. I regret, Mr. Speaker, that unlike some hon. members who join in these debates I am unable to put a figure on it any more than the taxpayer can, but I hope that the government and this House will remember that there are limits to what the taxpayer will part with. I thank hon. members for their courteous attention.


Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, this budget proposes to curb inflation. It may succeed in this to a degree, and it may not. What concerns me today is the tendency to disregard the problems of the non-urban sector of our economy which is in no way responsible for inflation. This area has, rather, been the victim of inflation. I do not want to leave the impression that I do not think urban areas have problems too, and very serious ones; I just want to deal with the area of the economy caught in the price squeeze.
One example of this unfairness, Mr. Speaker, is the closing of so many small post offices across the country. In many cases this may be justified. Many small offices close to a larger centre are no longer necessary. Their revenue has been dropping steadily and in some cases the villages surrounding them have all but disappeared. There are many cases, however, of rural post offices the revenue from which, though small, is increasing.
They serve not only as a post office but an important part of community life, possibly the only meeting place for neighbours. Most of these have been open for many years, and their removal has a serious effect, not only on the business with which they are usually associated but on their convenience to the patrons. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the saving of a few dollars in a department where money should not be the only criterion is not justified. The service to the community should have first consideration. To point out the chaos in that department I would refer to the headline in the Globe and Mail today stating "Postal Chaos in Montreal-Armed Guards to Move Mail if Necessary, Kierans Warns". This gives us a pretty fair idea of what is happening in the Post Office today.
Is it any wonder that there is concern and unrest in the rural areas of Canada? In the grain growing areas of the west, people are wondering what happened to the election promises of this government when the then agriculture minister promised to sell 4J million bushels of wheat annually for the next three years. That was in 1968. Now we

March 16, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Moore have a tremendous surplus of wheat and coarse grains built up in the Wheat Board designated area.
The recent announcement by the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) concerning the drastic reduction in wheat acreage is not well accepted by grain growers. They are aware, however, that at last the government has recognized their plight. For those who feel that this $100 million is a huge sum to pour into the western economy, it should be noted that it will have little effect on the many who practice mixed farming and are already diversified.
Other factors may determine its usefulness in the basically wheat growing areas. It may well be that only a small portion of the designated $100 million will be paid out. It is felt that under the so-called Lang-Olson formula, as little as $30 million or $40 million will go into the western economy. Grain farmers are worried about many aspects of this plan; for example, the land they have rented and agreed to farm in a good husbandlike order, also the problem of erosion involved in two or more years of consecutive summerfallowing.
Then we have the involved problems of the dairy industry, an industry affecting the local economy as well as the national economy of the country. It must be obvious by now to anyone concerned with the dairy industry that the government's recent dairy policies have failed to accomplish their intentions. It is all very well to say that the dairy industry should not be subsidized but should stand on its own feet. It would like to do that, Mr. Speaker. If dairymen were not producing a perishable product at a fixed price, often below the cost of production, they would not need a subsidy. They are operating in an economy wherein Canadian industry is subsidized by protective tariffs.
One fact of life that recent dairy policies have not taken into account is that in Canada we have large areas of deficit dairy production and other areas where production approximately equals demand. A dairy policy that does not take this into account fails to be realistic and discriminates against large areas of Canada. This was pointed out in submissions by a number of Canadian provinces, and cannot be ignored. The government would have us believe that the $10 million reduction in the allotment for dairy subsidy is part of the new austerity program. Rather, it is a continuation of a planned policy of

reducing the dairy subsidy, begun in 1967. It is my understanding that it is proposed to use the $10 million to finance the moving of the farmers off the farm.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
There is talk now of increasing the holdback on overquota milk, applying to both shippers of milk for manufacturing and fluid consumption. In the case of fluid producers there will be a straight decrease in price for that portion of a fluid shipper's milk that goes into the manufacturing market. This will be nothing less than a disaster for those whose fluid quota is a small percentage of their total production, and this applies to many top dairymen who ship to smaller points. They do not receive a subsidy in the first place, yet in the face of ever-increasing costs, they will be charged a holdback of 52 cents per 100 pounds of milk. Even more has been suggested, which will put these dairymen out of business.
Let us look for a moment at the advice the government gives to farmers. The advice is designed to solve their problems, and it is pretty ridiculous. To the dairymen the government says, "Expand your units, become more efficient, or in other words produce more." It also tells them, "Cut back on your production or we will make it so tough for you that you will be glad to get out of the business." How much sense does that make? To the farmers it says, "Expand your units; make them more viable. Grow more, but produce less. Diversify, but do not produce too much of anything because that product may become a drag on the market." What should the farmers grow? There is no answer. Perhaps they should grow flowers. This is the advice they are given in a world where many people are near starvation.
What are the government's plans for those who have already been forced off the land and the thousands more who will be? They are evidently to be moved from the land they love, out of the clean air and into the polluted air and congested environment of the cities. If history repeats itself, as it has a habit of doing, and we have another depression the government's advice will be, "Go back to the farm." It should not be surprised if the reply is, "What farm?" It is high time, Mr. Speaker, that we had some long-term planning in the whole field of agriculture. The productivity of our relatively small percentage of arable land in Canada should be considered a blessing, not a curse.
March 16, 1970


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, the budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) last Thursday was an astounding document. Really, I have some difficulty understanding how the Minister of Finance could work up enough nerve to deliver such a budget speech. He made the point of suggesting that not since 1913 has there been a budget which has not been accompanied by any Ways and Means resolutions introducing tax or tariff changes. The fact is, of course, that the minister did not need to do this because he had already piloted through the House his tax and tariff increases for 1970.
But, more importantly, I suggest that not since 1913 have we had such a pitiful excuse for a budget. This budget reflects the fact that the Liberal government is paralyzed by its own contradictions and contradictory positions. The budget really is an amazing compilation of contradictions. The Minister of Finance as much as admitted that the government's anti-inflation policies have failed to work up to the present time. Just listen to this statement contained in the budget speech:
There are some recent glimmerings of evidence that the rate of Increase of prices is no longer rising.
What a statement that is, Mr. Speaker! It would seem that what the Minister of Finance is trying to say is that the rate of increase in the rate of price increases is no longer going up. Well, the glimmer promptly went out of the minister's financial vision. The Minister of Finance was not even left with a gleam or a flicker in his eye.


An hon. Member:: There is no "love life" left.


John Stratford Burton: A colleague on my left has just said that there is no "love life" left. I do not think there will be much love for the Minister of Finance as a result of the word that went out last Friday that the consumer index had gone up by another half point and that it is now 5 per cent above the level of last year.
Hon. members will recall that in the budget address the Minister of Finance made a point of suggesting that on a national accounts basis the price increase factor for the past year was of the order of 4.2 per cent, and that the consumer price index had gone up by 4.6 per cent. The minister was saved by one day. If he had delivered his budget address just one day later, the word would have been out that the consumer price index had gone up to
The Budget-Mr. Burton 5 per cent over last year's level. The only thing the minister could offer was the pious hope that the policies that did not work in 1969 would work better in 1970. The minister blandly made this statement in his address:
-I anticipate some increase in unemployment.
That indicates that the minister decided to stand pat in terms of his economic policy, with the exception of the consumer credit controls which he introduced and which will have the effect of tightening the economic screws in Canada still further. This is the price Canadians will have to pay for a set of policies Which are not working, even if one were to accept them on a basis that a tradeoff between unemployment and deflation is acceptable. I do not accept that sort of proposition. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is morally wrong on the part of the government to tolerate and accept a higher level of unemployment as a price which Canadians have to pay for the government's so-called anti-inflation or deflationary policies.
Last fall the Minister of Finance appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and in answer to a question I posed said that he did not believe in the trade-off theory. The fact is that he has now put this trade-off theory into practice; he has put it into effect. He reminds me of an old-time buccaneer who simply said, "Damn the consequences; full sail ahead", or the captain of more recent years who said, "Damn the torpedos; full steam ahead." The Minister of Finance now says, "Damn the people; let them founder." It seems to me the Minister of Finance has lost all credibility. This loss in credibility cannot be summed up better than by the one sentence contained in his budget address of last Thursday, as follows:
We just cannot tell how soon or how far the slowing of growth in demand and in production will bring about a slowing down in price increases.
I do not understand how a Minister of Finance could have the nerve to make such a statement to the House of Commons, a statement which is a damning indictment of his economic policies, and not tender his resignation from his portfolio.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Stratford Burton: It seems to me that this statement is proof that the Minister of Finance is a babe lost in the woods. Possibly he knows where he wants to go but has no idea of how to get there. On the one hand we have the prediction that the inflationary trends will

March 16, 1970
The Budget-Mr. Burton continue in 1970, but on the other hand there is no help for pensioners or other victims of inflation. There is no help for these people and no consideration for them in the budget.
Another contradiction in the budget is the attitude of the Minister of Finance to business, and corporate business in particular, in contrast to his attitude toward consumers. This budget imposes no new or greater restraints on business. The deferred capital allowances are continued, although no supporting information was offered or provided to show that they are working at the present time. Actually, there is information to the contrary, to the effect that they are not working. All that is happening is that builders and developers are including these deferred allowances in their total cost picture.
Furthermore, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce at the year-end said that capital spending of major corporations in 1970 would be 14 per cent above that of 1969. This shows that the deferred depreciation allowances are just not working. It also shows the lack of response on the part of business corporations to the government's pleading for restraint. Much of the investment to be carried out in 1970 is in non-productive facilities, investment that will not result in greater productivity in Canada in 1970 or in future years. Business has been left basically untouched by this budget. On the other hand, the government is nailing the consumer.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I think one could question the effectiveness of the measures that were proposed, even on the basis that one accepted them. I think more fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and the government are tackling the wrong guy in the present situation. What they are trying to do is further restrict the people who are already feeling the pinch in our present economic situation. These new regulations will pose no problems for the people who have ample financial or economic resources, but to the extent these regulations and controls are effective they could slow down the economy even further than is now the case.
Why not control the financial institutions, their profits and interest rates? It seems that we are still following the bankrupt policies of the Prices and Incomes Commission instead of developing a comprehensive incomes policy. The minister should be aware that such a policy has the endorsement of this party. If he is not, I now draw his attention to it. This

was clearly set forth in a report which was submitted on behalf of the New Democratic Members of Parliament by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) and myself as members of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. We called for the introduction of a comprehensive incomes policy as the only way out of the present situation. I wish to quote briefly from that report and the proposition that was put forward:
To achieve the objective of an equitable distribution of income and of an equitable distribution of the economic burden of rising prices, we propose a comprehensive incomes policy.
It is essential that what we mean by an incomes policy be well understood. To be meaningful, it must be comprehensive, it must include all forms of income. In addition to wages and salaries (the salaries of Members of Parliament included) all forms of non-wage and non-salary income-including profits, rents, interest, professional fees and unincorporated business income must be subject to the policy.
The comprehensive incomes policy must include the provision of a guaranteed annual income, to avoid injustice and hardship. It must be flexible enough to take account of: (1) the plight of low-paid workers (2) disparities within industries and classes of employees (3) increases in the cost of living and (4) other factors causing disadvantage to groups or regions.
It will take time to develop a comprehensive incomes policy fully. Constitutional, economic and geographic factors make it more difficult to apply such a policy in Canada than in some countries. We will have to learn lessons through experience. But the objective and the need are clear. The best way to get there is to start now.
That is the end of the quotation which I submit for the consideration of all members of this House. A further failing of this budget which poses another contradiction is that nothing is being done, and nothing is proposed, to slow down the rate of take-over of the Canadian economy by foreign interests or the dependence of the economy on foreign developments and events. I will deal with this point further on another occasion. It is generally agreed, and it is quite clear, that some of the events to which Canada is subject take place in foreign countries and are in fact beyond our effective control.
In summary, I suggest that the government has demonstrated its incapacity to manage the economy in the interest of Canadians. I wish to give a short and brief analysis of some of my reasons for coming to this conclusion. The first point is that the government does not recognize changes that have taken place in the Canadian economy. The fact is that our economy is no longer governed by market forces, the laws of supply and demand
March 16, 1970

as we have known them. They cannot do the job now or in the future.
We are living in an economy which is featured by administered prices for the most part. Corporate power, including international and multinational corporate power, controls much of our economy and in fact will be an important influence in the future. One example of the fact that we must realize Canada is living in a new economic situation is exemplified by current developments. At the present time we have a rate of unemployment that based on actual figures is over 6 per cent. We have a rate of price increase in the area of 5 per cent.
These things are contradictory in terms of economic laws as we have known them up to the present time. This indicates the need for new approaches and policies to deal with the situation. This is pointed out by the Bank of Nova Scotia in its most recent "Monthly Review" where it is noted:
Indeed the current adjustment, like the 9-year expansion that preceded it, has turned out to be so extended that several of the traditional cyclical reactions-in areas such as inventory movements and capital spending plans-have failed to show up at all.
My second reason for reaching the conclusion I did about the government and its management of public affairs is that it is featured by insensitivity. I think this is demonstrated in terms of the government's attitude and policies toward pensioners and other low-income people. The government is willing to risk a recession for the sake of carrying on its present policies which are not working. I plead with the government to take another look at its policies. The First National City Bank of New York, in the United States, points out in a recent study:
Indeed, a moderate shift in policy taken too soon may prove less inflationary in the long run than a massive shift in policy taken too late.
The third reason for my thinking the policies of the government are unacceptable is that it places a lower priority on public goods as compared with private goods. I feel that all our expenditures and allocations of resources must be subject to close scrutiny and to various criteria which are established. I think these criteria should be established for both public goods and private goods. This government has failed to act with respect to the private sector of the economy.
The fourth point is that I feel this government has demonstrated a lack of courage in tackling our economic problems by its wishy-washy approach to the prices situation. It has
The Budget-Mr. Burton failed, and is unwilling to tackle the corporate power and the interests which have control over the Canadian economy at the present time. I say this, not simply in terms of criticism but to show that there is an alternative, another way in which we might direct our economic policy. This was pointed out in a report submitted on behalf of the New Democratic Party members to which I made reference a few minutes ago, in which we called for a comprehensive incomes policy, controls over capital spending, help for pensioners and other victims of inflation and for changes in our monetary policy including a system of flexible exchange rates.
I wish to deal briefly with some of the problems presently facing my own province of Saskatchewan. I shall discuss these in terms of the government's policies and approach in dealing with the problems of regional disparities. This government has placed a great deal of emphasis on its policies concerning regional development. The Minister of Finance has cited regional development policies as being one area of counteraction to the adverse effects of national economic policies. Really, I wish he would get off this kick or, if he will not, I wish the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) would kick him where it will do some good. Regional development policies are designed to deal with long-range problems on a long-term basis, and it does them a disservice if the minister persists in making a point of this type.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The province of Saskatchewan is a good example of a region of Canada which is faced with difficulties at this time. This is not to overlook the situation in other parts of Canada, but I have a special concern for my own province because of the rapid deterioration there in the past year or two. For example, the population has declined from 962,000 in October, 1968, to 948,000 on January 1, 1970, 15 months later. Personal income per capita in Saskatchewan in 1968 was $300 below the national average-$400 below the national average if farm inventory changes are excluded. In 1968, on either basis, personal income in Saskatchewan was lower than in all other provinces except the four Atlantic provinces. It was, in fact, lower than personal income in Quebec where it is acknowledged that considerable economic hardship does exist.
The figures for 1969 and 1970 will, I am sure, show the situation to be even worse
March 16, 1970

The Budget-Mr. Burton when they are revealed. I do not like to talk about my own province in this way. Indeed, it hurts me to do so. I recognize it could leave false impressions. I believe Saskatchewan has great potential for development. The province has made an outstanding contribution to Canadian society both economically and socially, particularly under the leadership of my hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) when he was Premier of Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Stratford Burton: During that period the province had an outstanding record in terms of agricultural production, mineral production and social institutions as expressed in both co-operative and public programs. Today we are facing serious difficulties in the agricultural industry and in the potash industry, the latter brought about in large part by the lack of planning within that industry in recent years. The oil industry has reached a plateau, and mineral production has declined. Unemployment has increased. It is reliably forecast that unemployment in the urban centres this winter will reach 10 per cent.
For this reason I welcomed the announcement last week that several areas in Saskatchewan are to be included among the special areas established by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. This will certainly give a psychological boost to the province. Regina and Saskatoon have been included in addition to an area in the Meadow Lake district. It remains to be seen to what extent this new program will be used. Until last week nothing had been done in those areas of Saskatchewan which had been declared eligible under the regional incentives legislation. There are many parts of Saskatchewan which are deserving of further assistance. I stand by my original contention that the entire province should be declared a designated area under the Regional Development Incentives Act. It seems to me that in Saskatchewan at the present time we are handicapped by the worst combination which could be encountered, that is, a Liberal government in Ottawa and a Liberal government in Regina.
In Ottawa we have a Liberal government which has demonstrated, for the most part, little concern for the province. In Regina we have a Liberal government which is desperately trying to pick a fight with Ottawa as its only means of survival in the next election: they know they cannot survive on the basis of their record. This is illustrated by a little

squabble which took place last week. It seems there is to be a new distillery built in Wey-burn. We are very happy about this. But the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) from Saskatchewan and the Premier of the province could not help getting into a squable about who should make the announcement. The Premier was to make the announcement on Friday morning, but I gather the Minister without Portfolio felt he should get there first so he made the announcement on Thursday evening, beating the Premier to the post. This is an indication of the petty squabbling which is going on between the Liberals in Regina and those in Ottawa. The people of Saskatchewan are suffering as a consequence.
Further programs are needed to improve farm income, in addition to a generous public works program in the province and an energetic continuation of regional development plans. The people of Saskatchewan are greatly concerned about what is happening in agriculture at the present time. Agriculture is one of the worst of the trouble spots in the economy and the attitude of the government has been one of reacting to a crisis. There have been many examples of this over the past year and a half. The most recent was the announcement of the wheat acreage reduction program called LIFT-Lower Inventory For Tomorrow. Many farmers in western Canada would like to give it a different sort of lift. This is not an income plan, Mr. Speaker. It is an incentive plan to persuade farmers not to produce in 1970. It represents a complete turnabout as compared with the policy put forward a few years ago when farmers were urged to grow all they could. Now the farmers have to pay the shot for following the government's policy.
This program has certain basic shortcomings. First, it is poor psychology. It does not wear well with farmers to ask them not to produce. For this reason the policy will be ignored by many farmers in western Canada simply because it is not realistically related to their situation. Second, there are basic inequities in the program, the most obvious of which relate to the situation of farmers who made a considerable adjustment last year and who are now penalized as a consequence. Third, the plan fails to take into account the social and economic consequences.
I don't believe this program was subjected to a cost-benefit analysis before it was announced. If any minister disagrees with this statement, I challenge him to table whatever studies were prepared in the development of
March 16, 1970

this program. I contend there are serious potential environmental problems associated with the program. Suppose we encounter a dry year with low rainfall; we could find ourselves in a serious situation. Crop scientists have already warned farmers about this possibility and have expressed concern. Fifth, there are no income alternatives presented to farmers and, sixth, the plan does not take into account the situation of small farmers and mixed farmers.
The program is an example of the trouble we get into when policies are made by a minister or ministers who may be intelligent or capable but who lack an understanding of, or a feeling for the agricultural industry and rural people. The frustration of farmers was expressed no better than in an advertisement which appeared during the last several days in the Regina Leader-Post. This advertisement, which was placed in the "Farms for Sale" column, reads as follows:
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Opportunity for Premier, M.L.A. or Dept, of Welfare.
Will trade one section of good land, free of debt, value $60,000. Payments to be $4,970 annually for life and non-taxable. Same as city family of 7 on Welfare. If this offer is not taken before land grows to weeds to qualify for $6 per acre payment, will add $35 to annual payments for ulcer diet allowance. This bargain available until next increase in welfare allowances.
It seems to me this advertisement expresses the frustration that many people feel toward the government's new program. I suggest that the Liberal government has been responsible for the most colossal combination of bungling, mismanagement and lack of understanding in its dealings with agriculture that has ever been witnessed in Canada.
Today the survival of the industry is at stake. Basic adjustments have to be made. We want to know where the government stands in connection with agriculture, and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is also asking this question. Recently they sent a letter to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board in which they said:
The report of the agricultural task force (which incidentally urgently needs to be released to the public so that debate on its contents may begin) should provide a good starting point for a dialogue on the basic principles-[DOT]
And so on. This suggests that the report of the task force is now in the hands of the government or is available to the government but has not been released. I suggest this is a

The Budget-Mr. Whicher matter that should be placed immediately before the people of Canada. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture then went on to ask some basic questions of concern to the agricultural industry and all farmers of Canada, questions that should also concern the government.
Furthermore, the fact is that there are things that can be done. Reference has already been made in this House to the study recently published by the Economic Council of Canada entitled "Future Market Outlets for Canadian Wheat and Other Grains" written by Dr. Hudson, formerly with the federal Department of Agriculture. I shall conclude very shortly, Mr. Speaker. Dr. Hudson points out:
A survey of the competitive position of Canadian wheat in selected markets suggests that the principal causes of Canada's declining market share are: lack of consistent quality as measured by uniformity of protein content within and between shipments of wheat designated as the same grade; insufficient flexibility in pricing to meet market competition; inadequate market development effort; increased self-sufficiency in importing countries; and unfair competition resulting from the use of export subsidies and the manner in which government-assisted export programs are carried out by competing exporters.
Then Dr. Hudson goes on-
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


John Stratford Burton: I can conclude in two minutes, Mr. Speaker.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): There is not unanimous consent.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, might I say to the last speaker that I am very sorry he was not given the opportunity to finish his speech, which in my opinion was well prepared, although I cannot agree with what he said. I listened with great indulgence to the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), the official spokesman on financial matters for the New Democratic Party, when he spoke this afternoon, as I did to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. Both of these members are on the Finance Committee, of which I have the privilege of being a member, and I have learned to listen to
509S	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Whicher what they say. While I do not always agree with them, I have nevertheless found that generally speaking their speeches are well prepared and their thoughts are equally well prepared.
To get down to brass tacks, having paid these flowery compliments to the hon. members in question, I should like to ask the hon. member who has just spoken this question. He condemned the Canadian government, the Liberal Party and our way of life in Canada, as did the hon. member for Waterloo. Would the hon. member go to this office and look at a map of the world? Having looked all over the map, I would ask him whether, having in his mind's eye travelled all over the world, he has not discovered, as have many thousands of Canadians, that Canada is the best country in the world; that although it is very nice to take trips all over the world, it is even nicer to come back to this country in which we are proud to live.
Having listened to the members of the New Democratic Party, I got the impression that this was a terrible country in which to live; that everybody was poor or everybody was rich; that nobody had the satisfaction of living what might be described as the full life, of living a happy life in this great country of ours.
In spite of the Liberal government that my friend has criticized during the last few minutes, and in spite of the fact that since 1867, when we first became a nation, everything here has not been heavenly, we still have a great country. Perhaps one of the reasons for this is that the New Democratic Party has never formed the government. I wonder whether it is true that one of the reasons we do have a great country, one in which we are all happy to live, is that in the majority of cases a Liberal government has run the country-and run it, in my opinion, most effectively.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Louis-Roland Comeau: Don't overdo it, now.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I can remember what happened in 1935. Some of my hon. friends were not here then, but there are Conservatives who were in the House in 1935. I remember travelling across Bruce county, which I have the privilege of representing in this House, on numerous occasions and hearing constituents of mine-Conservatives-saying, "Mr. Whicher, we will never vote Conservative again as long as we live, because we remember what happened in 1935".

DEBATES	March 16, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I am only telling the House what was told me by good Conservative constituents, friends of hon. gentlemen to my left.
I want to devote a few minutes to what has been said by others who have preceded me. First of all, I go back to what the financial critic for the New Democratic Party said. In my opinion, he was most unfair in his criticism this afternoon of the Liberal government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). I do not contend that there is some reason why a member of the New Democratic Party should not be unfair, but I do say that the hon. member was not realistic in his approach to a subject that is of most importance to the people of Canada.
For example, the hon. member spoke of regional development and said this was good, that the government to the right of Mr. Speaker was doing an excellent job. Then he said that it was not good so long as we did not have full employment. I am sure there is no one in the government or on the Liberal benches who does not wish there were full employment in Canada today. Everybody wants full employment. But what happens if we price ourselves completely out of world markets? I realize that our friends in the New Democratic Party do not agree that we might in the future price ourselves out of world markets, but what would happen if we did? Then we would really have unemployment. The choice is not between inflation and unemployment. The government by its actions is showing it is against inflation and that it hopes to be able to do something about the problem.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The government is also against unemployment, but the brutal fact is that it must make a choice, not about unemployment today but unemployment five years from now. What about unemployment two years from now? Is it not better to have 5 per cent of the people unemployed today, cruel though it may be, than to have 10 per cent of our people unemployed two or three years from now? This is the struggle and these are the questions that are going through the mind of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) as he works on this problem which is very serious to him and indeed to all the people of Canada. It is all very easy to be on the left of Mr. Speaker, as indeed I am, and to be somewhat critical of the government. But when you sit in high
March 16, 1970

places and you are the Minister of Finance responsible for raising $12 billion or $13 billion, and at the same time you must look after the spending of $12 billion or $13 billion, it is a more difficult job than criticizing all the time.
My friend the hon. member for Waterloo asks what is the cost of unemployment in Canada. May I be the first to tell him that it costs a great deal of money. I agree with my friend when he suggested that perhaps it costs in the neighbourhood of $4 billion per year. This is a situation we should all strive to rectify. No one wants unemployment and no one wants inflation. But inflation is not just a problem in Canada: it is not just a problem facing the government which sits opposite; it is a problem of all Canadians and, indeed, all the world. There is as much inflation in the United States as there is here. We are bound to have more inflation in a country that is going ahead faster than any other, for example Japan. There is now inflation in Germany, the other country that lost the war.
We are a small country in population, with approximately 21 million people. The Minister of Finance is the man who has to come up with the answers and I appreciate the difficulty he faces. He is faced with unemployment which costs a great deal, and it will cost a great deal more if we do not attack the inflationary situation which exists not only in this country but indeed in the whole world.
The hon. member for Waterloo suggested that the government has caused unemployment. I deny that completely. The government has not caused unemployment. What the government is attempting to do is solve the inflationary situation. In my opinion it is one of the greatest forms of robbery we could have in this country. Some time ago I referred to the devaluation situation. Supposing a fellow retired ten years ago with $50,000 in bonds, perhaps a farmer from Quebec or Ontario, or with $100,000 if he happened to own a profitable wheat farm in Saskatchewan, and supposing he put his money on deposit with the Royal Bank of Canada or in Canadian government bonds: today that money would be worth only about half what is was worth ten years ago. Inflation is a tremendous robber. This is a problem not only in Canada but throughout the world, and it must be beaten because neither Canada nor the world can afford it. While we are interested in the world situation, we are primarily interested in this Canada of ours.
The Budget-Mr. Whicher
For this reason the government, through the Minister of Finance, has created what is known as tight money in an attempt to combat the inflation bug. By creating tight money, some unemployment has resulted. It is not just our friends to the left who are interested in people: every one of us who sees people losing jobs, whether we be Liberals on the right of Mr. Speaker, Liberals in the rump, members of the NDP, Conservatives or Credi-tistes, we are all interested in our friends and neighbours and we want them to have the ability to make a living.
I should like to see how our friends to the left would operate in a situation such as this. This government was elected on June 25, 1968. Often when I listen to hon. members speak I get the idea that they feel their party was elected to govern this country. There is only one reason they sit to the left of Mr. Speaker and the government sits to the right-they lost the election; this country expressed its confidence in this government and it is this government which is making the decisions. In my opinion it has done a good job.
The hon. member for Waterloo suggested that the biggest problem was not inflation but a lack on the part of the government to adapt. He suggested there was no indication that we would ever price ourselves out of world markets. This afternoon he suggested that we could raise the price of copper by 25 cents a pound. We have a great deal of this product, the world wants it and we can sell it. We can also sell a great deal of our nickel which increased in price by 25 per cent.
My hon. friend asked us to name some products in respect of which we might price ourselves out of world markets. In what I thought was a very nice way, I mentioned shirts. He answered very well and said we could never compete with what I am sure he meant-he will correct me if I am wrong-the world textile market. I ask him to get in touch with our textile friends across Canada, some of whom are in his areas, and find out whether they are willing to close up shop and go home to bed rather than compete with world textile industries.
Of course we can compete as long as union wages are maintained, as long as our productivity is high, as long as our machinery is 100 per cent efficient and as long as we can produce quality comparable to that of United States industry and industry in the rest of the world. My hon. friend also referred to Stelco as one of the greatest steel producing compa-
March 16, 1970
5098	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion nies in the world. This is a company of high efficiency. No one could agree more than I that Stelco is one of the best steel companies in Canada. What is the situation in respect of Japanese steel?
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

['Mr. Speaker, because the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) is not available tonight, nor is his Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. member, my fellow British Columbian, will have to be content with second best. However, I shall let him down as lightly as possible. I have secured a copy of the remarks which my colleague would have made had he been here, and in order to avoid error I shall read them very carefully.\nMr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated in this House on Wednesday, February 18, in answer to a question similar to the one posed tonight by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), he or no member of his government has authority over a committee of this House.\nThe Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has not made the briefs of the provinces on pollution control available to the committee because, as the Prime Minister stated on that earlier occasion, whatever provincial briefs were made public are available through the federal-provincial secretariat if it is the wish of the committee to examine the opinions raised. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources does not have authority over what papers and opinions are brought before any committee of the House.\nMr. Speaker, the Federal-Provincial Conference held last February 16-17 was a private, in-camera event, the deliberations of which were for the most part not released to the public. Though both levels of government agreed to the confidentiality of the conference, some provincial delegations chose to release certain of their opinions on some of the matters which the conference discussed. If the hon. member and the National Resources Committee wish to examine those provincial briefs which were released, as the Prime Minister stated in his answer to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) on February 18, the initiative rests with the member and the committee upon which he sits, and not with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or any other member of the government.\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.15 p.m.', 'Tuesday, March 17, 1970']
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, on March 2 I posed the following question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp):
In view of the fact that Canada sold approximately $300 million worth of weapons and defence materials to the United States in 1969, is the Canadian government now considering putting an end to this complicity in the Viet Nam war by stopping these sales?
I asked this question for a number of reasons. I would preface my remarks by saying that Canada is by far the largest foreign supplier of military equipment to the United States. Let me use a couple of very simjple statistics to show what I mean. In 1964 we sold about $161 million worth of war and military equipment to the United States; in 1969 we sold them approximately $300 million worth of defence and military equipment. In 1964, six years ago, there were approximately 23,000 United States troops in Viet Nam; in 1969 there were over 500,000 United States troops in Viet Nam, and over half a million United States troops are fighting in Viet Nam today.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
As we know, the defence-sharing agreement is one whereby specific military equipment is contracted for by the Pentagon. We know that much of this equipment which goes to the United States is used directly in the war in Viet Nam: this has been stated by people in the Pentagon. Any of this equipment which does not go directly to Viet Nam finds its way into the United States military pot. This means that indirectly that we have equipment there, because the United States can use more of its equipment in Viet Nam, so it really does not make much difference.
[Mr. Whicher.)

I should like to see Canada out of this type of involvement. Whether or not we are in favour of the war in Viet Nam, we are involved whether we like it or not because we are supplying military equipment and military goods to the United States. Viet Nam has perhaps done more than anything else to divide the generations in America. If we look around in the United States, and even in Canada today, we can see that it has divided societies, communities and families.
I maintain that the United States presence in Viet Nam is politically and morally wrong. In being involved in a war in Viet Nam the United States is leaving one of the deepest scars on the conscience of humanity. It is an aggressive war. It is being fought by a foreign power against a people who for decades have been fighting powers such as China, France and now the United States.
Let us for a moment look at Canada's role in the Viet Nam war. I think it is very inconsistent in respect of our stand in other wars which are going on now or which have gone on in the last few years. We did not supply arms to either side in India or Pakistan. We are not supplying arms to either Israel or the Arab states. We did not supply arms to either Nigeria or Biafra regardless of our activity or inactivity in that situation. In all these situations we maintained a degree of military neutrality. We are not doing that in the case of Viet Nam because we are supplying approximately $300 million worth of arms to the United States this year and supplied more, as a matter of fact, during the last two years.
Ending the war in Viet Nam is something we alone cannot do-we all realize that-but we can make a contribution to that end. One way to do it is by cutting off our supply of arms to the United States. This would contribute to ending the killing and misery which is going on in Viet Nam today. It would also help the United States get out of this war in Asia because, as I have said, it not only is dividing the people but is placing the United States in the position of being a giant powder keg which is ready to explode at any time.
The United States involvement in Viet Nam has many other detrimental effects. It is draining the United States economy of money which could be spent on housing, on combating poverty and in cleaning up the cities of that country. These things, too, contribute to the very explosive situation in the United States. It is also in the interest of Canada that the war end as soon as possible, because whether we like it or not the Viet Nam war is
March 16, 1970	COMMONS
contributing to everything from inflation to social unrest in this country. No matter what we think of it or how we like it, this is the way it is. We must try to stop that war as soon as possible.
I do not think any Canadians like to think they are a part of the killing and misery which is going on in a far away rice paddy at this very moment. Finally, if we do stop the sale of armaments to the United States, or through the United Nations put pressure on all sides to stop the fighting, we will indeed strengthen the international community. How many more Yiet Nams or Nigeria-Biafras will it take before the world will suddenly blow up? How many more situations like this can we tolerate before that final spark, and before there is a major nuclear confrontation with which we would have to contend? For these reasons, in brief, I was asking and am asking the government to stop our sale of arms to the United States.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is suggesting that because the United States is engaged in a war in Viet Nam of which he disapproves, Canada should end its long-standing defence production arrangement with the United States.


Mr. Barnett:: He is not the only one.


Mitchell William Sharp: There are others who disapprove, too. But what he is suggesting is that because he and many Canadians disagree with the war in Viet Nam, this country should end its long-standing defence arrangements with the United States. In the first place, the great bulk of United States procurement in Canada under these arrangements does not consist of weapons but electronic equipment, transport aircraft and various components and materials.
In the second place, Canadian-made equipment goes into the general inventory of the United States armed forces and may be used by those forces anywhere in that country or overseas. As an ally of the United States in North America and in NATO, I think it is entirely appropriate that we should have such defence production-sharing arrangements. It is therefore quite misleading on the part of the hon. member to suggest that Canadian weapons are being supplied to the United States for use in Viet Nam. Some of them may be used there but the defence production arrangement, as he himself has mentioned in his remarks, predates any involvement by the
DEBATES	5099
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion United States in Viet Nam and would go on as and when we all hope the war in Viet Nam is over.
We have a two-way arrangement with the United States under which we purchase considerable quantities of modem defence equipment for the Canadian armed forces, and we seek to balance this by sales to U.S. agencies. There have been times when the balance has been more in favour of Canada and other times when it has been more in favour of the United States. It has varied from time to time. At the moment I guess it is more favourable to us.
The government is not contemplating the ending of this defence production-sharing agreement with the United States. To do so would be a reversal of the whole co-operative defence relationship and would be costly as well to Canadian industry and to Canadian workers, to no good purpose.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Why has it doubled in the
last five years?


Mitchell William Sharp: This is a reversal of the previous arrangement, of a situation when we used to purchase much more from the United States than we sold them. This was one of the reasons we entered into the defence production arrangement. As I say, to end that arrangement would be to reverse the sort of co-operative arrangements we have had with the United States over a long period of years and which I hope will continue after the Viet Nam war is over. The step he is suggesting would in no conceivable way contribute to a peaceful solution in Viet Nam, which the government desires just as much as the hon. member.



Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister to whom I referred this question is probably looking into it at this time, so rather than leaving it to clutter-up the adjournment debate list of questions I would ask that it be transferred back to the question period.


POLLUTION-AVAILABILITY TO COMMITTEE OF PROVINCIAL BRIEFS ON CONTROL
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on March 10 I asked the Minis-
March 16, 1970
5100	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ter of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) the following question:
Did the provincial governments submit briefs on the subject of pollution control to the federal government during the federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa on February 16 and 17? If so, why has the minister not made these briefs available to the national resources committee which is currently dealing with the Canada Water Act?
The minister gave no reply to the question, and because it is of vital importance to the national resources committee, which is now studying the new legislation, I asked that it be raised at this time. During our committee meeting on February 3, the minister indicated that points of discussions between the federal government and the provinces would not be passed on to the committee. Two weeks later the Federal-Provincial Conference took place in Ottawa.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The provinces submitted briefs to the federal government on their views and approach to the pollution problems facing Canada. I feel these briefs should be passed on to the National Resources Committee for study and action. It is the only sensible way of acquainting the committee members with the problems facing us under the new Canada Water Act. To date, this information has not been given to the committee despite the assurance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on February 18 that the provincial briefs had been made public.
How can the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on National Resources do an adequate job of amending legislation which is currently before it, when the information on problems which we are facing provincially is not made available to the members for study? This is an odd way of making sensible legislation. I trust this attitude on the part of the minister will not continue and that all the material available will be released to the committee. We all want to make the new act workable and we must have the necessary background material to do this.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose two questions to the minister: Will copies of the briefs be made available to all members of the committee and, if so, when?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, because the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) is not available tonight, nor is his Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. member, my fellow British Columbian, will have to be content with second best. However, I shall let him down as lightly as possible. I have secured a copy of the remarks which my colleague would have made had he been here, and in order to avoid error I shall read them very carefully.
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated in this House on Wednesday, February 18, in answer to a question similar to the one posed tonight by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), he or no member of his government has authority over a committee of this House.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has not made the briefs of the provinces on pollution control available to the committee because, as the Prime Minister stated on that earlier occasion, whatever provincial briefs were made public are available through the federal-provincial secretariat if it is the wish of the committee to examine the opinions raised. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources does not have authority over what papers and opinions are brought before any committee of the House.
Mr. Speaker, the Federal-Provincial Conference held last February 16-17 was a private, in-camera event, the deliberations of which were for the most part not released to the public. Though both levels of government agreed to the confidentiality of the conference, some provincial delegations chose to release certain of their opinions on some of the matters which the conference discussed. If the hon. member and the National Resources Committee wish to examine those provincial briefs which were released, as the Prime Minister stated in his answer to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) on February 18, the initiative rests with the member and the committee upon which he sits, and not with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or any other member of the government.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.15 p.m.

Tuesday, March 17, 1970