1971-06-29

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the sixth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition of residents of the South Western area of the province of Nova Scotia with respect to the provision of public passage from Tiverton to East Ferry across the Petit Passage, presented on Monday, June 28, 1971, and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to rise on a question of privilege. My point of privilege is that I, like many other Members of Parliament, agreed to deliver cheques to the recipients of approved Opportunities for Youth programs in my riding on the basis, first, of the description of the projects as outlined by the Department of the Secretary of State, and also to familiarize myself with the aims and objectives of the programs and, second, to have the opportunity of meeting the people in charge of the programs and possibly lending some assistance.
My point of privilege is that the projects were misrepresented in the descriptions provided as verified by my own investigation. Although the cheques were to cover two projects, I was informed they were indeed for one and the same project. The programs were not checked out by personal inspection by the department, nor to the best of my knowledge was any local organization consulted as to the project's worthiness.
To the best of my knowledge the individuals to whom the cheques were made payable could not be identified as bona fide Canadian university students. As a matter of fact, according to reliable information supplied to me, for which I can obtain proof, one was a United States citizen and listed as a draft dodger.
Your Honour, I am sure, will realize that the two cheques in my possession to the amount of $5,325, just half the total contribution of $10,650, should not have been delivered under the misrepresentation that existed and also because of the lack of investigation of the projects. In view of the above I am therefore returning
the cheques to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) who is responsible for the Opportunities for Youth program.
My point of privilege is the following: First, I was misinformed by the department. Second, I accepted and the department agreed to have me deliver two cheques which covered only one project, not two as described. Third, I as a Member of Parliament was given a cheque to deliver made payable to an American draft dodger, not made payable to a Canadian citizen as was intended by the program.
Upon Your Honour ruling that there is a prima facie breach of privilege or misrepresentation I shall move, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon), that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has given the Chair notice of his intention to raise this matter. Of course the notice did not include all the details he has outlined now for the information of the Chair and the House.
Hon. members are familiar with my views as to parliamentary privilege. They are somewhat restrictive. In this regard I like to found my opinion on the tradition and practice in the British house where parliamentary privilege is seldom invoked to redress grievances of hon. members. I think this is a good practice.
I really think that hon. members sometimes have legitimate grievances or in any event grievances, without qualifying the word, which should be brought to the attention of the House and perhaps studied and considered by appropriate committees without having the matter considered under the guise of breach of parliamentary privilege. I think the matter raised by the hon. member is serious, should concern the hon. member, as it rightly does, and should be of concern to all of us in this chamber. However, I doubt very much whether this kind of grievance should be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections where breaches of parliamentary privileges are normally sent. My thought would be that the hon. member has a legitimate complaint or grievance and there should be some way whereby the matter can be discussed and considered before one of the committees of the House in due course. I bring to the attention of hon. members that we are currently engaged in the budget debate and this might provide an opportunity for hon. members to consider the matter further and to indicate what redress they think there should be to alleviate the difficulties to which the hon. member has referred.
The hon. member has referred to both misrepresentation and breach of privilege. It has to be one or the other.

June 29, 1971
Business of the House
I do not think the hon. member can suggest that a matter of misrepresentation should be sent to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. It is either a breach of parliamentary privilege or it is not, and in my understanding and interpretation of parliamentary privilege I do not think that the matter can be studied by the House or by one of its committees under this heading.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-Mr. Lachance.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a correction in Hansard of June 25.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but this correction should be made on the order for motions and not when reports of committees are presented. We will come back to the matter in a moment.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacEachen;: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the business of the House to be dealt with this evening, it may be recalled that last night I called Bill C-176 as the first item of government business. As a result of discussions held since and because of the desire to complete Bill C-243, an act to amend the Judges Act, I am now proposing that we deal with Bill C-243 at eight o'clock on the understanding that all decisions relating to the disposition of that bill will be completed not later than nine o'clock and that that understanding be now embedded in a House order so that we will not have any difficulties later this day.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, we are always prepared to help the government out when it gets into difficulties and needs assistance.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one inquiry. Does the House leader intend to have a vote on completion of discussion of Bill C-243?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my suggestion is that all decisions, including a vote if required, be completed by nine o'clock. If there is a vote we ought to get it going before nine o'clock.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to that bill, and the minister has a number of amendments. I would be agreeable to end the discussion at nine o'clock,
but I think there may be votes on a number of amendments.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be some difficulty as to how this decision should be embedded. My impression is that it might be difficult to make a decision of the House to complete the discussion and the votes by nine o'clock. In fact this would be extremely difficult and in practice I really do not see how it could be done. My own thought is that we should adopt the suggestion made by the hon. member for Timiskaming that any votes be called at nine o'clock. This is the only suggestion I can make to the House. Otherwise I do not see how we could make an order of the House, but of course I am in the hands of hon. members.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I will have to have further consultations in order to resolve this difficulty.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, before Parliament adjourns for the summer I should like to make a progress report to the House on the improvements being made in the proposed family income security plan as a result of the extensive discussions we have had with the provinces in recent months.
Visits were made to all provinces by myself and my officials at the time the white paper was placed before Parliament last December in order to outline and discuss the nature and scope of the federal proposals with the pi'ovincial ministers and their officials. A federal-provincial conference of welfare ministers was held in January at which time the proposals were further reviewed and the views of the provinces were obtained. On the basis of their suggestions, and others that were received from interested organizations and individuals, the government made a number of important changes in its proposals for the family income security plan. I then again visited the provinces to discuss these modifications. Some further adjustments in the proposals resulted from these talks. Another meeting of welfare ministers was held in early June to afford the provinces an opportunity to discuss these and other matters relating to income security. It is now expected that it will be possible to complete very soon the discussion phase inherent in the white paper technique and to proceed with the drafting of legislation.
The federal government has endeavoured to ensure that the federal plan would fit into provincial priorities and social policies. This has been especially true in the case of Quebec which is the only province that has a supplementary family allowance plan, administers its own youth allowances, and has proposed a selective family income program along the lines of the federal

June 29, 1971

plan. The suggestions from Quebec, as well as those from Ontario and a number of the other provinces, have been helpful in bringing about improvements in the federal plan. The plan will both complement and supplement provincial income security payments and services and will provide for effective administrative co-ordination with provincial programs.
As a result of the review of the white paper proposals with reference to the family income security plan, a number of points have become clear.
First, the extension of the family income security plan to cover youth 16 and 17 years of age will be proceeded with now, thereby replacing the youth allowances program.
Second, the family income security plan benefits will not be treated as taxable income.
Third, the white paper suggested that benefits might be reduced by $1 a month per child for each extra $500 of income. The income "steps" that would result from this approach would create a certain disincentive for people to earn extra amounts that would put them on a lower "step". To smooth out the reduction rate and minimize this disincentive we think a more frequent adjustment is required, such as 30 cents or more for each extra $100 of income, or even a few cents for each extra $10.
Fourth, to make the benefits selective, some threshold level of family income must be established below which full benefits will be paid and above which benefits will be reduced as income increases. On balance, $4,500 seems to be the most satisfactory level. The level of this income floor will need to be adjusted periodically as income levels change over time.
Fifth, as the number of children in a family rises, there need to be some adjustments in the income floor and the income ceiling. It is proposed that the income floor be raised by an additional $500 for each extra child in a family.
Sixth, the ceiling or cut-off point for benefits for all families above $10,000 proposed in the white paper will be eliminated. The ceiling for any family will depend upon the number of children in the family, their ages, and the reduction rate finally adopted. While the total number of families covered will be increased as a result of the changes planned, some families may be below and some may be above the ceiling that was set out in the white paper.
Seventh, the white paper proposed one maximum benefit rate-$16 a month-for all children under 16, and did not indicate what might happen to the level of benefits for children 16 and 17. Now that the plan is to cover youth allowances it is proposed to have two different rates, one for those under 12 and the other for those 12 to 17, with perhaps $5 differential between their monthly benefits. This could mean that the maximum benefit rate could be slightly below the $16 a month figure for children 1 to 11, and higher than that rate for children 12 to 17.
Family Income Security Plan


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Abitibi on a point of order.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to interrupt the minister, but he speaks so fast that the interpreters cannot keep pace with him. If he would slow down a bit, it would be easier to understand.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I will speak a little more slowly; my statement is just about finished.
Eighth, in order to make these improvements possible, an additional $150 million will be recommended to Parliament under the family income security plan. With the plan extended to cover youth allowances as well as family allowances, this will mean that the total allocation of resources under the family income security plan would amount to about $800 million.
The new family income security plan embraces the anti-poverty concept of selectivity by placing substantially larger sums in the hands of low-income mothers, and at the same time preserves a measure of protection for middle-income families. It is estimated that approximately two and a half million families will receive benefits under the revised plan compared with 2.2 million families under the white paper plan. About 900,000 families will receive the maximum benefits payable compared with 640,000 families under the earlier version. This will include the children of the working poor and of families on assistance, including most of the 150,000 mothers who are by themselves raising more than 300,000 children. It will be particularly helpful to families in communities where the amount of social assistance being paid is relatively low.
The federal government plans to introduce the new FISP legislation this fall, and will start paying benefits at the revised rates as soon as it is administratively feasible.
With these improvements we believe we have accommodated the wishes of the provincial governments. For example, we will be leaving sufficient flexibility for provinces to work out their own priorities as regards family policies. Increased benefits based on the selective principle will provide a substantial base on which provinces could build the kind of income support plan for children they prefer-be this a flat-rate or income-tested supplementary family allowance program, a social allowances program related to needs, or one related to income that establishes a different income level for each family size.
The plan can be co-ordinated with provincial social assistance programs and can assist them in the application of the needs test. A FISP improved along the lines we have suggested can be dovetailed with the proposed Quebec social allowances plan without interfering with its operations. It can also be co-ordinated with the complementary schooling allowances plan in Quebec.

June 29, 1971
Family Income Security Plan
With these changes, Mr. Speaker, we think we will now have one of the most progressive and effective family income security plans yet devised.
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbel:
Mr. Speaker, little did I realize yesterday when I asked the minister a question about the family income security plan that he would take such quick action. We welcome some of the inclusions in the plan. There was not much time for me to read the minister's statement carefully, but we welcome the elimination of the arbitrary $10,000 cut-off point, which is in line with what most welfare critics, including the Canadian Council on Social Development, have advocated. We also welcome the fact that the number of children in the family and the ages of the children are taken into account. It is also pleasing to note that youth 16 and 17 years old are included, because there are problems with those in that age group. The rates for older children, those between 12 and 17, are also to be raised. It is also interesting to note that benefits will not be treated as income.
The minister's statement implies that the new family income security plan will do substantially more for families in poverty than either the white paper plan or the present family allowance scheme. From the bare outline the minister has given us, this seems very unlikely. Under the proposed changes the additional monthly income going to poor people will be negligible.
For example, the Family Service Association of Toronto conducted a study of 16 Toronto families in the lower-middle income group. It found that the basic costs of these families for shelter, food, clothing and compulsory wage deductions averaged 87 per cent of their total incomes. Under the proposed family income security plan the additional monthly income would reduce the percentage of total income needed to cover basic needs to 85 per cent. This is clearly an insignificant change and an ineffective anti-poverty tool. Furthermore, it has been estimated that, by taking inflation into account, the proposed family allowances would have the same value as allowances given when the program began in the 1940's. In nearly 25 years of operation the average family allowance payment per child has been increased by only 12 per cent, while the average weekly wage has increased by about 300 per cent during the same period.
A further issue concerns the inconsistency of the proposed distribution of family income security plan payments with the stated objectives of the Government and its emphasis on the needs of the poor, especially the working poor. First, there is the question of the inclusion of low-income individuals and families who are without dependent children and who are not covered by provisions for the aged and by general transfer payment schemes. This important gap has not been bridged by the proposed family allowance scheme; yet no alternative or additional measures for this group are mentioned. Second, the poor are not the major recipients of the payments to be made under the family income security plan. Two economists have discovered that, according to the white paper's 1972 income figures, 24 per cent of all
families with dependent children will have incomes of under $5,000 while 46 per cent of such families will have incomes in the $5,000 to $10,000 range. Using the assumption that family size does not differ by income class, less than half of the payments will be received by families in the under $5,000 group. On the basis of this information it is evident that the family income security plan has insufficient coverage of the real poor to be able to make any claim that it is an anti-poverty instrument.
It would be interesting to know if the minister has discussed the plan with the Quebec government to see if it fits in with their proposed plans in the area of social security. We will watch carefully the legislation that evolves from this program because surely this type of program to benefit the youth of our country is long overdue.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) began by congratulating the minister on acting so quickly after a question had been put to him only a short while ago. I suggest that even the minister does not claim that this statement represents action. All he claims is that it is a progress report. In other words, just as the proposals regarding FISP in last December's white paper have been altered, we now have a document which is capable of further alteration as consultations and considerations continue. That is not something about which I criticize the minister. It is a good idea for him to do his thinking out loud, but we should all realize that in this document he has not pinned himself down to specific levels or proposals.
These are elements in this progress report that are still being considered, so it is not a firm document. As a matter of fact, I wish I had had time to count the number of times the minister used words such as "may", "might", "such as", "perhaps", "seems to be", and so on. These are all words and phrases that bear out my point that this is just a progress report and we should not act as though we have to vote tonight on the details of this statement.
Not only are there the uncertainties which are alluded to by the kinds of words and phrases I have just quoted, but the minister admits that this has to be looked at in terms of provincial programs. Although he did not say so, it is obvious that the whole question of section 94A of the constitution is involved in this matter. All told, we are still in an area of uncertainty. Perhaps I should welcome that because it gives us further time to make representations regarding this important phase of social policy. I say that not only for those of us in this House who would like to make representations but also for organizations outside.
One of the things that bothers me about this progress report is that I do not see in it any evidence that the minister took into account the recommendations of the Canadian Council on Social Development or the Canadian Association of Social Workers. Neither do I see any evidence of his having read the recommendations in the
[Mr. Munro.I
June 29. 1971

report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women which made some very specific proposals in this area. The minister made no mention of the National Council on Welfare. I do not know whether he consulted that body. It seems to me that the points of view of organizations such as I have indicated should be brought to bear on this subject before a final decision is made.
I suggest there is a gap between the selectivity approach to which the minister seems to adhere and the approach of the Canadian Council on Social Development which came closer in its statement to a position of universality, relying on a fair income tax structure as a means of seeing to it that the wealthy do not get allowances they do not need.
In addition to the comments I have made about the uncertainty of this statement and the failure to take into account points of view of organizations in the field which I think are better than the minister's, I feel I must point out that it is still the kind of document, as are many of the government's documents in the field of social policy, that is geared to the concept of poverty as something that will always be with us. The minister talks about doing something for the working poor and the children of the working poor, but he seems to have no notion of getting rid of poverty altogether. I realize that we must not talk about the other place or its committee on poverty-the one that some four employees left-but having gone that far perhaps I can say that the conflict in that case was over this whole issue, whether to relieve poverty or to restructure society to abolish it.
Do we assist the poor by giving something to people because they are poor or do we adopt over-all social policies that get rid of poverty altogether? What I do not like about this selective approach of giving people allowances because their incomes are low is simply that you give money to people because they are poor and you give them so little that you keep them poor. It is time that a program like this and other programs such as old age security and all the others were geared to an over-all income program, not just income security, not just enough for people to live on because they happen to be young, out of work or poor, but a program that makes sure that all the people in this country share in the abundance which it is our capacity to produce.
I thank the minister for making this progress statement and keeping the issue out in the open. However, I suggest a great deal more thinking must be done if we are going to achieve a program which will enable all our people to live decently in a country which, after all, is a land of abundance.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) has outlined very good and most welcomed projects. Indeed the government finally seems concerned about family assistance. The matter should have been discussed long before abortion, homosexuality and birth-control devices.
The realization of the just society starts with the family. It is useless to look after a score of problems
Opportunities jor Youth Program
without first thinking about the precious value that is the real strength of a country: children.
The timid measures that were announced will undoubtedly make things a little easier for thousands of Canadian families. But once again, we must say that it is too little too late. There should have been a re-adjustment of family allowances years ago because the ridiculous pittance which was being granted up to now was almost an insult. Adequate adjustment should therefore have raised allowances for children under 12 years old to some $25 a month and those for children of 12 to 17 up to $35. Since the major expenses come at the time the adolescent is attending secondary school and university, a family income security plan should already include a pre-salary for students so that they may all avail themselves of the rights and privileges of academic training.
Without questioning the sincerity of the minister, I accept with reservations his assertion as to agreement with the provinces, more particularly the province of Quebec, at a time when, unanimously, the Quebec National Assembly is demanding total take-over of the whole social security field. The minister would have scored a great victory by having Mr. Castonguay, Quebec Minister of Social Affairs, accept a plan. That is also in contradiction with Mr. Bourassa's thundering "No" after the Victoria conference.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, we hope that other more generous and appropriate measures will give greater help to families. We will support every measure to that end, whether it comes exclusively from Quebec, as a result of the federal government's withdrawal from that field or whether it is the result of a federal-provincial agreement. One thing is sure: families must not suffer from the sterile quarrels that too often paralyze the administration.
If our suggestions are felt to be exaggerated, we are willing to prove the contrary, as soon as the Canadian people have entrusted the administration of our country to us.

[English\



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Keni):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43 to consider a matter of major and pressing importance. In addition to other misgivings relating to the government's response to the student unemployment crisis, the parliamentary secretary revealed yesterday that the Opportunities for Youth program has no stated criteria for helping students finance higher education through summer employment. In total, $67 million of public money is being spent without inten-

June 29. 1971
Proposed Legislation
tion of protecting even the present inadequate opportunities for higher education. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That this House regrets the failure of the Secretary of State to construct a student employment program based and administered according to the desire of the Canadian people to have public moneys employed primarily to assist low-income and married students to obtain equal access to higher education; and that this House urges the government to immediately apply those criteria to present programs and consider further programs that will pursue this end.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent. This motion requires unanimous consent. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS AND STANDING ORDERS


Mr. H.-Pil Lessard ((LaSalle) for Mr. Forget) moved: that the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, tabled in the House on Friday, June 25, 1971, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-256, to promote competition, to provide for the general regulation of trade and commerce, to promote honest and fair dealing, to establish a Competitive Practices Tribunal and the office of commissioner, to repeal the Combines Investigation Act and to make consequential amendments to the Bank Act.


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

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 to move a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the responsibility of the government to the native people of the Northwest Territories and the manner in which the government is seeking to evade that responsibility by determining that programs for the native people and the administration thereof should be operated through the Territorial Council.
The notice I sent Your Honour contained some additional remarks and I am sure Your Honour will be pleased to find that I do not intend to refer to them now. Perhaps I might make one comment anticipating what you might say with respect to the budget debate which is now in progress.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the hon. member might agree to make that comment after the Chair has made its observations. In view of the hon. member's comment I shall say nothing about the budget debate.
The hon. member for Skeena has given notice to the Chair of his intention to propose this motion. I have considered it carefully and given consideration not only to what the hon. member has said today but to the lengthy argument he advanced in his notice in support of the proposed motion. Without alluding in any way to the opportunity for debate which the hon. member appeared to fear might be the ground on which a decision would be reached by the Chair, I would indicate to the hon. member that in my view this is not the kind of motion or the kind of subject which ought to be considered under the terms of Standing Order 26. This is essentially a motion of non-confidence. It is a substantive motion. It does not deal with a matter which is a sudden occurrence. For these reasons I do not think the Chair would be well advised to set aside the business of the House for today for the purpose of considering the subject matter proposed for study by the House under the terms of Standing Order 26.


Frank Howard: Would Your Honour permit me to say a few words with respect to the suddenness with which this question has arisen? I submit it is sudden. One of the propositions is due to come into effect


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he cannot discuss the basis upon which a decision has been given. If we allow a debate on whether the Chair is correct in its assessment of a situation we shall find that on every occasion a motion under Standing Order 26 is presented to the House a debate will arise on whether or not the Chair was correct in suggesting that there would be an opportunity for debate, or that the matter was not

June 29, 1971

one of sudden occurrence. The purpose of the Standing Order as now drafted is to give the Chair ample opportunity to reflect on all aspects of the matter and to use its best judgment in deciding whether there should be an adjournment of the House under the terms of Standing Order 26. I appreciate the importance of the matter. I realize it is the kind of situation which ought to be considered by the House in due course. The only suggestion I am making at this time is that it would not be proper for such a debate to take place under the terms of Standing Order 26.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether, following the decision of the Supreme Court yesterday in the Manitoba case, it is now his intention to confer with provincial governments so as to determine the most appropriate manner in which to promote the regulation of interprovincial trade? I am thinking particularly of those provinces which have expressed some reservations about Bill C-176.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minisier of Agriculture):: I have not had discussions with all the provincial Ministers of Agriculture but I have with some of them. Of course, they are apprehensive about what the situation may be. I have also had a long discussion with the legal officers of my department as well as the Department of Justice who advise me that the provisions of Bill C-176 do provide for the hiatus or void which has been created as a result of the decision by the Supreme Court.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Not at all.



INTERPROVINCIAL MARKETING-SUGGESTED REFERENCE OF FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AGENCIES BILL TO SUPREME COURT

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture in view of his remarks and assertions. Is the minister prepared, perhaps after consultation with the Minister of Justice, to send Bill C-176 to the Supreme Court of Canada by way of reference or stated case to determine its constitutionality and bring an end to the unconstitutional marketing confusion in Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there is no confusion in my mind that the federal legislative authority has competence to deal with the matters that are in Bill C-176.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Horner:: Are cattle in or out?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Your credibility has gone.


Mr. Bell:: What credibility?



INTERPROVINCIAL MARKETING-DELEGATION OF ADDITIONAL POWERS TO PROVINCIAL MARKETING BOARDS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of certain reports I should like to ask the minister whether he is prepared to delegate further powers to provincial marketing boards under the existing Agricultural Products Marketing Act?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have received a request from some provincial ministers respecting this very point and it is under consideration.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister yesterday whether he would make a statement on this important issue before the House rose. Will he give an undertaking to indicate to the House what additional powers are being contemplated and the manner in which they will affect this trade?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I hope there will be an opportunity later today when we can discuss many aspects of marketing, including Bill C-176.



INTERPROVINCIAL MARKETING-FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT OF SUPREME COURT RULING

John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is the government prepared to enforce the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in all parts of the country, including the province of Quebec?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minisier):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government will enforce the law of Canada. Of course the law we want to pass in this regard has been blockaded by the opposition and therefore it is very difficult to enforce it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: Mismanagement!


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


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


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know the carriage of government business still lies within the jurisdiction of the government and it is a fact that the government has not seen fit to bring this bill forward for some weeks past. Therefore the responsibility lies at their doorstep.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Temiscamingue wish to ask a supplementary on that subject?

June 29, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Caouetle:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Further to the statement by the Prime Minister to the effect that the opposition is responsible for the difficulties in connection with Bill C-176, I would like to point out that it is the farmers of Canada who object to the enactment of that bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct another supplementary question to the Prime Minister as he misunderstood my last question. I was not referring to bills that may or may not be declared law by this Parliament; I was referring to the law as the Supreme Court of Canada has now interpreted it. Is the government prepared to uphold the law as now declared by the Supreme Court of Canada, not some bill that may or may not become law?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



INTERPROVINCIAL MARKETING-DELEGATION OF ADDITIONAL POWERS TO PROVINCIAL MARKETING BOARDS

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a further supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. I understood his answer to mean that he was prepared to enter into further debate on Bill C-176, but that was not my question. I asked him specifically whether he would report to the House on the further powers he is prepared to give provincial marketing boards and whether he would give that information before the House rises tomorrow?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that the powers delegated under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act are delegated in response to requests by provincial marketing agencies or, more particularly, by their governments. Most of the provinces, indeed all of them, that have been in contact with me this morning have advised me they have not yet in their possession the complete context of the judgment and they wish to study that before they make requests for the kind of powers to which the hon. member is referring. Certainly I cannot answer his question until I have received those requests.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the minister indicate which provinces he did not contact? He said he contacted some, but what provinces did he not contact and why not?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There were several provinces that called me. I did not telephone them.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That certainly clears things up. I should like to ask a further supplementary. Did the minister contact any province or provinces and, if so, why, and if he did not, why not?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AGENCIES BILL-REQUEST FOR DEBATE BEFORE SUMMER RECESS

Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Joliette wish to ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to address a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Being aware that the right hon. Prime Minister's statement is perfectly justified and considering that House members are interested in the problems of concern to farmers, I wish to ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture whether he would be willing to suggest a limited debate before tomorrow night on this matter with a view to passing Bill C-176 which would it seems deal with these problems?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope that very soon we might move along and leave Bill C-176. I am sure it is an important piece of legislation but it is not before the House at the moment. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Athabasca on a last supplementary question and then recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he now plans to change anything in Bill C-176 as a result of the Supreme Court ruling?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I suggest to hon. members that we are at this time debating in some detail a bill which is not before the House at this moment. This is the question period. I do not think we should go into the details of a bill which might come up for consideration perhaps even later today.



PROPOSED TAPS TANKER ROUTE-ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS TO SECRETARY OF STATE ROGERS DURING DISCUSSIONS

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and arises out of the recent discussions he had with Secretary of State Rogers concerning the TAPS program which envisages bringing oil tankers down the coast of British Columbia. During his discussions with Secretary Rogers did the minister make any proposals for alternative routes which would avoid the necessity of tankers going through the Strait of Juan de Fuca or the Strait of Georgia?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my objective was to avoid tankers going through these narrow waters, and in this I am sure I reflect his views as well. Of course we did not express
June 29, 1971

any opposition to tankers going down on the high seas to California. This is a matter for the United States to decide and it does not directly involve our interests. We did point out that a refinery located near Seattle could obtain oil from existing pipelines.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the
minister whether he has received from Secretary Rogers, either at that time or since, any encouragement that the United States government would be prepared to route these tankers to Seattle or points south rather than going to Cherry Point which would take them through the Strait of Juan de Fuca?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when I met with Secretary Rogers he said he would like to have further discussions. It is my understanding that those discussions are proceeding today.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of government policy. Instructions have been issued that no militarily sensitive items are to be loaded aboard the Padma from Canada.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has he decided on an issue with which he believes he can con the Canadian people into believing he would be justified in calling a general election next fall?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated on June 14 that further discussions would be held. Do I take it from the minister's statement that discussions are now under way and, if so, may I ask who is representing Canada at these discussions and what point of view our representatives will be putting forward, particularly with reference to the question I have asked about routing the tankers to ports south of Cherry Point?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had answered the question previously. As I say, I believe the discussions which were forecast at my meeting with Secretary Rogers are opening today. At that time Secretary Rogers said he thought that perhaps we ought to look not only at the problem of moving tankers through narrow waters on the western side of North America but also at similar problems arising on the Atlantic side where tankers serving Canadian ports move through relatively narrow waters. I said I had no objection to having the discussions take on this form if that was agreeable to the United States. The discussions that we forecast at that time I believe are opening today. I could not be absolutely sure it is today but it is my understanding it was to be early this week. Our representatives will be officials of the Department of External Affairs and others who may be co-opted for the purpose.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Now that Tom Kent has been appointed to the position of president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, more or less confirming my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion a few days ago, can the Prime Minister advise when the position of chairman of the board may be filled?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Later on, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Muir: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank the Prime Minister for his usual kindness and courtesy. May I express to the Prime Minister a sincere thank you for listening to the views of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and myself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the right hon. gentleman. I wondered whether the hon. member was rising for the purpose of expressing thanks or for the purpose of asking a supplementary question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Robert Muir: I do have a supplementary. I usually have to lay a little background for the right hon. gentleman, but I do want to thank him for listening to our views.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Yesterday, in replying to my question the minister said that no export permits for arms have been issued for some time now because of the situation in Pakistan. Well, The Padma was berthed yesterday in Montreal and some officials went there to see what was going on.
Does the minister have any new information today on the subject? Is he in a position to affirm that no Canadian arms have been shipped or loaded on the Padma?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has already done that. He has been recognized for the purpose of asking a supplementary question.


Robert Muir: Okay. May I ask the right hon. gentleman how soon a policy statement will be made with regard to the future of coal mining in Cape Breton and may I express


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can ask supplementary questions but not add supplementary expressions. If the hon. member has asked the question-


Robert Muir: I have not finished the supplementary.

June 29, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: We really have to move on. The hon. member will recognize we are running short of time. Perhaps he might ask his supplementary quickly.


Robert Muir: With all due deference, Mr. Speaker, I realize that. I have a further supplementary. Other members are allowed two or three supplementaries. May I ask the Prime Minister if he would express to Mr. Kent my best wishes in a difficult job?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



SOCIAL SECURITY


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in connection with the proposals that were placed before the House today. Have these proposals been submitted to Premier Bourassa of the province of Quebec and has he expressed his willingness, if they are implemented, to give his support to the Victoria charter?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, many of the proposals contained in my statement have been discussed not with the premier, of course, but with my counterpart in the province of Quebec, the hon. Mr. Castonguay. We have discussed them at some considerable length and I think Quebec is very happy with many of these features.


John George Diefenbaker: Since the Victoria meeting have these proposals been placed before any members of the government of the province of Quebec, the counterpart of the minister or any other minister, and have they been accepted in principle by that government?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, I do not believe they have been since Victoria because Quebec and the other provinces were well aware of them through the discussions I outlined in my statement a few minutes ago.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it clear then that there has been no discussion with the government or any ministers of the province of Quebec by this government or any of its ministers, placing before them in the last few days the proposals that are now before Parliament?


John Carr Munro: No, because they were already aware of them.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver East.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: -after the communication between the Prime Minister and the minister possibly we can get the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Vancouver East and perhaps he might be allowed to ask his question.


John George Diefenbaker: The cat is out of the bag.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that first class postal rates are to be increased on July 1 and my supposition that the minister is not desirous of seeing increased unemployment, will the minister have reconsidered immediately the decision of the postmaster in Vancouver to cease the second daily delivery of mail to business firms in certain areas of Vancouver?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question about two months ago.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, it may have been answered two months ago, but in view of the fact that it has now been ordered to go into effect on July 5 I am asking the minister whether he will reconsider this decision now in the interests of the business people of Vancouver?


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: I will look at the question, Mr. Speaker, but my first reaction is no.



FINANCE


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of Finance but in his absence I will put it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare stated this morning that an additional amount of $150 million would be made available to the new Family Income Security Plan. Will these $150 million be added to the $750 million deficit anticipated in the budget which was presented to us last week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be wiser to put this question to the Minister of Finance; however, I will try to answer it. I understand that the budget of the Minister of Finance applies to the rest of the current year, while the additional $150 million are going to apply to family allowances under the FISP which will take effect only when Parliament has amended the existing act, that is, next fall, I hope, or later during the winter. Therefore, it is likely that these $150 million will be added to the amounts provided as expenses under the present act.

June 29, 1971



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. What action is the minister taking on the report of the Prices and Incomes Commission dealing with the prices of oil refinery products in which it is claimed that the 1970 price increases by the oil refineries increased their profits far out of proportion to their operating costs?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained to the House that we were and are examining that report, but there are difficulties in determining what measures should be taken to counteract the situation revealed by the report. In a general way, of course, we have introduced legislation this morning which would increase, hopefully, the competitiveness within that particular industry, for instance, and would undoubtedly have a beneficial effect on the situation reported on by the Prices and Incomes Commission.


James Aloysius McGrath: Has the minister, under the Combines Investigation Act, examined the recent increases in the cost of petroleum products in Canada by oil refineries?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The Prices and Incomes Commission did that.



FINANCE


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In line with the brief yesterday of the Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, is it the intention of the minister to recommend that the old age security tax be not applied to the returns of persons living on incomes not exceeding $4,000?


John Carr Munro: I am not aware of all the implications of the report to which the hon. member referred. However, I will look into it.


Winona Grace MacInnis: While the minister is looking into it, would he consider the fact that his proposal today not to tax family allowances would indicate that a similar measure could well be applied to the incomes of old age security pensioners?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a representation for the consideration of the minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry INDIAN AFFAIRS



CLOSURE OF OFFICE AT TRURO, NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchesier North):: have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is it the intention of the minister to delay the closure of the Indian Affairs office at Truro, Nova Scotia, due to take place tomorrow in view of the strong reaction by members of the Millbrook Reserve who are severely upset by the decision of the department?


Hon. Jean Chrelien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a
position to make any comments on this for the time being. I merely understand that prior to the taking of decisions, the regional director made arrangements to consult with the Indian populations concerned and, from what I have been told, the Indians had agreed to this transfer.
In any event, I will review the case and let the hon. member know about my findings.



LAND CLAIMS COMMISSION-BROADENING OF TERMS OF REFERENCE TO INCLUDE ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Inasmuch as the president of the National Indian Brotherhood indicated before the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution that that association will not co-operate with the Barber commission on Indian land claims until such time as aboriginal rights are included in the terms of reference, will the minister now broaden the terms of reference so that this important work of settling Indian land claims may proceed?

Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: Mr. Speaker, I must advise the House that the Commissioner for Indian land claims, Dr Barber, is not under my jurisdiction, as he was appointed by an order in council and is directly responsible to the Prime Minister.
As to the matter itself, we are now examining the situation and if there is something to state, we shall indicate it in due course.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In a speech made recently by the hon. gentleman to the Big Brothers Association of Canada he said:
So go easy, proceed on a partnership basis, remember that Indian people are often sensitive about people who wish to help them-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member should ask the question as quickly as possible.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Based on that quotation, would the minister follow his advice and act on a partnership basis in this regard?

June 29. 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



AMENDMENT OF ACT IN LIGHT OF DECISION IN LAVELL CASE

Mr. W. B. Nesbilt (Oxford):: I have a supplementary and a related question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the recent decision at the end of last week in the Lavell case, would the minister give consideration to making immediate appropriate amendments to the Indian Act so that similar occurrences will not take place again?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: All this is a good sign of consultation and participation. I said a long time ago that we were ready to amend the Indian Act in many aspects, but the Indians have said to us that we should not act unilaterally and we are waiting for their advice on what to do about the Indiem Act.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-INFORMATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

Gerald William Baldwin: I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he is prepared now to give to the House and to the country the vital environmental information which has been withheld with regard to the Mackenzie pipeline proposal, about which I asked the Prime Minister yesterday?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what exactly the hon. member has in mind. On many occasions we informed the House of our progress with respect to studies of the northern environment. We have not completed these studies. We hope to make considerable progress by late 1971, and shall be happy to inform the House at that time.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs as Acting Prime Minister. Would the hon. gentleman make inquiries and find out which minister is in fact withholding this information?


Paul Yewchuk: My supplementary question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In light of the conclusion of the report of the Science Council of Canada that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have seriously overstated Canada's research with regard to constructing the Mackenzie Valley pipeline without serious ecological destruction, is the government prepared to table the research on this project and invite the Science Council to undertake an assessment of the extent and value of that research?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I just said that we have not completed the study yet, so we cannot table something that we do not have in hand right now. We have a lot of information that we are making available-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
[Mr. DlnsdaleJ



HARBOURS


Frank Howard: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has Maui Enterprises Limited, a firm intent upon building harbour development works at Kitson near Prince Rupert, received approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act yet?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Yes, approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act has been given to Maui Enterprises Limited who I understand propose some form of harbour development at Prince Rupert.


Frank Howard: Is it to be understood that by giving approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act the federal government endorses that project and will not be involved in such things itself? Perhaps the minister might indicate whether he has a firm commitment from Premier Bennett about a meeting between himself and the premier over this matter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: My answer to the first part of the question is certainly no. Approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act simply indicates that the proposed structure does not interfere or is not likely to interfere with the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, that is, in terms of safety or interruption of navigation. It implies absolutely nothing else. For instance, it embodies no permission to occupy land, nor does it mean that the issue has been cleared with other ministries such as the Department of the Environment, and it certainly does not reflect in any sense government approval of the project.
On the other point, I am pleased to advise the hon. member that, while I told him a few days ago that I was meeting with Premier Bennett I thought on July 18, I now find the date has been moved up to July 2.



POLLUTION


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: In the absence of the Prime Minister who just stepped out of the House I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister which ministry or commission has responsibility for dealing with the pollution problems caused by the E. B. Eddy plant in Hull. Is it the Minister of the Environment, is it the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, or is it the National Capital Commission?


Mitchell William Sharp: I should think that several of these departments have some responsibility in this field, but I will endeavour to get an answer that will satisfy my hon. friend as to the general areas of responsibility of the various departments.
June 29, 1971



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: My question was for the Minister of Veterans Affairs but as he has just left the House I will direct it to the Minister of Transport. Will he try to provide our veterans with the same privilege in regard to overseas fares as has been given to Canadian students?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The
whole question of overseas fares is now being discussed in Montreal, and of course part of the objective is to eliminate in a sense special fare structures and to get the whole fare structure to the point where it will be acceptable to everyone.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, relating to the 50 per cent of the revenue from offshore minerals that is to go to the provinces according to the formula announced by the Prime Minister. Does this mean there will be no distribution of the 50 per cent or any money received from offshore minerals among the provinces until there is agreement among all the provinces on how the 50 per cent should be distributed?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would like to take notice of that question, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Since the Prices and Incomes Commission has stated that the chartered banks and their shareholders have recorded profits of 12 per cent and the Commission finds that such profits are too high when measured against the cost of living, will the minister make representations to the government advocating amendments to the Bank Act in order to bring it up to date?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that the hon. member would not have seen the bill which has just been given first reading, but clause 102 of the new competition bill deals with the very question raised by the hon. member.
Inquiries of the Ministry NUCLEAR POWER



COBALT-60 CONTAMINATION AT DOUGLAS POINT STATION -EFFECT ON DEVELOPMENT

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of the conclusion reached by Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited, that cobalt-60 contamination at the Douglas Point nuclear station is a clear health hazard, is the government taking action, and in the view of the government is this contamination going to stall seriously the present pace of nuclear power development in Canada?


John Carr Munro: 

POST OFFICE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. It arises out of the fact that an Opportunities for Youth cheque was placed in the mail in Ottawa last Wednesday for delivery in Halifax but had not reached there as of mail delivery this morning. Would he check into this and possibly other incidents of the same nature?



NATIONAL PARKS


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development if he has anything to report on the meetings that he indicated were taking place some time ago between the province of Ontario, the province of Quebec and his department in relation to the establishment of a national park in the Lake Timiskaming and Lake Kippewa area?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to report in this regard. These are current talks between the governments for the creation of national parks in Quebec as well as in Ontario. When we have new developments to report, I will be happy to announce them to the House.

June 29, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did Canada request that the United States take steps to prevent the publication of sections of the Pentagon papers dealing with Canadian diplomatic actions regarding U.S. escalation policies in Viet Nam?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): No, Mr. Speaker.
# * *



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs relating to a speech he made in Detroit on June 23. I read from page 5 where he indicated that the great bulk, 74 per cent, of Canada's population will live in 12 urban centres, "and the rest of the country will live in relative rustic isolation and poverty". Is this the principle or basis upon which he is likely to guide the new Department of Urban Affairs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that a question cannot be asked in this way.


Mr. Andras:: 

SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sf. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister indicate if he discussed the proposed changes in the family income security plan with the Canadian Council for Social Development and, if so, what was their reaction?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker. Not every suggested change that was in the proposals today was discussed with them, but certainly the over-all principle of selectivity and the manner in which we are going about revising family allowances was discussed with them, and I did get their views as to what changes they thought should be made.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the announcement by Premier Davis that Ontario will pay 50 per cent of the construction and equipment costs of public transit systems, is the federal government, in light of the central importance of public transit to the solution of urban problems, making advances-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that a question asked in those terms is much too complicated and much too long. The question should be asked briefly because we will soon be running short of time.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I can bring it to a conclusion. Is the government considering making advances available to the provinces for such public transit
projects?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with your comment. The question is much too complicated and much too long for me to give any kind of decisive answer today.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Greenwood. Will the Minister of State for Urban Affairs assure members of the House that the item of transportation, and more especially rapid transit, will be included on the agenda of the tri-level conference that he will be holding with provincial and municipal representatives?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that is a possibility.
4:	^	$



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is further to the answer he gave me yesterday in relation to the Springhill miners who are now employed in Pennsylvania. Is the minister in a position to say if the United States immigration service has agreed to allow the Canadian citizens who were formerly residents of Springhill to continue in their employment until such time as meetings on this matter are concluded? The original order was that they were supposed to leave the United States tomorrow.


Mitchell William Sharp: As I understand the situation, Mr. Speaker, in January 1 of 1971 when the temporary visas expired the U.S. Department of Labour granted permission for the

June 29, 1971

miners to remain in the United States until June 30 pending an application for an extension of their residency. Ten families now remain; three plan to leave by the end of this month, and seven families have been granted another extension to the end of September. We have consulted both our consulate in Philadelphia and our embassy in Washington, and our inquiries may have prompted the three month visa extensions granted to the families remaining.


Robert Carman Coates: Is there any possibility of the minister being able to intercede to see that these people are allowed to remain there for the three year period they were guaranteed when they went there to work, because they stated, and I believe the Leader of the Opposition as well as myself-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Is he in a position today to reply to the question I posed last Wednesday concerning the alleged use of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to visit steelworkers' homes in Sydney and interrogate them regarding a minor labour problem?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the contract we have with the provinces clearly states that the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police undertake to enforce provincial legislation. In this case, provincial legislation applies. The members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police must respect their contract as it is drawn.


Robert Muir: May I ask the minister if he would communicate with the Attorney General's department in Halifax and make sure that the good name of the RCMP is not spoiled by using them for this purpose in the future?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the attorney general is as anxious as I am to protect the good name of the RCMP.


SHIPPING
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the allegations of potentially dangerous marine safety practices employed on an American
The Budget-Mr. Jamieson
owned vessel, a flag of convenience vessel, the West Star, plying the tourist run from Victoria to Alaska?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No,
Mr. Speaker, but if the hon. member would give me the details I would be glad to look into the matter.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one I directed earlier to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that the Prices and Incomes Commission report dealing with oil refinery products and indicating a refusal by the oil companies to correct the overbalance has been brought to the attention of the government, can we expect a statement from the minister on what action the government is taking, notwithstanding any bill that the minister may introduce in the future?


Stanley Ronald Basford: There were statements made at the time the report was published, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, June 28, consideration of the motion of Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I extend my apologies for not having noticed that the debate had actually begun. Probably most of us in the House will be happy to hear that it has ended. This debate provides a rather unusual experience for me, because generally speaking when a minister rises in his place in the House it is to talk about some aspect of his own ministerial responsibilities, or perhaps a little more broadly about some aspect of affairs in his own province. It is always a good opportunity when a minister can engage in a debate such as the budget debate, because it enables him to express some views on matters other than those which come directly within his own control.
I have listened to and read a great many of the speeches that have been made during this debate, and it seems to me that the bulk of the argument and the majority of the comments that have been uttered have to do with the raising of the moneys necessary to carry on government business. In fact, the debate has been largely

June 29, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Jamieson
based on how these moneys are to be raised. It therefore occurred to me that it might be useful for me, as a member of the government, to talk about the other side of the coin, figuratively and to some extent literally, by talking about how federal moneys are spent.
When one looks at the budget document and also at the >
related papers it is interesting to see how much government expenditure in recent years has been a reflection of what has been called the revolution of rising expectations. I should like, first of all, to give the House some of these figures under certain categories which I have more or less arbitrarily settled upon, and then, having given the figures, I should like to express some comments upon them.
For instance, when one looks at the total area of government expenditure one discovers that in the fiscal year just ended, 1970-71, the total of all federal government spending was in the neighbourhood of $13,300, million. Ten years ago approximately, in the fiscal year 1960-61, the comparable figure was about $6 billion. So, in other words, we have gone from $6 billion to $13.3 billion in approximately a decade.
What have been the causes of this more than doubling of federal government expenditures? It is necessary on occasion to group together some of the figures in order to get convenient headings that reflect the nature of government expenditures, and this I have tried to do. Two of the most dramatic examples that come to light when one compares the growth over the past decade are aid to post-secondary education, and health and welfare and related social security measures.
It is interesting to note that in 1960-61, when some hon. members now in the House were in the House then- their membership spans the full period to which I am referring-under the heading of education total federal expenditrues amounted to some $19 million. That was all that was being spent under that heading at that particular time. Contrast that with the present fiscal year, when expenditures by the federal government under this heading will give us very little change out of half a billion dollars. So expenditure has increased from $19 million in 1960-61 to very close to $500 million in terms of federal aid to various levels of post-secondary education today.
In the field of health and welfare and social security measures generally the figures are equally dramatic. In the current year federal expenditures alone in this particular field will total some $3.5 billion, which incidentally is more than three times what was spent in the fiscal year 1960-61. Under all the headings relating to social security measures of one type or another and other measures of health and welfare we are today spending $3.5 billion compared with about $1 billion just ten years ago.
Let me give some other interesting statistics that also have to do with areas of government expenditure at the federal level. During the life of this Parliament over the last three years, and only over the last three years, fiscal transfer payments to the provinces have increased from about $800 million to $1,300 million. In other words, since most of us here entered this House in 1968 these payments have increased by that margin.
In the field of contributions of one type or another to economic development in Canada over the last ten years we have grown to the point where we are spending over $2 billion under that heading at the present time, about four times what we spent a decade ago.
A similar or comparable rise can be pointed to under the heading of transport and communications, where we are now spending in excess of $1 billion annually, much, much more than was the case a decade or so ago.
Some other categories are of interest as well. Cultural and recreational activities supported by the federal government are running today at a level of about $300 million annually, substantially better than half of that amount going to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Incidentally, the $300 million is about the same amount that we spend on external affairs.
I have tried to group general government services in such a way as to make them meaningful in the sense that certain common services that the federal government provides and is responsible for, such as justice, police protection, correctional services, consumer services and a wide range of others, are also escalating in cost at a very rapid rate. The figure at the present time for these services is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $600 million. That is the amount out of all the moneys that the federal government and this Parliament take in that is spent under this particular heading.
Incidentally, it is interesting to note that defence expenditures have not increased proportionately with many of the other categories. Because of the budget freeze that was imposed in 1969, and for other reasons, defence expenditures today are in the neighbourhood of $1,800 million. Ten years ago they were $1,500 million. So that in relation to growth of other types of expenditure that the federal government undertakes, defence has not been one of the sharply escalating expenditures.
These are not all of the headings by any means, Mr. Speaker, but I do hope that they give a fairly broad picture of just where demands are coming from at the present time and in what areas expenditures are being made by the federal government.
It seems to me that when one looks at these figures in this way they are not only dramatic but also sobering. Hon. members will recognize with me, I believe, two additional points which relate to these figures. The first is that a great many of these commitments, these annual expenditures, are based on federal-provincial agreements relating to ongoing programs, or they are statutory in nature placing a statutory obligation on the government to pay them. In some cases both those restrictions apply. So this means that when one takes into account the large areas of expenditure the government and this Parliament have very little in the way of manoeuvrability or flexibility in terms of trying to decide from one year to the next just what transfers or movements may be made in the various moneys that are available to us.
The second point that I think is embraced within these figures-and again I believe hon. members will agree with me-is that in view of the nature of the ongoing programs of the government, and in view of the fact that

June 29, 1971

many of them are tied to such things as population growth, it is inevitable, given the present framework, for instance, of social security and related measures, that the cost of these programs is going to increase. So we are faced with both of these eventualities: first, the steadily rising increase in the expenditures that have to be undertaken under many of the headings that I have mentioned; second, the fact that Parliament and this government are by themselves powerless, in a sense, to change many of these commitments in view of their inter-relationship with the provincial governments.
Having looked at these figures it seems to me that, inevitably, there are two kinds of responses that are likely to come from members of the House, from editorial writers or from the general public. These responses will be as contradictory in nature as they are predictable. The first of them which many governments have had to endure is the criticism, levied at governments for many years, that governments are basically extravagant and wasteful. The second response, which I repeat is contradictory, is that despite the government's responsiveness to various representations from the public with regard to services and important measures, we are still not doing anything like enough, particularly for the disadvantaged in our society.
Let me add one or two other observations which are relevant to the figures before I attempt to comment in general upon them. I have said that the figures are dramatic and sobering. They are sobering for another reason which I have not mentioned. Over the last five years, that is, in the period between 1965 and 1970, I calculate that about half of the increase in government expenditures, or about half of the increase in the cost of carrying out government programs, has resulted from increased prices. In other words, we do not have three times as much in the way of health and welfare services now as might be suggested by the escalation or increase in our expenditures. The higher costs that have been steadily built into our economy have eroded the benefits of those services and have eroded their levels not only in the hands of the government but in the hands of recipients as well. That is a very sobering statistic and one that we ought to examine in the light of many representations that are made which say that the government should not be overly concerned about what is loosely called inflation or what I have called steadily rising prices. The truth is that we have not obtained the benefits in total that we ought to have obtained or that we might have expected from those added expenditures, because inflation or higher prices have done a significant job in cutting down the level of benefits that those services provide.
Something else which must be considered, and again this is a sobering kind of statistic, is the fact that over this decade I have been talking about, essentially the decade of the 1960's, the cost of servicing the national debt has increased from about $800 million in the year 1961-62 to the point where today it is very close to $2 billion. What this clearly shows is that in relation to the
The Budget-Mr. Jamieson
expenditures we have undertaken, and by that 1 mean the cost of the different commitments that have been made, we have not been able to generate sufficient new wealth or sufficient new productivity, if you like, within the country to make sure that these expenditures are covered out of our current income; and, basically speaking, we have in a sense fallen behind each year. I am aware that that is an over-simplification of a very difficult problem and that there are plenty of arguments that can be made in favour of a healthy economy supporting a larger debt load and being capable of carrying larger servicing charges.
When one looks at developments over the past ten years one is forced to ask this question: How much more are we capable of doing? Let me attempt to answer two questions relating to the extravagance of government and the fact that we are wasteful and so on. Incidentally, I do not believe that these criticisms, when they are heard, are specifically aimed at any party which happens to be in office at a particular time.
I believe it is a general kind of indictment that is aimed generally at politicians. I do not doubt that there is waste and anybody would be foolish to suggest that there is no waste in government. I have had enough experience in business to know that any large organizations, be they private or public, are bound to contain certain built-in waste factors. While it is important and incumbent upon us as the people who have the responsibility for governing to get the top value out of every dollar, to get as much value as we can conceivably get, it will be rather foolish to anticipate that such managerial savings alone would, of themselves, generate the kind of funds that are necessary for a reduction in present levels of government spending, the maintenance of present levels of spending, or for finding the additional dollars which are needed to support new programs.
One hears much criticism of government, which perhaps at one point of time is more justified than at another, to the effect that we do not operate enough in terms of business practices and that we do not cut out programs which are no longer necessary; also, that the real way for us to get funds that may be needed to institute new developments and to take on new projects is to take a look at what we are doing and transfer moneys, as it were, from some of the basically non-productive programs and put them into something else. This House knows what the effect of that kind of exercise is. All those who have any background in the business field and who have entered public life will recognize that business practices do not always work in governmental fields and programs; nor should they.
I suppose there is an element of truth in the old adage, attributable originally to Mr. Wilson, that what is good for General Motors is good for the country. Nevertheless that tends to reflect the kind of tunnel vision that many business spokesmen tend to suffer from when they talk about government operation, although, without doubt, we are not in any position to adopt a holier-than-thou attitude in this regard. After all, Mr. Speaker, politicians, union leaders, students and, to a growing extent, mem-
7446

moment that this represents any kind of retreat. I do not think that it represents a dereliction of duty. It is simply a recognition that it is such a complex issue that it is the duty of the government to give the public an opportunity to be heard.
I have only a few minutes remaining. I would dearly love to go on to some other matters. I wish to deal with this business of being heard and the problems of what is commonly referred to as involvement or participation. Something else which the white paper on taxation and the exercise demonstrated is that, in fact, the participation process is still far from perfect. What happened is that it provides amplification for the organized rather than the disorganized. In fact, the participation process to which all of us subscribe and advocate at every level and every opportunity has to be defined still further so that we do not get a situation where the powerful and those who have a strong voice are simply given more opportunity to be heard and make a louder amplification of their views while the so-called disorganized and non-affiliated remain in their frustrating silence.
If we are going to carry on with what I believe to be an essential need in our society, that is, to get a proper and balanced feedback from the community at large, what we have learned from the exercise on tax reform is that the government must accelerate what we are doing, contribute and help those groups such as the poor and what I call the deprived, the native groups of various kinds and others who would not normally have the opportunity to get in what is loosely referred to as their two cents worth.
I repeat that I believe that the participation process has proved itself in this case. I believe it has illustrated that it is one thing to have theories and it is something else again to be able to implement these in this theoretical fashion and impose them on people. What the government and this House must do is set national objectives for Canada, but the pace at which the public moves along that path toward those objectives is going to be determined by them, not by us.
The other day I read a comment of a very well-known philosopher. I sometimes wish it could be put up on each of the four walls of this building. It is that "the essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity." We will be doing a very great disservice to the people of this country if all we do is seek to become a kind of lightning rod or polarization point for every area of discontent that exists. If we attempt to go off in all directions at the same time trying to answer each one of these, becoming a kind of firefighting outfit even though recognizing that many of the proposals we are trying to cope with in this helter-skelter manner are not only conflicting and contradicting, in the end they have to be disastrously self-defeating. '
When one looks at the figures for the growth of expenditures that we already have and sees that there is very little likelihood that these expenditures can in fact be turned down in the immediate future and, as expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) this morning, certain needs are crying out to be filled, he must ask himself how we can do these things in
24171-5H
The Budget-Mr. Asselin
a rational and reasonable manner, a manner that will not put a tax burden on the Canadian public which will be totally intolerable and in a way that will not in fact infringe individual freedoms and build into this country a strait-jacket of regulations and conflicting jurisdictions. What I am really saying is that things are much more complex than many in this House are prepared to admit, and the course that we have taken to reforms as represented in the budget, companion documents and various other measures passed by this House and suggested by government in the past three years indicates that we are trying to take a rational approach and that we have in fact gone ahead farther than some of us realize.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, for a few days now we have been discussing the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) which has been called an expansionist budget. This budget obviously proves that the government is trying to reduce the taxes of a certain category of taxpayers, but I doubt that this will help the Canadian economy to any appreciable extent.
We are pleased that the Minister of Finance has accepted some of the suggestions of the parties of the opposition, especially the official opposition, which for almost two years now has been requesting the repeal of the 3 per cent surtax known as the social development tax. Hon. members will remember that last year we asked the minister to spur the economic growth of Canada by eliminating this 3 per cent surtax.
We have also asked, for many years, for the suppression of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and we know just how much this could help the housing industry in Canada, especially in Quebec where people have an ever growing need of homes and low rentals.
Mr. Speaker, I think that Canadians in general should be grateful to the official opposition, and mainly to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Stanfield). When the minister of Finance introduced the white paper on tax reform, the leader of the Progressive Conservative party, that is the leader of the official opposition, has immediately undertaken a tour throughout Canada to denounce the disastrous aspects of this white paper. He has met with the representatives of social groups, he has delivered speeches and he has convinced Canadians that the application of the recommendations contained in the white paper would be disastrous for the Canadian economy.
Later, the Senate presented a report which contained extremely useful recommendations for the government.

June 29, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Asselin
They were complemented by those of the official opposition. Then, the minister introduced a budget to try to get into the good graces of businessmen and Canadians in general who could not accept all the proposals in the white paper presented by the Minister of Finance.
For once, the government should admit that the opposition led the battle against the white paper. The measures in the budget are not those of the white paper because through participatory democracy, Canadians made the government understand that it would be better to present a more acceptable budget than to completely alter the structures of the fiscal policy, thus penalizing too many Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I would like this afternoon to call the attention of the House to an extremely important problem which arises not only in Quebec, but practically throughout Canada.
On many occasions during the past few weeks, I asked in this House to the Minister of Finance whether it was his intention when presenting his budget to take into account the catastrophic situation prevailing in the pulp and paper industry not only in Quebec but in the other provinces as well.
Mr. Speaker, as member for a constituency where this industry is of extreme importance from an economic point of view, may I say a few words on the serious difficulties facing the Canadian pulp and paper mills who want to sell their products on the export markets and eliminate their deficits.
Mr. Speaker, Donahue Limited, which has been in business for a good many years, is what I might call the economic centre of Charlevoix constituency as this firm employs nearly 1,100 workers in lumber camps as well as in its Clermont mill. Well, in the last six months, this company has shown a substantial deficit for the first time in its whole history.
Considering that this is a bread and butter issue for the workers in my riding, I would feel guilty and I would not be carrying out my responsibilities if I did not call the minister's attention to the very important problem facing the pulp and paper industry both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.
It is now obvious to all critics and observers that, in this field, the budget does not go far enough. The Canadian economy, and especially the pulp and paper industry, is in need of more numerous and more sophisticated incentives, if the present situation is to be corrected. With his budget, the Minister of Finance tried to please everyone. Unfortunately, no one will be satisfied, and, in my opinion, the economy will continue to decline.
How much longer will we have to wait for a decision from the government regarding the Canadian dollar? The minister of Finance, who has often specialized himself in volte-face and in promises so seldom kept unfortunately, has stated many times that the budget would deal closely with monetary policy.
Mr. Speaker, you will remember that ten days ago I asked the Minister of Finance if his budget would take into account the dollar floating rate in order to insurebecause I am quite pessimist-the future of the pulp and paper industry, both in Quebec and in other provinces which, as I just said, is in an extremely precarious position.
On May 3, the Minister of Finance had answered to the Opposition Leader that he would announce the government policy about the Canadian dollar floating rate in his budget speech. Canadian people, and more particularly Canadian businessmen, had to satisfy themselves with two limited paragraphs which do show that the federal government has not even been able to state the very beginning of a clear policy on the Canadian dollar.
This situation, Mr. Speaker, and I say it again, is extremely tragic. The adverse effect of the government s uncertain action is beyond repair.
Industries like pulp and paper have terribly suffered in the last year from the rise of the Canadian dollar. The decline of the last quarter, as I said a moment ago, does not remove anything from the urgency of the present situation.
Mr. Speaker, time has come to assess the dollar rate, or at least to announce in a clear and explicit fashion a policy in this regard. It has also become urgent to remove or at least reduce the large gap between the tax burden of the Canadian pulp and paper companies and the much lighter load of competitive industries in the United States and Sweden.
I take it upon myself to ask for tax credits on behalf of the pulp and paper companies, providing they make certain types of investments. Tax credits should also be granted to certain categories of expenditures. First, expenditures to strenghten the competitive capacity of the industry; second, expenditures for increasing productivity of logging; third, expenditures to take advantage of new and expanding markets.
Such fiscal incentives are necessary if the logging industry, the main industry in many regions of Canada, is to maintain its present production level. We would remind those hon. members who are satisfied-unfortunately there are some in this House

that 1,500 persons were laid off in Quebec's pulp and paper industry last winter, one worker out of 3, because of the government's unimaginative monetary policy.
In fact, the problem in the logging industry was not limited to Quebec. Thus, in British Columbia, 10,000 of 35,000 loggers were unemployed. The Canadian people are becoming aware, and the hard way, of the government's lack of imagination and its failure to come to grips with the problem and find adequate solutions for it.
Canada needs a competitive pulp and paper industry. To be so, this industry must be allowed to reach a 6 per cent rate of growth by means of the tax abatements suggested. Mr. Speaker, this 6 per cent rate of growth would bring about an increase in exportation business of $160 million per year and would represent the direct or indirect creation of 12,000 to 15,000 new jobs.
Such positive and efficient measures would help solve the unemployment problem much better than all the

June 29, 1971

slogans that the present government is using to state that the unemployment situation is not that bad.
Mr. Speaker, everybody is for virtue. Any public-spirited man believes in economic planning and regional development policies but, unfortunately, as I already said, the cabinet members have found shelter behind these security-oriented and electorally profitable slogans, and nothing else seems to have been accomplished.
Since 1968, the present government has shown imagination only for these election slogans and these images. Unfortunately, Canadians have not yet learned to live by images and slogans alone. They realized, however, that they had elected a government which had to take its responsibilities in all fields, and in 1968, Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his group stood before the people, he had answers for all problems confronting Canadians. This was summarized in one phrase: A just society for all Canadians. Unfortunately, this is proof that since it came to power, the government has let the unemployment rate climb carelessly and irresponsibly.


Desmond Morton Code: We are not in 1962!


Martial Asselin: The Postmaster General brings up 1962. The Canadian people at that time passed judgment on the government. The Postmaster General is a man of great experience and he knows quite well that the Canadian electorate will judge the present government on its ability to devise solutions capable of solving the urgent and serious problems which the Canadian people now have to face.
Why does the Postmaster General interrupt me? He is actually an intelligent man and one for whom I have much consideration and respect.


Desmond Morton Code: Not too much!


Martial Asselin: It is true and I do not hesitate to say so in this House. He knows it himself, but why does he not find a solution so that the employees of G. Lapalme Inc. may resume work? I know that the minister works very hard in this field.


Desmond Morton Code: Has the hon. member anything to suggest?


Martial Asselin: The minister is asking me if I have a solution to offer.
We are always given the same answer when we ask the government to find solution to the problems that Canadians have to face today. And my reply to the minister is that Canadians have elected this government to take responsibilities and make decisions. It is not up to the opposition to lead the country. We did not receive the mandate, the government in power did.
Why always ask the opposition if it has solutions to the problems the government must face at this time? It is the same with the minister who interrupts me as with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the other ministers. Whenever we mention a problem to them and ask them to find a solution, they reply: What are your solutions?
The Budget-Mr. Asselin
I want to inform the minister that it is not the official opposition which was elected to govern the country. Indeed, the Liberal government has been duly elected to make the decisions and it is up to the opposition benches to find the proper means often to reinforce the government's position and help it to solve the problems when it finds it difficult to do so.
It is quite in order for the minister to intervene, and I find there an opportunity to answer him. We all know that the uncompromising attitude of the government and its current arrogance make it quite reluctant to accept even the best solutions that could be presented by the official opposition for the benefit of the Canadian people. On the contrary, the ministry is afraid of the fact that we might get some political gain out of it should the government accept occasionally our suggestions with respect to the settlement of major problems.
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and I say this to my colleague the Postmaster General, I spoke of the pulp and paper industry and made some suggestions. I shall see in a few weeks if the government will have the courage to take the necessary steps to change this situation.
Mr. Speaker, the government, instead of spending the taxpayers' money on the spur of the moment, should try to save and strenghten an industry such as the pulp and paper industry which is so vital to the economy of many regions already considered as experiencing slow economic growth.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has given a tremendous number of grants-


An hon. Member:: He has worked hard!


Martial Asselin: Indeed. He has given many grants to help industries on their way out.
I believe, for example, those grants were often handed out without any kind of planning or eventual performance study. If the Postmaster General would care to transmit a message to the cabinet, he could tell them the monies allocated to regional economic development-


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: You are asking me questions?


Martial Asselin: Does the minister wish to make a statement, Mr. Speaker? In that case I shall sit down and listen to him. If the minister wishes to ask a question, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to answer him. Above all, if this is the case, I would like the minister to speak loud enough so his questions can go on the record and may receive proper answers. He should not be whispering under the clerk's table remarks he would not make in a loud voice. If the minister wishes to ask a question I am prepared to answer him.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: It is you who are putting questions to me.


Martial Asselin: I am not putting any questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I agree with the hon. member for Charlevoix who should have the opportunity to finish his speech.

June 29, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Asselin


Martial Asselin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am eager to hear the speech ol the Postmaster General. He thinks perhaps that his whispering will make me to lose the thread of my ideas. In this field I am more experienced than he and the more he will interrupt me, the more categorically I shall answer his questions.
What is the objective of regional economic expansion if not to save important industries that already exist? That is the main objective of regional economic expansion. We have to save what is already existing and to strengthen the financial structures of industries which are now experiencing some difficulty to survive, as the pulp and paper industry.
As a result of the disastrous unemployment which has reached a record high of 10.4 per cent in Quebec for 30 years, the government should be realistic and dynamic, qualities which it has been sadly lacking since it came into power.
The 543,000 unemployed Canadians and their families demand that the government correct that disastrous situation. The unemployed join other Canadians in asking the government to undertake a truly planned development of our economy. People want to know the longterm and short-term economic goals of the government. If those goals differ from those set 5 years ago by the Economic Council of Canada, it should say so. The government must have the courage to say clearly that they accept easily an unemployment rate of over 5 per cent, even though the Economic Council has already set the critical point at 3 per cent.
The government must stop trying to justify its failures in the fight against ever-increasing costs through imaginary efforts against unemployment. This government must stop trying to hide its incompetence in the fight against unemployment through the still fruitless pursuit of other economic objectives.
The government should have determinedly proposed a budget of full employment; unfortunately, they only took, as usual, symbolical steps in that direction. They brought down a budget stamped with timidity, trying to satisfy everyone a little, with band-aids.
Several other examples will help prove the lack of views of the present government. It is a well-known fact that specialized and new labour has increased at an extraordinary rate in Canada in the last few years.
This government has certainly forgotten about this ever-growing labour force, since according to the latest figures of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics 270,000 young people aged 14 to 24 were unemployed last May.
An ever more recent example has indicated that once again, the government is always late in action and without any real planning. The program aimed at creating summer jobs for students was designed during the last months, without real consideration for the importance of student manpower.
The meagre amount of $15 million which had been provided had to be supplemented with another $10 million. These $25 million will only provide jobs for 30,000 young people when at least 150,000 jobs should have been
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
created in order to meet the requirements of the student manpower.
Mr. Speaker, the lack of realism, imagination and planning is indeed the major characteristic of this government, whether at the economic policy level or any other.
We could make an impressive list of the measures which the government should have proposed in its budget statement.
Obviously we would have liked to say a word on the Victoria federal-provincial conference but unfortunately I am unable to do so in the time at my disposal. However I hope we will have some time later to discuss it more thoroughly as it is not possible today to know where we stand. But I hope that the Canadian government will stop serving ultimatums to the provinces and provincial premiers who meet at federal-provincial conferences. If we want to build a united Canada, that period of confrontation between the federal government and the provinces must come to an end and soon. Even if Quebec has rejected the Victoria charter, I hope that the Prime Minister and his cabinet will re-open negotiations instead of saying that, if one province rejects the Victoria charter, constitutional discussions will be over for a long time.
Obviously, it will be said that Canadians, and especially Quebecers, are not much interested in constitutional problems. It should be realized however that, because of some economic and social weaknesses, a new federalism and a new structure for it are essential to attract French Canadians to it. And I suggest that the Prime Minister and the federal cabinet should stop issuing ultimatums to settle constitutional problems. That is not the way to solve such serious problems which involve the future of every Canadian.
In conclusion, I hope that the Prime Minister will re-open negotiations on the constitutional issue so that a new constitution and a new federalism may improve the condition of all Canadians and-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has now expired.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, at this late stage in the debate I do not intend to keep any more laurels on that poor, bald head and bent frame of the minister than he has already received, although I do want to say that the budget was a good one. I want to add two views that I take of the budget and of the minister. First, I think this budget, and the ideas of the minister put forward in it, denote a break from the advice of public servants. I have a feeling that Bryce, Rasminsky, and Reisman have not had as much to do with this budget as the minister himself, the caucus, the members, and indeed with the participation of the business community, of labour and so on. I think that is a very good thing. Second, I would say that, if I see the budget correctly, it is the first indication that he as minister will no longer consider unemployment as something that is absolutely necessary to curb inflation. I think we have seen the end of those days. From the look
June 29, 1971

of it, the minister finally understands that if we, as Parliament, pay great attention to the rights of the individual, we can no longer say to that individual: You can be unemployed because you are only a percentage. I think we have come to the end of this era.
There is only one thing missing from the budget, although I do not know how the minister could have fitted it in. It would have been very pleasant to have had an announcement that Mr. John Young, Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission, had been promoted to the Senate or some other place. With all respect, I say to the minister and the government that Mr. Young can be nothing more than a great embarrassment, a millstone around our necks, because he was never a credit to us in the first place. I may say that I cannot imagine myself standing up again and moving a reduction of his estimates, because the first time I did so 1 was sent out of the country, and the last time I was cut off the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which are you insulting-Mr. Young or the Senate?


Steven Otto: Well, we could send him to the Maritime Coal Board, as happened to another deputy minister just recently.
Surely, the government must realize we can no longer tolerate, as the head of that commission, a person who is fixed on the idea of restraint, because restraint is not going to work. If we are going to get into an expansive economy we must have someone else to head the commission, to do some of the work, to find out how we can expand the economy, how we can get people employed and productivity increased. I think this is what we need. If we do not get rid of Mr. Young, if the government considers that he is essential, then we will get into price and wage controls, something which would be devastating to our country and to our economy.
Having listened to the budget debate thus far, I think the opposition parties have got themselves into a box in connection with the proposals for tax reform. I recall sitting on the committee when the white paper proposals first came out, and Conservative members said, "Oh, you can't put on this capital gains tax; Canadians will fly over to the United States. Where will we get our development money?" Since then, there has been a tempering of the original white paper proposals and the Carter Commission recommendations. Now, the Conservatives claim, "You have not done anything." Well, Mr. Speaker, the proposals dealing with expense allowances for children, moving expenses, averaging of income, capital gains tax, amendments to the corporation tax, and the incentives for Canadians to buy up companies threatened with takeover by foreign firms were all contained in the original ideas of the Carter Commission and the white paper. It cannot be said that nothing has been done.
I think the tax reform bill is a good one, hut since we will be debating it later in the session let me move on to the things on which I think the government has to make up its mind. Before doing so, however, may I refer to the complaints by the NDP about the white paper. With all
The Budget-Mr. Otto
respect to my very good friends in the NDP, I think they are still fixed on the idea of some kind of ideal socialism. Surely, it can be seen that this has not worked, and will not work. I wonder why they keep plugging it when there are so many other facets for a radical party to exploit, explore and put forward. Why do we have to hear "This isn't enough. Share the poverty"? Surely we know from experience that men, being what they are, want an advantage before they become entrepreneurs, before they gamble their time and money. Men are greedy. You must give man power. Surely, we must come to the conclusion that governments cannot cause full employment. Nobody can, except the employer. So, to condemn the white paper and say too much was being given to the employer, the entrepreneur, does not make sense any more.
I think the minister has done a creditable job in connection with the economy, and I think he is on the right track. But let me now pursue the government as a whole. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) realizes that we have to get the economy going. Everything he has proposed in the budget has been aimed toward that end. But the government, all other departments of government, do not seem to realize that the minister alone can do nothing. For the past number of years, the emphasis seems to have been placed on the Minister of Finance. He has been told, "Bring in your budget and do magic tricks with it." It is time for the government to realize there has to be a correlation. The Department of Labour, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce all have to work together. If our input is going to be on the fiscal side, these departments must act together and not move in different directions as they are doing now.
Our economic problems are not that mysterious. We have heard a lot about inflation. One would think that it was a great mystery, but the reason we have inflation is outlined simply on page 105 of the budget papers. From 1969 to 1970 output per man hours showed an increase of 3.2 per cent, and two columns over it is shown that average yearly earnings increased 10.6 per cent. In other words, the worker, the labourer produced 3.2 per cent more goods, and he demanded and received 10.6 per cent more money. I don't care which way you slice it, which economics you use, you will come up with at least 7.4 per cent inflation, which is exactly what we had, and by spring of next year it will probably come to 10.4 per cent. There is no possible way that the Minister of Finance can solve this problem. The new labour bill presented by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) was no more an answer to our problems than anything done in the past.


An hon. Member:: How much did the cost of living go up?


Steven Otto: How do you think the cost of living goes up-by magic? The hon. gentleman opposite still holds the belief he learned at his mother's knee, that there is a dispute between labour and management. Let me let him in on a secret. There is never a dispute between labour and management, but there is a dispute between labour and the consumer, and between labour and labour,

June 29, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Otto
because management is always able to put on its 6 or 7 per cent price increase, and always gets it. On the other hand, labour says, "We want a 10 per cent wage increase", and ends up paying 15 per cent more as the consumer. That is a basic lesson in economics, and I would plead with the hon. member to retrain from asking questions until the end of my speech.
I think the Minister of Labour should have introduced a bill which recognized the immediacy of the problems we have. We do have work stoppages. There is no way anyone is going to convince me that if an industry stops work for 10, 15, 20 or 30 days the GNP of the nation can go up. It simply cannot. No one can convince me that our work stoppages total only 16 or 18 days a year. During those stoppages, the cost of administration continues. Before a strike takes place there is enmity between labour and management, and production goes down for three months. After the strike is settled, there is never satisfaction and production stays down. Altogether I would venture to say that strikes or work stoppages account for the loss of almost 40 days, not 18 days. No one need try to convince me that work stoppages do not mean loss of productivity. Work stoppages are the reason we are ninth in the world so far as productivity is concerned, ranking even behind some countries that are not considered to be developed countries.
This is the problem that the Minister of Labour should have faced, and it is one that the Minister of Finance and the government will have to face. It is easy to say that it is politically dangerous even to touch organized labour, that we must not do so. Organ) ced labour is composed of Canadians who are just as concerned as we all are about the cost of labour and the cost of goods. If government is able to recognize that labour unions are here to stay, and that they should be headed by elected representatives as a result of secret ballot, then I think some agreement could be reached by which labour-management disputes are solved in other ways than by work stoppages. There must be some other way. This is the problem the government should face. It does not matter how much you try to remedy the situation in other ways or how good the budget is, you still will not be able to do the job. In a very short time we will be into another inflationary cycle, and the chances are that Mr. Young will still be with us.
Do you think that the government is going to find some new remedy from the heavens, Mr. Speaker? Of course not. The government will have to tighten money and credit, and we will be back in the same old cycle. The government should realize that it should not depend upon the minister alone. All government departments must concentrate on tackling this problem and finding solutions that do not entail creating massive unemployment, either directly or indirectly. I am not saying for one moment that the government's action was premeditated because it was not, but so long as the only solution to inflation is to create unemployment we will be on the same merry-go-round all over again.
Another matter I want to deal with relates particularly to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The government, this House of Commons and the Canadian people at large, have to decide whether we are going to compete with Germany, Japan, the United States, France, and so on, industrially or get out of the ball game altogether.
The comments made by the Prime Minister seemed to indicate that it was not necessary to become more efficient in our production methods; that surely there was something else in life. That may well be so. But so long as we have dealings with these countries, there is not much sense in our saying that we do not have to be more efficient and that we should enjoy life. As long as the Germans are working harder and producing more and more goods, it is impossible for us to keep those goods out of this country. So either we stay in the ball game or get out. If we stay in, we must concentrate our efforts on efficiency as well as on a life style. Nevertheless, the emphasis during the next decade has to be on the economics of our life.
We Canadians will tolerate almost any indignity as a result of our apprehension. But the minute someone touches our pocketbooks we become very cautious, displeased and are easily discouraged. If anything, the government must assure that unemployment in this country will be inconsequential, and to say this cannot be done is nonsense. I disagree entirely with those who say that the great power of the Americans makes this impossible. Canada has the resources, it has the people, and it has a position of wealth that the Americans cannot match. Neither can any other country of the world. But what we must have as a nation is the will. It can be proven that it does not matter how high inflation rises in the United States, that Canadians are not affected one bit, because it is we who are in the position of power. The fact is that we do not know this and cannot see it.
This is why the government must decide what it is going to do. Is it going to accept the theory that we must stand aside; that whatever happens in the United States is going to happen in Canada? Or is the government going to decide that Canada should take the lead and adopt new ways by which we can control our own destiny to the extent that we control our own resources, making sure that Canadians have jobs? We in Canada do not necessarily have to fall under the influence of this capital structure that seems to overpower our very thinking.
The last topic I want to mention is a very touchy subject but one with which the government ought to deal. I refer to the resignation of the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans). It seems that in the last little while there has been almost a Stalinist touch to the t situation where one turns the picture to the wall or takes it down. I have no doubt many members of the House who had a picture on their office wall showing them shaking hands with the hon. member for Duvernay have now taken it down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They have given them to us.


Mr. Benjamin:: And you will be next, Steve.

June 29, 1971


Steven Otto: I will not be next because I cannot be fired. But the government has a serious problem to lace here. A large part of what the hon. member for Duvernay has said is credible and is understood by Canadians who agree with him.
I	think that most Canadians today would agree that there is no rush to get rid of our resources. Similarly, I am sure most Canadians cannot understand why we must level all the mountains of Labrador to ship ore to the United States. Neither do I think Canadians see the urgency of emptying all of our gas wells and oil wells in order to keep some other country going. I do not think that Canadians today are blind to the fact that Canada has a world monopoly in uranium; as far as the North American continent is concerned we have the hydroelectric power, the iron, coal, oil and gas reserves, the materials that our good neighbour to the south of us does not have.
The hon. member for Duvernay was saying that we should bargain in such a way that the United States regards us with some sort of respect, rather than giving away these resources for a few pennies from royalties and few labouring jobs. I think most Canadians would agree with that proposition. It is not as if we had had no experience in this type of negotiation because we have. We have had the automotive pact for some years now, and it was not all that different from negotiations over resources. We said to the United States that they should do what they do best in their country, that we should do what we do best in our country. As a result of this agreement, work and goods can flow back and forth in the most efficient manner. There is no reason the same cannot be done in other fields. We can bargain with the United States, which is all that the hon. member for Duvernay was saying. For the government to turn its back and pretend that he does not exist or that his ideas do not exist is wrong. I know what I say does not apply to the Minister of Finance, but it does apply to some other ministers.
I think the government would be well advised to consider what has been said on this subject at its face value instead of being piqued. Most Canadians tend to agree with some of the concepts put foward by the hon. member for Duvernay. What the government must realize is that before this budget can have any real effect, solutions must be found to all the problems that require to be solved, including the main problem of capital acquisition, of establishing our capital structure. Capital is what the United States has. Its capital acquisition results from the piling up of profits for the past 150 to 200 years going back to the whaling days. We did not have the same opportunity. We either spent every nickel we had or put our money into life insurance policies or in the bank. But one thing we do have is the resources that the United States needs to keep its mills grinding and its factories running.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I strongly suggest that the government return the pictures to the wall and enter into
The Budget-Mr. Gleave
some sort of dialogue. I am sure that the objective of the hon. member for Duvernay is the objective of all of us, namely, to bring about a better Canada and to find a solution to the everlasting problem of inflation-unemployment, inflation-unemployment. With that, Mr. Speaker, I should conclude by saying that I know personally the minister has included in his budget ideas carried to him by many of us. I have no doubt he has listened to the ideas of those on the other side of the House, and I am positive he has listened to members of the business community as well as to others. He should be commended for that. I think that all reasonably minded opposition members would, if they were honest with themselves, admit that this is a good budget. True, more could have been done. We must consider responses to change when we want to institute financial changes. It would be nice to bring about the vast changes, but people are not accustomed to vast changes, especially in relation to financial and fiscal questions. There, they want to go slowly. I think the minister has done a good job and I think the minister deserves-and I am careful in my wording-a vote of confidence.


An hon. Member:: But not the government.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this budget I would say, at the outset, that in my opinion it does not contain the essence of reform. I do not think it reforms the tax system. Rather let me say that some changes have been made which, in a sense, will enable the government to accomplish some of the objectives they have set for themselves. It will give some relief to those in the lowest income brackets by way of increased exemptions before tax. I suppose, in the main, one must judge that this was the objective of the budget. Its objective, in part, was to continue the emphasis that has been placed on resource development, to judge by the concessions that have continued to be made in that area. One must judge that the government is not particularly concerned about co-operatives continuing their growth, since the tax changes relating to cooperatives will make it more difficult for the co-operatives to grow.
When I look at the farming sector, with which I am somewhat familiar, some of the government's decisions are a surprise to me. However, perhaps there is an explanation for some of the decisions they have made. I point out that in 1968, the last year for which statistics are available, some 142,041 farmers paid $80,886,000 income tax on earnings of $747,082,000. The tax proposals and changes announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in his budget deal with five areas of particular interest to farmers. Taxation of cash versus taxation on an accrual basis is one of them. It may be good or bad. He leaves the farmers on a cash basis, in the main.
One of the rather surprising things that he has done, as nearly as I can assess it, is actually to give some advantage to the hobby farmer. I do not understand why this was considered desirable. As we added it up, the tax reform bill proposes to improve the position of the hobby farmer by permitting the additional deduction of interest and property taxes against the proceeds from the sale of
7454

June 29, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Gleave
a hobby farm il these charges had not been made against the $5,000 allowed each year. The effect of this will be to reduce the capital gain on the sale of a hobby farm. I do not know why it was considered advisable to do this. In most instances, a hobby farm is run by people whose income is adequate to permit them to have a farm as a hobby. Those of us who are actually in the farming business know that sometimes it can be a fairly expensive hobby, even when you are trying to run a farm to make a living from it. Why this provision is in this bill I cannot understand. It does permit people with that kind of income to set losses against earnings and, at some particular time in the future, to pick them up. At the same time, however, they are enjoying the pleasures and relaxation that come as a result of owning that particular kind of establishment.
When you consider the actual farm operation you find that for some reason or other it was decided to wipe out present provisions that permit the building up of a basic herd. This is important. There may be some reason for these changes in eastern Canada, but I cannot understand what the reasons would be in western Canada. On the one hand, we have the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) jointly setting up, I think, provisions for increasing the amount of acreage under forage in western Canada and actually offering some inducement by way of an acreage payment for farmers to do this. If you are increasing forage acreage it is obvious that on that forage land you will either graze sheep, dairy cattle or beef cattle. That is the objective of it. I think, certainly, that dairy cattle would not be the objective of those provisions. The objective would be either sheep grazing or beef grazing. I doubt whether the objective is sheep, since the minister has progressively reduced the subsidy for wool. So, you are left with beef cattle.
If that grazing ground is to be occupied, some people have to increase herds. They can only do that by borrowing large amounts of capital to put a herd on the land or by gradually increasing that herd. The basic herd provisions in the act permitted farmers, as their herds increased, to keep that money invested in those herds and there was no necessity of paying tax on it at that time. True, at some point the herd had to be dispersed, so the tax would be recovered on the money at that point. However, I cannot understand why these changes have been made at this time.
It is indicated that there is to be a movement to phase out straight line depreciation as that affects the purchase of farm machinery. Again, I just do not see what they are driving at when they move to phase out straight line depreciation. If you phase out your straight line depreciation and go to the accrual system, a farmer will be allowed a much more rapid depreciation in the early stages. Again, let me point out, we have just come through an extensive and expensive study of the farm machinery industry. The report of that study indicates that it is difficult for farmers to meet the rising cost of farm machinery. One would have thought the government would have reviewed the present situation and present taxation practices affecting farm machinery. It is
true that the farmer, in trading in farm machinery, usually makes a capital gain on that machinery. He does not always, but at times he does. The machinery is traded in and is completely or partially depreciated. I do not understand how the government expects farmers to continue replacing machinery if that gain becomes taxable, because it would mean, in effect, that a gain that had been made would be taxable. The farmer would have to take that money from some other place to meet the tax which is going to be levied. At this time and under these circumstances, I do not see how anyone could arrive at this decision. If the agricultural industry were in a buoyant position, the return on capital were high and incomes were at a high level, such changes may be justifiable but under the present circumstances I do not see the logic behind these moves.
I would like to deal briefly with the matter of taxation of cooperatives. Cooperatives have been an important factor to the farm sector, even more important than to the urban sector. If it were not for the cooperatives, in all likelihood the grain business in western Canada would now be owned by United States companies. As is commonly known, this is the pattern that prevails in the petroleum industry. This past winter there was much ado about Home Oil. This was supposed to be one of the last independents disappearing into the clutches of the American giant. Possibly the members of this House do not realize that there is still one independent in western Canada. It is a cooperative oil company which pumps, refines and distributes oil over a great part of western Canada.
For income tax purposes, the cooperatives have been taxed at a minimum of 3 per cent on employed capital. This provision had no basis in logic that anyone knew. I think it was devised because the cooperatives, by their structure, only kept as much working capital as they needed. The earnings which they did not need, they distributed to the participants who, in terms of this House, may be described as shareholders, but are not actually shareholders in the ordinary corporate sense of the term. I think many of the people who draw these acts do not understand the situation as well as the people who actually receive the dividends from cooperatives each year. From whatever their point of departure might have been the taxation experts arrived at the decision that there must be some way of taxing this money in the hands of the cooperative. They could not find any other way, so they decided to levy a 3 per cent tax on the capital employed.
For a reason known only to themselves, the government has decided to jump this tax from 3 per cent to 5 per cent. This will cause a severe dislocation in the allocation of earnings and investment within the cooperative movement. The decision as to how to reinvest money within the cooperative for the growth of the cooperative will be seriously affected by this new.tax pattern. Decisions will have to be made that are not necessarily in the interests of the members of the cooperative, but in line

June 29, 1971

with the taxation policies of the government. A prominent firm of auditors gave this opinion:
A preliminary review of these provisions indicates that the 5 per cent may only be reduced by interest paid to members as contrasted with dividends paid on shares held by members. These provisions would appear to severely limit the deduction of patronage as compared to the present system.
I am at a loss to understand why the government deliberately set its sights on a very small sector of the economy in terms of total capital invested, and people participating, to restrict through taxation the activity of cooperatives which are truly Canadian owned and have a policy to grow, develop and serve the people. Let me give an example of this. Several years ago we needed additional terminal storage at the port of Vancouver. Although the government knew this, they did not want to build these facilities. Pressure was put on one of the Saskatchewan grain cooperatives to build that terminal storage, which they did. This not only provided a service to the members of that particular cooperative, but to all grain growers in western Canada served by the port of Vancouver. It not only made a contribution to the people in that part of Canada, but in all of Canada. As the government is cognizant of this, one would think that they would have been anxious to see these cooperatives improved and expanded.
I talked to members of one cooperative which I shall not name. They informed me that the actual amount of tax which might have to be paid as a result of these decisions would probably be three or four times as much as at present. In this House we have heard talk about the advantages and disadvantages to the individual taxpayers in this country. One proposal in this budget is going to affect the cooperatives adversely and, I am reliably informed, will increase their tax to that extent. Moreover, the operation of these new provisions is not yet fully understood by those who will be affected. I talked with them and found this to be true. In my opinion, this is a bad tax and one which should be reviewed. The government should meet with representatives of the cooperatives and discuss this provision before it is too late and before too much damage is done. The Co-operative Union of Canada, for example, expressed concern and deep disappointment with regard to the proposal for the taxation of cooperatives contained in the tax reform package released by the Minister of Finance. The Cooperative Union stated:
Upon careful study of the proposed tax legislation presented to the Ways and Means Committee, the Co-operative Union of Canada finds that compliance with these proposals will create extreme difficulties for cooperatives. The net result will be to force cooperatives to abandon their basic nature.
This is a serious charge. I asked the Minister of Finance some days ago whether he had received representations from the cooperatives with regard to another aspect of the proposed changes, that is to say, the proposed elimination of the three-year exemption. As I recall it, the minister said he had not. I am quite prepared to accept his statement, but if the press release to which I have just referred had by then been made public
24171-52*
The Budget-Mr. Gleave
he would surely have been aware of the attitude of the co-operatives concerning other aspects of the changes he proposes.
The press release went on:
The Co-operative Union of Canada feels it is not the prerogative of a taxation body to interfere with the relationship between an organization and its members. The taxation imposed should be in keeping with the nature of the taxpayer.
The proposed legislation totally disregards objections raised in the Co-operative Union's submissions to Mr. Benson and to the taxation committee of the House of Commons and of the Senate.
The press release went on to set out the points which were then put forward. It stated:
The proposals failed to take into consideration the basic nature and method of operation of a co-operative, which is to distribute surplus earnings to members in proportion to the business they have done with their co-op rather than in relation to capital investment.
It continued:
Cooperative philosophy, regulations, etc. make it impractical for most co-ops to distribute their surplus earnings as proposed. Further, the proposals failed to recognize the difference between the nature of equity capital employed by co-operatives and by other corporations.
The cooperatives set out this case before the minister. Nevertheless, a taxation policy which is almost punitive in is nature has been followed, one which will not allow the cooperatives to grow or to perform the function they have been carrying on up to now.
This is all the more surprising to me when I note in the same budget the type of provision made in connection with mining companies-provision for accelerated depreciation, tax concessions on money invested, and so on. To these companies, as well as to exploration companies and development companies of various kinds, encouragement is offered. Many of the companies who benefit will be foreign companies. A few of them will be Canadian. They are to be encouraged under our tax system but the cooperatives in Canada are jointly and severally owned by citizens in communities across this country are being discouraged. If the government were at all concerned about the state of the rural economy, it would reconsider this move to increase the tax affecting cooperatives from 3 per cent to 5 per cent.
This afternoon I have made no particular plea for the farmer under the federal taxation system except to say that the government's approach to the basic herd concept is wrong. Its approach to the question of the purchase of farm machinery will no doubt make things more difficult, but perhaps farmers will simply sell their machines off and buy new ones cheap. If they follow this course, the pressure will then be on the local dealers. Anyway, the government's move is one which will disrupt the pattern of business the farmer has been following. If the government had decided after due consideration that a system which would work reasonably well within the farm sector for a long time without causing any important tax losses to the government should be changed, the least it could have done would have been to allow the farmers about five years in which to become accustomed to the

June 29, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Goode
new system. The dealers should have been given a similar amount of time. But the government has not followed this course.
I sometimes wonder whether members of the administration opposite really understand what happens in rural communities. Do they have any working knowledge of the way in which farmers finance their operations, how they work through their co-operatives or private business agencies to meet a harsh economic situation? I doubt very much whether any great trouble has been taken to find out. I say this after reading that the brief from the Co-operative Union of Canada setting out its position, and acquainting the minister with the facts, seems to have been ignored; the minister and the department went blithely ahead despite these submissions, and slapped a 5 per cent tax on employed capital-not on earnings but on capital, money which is provided by the ordinary little guy who purchases from these co-operatives. I do not think any great attempt has been made to understand.


Mr. Tom H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond-Delia):: Mr. Speaker, when the white paper on tax reform was debated in this House, I was one of the first to argue that substantial modifications would have to be made in the provisions affecting small businesses before legislation was introduced. It is a measure of my very great satisfaction with the changes that have been made that I am able to turn my attention in this present debate to matters other than tax reform and budgetary policy. I do, however, as chairman of the standing committee concerned with environmental matters, want to particularly congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) for his decision to remove the 12 per cent sales tax on all anti-pollution equipment used in industry.
I intend to speak today about a matter which is of great concern to myself and my constituents. It is a complex problem, involving as it does the threat of a divided community, increased costs to thousands of workers and a disagreement between the federal and provincial governments. The point at issue is the announced intention of the government of Canada to toll the access facilities to the Vancouver International Airport, thus making this airport the only one in Canada with a federal toll. How did this unfortunate situation come about? The answer, given as long ago as 1968 by the then Minister of Transport, is that the new Hudson Street Bridge and airport access road complex must be tolled because the government of British Columbia has refused to accept any responsibility for the $21.2 million cost of construction. The federal government, forced to go it alone because of the lack of provincial co-operation, has felt it necessary to try to recover some of the cost of the project.
Let us go back to the beginning. Ever since the federal government purchased the Vancouver airport from the city of Vancouver in 1962, it became year by year more and more evident that because of the airport's extremely rapid growth a new access from Vancouver to Sea Island would be necessary. Therefore, the provincial and federal governments retained the consultant firm of Phillips Barratt Hillier Jones & Partners in 1964 to study alternate locations for the approaches to the bridge. The conclusion arrived at was that a bridge connecting with Hudson Street on the Vancouver side was the preferable alternative. In 1967, because of the need for upgraded traffic data and forecasts, N.D. Lea & Associates Ltd. were retained by the two governments to make the necessary projections of future traffic. This seems to have been the limit to which Premier Bennett was prepared to go in terms of federal-provincial co-operation. Perhaps this should not be surprising, Mr. Speaker. The premier was probably embarrassed by the assumption in the N.D. Lea report that the Knight Street bridge would be completed by 1969. At its present rate of construction it likely will not be finished until 1979! Even when, or perhaps I should say "if", the B.C. government does condescend to provide the people of my riding with the Knight Street crossing that is so obviously needed, it will by that time already be functionally obsolete.
The 1967 N.D. Lea study indicated that a further crossing of the north Fraser would be required, in addition to the Knight Street crossing, in the early 1970's. I do not think it is unfair of me to suggest that what Premier Bennett is trying to do is to have the federal government pay for a Fraser River crossing that his own provincial government should be providing. He knows well enough that Sea Island lies in the path of what might be called the north-south Richmond to Vancouver downtown desire line. It therefore follows that traffic which tries to find the shortest route will tend to choose a crossing between Richmond and Vancouver via Sea Island. Even motorists who ordinarily would not use the new crossing will be forced to do so because the B.C. government has not seen fit to build the required Fraser crossings. The Oak Street and Fraser bridges are functionally obsolete now, and the Knight Street bridge will reflect that sad state of affairs before it is even built.
I submit that even if the Hudson Street bridge and Sea Island access road did in fact serve only the Vancouver International Airport and related industries, the provincial government, if it were sincere in meeting its constitutional obligations, would have a duty to share in the cost with the federal government. Now that it becomes clear the Hudson-Dinsmore route is going to be heavily used for traffic, if for no other reason than the failure of the B.C. government to plan for the future by constructing the needed bridges, it is especially incumbent upon the province to bear part of the cost. However, as I have said, Mr. Bennett has shirked this very legitimate obligation.
Nevertheless, and very much to the credit of the federal government, the Department of Transport has decided to go it alone in order to satisfy the pressing need for improved access to the Vancouver International Airport. This is commendable, but I must say the imposition of tolls would be a case of doing the right thing in the wrong way. A toll system would undoubtedly cause serious difficulties and is clearly undesirable. To begin with, in terms of federal expenditures, it adds some $700,000 to the capital construction cost of the project, not to mention the cost of administering the toll system. I would,

June 29, 1971

furthermore, tend to unfairly affect that important industrial area of Richmond, which is on Sea Island, by making an uncalled for addition to the cost of production.
To my mind, however, the greatest argument against the proposed toll system is that it will force all employees on Sea Island to pay to go to their places of employment, even if they live within the municipality. This seems to me to be unjust. It is an even greater injustice when you consider that of the estimated 10,000 persons employed on Sea Island very few will be using the Hudson Street crossing. It does not make sense for them to use it because most live east and south of the new facility. Yet they will still be required to pay tolls even if they continue to use the Moray Channel and Dinsmore Island bridges which are presently toll-free. So we are faced with a situation in which a charge would be made for which no appreciable benefit would be received. Surely, we cannot be expected to tolerate such a situation.
The people of Burnaby-Richmond-Delta are reasonable people. They have reasonable expectations. Therefore, when they see that between $400 million and $500 million is being spent by the federal government on the first phase alone of an airport to service Montreal, they quite rightly begin to question why they should be asked to pay, through tolls, the $21.2 million cost of a new approach to Vancouver International Airport.
Even if we were to couple this $21.2 million figure with the cost of the new terminal which was opened at Vancouver International in 1968, we would see that Montreal would still be receiving roughly nine times more in federal aid than Vancouver. This is so even though Montreal handles only twice as many passengers as Vancouver. What is more, these figures I am quoting do not even include the $20 million in contributions allocated for the 1971-72 fiscal year by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. That department announced last March that a new special designated area has been set up which corresponds with the area surrounding the new Montreal International Airport. Why are the funds being given? According to the departmental press releases they are meant in part "to integrate the airport in its regional setting". Hon. members will agree that $20 million represents quite a healthy integration. Is the Quebec case an isolated example based on special considerations? It would appear that the answer is no. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) indicated in the House on May 11, 1971, that he is prepared to discuss any similar proposals put forward by the Ontario Transport Minister in respect of the new Toronto airport.
What am I suggesting to the government, Mr. Speaker? My proposal is straightforward. I propose that the federal government rescind the announced tolls and let the electorate of the province of British Columbia deal with the Bennett government in its own way. Admittedly we on the lower mainland in general, and Burnaby-Richmond-Delta in particular, are being made to pay for the B.C. government regime's lack of foresight and failure to accept responsibility. We are 'being asked to pay a toll because the government of British Columbia is not responsive to the needs of the people. I submit to the
The Budget-Mr. Nowlan
House that if the people of British Columbia were to be penalized in dollar terms every time the Bennett government was shortsighted, there would not be enough money in the whole of Canada to cover the penalties.
This toll will divide the municipality of Richmond. It will increase costs to industries on Sea Island. It will inflict an added financial burden on many employees without providing any benefit. It will add to the cost of construction and it will make Vancouver International Airport the only federally-tolled airport in Canada. It will make the Hudson Street crossing the only toll bridge in British Columbia. The tolls must come off, and I urge the federal government to show that it is sensitive enough to respond to the will of the people on this issue, even though the provincial government is not.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I want to contribute a few remarks to this budget debate. I will refrain from commenting on many of the remarks I have heard here today as I sat trying to catch Your Honour's eye. Basically, the credibility of this budget has been questioned with just cause as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) played his shell game of sham. But after the benign cloud of Benson bounty dissolves, the taxpayer will still be stuck for the tab. Not just the rich or near rich, but all taxpayers with taxable income between $500 and $10,000 will pay more once the dust settles and the time for tax collector comes around again.
Much could be said about the impact of some of the specific budget proposals in my riding, and frankly almost as much about the continued absence of proposals favouring individual intitiative and individual incentive. The capital gains tax in this budget dilutes progressive tax rates, and once you get on the tax ladder the one diminishes the other. Certainly, the farmer will find little to please him if accountants and computers becomes almost as important in his life as crops and the weather. Such topics as the plight of the small businessman, help to the helpless property owners, financial assistance to unversities and the international export crap game with our floating exchange rate and no compensatory tax relief for consequent losses could quickly exhaust my time. There are a multitude of other topics which I should like to discuss.
Perhaps the kindest thing which can be said about this budget is that if death and taxes are inevitable, then thank goodness Benson is not. After a Conservative government commenced tax reform with the appointment of the Carter Commission, this country I suggest would have been better served, and our economy would be in a better state of health today, if the minister had not been so belligerent and bullheaded when he first produced his white paper. A receptive and open mind then with a reasonable response-not a complete but a reasonable response-to constructive criticism might have avoided or at least have reduced the resultant business uncertainty and subsequent economic stagnation as businessmen marked time while the Minister of Finance tried to make up his mind. While this was going on, the country fell behind. I do not think some of the palliatives in this

June 29, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Nowlan
budget will really close the gap between the performance of the economy and its full economic potential.
With those few remarks on the budget, Mr. Speaker, I should like to turn to a critical area in which the budget is silent, even though the problems are severe. I refer to the communications industry in its various forms. I suggest it is perhaps more than paradoxical that a government which undoubtedly has spent more money on culture and communications than any of its predecessors, if for no other reason than that it has had more to spend, has by overt act and omission done more in this field to create uncertainty about the present and pessimism for the future. The communicator, in all his forms whether in broadcasting or in publishing, notwithstanding his acknowledged central role in developing a national id for the Canadian character, has never been more confused over government policy or more particularly over the lack of government policy.
The debate on nationalism waxes and wanes and then returns again, but direction and federal leadership to the communicator might as well be on the moon. The plan for the instant world tabled by the former Minister of Communications has added to the vacuum of silence even though Mr. Kierans, the man, has made more sound. The reason for this short circuit in the role of the communicator is to be found in the office and person of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) who now, between penning books, also doubles as Minister of Communications. The minister is now in fact, as well as in law, Canada's first minister of culture and communications since he wears the two hats of Secretary of State and Minister of Communications. Now, perhaps at first blush this could be considered to be a constructive move.
Hopefully the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) might like to have a consolidated authority so that he could solve some of the problems in the post office, and if he could do it I think we would delegate the job to him. But in this ministry of Secretary of State and Communications or culture and communications hopefully, conflicting government policies could be co-ordinated so that a coherent and consistent policy could be defined and implemented through the communications media and the various federal agencies in this field. But unfortunately that rose coloured view founders on the rocks of reality. A sterile Information Canada is no substitute for vacillation, indecision and intellectual arrogance. That is what we have with this minister today.
I am glad to see that the parliamentary secretary to the minister is here today. I was informed the minister would be away and so I am glad to see his parliamentary secretary. Admittedly, perhaps the pressures of this allembracing ministry of Secretary of State, which is becoming even larger under the present minister, might explain some of the omissions or vacillations of the minister, although nothing can explain his intellectual arrogance. One has only to look at the many important acts which come within the ambit of the Secretary of State to appreciate part of the dilemma. There is the Broadcasting Act, the Canada Council Act, the Canada Elections Act, the Canada Temperance Act, the Canadian Citizenship Act, the Canadian Film Development Act, the Cen-

tennial of Canadian Confederation Act, the Company of Young Canadians Act, the Disenfranchising Act, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, the Federal Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, which involves the very delicate and complex discussions with the provinces and which has a five-year budget of I believe over $300 million. Then we have the Laurier House Act. I shall not go into that. Next, we have the National Arts Centre Act, the National Film Act, the National Library Act, the National Museums Act, the Public Archives Act, the Public Printing and Stationery Act, the Public Service Employment Act, which involves all the services of Canada in the federal system, the Representation commissioner Act, the Department of State Act and the Translation Bureau Act under which we have a rather large and very active bureau in the Parliament of Canada. All these are under the Secretary of State.


Mr. Mahoney:: He is a busy man.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes, he is a busy man. My point is that this minister has too many fingers in too many pies to do the job he is supposed to do, that is to help define the role for Canada at this time. When you add to these roles his duties under the Department of Communications involving the Telesat, which is supposed to be circling the sky, and all the problems there, you can then understand partly-if you have a benign spirit and an Irish heart, and I have an Irish heart and am prepared to give him the latitude of a benign spirit-why the poor minister becomes confounded with grants for Billy the Kid, which is nothing more than rude and pornographic, at the price of $2,500. If there is any doubt about the minister being a busy man and not being able to look after all his responsibilities, just consider the grant of $3,500 for Mrs. Clark of Toronto, who is the secretary of the Communist league in Canada, to study Marxism. The study of Marxism may be a very positive thing but I do not think one should give a grant to the secretary of the Communist league for the study Marxism, especially when her husband is on the Central Council of the Communist League of Canada.
I agree the minister is too busy. How can he entertain thoughts on something as fundamental as cablevision and educational television, when he has the Opportunities for Youth program to worry about? Surely, an application from needy youth on a pot farm in B.C. deserves the minister's time and attention. What minister of culture or federal minister from British Columbia has not heard of the underground paper Georgia Strait? If such solid thought is given to these matters of state, we can surely relax and await with bated breath the minister's recommendation on the problem of bilingual districts in Canada. Perhaps if we wait long enough the minister will make a pronouncement on a film policy for Canada. Perhaps he will make a pronouncement on a policy for the youth of Canada, or perhaps, if we wait long enough, he may answer the delegation which came to him regarding the problem of the publications industry in Canada.
June 29, 1971

Already several of our publishing houses have sold out to outside interests, and I am informed that sitting somewhere on the minister's desk or on the desk of one of this hirelings there is a very reasonable proposal by the publishing industry in Canada that there should be-and this involves my friend, the Postmaster General-a rebate to Canadian periodicals on some of the rates they have to pay. Publishers will have to pay more under the new postal act, but perhaps there might be some help given to the publishing industry through advertising revenue if a credit were given when an advertiser advertises in a Canadian periodical. Someone has even suggested that an outright grant be made to periodicals in Canada which use paper made in Canada. Of course, a beginning could be made by utilizing the office of Information Canada. Instead of placing all advertising contracts with private public relations firms in Toronto, some of this government advertising could be restricted to Canadian periodicals.
Who knows, if we wait long enough, there may be an over-all cultural policy integrating the various agencies of the federal government from CBC on the one hand to the Film Development Corporation and the National Film Board on the other. In this way, the taxpayer who has to pay the shot would get something for his money, and we could develop a Canadian flair and flavour instead of merely pouring out our dollars for the support of the artist.
While the sheer size of the Secretary of State's office is staggering there is, I am afraid, another flaw in a coherent communications policy, and that is, I suggest, in the personality of the minister himself. When I say "personality" I use the word in a generic way, not intending any personal reflection but rather meaning the passion which the man has to do certain things. I think it is clear to all objective viewers, and in fact a credit to the minister himself if he were not in such a sensitive portfolio requiring balance and perspective, that culture, and more precisely the development of the French fact in the federal system, are the motivating reasons the minister entered federal politics. As I have said, this is a laudable objective in ordinary circumstances so long as it is pursued positively, openly and constructively for a better and a united Canada. But you will not have a better and a united Canada if all policies are predicated primarily on a cultural base when other considerations should be assessed and applied in some cases.
While communications and culture are interrelated, is part of the confusion and uncertainty in Canada today the result of a growing feeling that any policy on communications is subservient to cultural criteria? Should not the two supplement one another so that a decision made in communications is made on its merits, and then, when deemed to be in the national interest, dovetailed to fit a cultural policy? Are decisions in communications to be made on the basis of cultural factors, so that the result is blurred and the taxpayer never really knows the pros and cons of a full communications assessment? We only have to look at the CRTC hearings in Ottawa which began on Monday, June 28, to illustrate the point.
The Budget-Mr. Nowlan
Yesterday National Cablevision Limited applied for a cablevision licence for certain cablevision interests in Canada, more particularly in the province of Quebec. National Cablevision Limited has as a major shareholder, among others, the Quebec Deposit and Investment Fund. This fund holds 30 per cent of the shares, which is the maximum it can invest in any company pursuant to section 29 of its act of incorporation. This company is also an agent of the Crown, as set out in section 4 of Chapter 23 of the act which reads as follows:
The Fund shall be an agent of the Crown in the right of the Province.
On June 4, 1970, long before this application came before the CRTC, the government, presumably on the recommendation of the minister responsible, the Secretary of State, issued a directive to the CRTC pursuant to section 27 of the Broadcasting Act prohibiting the issuance of a broadcasting licence to "agents of Her Majesty in the right of any province". Section 3 of the directive defines agents as follows:
For the purposes of this direction, "agents of Her Majesty in right of any province" means any agents of Her Majesty in such right and includes a municipal or public body empowered to perform a function of government in a province or any corporation empowered to perform a function or duty on behalf of Her Majesty in such right.
Admittedly, this directive was made at the time to restrict and prohibit the issuance of a broadcasting licence to educational institutions, but the definition of an agent goes beyond this intent and, I submit, includes the Quebec Deposit and Investment Fund, one of the companies concerned in the application filed by National Cablevision Limited.
The chairman of the CRTC said before the Broadcasting Committee only last week that he has received a legal opinion which indicates that he can hear the applicaton, but admits that a problem may arise if the applicant is successful. Is that the situation or will the commission wiggle out of the legal conundrum by suggesting with a straight face that, since the licensee is only partly an agent of the Crown in right of a province, the directive of June 4, 1970 is not contravened? If there is such a subtle distinction, is it only a coincidence that Mr. Cliche, the former CRTC commissioner, is behind the application and that Mr. Gilles Bergeron, formerly an assistant deputy minister in the Department of Communications, is now the deputy minister of communications in the province of Quebec?
My point is this. There may be good reasons for the province to get involved in the cablevision business, especially where the program begins and ends within provincial boundaries. In addition to Quebec, Ontario and Alberta have recently laid claim to jurisdiction in this field. I suggest, however, that the apparent backdoor attempt of the federal government to abdicate its only recently challenged jurisdiction in the cablevision field, without discussions with the provinces on the fundamental issues of who is paramount and what is concurrent jurisdiction, can only weaken the national fabric and

June 29, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Nowlan
prevent a meaningful national communications policy. It certainly is ironic that this application now brought before the CRTC through the back door is being condoned by the very same government which walked in the front door labelled "One Canada." If the CRTC is supposed to be a fall guy in this constitutional ploy affecting cablevision, then perhaps the Parliament of Canada should look again at the Broadcasting Act to see if it requires amendment to enable the CRTC to better discharge its mandate. The commission, unlike the budget, must maintain its credibility, and its very structure places it under suspicion.
In this day and age of the global village where our lives are increasingly shaped and influenced by the media, especially television and cablevision, is it good enough to have a commission of only five full-time commissioners, with the remaining ten appointed politically, meeting irregularly, and issuing or renewing licences frequently? This situation results in uncertainty in the industry. In addition, all of these fundamental decisions and positions are being taken without any parliamentary scrutiny, parliamentary debate or effective parliamentary action?
It is no wonder the communications industry is concerned, uneasy and apprehensive as it awaits the results of the cablevision hearings in Montreal on the Commission white paper. The decision made at this hearing will fundamentally affect the future growth of those in the industry, be they broadcasters or cablemen, and unfortunately define with a terminal exactitude the life expectancy of some. The message is clear; cablevision is here and here to stay, and this challenge presents the headaches outlined in the CRTC's white paper of February 26, 1971.
Basically, the more sophisticated viewer is more highly selective, and the resultant fragmentation of the audience leads to problems of finance. Many broadcasters are already pressed to the financial wall. Does common ownership between the cable operator and broadcaster resolve the problem? What is the role of the commercial broadcaster in the fully wired city to which we are rapidly moving? Will blackouts of Canadian advertising on U.S. stations provide revenue for the cable operator? What specific east-west electronic highways should we attempt to develop for better nation building? Are not incentives through appropriate tax legislation, and premiums to obtain equity in costly programming, a stimulus to be considered for real Canadian programming? In view of the potential growth and multi-use of cable, should it not become a utility, with its own poles or access to poles, rather than just a signal sender, in order to maintain some counterbalance on the media scales, or should Bell get bigger? And where does the CBC fit into the Canadian content equation and the move to cable by the public who undeniably prefer a choice?
Would the corporation's purpose not be better served if it stayed completely away from the advertising dollar, with suitable compensation from Treasury, thereby gaining the latitude to develop a truly Canadian content in programming rather than being governed by the present

common denominator, the pursuit of the dollar? Perhaps a return to truly Canadian content, with the assistance of the Film Board, the Film Development Corporation and supplemented by satellite reception of international signals from Belgium, France, England, and even Japan, would provide a new and vibrant dimension to Canadian programming. Certainly, that policy would dilute the allpervasive pressure and presence of the American signal.
A deliberate policy of no advertising, with distinctive programming and eventual withdrawal from the hardware business, upon a guarantee that its signal be carried by cable, might not pinch the pocketbook of the taxpayer any more than the present CBC subsidies. Such a policy might have the positive result of developing a distinctively Canadian programming service instead of the pale Hollywood imitation we now have. And so the questions go on. I think a Solomon is needed to sort out the solutions, and regardless of the answers somebody will be singed. But above all else, the CRTC must decide on patterns for the future, not patch the technology of the past. The concern of the industry is real. The challenge is there for all, including parliamentarians. And in discharging its duty, the commission must ensure that bias and political considerations pale beside the only true signpost to follow, namely, the public interest.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, in view of the remarks I have been listening to for a few days it is my turn to express a few standpoints on the recent budget.
Of course all opposition members have joined together to condemn this budget. In any event, the comments published in our various daily papers are, generally speaking, quite acceptable taking into account the effort which the government seems to have made for the first time those last three years in favour of the underprivileged.
It is agreed that many comments have been made, that many statistics have been quoted, that rather peculiar items are contained in this budget along with a few rather special proposals. However, I must respect and take into consideration the government's effort this year to try and improve the income of a certain number of deprived people.
This new effort deserves mention and leads us to believe that within the next few years we shall witness further improvements.
We could certainly protest that it is too little. To those who say it is too late I say that I disagree. I believe we can always ask for more and I think it is also up to the members to try to improve the government's policy.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention for instance that since six million Canadian people will pay less tax in 1972, this measure is acceptable.
Mention is also made of removing some taxes, such as the 3 per cent surtax, removal that will be welcome by most people. Removal of the 15 per cent tax on electronic
June 29, 1971

equipment is also mentioned. Such measures may help increase the purchasing power.
Repeal of the 12 per cent sales tax on antipollution equipment is also mentioned I believe that measure should enable the industries to do more to check pollution as we all know how urgent that problem has become.
The tax exemption was increased from $1,000 to $1,500 for single people and from $2,000 to $2,800 for married people. Of course, 1 would have liked the exemption to be larger. It would be difficult to be pleased about a single person earning a mere $1,500 or a married person earning $2,850. We all recognize that the normal minimum living wage should be between $4,500 and $5,000.
Nevertheless, I hope that the effort the government seems to make this year will be repeated in the next budget speech and that all the comments made up to now will be taken into consideration by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) as well as by the government.
However I deplore the withdrawal of the 12 per cent sales tax on margarine. Granted, today this product is admittedly quite important and the manufacturing industry concerned must also be respected in Canada. Yet, since this withdrawal will probably cause some embarrassment to the dairy producers, who are indirectly butter producers, we shall see the gap wider between the butter market and the margarine market. We had hardly settled the difficult problems experienced by the dairy producers due to surpluses and I wonder to what extent the withdrawal of this tax on margarine might not hamper the butter producers. It is to be hoped that the government will pay higher grants to butter producers in order to prevent the widening of the gap between the butter market and the margarine market.
I believe that the elimination of this tax will entail trouble for our dairy producers, who seemed in a position to expect better days in the years to come.
Twice or thrice in the last fortnight I asked the government to pay special attention to the unemployment problem, of which everybody is aware. All kinds of suggestions, both negative and positive, were made to the House. In fact, I thought I was making a positive suggestion in recommending that the government make retirement possible at 60.
There is talk about thousands of unemployed and it is very difficult to find solutions to unemployment. The government has endeavoured, through investments and subsidies of all kinds, to reduce unemployment but we all recognize that this situation unfortunately is still difficult and embarrassing.
I had thought that the government would take into particular consideration the retirement of people 60 years of age or older. I must repeat that this would create employment for 350,000 to 400,000 persons and enable young people 20 to 30 years old to find employment. I had thought also, since I had the opportunity just a few days ago to draw the Minister of Finance's attention on this subject, that the budget would include the provisions required for this policy of retirement at 60 which provisions are now being drafted.
The Budget-Mr. La Salle
I am firmly resolved to come back as often as possible on this policy because if we want to talk about a just society, an acceptable social atmosphere, I think it is also normal that a government should devise a policy which would make it possible to give well deserved holidays to people 60 years of age and which would enable younger people to get jobs, something they cannot find today.
Consequently, I would have wanted this budget to announce the suppression of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. I believe it is unthinkable to keep talking about a new start in housing and loans at acceptable rates if this tax is to be maintained.
I had the opportunity to make my mind clear in this regard a few days ago. In addition, I have heard some remarks about the lack of suggestions concerning farmers.
I am in favour of the proposals directly or indirectly tied with certain categories of producers. The government has also been blamed for not having introduced measures which might have been profitable to the producers.
As a member of Parliament, I think I should certainly deplore the objections raised against Bill C-176. If the government is expected to elaborate a policy designed to help the farmers of Canada, in all honesty I cannot but berate some members for their filibustering against the passing of Bill C-176 which I am sure could have increased the incomes of the Canadian farmers by planning production. Then at the last constitutional conference an agreement might finally have been reached that would have provided for a well-geared production and a fair distribution of products all across Canada.
We know about the problems and we do discuss over them. As members of Parliament, it seems to me that we are all most willing to defend the interests of our farmers. I would think, Mr. Speaker, that eventually we will adopt a more objective attitude than we have in the past and that some day we will be able to carry on our discussions in this House with all this objectivity which our constituents are looking forward to so that any loss of time will be avoided if we are to assist the agricultural class effectively.
I do not think that the government alone is responsible for this. I am in a good position to say that objectively. The government has made a remarkable effort to have this bill passed quickly as an apparent solution to the problem that we are facing today. Unfortunately-and this is where the government is doing wrong-our arguments, our proposals and our suggestions are assessed first on the basis of electoral value rather than on public interest.
If the people could at last select men who would above all safeguard the interest of society, we would be mature enough to agree and to apply the principle of objectivity; Parliament would then be improved since the interest of society would be taken care of.
I would also like to allude to a point mentioned a short while ago; the government has been blamed for having

June 29, 1971
The Budget-Mr. La Salle
failed to establish agreement between Canadians on the telecommunications policy. The wish has been expressed that the government should enact a national legislation that would make it possible to eliminate the problems of the provinces, and more particularly those of Quebec, perhaps due to the latter's special situation. 1 just referred to the policy relating to telecommunications and other areas; the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) also was blamed for having failed to co-ordinate his policy in such a way as to satisfy the Canadian people.
I want to point out to hon. members that we are deluding ourselves if we believe one national policy could now solve the problems of Canadians and bring back harmony and unity in this country. Obviously, Quebec has problems that are discussed throughout the country. The last decision of the Quebec government was well justified, considering Quebecers' aspirations, and I think it is important that hon. members understand once and for all the particular situation of that province. Hon. members must know that the majority of Quebecers want to find a solution or grounds for agreement. It would be ridiculous to believe that national legislation will settle all difficulties. Logically, we must recognize that no national legislation will ever meet the requirements of nine Anglophone provinces and those of Quebec.
It would seem that the requests made by the two levels of government at federal-provincial conferences over the last ten years are adequate to eliminate the expression "special status" since it nauseates some people. Special agreements should be entered into if we are to achieve harmony between English and French-speaking Canadians. I beheve this is the objective we are aiming at. However we will be unable to achieve the desired harmony if we do not first admit that special arrangements have become necessary. The present position of the Quebec government in respect of the problems we have experienced lately is not only fully justified but tends to make us beheve that we must soon find solutions whereby Quebec could be accepted and live happily within confederation under very special conditions, whether we like it or not.
Given our unstable economy, I would like to ask the government to give special attention to the sale of Canada savings bonds. I wonder if it would not be advisable for the government to study the opportunity of establishing a special policy when the time for bonds sale comes up. Surely we wish to see Canadians invest in the Canadian economy.
Of course we think that Canadians should buy Canada savings bonds and I believe we could make it more interesting for Canadians if we gave the holders either a tax exemption or a tax reduction on interests. This would encourage Canadians to buy bonds and invest more in the Canadian economy. Canadians would invest in Canada and at the same time become aware of their financial responsibility toward the country.
There are a number of points I could make if I went over all the highlights of the budget, but I must congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance for his effort to
help the low income groups. I urge him to continue working in that direction. Of course, there are some who will always complain that those taxes should be paid by other groups or other Canadians. But I think it was an urgent matter that low income groups be relieved.
Furthermore, we should always seek the solutions that would give the low income groups additional purchasing power. It is clear they are the ones who have to pay the major portion of Canadian taxes. Whether we like it or not, we know quite well someone must pay for the services that are required, and they can only be Canadians.
I shall now conclude for I would not want to preclude
other hon. members from voicing their views. I am glad I took part in this debate, particularly in asking the government to do more about the low income groups.


Mr. Rud L. Whiling (Hallon):: Mr. Speaker, the bible tells us that a prophet is not without honour, save in his own country and in his own house. Today there are many who must feel as I do that in our own country and in our own House, this House of Commons, we who told our constituents that in the white paper there was the strongest indication of the reality of participatory democracy and who invited the participation of their constituents with the assurance that their comments and constructive suggestions would be listened to when we put them in the hands of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), have been proven prophets indeed and our honour and faith in the government vindicated. From my riding of Halton came a flood of protest letters when the white paper on tax reform was issued. Many were angry, but the majority contained reasoned protests and suggestions, many of which were passed on to the Minister of Finance. The minister also visited Oakville, as he visited so many other centres, and met with my constituents, which I know was greatly appreciated.
The budget and the tax revision legislation tell us that Canada is going to do better than many other countries to reduce unemployment, while still controlling inflation. We have done better than any other country during this trying period, and many of us seem to forget that other countries are experiencing difficulties similar to ours but much more severely than we are. No one, least of all I, should attempt to imply that things are good just because the situation in Canada is better than elsewhere. The need for continued effort is revealed in the budget, and I am glad to note that the government recognizes the situation and has taken the lead.
All Canadians can now begin to play their part in helping the country to greater economic progress. The government has provided leadership to establish confidence in the country, in industry, in small business and in the farming community. It remains, however, for all segments of the nation to also accept their responsibility. Last year I felt it my duty to present to the House many of the more pertinent criticism of proposals contained in the white paper. It is a source of great satisfaction to me and my constituents, many of whom have already com-

June 29, 1971

municated with me, to express their approval of the legislation now before us.
Of great concern to them was the five-year revaluation of shares in widely held corporations. The Oakville Chamber of Commerce, in a letter to me, expressed the view that this proposal would have been both discriminatory and punitive. Obviously, the owners of the literally hundreds of smaller type businesses in the community were greatly concerned with the elimination of the preferred rate of tax. Another concern was the proposed capital gains tax on the appreciation in the value of homes. Many other letters registered a protest of the proposal to increase the tax on earnings ranging from $10,000 to $20,000 a year. The estate tax was of special concern, and I stated in this House that in the event a capital gains tax was imposed, the estate tax should be substantially reduced or abolished.
In the legislation before us, each of these items has been dealt with. During the white paper furore, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) both stated on innumerable occasions that the white paper was presented for public scrutiny, consideration and suggestions, and the consensus would be incorporated in legislation. I am proud my constituents believed the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and were willing to take the time and make the effort to contribute to the formation of Canadian tax laws that are both practical and acceptable. The Minister of Finance has come close to contradicting Edmund Burke's dictum "To tax and to please no more than to love and be wise is not given to man".
Following the presentation of the budget, the leader of the NDP made the critical comment that still larger concessions should have been made to the poor, having in mind equity, fairness, and ability to pay. I say this government has done a great deal in its proposed tax legislation to accommodate the less fortunate Canadians, but we must also remember that equity and fairness are words equally applicable to those Canadians who, because of enterprise, hard work, taking of risk, and education, have advanced themselves and this country's productive capabilities. These are the people who generate the new jobs which are, and will, be needed to eliminate unemployment.
I believe that the government has gone as far as it could at the present time, keeping in mind that there will be opportunity to do more. The government has shown leadership in alleviating the present economic problems, but it is only one player in the game. Can we look forward to labour doing its part? Have our workers benefited from wage increases exceeding productivity? I think not; not as long as we hear complaints from the majority of citizens that the cost of living increases faster than their earnings and not as long as these increases so terribly affect the low wage earner and our senior citizens. We certainly cannot say that more went into the pockets of business since it is a fact that return on investment generally has declined considerably over the past ten years. Can we, now that government has shown
The Budget-Mr. Whiting
that it will do its part, look to the other players in the game to do theirs?
Last week was senior citizens week in Ontario, Mr. Speaker, and it was fortunate that the Prime Minister was able to meet and talk with a group of them during his visit to Oakville and Bronte in my riding. There are several things in the budget which are of significant interest to our senior citizens. Many now think that the sole improvement in their situation will be an extra deduction of $150 derived by raising the present exemption for people 70 years and over from $500 to $650. The actual increases in exemption are not $150, but amount to at least $650 in the case of a single taxpayer and $1,000 in the case of a married couple. In addition, the age limit has been lowered to 65 from 70 years.
A further and very important point is that the guaranteed income supplement of up to $55 per month to single persons and $95 per month to a married couple will no longer be taxable. The government also decided that effective July 1 of this year, no tax will be levied on taxable income of $500 or less and that taxes be generally reduced on taxable incomes up to $3,000. In addition, the government has also done away with the 3 per cent surtax effective July 1 of this year.
As an example, a married taxpayer having no income from employment but income from pensions and guaranteed income supplement of $3,776 at present pays $285 in taxes; under the tax reform there will be no tax payable. A single taxpayer having an income of $2,144 at present pays $159 in taxes, but there will be no taxes payable in the future. I think that these tax considerations show a regard on the part of the government for our senior citizens, most of whom are on a fixed income and are deserving of everything that can be done to make their years a pleasure and a reward for past accomplishments.
There are one or two points I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance. The first concerns retirement savings plans. The maximum contribution in the new legislation is $4,000 or 20 per cent maximum of earned income. The amount previously was limited to $2,500, or 20 per cent of earned income. Because of this 20 per cent limit, the effect is that a taxpayer with an earned income of $12,500 under the proposed tax reform is still limited to a $2,500 maximum contribution, as he was under the old system. The only taxpayers benefitting from this change are those individuals having earned income between $12,500 and $20,000. I wish to suggest that the percentage limit be dropped altogether, or failing that, be increased to 33J per cent of earned income. In fact, I question whether this formula should be applicable to earned income only, rather than to income from all sources.
I raise this question with due understanding that I may not be aware of all repercussions that could arise from this proposal, but being aware of the fact that there are Canadians, sufficiently thrifty and individualistic, who wish to provide in good measure for their retirement. Although I understand that such measure may tend to reduce the propensity to consume, it however tends to increase capital for the expansion of Canada, particularly

June 29, 1971
The Budget-Mr. C. Stewart
in view of the 90 per cent Canadian investment requirement of registered retirement savings plans.
I would also like a clarification of the dividend tax credit deduction as shown in the "summary of 1971 tax reform legislation" of 33J per cent and the wording of section 121 of Schedule 'A' to the Notice of Ways and Means Motion which indicates that the amount deductible is to be four-fifths of the amount added to the dividend in accordance with section 82 (1) (b).
During the white paper discussions, repeated requests were made with respect to the operators of unincorporated businesses. The first point was raised in connection with the inequity arising where such an operator employs his wife rather than another person. Under the present law, and the tax reform proposes no change, the operator must include any remuneration to his wife for work done in his income, since he may not deduct such remuneration as an expense for tax purposes. I realize the argument against this practice is that it may open a loophole for tax splitting between husband and wife. On the other hand, just as in the case of incorporated companies, an operator of a business should be able, upon proof, to pay remuneration to his wife comparable to what he would have to pay to another person, deduct the payment as an expense, and his wife would then have to report this income.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind hon. members that when debate on the tax reform bill commences after the summer recess, there will have been another period of participatory democracy because we are assured by the Minister of Finance, that the government is open to consider further informed comment on this legislation.


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) make his budget presentation. There were some parts of the budget which were most welcome and which I support. I refer to the increase in personal exemption, the exemption of the supplement for our senior citizens and the removal of the 3 per cent surtax. All these changes were long overdue.
There are other parts of the budget proposals which I question. The minister has announced he is removing one million people from the tax rolls by increasing the basic exemption and this will cost the government $100 million in revenue. He also announced that unemployment insurance benefits will become taxable; the projected revenue to the government from this source will be $130 million. I understood the reason the basic exemptions were increased was to take people in the low income groups off the tax rolls, yet are those not the same people who will be hit hardest by making unemployment insurance benefits taxable? From this exchange the government will gain $30 million in revenue which could very well be collected at the expense of low income citizens.
I also ask the government how long these million people will be exempt from taxation. Have projections been made to show how soon, because of high inflation
and other causes, these same people will be back on the tax rolls? Will the large majority of them be back paying taxes next year or the year after? If these people are to be taxed next year, they could pay more taxes than they do now because the basic rate of taxation has been increased in this budget from 11 per cent to 17 per cent on the first $1,000 of taxable income, effective in 1972.
For three years we have been telling the government how serious is the economic situation in western Canada. At every opportunity, we have told the government that due to their farm policies and attitudes the income and cash position of the western farmer has reached the point at which it has become a disaster. Only last month the minister responsible for the Wheat Board called the members on this side of the House the "doom and gloom boys". But let us look at what the great Liberal paper in western Canada has to say. I refer to an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on June 22, 1971 entitled "A Growing Farm Gap":
Faced with declining income and rising costs, the farm community all over Canada but especially in the West, finds itself today caught in a cost-price squeeze which could have disastrous consequences. Something of this was communicated in a series of articles recently concluded on this page. Now, with the announcement of the Wheat Board's final payment to farmers for the 1969-70 crop year, the seriousness of the situation is further emphasized.
The final wheat payment was 7.2 cents a bushel, basis No. 1 Northern. Combined with earlier payments, it reveals a total payment for the year of 157.2 cents a bushel, basis the Lakehead -the lowest price farmers have received for their wheat in 16 years. We have to go back to the crop year 1953-54 to find a lower figure-
Then, it goes on to say:
But this is only part of the picture. There is no comparison between the value of today's dollar and that of 1953-54, and no comparison between today's farm costs and those of 16 years ago.
Then, it refers to the DBS figures.
The low wheat price to the farmer this year only accentuates what DBS figures show regarding farm income generally. The three prairie provinces have been especially hard hit. In 1969 farm net income in Manitoba was $117.1 million; in 1970 it was $78.6 million-a decline of 33 per cent in a single year-and 1969 itself was no bonanza year. In Saskatchewan the drop was even more dramatic. In that province farm net income for 1969 was $402.9 million; in 1970 it was $202.7 million-a loss of 50 per cent.
To sum up the situation, the editorial states:
It is a situation that requires new thinking and a new approach, not only on the part of individual farmers but of government. Certainly it involves something more than was involved in Bill C-176 and in current government talk about stabilizing the farm economy. There is not much point "stabilizing'' a sick man: All that amounts to is maintaining him in his sick condition. Rather than farm income stabilization plans, we need plans for farm income escalation and a restoration to health.
There are many ills afflicting the farm community in Canada- especially in the three Prairie provinces-today, breeding resentment, frustration and fear. But the root ill is economic. The gap between farm income and farm expenditure must be closed, if there is to be any hope of restoration to health.
What has the government done to face up to this worsening situation? Let us look at the agriculture record of this government. Last year they introduced Operation Lift, meaning lower inventory for tomorrow. As far as the
TMr. Whiting.]
June 29. 1971

farmers were concerned it meant "lower income for tomorrow". Then, Bill C-176 was introduced, the government's national farm marketing bill, which in its present form would only mean more government control and bureaucracy and do nothing for western agriculture.
We presently are examining the grain stabilization program which is before the Agriculture Committee. In this legislation, the government proposes to contribute 4 per cent to the agriculture stabilization fund and has asked the farmer to contribute 2 per cent of his gross income, which actually means he would be paying from 6 to 8 per cent of his net income. The farmer should have to pay no more than 1 per cent. This program is unacceptable to the farmers in its present form.
Another tactic the government is using that we don't like is refusing to pay out the promised acreage payment to western farmers unless the stabilization program is passed. Pay out immediately the so-called $100 million to western farmers as they need this cash! In its present form, this legislation would only stabilize poverty in the west. Last year, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board called a press conference in his office and, with great fanfare and champagne, announced a grain sale to South America. The western farmer is sick of this attitude on the part of the minister. Why does he not tell the Canadian people the whole story. He should reveal all the facts in these press releases. He should tell Canadians the low prices at which this grain is being sold, not only wheat but also barley. If these low prices continue, the government will not have any farmers to worry about; they will all be forced off the farm.
I urge the government to give top priority to the prices farmers are receiving for their produce. If the western farmer is to survive he must have larger quotas for his grain and a greater improvement in the price. I should also mention the low price of his other products such as hogs and eggs, but at this time I want to stress grain prices. Let the government spend more money on the development of markets, and give farmers guidance as to what to grow and what can be sold at a decent price today.
This government is not spending enough money on agriculture. On November 25, 1970, when speaking to the Second Canadian Agriculture Congress in Ottawa, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) quoted the following figures which appear on page 5 of his speech. They indicate what is now being spent on Agriculture by this government. He said:
Direct federal government spending in agriculture represents 3.3 per cent of the total federal budget.
How do we compare with other industrialized nations? In 1968, the federal government spent about $350 per person employed in agriculture in Canada. This compares with $675 in West Germany, $980 in France, $1,059 in Britain, $1,287 in the United States and $1,502 in Switzerland.
No wonder Canadian agriculture has these problems, when the government is not carrying its proper share of the load. The government is almost asking Canadian farmers to go out on their own and compete with other
The Budget-Mr. C. Stewart
countries of the world whose governments subsidize agricultural products. We expected the government's budget would show more interest in agriculture. As stated in the editorial of the Winnipeg Free Press, this is a very sick industry. We agree that the abolition of the estate tax will help the family farm operation and small businessmen, but what about the capital gains tax which has been imposed? Will it not prove to be far more costly to the farmers?
Let us look at the recaptured depreciation and how the capital gains tax will affect the farmers. We all know a farmer can fully depreciate his farm machinery over a period of seven years. Now, if he trades that implement and receives any trade allowance on the deal, the allowance he receives is recaptured depreciation and 50 per cent of it is taxable under the capital gains provision. The Barber report, on which the government has taken no action, points out the problems farmers face in respect of the high price of machinery. Now, the government has taken another run at the farmer and makes it next to impossible for him to keep his equipment for his operation in running condition.
Let me use as an example a common tractor to show how hard the farmer is hit. Let us assume a farmer has a model 4020 John Deere tractor which is seven years old and fully depreciated. If he trades this tractor in on a new model the dealer might allow him $6,000 on the trade, which is the depreciation price of this tractor. This depreciation allowance, or trade allowance of $6,000 has to be shown at the end of the year as recaptured depreciation, and 50 per cent of it, or $3,000, must be shown as income on the farmer's tax return. This $3,000 is a book figure and in no way represents income. The same circumstances apply to his farm truck, swather, combine or baler, or any implement he trades. If the farmer thought it was costly to deal in the past, look what is ahead of him.


Alfred Dryden Hales: He won't have anything to deal; he will be out of business.


Donald Craig Stewart: The white paper on taxation was the biggest smokescreen in history. It was a smokescreen put out to cover up the inefficiency of this government. In the sixth annual report of the Economic Council of Canada, it is stated at page 25:
-on the assumption that there would be no general advance on tax rates beyond those in effect in the spring of 1969, total government revenues would also approximately double between 1967 and 1975.
One wonders, when he sees the Economic Council of Canada stating government revenue will double in seven to eight years under the old system, and the Minister of Finance coming out with his white paper telling everybody he is going to take the shirt off their backs, how the minister can say he is a good fellow because he presents a budget which takes only half the shirt. Under the minister's so-called tax reform, the tax pie is still the same size; we are just going to slice it differently. The reason the white paper was a smokescreen was that it kept this government busy finding new ways to spend money, such as setting up new departments like Informa-

June 29, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Faulkner
tion Canada and programs such as the Opportunities for Youth program, which I might say is the biggest waste of money I have ever witnessed.
Let us look at the program to make public servants bilingual. Some 9,000 public servants took the language course and only 2,000 finished it at a cost to the Canadian taxpayer of $30 million. How much thought goes into some of these programs? The government has put a freeze on the spending of the Department of National Defence. It is time it did the same thing in respect of other departments of government. A more realistic approach to some of these programs would mean a substantial saving to the Canadian taxpayer.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. 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 Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Health-suggested program to expedite graduation of qualified physicians; the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas)-Agriculture-discontinuance of deficiency payments to wool producers; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Youth-lack of hostels in Montreal.



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.
Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be able to participate in this debate on the budget, not in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary but more particularly in my capacity as the member for Peterborough. I will not be referring directly to the discussions in respect of those areas of my responsibility that have been referred to today, simply because I want to give priority to the problems relating to my specific riding and ridings which have a similar character, namely ridings which have a large industrial working force with large corporations operating in the interests of the community and the country.
Having listened to the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart), it has now become clear why there might be a certain amount of disenchantment in western Canada, if that is the type of speech made by representatives of western Canada on a daily basis. I have not heard a more pessimistic speech in a long time. I cannot remember when I last listened to a speech which was so negative. In
view of the preponderance of representatives from the west, at least at this time, who are members of that party, it is perfectly clear to me now why the west is dissatisfied.


An hon. Member:: Ask Mr. Thatcher.


James Hugh Faulkner: Perhaps the Liberal party did not do quite as well in the Saskatchewan election as we anticipated but we did a great deal better than the Progressive Conservative party, which had a total whitewash. It may be that nothing a Liberal government could ever do would please a Tory: perhaps that is the law with which we are faced.
When I hear the hon. member for Marquette describe the white paper as a smokescreen, that is one of the most specious pieces of political reasoning I have encountered in a long time. He and all of us know that the white paper represented a genuine attempt by the government to have consultation prior to tax reform. It does not matter what the hon. member for Marquette and his colleagues say about it; they can describe it to their constituents as a smokescreen, but this will not work because the fact is that it was a genuine attempt to bring about consultation and the public accepts it as such.
What is particularly interesting, I think, is that it is perfectly clear that the process of tax reform and the discussion on the subject was a genuine process, because the budget we are debating reflects very much the input of the Canadian people. I am hard pressed to understand how an opposition which has been chastising the government for indifference and arrogance can now scurry around looking for another set of reasons and insults to level at us when they are faced with what must be obvious to any clear-minded Canadian, namely, that through the process of hard and patient work we have a people's budget, one which reflects the input of the average Canadian many of whom were not represented at the committee hearings. In my view this is a budget in which even a Tory might find some good, but apparently not the opposition members we have here.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with specific features of the budget because I am very happy with the vast majority of it. I would be hard pressed to single out an exception. I am most pleased about the exemptions. I have always felt in the hue and cry about tax reductions which preceded the budget that probably the most fair and equitable way to ease the burden on low-income groups would be through higher exemptions. I support completely the principle embodied in the budget of higher exemptions, most particularly the exemptions available to those over age 65. I believe this is probably the most equitable feature of the budget. A single person over age 65 is to have an exemption of $2,250, and a married couple an exemption of $3,600. I think this is fair. Some members may say we should have gone further, but I think this is a marked, substantial and important improvement over a situation which most of us on this side of the House have been deploring for years.

June 29, 1971

The government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) have responded to the representations for higher exemptions. There is much in terms of changes for the people of average income. People of married status will be paying less income tax, which is precisely what the people in my riding told me should be done. This is the sort of thing they wanted. The child care expense is what a number of families have been requesting. They have been discriminated against in the past in the sense that they have had to carry the cost of babysitters, and so on. This, again, was done in response to the request of people. The allowance for employment expenses was also provided in response to the request of people who were not at the committee hearings because they could not afford to come to Ottawa. However, through their Members of Parliament and the process of consultation they were able to have their representations heard. They have now seen that the process really does work.
One item which is overdue and which I am sure will gain the approval of many people in my constituency is the very fair provision in respect of moving expenses, because the fact is that workers today are mobile; they move from place to place and there should be an allowance in this respect. We also have the provision in regard to small businesses. There was not a group in the community which was more dubious and more cynical about the process of tax reform than the small businessmen. They made representations sometimes in a rather strident and unpleasant way before the committee, and in other cases fairly, quietly and rationally. They made their point. I believe that rationalization has prevailed. We have a tax rate of 25 per cent on the first $50,000 of business income. Again, this is something the people requested in face of the proposals of the white paper.
There are many other changes across the board. I believe this is a popular budget. The people in my constituency-I know this through discussions I have had with them-say it is a popular budget. It is one that I hope will obtain the complete approval of this House. However, Mr. Speaker, the budget is only one aspect of this government's over-all economic and financial policy. We have been through a very difficult winter in which there were high levels of unemployment. Throughout the period of high levels of unemployment this government was under concerted attack by political parties opposite and interested groups.
There is no question, I think, that those of us who are supporters of the government and of this budget recognize that there has been a problem in respect of industrial workers which must be met squarely. For a long time, the major preoccupation of industrial workers-and this is still the case-has been job security. A winter of unemployment aggravates this fear and uncertainty. But the point I want to develop is that the government's over-all strategy in this field is good. In my view this point has never been fully developed in debate here nor in discussions with industrial workers.
I did not hear it but I read the maiden speech of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn). His riding is somewhat similar to mine and the problems he faces are
The Budget-Mr. Faulkner
the problems I face in Peterborough. I am sure that much of what he said is exactly what he said during the election campaign, and the fact that he was elected would indicate that he was believed. However, I do not think what he said in this House in his commendable maiden speech came even close to fairly representing what the government's over-all strategy has been.
I wish to deal with this question because I believe if the industrial workers of Canada, who have great misgivings because of the events of the past winter, want to give a fair shake to the government in what it is trying to do they will examine not only the budget but other programs. This budget is one of the most encouraging steps taken not only in this but in previous Parliaments. It has responded to the requests of the people, it has reflected people's interests and we should all support it.
But there is more to the government's policies than simply this budget. I shall deal with some of these matters because I believe they are important, particularly to the people in my constituency and in constituencies like it. During the winter I heard representations from the United Electrical Workers. They sent a delegation to Ottawa and I sat in on the deliberations. Later I met representatives of the Peterborough local. Recently I received another submission from the IUE, again associated with the electrical industry and a local in the CGE, Peterborough, plant. They have a resolution dealing with plant shutdowns, lay-offs and hardships. I think we must face up to the fact that these are still important considerations in the minds of workers.
However, nowhere in their resolutions do they explain some of the positive attempts made by this government to deal with the problem of job security. I should like to enumerate three or four of these positive attempts. One significant development has been the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code. The minister in a statement in this House on June 28 outlined precisely what was contained in that bill. There is a section which workers for years have been talking about, particularly since the decision of Mr. Justice Samuel Freedman dealing with technological change during the term of an agreement. What will the new Canada Labour Code provide, a labour code developed by this Liberal government? Let me read from the document which the minister tabled in the House. It deals specifically with the problem of technological change. There are many other amendments to the Canada Labour Code but this one is particularly relevant in terms of the problem of job security. It reads:
An employer would be required, however, to give the bargaining agent or agents concerned a 90-day notice of any technological change likely to affect the conditions or security of employment of a significant number of employees. Furthermore, in defined circumstances, a bargaining agent would be empowered, during the term of an agreement, to negotiate, with the right to strike,, about provisions designed to assist employees in adjusting to the effects of a technological change.
In order to exercise this power, the union would have to obtain from the board leave to serve notice to bargain. The

June 29, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Faulkner
board would be authorized to grant such leave only if it was satisfied:
(1)	that the existing collective agreement did not contain provisions whereby the effects of technological change could be subjected to negotiation and final determination;
(2)	that the employer had not given written notice of the change in question prior to negotiation of the existing agreement; and
(3)	that the change in question was likely to have substantial and adverse effects on conditions or security of employment.
That is something industrial workers have been talking about tor years. It is now embodied in a bill introduced by the government containing amendments to the Canada Labour Code. We had another bill to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code which contains a section dealing with lay-offs, precisely the sort of thing that resolution No. 5 was complaining about. It is stated in the bill as follows:
Any employer who terminates, either simultaneously or within any period not exceeding four weeks, the employment of a group of 50 or more employees employed by him within a particular industrial establishment, or of such lesser number, of employees as is prescribed, shall give notice to the minister in writing, of his intention to do so at least:
(a)	8 weeks before that date of termination of the employment of the employee in the group whose employment is first terminated where the group of employees whose employment is to be terminated does not exceed one hundred;
(b)	12 weeks before the date where the group exceeds 100 but does not exceed 300; and
(c)	16 weeks before the date where the group exceeds 300.
That is, again, a response to the sort of callous shutdown that we have experienced in certain plants, the Dunlop plant and others. These events breed fear and uncertainty about job security in the minds of organized and unorganized workers. That provision has been made. Perhaps it could be improved upon, but the point is that it is a response by the government to meet the legitimate fears of workers, and that is part of the over-all strategy.
In my constituency there is a concern, as the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) stated, about dumping. Again, this government introduced amendments to the Anti-dumping Act. The new act provides authority for the government to impose additional duties on dumped imports if it is determined that they are causing or threatening to cause material injury to Canadian industry. Anti-dumping duties may also be applied if dumped imports are materially retarding the establishment of production in Canada of like goods. The determination of injury includes the assessment of the effect that dumped imports have had on employment levels. In this sense the legislation provides direct protection to employment in Canada.
Since proclamation of the Anti-dumping Act on January 1, 1969, 23 investigations have been initiated by the Department of National Revenue. Seven of these investigations are still in progress and one recent one, initiated by the Canadian General Electric Company, deals with alternating current, high-voltage circuit breakers. That investigation is under way. One that has been completed to the satisfaction of the same plant deals with transformers. I suggest that not many workers have heard very much about these changes. They may not have
heard about how the changes relate directly to their major preoccupation with job security.
The Anti-dumping Act was amended in 1970 to provide that the tribunal, at the request of the Governor in Council, may inquire as to whether imports, other than dumped imports, are causing or threatening to cause injury to Canadian producers. There are a number of measures which may be used to restrict imports which, in terms of Canada's obligations under GATT, can only be imposed if it is established that imports are causing or threatening to cause injury to Canadian producers. The provision in the amended legislation will make it possible to assign responsibility for determining injury to the tribunal, an independent body which has developed an expertise in assessing injury.
Further representations have also been made by Canadian manufacturers, again relating to the problem of job security. They deal with the practice of a number of foreign governments to guarantee loans to Canadian industrial developers at concessional rates in exchange for the developer's undertaking to purchase machinery, equipment and materials from the lending country. Our manufacturers claim that this practice limits opportunities for Canadian industries to bid on business in Canada.
Recent regulations under the Anti-dumping Act provide a means for taking account of concessional financing terms in calculating margins of dumping. I know something about this initiative and what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) planned to do about it, which has probably passed unnoticed and unheralded in the ridings of Guelph and Peterborough. Certainly the management of the two companies involved knows something about it, but how many average workers appreciate the significance of what the government has attempted to do to combat concessional financing; and how many workers are fully aware of what real job security is involved in offshore concessional financing? That is, again, part of the over-all strategy. I will not go into the various provisions announced by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on May 26, 1970, but they are four and all deal with the problem of concessional financing. They are all designed to eliminate this threat to Canadian employment.
Finally, I want to turn to one other area, again part of the over-all strategy, namely, the role of the Export Development Corporation in financing support for Canadian exports. Again addressing myself to the particular problem in Peterborough, there are very real prospects for the Canadian General Electric plant, particularly in the export market, and a key instrument in realizing through financing these particular markets and the jobs which are associated with obtaining contracts is the Export Development Corporation.
The Export Development Corporation was proclaimed on October 1, 1969, as successor to the Export Credits Insurance Corporation. EDC possesses far greater powers and greatly expanded financial resources for support of the financing of Canadian exports. In addition to providing export credit insurance, the traditional activity of its predecessor, EDC can provide direct, long-term financing for the export of Canadian manufactured goods both for

June 29, 1971

its own corporate account and for the government's account.
This facility has been particularly important in bringing substantial export orders and jobs to Canada. EDC signed financing agreements in 1969 valued at $65 million, and $100 million in 1970. To date this year EDC has signed financing agreements for export transactions valued at over $100 million. This figure does not include a line of credit of $100 million made available through EDC to the imperial government of Iran under which a variety of Canadian suppliers will make available goods and services to that country. The impact of this program on employment is significant. By way of example, one EDC loan of $43.5 million for ships will result in 3,000 man-years of work for the shipyard involved.
I am suggesting that these are part and parcel of an over-all strategy which includes the budget, directed not only at providing expansion but at providing job security for the industrial workers of Canada. There is much more I would have liked to say, Mr. Speaker, but I know that other hon. members want to participate in the debate. I know that my good friend from Bourassa wishes to speak and I am sure that what he says will be important.
Part and parcel of this industrial strategy will be inevitably a policy position taken by the government on the matter of foreign ownership. Today the Committee for an Independent Canada met with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other ministers. Perhaps those of us who are based in Ontario are a little too preoccupied with it, but I think it is fair to say that there are very strong feelings in support of much of what the Committee for an Independent Canada is saying. That organization is bipartisan; it has attracted people from all political parties. It has zeroed in on an area of particular relevance to the people and to the government, and the government has responded; it has indicated that one of the members of the cabinet is preparing a policy position paper on the matter. Again, this is part and parcel of the over-all strategy, not only designed to provide employment and job security but to provide them in the interests of the country.
I think it is sensible to consider carefully how this strategy will not only stand the test of time but will operate in its application to a market of 20 million people at work. I am anxious to see this policy statement as soon as possible, but I am prepared to wait knowing the result will be the better for it. I close on this note, Mr. Speaker. This is a budget debate. It deals primarily with the budget, and this budget is attractive. But there is much more to what the government has done over the past three years in providing a broad industrial strategy which is directed not only toward the economy at large but to the workers of the country, to provide them not only with job security but with growing opportunities for more and better jobs.


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I followed closely the speech made by the hon. gentleman
The Budget-Mr. Cadieu
from Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) and I was surprised to hear him condemn the Saskatchewan Tories after the Liberals muffed up the provincial election in the way they did. He condemned the Conservatives, but I point out that we ran only 16 candidates in that election. The Liberals ran 60 candidates. None of our candidates was elected, but the Liberals were turned out of government. That was because they had really messed things up. And not just the Saskatchewan Liberals; Liberals here in Ottawa had a considerable amount to do with it. As ex-Premier Thatcher said, the only way he could get recognition was when he was damning the Trudeau government because people listened to him then. When he quit doing that, when he thought that some day he might like to be appointed to the Senate, nobody listened to him.
I confess that I have great sympathy for the government and particularly for the hon. member who is trying to cope with the finance portfolio. There are times when I feel inclined to cross the floor and lead the minister around the benches over there, and perhaps lend him my program so that he can sort out the players from the spectators. There is little doubt in my mind that the majority of those who occupy the government benches are spectators-witness the furore that erupted when a backbencher on that side attempted to put some choice remarks on the record. Of course, he knew in advance that he didn't have a prayer. He is on a short leash, like most of his colleagues, and my heart goes out to him in his futile quest for recognition. In many ways the Liberal backbencher epitomizes the Canadian citizen who is attempting to get some recognition from the members he sent to this House. The Canadian citizen is on a short leash and he is also getting short shrift from this confused and frightened government.
The budget we are now debating indicates clearly that the ministers and members across the floor are indeed getting frightened. The time is near when they will have to put up. The time is near when they will have to account to the Canadian people for all their ill-conceived programs and non-programs, for all their budgets and non-budgets. The time is near when the government will have to show some results from the massive spending that has characterized the present ministry.
I am certain in my own mind that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) many times has asked himself and his boss just how long they can continue to fool the Canadian people. He must have asked himself that question scores of times. But he keeps trying all the same. He must continue to fool the Canadian people with budgets of the type we are debating now because, if he does not, he will have to step down and make way for someone who will. Trudeau-ese and Benson-ese are merely exercises in deception, and while it might sound pretty good to people who do not have an opportunity to study budgets in detail, the words in this budget just don't wash. My colleagues have already effectively shot the budget full of holes. Many times during the past few days the Minister of Finance has been provided with indisputable evidence that his tax reform bonanza is not a bonanza at all; it is merely more of the same.

June 29, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Cadieu
I am appalled at the minister's claim that raising exemptions for the lower income and middle income groups will result in a substantial saving in income tax payments. For the past two years the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has been urging the government to cut income tax rates for these income groups in order to allow them a better chance to achieve more than just a bare subsistence and also to put more money into circulation where it is needed the most.
More money is needed for the private purchaser to buy necessities and even luxury items. This might have been accomplished by cutting tax rates for the income group up to about $10,000 per year. Instead, the Minister of Finance loudly proclaimed that exemptions would be raised for single persons and couples and then quietly announced that tax rates would be raised correspondingly. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the result in most cases will be higher rather than lower taxes in the income group that is already carrying a disproportionate share of the national tax burden. This is deception, but as I mentioned before it is also a clear indication that the government is desperately trying to stop the leak in the dike. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) have a pipeline to the public treasury and it must impose a very severe strain on the government just to provide those two hon. gentlemen with enough funds to keep them happy.
Then there is the "minister of propaganda". Surely he must require vast sums of money to do his "thing". He has the second largest personal staff in the government- second only, of course, to that of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Then there are the information projects and broadcasts prepared and funded by the information minister to inform the Canadian people of all the things that this benevolent government is doing for them. Then there is a program of saturation on radio stations across the country, contracted for by the information ministry, which smacks of propaganda in the best tradition of the infamous Goebbels. One such program asked the question: Is there any country you would rather live in than Canada? That is a variation of the old saw: Do you still beat your wife? Of course there is no country that I would rather live in and I resent having anyone dip into my pocket for the money to buy national radio time to ask me such a question.
But this kind of question is only the beginning, Mr. Speaker. Further on the question was asked: Do you know of any other country that has fewer problems, or a country that offers more opportunities to its people? This is a question that you can get both hands on. I seem to have heard somewhere that there are countries in Europe, such as West Germany, where there are so many jobs that there are not enough people to fill them. I do not know how many problems other countries have but I do have some idea how many problems Canada has, and I am disappointed that the government did not provide some measures in this budget to cope with them.
We have problems, many of them serious, but it will not serve any good purpose to buy expensive national radio coverage in order to ask Canadians if they know of a country that has fewer problems. This is propaganda at its worst. It is a device that is intended to divert the minds of Canadians from their own problems by implying that everyone else in the world is worse off than they are. This is negativism at its very worst.
The radio programs I have spoken of also mention that people in Canada should make an effort to learn the languages of their fellow Canadians. This should make for some interesting conjectures. Just what languages does the information minister have in mind? Does he mean that we should all learn Ukrainian, Italian and Greek? I think not, Mr. Speaker. What it is intended to do is reinforce the government's so far abortive efforts to make all Canada bilingual in French and in English. This is a multicultural country where almost every language on the face of the earth is spoken. The only languages that the minister is thinking of are French and English, not the languages I have mentioned.
The information minister is working hand in hand with the Secretary of State to force a language on the majority of Canadians that they will never have to use. This massive program is designed purely and simply as a sop, as an accommodation to the province of Quebec. If the government spent only one-tenth of their effort and resources in trying to solve the real problems of the country, we would all be inclined to accept their programs and budgets with open minds and give the government our complete co-operation.
However, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult, if not impossible, to accept this document in the spirit in which it was tabled in this House. This is not a budget that will allow Parliament to chart a course for prosperity, full employment and equitable taxation. This budget is full of deceptions. There are more twists and turns in its terminology than anyone can reasonably excuse.
It is obvious that the money for such programs as Opportunities for Youth, the Company of Young Canadians, the Information Canada propaganda crusades, the federal bilingualism programs and the multitude of political patronage programs comes from somewhere. The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) stated a few days ago that the Opportunities for Youth program was "the fiasco of the decade". That sentiment has been echoed often from this side of the House but it was very heartening indeed to hear a member of the other side condemn the government for its blunders and its crass ineptness.
It is a sad day for Canada when a government of a great country like this chooses to budget hundreds of millions of dollars a year to support radicals and kooks whose sole purpose in life is to tear down Canadian institutions-


Mr. Boulanger:: Come, now!


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: -whose announced goals are to fight against everything for which Canada has stood for more than 100 years. I search in vain for some small indication

June 29, 1971

in this budget that Canadians who want to preserve our system are going to get as much support and consideration from the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister as the hippies, the creeps and the weirdos.


Prosper Boulanger: Who wrote this speech for you?


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: I am getting fed up right to the teeth with this government's obvious attemps to change Canada into something that the majority of Canadians do not want. I will go a step further and say that the majority of Canadians are ready to face up to those who have their priorities so confused that they have to check their programs to see what country it is they are trying to run.
As a westerner, I should be scorching the government for what it has failed to do for the farmers, Mr. Speaker, but I am afraid that it will be some time before we can sort out the jargon in the budget and make a full appraisal of how much damage this document will inflict on the farms and ranches in our country. I have determined, however, that this budget continues the avowed intention of the government to put the nation's farmers in a straitjacket and to put the squeeze on until they are prepared to accept absolute government control in order to survive.


Prosper Boulanger: The western farmers have never had it so good.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: That is what hon. gentlemen opposite would like to think. If they would go west they would see what the facts are. As in other budgets, the hidden and insidious provisions with regard to agriculture will rise up and strike the farmer down in his tracks, Mr. Speaker, there never has been a government in the history of Canada that had so little use for the farmer. I have watched, year after year, as this government has introduced measures to get farmers oil the farms and into the city. They go into the city, and without a trade or profession that is compatible with the new environment they more often than not end up on welfare. This does not make sense anywhere else, but it makes a lot of sense in Canada where we have a government bent on establishing a welfare state.
I want to make way for another of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, so I will cut short my remarks. I would not want to resume my seat without making an observation about the way the government has failed the Canadian people and the Canadian system. While there are a multitude of programs and projects being funded by the government to support underground newspapers and other aspects of the drug culture and anti-social elements in the country, this government is failing utterly in providing a rallying point for those Canadians who want to improve rather than to destroy Canada.
It is time for the Prime Minister to accept the fundamental truth that the Secretary of State has outlived his usefulness to Canada. I know that the Secretary of State is still useful to the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, it is time for the Prime Minister to make a decision in favour
The Budget-Mr. Latulippe
of the country instead of making one always in favour of his inner cabinet. A change is as good as a rest and the removal of the Secretary of State should give the public treasury a rest if only for a short time. And our treasury does need a rest. The hippies and freaks and revolutionaries would lose a good friend if the Secretary of State were removed, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot think of a better present to hand the Canadian people in these troubled times.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to express my opinion concerning the beneficial effects anticipated from the budget. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that the changes brought about in the budget will not change general conditions very much since our economy was already unbalanced and the proposals advocated cannot stabilize the national budget so that Canadians can benefit from it.
Mr. Speaker, a budget must above all maintain and stimulate economic growth. I feel that this budget will not maintain economic growth; I am in fact convinced that there will be a regression because we will have to invest and investments will be made through loans, that is through debts, taxes and levies for repaying debts and interests. Therefore this cannot change anything.
Mr. Speaker, the budget speech is in this respect the most ill-advised that could be found anywhere. Help is being given to people or economic growth is being brought about through selfishness and fear, not on behalf of justice. Afterwards, we are surprised at the growth of mistrust aggressiveness and hate. The tax reductions are nothing more than mere window-dressing. Let us face the facts: it is obvious that there is just a transfer of taxes from one sector to another. The 3 per cent surtax will be replaced by a 50 per cent levy or capital gains. The tax on capital gains will be more appealing to the government than the surtax of 3 per cent deducted at the source.
The government will certainly be squeezing more money from the public than before. Taxpayers' purchasing power will shrink accordingly and there will be less and less money in spite of plentiful production. It is hard to speak of an economic recovery, knowing that a tethered economy can go no further than the end of the chain. That kind of economy will still lead to suicide, although this might be in a somewhat more distant future.
The present budget has not taken into consideration balancing production and consumption. It is becoming increasingly difficult to take the right road to desirable economic expansion. Incentives to contracting debts are constantly increasing. Provinces and public agencies get into debt at unprecedented spectacular rates of interest.
Over and above public indebtedness, debts of individuals are increasing from day to day, to the extent that 28 per cent of family budgets are now earmarked for reimbursement of individually contracted debts. The cost of living in Canada has jumped by 33 per cent in the last few years. Industry can only grow and modernize by

June 29, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Latulippe
accumulating mortgages and debts in order to take advantage of the benefits offered by the government. The more modern industry becomes, the harder it is to create jobs, so then, we are far from the solution by pushing for the modernization of industry.
The cost of living rises fast and taxpayers are less and less prepared each time it goes up. Inflation is more pressing when the cost of living rises; 60 per cent of the salary increases were due to inflation in the last years.
So, such are the findings of a survey of weekly salaries in the Canadian manufacturing industry, and of price trends, as published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
The housing crisis in Canada is becoming more serious. Canadians who want to become homeowners find themselves in a sort of straight jacket.
The evidence is there, Mr. Speaker. The 11 per cent sales tax on building materials is being maintained, and furthermore, the 9 to 10 per cent interest rates are being maintained on mortgage loans. Because of this, inflation is increased, and the money lenders such as the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporations are favoured, so that the people in the low income brackets will never be able to even dream of becoming the owners of a small parcel of land without paying for years and years a house which should cost from $10,000 to $12,000, while in fact it will cost from $20,000 to $25,000.
That type of financial cancer is nurtured by the State which allows some developments as long as private and public debts increase by as much. And the governments, federal, provincial and municipal, as well as school boards, perpetuate that swindle, levying their taxes in a criminal and abominable fashion, stripping the builders of this nation, to satisfy the voracious appetite of a few financiers without conscience or scruples.
Indeed, the government has increased taxes, and the so-called social development tax, to the extent where it has plunged the economy into the darkest night and discouraged every initiative. We then witnessed a series of debt repudiations and an accumulation of bankruptcies.
It now seems that the central government recognizes the fact that economic unrest follows an odious and diabolical system of upsets. It claims that steps must be taken to get the economy moving again, that great efforts must be made to cure the economic ills from which we suffer.
The famous social development tax of 3 per cent is withdrawn, thus reducing government revenue by about $130 million a year.
Basic exemptions are increased from $1,000 to $1,500 for single people and from $2,000 to $2,800 for married people, after having allowed the cost of living to increase by more than 33 per cent. Rises in the cost of living represent also increases in income for the government through the taxation system. Other abatements such as those granted for child care expenses and the withdrawal
of estate taxes are unimportant. Of course only one half of capital gains will be taxed but this will deprive taxpayers of more purchasing power than the 3 per cent surtax would have done. It is like trading a Ford for a Cadillac, without paying the difference. This might be easier on the taxpayers but will deprive them of even more advantages.
And this is called economic expansion, the just society. To accelerate this economic expansion, one cannot but expect a further $800 million deficit, which will probably reach the $1 billion mark. At this rate, those who axe truly the builders of this nation, the Canadian taxpayers will go on being robbed and ransacked to pay our tribute to sacred finance.
The government fought against inflation from 1968 to 1971 and the unemployment rate deemed to be tolerable by the Economic Council of Canada, in the midst of an expanding economy, has increased by 3 per cent. That means that there are still 600,000 people without jobs in this country and 2,000,000 people on welfare because they are not entitled to unemployment benefits and have not had steady work.
Canada's economic recession is a direct result of the monetary and fiscal policies of the government. Meanwhile, financiers see their profits rising steeply, because of the high rates of interest on loans and on a large portion of the capital created out of nothing. In other words, the government is not looking for a balance; it is using the deficit itself to include certain fiscal advantages in the budget.
Even if the Liberal backbenchers have small cause for rejoicing and even if a deep faith is to be found on St. James and Bay Streets, I must say that this budget offers very little comfort to the average Canadian. In fact, it is obvious that the Minister of Finance was much more anxious to strengthen his party in the eyes of financial people than to present a tax reform which might help those who need a tax cut.
How is it possible to talk about an equitable tax system when workers are thus ill-treated while their income comes directly from their work? Why should they be less lucky than those who inherited a fortune or who drew dividend cheques? Are wage earners less important than the others? Must they be penalized because they work instead of being rich? A wage earner with an annual salary of $12,000 will then have to pay $3,250 in tax. By contrast, the other one who receives the same amount in dividends will pay only $1,230 in tax. He will thus pay $2,000 less than the working man. It seems to me that the just society is just only for people who get income from their investments, from all sorts of bonds. There are two taxation tables: one for the well-to-do and the other for the poor, who pay more than twice as much as the others.
It is neither fair nor honest to establish an over-all basis only for the income of ordinary workers while ignoring the benefits enjoyed by large corporations.
Mr. Speaker, for the past few years individuals in Canada paid more than $6 billion in taxes, whereas large corporations paid only $2.5 billion. This is the situation.

June 29, 1971

The Carter report which contained valid and more justifiable proposals has completely been ignored with regard to taxation, and thus the deficit for the past 11 years reached $4,485 billion. The net debt was close to $17 billion on March 31, 1970 and $18 billion the following year, for a gross debt of almost $43 billion. Therefore, the debt increased by $1 billion last year.
Mr. Speaker, the total debt of Canada amounts to $43 billion and it bears interests. It cost us more than $2 billion in 1970-71, that is $6 million a day; the bonds-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. It being six o'clock, it is my duty to interrupt this debate pursuant to the order made on Wednesday, June 16, 1971. I therefore leave the Chair until eight o'clock tonight. The House will then consider another government business.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

It may be my last sitting at this session. On a warm and sunny day, as we look ahead to the end of our sittings I am reminded of these lines:
The sun moves always west,
The road one treads to labour,
Will lead one home to rest,
And that will be the best.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of Your Honour's announcement that we will turn to another order at eight o'clock, I wonder if someone on the government side will tell us what it will be.


Mr. Jerome:: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to indicate to hon. members that at eight o'clock we are proceeding with Bill C-176. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board will be here to carry that legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why?
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, April 28, consideration of Bill C-176 to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and motions Nos. 1, 5 and 22 (Mr. Horner).
Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have been considering this amendment for some time as well as the other amendments. I first rose to speak on the farm products marketing bill in April, 1970. Back in
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill those days it was known as Bill C-197. The agricultural producers of Canada especially those who through provincial legislation had developed orderly marketing programs, were delighted that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) was fulfilling his promise to introduce legislation which would enable them to establish national marketing agencies.
Although the concept was not new, a bill to adequately serve the many commodity segments of the agricultural industry is not easy to draft. Nevertheless, the Minister of Agriculture at the very outset stated in the House of Commons that he was prepared to accept amendments after consultation with producer groups and the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
In view of an urgency resulting from serious overproduction in some areas of Canada, the bill was presented for first and second reading so that it could go to committee where producers, representatives of agribusiness and other interested groups could participate in contributing to the examination of the bill and propose amendments acceptable to producers from all regions of Canada. However, the official opposition prevented the bill from getting to committee between March and July of 1970.


An hon. Member:: I do.


M. Ervin Pringle: They were intent on talking the bill out every time it appeared on the order paper. The farmers were standing by, ready to appear before the committee. I do not doubt the sincerity of the hon. members to my left.
Am hon. Member: I do.


M. Ervin Pringle: They were misinformed, ill-advised and absolutely ignorant of marketing plans and programs. Nevertheless, they insisted they were much better informed than the farmers. On May 19, 1970, as reported on page 7,100 of Hansard, I practically got down on my knees and pleaded with members of the opposition to let the bill go to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. But they continued their filibuster until the final day of the session last year, and Bill C-197 was laid to rest.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your Honour, I rise on a point of order. I believe it would be proper for me to do so now rather than after two or three people have strayed, as it seems to me the hon. member is now doing. Are we not at the report stage, and is it not required at the report stage to speak to the amendments which are before the House?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon.
member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) is not only not speaking to the amendment but he is not talking about the bill before us. He is talking about a bill which was considered during a previous session. If he wishes to continue to do so, and is ruled in order, the House can take the consequences.

June 29, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member tor Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The Chair did have some doubt whether the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) was in order. In fact, when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rose I was looking very closely at the motions which have been set down for consideration. At this stage of the proceedings, while the House is considering motions at the report stage, all hon. members must direct their remarks to the particular motion before us and I would ask the hon. member for Fraser Valley East to do that.


M. Ervin Pringle: I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who has been here a couple of generations longer than I have. I do not know if there comes a time when one has been here too long. In my opening remarks I am referring to the amendments to this bill. You understand, Mr. Speaker, that there are 32 amendments. They have already been discussed hour after hour in committee.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: May I direct a question to the hon. member?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member who has the floor can consent to a question being asked. If there is consent the Chair will allow the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) to ask a question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I understood the hon. member would permit a question, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a very humble remark. I have been interrupted by the hon. crow from "Memberfoot"-I mean, the hon. member for Crowfoot. I apologize for that slip. That hon. member has continually interrupted tonight and did so during the committee stage, and if you do not mind, Sir, I should like to finish my remarks.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am rising on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member for Crowfoot wishes to ask a question. If the hon. member for Fraser Valley East is not prepared to accept a question at this point, I can only remind the House that the hon. member has the floor.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am rising on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question
of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hear a lot of catcalls. I did not hear the hon. member for Fraser Valley East refuse to accept a question. I have known him and participated with him in debates for many years, and he has always been prepared to answer questions.


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not think he would refuse to answer a question at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair makes no exceptions in respect of hon. members. It is apparent to the Chair that the hon. member for Fraser Valley East is not prepared to accept a question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is not obvious in this part of the House.


M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, I will take only a moment in concluding my remarks. I sincerely regret having aroused the ire of my hon. friend. I had no intention of doing that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would you permit a question?


M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, I want to make one point as simply and as humbly as possible regarding some of the problems we have experienced over the past two or three years.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would you permit a question.


M. Ervin Pringle: I will make this point as quickly as possible and then-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would you permit a question?


M. Ervin Pringle: The standing committee has already spent 37 days examining the amending Bill C-176. The committee made several amendments to the bill, including the one which is now before us for consideration. I do not know how many hours the committee spent discussing each amendment and I do not know how many hours members of the committee listened to the arguments put forward by spokesmen for the opposition. In any event, I know this amendment is one which was rejected after a great deal of consideration. A number of amendments were accepted by the committee, not all of which were presented by government members. I am sure some of the amendments were presented by members of the opposition.
During the last few weeks when we were discussing the amendments at the committee stage we decided some of them would be of benefit. We all listened with great interest-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
June 29, 1971


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would suggest that at this stage the hon. member should not direct his remarks to all the amendments. He must direct his remarks to the amendment now before the House.


M. Ervin Pringle: In respect of this amendment I suggest that the only opposition to the bill came from cattlemen and some western hoggrower associations. The committee amended the act to assure commodity groups that no agricultural product could be included unless a majority of producers within the group favoured a national agency for their products. Even then, the council is only empowered to inquire into the merits of establishing such an agency.
Bill C-176 requires that at least 50 per cent of the council must be producers. It requires that a majority of each agency must also be producers. The bill also recognizes the ability of farmer-producers to accept the authority delegated to them under the act as well as the responsibility to safeguard the interests of all producers across Canada and provide consumers with high quality agricultural products at fair market prices. The time is overdue when farmers must be allowed the opportunity not only to overproduce but also to establish fair market prices. This is a privilege allowed all segments of our society but agriculture.
Bill C-176 is again before us. Opposition members have submitted 32 amendments. All these amendments were thoroughly discussed at the committee stage for hours and hours and they were all rejected, including this one. Judging from past experience and behaviour, if you will permit me to use this expression, all opposition members were asked to put an end to obstructionism and allow our producers the right to plan, establish and administer the marketing of their products.
If we were to allow debate on all these amendments we would be faced with some 2,000 speeches. Perhaps members of the opposition feel that farmers are generally naive and do not realize the obstruction which is taking place. Let me assure them that farmers are well aware of the situation. I find it difficult to understand why my hon. friends to the left would be anxious to create chaos in Canada by wrecking markets in areas where orderly marketing already exists and where producers have put their house in order. We know these areas and we know that producers have their house in order. We know these people adopt restrictions under provincial laws only when they are required to do so to protect themselves. We hope they will look carefully at Bill C-176 and realize the government is attempting to do something to improve their position. We hope they will come to the understanding that hon. members opposite are clearly opposed to this bill.
I suggest the ball is now in the court of the opposition. I suggest respectfully and with humility that at this time hon. members opposite consider Canadian agricultural producers and do what they can to pass this bill tonight in order that we may accomplish what is necessary. In this way the producers can arrange their own plans and programs, and with the help of the government and its
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
agencies they can take care of the chaotic situation which is already appearing on the horizon.
In my opinion and in the opinion of many other people, opposition to this proposal will create tremendous difficulties for Canadian farmers in months to come, particularly if we as responsible Members of Parliament do not resolve this situation tonight.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Now that the hon. member has finished-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Crowfoot indicate why he is seeking the floor?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the hon. member for Fraser Valley East has not yet used all his time. I wanted to ask him a question earlier but he declined to accept it. I am wondering now whether he would permit me to ask him that question. I assure you it will be simple, direct and will not require a long answer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is in no difficulty. When an hon. member has the floor and another hon. member indicates a desire to ask a question, the hon. member who has the floor must indicate his acceptance. The situation apparently has not changed. The hon. member, who has not exhausted his time, has still not indicated his willingness to accept a question.


M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, I would hate myself all summer if I did not permit the hon. member to ask his question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In light of the Supreme Court ruling, in view of the amendments to clauses 18 and 25 of the bill and the remark that the bill has been poorly drafted, does the hon. member believe it has been poorly drafted or is he going against the ruling of the Supreme Court in this regard?


An hon. Member:: Ask the question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have finished my question.


M. Ervin Pringle: The bill was very flexible. I agreed and made that statement; I put it in a public story. I said a lot more than that. But the bill has been amended. There are 28 amendments. All the amendments are acceptable to the producers of Canada. I receive letters every day from various commodity groups and from farmers throughout the country saying that we should pass the bill. It is a good bill now and is not a poorly drafted bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Homer) that the judgment handed down by the Supreme Court makes almost any debate on this first amendment obsolete. However, I think there was an understanding when these amendments were first introduced on April 27 that we would deal with each one separately and that we would speak on amendment No. 1 in very general terms. With that understanding, I did not speak on it. However, I intend to deal with this one clause.

June 29, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
I regret that we cannot go on to clause 2, which concerns me much more than anything I shall have to say in a general way in respect of clause 1. I mention clause 2 because it deals with cattle and calves, all livestock, and this is a commodity which involves the income of half the people in the constituency I represent in this House of Commons. With that introduction might I say the Conservative party has always supported the establishment of marketing boards-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Baloney!


John (Jack) McIntosh: -which will provide all producers with fair access to markets. The history of the establishment of the Canadian Wheat Board should make such a statement abundantly clear even to some of the members of the New Democratic Party.


An hon. Member:: Don't worry about it, Jack. We've been around.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I will have more to say to you in a few moments.


An hon. Member:: All right; I'll come back.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Don't go away. Mr. Speaker, we have been asked why we oppose Bill C-176 in its present form. The answer, of course, is that we believe this bill will permit the removal of the protection afforded consumers as well as producers by the judicial and constitutional assurance of free access to other markets and other products, and will place in its stead the possibility of decisions motivated purely by local political considerations as have been espoused by some members to my left.
By evading the economic discipline of the free market, Bill C-176 invites political overtones in Canadian agriculture and places the destiny of the industry in the arena of power politics. The difference in our policy from that of the Liberals or the NDP is that we believe marketing boards should assist the industry and not control the industry, as some of my colleagues to the left have so often suggested and yet they believe they have the right to say they support the farming industry.
We have three main objections to this bill. There are several other minor objections such as the jail term, which I understand now is changed so that there will be a fine of $5,000. Then there are the powers of the inspectors-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think in fairness I must suggest to the hon. member, as I did to the hon. member for Fraser Valley East, that at this stage of our proceedings the debate is on the motion before us. With respect, I think the hon. member may be slightly outside the motion and I would ask him, as I asked the hon. member for Fraser Valley East, to keep within the confines of relevancy with regard to this motion.


An hon. Member:: He wouldn't know how.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, with all deference to you I would say from reading the speeches which have already been delivered on this part of the bill that I am following closely what has been allowed. There are three main
reasons why we object to the bill. We have maintained from the very start that it would control production.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Is that so?


John (Jack) McIntosh: I should like to say to my NDP colleague that he feels pretty cocky tonight and I presume it is because of the Saskatchewan election. Let me tell him that they were wiped out of office in 1958 by the same people who have now put them in, and the people of Saskatchewan will do it again.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: By the Conservatives?


John (Jack) McIntosh: It could be by the Conservatives or by the Liberals.
Mr. Speaker, I said there are three main reasons why we object to this bill. We object because it will control production. We object because there will be no producer participation. Those who were members of the committee will say that this has been changed. It has been changed to the extent that while in the first place the appointees were all bureaucrats, the committee was successful in having 50 per cent of the appointees producer representatives. The minister was very wise to give in to the members of the committee in this manner because they swallowed it hook, line and sinker, including the members of the NDP, because once these representatives of the agricultural industry are on the board they will be there only at the pleasure of the minister. If the minister should not like any answer given by the representatives on the board he could at his pleasure take them off. To my mind that is not producer representation.
Only today, I believe, all members of the House of Commons received from the Atlantic Dairy Council a letter of protest about the action some bureaucrats take when they have supreme power over an industry. I do not think it is necessary to read all the letter but I should like to read part of it in order to explain what I mean by bureaucratic dictatorship. Part of the letter reads:
We strongly object, however, to the drafting of regulations under Bill C-180 which appear to serve the purposes of restricting and harassing industry and providing employment for bureaucrats, but which do not in any way relate to the best interests of consumers.
Up to now standards were set by the Food and Drug Directorate for such foods as ice cream. The consumer was amply protected and secure in the knowledge that ice cream was being tested by food and drug inspectors to make certain that the product met the standards. Now it appears that it will be necessary to list all the ingredients in descending order of proportion, in English and in French. It is even suggested that the net contents of the package will have to be stated either in cubic centimeters or millilitres, in some cases to two places of decimals.
This, of course, is a clear case of bureaucracy gone mad. The interests of Canadian consumers will not be served by this type of nonsensical, restrictive legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with that statement. The third main reason why we object to this bill is that there is no opportunity for any branch of the agricultural industry to opt into any marketing scheme or to opt out if they so want. As I said, we have nothing against marketing boards so long as they are intended to assist the industry, so long as there is no compulsion and no control of production.

June 29, 1971

I believe that any branch of the industry, whether it be people producing honey, people producing fruit or any other agricultural commodity, should have the opportunity, if they feel it is in their best interest, to place their industry under the marketing bill. Once they are in and they find it works to their disadvantage, they should by plebiscite of the producers be allowed to opt out. This is different from the provinces opting in or out. If there is to be marketing legislation, it should be nationwide- but producers should be given the choice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Speak on the amendment.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am on the amendment. In order that the provinces understand this bill, the minister said he made many trips across the country and had many meetings with the provincial ministers of agriculture.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: People do not believe him any more.


John (Jack) McIntosh: It would seem to me, from the statement made by the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, that the minister did not correct his misunderstanding of the bill because the Quebec Minister of Agriculture made the following statement to the committee: If you are going to sell in Quebec, you will produce or offer for sale according to Quebec dictates.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is what he said in Quebec City.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The minister rose in the House on a number of occasions and at meetings in western Canada and said: You people do not have to fear. There is no production control in this bill in any shape or form. This is what he said when we challenged Bill C-197 which was the forerunner of Bill C-176. Either the minister has misinformed the provincial ministers of agriculture or he has misinformed the people of Canada. It is up to the minister to decide.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He has misled both.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I ask the minister whether in the light of subsequent events he has in any way changed the view which he expressed in the House as recorded at page 7002 of Hansard:
There may be some opposition to this bill from across the way, but this does not in my view constitute sustained opposition from the producers of this country, and it is in their interest that I am bringing this measure forward.
I ask the minister whether he has in any way changed his views since he made that statement. I would also ask: Does he believe that this bill is still in the best interests of the farmers, of the livestock producers?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I suspect that the House wishes to have a fairly wide-ranging debate tonight. But the Chair has a responsibility, as I pointed out previously, to suggest to hon. members that there are Standing Orders and precedents which indicate that we should deal with the particular motions before the House. I know the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
(Mr. McIntosh) is attempting to keep his remarks relevant, but I suggest that he might be ranging a bit far. I ask him to come back to the matter at hand.


John (Jack) McIntosh: In view of your remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will relate the rest of my remarks to the statements that were made by the three speakers from this party when the bill was before the House on April 27 and 28. But before doing so I should like to ask the minister how sincere he is now in regard to the promise that he gave the livestock producers. At that time three of our members rose in the House and put forward the policy of our party to the people of Canada. They were the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth), the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey).
The hon. member for Kent-Essex told the House that the bill is based on the fact that all agricultural products in all areas of Canada should be covered in a national marketing scheme. He said he is concerned about the provision in the bill making it possible for the government to delegate provincial authority to national marketing agencies and the federal authority. He said it is expected that the two working together in harmony will bring about the hoped for adjustments. But the provincial authority is delegated only by negotiation and the provinces can opt out of the measure entirely or on a commodity by commodity basis. He said that the second major weakness of the bill is that there is no import control in the legislation. He said much more, but finally he said that if the primary producers find this act detrimental to their industry, there is no provision for a plebiscite or for any similar approach so that such an agency could be disbanded.
Many people are deeply concerned about what is happening to this country of ours. This situation was referred to in the speech of the hon. member for Crowfoot on April 27 or 28. He said that many people are deeply concerned about the direction in which we appear to be heading by the introduction of legislation such as contained in Bill C-176. In fact, the manager of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Mr. C. Gracey, asked the following question:
Has democracy temporarily vanished from Canada or, if not, how does this participatory democracy work?
Also, the editor of "Cattlemen" magazine, which is widely read in western Canada, said that if Bill C-176 is passed in its present form it will result in financial disaster for Canadian cattle producers and will prove participatory democracy to be the greatest hoax ever foisted upon us.
Reaction of the Canadian public after the introduction of the white paper on tax reform would seem to indicate that the people were going to be given an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process in respect of tax reform. We were deluded into believing that this type of action was participatory democracy, in the same way that the ranchers and the cattlemen were led to believe that if they got to the minister and obtained a promise from him, they could participate in any legislation governing their industry.
7478

June 29, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


An hon. Member:: Who are they?


John (Jack) McIntosh: They are part of the agricultural industry, if you fellows from the east do not understand. These people were badly fooled, and they know it. The executive of the Cattlemen's Association-the people affected by this bill in western Canada-informed the government that they were unanimously opposed to the inclusion of livestock in the bill. They were then given the assurance by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), both verbally and in writing, that cattle and calves would be excluded from the bill. But what has happened under this participatory democracy? The minister has reneged on his promise. It is the intended order of the government that cattle and calves be subject to the conditions of the bill. I am sorry that we are not on clause 2 because I would have more to say on this issue. Is it any wonder that the cattlemen are now asking:	What does participatory
democracy mean?
My colleague, the hon. member for Crowfoot, asked in his speech as recorded in Hansard at page 5294, on April 27: Where did the concept of this bill originate and why is the legislation being brought down now? The hon. member contends that a review of the Minister's statements during the past several years contains the answer. He referred to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he addressed the Liberal party in 1963. He is reported to have said the following:
Power Is what they are interested in. The only kick allowed is that which comes from a donkey.
I wonder if the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) and the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) felt that kick.
Say anything you like but put us in power because we are best suited to govern.
The hon. member for Crowfoot further supported his contention that the original concept of this bill was in the Prime Minister's mind when he spoke in Winnipeg on June 2, 1968. I quote the hon. member for Crowfoot as follows:
One can clearly see that as early as June 2, 1968, the government was fully prepared to bring in legislation such as Bill C-176, or C-197, as it was called in the first instance.
The hon. member for Battle River also contends that the thought behind the bill originated with the Prime Minister. He contends that the bill was not proposed by anyone with an agricultural background. He had some unkind but descriptive words to say about the Prime Minister and his speech of June 2, 1968, which he quoted in part as follows:
In order to meet the difficulties of divided jurisdiction in the area of marketing of agricultural products the government would undertake to raise for discussion with the provinces the possibility of providing over-all authority for the marketing of agricultural products as a federal responsibility.
He want on further to say-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must do so to advise him that his time has expired.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course, the hon. member may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I object to the hon. member continuing his statement, because he never attended any meeting of the Committee on Agriculture.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, all last evening I wondered why the government, and particularly the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), were so anxious and determined to reserve time in the dying hours of this part of the session to debate the very controversial legislation contained in Bill C-176. Apparently the government went as far as to sweep aside the Judges Act, for which apparently there was agreement that it be proceeded with tonight. Apparently Bill C-176 is such a high priority item that they were prepared to push aside an earlier agreement with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and allow his bill to languish.
In view of the huge number of amendments to be considered, the Minister of Agriculture can scarcely expect the legislation to be put through this evening, particularly because of the heat the bill has created among some agricultural groups in Canada, notably the cowboys. It would appear that there are rather large political stakes being played with this bill. Since yesterday's Supreme Court decision, poultry and egg producers now face a very serious crisis because of the declared illegality of import orders assumed by at least four provinces.
I have said that I wondered why the government sought to debate Bill C-176 this evening, and I still do not know unless it is to give the illusion of action, to indicate to the general public that the government has not forgotten the bill entirely. The whole purpose behind the bill was a government attempt to avoid a constitutional confrontation over the free-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think it is incumbent on the Chair to remind the hon. member, as I reminded the hon. member for Fraser Valley East and the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, that we should confine debate to the motions before the House. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised this point, and I agree with him. If hon. members do not want to do this, the Chair cannot enforce it. But I ask the hon. member, as I asked the two hon. members who preceded him, to observe the Standing Orders of the House applicable at report stage and deal with the motions before us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 29, 1971


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the advice offered by the Chair. I can only say that since amendment No. 1, with which we are currently dealing, and two others before us cover such a wide range of topics, including the exclusion of virtually every agricultural commodity from the aegis of the bill, and in view of the wide-ranging debate indulged in by the two previous speakers, I believe some latitude is possible. But I will attempt to follow your instructions and deal as closely as I can with the motion before us.
By the passage of this bill the government had hoped to avoid doing what Manitoba did, challenge the validity of provincial import orders in the Supreme Court. The federal government took what I think is regarded as the easy way out to avoid the political flack likely to come from extremely sensitive states righters in certain provinces. But it seems to me, in considering this motion tonight, that whatever the government's motives were, they are not really relevant at this point. The Supreme Court of Canada has reasserted the proposition that freely-moving provincial trade is the price of our confederation and has done what our federal government has been reluctant to assert. I think, however, that I should remind hon. members that even with the passage of this bill as it stands, or as amended, our problems will still be a long way from being over.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of my remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Crowfoot asked whether the hon. member would permit a question. Of course, this is up to the hon. member who has the floor.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) is a personal friend of mine, but I have only 20 minutes in which to make my remarks. Therefore I would be very pleased, if there is any time at the conclusion, to answer any question the hon. member would care to put to me.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is acceptable to me.


Mark Willson Rose: There seems to be some impression, perhaps emanating from the government benches, that Bill C-176 is going to solve forever most or all of the problems facing Canadian agriculture. This is far from being the case. On May 10 I directed the following question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), as recorded at page 5636 of Hansard:
The Prime Minister has suggested to us that the passage of Bill C-176 might avoid certain constitutional problems in regard to import orders and free trade across Canada, and hopefully it will. But does the Prime Minister not agree that should some provinces or any province decide to opt out of the bill the government will still face the constitutional problem if the province that opts out insists in shipping its product into the common market area?
After a while the Prime Minister replied:
-am inclined to agree that there will be difficulties even after Bill C-176 has been adopted if we do not get the co-operation of
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
the provinces in the implementation thereof. However, this is not new.
He went on to talk about the Rowell-Sirois commission and added:
Now, after some 30 years, the federal government has come up with a bill that tries to solve the problem by way of co-operation with the provinces and I am rather distressed that the opposition will not even permit us to try that course.
This is extremely serious, Mr. Speaker. We have now to rationalize both the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada along with the Prime Minister's suggestion that if one or more provinces decide to opt out of the marketing agencies, then that province or provinces could continue to assert their provincial rights under section 91 of the BNA Act and ship products into the regulated marketing area and thus threaten the whole business of Bill C-176 with collapse.
I repeat, it is a very serious thing we are facing. We are a long way from being out of the woods, and the possibility of some provinces opting out and others losing traditional Canadian markets is a terrifying prospect. Members of the agricultural committee have worked very hard on this bill for months and have made two coast to coast tours in order to get it to the present stage. After spending all this time and trouble studying hundreds of briefs, it is presumed that even the dullest among us have gathered some impressions and learned something about it.
I have the distinct impression that it is the fear of Prairie Canada that, subsidized by the feed freight assistance act, the central and Maritime provinces will move to self-sufficiency as quickly as possible in at least eggs, poultry, hogs and possibly beef to serve the adjacent huge centres of population of Toronto and Montreal. As a result, the better comparative cost areas of the west which produce this grain would be rapidly frozen out of their traditional markets. This is behind a good deal of the opposition to this bill. This is the fear and concern. The feeling in Prairie Canada might be expressed in a sentence.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair feels it should be fair in this matter. I interrupted the hon. member for Fraser Valley East and the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek twice. I think, with respect, that they were both out of order and I believe the hon member who now has the floor is equally out of order! Therefore it would be only fair that I interrupt him twice and ask him respectfully to come back to order. The other two hon. members did not come back to order, but I would ask the hon. member for Fraser Valley West to do so. We must obey the Standing Orders and rules of the House.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I know that some of us have tried your patience this evening, but what we are attempting to do in dealing with this amendment is put forward some of the arguments as to why there has been a certain regional reluctance to embrace the whole con-
June 29, 1971

Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
cept of Bill C-176. I do not have any problems with it, personally, because the people in my riding are very anxious to have the bill passed. We want it passed quickly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: But the case of British Columbia is a unique one. I was attempting to say that since amendment No. 1 covered a variety of topics, the feeling in Prairie Canada might be put in a sentence: You fellows do what you have done traditionally-manufacture your products behind a protective tariff, and we will buy them-but for God's sake don't also move, with the help of our grain and your integrators, into the thing we do best or we will have nothing left.
The same sentiments of fear were behind the Manitoba brief and relected in an amendment put forward by our party to the effect that under any system of market sharing, quotas be established on the basis of the previous five years of production. This is necessary in order that the Johnny-come-latelys not be favoured. It is important, then, that at least half the growth in consumption in central Canada, where the people live and where the markets are, be awarded and guaranteed to the traditional producers from outside Ontario and Quebec.
If we are to understand the legislation and the amendments put forward by this party and the one we are dealing with by the hon. member for Crowfoot-and I think it is important to understand this if these fears and concerns are ignored we can expect further depopulation of the Prairies, hence lack of political clout in this House and a pronounced feeling of alienation is certain to develop which will be reflected in more expressions of rural dissatisfaction as was the case in Saskatchewan last Wednesday.
I know the government is extremely sensitive and irritated over the lack of progress with Bill C-176, Mr. Speaker, and in many ways I do not blame them. But the committee received for consideration a rotten bill. It took months for us in the opposition to put it into a shape in which we could support it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark Willson Rose: To their credit, the Minister of Agriculture and his officials were quite receptive to the many amendments brought forward by the opposition and government members on that committee. Perhaps the minister sensed that Bill C-176 was initially a very ragged piece of legislation. Certainly it ignored many crucial aspects of producer concern. For example, originally there was no explicit confirmation of majority of producer representation on the council and agencies. There is now, Mr. Speaker. Originally, there was no provision for the majority of producers to approve the establishment of an agency before one became a fact. There is now, Mr. Speaker, although the term that the Governor in Council must be "statisfied" of that majority is a trifle ambiguous and woolly for some tastes.
What remains silent in the bill is reflected in the three NDP amendments dealing with market sharing
quota growth, control of agricultural imports and right of appeal by aggrieved producers against an agency. It is fair to say, I think, that without the efforts of the opposition parties Bin C-176, despite its shortcomings, would not be nearly as satisfactory an instrument as it is.
On may 10 and again yesterday in reply to my questions, first the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and yesterday the Minister of Agriculture blamed the opposition for impeding progress of this legislation through the House. I think that both these hon. gentlemen should make it crystal clear-in the words of the president of our friendly neighbour to the south-that no member of the opposition party for which I speak has delayed its passage at any time. I invite the government to cite any instance where this was so.
My colleagues and I voted for this bill in committee because we are concerned about Canada's crisis in agriculture. We sincerely believe that the alternative to orderly marketing is a return to the law of the jungle which has persisted in Canadian agriculture for a century. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, why the farmer, alone among all classes of Canadian workers, remains unprotected and a willing victim of the vicissitudes and vagaries-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I indicated to the hon. member for Fraser Valley West that, with reluctance, I interrupted him twice. While I recognize that the two speakers who proceeded him were out of order at times during their speeches, I think it was fair to interrupt him twice. He has now the prize-I have interrupted him three times. The hon. member has been very far from observing our rules and Standing Orders. I plead with him to bring his remarks within the area of relevancy.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your patience. To direct my remarks dead-on and precisely to the amendment-and the amendment is extremely tantalizing-what amendment No. 1 suggests in total is the removal of all commodities from the legislation.


An hon. Member:: No chickens?


Mark Willson Rose: By taking everything out, of course, it can upset no one. But then no one is served either by the legislation. I cannot in all conscience support this, because if everything is removed from the bill what commodity is to be served by the bill? I am concerned about this particular amendment and a couple of others, Mr. Speaker.
This whole concept of national marketing legislation has been called for by the Federation of Agriculture, the National Farmers' Union and our party for years. Regardless of our opposition over amendment No. 1, we have no difficulty in supporting the concept of orderly marketing on a national scale. We have no difficulty in supporting the concept of national marketing legislation, but do not deny us the opportunity of attempting to improve it. Why should we stand up and cheer in this House a bill to deal with national

June 29, 1971

marketing legislation if that bill contains obvious inadequacies? How can we cheer?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: This may sound good to you, Mr. Speaker: I am coming to a close-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mark Willson Rose: -with reluctance, I might add. I have no difficulty in supporting the bill and I have no difficulty in opposing the amendment. I represent people who are largely poultry and egg producers who want the legislation and need it badly. I have received constant pressure from producers in my riding to get on and pass the bill so that somehow some order can come out of the chaos evident in the agricultural marketing situation.
Although B.C. producers had to accept the protection of import orders, they were not enamoured of them. Why should those in the chicken business be asked to pay the price of confederation by risking their operation and any future economic success in cutting the prices of the products they produce in the province, when British Columbia lawyers, doctors and teachers enjoy better provincial protection? It is because producers in my area envisage a lengthy debate on this bill that they have called for a separate bill dealing only with chickens and eggs. Such a bill would allow the government to do something in the period between now and the resumption of the session next fall.


Mr. McBride:: Let's pass the bill.


Mark Willson Rose: A separate bill for chickens and eggs, in my opinion, would not be the best thing to do in the long run, but it certainly would be in the short run and I think most of my constituents would support the idea. I repeat, the bill has major imperfections but I do not think the three amendments we have before us tonight necessarily improve the bill. Confederation in this country is a costly thing. Most Canadians believe it is worth the price.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I do so to advise him that his time has expired.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the speeches made this evening with a good deal of interest. The last speaker, particularly, I thought in many ways showed a great deal of common sense. He put the policy of his party right on the line. They are for this bill even though they feel there may be some imperfections in it. I gather that the Creditistes are for the bill. The government party supports the bill. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, let us call a spade a spade and let the people of Canada know who is against this bill. It is the official opposition, and nobody else.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: That is true, Mr. Speaker. If they are not against it, let them stand up and say so now. Let my Ontario colleagues representing farming constituencies stand up and say that they represent the farmers of Ontario and that they want to pass the bill.


Murray Arndell McBride: They are not willing to do that.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Let them have the courage to stand up and say that they will allow passage of Bill C-176. Let my Conservative friend from the great province of Quebec stand up and say that he will represent Quebec by supporting this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, it has been said by some people to my left-


An hon. Member:: You don't know what you are talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Murray Arndell McBride: Some hon. members are afraid of the truth.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, in my political life I have been insulted by experts. I do not regard these crows to my left as experts by any means. As my hon. friend who spoke a moment ago said, the amendments before the House, or motions that have been moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner and seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh), really take the guts out of the whole bill because they would eliminate from the bill all animals, meats, eggs, poultry, wool, maple products, honey and other nutritional products.
These amendments mean that the mover and seconder of the motions are not just against certain sections of the bill; they are against Bill C-176 in total-and don't let anybody think otherwise in this House. Let me remind hon. members, as the hon. member who preceded me said, that the main agricultural organizations of Canada, including the National Farmers' Union and the Federation of Agriculture have been asking for national marketing legislation for many years. It has been said that this bill has imperfections. I hear my hon. friend muttering. I would like to hear what he has to say. He mutters but never speaks. I would be glad to hear him say what the imperfections are. At least this bill will give the agricultural industry of Canada an opportunity to have national marketing legislation covering it, legislation that has been backed by farm organizations in Canada for many years.


An hon. Member:: I thought the hon. member supported free enterprise.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: My hon. friends say that the legislation is compulsory. My hon. friend for Swift Current-Maple Creek, whom I greatly admire, suggests that the cattle industry in the riding he so proudly represents will be done away with through passage of this bill and that

June 29, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
catastrophe will befall that industry. Why does he say that, when every honest and conscientious member of this House knows that no cattleman in Canada is to be brought inside the provisions of the bill unless that is requested? That feature is not compulsory; there is no compulsion whatsoever. Actually, no product will be included unless substantial numbers of farmers involved in the raising it ask that it be included. This applies not only in Quebec, not just in Ontario, not just in the west but all over Canada.
Let me remind hon. members that for the first time since 1867 we have a bill that is 100 per cent producer-oriented.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that before this bill can become more effective, before any councils can be set up or any agencies appointed, it must be ascertained-and this is in the bill-that over 50 per cent of the members are bona fide farmers.


An hon. Member:: Is that in the bill?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Yes, it is in the bill.


Murray Arndell McBride: Read the bill.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I am pleased to say that this provision was recommended by the opposition and accepted as a sensible recommendation by the government. We agree that the bill should be agriculturally oriented, that farmers should run it; and all we are asking for tonight is that we go a step forward and pass the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I say this most respectfully to my Conservative friends from western Canada. I know how the Ontario fellows stand. They may not stand up and say so. Nevertheless, I know that the agricultural producers, including the beef producers, hog producers, honey producers and producers of other agricultural products in Ontario and in Quebec, as well as in the eastern provinces, are for this bill. I also know that the only people who are against the bill-I respect their opinion; I see an hon. member looking at me who opposes the bill, and I respect his opinion-are certain hon. members from the west. Let us call a spade a spade. The people who are against this bill are western Tories.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Murray Arndell McBride: They don't want to hear the truth.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Murray Arndell McBride: They don't want to hear the truth.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I really do not need your help, but I appreciate it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: If these fellows think they are going to scare me, they are on the wrong side of the fence.


George Harris Hees: Come on, Ross.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, what a fine, Christian gentleman the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The thing is that he lost the last election and does not know it yet. The reason he is sitting to the left of Mr. Speaker is because his party lost.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Many years ago, Mr. Speaker, a great-


George Harris Hees: He seems to have lost a little of his steam.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: -world citizen, speaking-


George Harris Hees: Get him to tell us about the provincial Liberals in Ontario and Quebec.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings does not have many faults, but every time he opens his mouth he exaggerates the ones he has.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The hon. member may be all right asking questions of the government, but when it comes to a battle of wits with backbenchers he will lose every time.


George Harris Hees: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the hon. member to tell us how the provincial Liberals in Ontario and Quebec-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Harris Hees: Come on, tell us. I just want to hear, that's all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair has no difficulty ruling out the point of order raised by the hon. member.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I am not going to answer the hon. member. I could say that I don't know, or something like that, but I am not going to give him an answer.


George Harris Hees: I'll say you won't.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I will give you the answer which you sometimes get. I am going to give it in two ways. There are two answers to this question and they are both yes.


George Harris Hees: Let's have them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair is of the opinion that we are straying far from the
June 29, 1971

subject matter of this amendment. I ask the hon. member to as much as possible, relate his comments to the amendment before the House.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: My hon. friend has asked a very fair question. I would like to give a fair answer. It is not the Ontario Liberals who run Ontario at the present time; it is the Ontario Tories, and they are 100 per cent behind this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Has the hon. member any other silly questions he wants to ask? I have limited time, Mr. Speaker-


George Harris Hees: Thank God for that.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Some years ago a great citizen of the world-


George Harris Hees: Tell us what Bob Nixon says.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: -whose name was John Kennedy-


George Harris Hees: Forget about him. Tell us about Bob Nixon.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: -in his inaugural address to the citizens of the United States asked: What can you do for your country?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That was said by General Vanier, our former Governor General.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I ask my western Conservative friends to remember that they do not represent only the great provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba; I remind them that they represent the whole of Canada. In spite of the great wheat production in western Canada, the province of Ontario today, June 29, 1971, supplies one-third of the total agricultural products of the whole of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: We should not be ignored, Mr. Speaker. I ask my western Conservative friends to also remember the great province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I ask them to remember that there are hundreds of thousands of farmers in that province. I also ask them to remember that the greatest agricultural products in western Canada, wheat and grain, are not controlled under this bill.


George Harris Hees: Bud, you get up and tell us how Bob Nixon feels.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I would hate to hear how George Hees tells it, because he is away skiing every time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Bob Nixon has changed his mind. He is now for the bill.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I don't mind this. I just remember where it comes from. These fellows have been around here for a long time-many people say too long.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel) Order, please. It Is
difficult for the Chair to allow additional time for all the interruptions. I think we should let the hon. member complete his remarks as soon as possible.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: My western friends admit that this bill is being opposed by them, and them alone, for what they think are justifiable reasons. I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is not here tonight.


George Harris Hees: He could not stand this stuff.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I have a suspicion he could not stand you,
George.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: After all, Diefenbaker couldn't stand you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been talking to Pierre lately and I have some awfully bad news for you, Ross.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: That is a fine thing coming from a frontbencher.


George Harris Hees: Wait till the Prime Minister hears about your speech.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I do not pretend to be the greatest speaker in the world: obviously it is the member for Prince Edward-Hastings. When he is not talking himself, he is interrupting everybody else. I say to my western friends that it is not just the west that they represent in this instance. Your greatest profit is from wheat and grain, which is not included in this bill. I ask you to please think of the rest of Canada. I thought I saw the Leader of the Opposition sitting in the back, but he is not. I remind him that he should stand up for the agricultural industry in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I remind the Leader of the Opposition that there is only one man who is really opposing this bill. In my opinion, he is cutting the throat of western agriculture. He is the same man who tried to cut the throat of the Leader of the Opposition in Saskatoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: If he tried to cut his throat at a meeting in Saskatoon, the next meeting will be in Regina and the next in Edmonton.

June 29, 1971


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I know this motion is not debatable, but if I might speak to the point of order-
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Let the Leader of the Opposition stand up for Canadian agriculture in the east-Quebec and Ontario-as well as British Columbia, and let him stand up for his own area and for western Canada which we welcome under this national marketing bill. It will allow all farmers in Canada to sell all their products at equal prices in a fair way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it has been made clear by spokesmen for this group, including my hon. friend from Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) who spoke this evening, that we are opposed to the amendments now before the House and that we are in favour of the bill. However, it has become very clear that we are having an enjoyable evening which is going to get us nowhere. I therefore ask for the opportunity to rise in the course of this debate so that I may move a motion which I believe it is in order for me to make. My motion will be put forward under the terms of Standing Order 46, which reads as follows:
When a question is under debate, no motion is received unless it is to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; to continue or extend a sitting of the House; or for the adjournment of the House.
I had thought of moving under Standing Order 46, which I have just read, that we should proceed to another order on the orders of the day in the name of the government. However, this has been tried before and Standing Order 18 has been relied on to support the proposition that government orders should be called and considered in such sequence as the government determines. However, there is Standing Order 24 which provides:
A motion for reading orders of the day shall have preference over any motion before the House.
There are several members in my party prepared to second the motion I am about to make, but perhaps the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) would second it for me.


An hon. Member:: I am sure he will.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My motion is that orders of the day be now read so that we can get back to that point in our proceedings and the government itself can make a choice with respect to some order in which we might make better progress than we seem to be making tonight. I therefore move that the orders of the day be now read.
I do not see the Minister of Justice giving me the nod. If he does not do so, my hon. friend from Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) will second the motion but he will yield to the Minister of Justice if that is the hon. gentleman's wish.


Mr. Turner (Ollawa-Carlelon):: The Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is the acting leader of the House and the matter is in his hands.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not get
the floor on a point of order. I got the floor in the course of the debate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1 am speaking to the propriety of the motion, whether or not the motion can be put.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Perhaps before doing so the Chair should inform the House and, in particular, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that it has some reservations about putting the motion at this time and is inviting the opinions and views of hon. members on the matter before making a decision.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This takes me a little by surprise. In the many years I have been in this House I have never seen this manoeuvre or procedure attempted. I should like to draw attention to the fact that Standing Order 24 says a motion for reading orders of the day shall have precedence-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Preference. Such a motion shall have preference before any motion before the House. I submit that the orders of the day have been called. They were called earlier today. After that call is made, after the orders of the day have been read, it is in the hands of the leader of the House to indicate which of the orders shall be called. Under the arrangements to which the House has agreed for the two-hour period tonight, it is up to the leader of the House on behalf of the government to make that indication, and the order of the day which has been called is item No. 20 on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to the point of order. First, may I agree with the Minister of Agriculture that the government does have the right to decide in what sequence its orders shall be called. That is made clear under Standing Order 18(2). In other words, at any time when the orders of the day have been called from the chair, if it is government business the government has the right to pick the item.
I know that on occasions we have tried to move to proceed to another order and we have been denied that privilege on the basis of Standing Order 18(2). But I would point out that not only is there Standing Order 24, to which the minister has just referred, but that Standing Order 46 deals specifically with the stage at which we now find ourselves, that is, when a question is under debate. This is all we are doing, Sir. You called on me and gave me the floor. No motion is received unless it falls into one of several categories, and one which is received is a motion to read the orders of the day.


Some hon. Members:: Why?


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Preference."

June 29, 1971

I submit it is in order to read those orders of the day. It would not be my prerogative to say what order I think should be called; that would be in the hands of the government. But I hope that if this motion is accepted the government will pick some other item, rather than the one on which we are making so little progress thus far. It seems to me the making of the motion is in order. I was careful not to get the floor on a point of order. I waited until it was my turn to have the floor.


M. Ervin Pringle: You bulldozed your way in.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is well known that the House is master of its own procedure. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) should rise in the regular course of debate on Bill C-176 now before the House and seek to move the adjournment of the debate, the House could vote on the motion and then, if it chose to proceed with new business, the government could choose a new order. I would suggest item No. 75 on the order paper, Bill C-243. We would then be in a position to pass the Judges Act, which encompasses the whole question of the Auditor General.
We an our side have been vehement in our support of the Auditor General and we would have been glad to give passage to that bill even at this late stage in the session. I urge the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to move the adjournment of the debate on Bill C-176 in the hope that the government will proceed to order No. 75. Bill C-243 could pass this evening even if it were necessary for us to sit by agreement for an extra 20 minutes or half an hour in order to help the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Perhaps we might make an effort to help the Minister of Justice and the Auditor General by reverting to the debate on Bill C-243. In this way perhaps the House could wind up that item of government business. Then, after a difficult session, we could adopt a co-operative mood.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to express my personal opinion on this matter and bring to the attention of the House that we have undertaken consideration of Bill C-176 following many requests by opposition members, hoping that we would succeed in having it passed with the co-operation of all hon. members.
I believe that the tactics used by the opposition merely tend to delay the passing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I would like to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the point he is raising might lead to a debate and is not relevant to the motion before the House, which is the matter of acceptability.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill [English]


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could be allowed to draw something else to your attention. The motion moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was based on a Standing Order which has been in existence for many years and was not changed by the recent revision. I would refer Your Honour to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation No. 195, which I feel has some relevance and should be taken into consideration.
If Your Honour will look at that citation you will find that the hon. member's motion is in fact in order in that it relates to what is a substantive motion. We are not dealing with a nebulous amendment, because the motion of the hon. member is substantive. I would refer Your Honour to Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, citation No. 195 at page 165, which indicates what "privileged" means. It reads as follows:
Privileged motions which must not he mistaken for questions of privilege, deal with situations arising from the subject-matter of, or the debate on, the original question either in consequence or in anticipation of a vote or through the necessity of resorting to new proceedings.
The motion was moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in respect of what we consider a necessity to resort to new proceedings. It arises out of the debate on the original question because it became obvious during the course of the debate that we were not going to make any progress this evening on the original question. The citation thus reads:
They must be given the right of way when proposed during a debate.
This is important in terms of the urgings or propositions of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). The motion on privilege was proposed during the debate by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He rose in his place and caught the eye of Your Honour. This took place in the normal courts of the debate. The remaining part of the paragraph to which I have referred states:
They are divided into superseding motions and amendments.
There is then a classification or specification in respect of motions, the first in relation to superseding motions, which reads:
Superseding motions, though independent in form, are moved in the course of the debate on questions which they seek to set aside. They are divided into two classes, namely: dilatory motions; the previous question.
Dilatory motions are designed to dispose of the original question either for the time being or permanently.
The intention of the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was to dispose of the original question, the report stage of Bill C-176, for the time being in order that the government could proceed to some other item which we consider to be of importance and which probably would pass. Let me refer again to this reference to dilatory motions:
They are the following: "That consideration of the question be postponed to-(date)." "That the orders of the day be read."

June 29, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
If you follow citation No. 195 you will find that, contrary to the view of the Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is in order precisely because of this citation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair thanks hon. members for their learned comments on this point. In reference to the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the Chair agrees that if we follow Standing Order 24, it has priority, but that does not mean it is acceptable to the Chair. Standing Order 46 is more restrictive in that it specifies the manner which may be used from time to time to adjourn the debate on a specific matter. On the other hand, the Chair feels that the motion proposed at this time by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is more or less a nullity because it asks the House to proceed now to orders of the day. That is the position facing the House at this time.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has asked the Chair to consider citation No. 195 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition. The Chair has considered what is said at page 405 of May's seventeenth edition. The bottom paragraph of that page reads as follows:
The motion, "that the orders of the day be read," is obsolete as a substantive motion; though it survives in the form of an amendment, "That this House do pass to the orders of the day," moved upon a motion interposed before the ordinary business of the day, such as a privileged motion-
Having read this paragraph the Chair has no alternative other than to come to the decision that the motion cannot be acceptable at this time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Although I accept your ruling and I am happy about it, it has become obvious that we are not going to make any substantial progress in respect of Bill C-176 inasmuch as spokesmen of two parties have indicated they wish this debate adjourned and consideration moved to another item. If there is that agreement and we have unanimous consent, perhaps we might adjourn this item and call item No. 75 with the hope that we can complete that order of business tonight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair has heard the point of order raised by the minister. If his suggestion were put in the form of a motion it would not be acceptable because, as the minister has acknowledged, it requires the unanimous consent of the House. If there is unanimous consent we can move to another item.


Thomas Miller Bell: On behalf of our party, Mr. Speaker, I should like to state that we are in favour of moving on to the motion in respect of the Judges Act. We feel that the acting House leader should stand up like a man and make a proper motion. If he does, I am sure he will have the consent of the House and we will try to accommodate his wishes.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner):
That this debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Howard (Skeena) .1


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair has already informed the minister that it is not possible for him to seek the floor on a point of order for the purpose of moving a motion. There is no other alternative but for the Chair to let the House pursue the debate on the motion before us at this time.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, since the debate on Bill C-176 is resuming its normal course, we will be able to get a little peace and order, since I am not given to flights of eloquence.
When the debate was interrupted by points of order, Mr. Speaker, we were discussing amendments-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very specific point of order in respect of which I wish the attention of the whole House. If you should rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, I will accept your ruling. However, we on this side of the House have been accused-


An hon. member:: Not your side; you alone.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I hear catcalls but I cannot hear them clearly. I have been out of the House for the past half hour because of personal business. During that time I understand certain remarks were made concerning myself. However, my point of order deals with the subject matter of Bill C-176 which is now before this House. We on this side have been accused of holding it up. We have put up just one speaker tonight and the government has already had two speakers. Now, Sir, in your august position you have recognized a third member from the government side. Only 15 minutes of debating time remain. If we are to be accused of holding up this legislation, I would move now that this House hear the hon. member for Permbina (Mr. Bigg) so that our case may be put clearly and unequivocally.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member knows he cannot seek the floor for the purpose of putting a motion. On the other point, I suggest that the hon. member is unfair to the Chair when he implies that the Chair might be involved in this debate. The Chair feels it acts on its own prerogative in recognizing Members of Parliament to speak. It is not always easy to go from one side of the Chamber to the other. Generally, however, the Chair tries to be as just as possible. With regard to the other complaint of the hon. member, the Chair can only look at it as a grievance and no more, because it is very difficult when hon. members seek the floor for the purpose of contesting points of order that have been made by other members of the House.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I lead off by offering an apology to the Chair because in no way did I want to place the Chair in a difficult
June 29, 1971

position. During my long years in this House of Commons I have always had deep respect for the Chair. I appreciate the difficult position the Chair is in in maintaining decorum in the House of Commons. I apologize to you, Sir, if I may have in any way imputed motives in respect of your decision to recognize a third member on the government side in this debate on the last day for legislation before the summer recess. However, I could not help but rise because the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whic-her made a speech in which he castigated me as the villain of all villains who argued that this bill should be held up. I urge-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -that the House hear the hon. member for Pembina at this time so that we might make our position clear, because of the charges laid by the hon. member for Bruce and the fact that we have put up only one speaker in the last two hours of this debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair is grateful for the remarks of the hon. member. The floor had been given by the Chair to the hon. member for Lac-St. Jean (Mr. Lessard). I do not know how long he will take, but perhaps there will be an opportunity for the hon. member for Pembina to speak afterwards.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I have been on my feet continually tonight seeking my turn. I appreciate the political expediency of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in getting to his feet to move a phony motion. He did not have the floor by right because he knew that one of his own speakers had just resumed his seat.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the Chair feels the hon. member should not impute motives to hon. members of the House. I think the best way to proceed would be to permit the hon. member who had the floor to make his remarks, and then there might be a possibility of correcting the situation.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I hasten to withdraw any imputation of motive in respect of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In any event, his action was very effective in preventing my having an opportunity to speak for my party in defence of our policy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I thank the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg) for withdrawing the accusation of any false motive but I think he should also withdraw his suggestion that I did not have the floor as of right.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You did not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Chair gave me the floor and any criticism in this respect would be against the Chair and should not be allowed.
24171-54}
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: -has heard me say I do not impute any motives, but I merely draw attention to the fact that it is a very effective move. As a senior member of this House, he well knew the opportunity he had to step up and have a third opportunity to speak before this party had a chance to have its say.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder in view of what has happened in the last few minutes if you might ask for unanimous consent to adjourn this debate. I knew I had already participated in this matter and therefore could not have the floor to move the motion. That is why I make this request. If there should be disposition on the part of hon. members to do so, it seems to me we might adjourn this debate and go on.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, not now. We gave you your chance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. There is not agreement. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard).


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure my friends on the other side that I shall not take too long, and that I shall give the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg) an opportunity to make his point. To this end and so that all members may have enough time to consider Bill C-176 and have it sent to the Senate, I move under Standing Order 6(5)(a):
That this sitting be extended beyond the normal hour of adjournment so as to carry on with consideration of Bill C-176 until midnight, or until it has been disposed of.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members
have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. Before putting the motion to the House, the Chair feels that it should inform hon. members of the procedure on this kind of motion. After it is put, the Chair will ask hon. members who oppose the motion to rise in their place and if ten members or more stand up, automatically the motion is withdrawn; otherwise it is accepted.
All those opposed to the motion will please rise.
And more than ten members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The motion is withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker,-

June 29, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Chair must point out to the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean that the mere fact of having proposed the motion has automatically made him lose his right to speak.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, it is a long time since Bill C-197 was introduced in this House. It is now back here in thinly disguised form as Bill C-176. We have heard tonight that it is by unanimous consent of the provinces and all farmers that this bill is before the House. However, many persons have been sending me mountains of letters telling me that if I allow the bill to pass, I am unfit to be a Member of Parliament-strange words from farmers of this country.
I am consistent in my attitude to farming. I consider myself a friend of farmers and I consider that Bill C-197 as introduced to this House by a western Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) was unworthy of the House and unworthy of agriculture, western or any other type. It meant no less than the complete socialization of agriculture in this great democracy of ours. If it was so perfect, why did Liberal members, including the Minister of Agriculture, offer amendments to the bill when it was introduced in the House?
The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), who provides noise rather than logic, stood in his place and said, "You are here to represent all of Canada". That is exactly what I am doing. The most recent word we had on this matter was from no less than the Supreme Court of Canada which has upheld the Constitution of Canada. I say that Bill C-176 does no less than try to take in through the back door what cannot be done through the front door. You cannot get unanimity from our Premiers for certain things in Canada, and this applies to agriculture as well.
I will talk out this bill unless it is altered to suit the people I represent. I have had orders in no uncertain terms from the people I represent, who say that if I allow Bill C-176 to pass in its present form they do not want to see me down here any more. I will oppose the bill unless it is amended considerably.
Since my time is short I will tell you that the very important amendment before the House at present purports to do exactly that which the Supreme Court of Canada has already said is in fact the law of Canada, that is, to make sure that we do not balkanize Canada. If we are to make the national marketing scheme work- and I believe in national marketing which represents the views of the producers of Canada-we must have the support not only of Members of Parliament and farm unions but also of farmers who raise cattle or chickens.
We must have a statesmanlike approach to the amendment before the House, which purports to do nothing more than enshrine in this act, in plain and simple language which everybody can understand, the concept that no agricultural products will be permitted free access to the markets of Canada through the back door which cannot be brought in through the front door. If the government wants to do this, let them do it in the proper

place. If they want to amend the BNA Act, let them do so in the proper place. They should not try to do it through Bin C-176.
The minister made promises to the western cattlemen. If he has unanimity in his own party, why do they not stand behind him? If the Liberal party trusts him to administer the bill, why do they not back up the amendments which he brought before the Standing Committee on Agriculture? I venture to say that wherever the parliamentary system works, a minister is obliged to resign when he does not have the support of his government members or of his own party.
To say that the official opposition is holding up the bill is nonsense. It is the Liberal party alone which refuses to make this bill palatable to the farmers of western Canada. Cheap and sly remarks to try to divide us and to win an election this fall by bringing in Bill C-176 at this late date, and then trying to hang it round the neck of the official opposition, is chicanery of the highest order. The people of my constituency sent me down here to try to make the marketing legislation work. When we put out a pamphlet, everybody could have had a copy. It stated four main points. One of them has already been incorporated in the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being ten o'clock, I must interrupt the proceedings.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether either the House or the House leaders of the various parties might make some arrangement whereby a bill, which I understand has a measure of approval of the House subject to remarks that hon. members may want to make-I speak of Bill C-243, the Judges Act-might obtain a hearing.
What the debate proves this evening is that there are many more farmers in this country than judges. This bill has as one of its prime purposes to supplement the provincial legislation from six provinces, calling for 26 new openings in the courts of appeal, the superior courts and the county courts of Ontario, Quebec, B.C., Alberta, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. These new openings cannot be filled until the House authorizes the payment of salaries and the appointment of judges. The provinces, through their Attorneys General and their legislatures, have felt that the business of the courts needs these extra appointments and that the administration of justice would be better served.


Thomas Miller Bell: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, this evening we indicated that we were in favour of moving the Judges Act along and passing it during this part of the session. However, we have had a pretty rough evening. In fact, many of us think it has been a wasted evening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: Although we know that tomorrow we will again be on the budget and we do not want to give up our rights, I suggest that the acting House leader contin-
June 29, 1971

ue negotiations in the morning, when I am sure there will be a good mood that will enable us to move, with unanimous consent, right through the Judges Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since some suggestion has been made about unanimous consent, I would not want silence at this point to mean anything other than a willingness to continue the consultations. In fact, if our advice had been taken earlier we would not have had such a mess tonight.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-9, an act to amend the Copyright Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not understand what transpired. Did we turn down
discussion of the Judges Act at this time?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The
Standing Orders do not provide for the raising of points of order once we have reached the adjournment debate. In any case, it was evident that there was no unanimous consent to the proposal.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) if in view of the shortage of doctors in Canada any consideration was being given to taking exceptional PhDs and putting them on an accelerated two-year course in order to graduate them as doctors, as the University of Miami is now doing. I was speaking particularly of the GP ratio. The minister has acknowledged this on several occasions when he referred to the difficulty of getting an appointment with a doctor, of waiting many months and in some cases referring to the inability to get a doctor at all because many doctors are overworked to the point where the sign is put out "No new patients."
The minister also made reference to the fact that it might even be easier to get a specialist than a general practitioner in some areas. The minister recognized this on many occasions, particularly with his statement that he was prepared to work with the provinces in an effort to increase medical and paramedical manpower by either
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
shortening the term or some other method. This underlines the fact that we are short of physicians.
In an address that he delivered in Hamilton, the minister stated that only 300 out of every 1,000 people who are sick get to see a physician at all, and of the 300 only ten go a modern hospital with teaching facilities. I have read the minister's speeches. He has referred to the elite specialists in staffing hospitals who are not involved enough in the general care of the Canadian public. This has to be guarded against in any establishment, and doctors are just ordinary people, or else they should be cast in the role of helping by research and knowledge, curing where possible and comforting in all cases. I admit that sometimes those good intentions get lost in the communications field.
Dr. Sawyer, general secretary of the OMA, has stated, that "there is a great shortage of general practitioners and specialists, with the exception of surgery." The CMA has stated that "there is a very real shortage as more and more doctors work for government, industry, medical education and research." I would, in passing, refer to the fact that the deputy minister of health was Dean of the medical school at Sherbrooke. He is a graduate of the Mayo Clinic, an outstanding place for medical graduates, and now he is serving in the administration field.


An hon. Member:: Is that a shame?


Philip Bernard Rynard: No, it is not. Without immigrant doctors today we would be stuck and medical care would become a shambles. But even at that, immigrant doctors have not kept pace with the natural attrition of medical manpower due to death, retirement and emigration.
Canada has been saved from a disastrous shortage of physicians by immigration. For example, in one year immigration provided 600 doctors and in that year we graduated only 850. How long are we going to do this? Not only are we asking other countries less able, financially, in nearly every instance to provide us with doctors, but are we going to have a Canadian-oriented physician or not? No matter how good the immigrant physician is, he still has the handicap of adaptation.
I think I have indicated the unanimity of agreement that we are very short of doctors, particularly general practitioners. In many cases people are paying for services they cannot receive. The government that brought in medicare, as indicated by the Hall commission, must provide the doctors. That is the federal government, Mr. Speaker.
I made the statement that Canada was not one of the better countries in physician-patient ratio and I will now give the figures which were provided by the United Nations for 1967-68. I will start with Canada because it has the worst ratio of any country. Canada, 890 per capita; United States, 650 per capita; England and Wales, 860 per capita; Northern Ireland, 780 per capita; Scotland, 780 per capita; Sweden, 850 per capita; West Germany, 650 per capita and U.S.S.R., 430 per capita.
I sincerely hope that the minister will now grasp fully the significance of our position, namely, that we are very

June 29, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
short of physicians, particularly general practitioners. We would be in a real jam if doctors educated at the expense of poorer countries were to stop coming here. Is it fair to do this without compensation? Do we want a Canadian-oriented profession or do we not? I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will take a good look at what I have said tonight.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak this evening in reply to the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard). The hon. member is generally to be complimented on the tricky questions he asks in the House and he deserves a vote of thanks for giving the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) warning of his question. On this occasion, however, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was carried away in his enthusiasm to make the headlines and he failed to get his facts straight.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I have them here.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: But I have the answer. I quote from the
hon. member's question:
In light of the fact that Canada is experiencing a drastic shortage of qualified physicians and has a much higher patient-doctor ratio than the United States-
This, Mr. Speaker, is the premise that the Minister of National Health and Welfare could not agree to and which prompted my misguided friend to accuse the minister of making a statement that is completely incorrect.


Philip Bernard Rynard: It is according to the World Health Organization.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Well, Mr. Speaker, here are the facts: when the Minister of National Health and Welfare stated that Canada's doctor-patient ratio was one of the best in the world, he was correct.


Philip Bernard Rynard: That is not right.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: 
Philip Bernard Rynard: How about the OMA and the CMA? What have those bodies said?


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: That is not the question. Perhaps next time-I am sorry to say this-the hon. member will get
his facts straight and stop publicity seeking with such irresponsible statements.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The minister himself admitted what has been alleged.



AGRICULTURE-DISCONTINUANCE OF DEFICIENCY PAYMENT TO WOOL PRODUCERS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I raised this matter for debate at this time because I have not been able to secure any satisfactory explanation as to why the government has decided to discontinue the wool deficiency payment program. This comes at a time when wool prices are at their lowest levels in 20 years. Shearing and labour costs are up; freight rates have increased by 20 per cent. The cost of moving wool from the farm to the warehouse has doubled. Farm prices for wool at present are barely paying the costs of shearing and transportation.
On May 4 of this year representatives of the sheep and wool industry of Canada presented a brief to the government. I am sure the minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is very familiar with the contents of that brief. I want to point out to him three of the reasons which they advanced for reinstating the wool deficiency payment program. They point out, first of all, that this program would provide lamp producers with an economic climate equal to that of the beef producers.
They point out, quite properly, that the beef producers in this country are protected against imports of beef from Australia and New Zealand on the basis of some three cents per pound, as compared with only one half of one cent per pound being provided with respect to lamb. They point out that the wool deficiency payment program helps to equalize the competitive position of producers of wool with that of other segments of the textile industry. They point out that man-made fibres enjoy a protection by way of duty of some 10 per cent ad valorum. Wool has no such protection.
The minister said on June 25, when I asked him a question about this, matter, that there was very little wool processing in Canada. There will not be unless there can be some guaranteed supply. The only way you will get a guaranteed supply is if the producers know that they will get a price that is somewhat close to the cost of production, plus providing a decent standard of living.
The third reason put forward by the wool producers is that the wool deficiency payment program helps to make Canadian sheep producers more competitive with the subsidized United States producers of wool and meat. They point out that the American producer enjoys an assured average of 72 cents per pound for wool. Without any deficiency payment, the Canadian producers will get 15 cents. That is a difference of 57 cents a pound. They point out that on the basis of ten pounds of wool being produced per ewe, annually, this represents $5.70. On the basis that a ewe will last eight years, the sum is $45.60. It is to that extent that the Canadian sheep producer is at a disadvantage compared with his counterpart in the United States.

June 29, 1971

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that an even more important question lor the minister to consider is this. If the government is going to drop, as it has indicated it intends to do, the wool deficiency payment program, what does it propose to do to assure the survival of the Canadian wool producing industry? In my constituency there are scores of small farmers who raise sheep. They are on land that has little value for any other form of agriculture. They do not make a big living but they make a bare living by working hard.
If they are driven off these small farms and go into the towns and onto welfare, it is certainly not going to improve the situation in this country. From the standpoint of the well-being of Canada we are much better to keep sheep farmers on their small holdings continuing to produce lamb and wool.
It will be argued that the deficiency payment program cost the government some money. I am prepared to give the minister instances of industrial incentive projects in this country which cost the government more than the entire wool deficiency payment program. There is no doubt that that program would provide a great deal more employment than some of the industrial incentive projects which could be named.
The members of the House of Commons and the sheep producers of this country are entitled to a clear explanation of two points. First, why the government is not prepared to reinstate the wool deficiency payment program. Second, if they are adamant and will not reinstate the program, the minister has a responsibility to tell the House and the sheep farmers of this country what he proposes to do to ensure the survival of our sheep industry.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, it is true that wool prices in Canada and, indeed, world wool prices are unsatisfactory for producers. There is no argument about that. However, I must point out to the hon. member that in spite of the fact the government has paid out a wool subsidy on a support program for many, many years, amounting to over $12 million, during that period there has been a very significant drop in the sheep population of Canada. Therefore it is very difficult to argue that the wool subsidy support program that has been in effect for the past 12 or 14 years has maintained the sheep industry, when in fact the sheep population has dropped during the past 12 years from 1,600,000 to about
900,000	today.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There was a 9 per cent increase last year.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, and there is good reason for that. It is because the price of lamb, which is also part of the sheep production industry, is significantly higher than it was two, five or eight years ago. Indeed, at the present time the price of lamb is running at nearly an all-time high in Canadian history.
On balance, the total returns from the sheep industry, taking into account the increased price of lamb and the price of wool, are probably higher than they have been
Proceedings on Adjournment Motwn
for a long time. The main reason is that when there is an increased interest in sheep production it should be set up on a basis that makes economic sense. The sensible economic factor is to produce sheep for the purpose of selling meat, which is lamb which is selling on the Canadian market at a very satisfactory price.
I think it would be a disservice to farmers if at this or any other juncture we were to provide an incentive for people to go into production of any kind, particularly sheep production, on the basis of a market that has been declining for 20 years and does not appear to be increasing. Therefore, the capitalization that goes into the production of sheep ought to be done on a realistic basis and that basis is in fact on a very substantially increased price for lamb. By the way, Mr. Speaker, we are still only producing 25 per cent of the lamb that Canadians eat, so there is a good market for it. Over the past two or three years, Canadian housewives have demonstrated that they are willing to pay a premium for Canadian lamb.



YOUTH-LACK OF HOSTELS IN MONTREAL

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, youth today is nomadic. We cannot turn that fact back, any more than midis can turn themselves back into minis, or Canute can turn back the tide. The other day I asked a question of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) about the lack of youth hostels across Canada. There was no reply from anybody on the government side and that brings me here this evening.
I will start and end with a series of press clippings. I think it is an important subject. There is no avoiding the fact that youth does roam about Canada today and that government in some way should be prepared for this. First, I will start away back with the Globe and Mail of March 5, 1971. A proposed 24-day conference on transient youth, under the auspices of the Canadian Council of Social Development, was cancelled because of lack of federal government support. The report said: "The council was also angry because the government in addition to not financing the meeting refused to send representatives." The writing was on the wall.
Second, I will quote from the Montreal Star dealing with an 18-year old named Lee Fry from British Columbia who was not surprised that the Carleton hostel was not quite ready. In six days of hitch-hiking across the country he heard there were good hostels in three cities- Regina, Winnipeg and Thunder Bay-but he did not stay in any of them. Instead, he slept in an apartment in Edmonton, under a park bench in North Battleford, in the open air near Kenora and in camp grounds in White River and Renfrew.
My third clipping is from the Ottawa Citizen of June 1, 1971. The Hull armoury, a major stopping point last summer, will not open this year. My fourth clipping is from Southam News Services:
The transient youth program costing $1,153,000 is a small part of the summer '71 program which has a total price tag of $67.8 million.

June 29, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
That is from the Ottawa Citizen of May 31, 1971. These are selected quotations, I realize, but I shall continue. The Montreal Gazette of may 31, 1971, reads:
"It would be unreasonable not to expect someone to object" said one official just as it would not be reasonable to expect that each will be operated permanently for the whole summer.
Then again, from the Globe and Mail of June 3 of this year:
"We are desperately trying to logically and coolly deal with a problem we know is forthcoming." says Hugh Harvey of the United Community Fund. "If we don't deal with it we'll have a hell of a problem like Vancouver had last summer-riots, kids arrested. We don't want that."
Yet another quote, and this one from the Montreal Star of Thursday, June 10:
Operating for the first time this summer will be Aware House, sponsored by a group of citizens and the provincial government. It will have a 24-hour a day counselling service on drugs and will include a 50-bed hostel.
Then again, quoting-this one is from my own city- Deputy Mayor Hedley Ivany:
They are welcome providing they have funds to carry themselves. We can't afford freeloaders on top of an already pressing housing problem for our own jobless youth. I am not anxious to see Point Pleasant park, Victoria park and the public gardens turned into a bedroom-and it won't be.
Then again, we come to the Globe and Mail of June 7, 1971:
Sleeping in Montreal parks is prohibited by by-law but many spent the night there in the St. Louis Square park circulating (sometimes rapidly) upon request of the police.
And another quotation by Martin Dorrell, a Globe and Mail reporter who has gone across Canada in his quest for the truth in this matter. Here he deals with Ottawa. I am sorry, I do not have the date.
A young couple was arrested a few days for copulating on this lawn and the police are wary. The freaks pass around a bottle carelessly concealed in a paper bag.
The police either do not notice or despair of stopping the communal celebration.
And again from the Globe and Mail of Monday, May 31, by Bren Walsh of St. John's Newfoundland:
There's also been a suggestion in the legislature that perhaps some building in some of the more accessible settlements which have been deserted in the province's resettlement program could, with little expense, be made ready for the visitors.
I now quote from the Toronto Star of June 4, 1971. It states:
An old Quebec city jail on the Plains of Abraham has opened and has been renovated by young travellers who have painted the walls in striking colours and planted flowers, he said.
It has been jokingly renamed by youth "La Petite Bastille", and can house 300 people a night.
My second last quotation is from the Globe and Mail of Tuesday, June 1, with reference to Winnipeg. It states in part:
The first snag was Ottawa's decision not to operate hostels this summer. Last year, a hostel was set up in the downtown naval reserve centre, HMCS Chippawa. Everything went well and the Chippawa staff would have been willing to do it again this summer.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the Ottawa dispatch from the Globe and Mail of June 4, 1971. It states in part:
-the department was modifying the ban, the minister replied that "most of the municipalities have been evading their responsibilities in this matter".
He said the main problem was that armouries are not properly equipped to house people.
To sum it all up, let me say that we knew these people were going to be moving and I cannot envisage a government at any level which would let up on its responsibilities to deal with youth on the move this summer.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, what started out to be a question about youth hostel facilities in Montreal turned out to be a rambling and somewhat incoherent dissertation by the hon. member on the existence of hostel facilities in places throughout the country. Let me give some background to the existence of hostel facilities in Montreal.
As the hon. member knows, last year the federal government operated a network of youth hostels across the country. On the basis of last year's experience it was decided this year to respond to local initiative and to fund community-based groups who wished to establish youth hostels. This approach enables the establishment of hostels with community support and involvement, and eliminates the idea of the federal government's imposing hostels on unwilling communities.
Delays have been incurred by local groups in finding suitable locations at reasonable cost levels and in gathering support for their proposals. In Montreal, local groups have incurred setbacks in finding suitable sites. However, yesterday a youth hostel was approved at Co-op Habitat. This will provide 200 beds for the Montreal area. In addition, there are two proposals pending completion. These proposals will be considered as they become available. I would hope that announcements will be forthcoming shortly as additional proposals are completed.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Wednesday, June 30, 1971