1972-05-15

PRIVILEGE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last during my remarks on the budget I made a distinct reference concerning the application of the guaranteed income supplement to war veterans receiving the war veterans allowance. I indicated at that time there was a strong possibility that most, if not all, recipients of the war veterans allowance who would receive the guaranteed income supplement would not receive the full benefit intended by the legislation. Unfortunately, on Friday a number of newspapers in the country carried a story under a Canadian Press byline which indicated I had expressed the view that the increase in the guaranteed income supplement would reduce war veterans pensions.
Mr. Speaker, there may be some confusion in the mind of the reporter as to what is a war veterans pension and what is a war veterans allowance, but there is clearly no difficulty in the minds of hon. members of the House. I said it was the war veterans allowance and I insist it is the war veterans allowance. I hope that the correction of this erroneous report will receive equal prominence.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I regret the absence of the hon. member for York South, but I can do no other than endeavour to place a motion before the House, which I do with a very heavy heart. As one who has been a member of four of the bars of Canada and an honorary bencher of two and who has had his share of lawsuits in the courts, I have never found it necessary to attribute the results to a politically partisan court. I admit that Judges are not above criticism and they must be subjected to the constant searchlight of public opinion. But to condemn the judiciary blanket-wise as men virtually without integrity cannot be justified. That is the reason for the motion I wish to move under
Standing Order 43. Such criticism can only lead to national chaos and lawlessness, if not worse.
I will not say any more. I am being as restrained as it is possible to be under the circumstances. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43 concerning the blanket condemnation of the judiciary by the hon. member for York South on Saturday when, in a speech to the national conference of the United Steelworkers of America, he is reported to have said:
Almost everyone with few exceptions . .. the moment a defeated Liberal or Conservative is appointed to the bench, he thinks he's God. That's the characteristic of a judge who sits on the bench.
That means that the judiciary, unable to protect itself, is not independent. If that were so, the rule of law would become a memory, and the very vitals of our national well-being would be destroyed. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That the subject matter of public statements made by the hon. member, and in particular those which are of a disparaging nature to the integrity and independence of the bench, be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has some doubts as to the procedural acceptability of a motion of this kind under Standing Order 43. I have the impression that the motion has implications of a charge against an hon. member, and that can hardly be made by means of a motion under Standing Order 43. I would think it would have to be made by way of a question of privilege making a specific charge against an hon. member which would then be debated in the House and, if found acceptable for referral to a committee, would be so referred.
At the same time, anything can be brought to the House for approval by way of unanimous consent. But before making a ruling on whether we have before us a motion under Standing Order 43 or a motion under Standing Order 17, I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wishes to rise on the point.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to say that if this motion can be presented only on the basis of unanimous consent, we are prepared to give consent so far as this party is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: However, Sir, that is merely consent to have the motion presented. I should like to make it clear that there are one or two of our members who would like to speak to it. If there is unanimous consent to the putting of the motion, perhaps the time when it is called for debate might be arranged by agreement among the parties.

May 15, 1972
Administration of Justice


Mr. Speaker:: I still feel that the issue is so important that the Chair should be given the opportunity to consider whether it should be debated in the House by way of a question of privilege or by way of a censure motion under Standing Order 43. It is certainly a point which is of interest to all hon. members, and I am prepared to accept the guidance of hon. members in this respect. Now that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has given his views, perhaps other hon. members would like to give their views on the point of order, not on the substance of the matter. I would certainly be guided by their views.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put it simply that this House, when operating under the rule of unanimous consent, is the master of its own destiny and can do anything. With great respect, Sir, I put it that way. If the House feels free to do so, it can make an order of this kind so there can be a debate, and we can incorporate into it all that needs to be done to cure any defects that there might be, although I am not admitting that there are any defects.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of a charge being raised. It is simply the fact that we, in parliament having legislative responsibilities as members of the House of Commons, must realize that members of the bench, while they are subject to criticism and must always be so, must not have levied against them the suggestion that what they do in most cases is to make decisions that are not above reproach and not according to law. Such a view denies the rule of law, and acceptance of that would be the end so far as government in this country is concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. These comments go beyond the strictly procedural aspect of the matter. I am wondering whether other hon. members have additional comments.
Hon. Allan ]. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, so far as we are concerned we are quite agreeable to having this motion put by unanimous consent if necessary, and we are agreeable to spending some time today in debate on the motion, but I would be very reluctant to agree to an arrangement today which would deprive the House of continuing the debate on the budget and reaching a vote this evening. I would be quite agreeable, on behalf of the government, to any arrangement that would provide for putting this motion today with a limited time for debate, and if the motion is not dealt with by the end of that time period we would then move on to the budget.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for York South should have the opportunity of being here.


Mr. MacEachen:: The right hon. gentleman mentions that it would be somewhat indelicate to proceed-


John George Diefenbaker: Improper.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -with the debate in the absence of the hon. member involved. Probably that leads us to the conclusion that we can agree to the acceptance of the motion but have it debated at a later time by arrangement.


Gerald William Baldwin: By discussions.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We can have discussions among the House leaders.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I support what the government House leader has just said. If the House is agreed unanimously that this motion should be put, then I think Your Honour is protected and you are in a position to put it, but I do feel that the time to debate it should be the subject of arrangements among the various House leaders. I agree that the hon. member for York South ought himself to be here. He will be here this evening, and he will be here tomorrow. We could arrange amongst ourselves when the debate would be held, but we seem to be showing unanimity on the presentation of the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair still has serious doubts as to this kind of motion. May I point out again that if hon. members want to do something unanimously they have the right to do so but, as hon. members know from experience, from time to time the Chair has refused to put a motion to the House because in his view the motion was not in proper form. The Chair has to make a determination as to whether this motion really is a motion of privilege which ought to be moved under Standing Order 17 rather than a motion under Standing Order 43.1 think we could get ourselves into quite serious difficulty under the terms of Standing Order 43 if hon. members try to bring matters to the House and to initiate debates which are essentially debates that will invite hon. members to consider the conduct of individual members of the House. It is such a serious matter that I still have reservations.
On the other hand, I am faced with the situation that the government House leader, the House leader of the official opposition and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, speaking apparently on behalf of every member of the House, feel that the matter should be proceeded with. I hesitate to stand in the way of all this unanimity and say that there should not be a debate. What I propose to do is to hold the matter in abeyance for an hour or two so that hon. members may consider when and how such a debate, if it is going to take place, ought to take place and then advise the Chair of the result of their deliberations and what the unanimous consent is of which they would like the Chair to apprise hon. members.
For the moment the Chair will hold the matter in abeyance on the understanding that there will be discussion between the representatives of the parties.



PROPOSED TAPS TANKER ROUTE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, because of the high degree of unanimity expressed by hon. members I too seek to move a motion under Standing Order 43 about an extremely important matter. This motion relates to the proposal to move oil by tanker down the coast of
May 15, 1972

British Columbia from Valdez Bay to Cherry Point and the danger for Canada and British Columbia in particular. Accordingly I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That this House herewith declares that the movement of oil by tanker along the coast of British Columbia from Valdez in Alaska to Cherry Point in Washington is inimical to Canadian interests, especially those of an environmental nature,
And further, that this resolution be forthwith transmitted to the government of the United States of America in order that that government be apprised of the concern that the House of Commons of Canada has about the proposed movement of oil.
If I receive unanimous consent, in order not to transgress upon the budget debate or any other matters we are quite prepared to let the motion come to a vote without debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard this motion which requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether there is unanimity. Perhaps I will inquire again whether there is unanimity. If hon. members are opposed they should make it clear by their nays. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I ask you to read the motion again so that the House will be fully aware of its import?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will read the motion, not for the purpose of putting it formally to the House but for the purpose of advising hon. members of its terms:
That this House herewith declares that the movement of oil by tanker along the coast of British Columbia from Valdez in Alaska to Cherry Point in Washington is inimical to Canadian interests especially those of an environmental nature,
And further, that this resolution be forthwith transmitted to the government of the United States of America in order that that government be apprised of the concern that the House of Commons of Canada has about the proposed movement of oil.
I will inquire again whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard no nays; therefore I assume there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: We will assume that the motion has been put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Family Income Security Plan FAMILY INCOME SECURITY PLAN

Mr. lack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I am not pressing my luck. I wish to propose a motion under Standing Order 43 on a question of urgent and pressing necessity. Bearing in mind the dispatch which the House displayed in the consideration of Bill C-207 concerning old age security and in view of the concern of Canadians about the delay in progress on Bill C-170, an act to increase children's allowances which was referred to committee on April 27, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon):
That this House urges the government to give highest priority in its management of government business with respect to Bill C-170 and that consideration of clause by clause study be proceeded with immediately by the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Bell:: What?


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



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion under Standing Order 43 arising out of the rejection of the Treasury Board offer on wages and job security by the Council of Postal Unions last week, particularly with reference to the introduction of the principle of regional pay differences. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie):
That at the next sitting of the House the President of the Treasury Board make a statement on motions indicating what steps the government intends to take to get the negotiations back on course.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

Questions



RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE FINANCING BILL

[Stage Direction]
May 15, 1972

Hon. Ron Baaford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-209, to provide additional financing mechanisms and institutions for the residential mortgage market in Canada.


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

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

Mr. Marshall: Under the Claimant Assistance Program, what are the qualifications required by the skilled, trained interviewers who work with the unemployed?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: University graduation or equivalent (secondary education and number of years of related experience); knowledge of Unemployment Insurance Act and an appreciation of the Claimant Assistance Program and social legislation; ability to interview and guide and assist claimants to resolve their unemployment problems; good communications skills, both orally and in writing; ability to analyse and evaluate a variety of problems relating to the applicability of legislation. The language requirements for each posi tion depend on its location and the service which is to be provided to the public by the incumbent. Accordingly, appointees may be required to be qualified in the knowledge and use of the English language or the French language or both.


NUMBER OF RETIRED PUBLIC SERVANTS IN RECEIPT OF PENSIONS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many retired federal public servants are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the following brackets (a) less than $20 per month (b) $20 to $29.99 per month (c) $30 to $39.99 per month (d) $40 to $49.99 per month (e) $50 to $59.99 per month (f) $60 to $69.99 per month (g) $70 to $79.99 per month (h) $80 to $89.99 per month (i) $90 to $99.99 per month (j) $100 to $149.99 per month (k) $150 to $199.99 per month (1) $200 to $249.99 per month (m) $250 to $299.99 per month (n) $300 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of public servants or of retired public servants are receiving pension, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of retired public servants and also the number of widows of public servants or of retired public servants presently residing in each province?

4.	In respect of how many orphans of federal public servants are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President oi the Treasury Board):: 1
and 2.
Monthly	Retired
Dollar Brackets Public Servants	Widows

Less than 20.00	225	83620- 29.99	530	1,69930- 39.99	1,342	1,78540- 49.99	1,717	1,72950- 59.99	1,807	1,58760- 69.99	1,868	1,40570- 79.99	1,883	1,31280- 89.99	1,855	1,19290- 99.99	1,778	1,121100-149.99	7,548	4,248150-199.99	5,613	1,839200-249.99	4,542	675250-299.99	3,637	310300 and over	8,328	341Totals	42,673	20,0793.	Number of Retired	Province	Public Servants	WidowsNewfoundland	553	213Prince Edward Island	264	131Nova Scotia	2,258	1,102New Brunswick	1,281	644Quebec	7,168	3,909Ontario	18,131	8,608Manitoba	1,913	904Saskatchewan	1,260	532Alberta	2,404	1,020British Columbia	6,672	2,594Northwest Territories	32	9Yukon	63	10Outside Canada	674	403Totals	42,673	20,079
4. A total of $21,639 was paid out to 78 orphans of federal public servants in 1970-71, to give an average payment of $277.41.


INFORMATION CANADA-OPERATING COSTS
Mr. Marshall: What were the operating costs of Information Canada as of January 31,1972?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister oi Labour):: For the
period April 1, 1971 to January 31, 1972, the operating costs of Information Canada were $5,719,488.82.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-COST FOR DELIVERY OF U.S. MAIL IN CANADA
Mr. Rose: 1.	What is the cost to the Canadian Post Office Department of letters mailed in the United States for delivery in Canada?
May 15, 1972

2.	Is it normal practice for Canadian editions of U.S. magazines to be mailed from the United States to Canadian subscribers?
3.	What is the estimated loss of revenue from billings, promotions and reminders sent by Time magazine to Canadian subscribers of their Canadian edition, post marked U.S. postage, Chicago, Illinois?
4.	What other Canadian editions of foreign magazines mail their publication billings, promotion, etc. in the United States for delivery in Canada?
5.	Has the Post Office Department made any proposals to Time magazine to secure this revenue and, if so, what has been the reaction?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: 1. Information not available. However, statistical samplings will be held in 1973 under the auspices of the Universal Postal Union to determine the imbalance of mail exchanged between countries and when there is an adverse imbalance of traffic, the country of destination will be compensated. This will apply to mails exchanged between the U.S. and Canada.
2.	No, to our knowledge it is not normal practice for Canadian editions of U.S. magazines to be mailed from the United States to Canadian subscribers.
3.	Information not available.
4.	None to our knowledge.
5.	Yes, the reaction has been favourable and an early decision on this question is expected.


NON-MEDICAL DRUG USE PROGRAM
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has the government sponsored a network of "Non-Medical Drug Use" offices and, if so (a) how many have been opened (b) where are they located?
2.	How are these offices funded and in what amounts?
3.	How are they staffed and is the Public Service Commission involved in the selection of personnel?


Hon. lohn C. Munro (Minister oi National Health and Welfare):: 1. The headquarters office of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs Directorate is located in Ottawa. In addition, there are five regional offices located in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver.
2.	The offices are presently funded from funds voted for the Non-Medical Use of Drugs program.
3.	A clerk-secretary is located in each regional office. These employees were selected according to Public Service procedures, and are appointed on a one-year term. With the exception of one officer in the Montreal office, all project officers located within the regional offices have been employed on short-term contracts. This method of employment has been used to respond immediately to urgent demands and to suit the nature of present program demands on these offices.


ABORTIONS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Has the government calculated the number of extra hospital beds that will be required if the abortion laws are liberalized and, if so, how many extra beds will be required and who will pay for them?
Questions
2.	Has the government any information to indicate that extra beds for abortion cases will be supplied at the expense of seriously ill people requiring hospitalization and, if so, how many will be unable to obtain accommodation?


John Carr Munro: 1. According to practice policy, if the pregnancy is within the first 12 weeks, the abortion is carried out, most likely on an out-patient basis. This would not increase the need for additional hospital in-patient beds. In those cases, however, where the pregnancy is between 12 and 20 weeks, there would be a small but definite increased demand for in-patient service. These patients represent a small but important group when the indications for abortion, e.g., congenital anomalies in the fetus, become manifest later in the pregnancy. Payment for these patients would be made through existent hospital insurance and medical care plans as practiced in the provinces on a shared federal-provincial basis.
2.	A therapeutic abortion is an elective procedure which should be performed within certain time limits. In consideration of this fact, hospital admission policies in respect to abortion are structured to either establish a quota of in-patient bed occupancy for these cases or reserve special beds only for this purpose, referring further admission requests for abortion to other hospitals in the community. The administration of the hospital is responsible for admission policies and is consciously aware of the need to retain a number of beds for the unpredictable requirements for admission of seriously ill patients. It is not anticipated that any seriously ill patients would be turned away from any hospital, particularly because of a prior commitment of such hospital to admitting a patient for therapeutic abortion. Provision has been made through planning, to anticipate these eventualities.


PROGRAM OF DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION TO INDUSTRY AND BUSINESS
Mr. Robinson: Will the government through Information Canada carry on a program of dissemination of information to industry and business?


Abram Ernest Epp: Information Canada has no plans at the present time to carry on a program of dissemination of information specifically to industry and business.


CANADA MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAM-TRAINING AND ALLOWANCE COSTS
Mr. Rynard: Were there variations in (a) training costs (b) allowance costs (c) total costs under the Canada Manpower Training Program between the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec during the period April 1971 to January 1972 and, if so, for what reasons?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, may I propose to the hon. member who asked this question that the reply be taken as read, because it is rather long. I further propose that it be incorporated in Hansard for today.

May 15, 1972
Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The answer referred to above follows.] The following material in response to this question is provided for the full fiscal year from April 1, 1971 to March 31, 1972, as this enables more accurate financial figures to be given.
(a) The following are actual allowance payments and
costs for the purchase	of training based	on provincialestimates of cost, and	excluding amounts	paid to employers under the Training-in-Industry Program:	Ontario	QuebecTraining costs	$41,990,000	$42,652,000Allowance costs	44,788,000	55,267,000Total costs	86,778,000	$97,919,000(b) The number of persons who were referred to train-	ing during 1971/72 was:	Ontario	QuebecFull time trainees	56,009	75,349Part time trainees	1,111	34,298Total trainees	57,120	109,647(c) The variation in	per diem training	costs for themajor program elements were the following, based on	interim payments to the provinces:	Ontario Quebec	Basic Training for	Skill	Development	7.00	4.65Language	7.00	7.88Skill	9.00	8.56
The above figures may change when audits are made as final payments to the provinces are based on actual incurred costs.
(d)	Variations in per diem training costs are due to a variety of factors including teachers' salaries, cost of facilities, class size etc.
(e)	The variation in allowance costs per day of training provided is the following:
Ontario	Quebec
$9.53	$9.73
(f)	Variations in allowance costs per day of training are due to differences in rates, the mix of trainees receiving allowances in different dependency categories, the percentage of trainees receiving allowances and other factors. The maximum and minimum rates at which allowances are payable are established in the AOT Act; The actual rates payable in any province are the subject of an annual consultation with the province concerned.


RED ENSIGNS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1. How many Red Ensigns were in the possession of the Department of Public Works on the date the present flag came into existence?
2.	How many since have been disposed of to organizations or private individuals?
3.	How many are still on hand?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the reply is in three parts. First, on February 15, 1965, the date that the Parliament of Canada proclaimed the Canadian flag for use in Canada and abroad as the distinctive symbol of this country, there existed in the Department of Public Works stock a supply of 11,616 Red Ensigns, most of which were in used and damaged condition. There were in addition a supply of some 8,000 in the stock of the former Department of Defence Production.
In anticipation of requests for the Red Ensign by organizations and individuals wishing to use them for indoor display as historic mementoes, a directive was issued to preserve a reasonable number for this purpose. Used flags were destroyed by fire in 1967 in the accepted and traditional manner. After an appropriate interval to determine the demand for Red Ensigns for mementoes a number were declared surplus and destroyed in the same manner in December 1971 and early January 1972.
2.	The remaining stock has been reduced by responding to requests from deserving organizations and individuals. In the period of approximately seven years, some 1,860 flags have been distributed.
3.	At the present time, requests average about 20 per year and 749 unused Red Ensigns remain in stock and will continue to be used for this purpose. At the present rate of demand, this stock will not be depleted for a good number of years.


SITUATION IN NORTHERN IRELAND
Mr. Robinson: Has Canada been asked by Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic and/or the IRA to mediate in any way the situation in Northern Ireland?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The situation in Northern Ireland is an internal responsibility of the British Government and the Canadian Government has not been asked to mediate. However, during the visit to Ottawa of the Foreign Minister of Ireland in February, we agreed to pass on to the British Government some of his observations on the situation as we had passed on to him comments made to us by the British Government.


IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY
Mr. Robinson: Has the government requested the Irish Republic to exert some control and responsibility over the IRA?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Canadian Government has not requested the Government of the Republic of Ireland to exercise control and responsibility over the IRA. This is an internal affair of the Irish Government.

May 15, 1972


DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AFFAIRS-TASK FORCES
Mr. McCleave: What task forces have been commissioned by the Department of Urban Affairs since its establishment, what was the purpose of each and how much has each cost?


Hon. Ron  Bastard@Minister of State for Urban Affairs: No task force has been commissioned by the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs since its establishment on June 30,1971.


CONSTITUENCY OF PORTNEUF-NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED PERSONS REGISTERED WITH CANADA MANPOWER CENTRE
Mr. Godin: How many unemployed persons residing in the constituency of Portneuf are registered with the Canada Manpower Centre in Quebec City?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Data on Canada Manpower Centre clients, by area of residence, are not reported by the CMCs. Therefore, it is not possible to provide statistics on the number of unemployed Portneuf constituents who are registered with the Quebec City CMC. The electoral districts of Quebec, Montmorency, and the greater part of Portneuf are within the boundaries of the Quebec City CMC.


STATUS OF HOLDERS OF PASSPORTS ISSUED BY REGIMES NOT RECOGNIZED BY CANADA
Mr. MacLean: Are visitors, in some cases, refused entry to Canada simply because they are travelling on passports issued by certain coun-
Questions
tries and, if so, what are the countries whose citizens are not allowed entry to Canada?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: A passport issued by a regime not recognized by the Government of Canada is not considered as a valid passport for purposes of the Immigration Act. Because of this, a person who seeks entry as a visitor and presents only such a passport is refused. Examples of such passports are those issued by the regimes of East Germany, North Korea, North Viet Nam and Taiwan. If, however, such a person is in possession of some other form of travel document which is acceptable to the Canadian Government he is allowed entry. In addition, citizens of Southern Rhodesia are prohibited from entering Canada, except on humanitarian grounds. Details of this can be found in the reply to question No. 419 given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on January 11, 1971, as recorded on page 2255 of Hansard.


EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT ACT-FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES
Mr. Mazankowski: Under the provisions of the Employment Support Act (a) what agricultural commodities received financial assistance (b) what was the amount in lieu of each commodity (c) how were the funds distributed?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Commodity assistance given pursuant to the Agricultural Stabilization Act and Agricultural Products Board Act but in recognition of the objectives of the Employment Support Act.
(a)
Commodity
Turkeys
Potatoes Apples (Fresh) Blueberries Carrots Rutabagas *Hogs
(b)	(c)
Amount to Date Method of Distributing Funds
$1,354,105 Purchase and Processing by tender for World Food Program
974,391 Purchase from producers Nil to date Promotion through Canadian Horticultural Council 216,284	Payments	to producers122,909	Payments	to distributors	for	benefit	of	producers69,548	Payments	to distributors	for	benefit	of	producers$10,762,460	Payments	to producers
*A mandatory commodity under the Agricultural Stabilization Act.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to ask why question No. 305 has not been answered. It has been on the order paper for over two months and should only require a week to answer.


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that question.


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to avoid raising a point of order, but I personally asked the minister to look into questions Nos. 255 and 278. Question No. 255 is of such a nature that each day the answer is delayed means that further information is necessary, thus making it more complicated for the government. With regard to auestion No. 278, I believe there is great injustice in the 25316-19
application of a rule. The answer will reveal whether this is correct. I require the information and I must proceed according to the means available to hon. members if I am to be able to act on the matter.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I have taken notice of the two questions and will look into them.


Mr. Harding:: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire when questions Nos. 158, 159 and 160 will be answered? They were placed on the order paper on February 22. Prior to that, they were on the order paper last October, seven or eight months ago. Surely an answer is available from the government benches by this time.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes a good argument. I will look into those questions also.

May 15, 1972
Proposed Duty on Tires


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 INDUSTRY   MICHELIN TIRE COMPANY-PROPOSED IMPOSITION BY UNITED STATES OF COUNTERVAILING DUTY AGAINST CERTAIN TIRES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the stated intention of the United States government to seek countervailing duties against tires exported by Michelin Tire Company of Nova Scotia, and the serious effects that such action would have on the tire industry in Canada and, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) admitted on the weekend, on the entire regional development incentives program.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has provided the Chair with the notice required under Standing Order 26. In fact, he was good enough to do so on Friday afternoon and this has given the Chair an opportunity to consider over the weekend his desire to have the House engage in a debate on this matter under the Standing Order. If I may say so, I am grateful to the hon. member for the terms in which he proposes his motion. The statement of the case is consistent with the formal requirements of the Standing Order; it states the case precisely, without argument, as required by the Standing Order.
Evidently the matter raised by the hon. member is one of importance and of interest to all hon. members. It has in recent days been the subject of a number of questions in the House and is not lightly to be set aside. The Chair, as hon. members know, must take into account the tests provided by the Standing Order and relate them to the situation in which the House finds itself at this time. Under section 5 of Standing Order 26 there is a clear responsibility cast on the Chair in coming to a determination that the Speaker, and here I quote the Standing Order, "shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means."
Today is May 15. The current supply period will terminate on June 30. There is a total of 33 sitting days, including both these dates, remaining in the period. When one combines the number of days available on the budget debate and also allotted days remaining in the supply period, it will be seen that some 17 days, or more than half of the remaining sitting days in the current supply period, are available to members for the consideration of grievances or urgent problems other than legislative proposals. There is thus a considerable amount of time available during which the important matter proposed for discussion by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby can be brought before the House "within reasonable time by other means", as specified in the Standing Order. Indeed, this very day is an allotted budget day during which the matter alluded to by the hon. member can be considered by hon. members who will be taking part in the debate.
iMr. Cullen.]
I would find it extremely difficult to justify setting aside part of a budget day for the purpose of discussing an urgent matter under the terms of Standing Order 26.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the government of Canada support the initiative taken by the government of the United Kingdom in approaching the U.S.S.R. to join forces in sponsoring a conference on Viet Nam similar to the conference which these two governments sponsored in 1954,1 believe, at Geneva?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we certainly support an initiative of this kind, but this is really a matter between the two chairmen of the Geneva Conference. We would be very pleased if the British government were successful in persuading the Soviet Union to agree to reassemble this committee. However, I have my doubts whether the British government will be successful.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated to the British government and the government of the U.S.S.R. the approval of the government of Canada with regard to such a conference? If he has not done so, does he propose to urge the two governments to jointly sponsor such a conference?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think my statement today indicates the position of the Canadian government. We hope the British government is successful, but I do not think that anything more than that kind of statement would be very useful. If the Soviet government is not prepared to reassemble the conference, they certainly will not be persuaded by my support.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I did not realize the Secretary of State for External Affairs was so modest. From time to time the minister has referred to the possibility that he might be making a statement with regard to the Viet Nam problem. Is it the intention of the minister to make such a statement?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no present indication.
May 15, 1972



INDUSTRY


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the American government's intention to impose countervailing duties against Michelin tires exported from Nova Scotia to the United States and in view of the minister's assertion on the weekend in Halifax that this could "be very serious" for the federal government's whole regional incentive program, can the minister inform the House whether he has precisely determined the American policy in this area and, more particularly, do the Americans intend to take similar action against other firms receiving DREE grants?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the United States treasury has received a complaint to the effect that exports of Michelin X-radial steel-belted tires from Canada to the United States benefit from a bounty or grant. We are advised that, under American law, once the treasury receives a properly documented complaint they have no alternative but to start an investigation. This does not necessarily mean that a positive finding will be reached or that countervailing duties will be applied. It depends in part on the results of the investigation. As far as we know, the United States is not contemplating countervailing against products of other firms which receive grants under DREE.


John Edward Broadbent: Have our representatives in Washington determined the source of this initiative? Was the complaint made by an individual United States firm, or is this a reflection of United States policy? I ask this question bearing in mind the fact that discussions on trade with the United States are still continuing. Reference has been made to their objections to our DREE programs. This involves an important matter of policy. Could the minister tell us whether, for example, the Michelin situation is a reflection of the desire of the United States government, or of a particular person who raised the objection initially?


John Napier Turner: The notice of receipt of the complaint is couched in somewhat general terms, but the complaint would seem to be based upon the suggestion that the assistance the company has received both from the province of Nova Scotia and from the federal government under the DREE program might constitute, in terms of the United States law to which I have referred, a bounty or grant in support of exports. We do not yet know who made the complaint.


John Edward Broadbent: Can the minister tell us whether his department or some other department has considered the effects of this development upon the tire industry in Ontario which is already operating below capacity? The industry currently employs about 11,000 workers. Has the government considered the effects that successful action by the United States government in curtailing exports to 25316-19?
Inquiries of the Ministry
the United States would have if those tires are dumped on the Canadian market?


John Napier Turner: I do not quite follow that logic. The complaint is based, as we read it, on the fact that the Michelin Tire Company of Nova Scotia received a bounty or grant from the province or from the federal government under the DREE program. This would not necessarily apply to Ontario plants.


John Edward Broadbent: I will try to simplify the matter for the minister. If the United States action is successful it will mean that Michelin can no longer export tires to the United States as intended. The company is going into the production of these tires in the near future and is therefore bound to sell them somewhere. Presumably this would be on the Canadian market. Is the government considering the effect this would have on the industry, particularly in the province of Ontario where tire plants are already operating below capacity?


John Napier Turner: There are too many hypotheses in that question for me to bear down on it.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: There is no hypothesis in this question, Mr. Speaker, though there is some doubt about the order in which the minister may want to do the things which he is asked to do. Is there any insurmountable barrier to the minister having, I think he said, a good meal with his feet up and a long chat with the United States Secretary of the Treasury? Is there a problem, or could this be arranged?


John Napier Turner: I do not see any problem, Mr. Speaker.

{Translation]



PENSIONS


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Has the Canadian government received official representations from the Quebec government expressing its displeasure with the new federal budget or the new old age security Act?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge.
* * #



SOCIAL SECURITY


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the chairman of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs but I will direct it to the Minister of National

Inquiries of the Ministry
Health and Welfare. Can the minister advise the House whether he has encouraged the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to consider Bill C-170, which was referred to it on April 27, because of the concern of people about the delay?


John Carr Munro: My information is that the committee was charged with completing other work last week and, hopefully, that as soon as the old age security legislation has been dealt with the bill to which the hon. member has referred will be considered.



INQUIRY AS TO CORRESPONDENCE OR DISCUSSIONS WITH QUEBEC CONCERNING RECENT BILLS

Gerald William Baldwin: In case this was not covered by an earlier question I should like to ask the minister whether there has been any correspondence or discussions between the government of Canada and the government of Quebec with regard to recent bills dealing with social security matters introduced into the House?


John Carr Munro: Not that I am aware of, Mr. Speaker.



WHEAT-POSITION RESPECTING DELIVERIES TO CHINA

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Is it a fact that as at the end of April the Wheat Board was some seven million bushels behind in deliveries under the wheat contract with China?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check before I could give the hon. member details of the precise status of the contract with China. The Wheat Board is certainly up to date in terms of the shipments which the Chinese understand are to be made. Indeed, there is some discussion about the possibility of moving ahead of the schedule rather than falling behind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Burnett Murta: Would the minister look into whether during the months of February and April the Wheat Board in fact issued orders that ships for hauling wheat to China should stay out of the port of Vancouver?



PLANS FOR PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL STORAGE SPACE AT VANCOUVER-IMPROVEMENT OF RAIL TRANSPORT

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Bearing in mind the statement by the minister in Vancouver that more storage space is needed in that port to handle the volume of grain required, can the hon. gentleman tell us whether plans are under way whereby the additional necessary storage will be built by the government, or whether negotiations are in progress with the grain companies for the construction of these facilities?


An hon. Member:: Preferably at Prince Rupert.


Otto Emil Lang: I am holding discussions with a number of grain companies. I have said on other occasions in the House that it is my view and the view of the government that it would be most desirable for the additional necessary storage capacity to be put in place by existing elevator companies, and I am confident they will do just that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: May I ask whether discussions are also under way with the two major railway companies aimed at providing protection against snow slides, mud slides and similar hazards to transportation with the object of ensuring year-round movement of grain from the Prairies to Vancouver?


Otto Emil Lang: The railroads have certainly had the advantage of learning, in the very difficult winter we have just experienced, how to improve their ability to deal with such obstacles. However, no one should be misled into thinking we can do anything about severe snow and mud and the difficult conditions which can occur generally in the Rockies in winter, short of levelling those small hills.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of hon. members seeking to ask supplementaries on this important subject. Hon. members should attempt to limit the number of their supplementaries; if we have two or three from every member this is bound to prevent other members asking their questions. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I should like to ask the minister whether he wishes to leave the impression that in an age in which we can put men on the moon, we cannot get-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member leaves the impression with me that he is out of order.


Stanley James Korchinski: The minister has said that in his opinion additional grain handling facilities are necessary at Vancouver. Was the minister able to gather new information in Vancouver during his trip or was this information readily available? Does his view imply that the railways are able to handle the situation as far as transportation is concerned?


Otto Emil Lang: My recent trip was intended to give me an opportunity to look at the rail facilities rather than the terminal facilities. I have made it clear in previous statements that I believe additional storage facilities are required on the west coast. This conclusion follows the fact that our sales to countries to the west have increased very significantly and that there is tremendous additional marketing potential there. We therefore regard the new records we are setting each year as a new basis upon which to build. No one should have any doubt about the fact that we need more capacity there, and should therefore get into a position to put it into place.

May 15, 1972



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the fact that Bangladesh has a population of 70 million people and has become the second largest nation in the Commonwealth, and in light of the fact that proposed Canadian development aid and other support for Bangladesh is second, I believe, for all nations receiving aid from Canada, will the government ensure that a high commissioner is appointed with adequate staff to handle this important post rather than having the situation which now prevails whereby, as I understand it, our representative in Bangkok has to look after this on a part time basis?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. gentleman for supporting my department in what is a perpetual argument with the Treasury Board. Perhaps I might repeat to him what I said to the high commissioner for Bangladesh when he called on me. I said I was sure he would prefer more aid for Bangladesh than a high commissioner there.


Francis Andrew Brewin: What is the good of having a high level of aid if you do not have adequate officers there to administer it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I answer this directly. We do have an aid office there but we do not have a resident high commissioner.


PENSIONS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Has he received considerable correspondence during the last week from old age pensioners addressed to "Ten cent Turner" strongly protesting that the ten cents a day increase in pensions is completely inadequate to meet the increased costs faced by old age pensioners today?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Certainly that question is not in order and cannot be asked. Obviously the minister is anxious to reply to it, but it should not be accepted as it is clearly out of order.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I want to assure the hon. member that I have received a lot of communications thanking me for the more than one-third of a billion dollars for old age pensioners.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Does the minister not realize-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member seeks the floor to ask a supplementary question. Certainly he
Inquiries of the Ministry
cannot ask a supplementary to a question that is clearly out of order. I might say that in the same way the minister's question of privilege was also out of order or procedurally incorrect. This having been said, the hon. member may have a legitimate and procedurally correct question to ask at this point.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize that this increase is less than half the increase given by "Six-buck Harris" in 1957, and we all know what happened to that minister and that government at that time?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CITIZENSHIP
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Before the next election is the government going to give the right to apply for citizenship to those between 18 and 21 years of age in order that hundreds of immigrants in that age group who have been in the country more than five years may vote, as requested by the Federation of Italian-Canadian Associations and Clubs?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the government is aware of the problem and a new Canadian Citizenship Act is being drawn up.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: As this anomaly in the act can be corrected speedily by a simple change in the definition of "minor", would the minister consider bringing in an amendment to the act forthwith? I am sure it would be quickly passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a representation or suggestion, not a question.


FINANCE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
In the course of his budget speech, the minister said that he was considering taxing certain properties acquired before 1972, and he gave as an example of this type of property the quota on certain farm products such as milk. So, my question is: Does the minister intend to consider as income the milk quota that a farmer sells together with his farm in 1972? Is this the type of property that the minister intends to tax according to the announcement contained in the last budget?

May 15, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will send me precise facts concerning his question, 1 shall answer it directly and precisely.




Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what the government's attitude is now toward full membership of the German Democratic Republic in the World Health Organization conference at Stockholm, and is the government now considering looking with favour upon a visit of trade commissioners from the German Democratic Republic to this country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the position of representation of the German Democratic Republic at the Stockholm conference is dependent upon the rules of the United Nations itself, that is, that the German Democratic Republic should be a member of either the United Nations or one of the subsidiary organizations. So far as I know, it has not yet qualified.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister to answer the second part of my question relating to the matter of trade commissioners?


Mitchell William Sharp: In answer to the second part of the question, Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, quite prepared to carry on trade with the German Democratic Republic and have been doing so for some years. But we cannot, of course, recognize them officially in any way until we have recognized the government of that country.


POLLUTION
Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that on April 26, 1972, the minister indicated he had made formal representations to Secretary of State Rogers of the United States to join Canada in making a joint reference to the International Joint Commission of the whole question of pollution of waters of the west coast bordering Canada and the United States, I should like to ask whether the minister received a reply to his formal representations on this matter prior to the news release last week which indicated that the United States would proceed with the trans-Alaska pipeline?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not yet received a reply. We did not receive one before that announcement, nor have we received one since.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, has the minister received any assurance from the United States in reply to Canadian representations that the oil from Alaska will not move through the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Georgia Strait to the refinery at Cherry Point?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. That continues to be the position of the Canadian government. I hope our representations in this respect will be successful because I believe that Cherry Point should be served from the interior so as to minimize the chance of oil spills in that beautiful part of British Columbia.


Randolph Harding: Has Canada made any representations to the United States in respect of oil shipments actually being made through Canadian waters to refineries in the Puget Sound area from the oilfields in the Cooke Sound area of Alaska?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have made some general representations to the United States about the importance, regardless of what happens, of improving the safeguards against oil spills. This applies, of course, to all shipments, not only those that might come down from Valdez but as well from any other direction. The United States in reply has said to us that of course there is a problem on the east coast as well as on the west coast, and we have said we would like to look at them all together.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. It is my understanding that a bill has received third reading in the Manitoba legislature, but has not yet received Royal Assent, which would, among other things, charge a 5 per cent tax on overflights across the province. Will the minister look into what means the federal government can take to assure the free use of Canadian air space by all the people of Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member bringing this matter to my attention. I will look into it and report to him later.


FINANCE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. On
May 15, 1972

April 18 the minister undertook consideration of a suggestion to extend the interest-free period on student loans which are now due for graduates who are unemployed through no fault of their own. The minister made no mention of this problem in his budget. Does he plan any action to alleviate this problem?
Hon. ]ohn N. Turner (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would allow me to take the question as notice and get back to him as soon as possible.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: While the minister is considering that, Mr. Speaker, I would ask him whether he is prepared to review the repayment procedures his department is now following with a view to restoring responsibility for collection either to the Department of Finance or to some other government agency? Would he at least undertake a review of some of the procedures followed by collection agencies on whom the Department of Finance is placing the responsibility for collecting overdue loans? I make this request because I understand it is being suggested by some of these agencies to students who owe money that they should borrow from finance companies at rates as high as 18 per cent in order to get the Department of Finance off their backs.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept some of the statements in this question. I am advised we have discussed the situation of students who happen to be unemployed and are unable at this stage to repay loans with the chartered banks. They have agreed to co-operate in cases of unemployment by carrying such debts for a period of some six months without requiring payment before submitting claims under the guarantee provisions. That step we have already taken, and I will look into the other aspects of the hon. member's question.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
In view of the closing down of the Canadian International Paper Company on May 31, can the minister tell us whether he has held discussions with Quebec authorities to ascertain whether it is possible to avoid hardship for the population of Temiscamingue, or are such meetings planned for this week or next in order to study the situation prevailing in Temiscamingue?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, that is a situation we are following very closely. We have prepared various plans. I have already met with the president of the company and he is not interested in reopening the plant, the mill. In fact, I have even offered him an updating grant, but he is not interested. Therefore, something else must be found and that is what we are trying to do.
Inauiries of the Ministry


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the hon. minister.
Has the Quebec government submitted any plans to him, or does he expect to receive any before the plant closes down on May 31?


Jean Marchand: If contacts are established at the senior official level in my department, I might inquire and report to the hon. member on Wednesday.


WHEAT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PRICES FARMERS RECEIVE ON EXPORT SALES-ADEQUACY TO RETURN PROFIT
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice in his other capacity. In view of the fact that at a meeting of the various farm organizations recently held in Minneapolis there was agreement in the final statement that was issued that, while our exports of wheat throughout the world are increasing greatly because of the increase in demand, the prices being paid by importing countries do not return any profit to the farmer, I would ask the minister this question. As every one of the competitors knows what the other competing country is receiving, will he let the Canadian farmers know what the prices are for wheat sold for export, Nos. 1, 2 and 3, or whatever the new classifications are?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board in the ordinary course posts the prices at which it is offering wheat. I should point out to the right hon. gentleman that the increase in Canadian exports of wheat is taking place despite the fact that this year the over-all trade in wheat is down.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is the revised version but it is not what the agricultural organizations which met in Minneapolis said. I ask him whether he will now say if the prices being received for Canadian wheat by the Wheat Board for the several grades will be made known, and is it a fact that the prices being received are below a level that will bring the farmer any kind of a return?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the prices the Wheat Board quotes are available and known and can be compared with a previous year. Therefore the exact return can be calculated.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to understand the evasiveness of the hon. gentleman except that he is afraid to let the farmers know that their wheat is being sold at virtually firesale prices.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry CONSUMER AFFAIRS

May 15, 1972


ALLEGED INCREASE IN PROFITS OF SAFEWAY AND GEORGE WESTON-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF FOOD PRICES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of an increase in profits in the first three months of this year over last year by Safeway of 40 per cent and by George Weston of nearly 50 per cent, and in view of the fact that the rise in the consumer price index was mainly caused by increased food prices, will the minister undertake to investigate these profits with a view to lowering the price of food?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, under the Combines Investigation Act the director of that branch would in the normal course be required to make an investigation whenever he felt the act was being violated. If there is specific information available, I would ask the hon. gentleman to reveal it either to me or to the director. I am sure he will carry out his duties in that regard.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-ALLEGED SECRET CRITERIA IN PROJECT ASSESSMENT FORM-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT AND TABLING OF DOCUMENT
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in view of reports last week to the effect that there exists a series of secret criteria within a project assessment and analysis form for internal use by the Opportunities for Youth secretariat, could the minister alleviate some of the fears and concerns on this matter by indicating the nature of such rules, and perhaps also table the document in the House either today or tomorrow?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I don't know where the hon. member got his information, but there is no series of secret criteria; there is a breakdown of general criteria into sub-criteria, which can be deduced from the first ones by those who suggest various projects. It is an analysis method; the five questions become 25 because each one is broken into five elements.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the fact that a story appeared on the front page of a Toronto newspaper last week to the effect that a number of additional rules in fact were used by the secretariat in deciding which programs were to be approved or not approved, would the minister not be willing to provide that information to members of the House so that we might have a clear picture of the actual basis on which decisions to approve were made, having in mind that the vast majority of projects which were submitted were not approved?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, as I have spent 25 years of my life in journalism, I pity the hon. member with all my

heart if he believes everything he reads on the first page of the newspapers.
Secondly, I would like to tell him that there are no secret documents that could be revealed, and I believe that, when the department's budget is studied by the committee, I will be ready, and my officials too, to answer all questions, including the prejudice, the strengthening of which is being sought at the present time, that has arisen through a wrong interpretation of an answer given by the Prime Minister: No list of projects has been given to the RCMP. I felt that I had to say this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We should try to move on. The hon. member will be allowed a second supplementary, but we will be running short of time.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Since there has been a shortage of information throughout the piece from the minister concerning the basis on which decisions were made with regard to the more than 19,000 projects submitted, when is the minister going to provide some detailed information not only to members of the House but also to the thousands of students who submitted projects inasmuch as to date most of these people have received only a form letter with none of the information involved?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, that is a question I have already answered four times.


POST OFFICE
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. Now that the President of the Treasury Board is running into heavy seas in connection with the negotiations with the postal unions, would the Postmaster General use his good offices to ensure a fair and more equitable settlement to avoid the possibility of disruption of this important service?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member knows what he is talking about. I have kept silent in the House by request of the unions themselves. I do not think they have made any declarations on the issues that are now under negotiation. So far as the negotiations are concerned, they are still going on and progressing.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement of the postal unions on May 11, would the Postmaster General encourage the use of the special negotiators in the Department of Labour to bring about a reduction of growing tensions at this time?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I do not think the union? made a public statement on May 11.
May 15, 1972


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-POSSIBILITY OF REASONS BEING GIVEN FOR REJECTION OF PROJECTS
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the previous question put to the Secretary of State. Could the minister assure us that if people who have submitted projects that were rejected write to the department they will be given not a form letter but specific reasons why their particular project was rejected?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the farmers of Ontario have suffered a reduction in net income from $402 million to $324 million, a difference of approximately $78 million in the last year, what steps are the Department of Agriculture and the minister contemplating to improve the situation of Ontario farmers?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, a number of steps have been taken, far more than you will permit me to list in reply at this time. I am sure the hon. member will find on examination that many returns to the Ontario producers have increased rather substantially in the last four to five months.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. It could be supplementary to the one that was put before seeking information concerning the dispute in the Post Office. Has the minister anything to report on that continuing old chestnut, the problems between NABET and the CBC? If the minister did not understand my question, I am referring to the CBC and NABET labour dispute which is still smouldering.


Gérard Pelletier: No, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to report at this time.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Is the Secretary of State or the Minister of Labour going to take any direct initiatives to resolve this continuing labour problem, or is the Secretary of State
Inquiries of the Ministry
finally going to tell the Canadian taxpayers either what this dispute is going to cost them or what they are saving as a result of the disruption of the CBC service?


BARLEY-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN INITIAL PRICE TO PROVIDE GREATER INCENTIVE TO PLANT
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Will any further action be taken as a result of the meeting he had with some provincial ministers of agriculture regarding the possibility of increasing the initial price of barley, a suggestion I made to the minister earlier, in the hope that farmers will increase their acreage this year?


Otto Emil Lang: In the discussions I had recently with the provincial ministers of agriculture we reviewed the same factors which had existed and which we had reviewed prior to the March 1 announcement of initial prices. At that time I had discussions with the Wheat Board and with many producer organizations concerning the proper level for initial prices, and the agreed 5 cent increase for barley was determined at that time. I see no reason to change it now. All of us are agreed that it is desirable for farmers to increase their barley plantings slightly over what was shown by the Statistics Canada survey.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion a question, if he will take his mind off election planning for a few minutes. Can he indicate when he will be able to fulfil his obligation under the law and present to the House a supplementary report on the Regional Development Incentives Act, which he promised to present as soon as possible? Can he tell us how soon "as soon as possible" is?


Jean Marchand: I believe I answered this question last Thursday, Mr. Speaker.


John Stratford Burton: Has the minister given any further consideration over the weekend to the production of an interim report such as was suggested earlier?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, the decision has been taken. I have asked that this report be prepared as soon as possible and it will be presented as soon as possible.
2258

May 15, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for Canada's national parks. In light of information from Professor Dr. Donald Arseneau, placement officer at Xavier College in Sydney, that of 23 students at that college who applied for positions as park guides not one was successful, would the minister cause an investigation to be carried out to ascertain whether this discrimination came about as a result of the bilingualism requirement?


Hon. lean Chretien (Minister oi Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire into the matter and report to the hon. member. I must admit that it is desirable that in all national parks there be people who can address visitors in both official languages.


Robert Muir: I share the same hopes as one who supported and voted for the language bill. In view of the assumption reached by Dr. Arseneau as quoted in the press that "the implication of recent legislation seems to be that a person has less opportunity of obtaining a job with the federal government if his native language is English", may I ask the minister if he can advise the House whether, in selecting applicants for these positions, the basic criterion is that one must be bilingual and other qualifications are not important?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in the preceding question, I stated what the general principles were. I am going to inquire as to whether a special problem exists in Cape Breton Highlands National Park and I shall report to the hon. member.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the government House leader who I understand is in charge of the report of the Bryden Committee. Can he advise the House whether the government has completed its deliberations in that regard, whether in fact it is contemplating legislation by way of amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act and, if so, when does the government intend to introduce this legislation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that it is not the intention of the government to bring in amending legislation at this session.
In reply to the first part of the question, may I say that the study of the Bryden report is not yet completed and conclusions have not yet been reached as to what course of action should be followed, if any, as a result of the study.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I was under the impression that the study had been completed and that a report had been submitted. Can the government House leader advise the House when he expects the investigation to be completed and therefore when the report is expected?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I cannot put any definite time limit on the study stage.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, May 11, consideration of the motion of Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (page 2178), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Saltsman (p. 2182).
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my budget remarks today by dealing with the Michelin tire case in Nova Scotia. Perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) or a spokesman of his will arrange to deal with the substance of the issue before the debate concludes later tonight. There are two very important questions in the Michelin tire case. The first concerns an agreement that was made to grant the Michelin Tire Company a three year period during which time they would be permitted duty free entry into Canada of tires produced elsewhere. The attempts made by me in the last ten days to elicit a clear and unequivocal answer from the Minister of Finance on this situation have been, to put it euphemistically, not entirely successful.
I have a letter here, sent to me by the minister's pre-cedessor, now the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Benson), dated June 21, 1971, the third paragraph of which reads:
The government has agreed to permit the Michelin company to import certain types and sizes of tires duty-free for a period of three years-
Later in the letter he made reference to the fact that the government intended to permit the Michelin Tire Company duty free access to the Canadian market so far as certain lines of tires were concerned. What are the implications of this? They are now clear, Mr. Speaker, and they should have been clear at the time these negotiations were entered into with the Michelin Company. We already have seven tire producing firms operating in Canada, Mr. Speaker, most of them located in Ontario but

May 15, 1972

some in Quebec, and they are all operating below capacity. So far as the Canadian market is concerned, the existing firms already have a surplus capacity. This is something the government should have known. It should never have entered into an agreement with the Michelin Corporation allowing that corporation to import tires, presumably made in France, into Canada. The only effect this could have would be the displacement of production, and thus of workers already employed in Canadian firms.
It is my understanding that the reason for the equivocation of the Minister of Finance in recent days is that a policy decision has not really been reached. If I am correct on that, Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will verify it. I understand, from conversations with the heads of other tire companies in Canada, that they have protested strongly against this intended action by the federal government. They pointed out that even if their firms were subsidiaries of companies located elsewhere, it was unfair to them to give Michelin the right to import tires duty free, without giving the same right to them. The point that concerns me is not the question of unfairness to other firms, but the question of importing tires at all. I think it is a bad principle to allow Michelin or any other tire company to import tires duty free when our existing plants are operating below capacity.
The government must stop equivocating on the issue. It must make clear whether it has rescinded the commitment it made to the Michelin Tire Company. I hope it has done so. It was an unwise decision in the first place. Canadian jobs are more important than the desires of the Michelin Corporation. And I say this being completely aware of the problems of workers in the province of Nova Scotia, who are seeking employment there. Anyone who knows anything about unemployment levels in Canada east of the Ottawa River cannot be anything but concerned about the government's intentions to provide employment in that area. But there is no gain to be made for workers in Canada in general if we create jobs in Nova Scotia, or anywhere else, at the expense of men and women who are currently employed. All that does is shift unemployment from one part of the country to another, and this at the taxpayers' expense. It is bad policy. I appeal to the government to clear up the situation. Has it withdrawn its original decision to allow free access to the market? If not, I urge the Minister of Finance to undertake to do so, and to do it quickly.
Now, I wish to deal with the second aspect of the Michelin case. This concerns the recent announcement of the United States government that it will apply special levies against tires produced by Michelin and exported to the U.S. market. If this is going to be part of Mr. Connally's economic policy toward Canada, then the implications are simply horrendous for the Canadian economy. I refer to this matter with great care, Mr. Speaker, because all during the last year of Canada-United States negotiations on trade, the regional development program has been cited by the Americans as one of the things which irritate them. This may be the beginning of a major economic battle to be waged by the U.S. government against our regional development program involving Canadian firms seeking export markets, and in particular United States markets. It is of great importance to know whether this is a single incident, or whether the U.S. is simply beginning
The Budget-Mr. Broadbent
with Michelin and intends to apply its policy to all Canadian firms, no matter where they are located, that export goods to the United States. On this point, the government has a case that it can make.
I think the Americans are absolutely right in their objections to the Michelin case. They have some grounds for their argument if, in effect, what they are saying to the Canadian government is, "You are bringing a firm into this country that was not originally in existence here, and subsidizing it highly to produce goods not primarily for the Canadian market." That line of reasoning has to be given fair consideration. The Americans seem to have a legitimate case, but there is another point that concerns me at a more serious level. If the Americans intend to apply the same reasoning to all regional development cases, then a distinction has to be made between the Michelin case and firms that were already located in Canada which were simply given grants to move to other parts of the country. No country, the United States or any other, can make a case against such firms receiving grants if they export to the United States, because those firms were already involved in production for the domestic market here.
It is time for the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) to take public action. The latter has assured us that he has practised quiet diplomacy with the Americans with respect to DISC and other measures. I do not know if he has upheld our case on the regional development situation, but both ministers have an obligation to make the Canadian policy clear, and make sure the Americans understand it now.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, all those who have been ministers of finance sympathize with their successors. It is one of the most ungrateful of portfolios, although perhaps my successor on this occasion will receive as much gratitude as he deserves from the Canadian public, and that is a great deal. We all feel some sympathy when we see a minister of finance get up to deliver his first budget speech knowing that regardless of what it contains, whether it is concientious and humanitarian, it is bound to be the subject of partisan attack from all of the opposition parties. It is therefore with sincere admiration that I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on the budget that he delivered last Monday evening. Those who had great expectations about how he would perform found those expectations fulfilled. He has not disappointed us. He was conscious, as was the House, that this was the last budget before the next election.


George Harris Hees: Well now, we are getting close!


Mitchell William Sharp: A less intelligent minister might have opted for distributing largesse in order to try to buy votes. On this occasion my colleague opted for a responsible approach combined with humanitarianism.


George Harris Hees: John, he is saying it just as you wrote it.


Mitchell William Sharp: According to those who are in a position to judge, Canada has a record second to none throughout the world in recent years in terms of the expansion of the economy and the control of inflation. Indeed, as the Minis-
2260

May 15, 1972
The Budget-Mr. Sharp
ter of Finance pointed out in his budget address, among the ten leading industrial nations the growth of Canada's real output in 1971 exceeded that of any other country except Japan and was twice the increase in the United States. The rise in prices was lower than that of any other industrial country. Someone said that if they gave Oscars for countries for economic performance, we would have been one of the recipients.


Robert Muir: Sing along with Mitch!


Mitchell William Sharp: The main task of the budget was to do everything to ensure that the economy continued to surge ahead with a minimum of inflation.
This is a tough job at any time, but I am sure that members of the House will agree that at this particular time with the external threats to stability we had a very difficult task to face. I think the Minister of Finance faced it in a very intelligent fashion because he decided that we had to concentrate upon trying to improve our competitive position around the world. It was clear that the main problem in this connection was in the area of manufacturing. Resource industries have been enjoying special incentives over the years and as far as service industries are concerned, in general they were not subject to the kind of competition that has been causing us concern from outside Canada and they are expanding steadily and vigorously.
In manufacturing, however, in recent years there has been very little if any increase in employment. Forecasts of capital spending saw the same sort of condition, a reluctance on the part of manufacturing industries to increase their investment in plant, equipment and new buildings. The decision was therefore made to concentrate upon stimulating manufacturing industries as the most effective way of underpinning the growth of the economy. This also makes good sense, Mr. Speaker, in terms of an industrial policy. In the years to come there is good reason to believe that the demand for our raw materials and our energy will be very very high; all we have to do is remain reasonably competitive and we should reap the benefits of our good fortune.
When we come to manufacturing the situation is different, however, because there we will certainly have to vie for markets both at home and abroad. This is the challenge that all of us in this country must take up. This is not a partisan matter; it is not a matter that ought to divide the parties of this House or the people of this country. I suggest that this House and all parties in it should strongly support the dramatic tax reductions announced in the budget by the Minister of Finance relating to manufacturing industries.
Spokesmen for the NDP in particular have criticized these tax reductions. They have scorned the confidence of the Minister of Finance in the manufacturing companies of this country. The NDP is cynical about many things and perhaps this is one of the reasons why it never gets very far in politics. Someone said that they claim to have a policy for people but they suspect individuals.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I thought this was a non-partisan speech.


Mitchell William Sharp: What is the alternative to this action proposed by the NDP? What they proposed were across the board tax cuts to individual taxpayers. All of us applauded when the former minister of finance brought in his tax reform and took some 800,000 people or taxpayers off the tax roll and decreased the taxes for another four million people. This was the right priority at that time and combined with the family income security plan brought in by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), will probably result in as massive a transfer of help to the poor people of this country as has been accomplished in a generation.
One of the things that puzzled me about this particular approach is that it was opposed by the NDP. The attitude of the NDP toward FISP is little short of incredible. That party talks about a guaranteed annual income. A guaranteed annual income involves the transfer of income to the bottom end of the scale; it involves some sort of tapering of assistance as incomes rise but when the government, under the FISP legislation, proposed this with reference to family income support, the NDP was the only party in this House to oppose it. I think this is unbelievable and I can only say that perhaps the NDP is infected by a larger dose of the "Waffles" than we had suspected.
Would another tax cut to individual taxpayers have been the right step in this budget? This alternative was considered and obviously it has attractions. It might have appeared to be more popular politically to give some tax cuts to everyone in the country but would it have been the most effective way of creating new jobs, which the Minister of Finance quite rightly has said is the priority task? Mr. Speaker, I believe the answer is clearly in the negative. Consumer demand is already growing steadily and substantially. It does not require special stimulus at the present time. Moreover, consumers spend their money not only on goods produced in Canada but spend it on imports. If tax cuts had been used as the means to achieve a greater number of jobs in this country by increasing general spending, there would have been a very substantial leakage into imports with the result that I would have to conclude, as I am sure would all those who look at the problem, that this is the wrong prescription at this time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why was it right last fall?


Mitchell William Sharp: Because circumstances were quite different. One of the main purposes of policy at this time-and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) would agree-should be to increase spending by Canadians on Canadian goods and to increase the export of Canadian goods. This cannot be done by self-defeating protectionism to which this Liberal administration is very strongly opposed. Export subsidies or tax incentives are not going to do the job because they do not help us at home to meet competition from foreign imports nor, as I have said, can that be accomplished effectively by stimulating consumer demand. There is too much leakage involved in this method. What is needed is further efforts by Canadian manufacturers and processors to produce more efficiently and cheaply, to meet the competition of imports and the competition of other countries in export markets.
The budget zeros in on this problem as its main thrust. It does not do so by half measures but by very dramatic
May 15, 1972

tax cuts affecting manufacturers both large and small and by special writeoffs to encourage them to become more efficient by buying new machinery and equipment.
I join with the Minister of Finance in inviting the manufacturers of this country to show that they are equal to the challenge. Canada is recognized as one of the more advanced industrialized countries in the world. We have a highly trained labour force which becomes more skilled day by day. Manufacturers, through their association, have made representations to the government for lower taxes. They have said they were at a disadvantage in comparison with companies around the world which they claimed were paying lower taxes. The government has now responded. It has done exactly what they asked the government to do, increased tax incentives by lowering the corporate rate of tax. I believe that they will respond.
I am one of those, also, who believe in co-operation between labour and management. I believe, as does the Minister of Finance that the manufacturers will respond to this challenge. I know I can associate myself with the Minister of Finance by saying that I expect the labour unions of this country will also respond to this challenge. This is not a case of a contest between the manufacturers and the labour unions; this is a case, it seems to me, of the labour unions and their employers in this country joining together in the urgent task of creating more jobs. This is a time for all parties, for all economic groupings, business and labour alike, to join together, to ensure the success of this battle for jobs in manufacturing and processing. It is not going to be won if the manufacturers and processors use these tax cuts simply for the purpose of increasing earnings and dividends. It is not going to be won, either, if those tax reductions are translated quickly into cost increases in the form of wage increases. It is the government's purpose, and I think it ought to be the purpose of everyone involved, to use these tax reductions to make Canadian goods cheaper-that is, to produce them more cheaply so that we can create more jobs. This, it seems to me, is an endeavour in which there should not be any differences of view, either in this House or as between management and labour.
I read the comments of the financial critic of the NDP and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) about the DISC and about the necessity for taking action to meet the threat posed by that piece of mischievous American legislation. They concentrated their attention, it seems to me quite wrongly, on retaliation by Canada. Perhaps we shall have to take action if it can be shown that imports from the United States under the DISC are being unfairly subsidized. That remains to be seen. But it is typical, it seems to me, of the negative attitude of the NDP, that they fail to see that the threat posed by DISC is in foreign countries as well as here, at home. This threat cannot be met by imposing a levy on imports into Canada that are subsidized under the DISC or under any other program. That threat can only be met by giving our manufacturers and our processors some positive encouragement to compete on more equal terms with United States exports in foreign markets.
Obviously, however, this kind of encouragement to corporations runs counter to the philosophy of the NDP.
The Budget-Mr. Sharp
Sometimes I think the NDP believes that the world is divided into corporations and individuals. Taking that point of view will not be enough. Surely, the logic of the position taken by the NDP is this: That party says, "Because we are opposed to any help to corporations, we are prepared to forgo the possibility of becoming more competitive and of increasing the opportunities for ordinary Canadians to work in producing goods for the home market and in producing goods for export." At one time I thought that the NDP was beginning to abandon the sterility of its doctrinal position. However, I read in the budget debate in this House just the same old stuff. It looks to me, Mr. Speaker, as if the NDP has once again turned or returned to that tired, old discredited line that has so little relevance either to the modern world or to modern Canada.
We are all familiar with the nature of the competition Canada faces around the world. As Secretary of State for External Affairs, I have had some opportunity to see the problem at first hand. I have talked to officials and governments around the world about the problems that are being faced by them and by ourselves. I can say this, based on my own experience, which I am sure is confirmed by the experience of most members of this House: We are not going to have an easy time. We are in a battle with giants-with the United States, with the new Europe and with Japan. But we are not without weapons in this battle. Canada is one of the great store houses of natural resources and energy which other countries will increasingly need and want. Our bargaining position is not minimal. Our labour force is becoming increasingly skilled. Our reputation abroad is good and we have that advantage that has not accrued to those giants, namely, that we are less suspect in international marts than they are. So, we have some advantages.
We have been exploiting these advantages in all directions by building up those relationships, political and economic, that ensure our producers of fair access to markets and fair trading rules. There never before has been such activity going on in negotiations between Canada and the United States, between Canada and Europe and between Canada and Japan. This has been a time of the most intensive activity, political and economic; we have been trying to establish and maintain rules for access by Canada to those markets.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Have they been very fruitful.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, very fruitful. There has been the biggest increase in exports in the last three or four years that this country has ever seen.


George Harris Hees: Obviously, the minister is talking only about the United States and ignoring the rest of the world.


Mitchell William Sharp: Here I must compliment my cabinet colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) who is not in the House. I feel that he has been the most effective minister to occupy that portfolio,-


George Harris Hees: The rest of the world is down, Mitch.

May 15, 1972
The Budget-Mr. Sharp


Mitchell William Sharp: -and has been more effective than the hon. member who occupied that position and who is now in opposition.


George Harris Hees: Down, down, down. Trade with the rest of the world is down.


Mitchell William Sharp: The present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has done an excellent job in promoting Canadian goods, and he has been achieving success.


George Harris Hees: Our trade with the rest of the world is down.


Mitchell William Sharp: His predecessors in office ought to envy his record.


George Harris Hees: Every market but the United States is down.


Mitchell William Sharp: In the last three or four years, we have achieved a record that is second to none in the history of this country. I say that with all due deference to the hon. member who once occupied the position now occupied by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and who now sits in the opposition benches. I, also, take a humble position before my successor in office. It is no small wonder that our export industries hold in such high regard the present Minister of Industry Trade and Commerce, for he is a man who has worked well on behalf of Canadian industries abroad.
Some hon Members: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Boy, have you got some great imagination.


Mitchell William Sharp: The spokesman for the official opposition, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), in his remarks last Thursday took a potshot at the government's position on foreign takeovers.


Gerald William Baldwin: He had so many targets, you know.


Mitchell William Sharp: As was characteristic, the hon. member said he was both opposed and in favour. Then, he moved over to the vague position of his party, namely, that something should be done.


An hon. Member:: How about that?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes. I also listened to Premier Davis on this issue over the weekend.


George Harris Hees: He told the truth.


Mitchell William Sharp: And what did he say? He said he would not accept the challenge laid down by our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that the provinces could limit foreign investment if they wished. And why did he say that? He said it because he was concerned that if Ontario limited foreign investment, Quebec, the Maritimes or British Columbia might not. He is quite right. That is one of the main problems. All parts of this country and all provinces do not have the same view on the subject of foreign investment. I am not sure what the attitude of the Conservative government of Ontario is. Perhaps, in due course, they will reveal it; or, perhaps they will remain as vague as are their federal counterparts in this House.


George Harris Hees: There are some differences in cabinet, you know.


Mitchell William Sharp: I only know this for certain: They will criticize the Liberal government in Ottawa, regardless of what it does. The name of the game from this time on apparently is to be party politics.


George Harris Hees: How are you fellows and Herb Gray getting along now?


Mitchell William Sharp: We decided to subject foreign takeovers to review.


George Harris Hees: Yes, but do you and Herb Gray agree?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield)-


George Harris Hees: Yes, but do you agree with Herb Gray?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, we are all agreed in cabinet. The opposition does not seem to be able to make up its mind.


George Harris Hees: You agree with Herb Gray! Well, that is one of the funniest things you have said all day.


Mitchell William Sharp: He sits in cabinet and is fully in accord on policies-


George Harris Hees: Then, he is not a man of conviction.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, no. He is a man of conviction. I do not know the hon. member's views. Perhaps he has not yet expressed them. I do not know whether the hon. member is a man of conviction or a man who shifts about from place to place trying to decide what position to take in the next election.
The Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Davis criticize us for not going further. If we had decided to subject new foreign investment to review, they would have accused us of wanting to limit the expansion of Ontario. They would have accused us of dividing the country, of favouring one part of the country against another. They would have accused us of encroaching on the jurisdiction of the provinces.
What is clear, I submit, is that for a policy regarding foreign investment to be successful, there must be a general consensus throughout the country on what is to be done, and there must be co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. This is not a question of whether or not the federal government has the courage to take far-reaching action. The important questions are: Will the policy work? Will it be supported in all parts of the country? Will it promote the unity, strength and independence of Canada? These are the issues we face.
In recent years, successive Liberal governments have moved forward steadily and deliberately to limit foreign control in Canada and to promote Canadian ownership. The proposal to review foreign takeovers is another step in that direction. It meets one of the serious concerns, a concern that has been supported in all parts of the country and on which, I believe, there is a national consensus. That is, we should do something about undesirable for-
May 15, 1972

eign takeovers. That is the national consensus. The process is not at an end.
There are few Canadians who do not support as much control as possible by Canadians of industries located in Canada. Every political party is in favour of that. There is no disagreement. The question is how to achieve that objective without limiting the economic development of the whole country and each of its parts. Some controls are necessary. We have put some of these in place. Some positive encouragement to Canadians is necessary. In this respect, we have been the most generous of all countries. We are very happy to see that some government initiatives such as the Canada Development Corporation, Panarctic and Polymer are now beginning to bear fruit. There are no simple answers to this question and it is futile to look for them. Every proposal has its advantages and its costs. Let us have a little less rhetoric and a little more realism.
The same may be said of the attitude of the opposition toward employment and price stability. Let us all agree that the ideal is full employment without inflation. We all support it. There is no difference of view among all parties in this House. Also, let us all agree that there is now too much unemployment in Canada and that prices are rising. The Minister of Finance has said on a number of occasions that he is not satisfied with the level of unemployment. There is nothing in these statements to divide the parties in this House. What really divides us is the fact that we on the government side have the responsibility for trying to help these things come about, and the opposition does not have that responsibility.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: For the moment.


Mitchell William Sharp: The opposition is irresponsible. They criticize us, but they have never made any proposals that can be taken seriously. The Minister of Finance has predicted a very substantial increase in employment.


Gerald William Baldwin: So did his predecessor.


Mitchell William Sharp: His predecessor was quite right. Last year,
330,000	new jobs were created.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: We have continued unemployment at 6 per cent.


Mitchell William Sharp: This year should be better.


George Harris Hees: That is what you have been saying for four years.


Mitchell William Sharp: It has gotten better in every one of those four years. We have a continuous rise in the economy of Canada over a fairly long period. The budget of the Minister of Finance will continue the expansion that is now under way. In Canada, we have a very rapidly and steadily expanding economy. The opposition is trying to say that we are not expanding. The evidence is to be seen on all sides. It is to be found in all the figures that appear every month that there is a very rapid expansion of the Canadian economy.


George Harris Hees: This is your last budget speech.
The Budget-Mr. Sharp


Mitchell William Sharp: Whether that very substantial increase in the number of jobs will reduce the level of unemployment is another question. As the Minister of Finance said, it probably will. However, here in Canada we are going through a most extraordinary period of expansion in the labour force. There is nothing like it anywhere else in the world. If our labour force were stable, as it is in continental Europe today, we would have more than full employment. However, we do not. These are not the conditions we face. We face the most rapidly increasing labour force in the world. The growth in employment in Canada last year was far greater than that of virtually any other industrial nation, and four times the percentage increase in employment in the United States, but we still had unemployment.
We are all concerned about those who, notwithstanding the buoyancy of the economy and the increase in jobs, cannot find work immediately. That is why the government improved the terms of unemployment insurance, embarked upon enlarged programs of manpower training, introduced the Local Initiatives Program and Opportunities for Youth which have been such a resounding success. However, let us not confuse this concern about the unemployed with silly statements that the Canadian government is faltering and that the government is failing to give sufficient stimulus. In fact, we are one of the most rapidly expanding countries, if not the most rapidly expanding in the world.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I join with others in congratulating the Minister of Finance for including in his budget message relief for those unable to keep pace with rising prices; the elderly retired, the disabled and the veterans.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: The time has come to incorporate into these basic pensions an automatic adjustment to rising living costs. Such automatic adjustments involve a certain risk. This has been recognized over a period of years. However, in my judgment and the judgment of the government, this is a risk that must be accepted. By this action, by increasing the Guaranteed Income Supplement by $15 per month and by raising the exemptions for the elderly, Canada has maintained its reputation as the most generous country in the world in its treatment of veterans, pensioners and the disabled.
May I add one further thought by way of conclusion, Mr. Speaker. It is because over the years Canada has followed a responsible fiscal and monetary policy and because our economic performance has been so satisfactory that we can afford to have this deserved reputation for humanitarianism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I will continue to follow the nonpartisan path the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has established. I do not intend to run the great risk of dislocating my shoulder by slapping myself on the back as often as the minister did.
In the course of what I have to say today, I intend to address myself mainly to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and his budget remarks. I do not propose to argue

May 15, 1972
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
with him today as to whether or not it is a responsible budget, as far as it goes. I am more concerned, as the minister should be, about whether this budget is truly responsive to the needs of the country at this time. Applying that test, I find there are many significant ways in which the budget falls short of being satisfactory. These areas of shortfall are outlined in the amendment introduced in the House by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
In speaking to that amendment today, I wish to cover several of those areas of the budget in which the proposals cannot be considered realistically responsive. There is one basic fact about the Canadian economy, despite all the palaver of the Secretary of State for External Affairs this afternoon. In the past two years or so, our economy has been running below its potential at the rate of about $3 billion a year. The unemployment arising from this situation constitutes the principal challenge which faces the government in 1972. The gap is a real gap. It is not just a matter of statistics. It is certainly real for more than
600,000	Canadians who are out of work and looking for jobs; it is real for the taxpayer who is shelling out to meet the costs of welfare payments arising from unemployment; it is real for businessmen looking for sales and it is real for every man, woman and child who is in some way bearing the burden of an economy which is not producing to its full potential.
I do not propose to dwell on the fact that this gap was deliberately created by the present government. That is common knowledge; there is no reason for me to elaborate on it. But having created this situation, one would almost believe that the government was determined to preserve this gap between the rate at which the economy is operating and the rate at which it should be operating to provide something like an acceptable standard of employment. I have heard of people falling in love with their own mistakes. That is about the only explanation I can give for the seeming determination of the government to do almost anything rather than get the economy moving again at the rate required to narrow the gap rapidly and regain an employment situation which any civilized country would wish to achieve.
So, the first priority of the government must be to get rid of the gap between the actual and the potential operation of the economy. In concrete terms, this means a vigorous and determined effort to create enough jobs to get rid of the shameful phenomenon of mass unemployment which has existed in this country for some time. This is the measuring rod against which we must judge the budgetary measures the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has proposed. The budget we are considering today is the first budget which the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) has placed before the House. Appropriately enough, it has, superficially, a new look.
I had been hoping the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) would stay with us. He might learn something in passing.


Mitchell William Sharp: I will be back.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Something non-partisan. As I was saying, there is, superficially, a new look about some of the measures the minister has proposed, at least by comparison with other budgets I have heard presented in the House. There is a modicum of justice done to some of our pensioners, though the move has come rather late in the day. I must say that if this step is followed by an immediate election the minister will have shown himself to possess a degree of political cynicism I did not think he had. Further, the fact that about 700,000 pensioners will benefit to the tune of some $2.88 a month is a reminder that the government still knows how to be petty. These pensioners, who have been bearing the brunt of inflation ever since January 1, 1967, should have been awarded an increase in their basic pension sufficient to compensate them adequately for the deterioration in purchasing power which has taken place since the last major change late in 1966. This would involve an adjustment, not of $2.88 but of nearly $15 a month in the basic pension. I have no hesitation in saying that the government I expect to lead shortly will do just that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Let us examine the methods the minister has used in his budget to stimulate the economy. There is, of course, the reduction the minister proposes in the rate of corporate tax affecting firms in the manufacturing and processing industries effective January 1 next year. Then, there is the provision for fast write-offs affecting some firms who buy new equipment, effective immediately. This is another aspect of the new look. There is a sort of industrial strategy involved here. That is what the Secretary of State for External Affairs was trying to say this afternoon.
The Minister of Finance is proposing to reduce corporate taxes as they affect certain firms. Revenue loss, as a result, will be supplied by raising personal income tax and, to some extent, increasing the taxes levied on other corporations. Last October all corporate taxes were reduced for a period of 18 months. This will cease to be the case at the end of 1972.


John Napier Turner: That was dealt with by parliament.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is the 1972 year. I was merely pointing out that the reduction in taxes which the minister proposes in order to assist certain firms who engage in manufacturing and processing constitutes, in effect, a transfer which is bound to increase the load carried by individual taxpayers and other types of corporations. Personal income tax rates will go up 3 per cent on January 1. The minister did not call attention to this, but it is undeniable that they will go up.
Furthermore, the very fact that inflation is taking place at the rate of about 5 per cent per annum does, in itself, mean that the rate of taxation on personal income is increasing and will continue to increase, because inflation, applied to a progressive tax schedule, automatically means that if there is a 5 per cent increase in personal income the government will get much more than a 5 per cent increase in tax. So, while the minister is proposing this cut in taxation affecting certain kinds of corpora-
May 15, 1972

tions, let us bear in mind that taxes paid by other corporations will increase and, of course, taxes on personal income will increase. They will increase, first of all, because they are being put up expressly, and, second, because the process of inflation applied to the progressive income tax schedule automatically means that a person who does not get a nickel more in terms of real income in 1972 than in 1971 will be obliged to pay a great deal more to the government in proportion to that real income.
We have personal income taxes going up for two reasons. We have, as I say, a transfer of tax from certain types of corporations to personal income tax payers and, to some extent, to corporations. We have a new national policy which is a subsidy. I do not want the minister to get upset, as I am not criticizing his policy, I am just explaining what it is. It is a subsidy on the exports of those firms which can benefit from the minister's proposal, and a subsidy also toward the domestic sales of these firms which can comply. In other words, it does involve a form of protection. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) can say he does not believe in tariffs or protection, but the minister is in fact applying a form of protection to companies which can qualify.


John Napier Turner: That is a pretty farfetched economic argument.


George Harris Hees: It is perfectly true.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am just explaining what the situation is.


George Harris Hees: You don't understand your own budget.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What the minister is doing is providing a subsidy through tax transfers for these companies in respect of domestic sales and, to some extent, in respect of exports. This is a national policy to encourage manufacturing in this country in order to increase our share of the domestic market, and to increase opportunities in the export area. The minister should be prepared to call it what it is.
I am not describing this move in these terms for the purpose of criticizing what the minister is proposing to do. I am not criticizing it as such. I am attempting to show what is being done. I am not objecting to this sort of encouragement being given to manufacturing and processing concerns, because I believe it will help them to be more competitive in the world as it actually exists. I have been for some time emphasizing the importance of Canadian corporations being able to compete in the world as it is. I have said that, and I welcome what the minister has done, provided it is accompanied by some other measures.
What measures should accompany the help the minister is proposing for certain corporations in this country? The purpose he has in mind is to create jobs in manufacturing and processing industries. His measure would only do so where there is an additional market available at home or abroad to these firms. I must say I found the Secretary of State for External Affairs extraordinarily complacent this afternoon in view of the marketing problems and the questions of access to markets that a country such as
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
Canada faces today. He talked about these problems, but exhibited an extraordinary degree of complacency about them.
The Minister of Finance assumes that the encouragement he has offered will enable Canadian manufacturing and processing industries to get a bigger share of either the foreign market or the domestic market, presumably by reducing prices. Presumably that is what the minister has in mind, that these firms will be able to reduce their prices and be more competitive. Some of these firms will be able to do so to an unpredictable extent. The minister has said it will be some years before we really know the results of what he has proposed. In other words, he is not putting something before this House which will result in any dramatic increase in employment. As he says himself, this is something that may take years to have any real effect. The firms that will get any help from what the minister is proposing are those firms that are now making money and earning income. A very substantial percentage of firms are losing money, frequently because of competitive marketing conditions and not through inefficiency, and I point out to the minister that this proposal offers no help at all to them. The minister cannot deny that.
Furthermore, and far more important, his proposal is virtually useless to new industry. His proposal is of very little ecouragement to anybody or any group wanting to start a new industry in this country because, generally speaking, a new industry does not have any net income for many years. I say in all earnestness to the minister that what he is proposing, even for manufacturing and processing industries, will be of very, very little encouragement to the commencement of new industries in this area in Canada. If we are going to really succeed in fighting unemployment and creating the employment we want in the manufacturing and processing industries in this country we have to start a lot of new industries, and I say to the minister that his proposal is of no consequence at all in that regard.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is a silly statement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I beg your pardon.


Mitchell William Sharp: I say, that is surely not true.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister says that is not true.


George Harris Hees: How do you help a company that has no income to tax?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is all very well for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to say that is a silly statement, but it is a statement he cannot challenge because it is absolutely correct. A reduction in corporation tax and a fast writeoff offers virtually no encouragement to people to commence new industries because they cannot get any benefit from those proposals for years to come.


George Harris Hees: That is absolutely correct.


Mitchell William Sharp: I repeat, that is a silly statement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am afraid the Secretary of State for External Affairs does not understand these things.


Mitchell William Sharp: Oh, I do, very well.

May 15, 1972
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield


George Harris Hees: He used to have these troubles when he was Minister of Finance.


Mitchell William Sharp: I think you should get new research men.


George Harris Hees: It is obvious why we have a different Minister of Finance.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, these gentlemen ought to consult some people who know something about this. If they consult people who are interested in starting new businesses they will find that what I have said is absolutely correct. I will return to the subject, Mr. Speaker.
I am simply pointing out now that the proposal of the minister falls far short of being an effective tool to expand Canadian manufacturing and processing. I also point out that there is really nothing here to encourage Canadians to invest more of their money in their economy in order to play a bigger part in the ownership of that Canadian economy in the future. I also point out to the Minister of Finance that, in so far as he claims that reducing these taxes will make these corporations more profitable, this is just as attractive to foreign capital as it is to Canadian capital. There is nothing in the minister's proposal which encourages Canadians as such to acquire a bigger share of the economy in the future.
If the Minister of Finance refers to the dividend credit that is available in connection with personal income taxes, I agree that encourages Canadians to invest their money in shares and to establish dividend paying corporations. It provides little if any encouragement, however, to Canadians to invest their money in risk enterprises or in new enterprises which will not pay dividends for years. That kind of incentive was not given before, and it is not provided in the minister's budget.
I have already said I accept the principle of the proposal made by the government to screen takeovers. I want the Secretary of State for External Affairs to hear me on this because a minute ago he misquoted me. I repeat for the benefit of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, so that he will know my view on this subject and not misinterpret it, that I accept the principle of the proposal to screen takeovers as made by the government, but I also say that this will not in itself increase the Canadian role in our economy, and I do not think the government seriously suggests it will. It may prevent certain takeovers and enable Canada to obtain a better deal in respect of certain other takeovers, but it will not increase Canadian participation in our economy. That can be done by positive measures and there are no such positive measures in the budget.


Mitchell William Sharp: Such as?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister says "such as". I will come to that. In view of the time I am taking, the minister may have to wait for the second exciting instalment of my budget speech. The question of encouraging Canadians to participate in the economy is closely related to the failure of the minister to encourage the development of new manufacturing and processing enterprises in Canada. As I have said, I intend to return to this whole subject.
What are the other weaknesses in the budget proposals? The Minister of Finance says he has decided there is enough stimulus in the economy, after allowing for the increase in pensions which is the only increase on the demand side the minister proposes. The minister said there is enough disposable income available. He is concerned that if the disposable income were increased a lot of it would be spent on imports. The Secretary of State for External Affairs this afternoon spoke about leakage. I would hate to set myself up in competition with any member of this government when it comes to leakage. Of course, some of this money would be spent on imports. It always is. However, a very large proportion of it would also be spent in Canada. There is plenty of room for increasing output in Canada with the spare capacity and with 6 per cent of the labour force unemployed. Personal income taxes were not reduced. In fact, as I indicated, they are actually being increased in two ways. The actual increase of 3 per cent is taking place and there is the implicit increase which takes place through inflation as applied to our graduated scale of income tax. Yet, while the minister will not stimulate the economy in this way, he projects a rate of growth of the Canadian economy which involves the continuation of massive unemployment in this country for years to come, according to his own projections.
The other day I gave the minister the opportunity to dissasociate himself with the projections of the Economic Council of Canada concerning the real rate of growth required in Canada to bring unemployment down to around 4 per cent even over a period of two or three years. The minister did not disassociate himself from that forecast. Yet, his forecast of the rate of growth is substantially below the rate of growth the Economic Council of Canada says is necessary in order to bring unemployment down to even 4 per cent over two or three years. It is all very well for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to talk about the growth in the work force. Of course, we have a rapidly growing work force. The Economic Council of Canada pointed that out as far back as 1965. There is nothing new about this. That is the great reason the decision taken in 1969 by that minister and his colleagues to deliberately slow down the economy has involved us in tragedy. It is the reason we are having such difficulty now, and it is the reason it is such a crime to have this complacent government in a position of responsibility today. The Minister of Finance and his colleagues have accepted the continuance of high unemployment in this country for years to come, and that involves waste, the destruction of morale, a cost to the taxpayers and everything which goes with this situation. Why has he accepted it?	;
Why has the minister, in May 1972, adopted a less expansionist budget than his predecessor adopted in June a year ago or as recently as October last? Is he afraid of being charged with buying votes? The Secretary of State for External Affairs suggested he did not want to run the risk of being so charged. That did not prevent the increases in old age pensions, and of course it should not have.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is not buying votes, I hope.

May 15, 1972


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Exactly. The government should not be open to that charge because everybody on this side of the House urged the minister to increase old age pensions. So far as reducing taxes are concerned, the minister was in exactly the same position. Everybody on this side of the House was urging this and suggesting it was desirable. No one over here could accuse the Minister of Finance of seeking votes by reducing personal income tax because we were all saying this was desirable.
Was it because of a fear of inflation that the minister did not reduce personal income tax. Is that the reason the Minister of Finance allowed the personal income tax to rise substantially in the course of the current fiscal year? Was it because of a fear of inflation? It is my conviction that an increase in employment is our number one social priority. Unemployment must be reduced. I say that even if in our effort to cut it down in a humane manner inflation should escalate, then we will deal with it even if we must impose temporary controls. Let us deal with unemployment in a humane way. The government and the minister continue to run the economy below its potential as an anti-inflationary measure to curb inflation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said he would not hesitate to do again what he did in 1969 and 1970 to fight inflation by slowing down the economy and creating massive unemployment. One can see this attitude reflected in the budget the minister presented. This government still expects the pensioners and the unemployed to be the sacrificial goats in its efforts to control inflation. I won't buy it.
I say that a rate of unemployment of 6 per cent or 5 per cent is inhumane, is uncivilized and is unCanadian. So, I totally reject the minister's approach of maintaining high unemployment as a method of containing inflation. I think it is pretty silly anyway to talk about the risk of overheating an economy which has an idle plant and a seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment of 6 per cent. We are a long distance from having an overheated economy.
What reason is there to believe that the government's reluctance to reduce personal income taxes-in fact, the government's actual increase in personal income taxes- will reduce the inflationary forces which work in this country today? I do not think that the people of this country are fools. They know when they are paying more taxes, and they know that they will be paying more personal taxes under the minister's budget. Will this encourage restraint in wage and salary demands in this country? Will the minister's budget seem equitable and fair to the ordinary Canadian? A reduction in personal income taxes was needed to prevent the tax on real incomes from rising, in other words a reduction in rates was required to prevent income taxes from rising in the circumstances. But a reduction in personal income taxes in association with the corporate tax cuts would, in my judgment, encourage restraint. The national policy of the minister to cut the taxes of corporations associated with something that would seem fair to the individual taxpayer would, in my judgment, have encouraged restraint and not have fed the fires of inflation.
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
I suggest that the minister is asking too much of the ordinary Canadian. At least he should not have added to his personal income taxes, at least he should have given him some consideration and provided some real stimulation to the Canadian economy at the same time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If we are to have restraint, we have to have fairness. I am concerned about several aspects of inflation. Unemployment being created and endured in the name of inflation is one aspect that concerns me, and like everybody else in the House I am concerned about the burden that inflation imposes on Canadians with fixed incomes. I am particularly concerned that the government of Canada has a vested interest in inflation. The reason for that is very simple. The graduated structure of tax rates under which we operate means that every jump in money income puts progressively more money in the coffers of this government through personal income taxes. It means, for example, that a rate of inflation of 5 per cent in a year increases government revenues by amounts considerably in excess of 5 per cent. It means that a taxpayer whose income simply keeps abreast of rising prices, without improving his position at all in terms of real income, is paying more money to the government of Canada under existing circumstances, and it means that without having taken any initiative of its own the government of Canada is increasing its revenues at the expense of the taxpayer. As the individual citizen gets poor, this government grows rich.
I am aware of the fact that the Carter Commission rejected any efforts to tax only the real increase in personal income. But the position taken by the Carter Commission was taken in the context of a rate of inflation substantially less than 2 per cent a year during the previous five years. I say that today we operate in a context which is totally different, one where annual rates of inflation are 4 per cent or 5 per cent, involving and requiring different measures than in the days of the Carter Commission and the modest inflation which existed then.
I say that if the government of Canada is sincere about fighting inflation, if it is sincere about justice, if it is sincere about honesty and fair dealing with the people it is serving, there is only one thing it can do, and that is get rid of its own vested interest in inflation which it can do in one, simple effective way. What I propose and what a government that I lead will do, is henceforth to calculate personal net income for federal tax purposes in constant dollars.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The appropriate base year for this calculation would be the year 1971, the year of the so-called tax reform, the year in which the government put through the House a rate schedule which it said was fair and equitable. The constant dollar calculation would be achieved by employing a consumer price index factor made available by Canada Statistics and shown on the income tax forms for the year.


John Napier Turner: Would you also control your expenditures in constant dollars?

The Budget-Mr. Stanfield


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will come to that in a minute. That is another advantage in what I am proposing. It would be a simple calculation for the taxpayer, and there is no difficult administrative problem for the Department of National Revenue. If the cost of living in any year has increased by 10 per cent above 1971, then the income for tax purposes would be reduced by that percentage. That involves a very simple calculation. This would produce tax payable in 1971 dollars. Another very simple calculation would convert that figure back into the current dollars of the year to indicate the amount of tax available in the dollars of the year in question.
As of the inception of the so-called tax reform, schedules of personal income tax rates and exemptions were fixed for an indefinite period in the future. Under my proposal, these ongoing schedules would relate to ongoing real income rather than to inflated cash income. Thus, the federal tax payable would be free from any inflationary component so far as personal income tax is concerned. This would be just for the taxpayer, and it would force any government to come out into the open. If the government needed a bigger share of personal income to finance its operations, it would have to come before parliament and seek an increase in rates rather than relying, as it now does, on inflation to do its dirty work for it. The government can no longer count on inflation through graduated income tax rates to provide it automatically with a bigger and bigger share of the real income of taxpayers and a bigger and bigger share of the gross national product.
This proposal would be fair to the taxpayer. If his real income rises through the years, he will pay more income tax in real terms, but if he does no more than keep pace with the rise in the cost of living, he would not be penalized; he would pay the same rate as before. It is a simple proposal to calculate income taxes in any year by computing personal income in that year in 1971 dollars. It is a simple proposal but, as the minister realizes, one with tremendous implications. First of all, it would protect citizens from tax increases imposed upon them by inflation rather than imposed upon them as a result of an increase in their real income.


Mitchell William Sharp: It doesn't. It just changes the tax rates.


An hon. Member:: You don't understand it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I remind the Secretary of State for External Affairs that centuries ago parliament fought the king for the right to control taxation. It achieved that control. But in recent years, that control has been very largely eroded through the ability of the government to increase tax rates in fact without changing the schedules, as a result of inflation. The steady inflation we have had for years has emasculated parliamentary control over taxation. My proposal would restore the fundamental principle of parliamentary control over the rate of taxation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Second, this principle would give parliament greater control over government spending and gov-

eminent waste. The government could no longer count upon inflation to ensure that a given tax structure would, in each year, place in its hands a greater percentage of the gross national product. The government would be under heavy pressure to economize. It would be collecting personal income taxes in terms of 1971 dollars but it would be paying its bills in terms of current dollars. Everybody concerned about government waste, everybody concerned about the government taking more of the GNP without anybody's permission, should enthusiastically support the kind of proposal I am putting forward. Clearly, this proposal would not only remove the vested interests of the government in inflation but would give the government a positive motivation to fight inflation.
As the leader of a government. I would implement the proposal fully, given the chance, as of January 1, 1973. The cost of living de-escalator would be applied to 1973 for a tax de-escalation in a proportion to be determined by Statistics Canada, on the basis of comparison between the cost of living for the 12 months terminating September 30, 1972, and the 12 months terminating September 30, 1971. For convenience of calculation, we would go to the nearest percentage point. Clearly, there would have to be discussions with the provinces. There is no doubt about that. There would have to be discussion in connection with their own problems associated with maintaining a single joint tax return. I think this would probably involve the negotiating of new tax agreements with the provinces rather than the standpat agreement of which the minister is so proud, and while we were negotiating these with the provinces we would make a real effort to get sensible integration between the capital gains tax and the succession duties of the provinces.
For the balance of 1972, we would adopt an interim arrangement. We propose to assume the cost of living in 1972 to be about 5 per cent higher than in 1971. There has already been a tax reduction of 3 per cent which came into effect as of last October. That means there is still 2 per cent to be taken care of now. I repeat we are assuming a 5 per cent increase in the cost of living, and there has been a tax reduction of 3 per cent. This would involve a cut of 4 per cent in tax rates for the last six months of 1972 which, I think, would involve about $160 million. This would mean that it would be an interim arrangement to be in effect this year. This would be fair to the taxpayers. It would encourage a feeling of fairness and, therefore, restraint in Canadian society. It would stimulate the Canadian economy, and thereby tend to cut down unemployment, rather than accept the massive degree of unemployment that the government is accepting. We are concerned about unemployment. We are concerned about inflation. We are concerned about the ever-growing percentage of the gross national product that the government is acquiring without any authorization. We are concerned about restoring parliamentary control over government taxation and government spending. We are concerned about government waste.
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I have outlined, and I am afraid at rather great length, some specific, concrete and, I believe, effective measures for implementing this concern, for fighting unemployment, for removing the government's vested interest in inflation, for controlling the government's percentage of the GNP, for increasing par-
May 15, 1972

liamentary control over taxation and spending, as well as for putting real pressure on the government to eliminate waste. I will seize an early opportunity to satisfy the curiosity of the Secretary of State for External Affairs about some of these matters, about how we are going to encourage more Canadian investment in the Canadian economy. I will do this probably later in this debate, although we do not know how long this debate will be allowed to continue. I will do it probably after the vote on the amendment put forward by hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
I will outline further measures that should be adopted to create more employment through creation of new Canadian enterprises, through creation of pools of venture capital, and measures to enable Canadians to increase their control of the Canadian economy. As I say, Mr. Speaker, the ministers opposite will have to wait for the next exciting installment in order to learn this. I have said enough today to indicate how unresponsive the government is to the needs of the country at the present time. I have outlined some of the important measures which would be responsive to those needs, measures which a Progressive Conservative government would implement. I, therefore, ask all hon. members to support the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Minister of Finance rising to ask a question?


John Napier Turner: If the hon. gentleman would accept one.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, sure.


John Napier Turner: I want to try to understand his proposition. What he is suggesting is that tax revenues be calculated in constant dollars-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Personal income tax.


John Napier Turner: -for income tax purposes.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Personal.


John Napier Turner: Since expenditures would remain on actual dollars and would tend to outrun the revenues from personal tax limited to constant dollars would he not, to make up the difference, have to raise the rates and really end up with the same result except he achieves, as he puts it, some kind of parliamentary control? He is not suggesting to the Canadian people that he would maintain their tax rates on constant dollars. He would have to raise the rates to compensate for keeping personal tax revenues on constant dollars.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: To the extent that the increase in the gross national product and the additional revenue that that would generate for a government was inadequate to support government programs, as the leader of the government I would have to come before parliament and seek additional authority-


John Napier Turner: To increase the rates.
The Budget-Mr. Stafford


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But I would have to seek that from parliament.


John Napier Turner: And raise the rates.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, I would have to raise the rates if I could justify the raising of the rates.


John Napier Turner: That is all I wanted to know.


Mr. Crouse:: Just listen a little and you will learn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition had the floor.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The whole point is that under my proposal a government has to justify the taxes it is collecting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Under the technique and the devices that this government has been using in recent years the people's taxes have been increased without any authorization, and they are increased every year without any authorization. It is time that sort of thing stopped.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Any more questions, John?


Mr. H. E. Stafford (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) must be congratulated on the many positive features of the budget. The increases in the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement are steps toward social justice for our older citizens. The university students will welcome the budget provisions which will aid their quest for higher education. Our manufacturing industry, which is so vital to the employment picture, will be in a position to preserve and expand job opportunities.
However, I do not wish to speak today primarily on the positive aspects of the budget. These progressive and timely moves by the minister speak for themselves, despite the negative carpings of members opposite. My disappointment arises from the fact that the direct interests of a large segment of this nation were not included in the budget, the interest of the agricultural industry in the eastern part of Canada. We have in eastern Canada an agricultural industry whose people work hard and who in many fields, desperately need our help. I wish to point out, first of all, that many of the steps which this government has taken in recent years to assist agriculture have been excellent and in the right direction. The Lift program that encouraged farmers to discontinue wheat production and switch to other grains has been proven to be good. The $100 million pumped into the western economy in the form of acreage payments has had the effect of uplifting the whole western economy. These were all very good, but they were strictly for the west.
Then, we get to the moves of this government which have had and will have beneficial effects on a wider area of the Canadian agricultural economy. The payment of $5 per hog for the first 200 hogs per year produced by a

May 15, 1972
The Budget-Mr. Stafford
producer will result in a maximum of $1,000 per hog producer which will be pumped back into the economy to help offset his losses for the past year. I know the farmers will welcome this action. They will also welcome the decision of this government to introduce a two price system for wheat which will mean a maximum payment of $500 to every wheat producer in Ontario who sold at least 500 bushels of wheat on the domestic market.
I cannot avoid at this time expressing my pleasure that the tobacco companies have made a working arrangement with the tobacco growers for the coming crop year. It is not enough, but it is a belated step in the right direction. The future of the tobacco industry, and especially its export division, looks better than it has for many years.
By and large, however, the producers of many agricultural products in Ontario are taken for granted. Agriculture in Ontario, even at the present price levels, contributes over $1 billion to the Canadian economy. Eighty per cent of this production is within western Ontario, within 100 miles of the riding which I represent. It is the most productive and specialized region in Canada. It is rich in terms of productivity and fertility. It is rich in human resources. It is steeped in tradition and proud of its ethnic cultures and background. When we think of western Ontario as a great manufacturing and processing area, we are right. It is also a great agricultural area. One-third of the agricultural produce of this country comes from Ontario. Yet in the past fiscal year, Ontario agricultural producers suffered a net income loss of over $75 million. Our corn producers are now producing corn at a loss.
Let us examine the facts with respect to corn. We tend to think of wheat as the king of grains. It is not; corn is. It contains more protein and other nutrients than any other grain. More people eat corn than any other grain in the world. Corn has a wider market than any other grain in the world. Corn is, indeed, among the foods which have the most life-giving substances. In 1971, the U.S. produced over 51 billion bushels of corn. U.S. Corn is shipped all over the world, including Canada. The U.S. imposes a tariff of 25 cents per bushel on all corn entering the U.S. By contrast, our tariff on corn is eight cents per bushel.
The U.S. Agricultural Act of 1970 set up a commodity support program for those commodities, including corn, which are considered basic to the cost of living, the stabilization of prices and incomes and the welfare of the nation. The support or national loan level on corn is $1.03 per bushel, on top of which all participating growers are paid a direct subsidy of 32 cents per bushel on their corn base, less 25 per cent, by the commodity credit corporation. In the result, when our corn growers compete with U.S. corn producers they are competing with the U.S. Treasury with its support subsidy of 32 cents per bushel.
Canada is not among the great corn producing nations of the world. But in the past ten years Ontario and parts of Quebec have increased their annual production from 50 million bushels to 100 million bushels. This increase was achieved on the advice of the best provincial and federal economists and agricultural specialists who told the corn producers to produce more corn. They were told that corn was the crop to grow, that it would give them a better return than any other crop they could grow. Now,

the corn producer finds himself in dire straits. The cost of production has risen and the price of corn has decreased. The net result is that the corn farmer is producing a commodity below cost and this cannot continue. The economic return is so poor that many farmers are going bankrupt. Every time a farmer is removed from the bottom, the farmer on the top is moved a notch closer to the bottom.
The accelerated depreciation allowing complete writeoff in four years of the cost of storage facilities on the farm and of drying equipment to the value of $15,000 is great for the farmer who is making money. It cannot benefit the farmer who is not making a profit. Until there is reason to be optimistic about the corn industry, the farmer will not invest in storage or drying facilities. The farmer, like any other businessman, does not invest in the face of pessimistic forecasts. The price of corn in Chicago affects the price of all feed grains in Canada. Corn prices in Ontario are based on the availability of U.S. corn or western feed barley. The feed freight assistance subsidy holds down the price of corn to some extent. Corn can take the place of barley any time. There would be a market for all the corn grown in Ontario if it were not for the importation of western feed grain and U.S. corn.
We lost the sugar beet industry in southwestern Ontario by the default of the company who owned the last two plants at Wallaceburg and Chatham. Both the Ontario and federal governments allowed this industry to die in 1966 and 1967. At one time, there were five sugar refineries in this great agricultural production area. Now, there is none. Government economists told the farmers they could quit growing sugar beets and make more money growing corn. At that time they could, as corn was selling for over $1.50 per bushel. Now, with the increased cost of production, corn is selling for approximately $1.12 per bushel. We must re-establish the sugar beet industry. Sugar beets can be grown in southwestern Ontario with a sugar content of 16 per cent and yields of 20 tons of beets per acre. One ton of beets yields 290 pounds of sugar, If a farmer receives $15 per ton for his beets, his gross cash yield would be $300 per acre. A sugar beet policy is long overdue. The sugar beet industry could be developed to take 40,000 acres of land out of corn production. If we had a sugar policy for Canada, that would guarantee that at least 20 per cent of the sugar consumed in Canada would be produced in this country. It would re-establish this industry on an economical and long term basis for both the producer and the manufacturer, and it would have a stabilizing effect on other segments of the agricultural industry.
We have lost, over a period of years, a substantial amount of our tomato processing industry by allowing import brokers easy access to our market. We are also going to lose on frozen food exports such as peas, sweet corn and french fried potatoes to England and Europe, because of the expanded European Common Market. We must take action to protect these products, and this does not mean the reduction of tariffs on foodstuffs produced in low wage countries.
At the present time, we import 15.6 million bushels of soybeans and grow only 9.4 million bushels per year.
May 15, 1972

There is no tariff on soybeans coming into Canada, but the tariff is 60 cents per bushel going into the United States. The Canadian tariff should be equalized to the U.S. tariff. This would put more dollars in the pockets of the soybean farmers and induce the Ontario farmer to grow more soybeans.
Canadian farmers should establish a national oil seed marketing agency that would include rapeseed, sunflower seed and soybeans. Such a marketing agency could develop export markets for these oils and their by-products which would create a greater market for Ontario soybeans, the quality of which is recognized as among the highest in the world. An example of this is the limited production in Ontario this year of the Harwood variety of soybean for a specialized Japanese market. A soybean crushing mill should be built in southwestern Ontario, with access to railroads to develop the soybean industry. At the present time there are only three bean crushing mills in Ontario, two in Toronto and one in Hamilton. Such a crushing mill would create competition among the processors who would, in turn, look for more markets.
Farm machinery should be included in the fast tax write-off items announced in the budget for production equipment; or, at least a system of investment credit should be set up which would allow the farmer to deduct a percentage of the purchase price of new equipment from his net income tax, in addition to depreciation. This would help the farmer modernize his operation and develop a more efficient level of production.
The recent amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation Act, including the raising of the maximum loan to $100,000, will be a great help to the farmer. The Farm Credit Corporation should also set up a system of rental purchase agreements that would allow a young, qualified person to enter the farming industry, with the accumulated rent over a period of ten years being applied as a down payment on a viable farm. This would enable a young farmer to purchase a farm without a down payment, or make it possible for him to own a farm without seeking financial assistance from a feed company, which ties the young farmer into the present trend towards vertical integration.
Returning to the corn industry, my study of the industry leads me to suggest a number of specific moves on which there should be early action by the government. First, a two-price system could be established for corn. In fact, such a two-price system could apply to all farm products. Second, corn could be included in the Canadian Wheat Board Act, whereby the Wheat Board would have to issue a permit before corn could be imported. The same could apply to soybeans. Third, corn could be put under the jurisdiction of the National Farm Products Marketing Council. A provincial corn marketing agency would have to be established to do this. Grades of corn suitable for feed, distilling, starch and cereal could be established, and the agency could negotiate with the processors to establish prices for each grade. The agency could purchase the surplus corn on the market at harvest time. The surplus corn could be pooled and offered to eastern feed dealers with a continuity of market and guaranteed supply. The agency could seek out markets and arrange export sales.
The Budget-Mr. Stafford
Fourth, terminal storage elevators could be constructed. These should be located in a number of the main corn growing areas. They should be located where there is ready access to water, rail and highway transportation. They should be located so as to encourage processors and manufacturers to locate in or near the high production and storage areas, with the result that much of the crop would be consumed at the point of production, with low handling and transportation costs. Such storage facilities should be located with a view to export trade, taking advantage of the St. Lawrence Seaway and its shipping facilities which provide access to the whole world at low cost. These are only the major location criteria; there are others. Such points as Port Stanley and Port Burwell are natural locations for such facilities.
The necessity for availability of water transportation is proved by the fact that freight rates from Chatham, for example, to Montreal are 22 cents to 23 cents per bushel, whereas water rates are 6 cents to 7 cents per bushel. The need for storage facilities is emphasized by the fact that in recent years the price of corn to the producer at harvest time has been reduced by as much as 25 cents per bushel. Most important, the storage facilities must be built for the benefit of the Canadian corn producer in that tremendous production area of southwestern Ontario. The storage facilities should be built for the producers in that area and controlled by either the producers or the government.
Fifth, the duty on U.S. corn could be increased from 8 cents to 25 cents per bushel, to equalize the U.S. duty on Canadian corn, and sixth, Canadian corn could be subsidized on a similar basis as corn in the United States, by taking into consideration the cost of production plus a reasonable profit.
My emphasis today has been mainly on corn, simply because the problems of the corn grower are more urgent and immediate. This does not in any way lessen the necessity for similar action in relation to the other commodities I have discussed and, in fact, the whole farming industry. The potential of the great agricultural area in southwestern Ontario is almost boundless. The doubling of corn production in the past ten years can easily be repeated in the next ten years. Yields are expected to increase in the early years ahead in the United States, from 86 bushels per acre to 200 bushels per acre. Similar results can be attained here. Our quality is second to none. We should be known throughout the world in the years ahead as a great corn producing country. Today, foreign buyers do not even know we have corn for sale. Agricultural exports benefit the Canadian economy. They do as much, if not more, than any other export to reduce our balance of payments and help balance our economy. The government should devise a system of supports to encourage exports.
We must subdue the economic winds that are blowing the family farmer off the farm. As the September 12, 1969 issue of Time magazine put it:
By a process of natural attrition Canada's 400,000 farms are already declining by 10,000 a year; 40 per cent of farmers are over 55 years old, and increasingly their sons are leaving the farm for city jobs.

May 15, 1972
The Budget-Mr. Nesbitt
The farmer is entitled to the cost of production plus a reasonable profit. He is entitled to his fair share of the retail prices.
The inroads of the conglomerate are only beginning to be felt in Canadian agriculture today. We must not allow a situation to develop in Canada as it did in California where, by 1969, 3.6 per cent of the farmers owned 70 per cent of the agricultural land. It is not in the national interest to allow thousands of farmers to be driven out of business and have market control gathered into the lap of conglomerate power. We continually talk about public interest and social efficiency in the interest of the community as a whole. Surely, there can be no greater public interest than our interest in food supplies.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, when I first looked at the budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) the other evening, I was reminded of my days in high school many years ago. There were various books I had to study. Most were a disagreeable green, drab grey or brown colour, but the algebra book was a bright, shiny red. It was usually designed in a way that would conceal the disagreeable contents. It was a bit of a delusion. I could not help but compare the minister's budget with that algebra book. On the face of it, one noticed the very substantial increase in the supplementary payments under the Old Age Security plan. With that, everyone in this House agrees and congratulates the minister on having the good judgment and good sense to accept not only the advice of opposition parties in this House in the past few years, but the various senior citizens groups across the country. However, after that, we begin to see the real contents of the budget.
Let us look at the Old Age Security escalator clause. It will be retroactive to the first of the year. That is fine. However, as I pointed out in this House earlier today, that amounts to $2.88 a month. A few years ago in this House, a previous Minister of Finance, who is no longer with us but retired shall we say, increased the old age pension. He was referred to as "Two buck Harris". This $2.88 a month increase amounts to approximately 10 cents a day, not even enough for a cup of coffee. Last weekend, one of my constituents referred to the Minister of Finance as "Ten cent Turner". This may not be polite, but at least it is accurate.
As has been pointed out by nearly every speaker, other than those on the government side, while the minister stated that the personal income tax as such was not being touched, there was a sort of error of omission. In fact, the personal income tax will be increased by 3 per cent at the end of this year. I think the budget was very deceptive in this regard. I have heard a number of people refer to it as the "Tricky Turner Treatment".
The next item in the budget is the estimated $500 million tax advantages and incentives to industry. To some degree, this is very good. However, the minister missed one point. He did not state whether any of this would be passed on to the taxpayers. That remains to be seen. I suspect it will not be passed on. The minister stated he has great trust and faith in business to use these incentives to purchase new machinery and pass on the benefits.

I have here a letter which was given to me by one of my colleagues. It is a circular letter dated May 8, 1972 from AOCO Limited of Belleville, Ontario, which apparently has a virtual monopoly in the field of spectacle lenses, rims and other things associated with eyeglasses. The letter reads:
TO OUR GOOD CUSTOMERS: Enclosed you will find our new Rx and Stock Price Lists which supersedes all previous lists and becomes effective May 15th, 1972.
Labour and material costs have increased rapidly over the past twelve months and, in order to maintain the high quality of our products, our price list reflects these increases.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your valued business in the past and we trust we may continue to service your requirements.
There is a footnote which reads:
Regarding the above, you may expect a notice regarding price change on or about May 15th, 1972,-
In the past few weeks and months, a great many people have been guessing about the election date. No one has come up with a very good answer. Apparently this company was very good at guessing not only the budget date, but the contents of the budget because the price increases were to become effective the very day the budget was presented. I am sure it was a coincidence, but there it is. If this is any example of how some of the major business firms in this country are going to behave, I hope the minister will ensure that these tax benefits will not be granted until such time as there is an indication that business is going to use them in the way which the minister indicated. I agree that many businesses in this country have high business standards and will carry out the minister's ideas, but there are a great many in every industry and profession who are not so highly motivated and need watching. I hope the minister will take appropriate steps in this regard.
The main subject I want to deal with today is something which the minister has omitted. Other of my colleagues have dealt with or will be dealing with other aspects of the budget. In addition to omitting any reference to personal income tax, either reductions or increases, the minister omitted any reference to foreign investment. Shortly before the minister presented his budget, one of his colleagues presented the so-called government policy on foreign investment. I will not go into the details of that because everyone in this House and most Canadians are aware of how great an announcement that was and how much it did or did not do. Just after the foreign investment announcement was made, I remarked to one member on the government side that there was not much in that. He said "Just wait until the budget, then you will see something. There is really going to be something in the budget." That was not a very good guess because there was not anything in the budget concerning foreign investment or any allusion to it.
Whether one likes it or not, this question of foreign ownership, foreign control and foreign investment in Canada is a big issue. I agree that many Canadians are concerned about it for the wrong reasons, but the fact is people are concerned. There are some very good reasons to be concerned about the question of not only foreign investment, but the type and degree of foreign investment in Canada. Likewise, there are great differences of opin-
May 15, 1972

ion in different parts of Canada. I recently had the opportunity of discussing this matter at meetings in various parts of Canada. The people in western Canada, the Atlantic provinces and, I understand from my colleagues, in Quebec as well say that they want to use foreign capital. They do not wish Ontario, Toronto in particular, to be the only place which gets the advantage of foreign capital. They feel they might possibly be discriminated against. I think that is an unwarranted view of how people in Ontario do things, but it is the view of people in certain parts of Canada.
I would agree that if the government took the position: you cannot do this, you cannot do that, or we shall restrict the flow of foreign capital, it would be unwise and, besides, it would not meet the wishes of, very likely, a large majority of Canadians. In addition, it might prove extremely damaging to the economy. But I believe the government ought to be taking a positive rather than a negative attitude. It should be encouraging Canadians to do something about owning their industries-gradually taking them over. I realize it will cost a great deal of money to buy Canada back and that it would not be feasible to do it all at once. But it can be done by degrees. The obvious tactic is the provision of tax incentives to encourage Canadians to purchase Canadian securities. At the outset, I believe any such incentive should be limited to the purchase of common stocks, sometimes referred to as equity stocks. These are the securities which in most cases symbolize ownership and control growth. Bonds and preferred stocks, the senior securities, may at some time in the future be important, but I believe a start should be made at encouraging Canadians to invest in common stocks.
It is clear that at the present time when Canadians have an opportunity to invest money, they do not always invest it in Canada. Our securities are competitive with other securities. I believe that on a per capita basis every Canadian invests two or three times as much in United States common stock as every American invests in Canadian common stock. We hear so much about United States investment in Canada but the fact is that Canadians, on a per capita basis, invest two or three times as much in United States stocks as Americans do in ours. It is sometimes said that Canadians do not like taking risks, that they want to be sure of their investments. I do not think this is so. From my own experience I would say that Canadians are quite prepared to take risks, provided they get some return for doing so.
It is difficult to produce accurate statistical information especially when one is, as it were, comparing apples with oranges-things which are not really comparable, except perhaps in size. But I have figures here from the Toronto Stock Exchange which indicate that a group of blue chip-or very safe,-common stocks in the year 1971 yielded an average of about 3.2 per cent return on the investment. I also have some figures from the United States for the same year, taken from Moodie's Stock Survey. They do not give us the average across the board, but the average for railroad stocks was 4.4 per cent, for utilities, 5.7 per cent, for bank stocks 4.14 per cent and for insurance companies 3.25 per cent. These figures merely indi-
The Budget-Mr. Nesbitt
cate a trend. It is clear that the rate of return on common stocks, or at least, on many common stocks of the blue chip variety in the United States are higher than on comparable Canadian common stocks.
The same applies to rate of growth. There are always exceptions-statistics can be very misleading,-but the fact is that the rate of growth of most common stocks in the United States is faster than that which is reflected by comparable Canadian securities. Though people should, I suppose, be motivated at all times by patriotic motives, such is not always the case. At present there is actually a disincentive confronting all Canadians who contemplate an investment in Canadian common stocks. I believe the government should do something about this. The obvious means of doing so is, of course, through the Income Tax Act. It has been suggested that if a Canadian invests his money in Canadian securities-common stocks, again- his dividends might be taxed at a lower rate. Or, considering it from the point of view of growth, there might be an alteration in the rate of the capital gains tax as applied to a person who, shall we say, has held securities for two years or more. Any such increase in the value of Canadian securities might be taxed at the lower rate than that applicable to United States or other non-Canadian stocks. This arrangement, it has been suggested, would be difficult to administer. But difficulties of administration are not so relevant in this computer age, and, in any case, what I am suggesting would be infinitely easier than what the government is attempting to do in connection with its new family allowances program.
Hon. members may conclude that the proposals I am putting forward imply some kind of anti-Americanism. No way. We are not trying to be anti-American. We are trying to be pro-Canadian; we are trying to encourage Canadians to purchase ownership and control in Canadian industries by making it demonstrably to their advantage to do so. Someone has suggested that greater encouragement should be given to employees to purchase common stock in the companies for which they work.
This is a good idea in some cases. It has been very successful, I understand, in the case of the Eastman Kodak Company, and it has worked well in certain Canadian companies, too. But this kind of operation is more successful in the case of companies whose employees tend to make a lifetime career of their jobs; it might not be so successful in companies where there is a quick turnover in labour-where employees have little personal interest in the future of the concern for which they work.
In cases where people tend to stay in industry with hopes of advancing, encouragement should be given to them to participate in ownership. This is a sort of offshoot of my main argument. Something should be done to encourage Canadians to participate in industrial ownership. The minister has apparently more money at his disposal than was anticipated. There have been some tax cuts, to the extent of $500 million, and approximately $380 million will be given to old age pensioners. It would seem to me that something should have been done to encourage Canadian support in growth securities.
May 15, 1972

The Budget-Mr. F.-E. Leblanc
Another method that might be explored by the government is the granting of certain deductions, perhaps $500 to start with, from taxable income for Canadians who invest in Canadian industry. Perhaps all these things cannot be brought forward at once, but something along these lines should be done by the government. The next generation will soon be running this country. Our young people are enthusiastic about Canadians owning and controlling our industries. We must start paying attention to their views. I have attempted to briefly outline the methods that should be used to encourage Canadian ownership. I hope that before the budget bills appear, if they ever do, the minister and his colleagues will consider my suggestions.


Mr.   Fernand-E. Leblanc@Laurier: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in congratulating the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on his realistic, rational, humanitarian, positive, responsible and optimistic budget which, for a start, is in my view a complete success.
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for a member of the House who for many years has been in continual contact with businessmen to refrain from taking part in this debate on a budget which stresses the responsibilities of private enterprise and resisting that temptation is made even more difficult because in the exercise of my profession of chartered accountant I have often had the opportunity of advising businessmen on the management of their firms.
My experience in this field makes it clear to me, without the slightest doubt, that the Minister of Finance is right to state that the atmosphere of confidence between the federal government and the private sector must be enhanced. The minister is showing his confidence in them and I am sure businessmen will respond positively to his budget, giving the lie to some opposition members who claimed that businessmen would boost their profits, instead of using the fiscal incentives provided by the 1972 budget to increase their productivity in order to create more employment opportunities.
In my opinion, voicing our trust in the business sector of this country indicates that this government has reached the needed maturity to preside over the destiny of our beautiful country for many more years.
Businessmen have often criticized governments and rightly so, Mr. Speaker, saying there was a lack of consultation. If we look at this government's record since it came to power in 1968, we have to say that it has had the businessmen's co-operation which it sought through its white papers, more particularly the one dealing with tax reform, which has been considered in depth in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and which was used as a base for Bill C-259, a piece of legislation proposing the tax reform that the people has been waiting for.
A while ago, I was listening to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who first seemed to offer a magic formula. I should like to comment on that formula. First of all, as chairman of the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, I had an opportunity to hear Mr. Young, the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission, who, as a witness, discussed with the committee ways to control

inflation without checking economic recovery. He said something astonishing: All western industrialized countries are now seeking such a formula and world famous economists are constantly trying to find a way to reconcile economic recovery and inflation. He told us that should anyone ever find that formula, he would certainly deserve the Nobel prize.
I do not know whether the formula proposed originates with the Leader of the Opposition or one of his research assistants-nor whether that formula can really earn its designer the Nobel prize-however, I wanted to pass on to the House that remark from the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission, who himself is still looking for that formula along with all the economists of the whole world.
In reply to a question put by the Minister of Finance the Leader of the Opposition, after explaining his formula, which appeared almost miraculous, answered: Yes, the taxation rate should be increased, the individual people should be taxed.
Therefore, I wonder how he can now reconcile his amendment, wherein he blames us for not reducing personal income tax, with a formula which would increase the personal income tax rate.
Of course, if I wanted to be smart, I could say that such a formula might lead to the death of the Progessive Conservative party and that the Leader of the Opposition would prove a good funeral director, but I shall not say so.
As so many other hon. members, I have had the pleasure of sending a questionnaire to approximately 28,000 homes in my riding. Among others, this question was asked: What, to your mind, are the three most urgent tasks to which the federal government should address itself?
According to the answers I received, in large numbers, it seems that in my riding the priorities are as follows: first, providing incentives to solve the unemployment problem; second, revising the old age pension policy; and third, re-examining our agreements with the Quebec government with regard to the housing issue.
In my riding, at least, unemployment and not tax reductions comes first. If my figures are accurate, cuts in personal income tax came tenth, I believe, among the priorities, because jobs is what the people want and I feel the budget is meeting exactly their demand.
My constituents are also aware of the consequences of our tax reform, which I was referring to a few minutes ago, and under which almost one million Canadians will not pay any income tax any more, and about five million have had their income tax reduced. Therefore, they know that the federal government has already recognized their need for a tax cut.
Of course, some have accused us of having introduced a political budget. If we had wanted to introduce a strictly political budget and become more popular, we would have lowered personal and corporate income tax. We would not have been selective, and instead of making the new reductions effective from and retroactive to January
May 15, 1972

1, 1973 only, we would have made them applicable effective the day following the budget speech for 1972.
But such was not the position taken by the Minister of Finance. He has preferred to introduce a sound, realistic and rational budget. Four major objectives were to be reached as follows: strengthening the economy, withstanding competition, providing jobs and alleviating the marginal citizens' burden.
It is obvious that there were various methods of reaching these four objectives, but the Minister of Finance has elected to stimulate that sector of the economy which, for many years, has been the slackest in terms of employment opportunities, that is the manufacturing industry. It is this industrial sector which, if properly organised, can generate the greatest number of jobs for Canadians.
The minister leaves it to private enterprise to set up the new industries that are needed, to modernize existing ones, to manufacture new products and thus to create new jobs. And I think it is normal that the private sector should be concerned with creating jobs in democratic countries that trust private enterprise.
For a good many years now we have been mostly sellers of unfinished products, our natural resources being extracted and shipped to other countries for processing. The Minister of Finance wishes to redirect this policy with which, on the other hand, has been a cause for concern for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (M. Pepin) who is also busy trying to stimulate the secondary industries of this country through incentives and legislations.
The Minister of Finance also said, as can be seen at page 7 of his budget speech-I quote:
It is, therefore, essential for us to take whatever steps are necessary to promote the development in Canada of manufacturing industries that are dynamic, vigorous and resourceful, that are unceasing in their efforts to innovate, that develop new and better products and that are aggressive in their efforts to expand their markets in Canada and abroad. In short, we must do everything we can to promote the development of Canadian manufacturing industries that are fully capable of meeting and surpassing competition from other countries.
I have been reading in newspapers, since May 8, 1972, the reported reaction of the business and labour sectors. Generally, it is very good, although some individuals may criticize certain measures. But there, again, it is difficult to reach a consensus on measures designed to stimulate the economy when economists themselves can hardly agree on methods likely to achieve the goals proposed in this budget.
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier the amendment of the Progressive Conservatives. I would like to make a few more remarks on this matter, if I have enough time. The amendment reads first, and I quote:
-the failure of the government to bring forth effective measures to relieve unemployment-
Well, at the present time, the thrust of the budget is strictly unemployment. The opposition does not suggest any effective measures to fight unemployment, whereas we Liberals have put forward a formula which will really succeed provided businessmen are prepared to co-operate.
The Budget-Mr. F.-E. Leblanc
Of course, the opposition failed to mention the fact that unemployment is not uniquely Canadian but is a worldwide phenomenon. They did not explain either the reasons for such unemployment, which is that the influx of people on the labour market is too fast compared with the number of jobs which can be created. Obviously, they do not insist on the fact that in the past years, as stated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the House, we have created 1,200,000 new jobs-


An hon. Member:: Tell us where!


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: -and we have succeeded in this better than seven other countries put together.
Obviously, the Creditistes find this amusing. They find everything amusing because they are not serious. I read the speech made by their leader on the budget; I found it amusing too, but on the other hand it is their privilege to laugh at whomever they want. It will be my privilege to make fun of them when they take part in this debate. That is a sure thing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Futhermore, Mr. Speaker, the amendment stated, and I quote:
-the failure of the government to bring forth effective measures- to provide incentive for Canadian investment in Canadian development-
In my opinion, the whole budget is aimed at stimulating investors so that they may reorganize their undertakings and co-operate in the economic development of Canada. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that with such a budget we will succeed in reaching in the long run the objectives set forth and that the population will find that the best party to preside over Canada's destiny is still the Liberal party.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: So you say.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hon. member for Saint-Michel on a point of order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Victor Forget: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I would ask that we revert to routine proceedings in order to table a committee report.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Victor Forget: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table the first report of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.

May 15, 1972
The Budget-Mr. A. Lambert
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (p. 2178) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Saltsman (p. 2182)
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, even though the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is not in the House at the moment, I wish however to commend him for the courage he displayed in his budget statement. I must say that had it not been for his eloquence, the budgetary statement would certainly have been very dull, since it was likely to increase the burden of the individual rather significantly for the benefit of large corporations.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I should like to analyze objectively some aspects of the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance in order to show that it certainly contains some good things but that one also finds in it some things that need improvement.


Mr. Bechard:: But there are some good things.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: The hon. member for Bona-venture has been making it his practice for some time of interjecting remarks during our speeches. I commend him for so doing, because, after all, this is a good opportunity to convey a few good ideas.


Albert Béchard: I thank the hon. member for giving me this opportunity.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I shall go on with my speech and say that the increase in the estimates for 1972-73, under the heading of direct personal income tax, will be about $1,125 million, which will contribute to reduce the purchasing power of workers, prevent the purchase of many products, lower consumption and indirectly increase the number of unemployed in Canada.
I am quite pleased to see that the Minister of Finance is very optimistic about a possible upturn in the number of jobs in Canada during next year. But I suggest that if we do not bring any change to the way we finance public expenditures, there will be an increase in our national production, that is to say the economic growth, but there will also be an increase in the number of unemployed. This is what happened during the past few years. In view of the formula we are using now, the same will undoubtedly happen during the next 12 months.
Mr. Speaker, here is one of the good steps announced in the budget speech: the increase in the guaranteed income supplement. But then, a problem arises: we have read in

papers recently that the Quebec minister of Social Affairs complained about the intrusion of the federal government into an area which he considers as falling only under provincial jurisdiction and that the $15 increase in the guaranteed income supplement will contribute to create problems to the Quebec government as regards people under 65.
Therefore, if the same kind of administration is maintained, it is certain that in the case of persons who are at the present time receiving welfare allowances and who are living with a spouse who is receiving the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement the spouse's pension will be decreased accordingly. This means that their total purchasing power will not increase in the desired proportion. It is a weakness in our administrative system which we should hasten to correct so that we may fulfill the purposes of the acts which are passed, that is to ensure a decent income to the people in need.
Even yesterday, some people came to meet their elected representative and explain to him their problems in connection with the old age security pension. This is why I strongly support the principles which the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) advocated last week when he rose to take part in the debate on the budget. Actually, he stated that it was urgent for the Canadian government to adopt an economic security policy and establish a guaranteed minimum income for all.
The events which are actually taking place in the world-and, more specifically in the province of Quebec where discontent is spreading from all quarters-prompt people to seek higher pay and security, in short, the right to live. They demand an increase in their income in line with the devaluation of the dollar.
I am satisfied of one thing, namely that if we adopted this policy it would help tremendously the government of the province of Quebec to settle the present conflict as quickly as possible, to stabilize the economy, to ensure social peace and security because this situation exists not only in Quebec but in all the other provinces.
Hon. members certainly received, like I did, a brief from the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities which asked the federal government to decentralize the revenue sources to the advantage of municipalities, so that they may have the revenues which are necessary to discharge their responsibilities.
In every field we try to obtain more in order to meet our own needs and to fulfill our obligations. The underlying problem is a financial one and the Minister of Finance recognized it in the speech he delivered last Monday; I quote:
-I wish I could do everything at once and I am sure that each member of this House, were he standing in my place, would have a long list of priorities of things he would want to change, of inequities he would want to cure-
So the fact that those things exist is recognized. I continue with my quotation:
The bare fact of the matter is that we cannot do everything at once. We simply don't have the resources.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
May 15, 1972


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, when the House took recess, I was quoting this very important excerpt from the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner):
The bare fact of the matter is that we cannot do everything at once.
He was then saying that some projects had remained in abeyance and referring to the suggestions from hon. members concerning the establishment of priorities in the remedies designed to meet the needs of all our people. He said of Canada: "We simply don't have the necessary resources".
Mr. Speaker, what resources did the minister mean? Were they natural resources, human resources, planning resources or else financial resources?
Since this was a budget speech, I presume that the minister was referring to financial resources, since the discussion bore or money, credit-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but one of his colleagues wishes to rise on a point of order.


Mr. Pringle:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is that we are not receiving the English translation of the hon. member's speech, and I am very interested to hear what he is saying.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought this might be a good opportunity for the hon. member to practise his French.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for calling the attention of the Chair on the fact that the simultaneous translation system was defective. I do the same thing in similar circumstances, which is absolutely normal.
As I was saying, if it was a matter of physical resources, the figures quoted in the budget speech show that such resources are sufficient to fully meet the needs of the people. In fact, according to Statistics Canada, the gross national product for 1971 exceeded $95 billion. This means that Canadians are devoted to turning the wealth which Providence has made available to them into consumer goods, and that the government now has a responsibility to find the financial resources necessary to finance such production so that every individual, every family, may be assured of the minimum income necessary for a decent living.
The Budget-Mr. A. Lambert
Now, this mystery about money struck me several years ago. I was surprised to see that money was lacking in every field and others have also asked themselves questions about this problem.
I would now like to quote an article published in the Quebec newspaper L'Action in 1939. It is an editorial by Mr. Louis-Philippe Roy, a very intelligent man who at the time observed, like everyone else, the problems with which Canada was faced while governments were unable to achieve the goals which the population expected them to, and while all sorts of works and projects which the people needed were left unfinished.
This article reads:
Mystery to be Solved: where does the Money Come From?
In our Canada, resources are not lacking, nor are the means of transportation for distributing them.
This is still true nowadays.
Our industrial labour is getting rusty with inaction, and our thoroughfares are often deserted.
If Providence was generous to us, if wealth is abundant everywhere, if the earth is only waiting to be worked in order to bring forth its riches, the reason for the crisis is certainly not the poverty of the Canadian soil.
Could it be that production is badly managed? No.
Nor is it badly managed nowadays. It is very well managed, organized, and planned.
Both manufacturers and farmers could produce more if we insured the sale of their products.
Ask the mother of children why her table is bare; the father, why he is going without food; the children, why they are declining; tradesmen, why trade is slow; professionals, why they work so much on credit; all of them will answer: no money!
That happened in 1939, and it is happening again in 1972.
The quotation goes on as follows:
No money! Such is the answer given by governments to those who ask for their support, by industrialists to those who beg for a job, by consumers to retail dealers who ask for orders, by retail dealers to wholesalers; that is the answer that everybody gives to everybody else!-
No money?
However, we know that, during the war, billions of dollars were spent to manufacture destructive devices. At that time, there was some money available.
And I quote again:
Would its function be to organize man's destruction? Yet it seems that money was invented to ensure the exchange of farm or manufactured products, then the exchange of services.
If people suffer, is it not, for a large part, as a result of the paralysis of exchanges? And it's money which would not be playing its part?
Whose fault is it?
It is not God's fault; nor that of nature, for money can exist irrespective of seasons and temperature; it is safe from drought and locusts.
There were locusts in those times too! And I quote:
Its manufacture is limited to the amount of gold available,-

May 15, 1972
The Budget-Mr. A. Lambert
Nowadays, this myth has disappeared and has been replaced by another, which is quite as impressive: that of the American dollar.
However, let us not forget that our governments are also as poor as private individuals. The municipal, provincial and federal governments have only the money that we pay in taxes, etc., tjie money they borrow from banks.
That is the point to which I want to call the attention of the government, because this situation has not changed. I had hoped that a Minister of Finance as energetic as the one we now have would have the required strength to make the necessary changes in order to finally make this tool, that is, money, the nation's servant.
I quote further:
Yes, the powers that be that give banks the authority to make money, have to go to the banks and pay high interest rates to get credit in order to administer the country and give food to the unemployed.
Currency, money, credit: Is it then one and the same thing? Are banks the masters of it? What are their rules when they manufacture money? When they issue currency? When they extend credit? What do they demand in return and why? So many questions to which no school book will reply. And yet, this problem seems to be essential at this time. Why this mystery on the origins of money?
Is it not time for this mystery to be dissipated?
Since 1939 this question has obviously been answered because a movement existed in Canada, namely that of the hon. William Aberhart, in Alberta, which spread all over the country. Finally, we have more and more answers to this question. We should have not only answers but reforms while it is not too late because as things are going now, in the last budget of the Minister of Finance we find that day after day Canadians are taxed to pay interest to those who control the country's credit which is costing us $6,191,000 each day. At this rate, we cannot keep on developing normally and we shall be obliged to call again on the United States.
Is the United States position better than ours? We shall try and see how things are going on there. I have something quite interesting to say on this subject and which deserves some thinking.
This afternoon, I heard the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) say that to have a good administration in Canada the only way is to have a Liberal government. This is his opinion. To have a good administration in Quebec the only solution is a Liberal government.
I have nothing against the Liberals but I am saddened to see the Quebec Prime Minister load a wheelbarrow full of mortgages on provincial property, cross the border and say to the Americans: We give you our property as a guarantee. Give us figures, give us the permission to use our own natural resources.
It is quite true, Mr. Speaker, that things happen that way. I have here a very interesting document, published in the United States, in the December 9, 1971, edition of the Manchester Guardian Weekly and I quote:
The Canadian government is getting more and more worried about American domination over its economy and its natural resources. In this article, Mr. A. W. Cockerill wonders whether, at this stage, the Canadian people can still do something.
Canada-an Economic Colony
At a meeting of the U.S. Senate Committee on energy resources, in May 1971, Mr. Brice O'Brian, chairman of the United States National Coal Association, stated: "-our government believes that Canada belongs to us as far as her energy is concerned". That was not the truculent statement of a naive and not very diplomatic American industrialist. On the contrary, Mr. O'Brian's words were simply an echo of president Nixon's feelings, of the political opinion of the United States and industry in general.
The following month, in a statement on American energy needs, President Nixon himself said that, among the major solutions to the crisis, was the import of vast quantities of energy from Canada, that is natural gas, oil, coal, hydroelectric energy and water. Such energy sources, as well as some products, such as ore, coal, pulpwood and others, have for some time been called "continental resources" in the United States.
That is that. The Americans think that everything belongs to them. No wonder. When one spends one's time lending money to a neighbour, one finally thinks that the goods offered to guarantee such loans belong to the lender. That is quite normal.
I quote further:
That such resources belong jointly to all the inhabitants of the North-American continent is a fairly new idea, although political and industrial leaders in the U.S.A. must have had that in mind for much longer. If the matter were not so serious, one could laugh at the concept: in fact, such a notion implies that the resources of the American continent also belong to Canada and vice versa. There is only one problem: the U.S.A. have hardly any resources left and, consequently, they have none to share; what the U.S.A. mean when they speak of "continental resources" is very obvious.
As public statements on the subject multiply, the concept of "common property" becomes more and more imbedded in the public awareness, or at least, American public awareness-
The Nixon government is as adept as any other at translating the wishes of the minority into the will of the majority-
With a population of over two hundred million inhabitants, the United States already use up more than their share of world resources. In the middle of this century, that country changed from an exporter into an importer of raw materials. The economic development of the country may be compared to an enormous industrial machine in which three conditions must be met to ensure its continued existence: the needs for raw materials to feed it, personnel to make it work and markets to consume its production. The crux of the problem is the first requirement, because the other two are filled by the mere existence of a huge and growing population.
This gives us the idea that it is more and more interesting for American financiers to take mortgages on the natural resources of Canada, because it really pays them. I keep on quoting:
In the area of hydroelectric power-one line connecting Churchill Falls in Labrador, James Bay in Quebec and Kettle Rapids in Manitoba-the conquest of Canadian resources has already been achieved well up north. The electrical power shortage is so serious that major American companies, having foreseen it more than ten years ago, have acted immediately. One does not miss any opportunity in securing these resources, even with respect to investment capital.
And what does this produce, Mr. Speaker? They tell us. I learned some very interesting facts reading this document. The article goes on:
In the Schultz report, it was pointed out that for any dollar invested in Canada for oil extraction, 71 cents come back to the U.S. as investment income during the first year in which the investment was made.

May 15, 1972

No wonder the Americans are able to lend us money afterwards. Their profits are so good that they are able to buy the mortgages back later on. I quote the article again:
There is no reason to doubt that the same investment income is obtained from any other form of energy development or mineral extraction, be it natural gas, hydroelectric power or common metals.
I shall stop quoting here from this very instructive document which does not show however the true situation in the United States. It has not been proved that the author had a direct line with Our Father to have enough money to develop their country and help develop the rest of the world.
Here is a recent item published in La Presse, and I quote:
The United States are at their wits' end.
Today, the richest country in the world is ... broke. Last year, the U.S. economy exceeded thousands of billions of dollars; yet, the municipalities of the twenty-one largest cities are short of money to pay their police force, their firemen, their teachers and garbage collectors-The State of Ohio has reduced its payments to the aged who are ill by 32 per cent.
It also says that the city of Boston:
-lacks the means to replace its wooden sewers that are 102 years old.
Therefore, that city is in a deplorable economic situation. What is the cause of this? Here is how the same article describes what has happened:
Their leaders are in a quandary. Where is the money to fill up the gaps to be found? By increasing the public debt? But the annual interest payments already amounts to $12 billion.
The President is therefore discouraged. He says that he was "fixed" by economists and planning experts. And I keep quoting:
In the high spheres of government, for the first time some attention is paid to the explanations of radical economists.
Those radical economists are people like Major Douglas who discovered that credit is a wealth which should belong to the entire nation and should be used in the interests of the people.
I further quote:
The Keynesians were wrong: Friedman's monetary partisans went astray; Mr. Nixon is enough of a realist to realize it.
Seeing the situation, he feels outright that it does not make sense.
However, in Canada, work is being done: surveys were carried out, a report was tabled not so long ago in the House, the Gray report. It is interesting to see what can be done in Canada to develop our natural resources and allow the population to share them.
Here is what appeared in La Presse of May 3, and I quote:
Economic growth could be maintained even without foreign capital.
I am certain that the author of that article is right because capital is artificial, and figures are involved. And there is a solution offered in the article, a most interesting one. The author must have consulted radical economists, since he writes as fellows, and I quote:
The Budget-Mr. Lewis
Moreover the development of regional financial institutions and also a revision of the Bank Act are being proposed in order to enable provincial governments to take a financial part in the development of a bank with a Federal charter.
At last, it begins to break out, we begin to realize there are possibilities-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member. I am advised that his time is over; it is probably because he was carried away by his eloquency.
In any case, unless there is unanimous consent of the House, he will have to let one of his colleagues speak.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I find it sad that the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) should have exposed his corporate bias in such a naked way in his very first budget. I also find it sad that he has exposed the outmoded and outdated economic thinking which animates his policy. I find it sad, Sir, that he has become the slave of the same conservative advisers as his predecessor. All he needs is a pipe and he would be Benson reincarnated.


Mr. Orlikow:: He would also need to weigh an extra hundred pounds.


David Lewis: For some years, parliament and the people of Canada have waited for tax reform. A tax commission studied the matter. Almost the first sentence in the report of the Carter royal commission emphasized that our tax system suffers from inequities and injustices. We waited for tax reform last year, but we received only a repetition of the same inequities and injustices. We were presented with a tax bill that made a few, little changes but left the majority of Canadians saddled with an unfair share of this country's tax burden.
This minister, Mr. Speaker, had the opportunity in his first budget to take a stride forward to the just society. Instead, he took a stride backward. The Minister of Finance took a step which made the tax system even more inequitable and unjust so far as the Canadian people are concerned. This can be shown in various ways. I shall try to show it in one particular way, that is, the proportion of the tax revenue that is now coming from the corporate sector compared with the proportion coming from the personal income tax sector.
Direct taxes to be paid by individuals as the result of this minister's budget will, on a national accounts basis, be 49.9 per cent of federal revenues. The direct taxes to be paid by corporations, on a national accounts basis, will be
12.2	per cent of the federal revenue. The personal income tax will be four times as large in proportion compared with the corporation tax. I remind hon. members that the rest of the revenue comes from customs tax, excise tax and sales tax, all of which fall on the same Canadians who pay income tax. The profits which the corporations make are not touched. In case anyone thinks that this imbalance is something that was ordained by economic deities, outside the Minister of Finance or the Bank of Canada, let me point out that it is the climax of a trend that has not only continued but has accelerated under the present government.

May 15, 1972
The Budget-Mr. Lewis
May I be permitted to spend two or three minutes on a dry recital of statistics. In my opinion they are very revealing. From 1963 to 1967 the share of revenues provided by direct taxes on individuals rose by just two percentage points, from 37.3 in 1963 to 39.3 in 1967. It then leaped to 48.5 per cent in 1971 and is forecast to be 49.9 per cent in 1973. Meanwhile, the corporate contribution slid from
19.3	per cent in 1963 to 16.3 per cent in 1967, to 13.7 per cent in 1971 and, finally, to 12.2 per cent under this budget. I think we should note these figures. I will have something more to say about this imbalance which is an injustice of really gross proportions to the average Canadian.
In 1950 the proportion was about equal; in fact, the corporate direct tax proportion of the federal revenue was a little higher: it was 28 per cent as against 26.7 per cent in personal direct tax. In 1951 it was again about even-29.8 per cent for the corporate direct tax and 27.8 per cent for the personal direct tax. I will now jump to 1961; I will skip years so that my statistics will not be too overwhelming. In 1961 it started to slide.


An hon. Member:: A good Tory year.


David Lewis: As my good friend says, it was a good Tory year. It was 38 per cent for personal direct income tax, and 19.8 per cent for corporate tax. In 1967 it was 39.3 per cent, compared to 16.3 per cent; 1968, 42 per cent, compared to 17.3 per cent; 1969, 45.5 per cent, compared to 16 per cent; 1970, 48.4 per cent, compared to 14. per cent. In 1971 it was 48.5 per cent, compared to 13.7 per cent; 1972,
48.2	per cent, compared to 13.7. For 1973 the projection is 49.9 per cent from personal income tax, as against 12.2 per cent from corporate income tax.
I have here a chart which I have drawn. It is a very revealing chart. The curve of the proportion of federal revenue from personal income tax goes disastrously up all the time, whereas the proportion of revenue from corporate income tax goes steadily down. This has occurred as a deliberate policy of government. That, and some other things that go to the corporate sector of this country, show the way in which this government and the preceding Conservative government treat the people of Canada as individuals and families compared with the corporate sector.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Too bad the Gallup poll doesn't reflect it.


David Lewis: We see what Liberal and Conservative government is all about-squeeze the ordinary Canadian while big business gets a free ride; and it is a free ride despite the comments that may be made to the contrary.
In his budget, the Minister of Finance forecast that for 1972-73, 15 per cent of federal spending, on a budgetary basis, will go to what he calls economic development and support. In plain English, that means that 15 per cent of the revenues of the federal treasury, on a budgetary basis, will go to grants and handouts to corporations. That is what the minister means. There will be grants under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, grants under the various programs of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, research grants, development

grants and other concessions to the corporations in Canada.
On a budgetary basis, the minister says that 15 per cent of all federal spending will go to the corporations. Also on a budgetary basis as distinct from the national accounts basis, in order to make the two comparable we learn that 14.9 per cent, or 15 per cent of the budgetary revenues will come from the corporations which will receive 15 per cent of the budgetary expenditures. I suggest that even the Minister of Finance will agree that 15 minus 15 equals zero. The people of Canada must understand-and this is why I emphasize it-that the corporate sector makes almost no net contribution to the social expenditures of this country such as defence, taking care of the aged and taking care of the sick. All of that revenue comes out of the income of ordinary Canadian families, not from the corporate sector. I think it is important to underline these things.
I did not have the pleasure this afternoon of listening to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). I was in Toronto when certain things happened. Although I am tempted to comment on them, I will not do so in this speech. In any event, I am certain that the spokesmen for the Conservative party will not protest against the silk-glove treatment that the corporations of Canada receive from this government, as they received it from the Conservative government in the past. I think that fact has to be underlined in this budget debate.
In 1969, the latest year for which statistics are available, 46 per cent of the corporations in Canada did not pay a cent of income tax. In the mining and petroleum industry, including oil extraction, 78 per cent of corporations did not pay any income tax. No one is going to tell me that 46 per cent of all corporations, and 78 per cent of mining and oil corporations made no profit in 1969; that they were just working the mines and extracting the oil out of the goodness of their heart and the philanthropic pressures of their conscience. They made profits, but they were able to tuck those profits away due to the kind of law that favours them, and the loopholes that are constantly provided for them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I say the Minister of Finance had an opportunity to redress that imbalance and to do something about the economy and the unemployment situation. Instead of doing so, he merely emphasized the imbalance. The big cuts and the new concessions went to the corporations. There was a little help-not enough-given to old age pensioners, veterans and students.
Let me pause here to say that for the Minister of Finance to indicate in a budget an increase in social benefits is most unusual. It is not usually done in my experience, which is admittedly not a very long one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Walter Harris did it.


David Lewis: Walter Harris did it, but that was a long time ago; it was some 15 years ago. For a minister of finance to increase social benefits in his budget is very unusual. But
May 15, 1972

this poor fellow had to do it. If he had not referred to old age pensioners and students in his budget, it would have contained nothing but concessions to the corporations- and even he was too much ashamed to permit that kind of situation. The poor minister said to his advisers, "Come on, now I cannot take a budget to the House of Commons which does nothing except reduce taxes for the corporations. Give me something else." So he was able to turn to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) and graciously say, "You will be able to rise tomorrow and do something for old age pensioners." And he was able to turn to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing) and say, "You will be able to do something for the veterans." And his conscience was clear.
The fact that he had to make this announcement shows he knew that what he was doing to the taxpayers of this country was conscienceless; it was necessary for him to appease his conscience in some way. Much as I and my colleagues are ready to support the proposals affecting old age pensioners, veterans and students, let me tell the Minister of Finance that there is nothing in those provisions which will make any old age pensioner dance for joy even if he is physically able to do so.
I met with some of them yesterday in my riding. As hon. members know, in senior citizens' homes the women outnumber the men, and they did at this meeting. Those whose husbands had saved a little money and who were obliged to live on the old age pension alone, plus the little bit of additional income they had, were certainly not dancing for joy about the $2.88 a month which this "great" government, betraying the just society in every act it takes, had granted to them.
As for those who were entitled to the income supplement, even those entitled to the full income supplement, they realized that the $15 additional payment which the single old age pensioner is to receive and the $30 additional payment which pensioner couples are to receive is simply making up for the increase in costs they have been facing over the years-not since the supplement was introduced but for years when they had to live on inadequate pensions. They were not jumping with joy.
This is not to belittle what has been done. This is not to say it will not be of some use to old age pensioners. Of course it will be-not the $2.88, which is an insult, but the $15 a month, which makes $180 a year, and the $30 a month for a couple, which makes $360 a year. That, of course, is welcome money to them. But let us remind ourselves, before we become self-congratulatory, that if we adjust the needs of a single person in Canada, living at the poverty line, to the cost of living increase since 1969, which is about 6.5 per cent, a single person now needs $190 a month to live just above the poverty line, which is $40 more than the maximum, including the supplement which the Minister of Finance has provided. And a couple needs $317, which is $42 more than the maximum $285 which the minister has provided.
So let the Liberals in this House not bang themselves on their backs in self-congratulation. The payment to a single, old age pensioner is still $40 below the minimum required, and the amount received by a couple is $32 below the minimum required. In spite of these increases, old age pensioners will still have to scrape to make ends
The Budget-Mr. Lewis
meet at the end of each month-and that is not the way to treat the aged people of this country.
Moreover, for the majority of Canadians this budget was a budget without joy. There was absolutely nothing in it for the ordinary wage or salary earner, for the farmer, for the fishermen, for the logger. They were not even mentioned in the budget. And there was almost nothing there for the small business people. There was absolutely nothing for the vast majority of Canadians. Indeed, as the minister has lately admitted, there is a hidden tax increase for the wage earners, the salary earners, the farmers, the fishermen, the loggers and the small business people who are not connected with processing or manufacturing-an increase of 3 per cent.
The 3 per cent tax cut made last October will end on December 31 of this year. Therefore, beginning on January 1 next, every Canadian in the categories I have mentioned will pay 3 per cent more in tax than he does today. This was the treatment given to the majority of the Canadian people, the majority of Canadian families. Yet the minister says, "This is a forward-looking budget." He must have had his head turned the wrong way when he said that.
What disturbs me, as a lay economist who studied economics at two institutions but who does not claim to be an expert, is that the minister has the audacity to say that his budget is intended to produce jobs. He will forgive me if I do not quote him but paraphrase him in my own way. He says, "Listen, private corporations and private business. I have just given you a tax cut, so please be kind enough to provide more jobs. I stake my political future on you." I could visualize him on his knees, except that he is a proud man and does not get on his knees, and I respect him for that. He pleads with these corporations to give him some jobs. Let me tell him that the corporations will give him jobs only if it pays them to do so. If it does not pay, there will be the same level of unemployment six months hence that there is now, if not a higher level.
Let us look at the economy at the present time as I see it and understand it, and I think most economists would agree with me. We have an economy which is now functioning under capacity. Many manufacturing plants across this country are not functioning at one hundred per cent capacity and there are many people laid off, or we would not have the extent of unemployment we now have by definition. There are plants which have laid off people, and those people are still laid off. Does the minister or anybody in his right sense suggest that when you go to a plant which is laying people off because it cannot sell its products, and give it an additional 9 per cent in profit, this will create jobs? I suggest the plant will simply take the 9 per cent into its profits.
The way to deal with an economy which is in an underproduction stage and working at something under total capacity is to increase aggregate demands so that the products which are manufactured will be purchased. It is only then that new and additional jobs will be created. There is already slack in our mills and factories. The minister should not try to induce them to invest more. Why should they invest more? What is the purpose of their
2282
May 15, 1972

The Budget-Mr. Lewis
investing more money? They cannot sell all the products they are now capable of producing. What will they do if they invest more money? They will produce more of the products they cannot sell. That is sheer nonsense. It is sheer, obvious and arrant rubbish-and that is what is being taught this parliament and the people of Canada.
I am certain there is not an economist in this country who would suggest that the giving of a tax cut to corporations would increase the number of jobs in Canada. Certainly there is not an economist in this country who would agree that the giving of rapid depreciation for new machinery and equipment would create jobs in this country. When does a manufacturing firm buy new machinery and equipment? It buys new machinery and equipment in order to improve its efficiency and to produce more efficiently. It produces more efficiently when it replaces human labour, not when it adds to human labour.
If our manufacturing concerns bought even most of their machines and equipment from Canadian firms, one might argue that there would be an increase in the number of jobs in the sector that manufactures machinery and equipment-but that is not true. The overwhelming majority of new machines and equipment which our manufacturing firms use is brought in from abroad, particularly from the United States. So even that could not create any jobs in the country.
Therefore, I suggest to the Minister of Finance, with real regret, that his budget even from the point of view of creating jobs is a sham which will not do this and cannot do it. I suggest to the minister, specifically, that he could have made available about $2 billion to the ordinary Canadian taxpayers and really have rapidly stimulated the economy in this country. In this way he might really have created jobs by increasing the purchasing power of the ordinary Canadian who spends almost every dollar he gets. He could have done this by removing the 7 per cent tax cut, which will continue for manufacturing and processing industries, and by taking back the $500 million he is giving away in this budget. This would have yielded about $675 million, enough-according to our calculations-to cut $100 off the tax bill of every Canadian earning less than $10,000 or $12,000. That would have meant something to the economy.
If the minister had increased the effective tax on corporations to about 46 per cent from 36 per cent, if he had adopted a full capital gains tax which would have yielded another $100 million, if he had recovered about $400 million by plugging the loopholes and generally tightening up the economy, and if he had reduced the number of giveaways various departments now make, he could have saved in the neighbourhood of $2 billion which could be given in tax cuts to the average Canadian, particularly those making less than $10,000 or $12,000 a year. These people would then use every single dollar to buy products produced by Canadian manufacturers and Canadian farmers.
If my eyes are correct and the clock is right, Mr. Speaker, I have about two or three minutes left at my disposal. Let me say this in conclusion. The basic reason for this kind of scandalous budget is the economic philosophy which animates those people across the aisle and our friends in the Conservative party and others. That

philosophy is that only the private sector of the economy can be relied on to do the job of creating work and of increasing the wealth of this country, and that social capital is taboo and somewhat wasteful.
It is their philosophy that only the private sector knows what to do for Canadians and that the Canadian people, through their government and their representatives, do not know anything at all as to what should be done. I reject that philosophy. I suggest that the way to create jobs, if the minister will not make tax cuts as radically as I have suggested, is to use some of the money in the way I have indicated.
Everybody talks about pollution. If the government put some real money into cleaning up our waters, and into building purification and recycling plants in the cities and towns of this country, we could really fight pollution and create work for hundreds of thousands of Canadians. If the minister set aside some money to assist provinces and municipalities to build day-care centres so that mothers who wanted to go to work as well as fathers could simply put their children in these centres, that would be social capital which would create jobs. We need over 2,000 of these centres.
If the minister set a massive amount of money aside for low-income housing and urban renewal, instead of following the slow way in which money is now coming foward, that would be a social development which would create jobs for Canadians across the country. There are many other urgent needs that Canada ought to meet. The government ought to meet these needs and at the same time solve the problem of unemployment. If the government met those urgent needs as it should, there would be no reason for any single, able-bodied man or woman in Canada to be out of work. I believe a study of this budget will show how hollow and how unjust it is. I am sad for the Minister of Finance; indeed, I am almost ashamed for him.


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, today is leaders' day and you may wonder why someone with the view of the House which I have should be rising to speak in this debate. I want to reassure you, and quickly arrest any rumours on the other side of the House, that I am only a leftover from Thursday's list of speakers. But I am very glad to have a chance to speak at this time. I listened with interest to what was said by members the opposition parties and I think I should comment on their arguments.
The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) informed us that the highest priority of the Conservative party in government would be to provide jobs. Then he set forth two proposals which, had they been in the budget, presumably would have provided jobs. One of them is a sham and the other is a loser. The sham is his proposal to provide an automatic tax adjustment for inflation so that taxes would be reduced automatically every year by the amount of inflation. I call that a sham because it is obvious it would apply right across the board to all incomes and would have the result of reducing the total government revenue by the amount of the cost of living increase. It would then be necessary for the government to increase taxes to make up the amount required to meet its needs. The amount of increase would equal this sham or givea-
May 15, 1972

way offered in an opportunist manner in an effort to win some votes. Just describing it indicates how empty it is. Let us hope the country sees it in those terms.
The second proposal of the Leader of the Opposition to provide jobs, which he set forth as the highest priority, is a $15 increase in the old age pension right across the board. That is a meritorious proposal. I hope a $15 increase in the old age pension will be possible. But what would that do in respect of jobs? I submit it would do nothing. It is a loser. The Leader of the Opposition has chosen to bring forward proposals designed to attract attention and win votes, but which are certainly not designed to do anything about providing jobs.
The budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is designed to do provide jobs. I shall come to it in a moment. However, first I should like to comment on the speech of the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis). We heard a very tired performance. Perhaps it is time for that party to put its new leader on the shelf beside its old leader. I had become accustomed to hearing from the old leader of the New Democratic Party that the mountain has laboured and brought forth a mole-


An hon. Member:: A mouse.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -but that expression has died. From the new leader of the New Democratic Party we hear time and time again the ever-hopeful virgin entering this chamber full of expectations for the just society and enchanted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and our new Minister of Finance. He approaches the floor, unwraps those yellowed papers of his and then we hear that once again his hopes have been dashed and that his worst fears have been realized. What does he find-not a new leader but Mackenzie King again. Not Mr. John Turner but Mr. Benson again. This approach is wearing thin.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It is a tired performance which is repeated too often. Let me deal with his principal argument. His argument is that this government favours the corporate sector at the expense of the personal sector. The false premise on which his whole case is built is that there is a corporate sector and a personal sector and that there are different segments of the population. Listening to him, one would have the notion that somewhere or other there is a class of people in the corporate sector who live a life of luxury and ease, who do not work, who do not pay taxes, who are able to deduct all their expenses and who contribute nothing; while again, another group, the individuals, are the ones who make the goods, who accumulate the savings and who carry out all our industrial activity as well as pay all the taxes.
I think just to state the implications of the premise is to demonstrate how fallacious it is. The corporations are not real people. There is no difference between the corporate sector and the personal sector. There are only real people in this country. It is only people who pay taxes, the corporations just being a funnel. It is patently ridiculous for him to suggest that somehow to reduce the taxes of corporations is to confer a benefit on a privileged class of 25316-211
The Budget-Mr. Kaplan
people. He knows perfectly well that taxes are paid by people. When corporations have their taxes raised, the price of goods tends to increase. In the end, all taxes are paid by people.


David Orlikow: Which people?


An hon. Member:: Tell us which people.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: All people, on a progressive basis. Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am convincing the members of the New Democratic Party, but I believe I can put to them one point which perhaps may make my entire case. The Carter report, which they revere so highly as being the ultimate in equitable taxation, would impose on the corporations of Canada a tax of zero per cent. Under the proposals of the Carter report, all taxes would be paid by people. Integration is provided as the corporation is seen for what it is-a conduit. The members of the New Democratic Party approved this and never regarded it as a sellout, because it was made very clear in the analysis of the Carter report that taxes are paid by people and that the corporation is only a vehicle serving the interest of consumers, providing jobs and accumulating savings and profits for investors. I think the leader of the New Democratic Party owes his supporters a better analysis of Canada's problems than he gave tonight. He spoke about tax incentives and put forward the preposterous proposition that machinery takes away jobs and that any incentive to build up jobs by adding machinery would not do this but, rather, would tend to reduce the number of jobs in Canada.
I invite the leader of the New Democratic Party to consider the opinions of all the economies of the world. If he looks at those economies which have no machinery at all, he will find how much employment there can be where there are no machines. Then he should look at the economies which are the most advanced, those which have the latest machinery and industrial processes. I suggest to him that machinery modernization and mechanization is the key to providing full employment in Canada, and not the opposite. It is ridiculous to suggest that an incentive which would tend to make our economy more efficient would operate against the interest of the working man. I hope none of his supporters would ever believe that.


Frank Howard: Why do you not try working in industry to find out?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I have. I should like to speak tonight about Canada's industrial strategy and how it has been moved forward positively by last week's budget. For the first half of this century it seems that Canada's industrial goals have been clear and fairly stable. The economy was divided into two sectors, international and domestic. In the international sector we developed production of products for world markets. These are products in which we have achieved international excellence in economy of production and in quality.
These goods include farm produce, timber, pulp and paper, and minerals. Partly by transportation subsidy and partly by stimulative taxation policies, this sector has developed to the basically healthy condition it is in today.

May 15, 1972
The Budget-Mr. Kaplan
Of course, the international sector is subject to international movements. There is little the government of Canada can do directly to support the international sector when foreign competition gets hungry or when foreign markets decline. Although subject to cycles, the Canadian international sector stands up well today.
The remaining sector of Canada's economy has been the domestic sector of manufactured goods. In this sector it was Canada's industrial strategy to ensure that the total Canadian market was in effect delivered to the industries which produced manufactured goods in Canada. In this way, by a protected market, industrial expansion was stimulated and Canadian manufacture was encouraged. The policies of the government in this area included a forthcoming immigration policy, tariff protection, and later such interventions as grants and loans to industry from government and government agencies.
It is probable that without these policies of protection and stimulation of the sector of manufactured goods Canada would have no secondary industry today, our population would be less and there would be less Canadian opportunity than there is. We would be an economy wholly dependent on the export of resources, many of which are depleting rapidly.
This general industrial strategy of two sectors subject to very different regimes was right for its time. But beginning in the 1960s, or even earlier, it became clear that this industrial strategy could not endure and that changes were needed. There were political and economic reasons for this. It became clear, firstly, that secondary industry is not viable with only the Canadian domestic economy to serve. Twenty-two million people cannot support an electronics industry, a furniture industry, a footwear industry, a textile industry, a chemical industry, a fine paper industry, an automobile industry, or any one of a number of others.
Such a policy denies Canadian manufacturers the economies of scale which come from the hardware technologies of mass production and the mass media and from the software technologies of mass marketing and mass distribution. Internationally, the exclusion of foreign manufacturers was offensive as well because it prevented the customers of Canada who bought international goods from us from repairing their trade balances with us on a bilateral basis. Few countries have any primary goods which Canada needs in any quantities.
But political objections to the old industrial strategy were also significant. It happens that our domestic sector goods tend to come from the urbanized regions of central Canada while the international goods come from the west, the east and the non-urban regions. Over the years there has been a growing tension in which, for example, the west objects to being required to offer its goods, the international goods, in the world market at world prices subject to international recessions and monetary crises, while it is forced to buy its requirements in protected markets from central Canadian manufacturers. It alleges that these manufacturers are inefficient and non-competitive. Indeed, there is a factual basis for this. Canada's secondary industry is fragmented, it is weak, and protec-

tion in the long run is not a viable method of building a healthy industry. This kind of charge of the west or the east against the centre of our country weakens the unity of Canada. We need policies in every sector of national life, including the economy which tie us together and not which pull us apart.
These factors forced Canada to reconsider its traditional industrial strategy. The reconsideration was piecemeal, a process rather than a concentrated effort-but the shape of our new industrial strategy is becoming clarified. What was recognized was that to remain viable economically, to preserve national unity, the old domestic sector had to be turned inside out. Canadian secondary manufacturing had to find international markets; it had to learn to live in the international community.
At the outset it may not have been clear that this was possible. Today, with part of the new policy already implemented, it is demonstrably clear that it can work. Manufactured goods have moved from 14 per cent to 38 per cent of our total exports in the last nine years. The policy change has been guided by the department of industry and then by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I should like to read a portion of the statute establishing the Department of Industry just to show how its terms of reference were directed toward this problem. It was established to-
-develop and carry out such programs and projects as may be appropriate to assist the adaptation of manufacturing industries to changing conditions in domestic and export markets, and to changes in the techniques of production; to identify and assist those manufacturing industries that require special measures to develop an unrealized potential or to cope with exceptional problems of adjustments,
The process carried on by the Department of Industry, later by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, has been to review the economy sector by sector looking for ways in which the trade of that sector can find international markets.
The first sector of secondary manufacturing to be internationalized was the automobile industry. This chamber is aware of how successful this first step was-embarrassingly so, as we find our trade surplus now an issue in Canada-United States relations. But we have come so far from the timid safeguards of 1964 that they are largely irrelevant today. A big part of the success story reflects the achievement of American managers of U.S. capital in Canada. But it also reflects the fact that Canadian labour can be at least as efficient as its U.S. counterpart and that Canadian entrepreneurs in the accessories industry and in the after-market can be at least as good as their American counterparts, or better.
Following the automobile industry was the textile industry. Here the department has learned, to its surprise and to the surprise of almost all Canadians, that we make some textiles which we can sell even in Hong Kong, and that Americans are attracted to Canadian clothing, suits and attire where sold competitively right in American cities. The process of internationalizing the textile industry is still going on. It is not imposed by the government on the industry; in fact, the opposite is taking place. A board has been set up and the industry is invited to come forward and present rationalization plans. The government is prepared to assist in financing, to help retrain and
May 15, 1972

relocate employees, to provide permanent pensions for employees who are unable to adjust. This adjustment assistance is a reasonable request to make of a Canadian taxpayer because it is part of a process from which all Canada benefits.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has indicated that the footwear industry will be next. In this Canadian manufacturing industry it is already obvious that protection is not the answer. The only answer is growth, finding international markets. I hope that the electronics industry, the furniture industry, the chemical industry and the fine paper industry will follow and that this new industrial strategy will be fully implemented as soon as possible.
Last week's budget presented in part Canada's answer to the threats to international commerce and, in particular, to Canadian industry presented by a whole series of moves by many states against trade liberalization. The DISC program with which we are all familiar is only one example of this, and if I could turn again for a moment to the remarks of the leader of the NDP, he said that the whole solution to unemployment in Canada is to provide more money for people in the low income groups. I agree that that is a desirable objective and that it would stimulate demand in Canada. But let me ask him this: What does that do to counter the DISC program, and like programs? What does that do to make Canadian goods competitive with American goods that are now coming in subject to tax subsidies? What does that do to assure us market access to European countries, to Asia and to places where we have to sell to be able to stay in business? This budget is responsive to these problems.
It is all very well to argue in favour of tax cuts for people with small incomes-and this is something that it would be desirable to do-but to assert that this kind of policy would keep Canada competitive is just foolishness. He had nothing to say in response to a very real problem which his own party has been as diligent as any in bringing to the attention of the House and of the government.


Mr. Gilbert:: And we have policies for the DISC program also.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I would like to hear them, because certainly an NDP budget would have nothing to say about the DISC program and no solution for the non-tariff barriers being imposed on international trade by a great many countries of which the United States is only one.
It is part of Canada's industrial strategy, as is obvious from the foregoing, to encourage international trade liberalization. Other countries with huge populations can turn inward and seek to develop self-sufficiency. Some of the new trading blocs-the European Economic Community is one-have this option as well. But Canada does not have this option. We cannot turn inward if we want to continue to improve our standard of living, if we want to continue our efforts to eliminate poverty in Canada, if we want to absorb our growing population into our labour force. If we want to do these things, we have no alternative but to encourage trade liberalization and we must become more and more competitive. Therefore, we have
The Budget-Mr. Kaplan
to oppose this whole range of protectionist measures, not only the DISC program but other interventionist policies of other countries that are designed to give a subsidy to their own exports in foreign markets.
Canada's answer to all these protectionist measures, including DISC, in part came in the budget presented by the Minister of Finance last Monday. The measure he proposed is not a tax subsidy to exports. It cannot be criticized under the rules of the GATT because it applies to all Canadian manufacturing and processing, whether for domestic consumption or for export. The reduction of corporate taxation from 48 per cent to 40 per cent in this sector should go a long way to meeting programs like DISC and the interventionist policies of other governments. It should also help secondary industry injured by the increase in the value of the Canadian dollar.
Here again, Mr. Speaker, what does the leader of the NDP have to say to that? Giving tax cuts at any level of the personal sector does nothing to make our manufacturing industries and processing industries better able to deal with the increasing value of the Canadian dollar. But this tax reduction does. It puts them in a position to maintain their competitiveness against the manufacturing and processing industries of other countries. This is a measure which is responsive to the threat to this sector, and is consistent with the direction in which our new industrial strategy would lead this traditionally sheltered sector of the economy.
One can only echo the hopes and expectations of the minister that this incentive, together with the fast writeoff, will be used by manufacturing industries because if they do take advantage of them, this will make us more competitive. This will increase Canadian production. This will help us to find new markets. Above all, this will help us to create employment for Canadians.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the decision to increase the guaranteed income supplement, the veterans allowances and the addition of a full cost of living adjustment provision. Inflation is a fact of life. While the government has done much to keep inflation in check in recent years, inflation has not been eliminated. It remains a fact of life which hurts most the weak in society, those who live on fixed incomes, those who are unable to bargain for increases.
There are two ways to deal with this problem. One has been used in the past, that is, to wait for a significant loss of real income for those receiving pensions and then to step in with a measure catching up, bringing the pensions back up to the real income level they had before and advancing them. This catching up process, which has been used in the past, has the effect of cheating pensioners because while waiting to catch up they suffer. Their real incomes decline while the incomes of other Canadians continue to increase. This system of automatic adjustment is the fairest one, and again I congratulate the Minister of Finance for responding in this area and for providing the cost of living adjustment.
Many people in society who have policies that they want to press on the government often press them by confrontation, by demand, by attack, by criticism. Of course, it is difficult for a government to ignore that kind of criticism. I think it is worth noting that the requests which were

May 15, 1972
The Budget-Mr. McGrath
received by the government arid by all members of the House on behalf of the old age pensioners were characterized by dignity, by respect for the institution of government and by a recognition that there were other needs in this country that also had to be considered. But nevertheless, the claims of the old age pensioners were very real and very deserving of consideration.
I think one should congratulate the old age pensioners for the way in which they made their case, and we should congratulate the government for responding not only to crisis and confrontation but to dignified demands put forward in a constructive way like those from the old age pensioners. I see my time has elapsed, Mr. Speaker, and I conclude.


Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes at my disposal I would like to refer to what I consider to be one of the most serious omissions from the budget, namely, any reference to the government's regional economic expansion policy or, indeed, to the effect that the present budget will have on that policy. I have already raised this matter in questions in the House to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) and to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). The subject was also raised in the regional development committee by the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council when they appeared before that committee in the course of examination of departmental estimates a few days ago.
Unlike the accelerated provisions in the present budget, it is interesting to note that in the Gordon budget of 1963 similar capital cost allowances were introduced, but they were for designated regions. Referring to these capital cost allowances, Mr. Gordon said, as recorded at page 980 of Hansard in March, 1964:
They are of special importance because it is here that the greatest need for continued encouragement appears to lie.
He went on to say:
It will take time, however, for areas that have lagged behind the general rate of expansion to attract the new enterprises that are expected to result from these tax inducements.
Accordingly, Mr. Gordon, in the course of that budget extended these provisions until April 1, 1967. Compare that with the present write-offs for equipment and machinery. They apply right across the country. They apply on a national basis. Consequently, we are disturbed over the effect this could have on the government's regional economic expansion policies as they apply to the designated regions. I believe, and I hope I can be proven wrong, that this could result and probably will result in reducing the attractiveness of the Regional Development Incentives Act which is the main thrust of the government's regional economic expansion policies.
Under ADIA, which was the forerunner of the Regional Development Incentives Act, assets purchased under these grants were fully depreciable at accelerated rates. The Atlantic Provinces Economic Council has said, and I share this view, that the present RDIA with respect to the write-off provisions of the present budget, should in fact operate in the same way.

It is very interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that APEC indicated that the present forecast of investment in the Atlantic provinces for this year will be down by 23 per cent. APEC on May 9 emphasized the importance of reviewing the procedures under the new provisions to ensure that this does not happen, to ensure that RDIA incentives are not diluted by the provisions of this budget.
I was very disturbed in the course of my questions to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) because his answers on this very important subject seemed to indicate that he did not know much about it except that he had been present in cabinet when the budget had been discussed. This confirms a disturbing aspect of the government's regional development policy, a lack of consultation. There does not seem to have been any consultation between the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion before this write-off provision was incorporated in the present budget.
From time to time it was recommended that co-ordination is an essential feature if economic expansion and regional expansion policies of the government are to succeed. Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Development Council in its first report recommended that there should be co-ordination especially in the area of the government's economic and fiscal policies. The budgetary provision which is designed to accelerate growth in manufacturing across the country could have the serious effect of diluting and weakening DREE grants and their effect on stimulating growth and employment in developing regions. For example, for firms in a 50 per cent corporate income tax category the real incentive value of an RDIA grant has been reduced by approximately 40 per cent in the first two years of operation of new equipment. This could be reduced more if you want to take interest into account.
The reason for this reduction, in relative attractiveness of designated areas to new investment, is that the portion of capital costs covered by RDIA grants is not depreciable for tax calculations. The remedy would be to allow faster write-offs for firms receiving a DREE grant or, more simply, to allow the full value of new capital investment to be used in depreciation allowances.
In relationship to the national average, I think it is worth mentioning unemployment. This has been referred to before in this debate but I think it bears repetition. Unemployment in the Atlantic region continues to be disproportionately and unacceptably high. Taking into account, for example, the peak unemployment month of January and February, unemployment in the Atlantic provinces for the last ten years has never gone below 9 per cent. For the last five years, when the government's regional development policies were supposed to have been operative, it has hovered around 10 per cent; this despite substantial DREE expenditures in the region on infrastructure and on incentive grants. Clearly, the government's regional development program is not working, certainly not in the Atlantic provinces.
The latest figures indicate that while the number of jobless remains unacceptably and disproportionately high, there is no appreciable change in the job situation. In other words, unemployment continues to rise while the
May 15, 1972

job opportunities remain the same. The March unemployment figures for this year released by Statistics Canada indicate an unacceptable jobless rate of 15.4 per cent in Newfoundland, 16.2 per cent in Prince Edward Island, 9 per cent in Nova Scotia and 12.6 per cent in New Brunswick. Mr. Speaker, the figures would have been considerably higher were it not for the government's LIP program which had some small effect on the over-all situation.
The accelerated depreciation provisions of the present budget will probably stimulate manufacturing in the industrial regions of the country and, hopefully, offset to some extent the American DISC program. However, unlike Mr. Gordon's budget of 1963 and notwithstanding the assurances made in the House today by the Minister of Finance, they will have little or no impact on the designated regions of the country. For example, according to figures contained in the first report of the Atlantic Development Council, manufacturing in the Atlantic region accounted for 13.4 per cent of total employment in the Atlantic provinces whereas the figure for the whole country was approximately 23.4 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, given this fact plus the dilution of the ability of RDIA to attract industry, all present regional economic expansion policies are doing in the Atlantic region is perpetuating the existing economic structure. They should in fact be changing the structure because it has been demonstrated through the years that the structure is unable to provide jobs for the region.
Given the situation that presently exists in the designated regions and the failure of the present government policies to have any appreciable effect on it, it is difficult to reconcile the absence of any reference to regional economic expansion in the budget now before the House. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion refused to commit the government to the ten-year targets for the Atlantic region outlined in the first report of the Atlantic Development Council. In commenting on the minister's belated reaction to the Atlantic Development Council's first report which was tabled in the House in April, 1971, APEC in their newsletter of January 1972 said:
The refusal of the minister to commit the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to the Atlantic Development Council's 1981 goals and targets for the Atlantic region is as inexplicable as it is disappointing. It calls into question once again the federal government's dedication to the long-term development of the Atlantic provinces on a planned and orderly basis and reinforces the suspicion that DREE is nothing more than a well financed giveaway program to the be extended or retracted according to the economic and political exigencies of the moment.
But Mr. Speaker, the government continues to pursue a regional development policy without clearly defined goals and targets. In this respect it seems to operate in a vacuum. After all, the Atlantic Development Council is charged by statute to giving the minister advice on the operation of the program in the Atlantic provinces. To put in the words of APEC-
What is needed from DREE are specific goals and targets, benchmarks by which it may judge and be judged on its performance.
The unemployment rate of 4j per cent for the Atlantic region, which was the target on the ten-year development strategy put forward by ADC, can hardly be described as Utopian. Nevertheless, it is a goal and one which in my
The Budget-Mr. McGrath
view can be achieved given the proper national economic climate. The other agency which is charged with advising the minister under the statute setting up the department, the Canadian Council on Rural Development, in its third review said:
What kind of time perspective has the department? In so far as the benefits of heightened employment and inform income levels in the growth centres are expected to "trickle down" and make their effect felt throughout the entire region in which the growth centre is located, how long is it anticipated the process will take?
Mr. Speaker, obviously they have refused to accept the ten-year target of the Atlantic Development Council. In face of that refusal, no alternate target or program has been put forward by the minister. The report further said:
In a modern educated democracy it is not enough that the public be told what the government had decided to do. It is essential that they also be told why.
Given the substantial funds being expended on to the DREE program both for regional development incentives and on the program for infrastructure in the designated regions, surely it follows that the government has certain obligations. Surely it is incumbent on the government to say exactly what its objective is. I believe, and this view is shared by many, that unless there is a deliberate attempt to change the existing structure in the region and the approach to regional development in the region, and provide the kinds of incentives which will change the industrial structure there, all we are doing is perpetuating the status quo.
The report of the Canadian Council on Rural Development, to which I just referred, was released in July, 1970. In it were the recommendations I have referred to that were made to the minister. Nevertheless, we were told a few days ago when members of CCRD appeared before the standing committee on regional development that nothing has changed in the last two years and that the government had failed to respond to their recommendations. The principal recommendations of the council are as follows.
practicable, be objectively defined and made public.
2. The economic assumptions taken into account by the department in planning should be also made a matter of public record.
Nobody really knows what the government is attempting to do. The latest unemployment figures clearly show a continuing unemployment situation. Present government policies are not having any appreciable effect on unemployment in the Atlantic provinces, in eastern Quebec or, for that matter, in other designated regions of the country. Given this fact, I find it difficult, almost impossible, to understand why the minister did not refer in his budget to the government's regional economic policies. Why did he not ease the minds of those who are concerned by indicating exactly what affect the accelerated write-off and depreciation provisions will have on the implementation of the Regional Development Incentives Act? If the debate continues, and if the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion takes part in it, I hope he will attempt to set the record straight. Until that happens, Mr. Speaker, this question will remain a matter of great concern to those of us in the Atlantic provinces who are involved in the government's regional development program.

May 15, 1972
Division


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.	Messrs:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 9.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section (6) of Standing Order 60, to interrupt these proceedings forthwith and put the question on the subamendment.
The House divided on the amendment to the amendment (Mr. Saltsman) which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 18)
YEAS Messrs:
Barnett	Lambert
Beaudoin	(Bellechasse)
Benjamin	Laprise
Blackburn	Lewis
B re win	Maelnnis (Mrs.)
Broadbent	Matte
Burton	Nystrom
Douglas	Orlikow
Fortin	Peters
Gauthier	Rodrigue
Gilbert	Rondeau
Gleave	Rowland
Godin	Saltsman
Hardinig	Skoberg
Howard (Skeena)	Thomson
Knight Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)	(Battlef ord-Kindersley)
 NAYS Messrs:
Aiken	Comtois
Alexander	Corbin
Alkenbrack	Corriveau
Andras	Cote (Longueuil)
Baldwin	Crossman
Barrett	Crouse
Basford	Cullen
Bechard	Cyr
Beer	Davis
Bell	Deachman
Benson	Deakon
Bigg	Diefenbaker
Blouin	Dinsdale
BorrJe	Drury
Boulanger	Dube
Breau	Dupras
Buchanan	Duquet
Caccia	Fairweather
Cadieu	Faulkner
Cantin	Flemming
Chappell	Forest
Chretien	Forget
Clermont	Forrestall
Coates	Foster
Gendron	Morison
Gervais	Muir
Gillespie	Murta
Goyer	Nesbitt
Gray	Noble
Guay (St. Boniface)	Noel
Guay (Levis)	Nowlan
Guilbault	O'Connell
Harkness	Olson
Hees	Osier
Hellyer	Ouellet
Hogarth	Paproski
Hopkins	Pelletier
Howard	Pepin
(Okanagan Boundary)	Perrault
Howe	Portelance
Isabelle	Pringle
Jamie9on	Prud'homme
Jerome	Reid
Kaplan	Ritchie
Laflamme	Rochon
Laing (Vancouver South)	Roy (Timmins)
Lambert	Roy (Laval)
(Edmonton West)	Ryan
Lang (Saskatoon -	Rynard
Humboldt)	Schumacher
Langlois	Scott
Laniel	Serre
La Salle	Sharp
Leblanc (Laurier)	Skoreyko
Lefebvre	Smith
Legault	(Northumberland-
Lessard (LaSalle)	Miramichi)
Lessard	Smith (Saint-Jean)
(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Southam
Lind	Stafford
Loiselle	Stanbury
Lundrigan	Stanfield
MacDonald (Egmont)	Stewart (Marquette)
MacEachen	St. Pierre
MacGuigan	Sulatycky
Maelnnis (Cape	Sullivan
Breton-East Richmond)	Thomas
Macquarrie	(Maisonneuve-
McBride	Rosemont)
McGleave	Thomas (Moncton)
McCutcheon	Thompson (Red Deer)
McGrath	Tolmfe
McIntosh	Trudeau
McKfnley	Trudel
McNulty	Turner (London East)
McQuaid	Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
Mahoney	Wahn
Major	Watson
Marceau	Weatherhead
Marchand	WheQan
(Kamloops-Cariboo)	Whicher
Marshall	Whiting
Mazankowski	Woolliams
Monteith	Yanakis-158.


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

Tuesday May 16, 1972