1972-06-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister oi State for Urban Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-213, to amend the National Housing Act.


[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. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	How many persons receive (a) Old Age Security (b) Guaranteed Income Supplement?
2.	What was the net cost of (a) the basic Old Age Security (b) the Guaranteed Income Supplement for the fiscal year 1970-71?
3.	What percentage of the federal budget do these expenditures represent?


Hon. lohn C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. (a) As of January, 1972, 1,759,036; (b) as of January, 1972, 976,225.
2.	(a) $1,627,219,132; (b) $280,005,371. However, increases in benefits under the Guaranteed Income Supplement effective April 1, 1971, brought expenditures close to $525 million for the fiscal year 1971-72.
3.	Expenditures on Old Age Security pensions and the Guaranteed Income Supplement are not themselves included in federal budget expenditures, because these payments are made from a separate fund designated for this purpose, namely the Old Age Security Fund. However, in 1970-71, expenditures on Old Age Security pension benefits and the Guaranteed Income Supplement were 12.71 per cent of total federal budgetary and nonbudgetary expenditures, on a national accounts basis. These expenditures for 1972-73 are estimated at $2,555
million which represent 13.45 per cent of estimated federal budgetary and non-budgetary expenditures for that year.


FAMILY INCOMES
Mr. Mather: 1.	Does the government have information on the estimated income which will provide a modest but adequate Canadian standard of living for a family of four and, if so, what is the estimate?
2.	What percentage of Canadian families make less than $5,000 a year?
3.	What percentage of Canadian families make less than $10,000 per year?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of National Health and Welfare and Statistics Canada as follows: 1. There is no existing official statistical concept of poverty in Canada. However, Statistics Canada has established low-income cut-offs which have been used to delineate low-income families from other units. For a family of four, in 1969, the income cut-off was set at $4,420. In its report, the Special Senate Committee on Poverty has recommended that basic allowance rates b>
set initially at $3,500 for a family of four. Among provincially established social assistance programs in January 1972, the annual rate of benefits for a family of four ranged from $2,604 in Nova Scotia to $3,252 in Ontario. Also, under the proposed Family Income Security Plan, a family of four, depending on whether there are two or three children, will receive full benefits where family income is less than $5,000 or $5,500 respectively.
2 and 3. The most recent figures available on incomes are for the year 1969. The following income figures include income from investments and government transfer payments as well as income from employment. 24.8 per cent of families had incomes below $5,000 per year; 66.6 per cent of families had incomes below $10,000 per year.


FAMILY INCOME SECURITY PLAN
Mr. Robinson: What is the estimated amount of money that will be paid to recipients under the new family allowance program, does this exceed the amount paid out under the old plan and, if so, by how much?
Hon. ]ohn Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare): The proposed Family Income Security Plan will replace not only the family allowances program, but also the current youth allowances progam. The estimated cost of the Family Income Security Plan in the first year of operation and the amount now expended on current programs, including Quebec schooling allowances, are $820

June 12, 1972
Questions
million and $650 million respectively, so that the additional costs of the new proposals are estimated at $170 million.


CMHC TASK FORCE ON LOW INCOME HOUSING
Mr. McCleave: Did CMHC commission a task force under Michael Dennis and, if so (a) for what purposes (b) how many reports were requested by the task force and from whom (c) what will be the total cost of this task force?


Stanley Ronald Basford: In January, 1971, a study of low income housing was commissioned by CMHC, to be carried out by a task force, headed by Mr. Michael Dennis, (a) The main purposes of the study were to examine present approaches to low income housing, and the extent to which current program meet stated objectives, and also to consider what the future role of CMHC in the low income housing field might be. The study was to provide, over the long run, a range of policy alternatives supported by research.
(b)	The following ten studies were commissioned by the Low Income Housing Task Force: (i) Melvin Charney: study of the adequacy and production of low income housing, (ii) G. Fortin: study of social and institutional aspects of the provision of low income housing in Quebec, (iii) Professor George Molins-Ysal: study of the residential housing construction industry, (iv) Dr. Aprodicio Laqui-an: study on internal migration and low income housing, (v) Michael Clague: study of citizen group development in Vancouver and its implications for low income housing policy, (vi) Professors Deutsch and Green: study of the public finance aspects of low income housing, (vii) Professor Helen Abel: preparation of policy recommendations in the area of rural housing, (viii) M. Fernand Hwon, CRUR-INRS: study of the housing projects under CMHC directive administration in Montreal, (ix) Mr. George Hunter: study of housing policies and programs of the federal departments and agencies other than CMHC. (x) Planning Secretariat of Manitoba: study of low income housing in Manitoba undertaken in conjunction with the Task Force on Low Income Housing.
(c)	The cost of the task force as at February 29, 1972, was $322,857.05.


PENSION OF RIGHT HON. LESTER B. PEARSON
Mr. Godin: Does the former Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, receive a pension from the government and, if so, is it subject to income tax?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Privy Council office and the Department of Supply and Services as follows: The Right Hon. L. B. Pearson receives a pension as a former prime minister under the terms of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and also receives an annuity under the Civil Service Superannuation Act. These pensions are subject to income tax. Parliamentary pensions payable to former Members of Parliament are under the administrative jurisdiction of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
(Mr. Munro.J


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-RECRUITMENT OF PERSONNEL FOR QUEBEC OFFICE
Mr. Godin: 1.	Does the Quebec office of the Post Office Department recruit staff through competition or personal interview?
2.	If by competition are they public or simply reserved for a small group?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: 1. The
Quebec postal region recruits its staff by open competition. Candidates are expected to fill out an application form which is subsequently studied by a personnel officer. If the candidate claims to possess the required qualifications and he passes the written examination, in cases where such is a requirement, he will be called for interview by a selection board. The personal interview, therefore, is an integral part of the competition process. No employee is admitted to permanent status within the Department who has not been interviewed. I must add, however, that the Quebec postal region, in common with departmental practice across Canada, does not necessarily resort to open competition when filling positions for which there are adequate candidates within the department. This applies to nearly all supervisory or promotion positions, and for certain lower level positions which are filled from the ranks of casual or part-time employees. A personal interview would not necessarily be held, for instance, if a part-time employee, who was well known to the supervisor, was moved into a permanent position. He would, however, have been interviewed when first recruited as a part-time employee.
2. There are no restrictions as to who may or may not apply in an open competition.


POST OFFICE REVENUE FROM RENTAL OF LOCK BOXES
Mr. Penner: 1.	What revenue is derived annually by the Post Office Department from the rental of lock boxes to boxholders?
2.	Has the minister or his officials considered making these available free of charge in communities which lack letter carrier service?
3.	Is the present box rental system discriminatory against those who live in small communities which do not have household mail delivery and, if so (a) for what reason (b) what steps are contemplated to eliminate such discrimination?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: 1. During the fiscal year 1970-71 the revenues derived from the rental of lock boxes amounted to $5,061,338. The revenues from this source for the fiscal year 1971-72 will approximate $4,875,000. Final figures not available.
2.	In communities which lack letter carrier service, the normal means of free delivery in smaller centres is over the counter; in the rural areas delivery is made by a rural route courier. The lock box service is an optional service and an additional convenience supplementary to the normal free method of delivery. The policy of the Post Office is that the cost related to the operation and administration of this service should be borne by those who benefit directly from it.
3.	No. Lock box fees in the urban centres are higher than in the rural centres because salary and accommodation costs are much higher in the urban centres.
June 12, 1972


BANNING OF HORSES TO EUROPE FOR SLAUGHTERING
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to banning further shipments of horses to Europe for slaughter purposes?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister oi Agriculture):: All aspects of horse shipments to Europe are being studied.


'DEPARTMENT OF SOLICITOR GENERAL' SECURITY PLANNING AND RESEARCH GROUP
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many hours a week, since April 1, has the Security Planning and Research Group in the Department of the Solicitor General met for the purpose of studying the nature, origin and causes of subversive and revolutionary action and the measures necessary to protect Canadians from internal threats?
2.	What are the salaries of each of the members of the said Group?
3.	How many meetings have there been between the said Group and the Solicitor General to advise him on the information compiled and analysed by them since the above date?


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister oi Energy. Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is somewhat long and I wonder if we might have it printed in Hansard and taken as read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The answer above referred to follows:]
1.	Since the Security Planning and Research Group is an integral part of the Headquarters of the Department of the Solicitor General, its members work during the normal daily working hours each working day, i.e. 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and 1:15 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday inclusive. Overtime work is required from time to time. It is difficult to state how many hours were devoted to any particular subject.
2.	As of May 15, 1972 the salary ranges of each member of the Security Planning and Research Group were: P. Banning, $15,360-$15,990; H. Black, $15,236-$20,557; R. Bourne, $22,000-$28,000; B. Cantin, $8,903-$10,603; L. Cloutier, $14,988-$17,031; W. Dabros, $17,340-$19,860; R. Gaudet, $14,988-$17,031; L. Paquette, $7,602-$8,356; M. Valenti*, $6,358-$6,989; and P. Wallace, $14,988-$17,031.
*M. Valenti replaced S. Hoffman as a member of the Group on May 15, 1972.
3.	Information compiled and analysed by the Group is passed to the Solicitor General by normal departmental channels through the Deputy Solicitor General. The Solicitor General is given briefings from time to time by the Head of the Security Planning and Research Group when necessary or at his convenience.


ROCKLAND, ONTARIO-SITE OF NEW POST OFFICE
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): 1.	Was land recently acquired by the government in Rockland, Ontario as a site for a new post office and, if so, on what date?
Questions
2.	What was the nature of the enquiry for suitable sites and who made it?
3.	If such person was not in the Public Service of Canada, what were the terms of engagement and what was the cost thereof?
4.	How many sites and/or offers of sites were considered and of these (a) how many were suitable (b) what was the price involved in each case?
5.	What is the area of the site finally chosen, at what cost, and from whom was it finally acquired?
6.	Have any objections been received from local residents as to the choice of site, and what was their general nature as well as the reply?


Hon. lean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: 1.
Yes, on December 28, 1971.
2.	Improved postal accommodation was the subject of enquiry; it was performed by officers of the Department of Public Works, Capital Region.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Four sites were considered (a) Only two sites presented suitable conditions, adequate area, and fair cost; (b) Cost of first site: $20,000; cost of second site: $15,000.
5.	The site chosen presented an area totalling 25,992
square feet. The cost involved amounted to $15,000. The Department purchased the land from the following parties:	Boucher, Fernand; Boucher, Come; Thivierge,
Claudette.
6.	No objections were raised.


ALLOCATION OF FUNDS BY CMHC FOR COUNTIES OF HALTON AND WENTWORTH
Mr. Alexander: 1.	How many projects in the county of Wentworth and the county of Halton were in receipt of CMHC funds of amounts exceeding $100 thousand during 1970, 1971 and to date in 1972?
2.	(a) What type of projects were involved (b) where were they located by way of municipal address (c) what were the names of the firms in receipt of the funds?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1
and 2 (a) (b): See table attached.
2. (c) It is not customary to release the names of borrowers under the NHA, since this is considered to be a matter of confidence in mortgage transactions between lender and borrower.
[See table on following page.]


POLICING BY ARMED FORCES FOR ARCTIC POLLUTION CONTROL
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	To date, what role has the Department of National Defence played in the prevention and control of air, water and land pollution in the Arctic?
2.	How many members of the armed forces are presently maintained in the Arctic for purposes of policing (a) the pollution-control zone (b) the new fisheries closing lines?
(Mr. Yewchuk.J
Gross CMCH Activity in Halton and Wentworth Counties, Ontario, 1970-March, 1972 Projects Receiving more than $100,000
Loans for Housing	Loans for Infrastructure	Grants	InvestmentsLocation	Low Rental Section 15	Public Housing Section 43	Student Housing Section 47	Sewage Treatment Section 51	Implementation of Urban Renewal Projects Section 25	Implementation of Urban Renewal Projects Section 24	F/P Land Assembly Section 40Hostel Loans Units Beds $000	Hostel Loans Units Beds $000	Hostel Loans Units Beds $000	Loans $000	Loans $000	No. $000	No. $000
Halton County
Burlington	1970	-	-	-	-	1	141	-	1,163	-	-	-	-	2	545	-	-	-	-	-	-1971	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Jan.-Mar	1972	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Georgetown	1970	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	121	-	-	-	-	-	-1971	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Jan.-Mar	1972	-	-	-	-	138	-	413	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Milton	1970	-	-	-	-	1	36	-	358	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-1971	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Jan.-Mar	1972	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Oakville	1970	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	287	-	-	-	-	-	-1971	-	-	-	-	3	271	176	5,460	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Jan.-Mar	1972	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Wentworth County
Dun das	1970	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	209	-	-	-	-	-	-1971	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Jan.-Mar	1972	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Hamilton	1970	3	538	-	6,415	3	228	-	2,862	-	-	-	-	i	5,000	-	-	1	3,143	2	1,9531971	2	637	-	8,100	1	201	-	1,782	1	10	356	1,817	-	-	1	1,048	-	-	2	2,375Jan.-Mar	1972	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Stoney Creek....1970	1	87	-	980	-	-	-	-	________	-	_	-	-	-1971	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Jan.-Mar	1972	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Waterdown	1970	1	98	-	1,076	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-1971	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Jan.-Mar	1972	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Saltfleet Twp	1970	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	326	-	-	-	-	-	-1971	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
o

3030________________________COMMONS DEBATES______________________June 12, 1972
June 12, 1972


Hon. E. I. Benson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. The
Department of National Defence has been engaged actively in an anti-pollution campaign in the Arctic for the past several years. Most of the activities have been carried out with other federal departments who have jurisdiction in the area. The main pollution problem is litter and debris. In 1970, air support was provided to Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to carry out reconnaissance of four abandoned Distant Early Warning sites. In 1971, this program was continued to include an additional 12 sites. The reconnaissance of the five remaining sites which are located on Baffin Island will be carried out during the summer of 1972. Air reserve squadrons have assisted in these reconnaissance and pollution survey missions. As a result of the findings from these reconnaissance flights, a cleanup of Stokes Point. Y.T., is scheduled for July 1972. This will be a combined operation between DND and DIAND and will serve as a pilot project to determine the financial and manpower requirements for the clean-up of the other sites. The Department of Environment is scheduled to carry out an inspection of selected active DEW line sites this summer to ascertain conditions at these locations. At Canadian Forces' Station Alert, a work party and a drum crusher will eliminate pollution from discarded oil drums. A sanitary landfill operation also will be put into operation to alleviate the solid waste disposal problem. Garbage emanating from exercises and manoeuvres in the north is transported out for proper disposal.
2. No members of the Canadian Armed Forces are maintained in the Arctic for the specific purpose of policing (a) the pollution control zone (b) the new fisheries closing line. However, Mobile Command long range patrol aircraft when flying over the Arctic report pollution and fishing control zone violations.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-NUMBER OF EMERGENCY CALLS RELATING TO PERSONS LOST IN FORESTS
Mr. Laprise: By province, and for each year since 1968, how many emergency calls for persons lost in the forest were answered by the Canadian Armed Forces?

Hon. E. ]. Benson (Minister of National Defence): The
Canadian Armed Forces are responsible for all aspects of air search and rescue in the areas of Canadian SAR responsibility and for the co-ordination of marine search and rescue in Canadian territorial waters and in designated oceanic areas off the Pacific and Atlantic Coasts. There are four Search and Rescue regions-Halifax, N.S., Trenton, Ont., Edmonton, Alta., Victoria, B.C. Prior to 1970, statistics on missing person incidents were not recorded as a separate category of occurrence from other forms of search and rescue nor are they maintained by province. During the calendar years 1970 and 1971 the Canadian Forces participated in a total of 198 searches for missing persons, and the following is a breakdown by region:
Orders for Returns
SAR Region	1970	1971Halifax, N.S.	28	28Trenton, Ont.	22	21Edmonton, Alta.	24	13Victoria, B.C.	32	30



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the total work force of all government information offices prior to the establishment of Information Canada?
2.	What is the work force of all government information offices at the present time?
3.	What is the total work force of Information Canada at the present time?
4.	What is the total budget of Information Canada for the fiscal year 1971-72, and of that amount, how much is earmarked for salaries, wages, and special personal contracts for services rendered?
Return tabled.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE BEAUCE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Rodrigue: Under the Local Initiatives Program and since its inception, were funds invested by the Department of Manpower and Immigration in the constituency of Beauce and, if so (a) what was the total amount (b) what is the complete list of groups who benefited from the program (c) what amount was granted to each group?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have had a question or two for the Minister of Finance for some days now. He has not been able to be in the House and he is not here today.


Mr. Hees:: Here he comes.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wonder whether the Minister of Finance could tell me if it is his view and the view of the government that the present level of the Canadian dollar in relation to the United States dollar is a temporary phenomenon or whether he proposes to make a statement and take any measures in this connection?


Hon. lohn N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a statement at this time. As to whether or not it is temporary, I cannot forecast that for the hon. gentleman or for the House. I will leave it at that for the moment.

June 12, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact this is taking place despite the deficit on current account and the falling off in our trading position, and in view of the fact the main reason for the increase in the level of our dollar seems to be the inflow of short-term money resulting from the differential between our short-term interest rates and other short-term interest rates, can the minister give us any information as to the volume of the inflow of shortterm money coming into Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is quite right that if one were to take the current account alone, which has fallen off from a surplus position, one might draw one's conclusions as to the exchange rate. But aside from the general weakness of the U.S. dollar, which has made that problem a universal one, there are two situations in Canada affecting the Canadian dollar particularly, and about which I have been concerned.
One has to do with the amount of current borrowing for long-term funds by the provinces on foreign markets. The other has to do with a strong demand by the Canadian banks for short-term capital, short-term money, in order to relieve their liquidity problems. I might say that on that latter subject I had some discussion with the Canadian Bankers Association when I was in Winnipeg on Thursday night.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to infer from the final sentence in the minister's answer that he has suggested some guidelines to the banks with regard to the borrowing of shortterm funds from abroad?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to representatives of the Canadian banks on the occasion of the annual meeting of the Canadian Bankers Association in Winnipeg last Thursday. During the course of my remarks I said we were concerned about rates of interest and the exchange value of the Canadian dollar.
I have now received from the president of the Canadian Bankers Association a request that I approve an agreement among the banks that will have the effect of reducing the rates paid by banks on their larger certificates of deposit, that is to say, street deposits maturing within one year. I have already indicated my approval in principle of this agreement under section 138 of the Bank Act because in my view it will contribute to the objectives of the government in the field of finance affecting interest rates and in the realm of foreign exchange.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would like to ask the minister whether it is the position of the government to permit the Canadian dollar to remain at this level or whether the minister is considering measures to assist our producers and exporters in the event that this condition continues?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, our producers and exporters, manufacturers and processors, have already received a good deal of flexibility and support as a result of the budget measures announced in the House on May 8. As to whatever other action the government might take, that would depend on events.



INCREASE IN SHORT-TERM CAPITAL COMING INTO CANADA-CONSULTATION WITH BANKS TO LOWER INTEREST RATES

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that most economic analysts think that part of the reason for the rise in the Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the American dollar is the large amounts of foreign capital which are coming into Canada on a short-term basis to take advantage of the high interest rates here, would the minister tell the House to what extent there has been an increase in the amounts of shortterm capital coming into the country in the last six months? Has there been a substantial increase, and to what extent?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. gentleman is referring to the response of short-term money crossing into Canada as a result of Canadian banks certificates of deposit, yes, that amount was substantial, in fact, in the amount of half a billion dollars.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the minister taking any steps to consult with the banks and other financial institutions with a view to bringing our interest rates into line with the interest rates for short-term capital both in Europe and in the United States so as to make Canada a less attractive market for these short-term deposits of capital from outside and in order to stop the upward spiral of the Canadian dollar?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That was the result of the request that the major banks made to me and with which I agreed. It would have the effect of reducing the interest rate on certificates of deposit to about 5 1 per cent, which is about 1 per cent below what it was on Friday. That will have the effect of being less attractive to short-term money coming into Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the minister's statement that part of this serious situation is due to the purchase of bonds in the United States by provinces and municipalities in view of the attractive rates available there, is the government taking any steps to provide a market in Canada for provincial and municipal borrowing?


John Napier Turner: I am exploring ways for extending the facilities of the Canadian capital market, and I will be talking with the provinces about the question of borrowing outside and the accommodation that might be achieved by them within the Canadian capital market.



PURCHASE OF AMERICAN DOLLARS-REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

Right Hon. J. G. Dieienbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I asked a couple of questions on Friday and they were replied to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs as Acting Prime Minister who said that they would no doubt be answered when the Minister of Finance returned to the House. I should like to know whether the minister would provide the House with a record of the purchases of American dollars by the Canadian government during the past month. Usually the
June 12, 1972

amount is set out at the end of each month. Would the minister be able to furnish the House with information now as to the present situation with respect to those purchases?	-


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing secret about these figures; they are published monthly.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the serious situation of the Canadian dollar and the direction in which it is going, will the minister give that information to the House? I realize, of course, that normally it is only given once a month, but I think he will remember that when I was in office the opposition of that day asked for the information and we furnished it.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I recall those facts very well indeed because I asked for the information. Although a motion for the production of those figures was granted by the House, I do not recall the minister of finance of that time giving them to us when the House was sitting before the election. In any event, I will look into that precedent to see whether it applies.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the minister found it necessary to inject that. I should like to ask the minister whether, when he met with the Canadian Bankers' Association, he was impressed by the words of the president to the effect that if the federal government were a business it would go broke at the current rate of spending?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Bankers' Association is in the business of banking and not in the business of trying to run this country. I disagree with that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will appreciate that we are still on the original question. Perhaps we might try to complete the first round of questioning and hon. members may enter the lists again on the second round.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture who is supposed to be in the House today but is not present. I shall direct it to the Prime Minister because it is very urgent. Because of the widespread disaster throughout the tobacco belt of southwestern Ontario and in view of the fact that most tobacco farmers are not covered by insurance against spring frost, would the Prime Minister assure the House that the Department of Agriculture will either give aid to those hit or make sure that a sufficient number of healthy young plants are made available from Quebec and the United States as soon as possible so that a crop can be harvested before the September 15 deadline for autumn frost insurance?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Agriculture is joining in the assessment of this situation. It is too early at this stage to anticipate what action may be desired or required, but certainly the department is staying in close touch with the situation.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Would the Acting Minister of Agriculture assure us, in the eventuality there are federal funds available, that the government will enter into an agreement with the province as well so that both levels of government will be able to assist the tobacco farmers?


Otto Emil Lang: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, it would be improper at this stage to attempt to speculate on what measures might follow in a hypothetical situation.



TOBACCO-FROST DAMAGE IN SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO-SUGGESTED FACILITATING OF IMPORT OF REPLACEMENT PLANTS

Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the tobacco board is negotiating for the importation of plants from Virginia to replace those lost by frost, will the minister discuss with the plant protection service ways in which they could facilitate the importation of these young plants into Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that sounds to me like a very reasonable suggestion.



TOBACCO-FROST DAMAGE IN SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO-INCLUSION OF OTHER CROPS IN SURVEY

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the acting minister who has indicated that a survey is to be made of tobacco. Since other major and costly crops are involved, can the minister assure the House that when the survey is made it will cover the total damage and not be restricted to one specific crop?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, of course that is what the department is doing. It already has some preliminary information with regard to other crops, some of which it may also be possible to replant in certain circumstances. The question as originally addressed was, of course, solely in relation to tobacco.
*	>k *



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.

June 12, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
Concerning the town of Temiscaming, where the International Paper Company of Canada closed down some 12 days ago, has the minister any statement to make as to resumption of operations at Temiscaming and has his department made any offers yet to provincial authorities or to groups of businessmen who would be prepared to take over the operation of the plant?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I know that discussions are under way in this regard, Mr. Speaker, but I shall inquire as to the latest news and I shall be in a position to report to the hon. member on Wednesday.



MANPOWER


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. As the Department of Manpower is no longer releasing figures monthly on lay-offs of 50 or more persons, will the minister make a statement giving the reasons for the withholding of this information, as it is affecting the true picture of lay-offs in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fundy-Royal.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may ask a
supplementary.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, as the department has ceased, since February, issuing figures with respect to lay-offs of 50 or more persons, will the minister look into the situation and try to reinstitute the former practice?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly see what was the logic behind any change in policy and report to the House.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister announce the settlement of the strike between NABET and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? If not, has the department's mediator withdrawn his services, or just what is the status of this much too long drawn-out labour dispute?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot, unfortunately, make that announcement today. As to the second part of the question, the two parties are meeting jointly. They met during the weekend and I believe that they have further meetings scheduled.
[Mr. Caouette.l
The federal mediator is not currently meeting with them. He would, of course, be available provided that constructive negotiation is going forward as, indeed, it is now going forward between the two parties.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration which I am sure he expects me to ask him today. In light of the conflicts and contradictions which have arisen in connection with the case of Pershing Gervais, and in light of the minister's refusal to co-operate in having immigration matters referred to a committee of the House, will the minister at least order an independent inquiry into this matter, make available the files of his department and request his predecessor to appear and make a statement to this independent inquiry?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied with the conduct of my predecessor. If there is any contradiction, it is in the mind of the hon. member who last night quoted the wrong section of the Immigration Act.


Gerald William Baldwin: But his facts were right.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Second, the estimates of the department were discussed at length last week before the appropriate committee and his party was, of course, well represented. Every opportunity was given to investigate the case. We have nothing to hide at all in the Pershing Gervais case.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that a crisis does exist, certainly at the ministerial level and below, will the Prime Minister refer this matter to his new crisis centre and will he do this right away before this centre is swamped with work, which obviously will be the case?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



SUICIDE OF ALICIA WIERCIOCH-REASON FOR DEPORTATION ORDER

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the conflict in the reasons for the deportation order, can the minister, without any equivocation, now advise us as to the original reason for the institution of the deportation order?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I missed the beginning of the question. Will the hon. member please repeat it?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact there is a conflict as to the reason for the original institution of the deportation order, can the minister, without any equivocation, now
June 12, 1972

advise us as to the original reason for the institution of the deportation order?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, there was no deportation order in the case of Mr. Gervais. He left the country voluntarily. When he left the country voluntarily, I rescinded the ministerial permit on the ground that he is not necessarily the type of person I would welcome back into Canada.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Perhaps we are not on the same wavelength. The case I am referring to is that of Alicia Wiercioch.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is not supplementary to the previous question. The hon. member might be recognized in a moment. Perhaps I am wrong, but in any event the hon. member can ask the question in a moment. I will now recognize the hon. member for York South.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Reference has already been made to the agency about which I want to ask the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House when the crisis management centre was set up in the Privy Council office or his office, and what is the purpose of that particular group in that office?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there is no crisis management centre. There is a post occupied by General Dare for the purpose of studying the matter of crises and, essentially, finding ways of dealing with them. However, at this stage, it is merely a study. It was made known when General Dare was appointed to that post from the Department of National Defence by way of a press release last March.


David Lewis: Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether this crisis management centre is to deal with all the areas the newspaper report suggests, namely, floods, fires, acts of God, economic affairs such as Washington policy, national security and national unity? Is the crisis management centre studying action by the government in all of these various areas?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member did not listen to the answer to his previous question. I said that there was no crisis management centre.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that the Prime Minister is playing with words. He does admit-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems there is now debate between the Prime Minister and the hon. member. The hon. member has been recognized for the purpose of a supplementary.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether there is a group studying the reaction by the
Inquiries of the Ministry
government in possible crises-I understand there is such a study group headed by General Dare-and whether this group is studying matters in all the areas that I suggested and perhaps in other areas or whether their studies are confined only to certain areas with which the government might be concerned in terms of crises?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I answered that there is one gentleman, General Dare, who is conducting a study in the Privy Council office. The terms of reference are quite general. I would be prepared to table them if it would help the hon. member understand what precise areas he is studying.


David Lewis: Do I understand from the Prime Minister that General Dare is the only person in that group and that there are no others associated with him in that study, for example, Colonel Sutherland, or a gentleman with some such name as that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have never heard of Colonel Sutherland. To my knowledge, General Dare was given an assignment in the Privy Council office with very precise terms of reference. I will look into the matter to ascertain whether there is anyone assisting him directly or indirectly.



IMMIGRATION


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I will put my question again to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I believe he is familiar with the situation to which I am referring. In view of the conflict of evidence concerning the circumstances surrounding the deportation order, can the minister tell us what was the original reason for the deportation order being issued?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I would be helped in answering if I knew what conflict the hon. member has in mind. I know that the appeal of the lady in question against the previous rejection of her application to remain in the country was turned down by the Immigration Appeal Board on the ground that it could find no evidence that if she were returned to Poland she would be persecuted. At that moment she was automatically notified she would be deported unless, of course, she would have availed herself of other opportunities to appeal further. Her lawyer indicated that he intended to appeal to the Federal Court but, of course, he did not do so in the light of her untimely death.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister has given us to understand that the deportation order was issued because this person had not acquired the necessary points under the assessment system when, in fact, deportation order proceedings were started as a result of her having found a job. Can the minister clarify the situation and advise the House which of these factors was the basis for the invocation of the deportation order?

June 12, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The lady in question was given permission to work. Press reports that she was being deported for working in Canada illegally are erroneous. When she appeared before a special inquiry officer and her application was rejected she was given permission to work in the interval while waiting for her case to be heard by the Immigration Appeal Board.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
Can he indicate whether together with the UIC he is studying procedures to be used to hasten the study of claims for unemployment benefits in cases of illness?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are working very closely with private industry, always conscious of the fact that it is our duty to authorize payment of unemployment insurance benefits, sickness and maternity benefits, only when we are satisfied that the claims are lawful.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the verdict returned by a coroner's jury on Thursday of last week in Toronto citing unsatisfactory flotation jackets as a contributing factor in the drowning death of a number of youths on the Humber River, can the hon. gentleman inform the House whether, under the terms of the Hazardous Products Act or some other act administered by his department, any action against the producers of the lifejackets in question is being taken or studied?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I have instituted an inquiry into this matter of flotation jackets and I will give the hon. member an answer as soon as possible.



SUGGESTED INVESTIGATION OF FOOD INDUSTRY

Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet may I take this opportunity to answer certain questions that were directed to me last week in my absence?
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway inquired as to the possibility of an investigation into concentration in

the food industry. I would refer her to a report on concentration in the manufacturing industries in Canada published in 1971 on the basis of a study undertaken in the office of the Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Branch and, more particularly, to the annual report of the director for 1971, pages 16-29, relating to concentration in food retailing. In accordance with what appears in the latter report, the director is keeping the situation under active review.
The hon. member for Greenwood inquired about-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There has to be some order if the hon. minister is attempting to answer a number of questions. Perhaps we might dispose of the earlier one first. The hon. member for Egmont has a supplementary.



INQUIRY AS TO ACTION AGAINST PRODUCERS OF UNSATISFACTORY LIFEJACKETS

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am grateful for the minister's concern and interest in this matter. In view of the fact that we are now entering upon the season of active boating, could the minister set forth clearly what the safety standards are in terms of appropriate quality, and how they can be enforced by his department? Perhaps the hon. gentleman would consider making a statement in the House or issuing a press release, because this information will be of importance to those of the public who will be purchasing lifejackets in the next few weeks.


Robert Knight Andras: I will try to answer that as part of my answer to the first question.



MANPOWER


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in connection with the status of women. In view of the fact many sole-support mothers presently working on local initiative programs will be forced to leave their jobs and go on unemployment insurance or welfare unless summer child care facilities can be provided for their school-age children, will the minister consider funding such a program which would enable these women to live independently of social assistance and would in the long run save money for the taxpayers?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: While the hon. lady's representations appear to be very laudable I am sure they are addressed to the wrong minister. The $30 million which I have at my disposal for programs this summer has been allocated to projects which were already in existence and which we felt should be continued. This limits my scope considerably and no doubt makes it virtually impossible for me to assist such worth-while programs.
June 12, 1972


Mrs. Macinnis:: May I ask the Secretary of State whether he would consider funding such centres for the care of children of school age so that their mothers will not be obliged to collect social assistance or unemployment insurance payments?


Mr. Speaker:: That is a representation. The hon. member has to assume that the matter will be considered.


Donald MacInnis: May I ask who is the right minister to address? Who is the minister to whom I should direct these questions?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I can only suggest that the hon. lady might find an appropriate minister in each of the provinces of Canada.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-REQUEST BY PROVINCE FOR ASSISTANCE

Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the very serious flood situation in several parts of British Columbia, could the Prime Minister advise the House whether the federal government has yet received a request for assistance from the province of British Columbia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I received such a telegram from Premier Bennett on Friday or Saturday, I believe. He was asking, primarily, for two things, first, that the federal government designate a person to liase with the committee he is setting up to study the flood situation headed by Mr. Wallace. We have already designated Mr. Harries who is the regional director of the Emergency Measures Organization for British Columbia.
The telegram also asked whether there would be any sharing by the federal government in compensation payments. The answer is, of course, that the federal government, as I told the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary last week, does share with the provinces in certain circumstances when they are caught in emergency situations and when the provinces themselves participate to a certain degree in compensation.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the corridor to the north for pipelines and a highway, presumably, which the Prime Minister announced. Would the right hon. gentleman indicate the nature of the consultation which took place with the native people in the territory as to the location of the corridor, prior to his announcement?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has repeatedly told the House that he was in constant contact with the Indians and that he had urged them to select the areas in the territories which they would want to occupy under the existing treaty rights. Beyond that, consultation and communication are frequent and constant.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I remind the Prime Minister that when the guidelines announced in 1970-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time. There are about seven minutes left before the end of the question period. We might try to proceed a little faster.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am reminding the Prime Minister of the undertaking in those guidelines regarding consultations with industry and other interested groups. May I ask the Prime Minister what consultation, to his knowledge, took place with regard to the corridor route for the highway and pipelines prior to his announcement? Specifically what consultations, to his knowledge, took place with the native peoples?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no dates in my memory but I am sure that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development could inform the House and the hon. member of the dates when he consulted with various native groups.



POST OFFICE


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General and concerns the representations that have been made from time to time by the ethnic press, small in number but numerous in the various newspapers that are published. They have protested the oppressive and discriminatory high postal rates charged them and have asked for an amelioration of those rates. The ethnic press does a great deal for Canadian unity. In view of that fact and the smallness of their circulation, will the minister do something to assist them to continue by reducing the postal rate to that paid by periodicals or papers in towns or villages under 10,000 population?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I too have a lot of sympathy for these newspapers and others who suffered an increase in rates a few years ago, but any changes in rates of this kind would need an amendment to the law and I am not ready to say when the law will be amended.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not give consideration to an amendment now rather than waiting until a change of government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I again bring to the attention of hon. members that we are running short of

June 12, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
time. A number of members in the back rows will again be left by the wayside today. I will try to recognize some of them, but I believe the hon. member for Oshawa-Whit-by has a supplementary to an original question.



FINANCE


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement made on the weekend by the Minister of State to the effect that the banking industry of Canada needed guidelines established by the government in order to achieve certain national priorities, could the minister inform the House if we might expect a statement soon on what these guidelines might be and in what areas they might fall?


John Napier Turner: I would want to read that speech before commenting, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the fact a set of national priorities must include adequate housing for all Canadians, and in view of the further fact that for some years now the majority of Canadians have been unable to pay the high interest rates established by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, would the minister consider making it mandatory for the banks of Canada to set aside a certain percentage of their investment capital each year to be lent to average and low-income people at interest rates in the neighbourhood of 5 to 6 per cent to enable them to buy houses?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would have to look into that closely to see whether there is any merit in that suggestion.



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Now that almost three months have passed since the expiry of the contract with the postal unions, has the hon. gentleman a progress report to make to the House on the matter?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, last week the meeting of the negotiators was cancelled by the union at the last minute. The next meeting is scheduled for June 14, in two days.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Has there been any upgrading of the offer that was rejected by the unions on May 10, particularly with reference to the proposed regional pay scale which has become quite contentious?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: No, Mr. Speaker, but we are waiting for their demands.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Edmonton West, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the very disastrous effects on the grain trade, as stated over the weekend, as a result of the Montreal dock strike, is the minister in a position to announce progress of any sort whatsoever with regard to the union's attitude, with regard to the government's attitude and with regard to management's attitude, so as to resolve this very disastrous strike that, frankly, is a blot on the Canadian record right now?


David Lewis: It is a lockout.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I can only reiterate my request to the two parties to set aside the reservations they have regarding the procedure that the law requires and that the collective agreement provides, that is to say, that they take this dispute to arbitration. I think that is all I can say at this time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West for a supplementary Art following that I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton Centre who was pre-empted a moment ago.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I suggest to the minister that he is taking a most unrealistic attitude in view of the public interest-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask the minister whether he is prepared to act-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.


Mr. O'Connell:: The hon. member should bear in mind-


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.


Mr. Paproski:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now that my question has been answered may I rise on a question of privilege to correct an article written about me by South-am News Services this weekend, which stated that I claimed that the Immigration Appeal Board was inhuman, ruthless and treated people like cattle. I did not refer to the Immigration Appeal Board specifically but to the entire immigration structure and immigration policy of this government.
June 12, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that if he wants to rise on a question of privilege, which he may very well have, he has to do it as required by the Standing Orders, namely, by giving notice.
I apologize to a number of hon. members who were not recognized today. I am not going to name them, but I have made a note of their desire to ask questions and I will try tomorrow to give some priority to gentlemen who do not occupy the front row.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a very short question supplementary to the one put by the hon. member for Edmonton West?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This would have to be done by consent since the question period has expired. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, May 24, consideration of the motion of Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the budget debate, the fifth day, most of the facts, figures and policies have been examined and discussed by both sides of the House. My purpose in entering the debate at this time is to elaborate on one sentence in the budget speech, a sentence that I consider to be important above all others. Also, I particularly want to enter the debate at this time so that I can speak about the purchasing policies of the federal government, the policies of my department, as they relate to that sentence in the budget speech.
Along with what else the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said on May 8 were these words:
National unity has a great deal to do with equality of opportunity-equality of opportunity for Canadians, no matter where they happen to be born or where they happen to live in our country.
The kind of equality of opportunity I will talk about is equality of opportunity for Canadians from coast to coast who want to sell their manufactured goods and their services to their federal government; in other words, those who want to sell to the national government. I believe hon. members know the Department of Supply and Services is a purchasing department and also an accounting department. I have often said that had we been called the purchasing department and the accounting department of government, more Canadian citizens would know what we do. In fact, however, we do more than that. We do many more things. We are responsible for materiel management, for warehousing, for the disposal of equipment and also the provision of management consulting services, as well as the provision of complex computer services.
The Budget-Mr. Richardson
Therefore, because we do more than simply purchasing and accounting we have been given, in someone's wisdom, the somewhat obscure title of Supply and Services.
The aspect of our operation about which I want to speak particularly today is purchasing, because the department is one of the largest purchasing organizations in Canada. As it buys more than $1 billion worth of goods and services each year, its operations affect the lives, particularly the business lives, of many Canadian companies large and small. We make purchases from literally thousands of Canadian companies. On behalf of other government departments, we are busy each day buying everything from pencil sharpeners to the largest computers, everything from toothpaste to the most advanced and modern aircraft.
When I first began to look over the vast amount of purchasing undertaken for the federal government through my department I was surprised-and I may say as a western Canadian I was somewhat amazed and under some circumstances annoyed-to find the extent to which federal government purchasing was concentrated in a relatively small region of Canada, a region not more than 300 miles from the national capital, in a country 4,000 miles wide. When I looked at the figures, I found out that year in and year out more than 85 per cent of federal government purchases were made in the two central provinces of Ontario and Quebec. It did not seem to me that figures such as these were consistent with equality of opportunity for Canadians. I am therefore pleased to have this occasion to tell the House that for some time now we have been in the process of evolving purchasing policies which will help correct this concentration of purchasing and will give Canadians from coast to coast a greater opportunity to sell to their national government.
When Canadians are selling to the federal government they are, of course, selling to themselves because as taxpayers in a sense they are both buyers and sellers. In what I am saying today I want to emphasize that I am talking about an evolving purchasing policy. I am talking about something that is partly in place and in operation, and partly in the process of formation. That which is still in the process of formation constitutes goals or objectives rather than established policy.
The policy I am now developing within the department has three main characteristics or three main parts. The first part, which is still in the nature of an objective, is that we propose to establish federal government purchasing targets within four large regions of Canada. These targets would be based roughly upon the population in each region. For this purpose, the regions must be large because obviously we want to have competition within the regions. If we selected one small province and tried to localize buying in that province we would not have the competition necessary to obtain the lowest price. Therefore the regions for which we want to establish targets within the department are four. The first area is the Atlantic provinces region which I think of for this purpose as Canada East. Quebec is one region and Ontario is one region. The four provinces in the west for this purpose, and also for some other purposes from time to time, I call Canada West.

June 12, 1972
The Budget-Mr. Richardson
If we examine the figures for federal government purchasing which has actually taken place over the past six years, we find that under 6 per cent of all purchases have been made in the four Atlantic provinces. We find that over 40 per cent of these purchases have been made in Quebec, some 44 per cent in Ontario and under 10 per cent in the region of Canada West. When we consider establishing targets based on the population of these regions, we find that the Atlantic provinces contain almost 10 per cent of the Canadian population, Quebec approximately 28 per cent, Ontario 35 per cent and Canada West 27 per cent. Comparing the number of Canadians in each of these four regions with the amount they have been able to sell to their national government we find that in Canada West 27 per cent of the population receives under 10 per cent of federal government purchases. In the Atlantic provinces, 10 per cent of the national population has been receiving less than 6 per cent of federal purchases. In Quebec, we find 28 per cent of the national population and more than 40 per cent of the national purchases. In Ontario, we find 35 per cent of the population and some 44 per cent of the purchases. These figures do not cover just the last week or month but are averages over the last six years.
In other words, the story is quite clear. The federal government which after all is a national government, a coast-to-coast government, does not buy in equal measure or in anything approaching equal measure from all the citizens and taxpayers of the country. I do not believe it would be practical to make a hard and fast rule requiring that federal government purchases meet established targets in each region. However, I should like to see our purchasing policy so ordered that federal buying in each of these four regions, would, in percentage terms at least, approach the populations of those regions. Our first objective is to establish targets.
The second characteristic of this evolving policy-and this part in fact is now being implemented and is policy- is to increase the amount of purchasing done through our regional offices. Last year for those who may be interested in the total figures we purchased $178 million of government requirements through the regional offices, while $897 million was spent on what we call national purchases made from Ottawa. Members of the House will appreciate that we can reach the kind of fair regional balance that I am talking about in one of two ways. We can either increase the amount of regional buying that is done from the centre or we can increase the buying that is done through the regional offices. Those are two distinct operations, but they both have the effect of increasing regional buying.
There is a clear advantage to more regional buying, which is that when we purchase through regional offices, in most cases we have a substantial cut in the distribution costs of the goods purchased, particularly when they are required in the area in which the purchase is made. As well, in order to increase the regional buying we have been actively seeking new sources of supply, that is we have been looking for companies across Canada which have never before sold to the federal government. This is just "good business" so far as the government is con-

cerned, because of course the more suppliers we have the more competition we can have among suppliers. I think the House will be interested to know that a number of businesses that have never before sold to the federal government are now receiving orders. These are orders and contracts that are open to tender and are awarded to the lowest bidder.
Looking for a moment at some specific areas in the purchasing field, may I point out that it is encouraging to see that the amount of federal government printing business, awarded in this case, in the prairie provinces during six months, that is during the half year ending March 1972, exceeded the total of printing business that companies on the Prairies received during the whole of the previous year. I should like to point out also that in the Atlantic provinces we have been successful in encouraging the development of marine technology, and substantial purchases of marine equipment have been made in that region. Still another example is the government's furniture requirements which used to be purchased centrally and then distributed to all parts of the country with relatively high distribution costs. I have already reported to the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee that a major part of the federal government's furniture requirements in western Canada, not their total furniture requirements but the furniture required in western Canada, has now been won under competition by western Canadian firms, and this furniture is now being manufactured in western Canada.
Still speaking about regional purchases, I am encouraged to be able to report that the purchases in our regional offices in western Canada increased by 21 per cent in the last fiscal year over the previous year. In the case of the Atlantic provinces, the percentage increase was even higher and amounted to 27 per cent over the previous year. In looking at these percentage increases, encouraging as they are, it is of course necessary to realize that the western and Atlantic regions started from a very low base and there is still a long way to go to achieve equality of opportunity or even to approach the regional targets mentioned earlier.
Finally, the third and most important characteristic of federal government purchasing which I think should be considered relates to the cost of transportation. It is apparent to everyone that in a country of vast distances there are many companies that are a long way from the destination where the goods are required and thus are prevented from bidding effectively because of transportation costs. A proposal which I intend to discuss further with my colleages is the establishment of a policy under which any Canadian who wishes to sell to his national government can bid on the basis of his costs at his plant, that is his bid will be judged f.o.b. plant rather than f.o.b. destination which would of course then include transportation costs to destination. This proposed policy would be one way to demonstrate clearly that as the national government we really mean what we say when we talk about equality of opportunity for Canadians in all parts of Canada.
Before speaking further on that aspect of our policy, I should like to refer to a speech which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made in my home city of Winnipeg a few
June 12, 1972

days ago on May 26. I need hardly say that he was speaking to a crowded audience.


Some hon. Members:: All Liberals.


James Armstrong Richardson: An enthusiastic Liberal audience.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Thus alienating the westerners.


James Armstrong Richardson: Among many things the Prime Minister said in his address, this-this statement stood out and I would like to quote it tor you-"no Canadian should feel distant from the federal government". He was not referring there of course to a Liberal or a Conservative government; he was referring to the national government.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Did he cry?


James Armstrong Richardson: There was no reason for tears on this occasion.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Maybe not on his part, but on ours there is.


James Armstrong Richardson: What he went on to say was that whether he lived in the Yukon, in Newfoundland, in the Gaspe Peninsula or on the Prairies, every Canadian should regard himself as close to the federal government as those who happen to live near Parliament Hill.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Especially at election time.


James Armstrong Richardson: No, at any time. It would seem to me to be very consistent with that concept if we were able to say to all Canadians when you sell to your government you can compete with each other based on the costs in your own plant and upon your own efficiency, but so far as transportation costs in this land of great distances are concerned, every one of you can sell to the national government in the same way as you could if you happened to live near Parliament Hill. The government of course cannot eliminate inefficiency within a business, and in that sense all Canadians cannot bid equally-some are clearly more efficient than others, and it is to the benefit of our whole economy that they are. But we can do something about eliminating the disparity of distance, and it is in that direction that I hope to continue to move our purchasing policies.
I should emphasize that nothing in this suggestion-and this is for anyone who may be concerned about the big plants in this region or in any other region of Canada- would be harmful to any manufacturer anywhere in Canada. No one anywhere would be put at a disadvantage. The largest plants in the heavily industrialized regions of Canada would of course still retain the advantage of size and the advantage of whatever efficiency they have attained as well as the continuing advantage of proximity to the national capital and to the national buying offices of the government. Of course, they would also retain some advantage in the cost of their inward freight. It is important to realize, for instance, that a printer in western Canada, even if he is able to bid f.o.b. his plant and therefore has no transportation cost on the finished product, still has to move the bulk paper into his plant before he can bid against a company that does not have to move its raw materials the same distance.
The Budget-Mr. Richardson
In summary, Mr. Speaker, what I have been talking about is the desirability of moving further towards federal government purchasing policies that will increase equality of opportunity for Canadians from coast to coast, equality of opportunity for Canadians who wish to sell to the national government. I have talked about the establishment of federal government purchasing targets for each of the four large regions in Canada. I have talked about increasing the volume of federal purchasing through regional offices, and I have mentioned the progress we have made in that direction. Third, I have said that it would be fair play if anyone who wishes to sell to the federal government were able to have his bid judged according to the costs in his own plant, and not judged on the cost at destination. I am convinced that these policies in combination will help to achieve the goal of equality of opportunity. It seems only right to me that national purchases should bring about nationwide economic benefits.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I should respond briefly to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) who made a contribution to the budget debate several days ago. He made his usual worthwhile contribution, and mentioned-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Stick with us, Jim. We'll make you Prime Minister.


James Armstrong Richardson: There's a good suggestion.


An hon. Member:: You won't. Somebody else will.


James Armstrong Richardson: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris made a number of comments, and first I would like to thank him for some of his references to my efforts to try to explain the aspirations of western Canada, many of which he has outlined himself. In particular, he mentioned a seminar which was held in his home city of Brandon. It was a two-day seminar and was a very successful one at which I had the honour to be a guest panellist. We talked all day, and I am afraid a few of us talked most of the night. We covered a lot of ground, and it would be impossible to give the conclusion which the hon. member has requested. I wish he had been there because it was a non-partisan occasion throughout which his colleague, the able young member for Lisgar, attended.
If I tried to say in a sentence what that seminar concluded, as I have been asked to do, I would say to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris that western Canadians concluded that what the west wants is a greater participation in industrialization, in scientific, technological, advanced, economic endeavour. What happens is that the west has a tremendous agricultural base, a tremendous resource base, a tremendous energy base. But as long as it concentrates on policies for those, important as they are, it still is a hinterland of a sort. It still has a very adverse balance of trade, of manufacturing trade, with the eastern provinces of Canada.
So really the issue which was faced in those two days, and resolved, was that in western Canada we must build an advanced society on top of the agricultural base, and on top of the energy base, and on top of the mining

June 12, 1972
The Budget-Mr. Richardson resource base. That is the point that has to be clarified, because we all spend a good deal of time talking about the agricultural requirements of the west. And they are important, Mr. Speaker, but we could sell not just a billion bushels, we could sell two billion bushels of wheat and we still would not have answered the needs of western Canadians who are going to university in Edmonton, Calgary, Saskatoon, Winnipeg and, of course, Brandon. These young people are not in university so that they can be wheat farmers. They are there because they want to be designers, engineers, and computer technicians. That is the requirement and that was the conclusion.
How we are to achieve this was also concluded at that meeting, and again I will try to put it in two sentences. It is in one of two ways. Clearly, the west must achieve greater influence at the centre. We can either have a strong central government in which there is a strong regional voice-obviously this would be comparable to the American central government and its decentralized space program and other programs-or the alternative has to be, in a federation, to increase the influence of the provinces or the regional governments, if they become regional governments. Those are the alternatives, and I think that at the present time we are making headway in the first direction. We are achieving some decentralization. We are achieving some of the west's requirement for participation in the economic endeavours of the nation, in major programs like the aerospace program. But these have still to be proven as we go down the road. We will have to see in the future if the west participates in these great national programs in the way it must before we determine which of those answers we finally choose in order to achieve the obvious potential of that region.
That is a very quick summary, Mr. Speaker, but I felt that as the hon. member for Brandon-Souris had called on me at least three or four times during his address, I should try to respond briefly, although it was not the main theme of my speech today.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Spoken like a good western Conservative.


James Armstrong Richardson: So, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance was not addressing himself to the purchasing policies that I have been describing, but I am encouraged by the central theme of his budget address.
I think that I may say in conclusion that all of us who were in the House on the evening of May 8 listening to the Minister of Finance recognized immediately that Canada could be standing on the threshhold of a new era. We realized that we were listening not only to a new man at the helm of the vital Department of Finance but also that we were listening to a new definition and a clearer understanding of the all-important relationship that must exist, in a free society, between the men who run the government of the day and the men who manage the large and the small business enterprises of the nation. I am convinced, as I know the Minister of Finance is, that it is the degree of confidence which business and government have in each other that will ultimately determine the economic success of our whole society. The Minister of Finance's budget has taken us farther toward the achieve-

ment of that mutual confidence than any single document in recent time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but in the last few seconds he mentioned that he was reaching a conclusion and that is why I did not interrupt him. However, he has gone beyond his time and he can continue only with the consent of the House.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Finish your paragraph.


James Armstrong Richardson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I realize that I have concluded two or three times, but I will end by saying that I not only support the motion that the House approve the budgetary policies of the government but I endorse and support as well the other statements that I have quoted. I have pointed out that the Prime Minister has talked about the need for every Canadian to feel as close to the federal government as those who happen to live near Parliament Hill, and that the Minister of Finance has talked about the fact that national unity has a great deal to do with equality of opportunity for all Canadians no matter where they happen to live in our country. I have referred not only to my wholehearted agreement with these statements but to the specific changes in the purchasing policies of the government that will, in fact, help to achieve this equality of opportunity in all parts of Canada. I have talked about what my department, within its area of responsibility, can do to make equality of opportunity from coast to coast a reality, an actual living, day-to-day, reality.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to take part in this budget debate is one which I deeply appreciate. This particular budget, Mr. Speaker, is a long one. It tries to do many things and, although we in the opposition may have some unkind things to say about it, none of us, I am sure, wants to see the measures taken by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) fail, simply so that we can say, in effect, we told you so. Rather, we are optimistic that what has been done by the hon. minister is a step, or even several steps, in the right direction. However, Mr. Speaker, we would all be remiss in our duties as members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition if we did not bring to the attention of the government things which should have been done and benefits which could have been realized through policies that would aid Canadians in general.
This budget finally concedes that it is from the private sector of our economy that the thrust of our economic development must come. It is only from the private sector that we can get the necessary energy and resources to expand our nation. All the best intentioned academics, theoriticians and civil servants, and for that matter politicians, ultimately cannot be anything more than spectators who, in the final analysis, can only exhort the individual members of the private sector of our economy to help us realize our potential. Hopefully, the Minister of Finance will seek advice in formulating our economic policies from people with practical experience instead of relying, as I feel this government has done in the past, on the advice of people long on theory and short on practice.
June 12, 1972

The hon. Minister of Finance, while adopting measures to benefit businessmen and large entrepreneurs, has failed, and his government has failed, to also single out middle class citizens who are paying a great deal of tax and who are in business in a small way for some tangible economic benefits. For example, even a small reduction in the level of personal income tax would mean that he, and millions like him, would be able to consume more of the goods and services generated by the entrepreneurs. In turn, these entrepreneurs would hopefully increase their production and make available types of consumer goods and services that would herald the economic expansion that we so desperately need in this country to provide, not only a continuing rise in the standard of living, but desperately needed employment opportunities. Members on both sides of this House agree that we must have increased opportunities for employment.
In this particular budget the government has attempted to expedite production ends by giving the private sector the means to expand and increase production, increase its investment, but what about the purchasing means to justify these production ends? Instead of stimulating the general purchasing power of middle income Canadians, in effect this government has taken away the 3 per cent advantage these people had, so the effective tax rate has been increased rather than decreased. This was a regressive step for which this government will have to answer.
If "faith without works is useless", according to the Biblical adage, then surely economic growth and production capacity increases without the means to consume is also useless. Something should be done, in my opinion, to change at least the attitude, if not the policy, of our Canadian banks. They do not have the proper philosophy in financing Canadian enterprises. These banks, for example, have received concessions from various governments over the years. At the present time, according to the report of the Auditor General, $100 million has been made available to them, without cost supposedly, as compensation for cashing various types of government cheques. As I understand it, by law they are obligated to cash these cheques anyway. Canadian banks in my opinion, are too reluctant to take risks. Perhaps an amendment to the Bank Act to actively encourage our chartered banks to not only finance projects, but to actually become involved in them if they are truly Canadian owned and meet certain criteria, would be a constructive step.
If banks were able to, in effect, be participants to some extent in worthy projects, then their assistance and expertise would be available in certain areas of economic development and the banks would be provided with additional and diversified sources of income, which perhaps would ultimately allow them to lend money at lower rates of interest. It is no secret, Mr. Speaker, that some large corporations are now, in effect, in the banking business. They have come into the field of finance with the aid of their retained earnings and large profits. Why would banks not participate, in a converse manner, in the benefits to be obtained from the profits of corporations which they were instrumental in helping to finance or reorganize? I submit it is a concept worthy of study.
Another point I should like to make with reference to financial institutions, Mr. Speaker, is that some particular
The Budget-Mr. MacKay
lending companies and institutions are charging rates of interest which effectively bar needy small businesses from obtaining the type of credit which, in effect, these institutions are urging them to take. It seems to me, for example, that the Industrial Development Bank is a prime example of an institution which sends some of its personnel about the country encouraging and advising small entrepreneurs to take advantage of their expertise and available moneys, but they miss the point that people cannot afford to pay the kind of interest rates that the IDB charges. They cannot afford, either, the other complications that must result if the IDB takes care of financing, such as incorporation, and auditing procedures which in some cases are not necessary. Perhaps I will say more about this a little later, with reference to some of the problems that are facing some of my constituents.
I should like to touch briefly upon another topic which interests me in the provisions of the current budget. I am speaking particularly about the provision dealing with moneys held in trust for disadvantaged persons. This particular provision is found on page 16 of the speech delivered by the hon. Minister of Finance on May 8. In essence, as I understand it, a person who is crippled, or to use the example given by the hon. minister, a victim of thalidomide poisoning, will not be taxed on funds held in trust for his or her benefit until they reach the age of 21 years. To me, this is a rather ridiculous situation. While conceding that it is a good measure and commending the Minister of Finance for introducing it, it seems to me that its effect, or its thrust if you will, is spoiled by putting in an age limit. If a person is under a disability which can be cured through the passage of time, or there is a change in his or her status, fine; let the tax advantage also be removed. But to put a limit of 21 years of age for tax purposes on moneys held in trust for crippled or disadvantaged persons is very ironic. Age has nothing to do with it, and the person's situation or status, or economic circumstances, are not liable to change through the passage of time. Such a person will not become more capable with age, for example, nor will his disability lessen, at least not in a case such as a thalidomide child. Why have this distinction in there? It spoils the entire effect of an otherwise humane provision.
Another implication of the budget which interests me greatly is the apparent lack of federal-provincial co-operation and consultation. For example, although the federal government has manifested clearly its intention to stimulate private enterprise by lowering corporate tax rates, some of the thrust of its policy may well be lost because the government has not had the consent or the co-operation, at least apparently, of some of our provinces. I have the impression that the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec, for example, will not necessarily change their logging tax provisions in order to expedite the federal government's policy with regard to pulp and paper producers. It seems that the tax rate paid by these companies will be higher than that the Minister of Finance intended, since the provinces will not, I think, without some negotiation change their logging tax provisions.
I have heard much, since becoming a member of this House, of federal-provincial co-operation. Conferences

June 12, 1972
The Budget-Mr. MacKay
have been held between first ministers and ministers of various departments, federal and provincial; however, as yet, from my position in this House, I have not seen much tangible evidence of federal-provincial co-operation either in the fields of finance or the environment, or, for that matter, in the field of social welfare, as the present situation in some provinces seems to indicate. I think this budget also illustrates that there is a great need for continuing efforts by this government for consultation with the provinces, particularly in the fields of taxation. There is much controversy in the maritime provinces and across the country about provincial governments moving into fields vacated by the federal Minister of Finance. Enough has been said about this already. The point has been made.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, if I may to avail myself of an opportunity to speak, as is traditional in debates such as this, about some of the needs of my constituency. I will do so briefly. I should like to begin by asking the rhetorical but also pointed question, what do our people do when they can no longer follow their normal way of life? What do fishermen do when they are paid for their equipment but told they can no longer fish? What are our miners to do when they are forced to cease a way of life they have known, in many cases, since first entering our work force? Farmers as well face similar difficulties when they find they can no longer make a living in their traditional way. It is all very well to compensate them according to some fixed and, according to definition, equitable scale. All the same, what are they to do? Where are they to go once their means of making a living has been taken from them?
The needs of Nova Scotians in general, and the people of Central Nova, in particular are well known and well defined. Our province needs development, not only by large corporations and government agencies but, as well, by the initiative of its own people, particularly in small ventures which are suited to each region. Hard times in the maritime provinces during this government's tenure of office have become proverbial. Unrealistic transport rates have been set and often discussed in this House. I am pleased that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) alluded to this aspect in his speech which I have had the honour to follow. It seems to me, in view of what the minister said, that it would be appropriate if I were to introduce a few statistics, as it were, to illustrate our difficulties with transportation. For example, after talking with a friend, Mr. C. P. MacLean of J. W. Macdonald Co. Ltd., who operates a business in Central Nova, I learned that in 1966 it cost the company $1.83 per ton to ship scrap iron from New Glasgow to Sydney, Nova Scotia. In 1968, the rate went up to $2.45 a ton. This year, it costs $3.49 a ton to ship that amount. The greater amount paid in many cases means that there is to be a loss instead of profit. I also learned that, to ship steel to Newfoundland from New Glasgow, N.S. via CNR, costs $20 per ton whereas it is possible to ship steel from Detroit to Newfoundland for $6 a ton. This will show what businessmen in the Maritimes are up against.
In my constituency, we honestly applaud the efforts of the government to develop and open our north. We support that as a national goal, yet we are apprehensive to some extent about the ecological implications and rights

of the native peoples involved. We wonder, too, at the spending of all those millions of dollars for highways to the north-Perhaps not all the implications have been thought out-and yet not even $1 million or $2 million have been allocated to construct a highway to open an area in my constituency in Guysborough county, where the need for such a highway is so obvious that for years reference has been made to the "missing link highway" between the areas of Port Bickerton (Fisherman Harbour) and Country Harbour. This is a development so necessary that it is difficult to see why it has not been expedited before. Mr. Speaker, the whole of the eastern shore of Nova Scotia has been neglected.
The Industrial Development Bank, if I may return to that subject, is not the answer to the financing of a small business. There is too much red tape; there are too many conditions and too high an interest rate is charged for that purpose. What we really require is an agency like an ordinary mortgage corporation which would be given incentives to finance small businesses or even to finance the construction of homes outside well defined town boundaries. In that way, aid could be given to the development of the rural parts of my constituency and province and, to some small extent, help halt the rush towards centralization in urban areas. We may be comforted by knowing that this administration is at least considering taking steps in this direction under its residential mortgage financing legislation. Its scope ought to be broadened and it should be extended to cover the building of small commercial buildings in the eastern shore area of my constituency. The same thing could be said about many other areas where people would like to establish small business enterprises which could be tailored to take advantage of what can be found in those areas.
One sees examples of this in the New England states. For example, people in the area would like to grow and process cranberries, foxberries or blueberries, not only for the tourist trade, but to ship to canneries and food processing plants; they would like to sell scallops and fresh sea foods at roadside booths; to serve good clam chowder and home cooking, to undertake small boat building operations or conduct salt water sport fishing tours; to experiment with aquaculture for clams or oysters; and, to provide necessities such as trailer parks and other amenities for tourists. But, Mr. Speaker, they lack capital. Capital is very necessary, and this budget makes inadequate provision for the kind of capital which is needed if we are to help these areas in Nova Scotia.
This particular budget, as I have said before, is fine for healthy, large corporations which need assistance to improve their competitive positions in major markets, but it does nothing to encourage Canadians who wish to start in a small way and become independent. It does not help the average person to begin a small business.
This government has done nothing constructive to assist the Sheet Harbour area of Nova Scotia, although the matter has repeatedly been brought to the government's attention in the House of Commons by myself and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). That is to say, nothing has been done to compensate for the loss of the pulp mill, which was the only industry of any consequence in the entire shore region, apart from
June 12, 1972

fishing; and we all know the difficulties in which the fishing industry finds itself because of the extremely timid and reticent attitude, if I may describe it in the kindest terms possible, of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and of the Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis). Surely, Mr. Speaker, the much heralded Department of Regional Economic Expansion could have done something to establish an industry somewhere along this line, in this vast stretch of territory, that would to some extent make up for the loss of the pulp mill which was closed many months ago.
In another area of my constituency, Mr. Speaker, that of Pictou county, there are different problems. It seems obvious that in this area, which is more organized and which has a reasonably diversified industrial type of economy, steps should be taken to have it declared a designated or special growth area within the meaning of the DREE legislation. In this connection, may I quote from part of an article which appeared in the recent Halifax edition of a leading newspaper. It is entitled, "Grits to impose metro government" and, in part, reads as follows:
There are indications that the Nova Scotia government now is prepared to move firmly toward some form of regional government for the Halifax metropolitan area.
In some ways this is comparable to the industrialized area of Pictou county, to which I referred. I continue:
-pressure from the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion (DREE) for some overall planning for this area could force the provincial government to move steadily towards regional government with or without the blessing of the three local municipalities.
I wonder if the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is trying to exert political pressure on municipalities. For example, are municipalities being led to believe that they will not be designated as special growth areas unless provision is made for a certain type of local government? If so, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion should say so, and not beat around the bush on this subject. I appeal to the government directly to do something and take care of the situation in Pictou county. It is an area that is fast growing industrially and needs all the help it can get particularly in view of the government's transport policies.
I, personally, am most concerned about what is happening to agriculture in Nova Scotia, about the steps being taken to alleviate difficulties. I still live in a farming community and have seen the drastic decrease in livestock and farming activity in my area. It might be useful if I were to put on the record at this time statistics to show the drastic decline in farming in Nova Scotia over the years. In 1935, for example, Nova Scotia produced 4,900,000 pounds of creamery butter. At present, Nova Scotia produces less than half this amount. Milk production is down drastically, and there are fewer cattle. The same may be said with regard to sheep. What is really disconcerting is the fact that a census of farms taken in 1931 revealed there were 39,444 farms. Thirty-five years later there were only 9,621, less than one quarter. Consolidation accounts for some decrease in numbers, but consider this, Mr. Speaker. The area of improved land dropped from 2,502,773 acres in 1933 to 1,084,273 acres in 1966. That is a tremendous decline.
The Budget-Mr. MacKay
In Canada as a whole, if my figures are correct, it appears that the census of farms reveals a decline from 430,522 to 366,128. Total farm land in Canada dropped to 169.7 million acres from 174.1 million acres. That is further evidence of the decline in the agriculture industry. If we are to stop this alarming trend and protect a way of life that has been so good to us and for this country, many government ministers and departments will have to help, not just the Minister of Finance. Surely, we do not want large corporations to be completely pre-eminent in agriculture, yet our present tax policies are forcing the small farmer out of business and into cities where, in many cases, he becomes a sort of refugee. When a man sells his farm and moves to the city, often he cannot adjust. A man who owns land has a stake in this country. He can grow crops, raise animals and contribute something. If you take this way of life away from a man who is used to it, he becomes, in some cases, a burden and not an asset to society.
There has been so much abuse heaped on the government regarding its policy on foreign ownership that one almost hates to kick a government when it is down. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) recognized the inadequacies of this policy when he asked students in the western part of this nation not to be too hard on it, or words to that effect. This government had a problem regarding the Gray report. It had to take some action, make some gesture before an election. Since the basic contents of the report were leaked, the report could not have been left in limbo indefinitely. Last year the Home Oil takeover bid embarrassed the government. The year before, 1971, Denison Mines had to be dealt with, so the government gave us the Gray report. The basic truth is that it does not have much, Mr. Speaker. Like so much that this government does, it is hardly more than a gesture. If a foreign company wishes to take over a Canadian one but is prevented from doing so, it can start a new company and possibly put an existing one out of business as a result. We must give incentives to Canadians to develop and invest in our own companies by granting tax credits, using a selective capital gains tax or some other device whereby it pays to be a Canadian in Canada.
The former Minister of Finance made a step in that direction when he recognized that small Canadian-owned companies should be treated more equitably with regard to corporation taxes, but more of this spirit is needed. All hon. members must be rather apologetic about this so-called Gray report if this is the best that our government can do. If all we want to do is screen American takeovers, I predict we will see Americans come in and by-pass these provisions by starting their own companies.
We need to limit control in certain key areas. I do not know exactly what Mexico has done over the years, but my information is that the Mexican government has done very well in coming to grips with its foreign ownership problems. In future, if the administration of Mexico wishes to pursue a course of economic union or some scheme of this nature, that is pursue a continentalist policy, they can do so with their national pride and economic strength apparent and intact. A country that is in control of its economy could, when the occasion arises,

June 12, 1972
The Budget-Mr. Whiting
participate in a continentalist policy in some areas, but could refuse if it had to participate as a junior partner with a tiny, minority interest. How can one conduct meaningful policies from a posture such as this? I sincerely hope, and I trust my feelings are shared by the administration, that this government can come up with progressive legislation that will give Canadians a positive incentive to develop their own country so that in years to come we will be pre-eminent in our country and not so utterly dependent, as we now are, on foreign capital.
In conclusion, I say to this government that they have only scratched the surface with their foreign ownership policy and budgetary proposals. They are not all bad, but in my humble opinion, they are not all that good. The tax reform legislation is not cohesive and it is not conducive to economic growth. This government has failed to coordinate its efforts with provincial authorities. Instead of talking to the provincial authorities, they have been talking at them. When some of the fellows I worked with in the woods showed up with a fat lip or black eye, I asked them what happened and they replied that they were talking when they should have been listening. This government has been doing too much talking to the provinces and not enough listening. There has not been the degree of co-operation that is necessary between federal and provincial authorities if this nation is to develop properly. The taxation policies have made it very difficult for Canadians to expand their own nation. As the immortal Joe Louis used to say when he was fighting, "they can run, but they can't hide". The Canadian taxpayer can also run and pay, but thanks to the existing tax policy, he has no place to hide any of his assets, not one little area he can call his own when it comes to putting something aside for his old age. I do not think the majority of people in Canada are happy about this policy. Unless this government does something to change it, they will be in for a very rude shock in the not too distant future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hud L. Whiting (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to compliment the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on his initial budget which has set priority on the stimulation of Canada's economy. No one can question the need to provide jobs and to aid the competitive setting for secondary manufacturing, particularly in view of the recently announced United States DISC program.
The reduction to 40 per cent in corporation tax is expected to maintain the buoyancy of our economy and, to some extent, compensate for the squeeze on profit margins due to appreciation of the Canadian dollar. It is also expected to help defuse the threat to Canadian production as a result of protectionist moves by our trading partners. The fast write-off of equipment and machinery is expected to maintain the buoyancy of our economy and stimulate further investment within the secondary manufacturing industry. The result of such stimulus on Halton, which houses a bourgeoning secondary manufacturing sector employing more than 16,000 people, can be of immense importance.
[Mr. MacKay.l
J. P. R. Wadsworth, President and Chief Executive, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, struck a responsive cord with this comment on the budget when he said:
It has a refreshing tone and is positive in outlook.
I think this is the way all Canadians should look at the budget. It is not intended to be a cure-all, nor is it an attempt to buy votes. It is a highly pragmatic program for the continued development and expansion of our economy.
One tax expert, William A. MacDonald, in the Financial Post, of May 13 suggested that this budget, and I quote:
-constitutes a change in tax direction that could have greater long-term implications for the well-being of Canadians than the complex tax reform which took 10 years to hatch. It is directed at strengthening the international competitive position of the economy on a long-term basis-something no budget in recent memory showed any concern about.
"For the time being, at least", said MacDonald, "the fine-tuning and fiddling-at-the-edges of recent budgets has been abandoned in exchange for powerful, direct and permanent action through tax cuts and fast write-offs. These will help the cash flows and rates of return of Canadian manufacturing and replace continuing reliance on government expenditure and loan programmes."
It should be noted, I might point out, that the budget is also in keeping with the approach to foreign investment reflected in the bill introduced by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) to provide for the review and assessment of takeovers of Canadian business enterprises by non-residents. The old adage "let the dice fall as they may" can no longer be equated to today's global community. The initiative for throwing the dice lies with the player, and the social consequences of the throw must be shared. So must it be with today's international economy.
The governor of the Bank of Canada put it quite succinctly when he stated:
Because prosperity and depression can spread rapidly from one country to another, the great countries must manage their affairs well and keep firmly in mind the international implications of their actions.
For Canada, it is imperative that government, industry and each individual share equal responsibility in making this nation competitive and stronger.
Focusing, now, on my own constituency of Halton, one of the major beneficiaries of this budget will be the Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, which now employs more than 7,000 people. That is a lot of employment centralized in one community industry, and much of the county's prosperity depends on this industry. This dependence comes in the form of supplier-to-manufacturing operations: housing for employees, transportation, and many other relevant services, all contributing to increased employment. I would expect Ford as a beneficiary, to heed the advice given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) at his budget conference: "I expect business to get out and hustle, to grow, to compete and to build jobs for Canadians."
Equally important is the need for government to give Ford the opportunity to compete and provide jobs, emphasizing again the need for shared responsibility. Ford, I am sure, intends to be a viable Canadian enter-
June 12, 1972

prise. Recently the president of that company, in an address at the St. Thomas, Ontario, plant, said:
We intend to meet the import challenge of vehicles made in countries other than the U.S. and we intend to meet it with our own resources. Every import sold in this country jeopardizes Canadian jobs and tax revenue.
In effect, the budget protects a very large and important segment of Canada's manufacturing industry; it protects jobs, and it protects against a loss of corporate tax revenue. Labour is viewing with alarm reports circulating that Canada must capitulate on the auto pact in the forthcoming rounds of trade negotiations. Members of the United Auto Workers told the Canadian Labour Congress when they met in Ottawa a month ago that U.S. economic strategies are costing and will cost the Canadian automotive industry thousands of jobs. Dennis McDermott, Canadian director of the U.A.W. said "The Americans are playing around with the auto pact and we think they're in violation of GATT".
I feel, personally, the reasons we refused to abandon the auto pact safeguards in our talks with the United States in February are valid today and will be applicable tomorrow and years hence if our economy is to progress. However, Ford will only continue to be a viable industry and provide opportunities for spin-off secondary manufacturing operations as long as the auto pact safeguards are maintained in bargaining with our neighbours to the south. The auto pact was a conscious decision by both governments to build a more efficient automotive industry within North America through specialization and rationalization. To this extent, both governments have succeeded.
We have succeeded, I think, because of several very important reasons. First, our labour force is much more skilled and self-disciplined than its counterpart in the United States. Another factor is the excellent social environment in Canada's manufacturing locations, as compared to that of the northern industrial sites in the United States. The Canadian worker can compete, as efficiently and as effectively, as any worker in the world. He is prepared to share responsibility in making our country a better place in which to live, but he must have the co-operation of industry and government. This co-operation is implicit in the auto pact, for, despite all the misconceptions surrounding this agreement, its safeguards stalemate, to a great extent, any moves on the part of the U.S. parent corporations to maintain operations in Canada only as long as it is profitable for them to do so.
In the foregoing remarks, Mr. Speaker, I have touched on those points in the budget which I feel are of vital concern and benefit to the people of my constituency. With the emphasis the minister has placed on the tax benefits for secondary industry, I foresee a marked continuation of the upward trend in employment especially in the auto industry, and I think it is reasonable to expect that all parties involved, both management and labour, will recognize the need for co-operation. As I pointed out in my references to the auto pact, Canadian labour is skilled and self-disciplined, both vital factors in manufacturing efficiency. Given stable labour relations, Canada can maintain its competitive position throughout the world. We also have every right to expect the industry will lower its prices.
The Budget-Mr. S. Knowles
As the Financial Post stated a few weeks ago:
It is now very much up to business, especially manufacturers to respond to the sizeable tax incentives with substantially more competitive prices.
And now, like the current stories that have the good news and the bad news, I have given you the good news in the budget first. While home in my constituency over the past few weekends I heard what might be called the bad news. Many people mentioned in conversation that the middle income group must continue to carry the chief burden of taxation. Indeed, it is pointed out there is no indication that the 3 per cent reduction introduced in a former budget will be continued after its termination date on December 31 of this year. In other words, we can expect a tax increase of 3 per cent at that time.
I think that all members of the House deplore that the Finance Minister has seen fit not to continue this tax benefit beyond its expiry date. His reasoning is simply that there are many things that we as a country cannot afford today and this is one of them. But I am happy to see that he has not completely closed the door and that he has both the time, between now and the end of the year, as well as the right, to review the legislation so that it will not be necessary to restore the tax at that time. There are other items I might have touched on but they have already been dealt with by previous speakers.
Let us remember, however, that the main thrust of this budget is the creating of jobs and job security while minimizing inflationary tendencies. In my opinion, its short term effect will be to give the economy a definite impetus while laying a solid foundation for future economic growth.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if I were to give the members of this House one guess as to the subject about which I intend to speak this afternoon, they would all guess correctly. I rise to speak again on the subject of pensions, because I have learned during the years I have been here that the only way to get action on a matter of this kind is to keep it alive.
I want to say to the Minister of Finance that although it was a bit of a departure from the usual routine that is followed in a budget speech for him to announce certain legislation respecting pension changes, it was a welcome departure. Indeed, the fact that that departure was welcome has been demonstrated by the fact that the two pieces of legislation that he announced on May 8 have already been put through all stages in this House. Thus, the stage is set for the paying of the increases provided in those bills at an early date. I am referring to the increase that will be enjoyed by old age pensioners because the escalation clause has been put back on the basic $80, and also because the 2 per cent ceiling on the escalation provided in the Old Age Security Act has been replaced by a formula that provides for both the basic pension and the guaranteed income supplement to be increased automatically each year in accordance with the actual percentage rise in the cost of living.
The other change that was announced, and which has now been embodied in a statute passed by this House, makes it mandatory for the same principle to apply to

June 12, 1972
The Budget-Mr. S. Knowles
pensions paid to war veterans under the Pension Act, to the allowances paid to war veterans under the War Veterans Allowance Act, and to all other pensions and allowances that come under the aegis of the Department of Veterans Affairs. As I say, these announcements which the Minister of Finance made on the night of May 8 were most welcome, and the House has shown that fact by taking speedy action on the two pieces of legislation that were forecast by that announcement.
However, I feel that I must say to the Minister of Finance and to the government that in terms of the total problem, in terms of a really satisfactory pension program for all the people of Canada, all he did by his announcement on May 8, and all the government has done by its subsequent legislation, was to admit that there are things that sorely need to be done. We argued for a long time that it was not good enough to have an escalation clause that was limited by a 2 per cent ceiling. We argued that such a clause had the effect of forcing people to fall behind year after year, especially when their pensions went up by only 2 per cent whereas the cost of living may have gone up 4 or 5 per cent or even more. We are glad that the 2 per cent ceiling has been removed under the Old Age Security Act and that the principle has been established that the escalation of pensions should be related to the actual increase in the cost of living.
The first of four points that I want to make this afternoon, a point I make with as strong a plea as I can, is that this principle of the escalation of pensions according to the actual rise in the cost of living should be extended to every pension plan that comes under the responsibility of the federal government. I know that in response to questions I have asked since May 8, the assurance has been given that these matters are under consideration. But the fact is that we have to be told about 47 times that something is under consideration before we get action.
May I make particular mention of the pensions of retired public servants. For a couple of years now, these people have been getting annual increases in their pensions, but they have been limited to 2 per cent per year. The same is true of retired members of the Canadian Armed Forces and retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel. They, too, are getting annual escalations of their pensions but they are limited to 2 per cent. If it is correct and proper, as I assert it is, to put escalation of some pensions, notably old age security and veterans pensions, on a basis that equals the actual increase in the cost of living, I urge that this also must be done for all other pension programs.
I particularly mention retired public servants, retired RCMP personnel, retired members of the Canadian Armed Forces, retired employees of the Bank of Canada, and many other individuals and groups coming under federal responsibility. I might even note that there is a pension arrangement for retired employees of Devco, and if a certain member were in the House this afternoon the mention of that might raise another argument. But I simply make the point that that pension program also has attached to it a 2 per cent ceiling on its escalation provision, and for all I know there are such ceilings in other plans that may not have been drawn to my attention. The Minister of Finance took a good step forward, and showed

himself to be a candidate for something or other in the future, by being progressively minded and introducing the idea that certain pension escalations be related to the actual increase in the cost of living. My very strong plea is that this principle be extended to all pensions that come under federal jurisdiction.
In passing, since I have referred to the pensions of retired members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and retired personnel of the Canadian Armed Forces, I want again to make the plea that the escalation of their pensions begin at any time after they go on pension. They face a discrimination whereby some public servants at age 55 can get an escalation of their pensions without having to wait till age 60, but in the case of most retired RCMP and Canadian Armed Forces personnel, they have to wait until they are 60 years of age before that escalation begins. That is a slight digression but I felt it should be mentioned along with this first main point that I am trying to make, namely that if this idea that the Minister of Finance brought in on May 8 is a good one-and it is; indeed, it is excellent-it should apply across the board.
I have cited a number of pension programs that come directly under the responsibility of the federal government. There are some I must also mention that one might say come indirectly under the responsibility of the government in Ottawa. I refer in particular to railway pensions. I start with the pensions paid by Canadian National Railways which were escalated on a one-shot basis a little over a year ago, nothing more having been done since that time. In my view, that escalation should be put on an annual basis, a basis that again should correspond to the actual increase in the cost of living and not be tied to a 2 per cent limit.
Of course, in mentioning the Canadian National I must also mention the Canadian Pacific Railway which is lagging behind disgracefully. Every time we pose questions about both these railways to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), he makes the point that he has more influence with one than with the other. Well, I suppose that is true; but I suspect that if the government really wanted to throw its weight around with respect to the Canadian Pacific Railway, it could be almost as effective as it is with the Canadian National Railways.
The particular point that I want to make is that both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific are governed by a piece of federal legislation, namely the Pension Benefits Standards Act. This is a federal statute which lays down the conditions registered pension plans must meet in order to qualify for registration, in order to obtain income tax recognition and so on. I submit to the federal government the time has come when it ought to write into the Pension Benefits Standards Act the requirement that all pension plans which come under that act must contain provision for the escalation of those pensions and that that escalation ought to be on a basis equal to the actual rise in the cost of living. We can look at all these matters in a number of ways. If the government ever considers again at this session the bill having to do with the Canadian National financing we will be back to the pension question, and if the government wants to get that bill through the answer is simple. All it needs to do is to tell us it has made an arrangement with Mr. MacMillan, the
June 12, 1972

President of the Canadian National Railways, to improve Canadian National pensions along the lines we have suggested.
Mr. Speaker, I have been unhappy since it was first brought in that we have had a 2 per cent ceiling on the annual increase in pensions. I take my hat off to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). He has broken through that ceiling, but only in respect of old age security and the pensions of veterans. I call upon him to use his influence with the government to recommend that it finish the job and break that ceiling right across the board, if that is not a mixed metaphor.
I said that I had four things to say. I shall move immediately to the second point. I agree that I am asking for something that will not happen overnight and something which calls for study. However, we must get this study started. A few years ago we did not even have a universal pension and until a short few years ago we did not have any escalation. We have made progress. But I want to say again this is not good enough. It is really not the mark of a decent society if all we can do for our retired people is to increase their pensions in accordance with the rise in the cost of living. Surely our older and retired people who helped make the economy what it is at any given time have the right to share in the rising standard of living. Wage rates go up faster than the cost of living goes up. The gross national product goes up faster than the cost of living goes up. When you give to retired people only an increase related to the cost of living increase you condemn them to remain at the same standard of living they had at the time of their retirement, even though people all around them enjoy an increase in their standard of living.
An editorial appeared in the Vancouver Province on this subject on May 20, 1972, entitled "Standard of living pensions . . .". I admit it was a speech or two of mine which prompted the writing of this editorial. It says some very nice things about me, but I do not know of anything in the rules which would prevent me referring to it because of that.


John Napier Turner: You must have a good researcher. I have one or two.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have friends in British Columbia who send these clippings to me. Indeed, I have a great many friends in British Columbia. The article reads:
Mr. Stanley Knowles makes a persuasive point when he says the old age pension should be related not only to cost of living but also to standards of living.
The two measurements are related but they are not the same.
If pensions are increased by a cost of living formula as Ottawa now proposes, they merely keep pace with increased costs. If they are increased by a standard of living formula they allow the pensioner to keep pace with the general improvements in lifestyle that other sections of society enjoy through real economic growth.
The next two or three paragraphs of the editorial are direct quotations from speeches of mine, so I shall skip them and go to the last paragraph:
But if it's considered fair that other people should share in the increased wealth of the country beyond the mere increase in the cost of living, it's equally fair that pensioners should benefit along
The Budget-Mr. S. Knowles
with them. Such increases would obviously be very expensive. But expense is not a final argument against the principle.
I wish to underline that. The principle is unanswerable and incontrovertible in respect of our older people. I hear they are busy banding themselves together in the United States and calling themselves the Grey Panthers. A program appeared on the CBC last night which members of the government should have watched, or which they should watch some other time if they did not see it, which indicated that the retired people in that country, some 20 million strong, are not satisfied with things as they are. I think the same thing is true here on a lesser scale. I feel strongly that our older people, in numbers approaching 1,700,000 or perhaps two million, are entitled not just to be kept alive on some subsistence allowance and are entitled not just to an increase in their pension year after year to keep them at the standard of living they had at the time of retirement, but are entitled to share in the growing wealth and the rising standard of living in this country. I call upon the government to give some real study to this matter. I think this ought to be brought into effect right away. I know that first of all we must have the cost of living increase applied to every one. I feel, however, that the day should not be far off when we start to put into effect the principle of escalating all pensions according to the rise in the standard of living and in so doing recognizing the rights of our older and retired people.
The third thing I wish to say this afternoon is that after or perhaps even before we have solved these problems about the escalation of pensions of various kinds, a good hard look must be taken at the basic rates. It is fine to say that the old age security pension will now be escalated by an amount equal to the actual percentage rise in the cost of living, but $80 as a basic rate is not a sufficient amount with which to start. It is no answer to say there is a guaranteed income supplement which one can obtain if one subjects himself to a certain income test. I believe that at the present time that basic rate should be not less than $150 a month. I think, too, the basic rate of pensions paid to our blind and disabled people should be increased substantially. I believe it is unfortunate that in the changes which have taken place in our pension legislation in the past few years the rate for blind and disabled persons has not been increased, as it should have been. A pension of $75 a month is not very much; it certainly is not enough. I know these people receive more money than that because they can obtain assistance from the provinces, funded in part out of the Canada Assistance Plan. But I still think that persons who are blind or disabled ought not to have to go through that kind of routine. I believe their right to an adequate pension because of their condition ought to be recognized under federal legislation.
I feel, too, that the basic rates of both pensions and allowances paid to our veterans must be increased. I am delighted that the new Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing) has indicated his willingness that this question be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. When this reference is made the House can be sure the committee will study this matter very sympathetically. I want to emphasize that in asking for a new look at the rates with regard to veterans, I have in mind not only the basic rates of the disability pensions paid under the Pension Act, but also the rates of the war veterans allowance.
3050

June 12, 1972
The Budget-Mr. S. Knowles
Those rates must also be increased, and increased substantially.
These matters I bring before the House under the general point that I am making that while I am pleased that we have made progress in terms of escalating pensions, and while I welcome the attention that has been paid to my plea that the escalation of pensions be related to the standard of living, these things are without any significant value unless the basic rates are adequate. It is not good enough in this day and age to have a basic rate of old age security that is only $80 a month, and I regard the basic rate of the disability pension for veterans as being too low in relation to today's standards. In my view, these rates simply must be increased.
I know of course that in relation to this, as in relation to all the requests that some of us make for pension increases, someone may put the question "where is the money to come from?" I do not press what I am now going to say too hard because I know what you can do with bookkeeping, but just in terms of bookkeeping I would point out that the old age security fund is running a healthy surplus, as are all our pension funds, and that the new fund that was established a year or so ago to provide escalation payments to retired civil servants, retired RCMP and retired armed forces personnel is running a healthy surplus. If you want to do it in terms of bookkeeping, there are many items of money of that sort that can be found. As I say, I do not press that too hard because in my view the basic question is what society wants to do and how we plan the distribution of what we produce. I know that there is only so much we can produce, and it is also a fact that in today's thinking in terms of saving our environment, saving our world from destruction by pollution and saving society, we may have to curtail this onward march in the production of more and more wealth. But the real problem is how we share such wealth as we are able to produce, and I am not satisfied that the dividing of the pie as we do it today is good enough so far as our pensioners, our veterans and all our older and retired people are concerned. So I call for a new look at the basic rates of all our pensions and for increases of substantial amounts in those rates.
I said I had four things I wanted to bring before the House this afternoon. Not one of them is new, but they are all put forward in the belief born of experience that it is not what you asked for six months ago or last year that carries any weight; you have to keep these issues alive all the time. The fourth of the issues that I want to press and keep alive this afternoon is that the time has come to lower the pensionable age, at least on a voluntary basis. I do not think there should be any delay at all on the part of the government in bringing in legislation to amend both the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan to make it possible for those who wish to leave the labour market to draw both of those pensions, certainly as early as at the age of 60. I think also that this is a way in which some solution can be found to the problem of the younger wife who has not yet reached the pensionable age when the husband has. If you had that five year voluntary period, it would solve a great many of these cases.

A moment ago I had the immodesty-not unique among politicians-of referring to an editorial in a west coast newspaper that supported my position on standard of living pensions. I wonder if I may now pick up an editorial from an east coast newspaper, namely, the Halifax Mail-Star of Wednesday, April 19, 1972 which carries the interesting heading "Ahead of his time". It starts off by saying:
It is not at all surprising to find that the latest move in the House of Commons to urge the government into the payment of higher pensions at lower qualifying ages is being led by Stanley Knowles.
Then, there are a couple of paragraphs that are even more laudatory of my efforts over the years, and the editorial ends with this paragraph:
Someday-and we hope it will be in Mr. Knowles' time-
I can tell the Halifax Mail-Star that it will be-
-there will be more generous basic pensions and, possibly, eligibility at age 60 as he proposes. But the timing will depend upon the nation's ability to pay the bill and the politicians' ability to gear their thinking so as to catch up to the veteran pacesetter from the west.
Who would deny himself the opportunity to put that last sentence on the record, but I do so not just to put it there but to enforce my earnest plea to the members of this House that in their thinking they catch up with the needs of our day so far as pensions are concerned. One of the pressing needs, particularly with the vast amount of unemployment among younger people, is for a provision for retirement at an early age. The time for this change is now. Not many years ago we suggested pensions at 65 instead of 70, only to be told that this was impossible. However, eventually even a Liberal government was able to bring in a bill to bring the retirement age down one year at a time, 70 to 69, to 68, to 67, to 66 and to 65. Why should we not have a bill this year, patterned in the same way if you will, to start lowering the pensionable age under the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan to 64 years in 1972, to 63 the year after, and so on until we get it down to the age of 60 four or five years from now. I submit that this is in line with the needs of our time and it is very much in line with a rational and sensible approach to pensions. I hope that the House and the government will give it earnest consideration.
I close by simply enumerating the four points that I have tried to make. First of all, I think that the idea of a cost of living escalation geared to the actual rise in the cost of living should be extended to all pensions which come under the direct or indirect control of the federal government. Second, I think the government should now initiate a very serious study of the principle of gearing pension increases to the rise in the standard of living. Third, I urge that the basic rate of all our pensions be reconsidered and that there be substantial increases in the light of the needs of today. Finally, I urge that an immediate start be made on lowering the pensionable age at least down to age 60.
These four changes would make tremendous improvements. I could make a speech in another vein. I could tell of the progress we have made over the last 30 or 40 years, and it has been good. Certainly, we have made real gains in the whole pension field. But in terms of what we can do now, in terms of what our people need and deserve, we
June 12, 1972

have a long way to go. Let us get started now, at least on these four points.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the budget debate. The budget was presented to the House of Commons on Monday, May 8, and the fact that we are only now debating its proposals is indicative of the lack of direction and the indecision of the present government. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this measure, since June 10 was an anniversary for me as I have been some 15 years in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Take a good look at the place, Lloyd.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are just getting started.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: During these years, I have seen many budgets come and go, but few of them with more promises and less performance than the one we have presently under debate. When presenting this lengthy document, the Minister of Finance at least gave an indication that he understood some of the problems when he said, as recorded on page 1 of his text:
No economy is working as well as it should, if there are men and women seeking work who cannot find it.
That one statement represents the most serious charge that can be laid against the Trudeau administration, namely its waste of our greatest resource, our human resource, and the agony, frustration and humiliation which have been the lot of our unemployed people.
Apparently, the Minister of Finance at least recognizes that 6.8 per cent of our working force is unemployed and, to use his words, need "real jobs, not temporary jobs- jobs that last and satisfy." Some 592,000 people were reported as unemployed in April, and Trudeau unemployment is becoming a Canadian trademark like maple syrup, but it is certainly not as sweet to those who are affected.
Obviously, the Minister of Finance got the message, for right now some 43 per cent of the unemployed are young people between the ages of 14 and 24 years. Unemployment is a disaster for men and women of any age, but young people are especially vulnerable to the loss of dignity, and the hampering of legitimate ambition which is the inevitable result of being unable to find a job.
Further on in his speech, the minister stated:
I believe that part of my responsibility in this portfolio is to take a hard look at the rough edges of tax reform and I intend to see to it that the rough edges are smoothed out.
I ask the minister: where was he when this so-called tax reform was rammed through the House by the use of closure? Where was he when these rough edges were being put on this legislation by his own government? In his budget speech, the minister continued:
I propose to announce a number of important amendments to the Income Tax Act arising out of tax reform. The particular amendments have been selected either because they affect large numbers
The Budget-Mr. Crouse
of taxpayers-or because the government is already committed to make them.
Then, the minister makes an astounding statement. He says:
There are a few other amendments which I have been contemplating-but I have not included these in this budget because I am still considering the best solution to the particular problems. I mention this because many people have made sensible suggestions to me, but it is not possible to deal with all of them tonight.
Talk about Nero fiddling while Rome burns! Is the Minister of Finance not yet aware that it is tax reform legislation which has created chaos, indecision and uncertainty throughout the business community, and that he should have acted in this budget on the sensible suggestions made by many people to him and to his government?
It is possible that the government could have avoided the rough edges of tax reform, injustices in law of which the minister speaks, if it had listened to the sensible advice of the official opposition last year, and delayed the tax bill until its anomalies had been straightened out. However, that course of action did not suit the government which was obsessed with the idea of using its majority power to force the tax bill through Parliament. The present Minister of Finance, who was then the Minister of Justice in the Trudeau government, must accept his share of responsibility for the present numbers of unemployed, for the costly blunders brought about by haste and political tinkering, because he meekly accepted, followed and endorsed the Trudeau policies which helped make these problems a reality.
On page 23 of his text, the minister is recorded as, frankly admitting that things have gone wrong under the Trudeau government, the government he supports. I say this because in his assessment of the budget he states:
I wish I could do everything at once. 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. The bare fact of the matter is that we cannot do everything at once. We simply don't have the resources. There are limits to the scope of fiscal policy. There are limits to stimulus and re-adjustment.
This is nothing more than an admission of defeat, a negative attitude which says to the unemployed and to our young people, "Have pity on us because we really don't know how to run this resource rich, well-blessed country, effectively." This is, in effect, what the minister is saying, for there is an old cliche which says that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot waste your tax dollars and still have worthwhile programs for the sound economic development of the country.
When the minister says, "We cannot do everything at once" what he really means is that the government cannot finance all of its pet projects and still assist industry in the creation of much needed jobs. You cannot build $25 million National Defence buildings and $30 million External Affairs headquarters and still have money to assist industry. You cannot build monuments to the ministers in this capital city, and still have funds to assist industry. It is a hollow sham for the government to say we do not have the resources to encourage employment opportunities for our people. According to the booklet put out by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), entitled "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent"-

June 12, 1972
The Budget-Mr. Crouse


Mr. Osier:: Tell us about the Tories in Manitoba and Nova Scotia.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The hon. member who, as usual, is interrupting while remaining in his seat, will have time to make his own speech.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I have already done so. I ask what about the Tories in Manitoba and Nova Scotia.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: If the hon. member would listen he would learn something. Incidentally, this booklet cost the taxpayers $72,625, and according to it the government spent a total of $10,767,000,000 in the year 1968-69 to serve 20 million people. According to this booklet the government proposes to spend $15,749,000,000 in the year 1972-73 to serve some 21,600,000 people. And since this book was printed, Mr. Speaker, supplementary estimates have brought this planned expenditure up to $16,012,000,000.
Our taxes have been escalating at a phenomenal rate. It is not honest, fair or just to say that we do not have the resources in Canada to provide jobs. The truth is that the government has been wasteful of our resources, and the wrong policies have been given priority. I cannot help but pity the Minister of Finance who showed such a strong desire to become the leader of his party, with a chance at the prime ministerial post, that he clung to his delegates votes until the bitter end at the last Liberal leadership contest. He was really the "Canadian Muskie" of that day. Now that he holds the post of Finance Minister, he will never get a chance to become Prime Minister. I say this after looking at history, where I find that since Confederation only two finance ministers have made it to the top, and none of them were Grits.
The two were Sir Charles Tupper, who became the sixth prime minister in 1896 after serving as finance minister under Sir John A. Macdonald, and R. B. Bennett who served as finance minister during the Meighen Conservative administration, and who defeated the Liberals under Mackenzie King in 1930 to become prime minister. But it looks as though one part of the history to which I refer will repeat itself for I believe Canadians are again preparing to elect a Progressive Conservative Nova Scotian as prime minister of Canada.
It is obvious, however, that the Minister of Finance recognizes a sound taxation policy when he hears one, or otherwise he would not have used the now familiar Grit tactic of strongly opposing, in Truro, Nova Scotia, on June 7, my leader's proposals as outlined when he spoke in the budget debate, covering a simple method of annually adjusting personal income tax exemptions and rate schedules to reflect increases in the cost of living. The Leader of the Opposition has stated that when he becomes Prime Minister, and that will not be very long in coming, he will implement the constant dollar approach to personal income tax payments, based upon the schedule of tax rates and personal exemptions that were set by Parliament in 1971. The aim of his proposal is to enable Canadians to maintain the 1971 equity in the years ahead. As Progressive Conservatives, we believe that the federal government should rid itself of the vested interest in inflation which arises from automatically reaping enormous
additional revenues from personal income taxes when inflation is running high.
Mr. Speaker, there is a squeaky door over in that corner and I would ask you to close it, shut it up.
We also believe that low and middle income Canadians should not automatically pay a larger share of their real income in federal income taxes, especially if they do no better than keep even with increases in the cost of living. When implemented, the Leader of the Opposition's proposal would restore full fundamental parliamentary control over the effective rates of personal income taxation, which is something that is absolutely necessary but which has been lost under the present ineffective, abortive, rubber-stamping committee system. This proposal when implemented will not stop future tax increases but it will place the government under heavy pressure to carefully scrutinize its planned expenditures and to economize wherever possible before taking its case to Parliament. That is the crux of the matter, Mr. Speaker, and that is what we aim to do.
In my opinion, the Minister of Finance's speech in Truro is significant in that there is not one word in it that refutes, denies, challenges or disproves any of the basic points I have just mentioned. This is understandable, for if the Minister of Finance believes in the basic equity and fairness of the schedule of tax rates and personal exemptions which his party proposed and established in 1971, then he cannot, in all fairness, deny the need for maintaining that equity in the years ahead. The Minister of Finance was really grasping at straws when he suggested our proposal would increase government costs and likely intensify inflationary pressures. In actual fact, the constant dollar proposal could well have a beneficial antiinflationary effect. All we need to do is look at the demands made by the workers who are going out on strike-in this year of the strike-across the nation, and we then realize that much of the pressure for higher wage settlements stems from the workers' realization that under the present tax system they need more than basic increments geared to the cost of living increases just to keep even. At the very least, some of that pressure could be eased through the implementation of the proposal put forth by the Leader of the Opposition. Obviously, the present Minister of Finance, like his predecessor, is long on rhetoric and short on understanding, and these are symptons that are easily recognized by an enlightened electorate. I believe it was Bismarck who said "Nothing can be regarded as true until it has been officially denied by the government." The Minister of Finance's condemnation of my leader's proposals is a strong indication that they have some merit and are worthy of serious consideration by Canadians.
It is obvious to most Canadians that we are heading on a collision course between government and industry under the present government's policies. Nowhere is this more evident than in the field of transportation. Whether you are in western Canada or the Atlantic provinces, the questions raised are all the same. How much longer can this federal government, its Canadian Transport Commission and the railways, ignore the appeals of Canadians for a better break on freight rate charges. When I am in my

June 12, 1972

constituency I am asked, how much longer will the present government pretend that there is consistency in its national transportation and economic development policies? On the one hand, this government has set up the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which makes grants toward the alleviation of economic disparity, while on the other hand it permits rising transportation costs to strangle large and small industries in the Atlantic region. Surely the government cannot claim it has not been alerted to this problem. We have held special debates in this House and our members from time to time have moved a special motion to continue those debates, most of which have been ignored or refused by the government. Surely, they cannot claim that they have not been made aware of the adverse effects on regional growth of the eight freight rate increases in a little more than 24 months.
In his speech today, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) outlined a proposal to pay the freight on goods sold to the government. To use his words, I think he said that "Contracts would be accepted f.o.b. the factory;" that is, on any contract awarded to a factory in any part of Canada by the Department of Supply and Services. Mr. Speaker, this is a move in the right direction, but that is all. It is only a small step; it is no real solution and it is not real transportation policy. For example, if a firm in my constituency desired to tender on steel barges to be sold to the government, first it must find out the cost of the steel which has to be purchased in Hamilton, Ontario and transported to Halifax, Lunenburg, Liverpool, or Shelburne, in Nova Scotia. That cost must be added to the cost of production, and this makes that firm in no way competitive with the company located five miles from the steel factory. That is why I say the proposal put forward by the Minister of Supply and Services is a small step, but it is not a real transportation policy for Atlantic Canada.
There is nothing in this budget which indicates that the Minister of Finance is aware of our transportation problems. In fact, transportation is excluded from absolutely any aid in this budget, yet hardly a week passes without some indication that companies operating in Atlantic Canada are in trouble. Only a few years ago a new company, Anil Canada Ltd. started producing wallboard in my constituency at East Chester and from correspondence and discussions I have held with the President of that company, it is evident that freight charges are seriously hampering their operations. This is only one example, and I could cite many more. We have long since passed the day when the federal government showed any real concern for t*ie transportation ills of Atlantic Canada.
Now, we are told that the Canadian railways will file notices of substantial increases in freight rates with the Canadian Transport Commission on June 19. A 10 per cent increase in rate charges on shipments to and from Atlantic Canada will deal a crippling blow to local industry. This is harsh treatment for our people and it is an action that we simply cannot and will not tolerate. We cannot stand idly by and let this government add further burdens to an already over-burdened economy in Atlantic Canada. When the railroads were built, there was a concept that railways from sea to sea were to hold Canada together. This concept has been forgotten by the present government, if it ever knew it, and I believe that a moratorium should be declared on all freight rate
The Budget-Mr. Crouse
increases, until a fair and just transportation policy has been worked out that is acceptable to our people.
When the National Transportation Act was passed in 1967, Section 3 of that act promised that we were going to have, from 1967 onward, an economic, efficient, and adequate transportation system in Canada that would make the best use of the available modes of travel at the least cost. And this was to be achieved in a way to protect the interests of the users, and at the same time maintain the economic well-being and growth of Canada. The best way to do this, it was stated, was to do it by competition. This powerful regulatory commission operates on the theory that all our problems can be regulated. Unfortunately, the side effects of the cure trigger other reactions that more seriously threaten the well-being of the patient than the illness first perceived. The cost of transportation since 1967 has not become cheaper, nor has it become more efficient as a direct result of regulation. In fact, in my opinion, the Canadian Transport Commission has failed. It has let us down badly because its promise of performance has not measured up to our transportation goals.
This government must not only establish a sound national transportation policy but it must also define a sound industrial policy so that Canadian business, large and small, will know where it stands. At the present time, our businessmen are confused, concerned, and lack confidence in their federal government. This accounts for their lack of initiative in attempting further industrial development which will provide worth-while jobs for Canadians. When you are running a business, and I have some experience in this field, you must have a clearcut objective in order to be successful; you must know where you are going. However, it is obvious to Canadian businessmen that the Trudeau government's industrial policy is comparable to pouring water into a sieve; it runs in all directions.


George Harris Hees: And it is not very thick, either.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I believe a white paper setting out the government's industrial policy would be extremely valuable in giving business and labour an idea where this government is heading. We are reforming our tax laws and our competition and labour laws without any clear idea of what this government or this country is trying to achieve. This is not good enough. The gap between business and government is widening, Mr. Speaker. What is needed today, above everything else, is the restoration of a climate of confidence and trust. We must, somehow, restore to Canadians confidence and trust in their government; and, conversely, there must be confidence and trust by the government in the Canadian people, if we are ever to hope to get the economy moving again and provide jobs for the hundreds of thousands of people who are looking for work. Our export figures for March of this year document all too clearly our world trading position and our inability to compete in world markets. With the exception of the United States, our exports declined. Exports to Britain, Japan, West Germany, Norway, Italy, Australia, Venezuela, Belgium, Luxembourg and India declined by a total of $78.2 million.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.

June 12, 1972
The Budget-Mr. Crouse


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Manufacturing, according to my figures, last month employed 17,000 fewer people in this country. Obviously, this is not good enough, and our export problems are now increasing as a result of the increase in Canada's dollar value and a weak, vacillating Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. For example, low cost imports of cotton textiles are destroying our Canadian producers, and it is doubtful whether Cosmos Imperial Mills can survive in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia without a change in government policy. Our stainless steel producers, especially Atlas Steels, are reportedly postponing indefinitely any expansion plans, owing to import competition from Japan, Sweden, Germany, France and Austria. The government apparently takes the view that, apart from using persuasion to bring down commercial interest rates, there is little it can do about the high level of our dollar or to make our companies more competitive. I, personally, cannot accept that view, for it is still not too late to strengthen further the financial position of our Canadian companies by giving them an immediate tax reduction with respect to manufacturing and processing right across the board rather than waiting until January 1, 1973, as the minister proposed in his budget. Only by enabling Canadian corporations to compete in the world as it is will we be able to provide jobs for our people.
The minister may say, no doubt, that his tax proposals should encourage industry. Mr. Speaker, one of the things this country needs is risk capital. It is all very well for the minister to say that personal savings are increasing in Canada; but he ought to realize, and I know he does, that these savings for the most part are all going into the hands of institutions which invest them in limited areas in order to obtain a safe return on the capital entrusted to them. They are not venturesome. They do not take risks. We do not, under this government, encourage the accumulation of private wealth; and, without money in the hands of entrepreneurs, there can be little or no risk taking.
I have said we need a sound industrial policy; this fact became evident even before the Nixon moves last August for it was difficult to find the basis for a strong, underlying growth trend in Canada's economy. Our plight emphasizes in the most striking way the need for an immediate cleanup of the decks on the economic front if there is to be any hope of our getting businessmen down to business. Instead, we have been caught up in a web only faintly related to the real world of decision and international competitition. The Trudeau cabinet has been so busy trying to do the things that it ought not to have done that it has not had time to do those things that it ought to have done. That is the problem, Mr. Speaker.
This budget has unfortunate implications for federal-provincial relations. The buoyancy in federal revenues has been used by the federal government for its own purposes. Approximately $1 billion at its disposal has been used in accordance with its views. It is the federal government's views on social priorities which continue to dominate, and this centralizing trend is not helping the provinces or municipalities which want to make their own decisions but are desperate for the resources needed to meet their current obligations.
My main objections to the present budget cover a number of areas. In my opinion, it makes little sense to

treat different sectors of the economy in such a diverse way. It is also difficult for businessmen to plan ahead when tax rates are changed so frequently, and when selective tax cuts to corporations are unjust and inappropriate. The tax cut for manufacturers and processors is too indefinite. I ask the Minister of Finance to tell us, when he speaks, what specifically the government means when it speaks of a manufacturer, or of a processor. Why introduce a new set of distortions into the functioning of the market system, by substituting the judgments of the Minister of Finance as to what types of tax relief make for the greatest degree of growth for our competitive system? Frankly, I do not trust the minister's judgment in a matter as delicate and sensitive as this.
Why, for example, was equipment used in agriculture, in fishing, in logging, in forestry, in oil or gas wells and in the extraction of mineral resources excluded from the fast write-off incentive proposals? Once again our agricultural industry and fishing industry have been left standing by the boards, as it were, for all the consideration they have been given by this government. It seems to me that these primary industries provide considerable employment opportunities, and therefore should be encouraged. If the government is interested primarily in job creation, and all current economic texts show that the service area overwhelmingly is the biggest source of employment, why was that area excluded from assistance in this budget? Employment in the service and recreational sectors declined by 12,000 last month.
If countering the American Domestic International Sales Corporation program, commonly known as DISC, was the objective, it would have been more appropriate to introduce a similar plan in Canada to encourage exports. Quite frankly, in my opinion, erratic variations in tax rates do little, even if they are favourable or result in lower tax rates. A budget was brought down in June, 1971, and it was followed by the 1971 temporary tax. reduction last October; then, the tax reform legislation was passed last December, which attempted to set out tax schedules for the ensuing three years. Now, we have another, should I say haphazard, change providing for a 9 per cent tax cut for manufacturers and processors. These shifts make it difficult to plan ahead intelligently or to take advantage of rate changes. Therefore, I believe investment plans will be postponed until there is greater assurance about the outlook or greater assurance as to what future tax rates will be.


An hon. Member:: People are waiting for a new government.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The attitude of businessmen may well be, "Why do it now; let's wait for the next tax concession." And who can blame them for adopting that posture? Large industrial organizations do their financial planning at least three years in advance; therefore, long term plans must be based on something other than the fickle, spur of the moment changes initiated by the Minister of Finance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
June 12, 1972



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 40 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding)-National Parks-Lake Louise project-Request for statement on government position following public hearings; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-External Affairs-Offer of good offices by United Nations Secretary General respecting Viet Nam war-Canadian position-Representation to U.S., and the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nys-trom)-Youth-Opportunities for Youth program-Rejected applications-Results of solicitation of companies to provide jobs.



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.
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, the budget speech, delivered in a very elegant, effective fashion, contains so many stimulating and sensible proposals that it has earned for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) superlative praise. That is the way one can describe the widespread approval of the document that spells and easier load for pensioners and the disabled and more jobs for the unemployed. It is a document, sir, which marks a long advance in Canada's economic and social maturity. It spells confidence, which some people in this country had lost. The need of the time is the recovery of confidence, confidence that we can beat the unemployment problem.
The tax benefits to expand manufacturing and industrial development will certainly stimulate the business community to accept the challenge and become more successfully competitive in selling our products abroad. I congratulate the minister for his refreshing faith of which, unfortunately, members of the opposition appear to have so little.
In a recent news release, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce expressed pleasure with regard to the constructive budget presented by the Minister of Finance. I quote:
"The measures outlined to stimulate Canadian manufacturing and processing industries should do much to reduce unemployment and to make our competitive position stronger in domestic and international markets," said Neil V. German, president of the Canadian Chamber.
The Budget-Mr. Badanai
In particular, the overall effects of the tax measures in the budget will help Canadian industry to offset the adverse effects of DISC.
The Chamber was also pleased with the measures proposed in the budget to relieve the financial burden borne by those groups hardest hit by inflation such as pensioners, veterans and students.
A review of the debate on Bill C-201, a measure to provide for control of foreign ownership of Canadian companies, reveals some misunderstandings but some of the speeches were reflections of pure anti-Americanism. Fortunately, the Minister of Finance does not see it that way. The unrealistic dream of members of the committee for an independent Canada of eliminating foreign ownership is running against a contemporary world trend to internationalism and, in any case, their theories are not valid in the world in which we live today any more than when we needed foreign capital to develop our industries and create jobs to meet the needs of an expanding and growing population. Had it not been for American capital, there would not have been an iron ore mine in northwestern Ontario. I am referring to the development of the Steeprock Iron Mines in the town of Atikokan, 130 miles west of my constituency. Atikokan would still be a small hamlet. It was risk capital that insured jobs and prosperity for hundreds of people working in that area.
I wish to quote from an editorial that appeared in a recent edition of the Calgary Albertan:
In the much-discussed subject of foreign ownership of Canadian industry to that of foreign ownership of Canadian land, both crown-owned and public, there are many grey areas. While this, on the surface at least, appears to be a laudable endeavor, the problems which will arise if the policy is adopted, first on a national, and then on a provincial scale, can be enormous.
If the respective governments really intend to go whole hog on the latest bit of Canadian nationalism, two important points will have to be determined to the satisfaction of all. These are what constitutes a "foreigner," and what constitutes a "Canadian citizen."
In Canada, which will soon reach a population of 22 million, or just about one-tenth of the population of the United States, there are millions of British subjects who are not Canadian citizens, if the narrow interpretation of the word is to be employed. In the first row are the English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh.
Then come all the immigrants from the 23 Commonwealth countries, white, black, and various shades of brown.
As Canada is a member of the British Commonwealth, all of these people possess the same legal rights as native-born Canadians, once they have been accepted for domicile and have settled down in this country, and as such they are entitled to all the rights and privileges of native-born Canadians and those who have emigrated from other countries outside of the Commonwealth but who have acquired Canadian citizenship after residing here for the period prescribed by law.
The first thing that has to be determined therefore before governments get too deeply involved in the land ownership problem is-what constitutes a "foreigner," and whether British subjects who do not hold citizenship papers are to be barred from buying crown lands. Does it also mean that no person except those who hold Canadian citizenship papers are to be permitted to homestead on crown lands?
The new restrictive legislation now under review by provincial governments across Canada, is merely another chapter in the "Keep the Americans out" policy so popular nowadays.
However, the majority of the governments affected do not possess the intestinal fortitude to name the country they are legislating against, so the legislation will be such as to confine the sale of crown lands to "Canadian citizens." It would be very injudicious to name the Americans in legislation of this kind when the whole
3056

June 12, 1972
The Budget-Mr. Badanai
country is still desperately anxious to enlist the aid of American capital in the continued development of natural resources and industry.
I can understand why British Columbia, with its miles of ocean front, lakes, plus a myriad of islands, is anxious to reduce the volume of the sale of land to the Americans.
I too have toyed with the idea of following the birds to Victoria, or to acquire a small piece of Salt Spring Island, and there to be nuzzled by the balmy Pacific coast breezes. Every time I think of Alberta's seven to eight month winter, I find it difficult to understand why the Americans, or any other group presently being designated as "foreigners," would be interested in trying to buy Alberta land at seriously inflated prices.
Those who did buy land in the early days of the oil invasion at moderate prices, now possess a solid investment, but times are different now in the wake of the urban sprawl and inflated land values.
I thought that the Alberta government displayed great prudence when it did not rush passage of amendments to the Land Act, at the recent session of the legislature. This is a problem which is by no means as simple as it may appear.
Ever since the North West Mounted Police rode west in 1874 to bring law and order to what is now the province of Alberta, Americans have been prominent in development. They brought in the first big cattle herds from Texas in the early 1880's and in the boom years prior to the First World War, they poured across the border in an unending stream, bringing their furniture and livestock with them. Later, they provided most of the capital for the development of Alberta's oil and gas resources, and practically all of the first geologists and drilling crews were either American or American trained.
For this one reason alone, I find it impossible to join in the "Yankee, Go Home" cry presently being chanted by the Johnny-come-lately minority, whose contribution to development still has to be assessed.
The opposition is forever pounding on the gloomy side of the unemployment picture which, of course, everyone admits is not what the government had hoped it would be. On the other hand, the prophets of doom are trying to make it look far worse than it is. For example, when estimating employment statistics for young people in the 14 to 24 age bracket, the difficulty is to arrive at anywhere near the number of unemployed.
Students who register with Canada Manpower and placement officers at the various colleges and university offices, often do not notify the agency when they obtain work. There is no way of checking up on students who go out to find jobs by themselves. Many students who applied for permanent positions have not notified the manpower centres of their decision to return to postgraduate school in the fall. Several thousand students, unsuccessful in their job search, are flying to Europe and elsewhere and therefore cannot be classified as actively seeking employment. Some unemployed students have taken temporary summer work, or obtained "Opportunity for Youth" grants, and cannot be classified as permanently placed, while others wait until summer is over before looking for work.
Many corporations delayed their hiring this spring. They are still going through the process of hiring at the present time. Some universities now operate on a co-operative plan which staggers the graduates' entry into the labour market to other months of the year. The latest unemployment figures for the 14 to 24 age group available are for March and indicate an unemployment rate of 12.6

per cent, or about 273,000. This compares with 12.9 per cent jobless students a year ago. On the whole, bachelor-level graduates in commerce and business administration are finding jobs; in some instances, there are not enough commerce graduates to meet the demand from the accounting profession. Graduates from the professional schools of medicine and dentistry are always in demand, but others, especially those with just a B.A., find it most difficult to obtain jobs.
Then, there is the woman factor. A few years ago married women did not, as a rule, enter the labour market when their husbands were gainfully employed. Now, even though the husband may have a good job, the wife wants a job too, and when unemployed she registers at manpower centres as well, thus compounding the unemployment figures. Lest I be accused of being against a married woman seeking employment, I should hasten to say that she has a right to look for a job, if family conditions will allow. But let us also realize that the jobless figures do not really mean the disastrous conditions that the opposition are trying hard to convey to the people of Canada.
With respect to immigration, I should at once express my satisfaction with the new Minister of Manpower and Immigration's attitude toward applicants for admission to Canada as landed immigrants. I admire his forthright statement aimed at granting a little more flexibility in the area of personal judgment to immigration officers, such as boosting the point ratings, if necessary, given previously to unsuccessful applicants; in other words, using the criteria with flexible judgment and compassion.
With regard to the Sedgwick report of October, 1970, prepared by a Toronto lawyer who has never had the experience of being an immigrant, I suggest that it be shelved for some other era when Canada will have doubled its present population. The minister, very properly, rejected the contention that visitors are abusing the relaxed immigration provisions; and I would recommend increased reliance on the discretionary judgment of overseas' immigration officials, who are, by and large, the best trained and responsible individuals in the public service. I was pleased to take note of a substantial increase in this year's budget for increasing the number of officers, and of expanding facilities in our immigration offices around the world.
I should also add that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should be congratulated on the appointment of the present Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mack-asey) who, when he was Minister of Labour, showed his capacity for commiseration in the face of injustice and who, in his new responsibilities, meets the problems of his department with dedication and compassion.
Canada, as a nation, will be 105 years old in less than two months from now. But Canada as a place for European settlement dates back to 1534 when Jacques Cartier came to our coast seeking a seaway to the Orient. He found, instead, a country, vast and beautiful, beyond his dreams. After the first settlers came to this land, the French and the English they were followed much later by streams of immigrants from almost every country of Europe bringing to our shores millions of men and women of many other cultures who made their homes here and helped in the development of what is now a great nation.
June 12, 1972

Baron Tweedsmuir, one of the best known Governors-General of Canada, once said when speaking to Ukrainian-Canadians:
I want you to remember your old Ukrainian traditions, your beautiful handicrafts, your folksongs and dances and your folk legends. Your traditions are all valuable contributions toward our Canadian culture which must be a new thing created by the contributions of all the elements that make up the nation.
It is with this thought, Mr. Speaker, that I express the gratitude of countless immigrants who are now enjoying the privilege of being Canadians.
A dedicated group of citizens in the City of Thunder Bay have taken on the task of organizing a campaign for funds to establish an arts centre which would include an auditorium. This city of 107,000 people lacks a suitable theatre complex to accommodate an average audience of 1,500 people. Every year those in charge of the music festival are hard-pressed to find accommodation for the various events. The various arts' societies, such as the Cambrian Players, the Lakehead Symphony Orchestra and others are experiencing difficulty in finding suitable quarters for their performances. The arts centre complex is also needed for teaching all facets of the arts, workshops and convention meetings. The federal government, under the Local Initiatives Program, has made a grant of $18,720 toward hiring a co-ordinator, a secretary, and ten surveyors to evaluate the need of the community cultural program. For this, the city is very grateful. The Mayor has indicated that the corporation will lend active support and financial assistance to the project it is hoped, which, once underway, the federal government will also assist with a grant or a loan so that this worthwhile project may be brought to fruition.
One of the most exciting projects that has ever been voiced by a Prime Minister of Canada, ranking with Sir John A. Macdonald's vision of a transcontinental railway a century ago, is a proposal outlined by the Prime Minister to build a highway to connect existing stretches of roads from the border of Alberta, at the 60th parallel, to the Arctic Ocean, at Tuktoyaktuk, a distance of 1,050 miles. In a letter to the Globe and Mail of May 2,1972, Mr. P. Pepperrall, a professor of history from Willowdale, said in part:
In the decade of the 70's nearly a century ago, a dream of similar magnitude that was to open transcontinental communication and to perpetuate a Canada from sea to sea was also denounced as a "preposterous proposition", and "an act of insane recklessness". After all, Sir John A. Macdonald's proposed Canadian Pacific Railway to remote British Columbia would be a road to nowhere of forbidding length, built with money he didn't have, over an undertermined route, and through terrain as formidable as any in the world.
Yet these very obstacles, which people ignorant of the Canadian identity considered to be insurmountable, were the very elements which have characterized the Canadian existence, made its people unique, and impelled them to meet the challenge that was the CPR. The sense of interminable distance, lonely space, and rugged vastness was as much a distinctive part of the Canadian character and consciousness as the country that had created it. And to have failed in response to this challenge that was Canada would not only have betrayed the natural tendency and
The Budget-Mr. Coates
uniqueness of the Canadian identity, but also have stifled the thrust that was to carry it as a nation intact over the threshold of the twentieth century.
Canadians might do well to remember the heritage of our Canadian identity, and in particular the solitary figure of Sir John A. Macdonald earnestly making his proposal for the CPR. Sir John was the "old chieftain" whose national dream culminated in the Canada of a century ago, but the Prime Minister may well be the "new chieftain", whose vision of the north builds a Canada for the twentieth century.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the previous speaker. It is good indeed to know that there are men like him in the House of Commons who have faced a great many adversities on the road here and who can speak with a great deal of fervour and enthusiasm about the future of Canada. While I certainly cannot develop the same kind of enthusiasm for his leader that he expressed, I must say it is nice to know there are still some members of the Liberal party with that kind of enthusiasm for the leader of the Liberal party.


James Alexander Jerome: There are lots of them, don't worry.


Robert Carman Coates: I am glad to hear the parliamentary secretary say that because it is not obvious that that is the case these days.


James Alexander Jerome: Do you want to get into a contest about enthusiasm for leaders?


Robert Carman Coates: I do not mind getting into a contest about that at all. We happen to have two of your members over here who started off with you, and there are a couple more who are no longer with you, so I would not suggest that you start to name names, otherwise you would discover that you are in a greater deficit position now than you were when you started out in 1968. There is also a good possibility that you will be a lot worse off before the end of 1972. Certainly, you will be a lot worse off if you have to call an election.
That was not exactly the way I intended to start my speech, Mr. Speaker, but that is how it has turned out and I do not mind at all.


James Alexander Jerome: Enthusiasm for leaders was your topic, not mine.


Robert Carman Coates: That is right.


James Alexander Jerome: At least, we only have one.


Robert Carman Coates: We have, too.


James Alexander Jerome: What is his name? Which one do you support?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order. The hon. member has the floor and his time will be running out. He should be given an opportunity to make his contribution to the budget debate.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, it is quite apparent that hon. gentlemen opposite are pretty touchy when it comes to
3058

June 12, 1972
The Budget-Mr. Coates
talking about leaders. One of the things that concerns them is that they do not know whether they are going to have their present leader when they go into an election campaign or a new leader. This is one of the things to which we are looking forward. We would certainly like to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) take his record to the people. If that happens there is no doubt at all that there will be an elimination of the present administration, perhaps even an obliteration. I am glad to see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) in his seat today, since I am sure we can count him as one of the casualties when the next election comes.
There are a number of matters that I should like to talk about. One of them has been developing since 1968 and the situation has become increasingly worse since then. I refer to the problem of transportation in the Atlantic provinces. I have spoken on this subject many times in the House of Commons since 1968. In recent days, we had some hopes that the government would announce a policy which would be of some value and assistance to the industrial community of Atlantic Canada, whose problems are gargantuan. We had hoped that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) would bring forward some proposals which would, at least to a degree, have alleviated the desperate situation that is developing in Atlantic Canada. However, rather than offsetting the seven freight rate increases that have been sanctioned since September 1969, on June 19 we must face an eighth application by Canadian National Railways for a freight rate increase.
I should like to put on the record what some of the businessmen in the Atlantic provinces have said recently regarding what those freight rate increases have been doing to them. Almost every area of the business community of Atlantic Canada has commented, and with very few exceptions they all say that the rates will be like a noose around their necks. Both their profits and, in some instances, the extent of their losses in the days ahead are being affected. One of the industries that we hope will continue to operate, and which has made every possible effort to continue to operate, is Cosmos Imperial Mills Limited of Yarmouth. They have increased their staff in order to increase production in the hope they can stay alive. The vice-president, Donald Cain, as reported in the Chronicle-Herald for June 10, says:
-the company's prices are fixed and cannot be raised or lowered. The increased rates will definitely push losses up-
The company had announced a modernization of the plant which will increase staff by nearly 100 persons, in an attempt to pull the operation out of the red.
It will be harder to compete in all their markets, said Mr. Cain. The company moves more than half of all its goods by trucks now but the vice-president figured the disadvantage. An increase in line with the rail rate increases, as has happened in the past.
In other words, when the CNR increases its rates, the trucking companies increase theirs too.
The production manager of another textile industry here, Bonda Textiles Ltd., said he expects increased rates would hurt them because a lot of their sales are in central Canada and are small orders.
Then we have a comment from another industry. Mr. A. M. King, president of Ven Rez Products Ltd., of Shel-

burne, states that the company was forced to quit the Ontario market some years ago because of freight rate changes. There is one example after another of companies which have had their backs driven to the wall because of one freight rate increase after another. I do not believe it is possible for many Atlantic businesses to stand still another freight rate increase on June 19. I think the government should take all these rate increases, examine them in the context of what they do to the Atlantic business community and make a determination concerning how something can be done to assist the industry of the Atlantic provinces to survive the avalanche of escalating freight rate costs which faces them. I cannot stress too strongly how serious is the situation which has been developing in Atlantic Canada since 1969 so far as transportation is concerned, and how necessary it is to secure federal government action at the earliest possible date.
I should like to turn from the subject of transportation to that of Information Canada, because Information Canada is being discussed more and more everywhere in this country. I note that on Friday the Acting Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), expressed deep disappointment at the inability of Information Canada to meet the objectives the government held for it. When Information Canada was established there was a great deal of controversy about it. We were told that the number of public relations officers in government departments was to be substantially reduced because Information Canada would absorb their duties and make them surplus to requirements.
It came as a great disappointment to me to receive today the answer to a question I had placed on the order paper on February 18 concerning Information Canada, because parts of the question dealt specifically with whether Information Canada had done its job in so far as information officers were concerned. In the first part of my question I asked what was the total work force in respect of government information officers prior to the establishment of Information Canada. In the second part of the question I asked what was the work force of all government information officers at that time. In the third part I asked for the total work force of Information Canada. The fourth part of the question dealt with the cost of Information Canada.
I tabulated the returns. With regard to the first part of the question, I was informed that prior to Information Canada being established there were 937 information officers in the public service. In answer to the second part of the question I was informed that there were 1,062 information officers in the various departments of government. That answer is exclusive of Information Canada. In other words, the total number of information officers has increased by approximately 125 since Information Canada was established, while at the same time Information Canada has 354 full-time employees plus 162 employees involved with expositions.
The total salaries and wages involved in respect of the 516 people on the staff of Information Canada is $3,132,000, out of a budget of $8,406,000 in the fiscal year 1971-72. In other words, we now have 125 additional information officers associated with various government departments plus 516 employed by Information Canada. So instead of

having 937 people involved in the dissemination of information today in Canada, we have 1,578. An article from the Globe and Mail states:
The record of the past six months ... leads one to conclude that it is urgent to consider some projects to justify our budget and existence," says the January 24 memo from Robert A. J. Phillips, deputy director of the service.
The memo was addressed to director-general Jean-Louis Gagnon and is highly critical of the service's operation.
"Virtually all new visible projects have been cancelled though our budget continues to rise." Spending estimates before the Commons allocate $18,354,000 to Information Canada up $3,389,000 from the fiscal year ending next March 31.
The public will judge Information Canada by what it does and it is unlikely to justify its existence only by efficiency in operations it took over, for equal efficiency might have been achieved without the costly overhead of a new department."
I should like to know where the efficiency is, in view of the fact that Information Canada employs 516 people and the government departments employ 1,062 people, an increase of 125 over the number employed before Information Canada was conceived. It is no wonder the leader of my party has promised-


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Robert Carman Coates: A voice from the wilderness! It is no wonder the leader of my party has promised to eliminate whatever one might call this. One could not call it a department of government, because it was not conceived by legislation. I suppose one might call it an abortion. It certainly acts as if it were, most of the time. Whatever it is, my leader has said that he will do away with it and he will certainly save the Canadian taxpayers many dollars when he does.
Information Canada was in fact created by the ruling party having a director appointed by the Trudeau government, responsible solely to the Trudeau government, and to be eliminated or dismissed at the pleasure of the Trudeau government. Yet this is the organization the government, in its magnanimity, has given Canadians to provide objective, unbiased and full information of the goings-on of government.
The conflict of interest is as dangerous as it is evident. No one can be unbiased about his employer when he is as dependent as the Director of Information Canada, even if he is a former chairman of the Quebec Liberal Party committee-which, I might add, issued an official biography at the time of the director's appointment containing no mention of his Liberal party affiliation. It is a known fact around the House of Commons that members like myself are constantly plagued by numerous inquiries from personnel at Information Canada requesting information they in fact are supposed to have on hand.
Almost without exception, when a question of mine is answered in the House, especially one that is made an order for return, I receive a call from someone in Information Canada asking me if they can have a copy of the question. That is an example of their efficiency. One of the things Information Canada was supposed to do-I read here from some of the directives-was strengthen national identity, and this they were supposed to do by
The Budget-Mr. Coates
using the two official languages as equally creative instruments of information. I discovered the opposite to be the effect.
I have before me correspondence which the Amherst chamber of commerce had with the Canadian government travel bureau. The Amherst chamber of commerce wanted some travel information, and this is what they were told by the Canadian government travel bureau:
Unfortunately, the travel information literature you requested in your letter is not, for the moment, available in both languages. We regret, then, to have to inform you that it is impossible for us to provide you with the copies requested.
In other words, if they do not have the information in both languages, it is not available-nobody gets it. It is no wonder the government does not know what to do with Information Canada. It is no wonder the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) says he is disappointed in it, and it is no wonder the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) says that when we become the government he will do away with it.
The preceding speaker spoke about two matters in relation to foreign capital. One was with regard to the establishment of industry in Canada by foreign capital, and the other was with regard to the purchasing of land by foreign residents. I cannot get excited about where the money comes from to establish industry in Canada. I think the important thing, especially when we have an unemployment rate of 10 per cent or more in the Atlantic provinces, is to develop our resources and see that our people have jobs. It is only after they are all working that perhaps we can start becoming selective.
I think it is important that we have the right type of base, that companies which establish in this country become good citizens of our country while they are here. So long as that happens, we should not become too concerned about them. At the same time, I think we have to accept the fact that some types of companies we would just as soon not have in this country, especially when they find difficulty in establishing in their own country. An example of this occurred very recently in Nova Scotia when a great deal of discussion took place at the highest level with the premier of that province regarding the establishment of a nuclear power station there.
It is my information that the people interested in establishing that nuclear power station in Nova Scotia were interested in doing so because they could transport the electricity produced to the northeastern part of the United States. One could immediately ask: Why did that company not locate closer to where the power was required-especially in view of the fact that it was an American consortium that spoke about building the nuclear power station?
I gather that the people in the area where the power is required do not wish to have a nuclear power station in their midst. When that type of thing occurs, I think the Nova Scotia government and the federal government should become very concerned. I think there should be definite laws to the effect that a firm which is endeavouring to locate in Canada, one which is not acceptable in the country of its origin, is not acceptable in this country either.
I do not think the province of Nova Scotia should be offering sites to a company producing power for the

June 12, 1972
The Budget-Mr. Coates
northeastern section of the United States when all we will get is pollution effects associated with the power produced. So far as I am concerned, and unless it is shown to be otherwise, that is what I would conclude about this nuclear power station.
There is one other point that I would like to make-the hon. member mentioned it also-referring to non-resident ownership of land. Ontario is a large province with many unused acres of land, and perhaps there is no concern here about United States citizens buying up large tracts of land. On the other hand, perhaps there is concern. There certainly is concern in Nova Scotia, especially about speculators buying up large tracts of our recreational and shoreland and using it for promotional purposes for their own benefit.
I have no objection to anyone, anywhere, having a cottage lot in the province of Nova Scotia and enjoying the qualify of life we have to offer, but I do become concerned when American or any other foreign interest buys up large tracts of our good recreational land, thus preventing our own people enjoying those lands now and in the future. They prevent our people having access to our beaches. I believe that steps must be taken, especially in a small province like Nova Scotia which has a limited amount of recreational property and a limited access to the ocean, to prevent those lands from being bought-up and cordoned-off so that our own people and those who visit our area are prevented from enjoying the benefits of the scenery and the quality of life that we have there.
I believe that in the public interest, in places such as Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and certainly in a place like Newfoundland and Labrador, governments must act to ensure that limited amounts of recreational property there are available to everyone. A controversy has been going on in Nova Scotia, and certainly in British Columbia, and action has been taken by some governments in this respect. I am awaiting reasonable action to be taken in Nova Scotia, but not action that will stop anyone from selling property to a bona fide purchaser or, in lieu of a bona fide purchaser, to the government at a reasonable market price.
I think action must be taken along this line to protect the public interest, to protect the people of Nova Scotia and to ensure their right to enjoy what they have in that area of Canada, as well as to ensure that people who visit our province have the right to enjoy it. However, I would certainly not go beyond that and I would certainly not set up any great difficulties for capital coming into this country, because we have many resources which can be developed before we reach our full potential.
I think people who at this stage of our development, with the degree of unemployment we are suffering, suggest stringent requirements for capital coming into the country are fat cats sitting in plush offices who are not worried about where their next pay cheque is coming from. They are not people who are looking for jobs, who do not know if they will have a pay cheque next week. If they were, they would not be as concerned about the establishment of industry by foreign interests as they would be in providing jobs for the people who need jobs-
(Mr. Coates.]
and there are a great many in this country today who do need jobs.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches made in the House this afternoon. I was somewhat surprised by the statements of the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) in as much as almost every criticism he made could easily be refuted simply by referring to the facts.
I know there are some anomalies in the operation of the financial structure of government. I appreciate the points that have been raised by the hon. member who preceded me. However, I think all deliberations within the House of Commons create widespread interest among Canadians but few speeches affect the daily lives of all Canadians. I submit that the budget speech falls into the latter category. In fact, I believe I could get unanimous agreement of the House on that point.
I therefore join thousands of Canadians who have expressed their approval and support of the latest budget, and I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on his well balanced program, properly designed to provide a sound base from which both the public and private sectors of our economy can function and provide more jobs. The minister placed the emphasis of budgetary requirements on the needs of segments of our economic society where it can and will do the most good, not only in the short term but in the long term.
The Liberal party has long stood for social justice on the basis of a gradual but constant program of social reform within the framework of a democratic, private enterprise system, a system which allows maximum freedom to all individuals, including the right to explore their entrepreneurial abilities and a fair reward for initiative. Liberal governments over the years have initiated measures designed to promote greater social justice by relieving financial hardships faced by individuals or groups in our land. These have included, among many others, family allowances, old age pensions, medicare, shared-cost programs with the provinces, unemployment insurance, minimum wages, highway and railroad development, ship-building, the Canada Assistance Plan and scores of programs to alleviate the financial difficulties of farmers, fishermen and the self-employed in all walks of life. The budget of May 8 includes proposals to raise further supplementary pension allowances to enable the pensions of the elderly and veterans to keep pace with the cost of living, to further the tax exemptions for senior citizens, the blind and the disabled and to provide significant tax relief from the heavy burden of education.
It is recognized by all responsible citizens of our country that we do not, and cannot, exist in isolation on the North American continent. While we are, and must remain, alert to the needs of all our citizens we cannot and will not ignore requirements essential to the recognition of the entire economic system, a system which has provided Canadians with the second highest standard of living in the world-and on a per capita basis we enjoy the highest standard of living in the world-a system, Mr. Speaker, that the New Democratic Party apparently seeks to downgrade and destroy in favour of state dictatorship which
June 12, 1972

would rob us of our right to aggressive initiative so vital to all freedom-loving people.
Even though Canada's economy grew more rapidly last year than that of any industrial nation except Japan, prices increased less here than in any other nation. While we can take pride in this accomplishment, I would not suggest-I am practically quoting the Minister of Finance when I say this-that the economy is working at top efficiency while people willing and able to work cannot find jobs.
What about jobs? Where do they surface? The minister has recognized that new jobs can be spawned only by an increase in the need for more workers. He has provided some relief to sectors of the economy which now provide the highest percentage of income to workers. I refer to small businesses, which number in the tens of thousands across Canada, to medium and large corporations and a few giant corporations as well.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of calling it six o'clock when I was discussing the importance of employment and jobs and how our government and, I certainly agree, all governments place a special importance on jobs for people. This is really the basis of a democratic society. I asked these questions: What about jobs? Where do they surface?
I would like to ask now: What about jobs? How are jobs financed? Contrary to the preachings of the New Democratic Party, my good friends to the left-


Steve Eugene Paproski: The far left.


M. Ervin Pringle: -the far left, and some members of other opposition parties as well, jobs do not just happen. Contrary to the preachings of the New Democratic Party and some members of other opposition parties as well, jobs do not just happen: they must be financed by money which is surplus to operating and living costs. It is not possible to provide new jobs without funds made available for expansion of facilities and development of additional markets. Jobs are one of the most important facets of our society. In other words, Mr. Speaker, without risk capital in the hands of those willing to invest in an expanding economy, the rate of decrease in unemployment can be seriously retarded. We have many situations to prove this point. What about jobs? Is profit important or essential?
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that "profit"-a word which has not been accepted as well in the last few years as it used to be, but which will surely be accepted again-stands almost alone as a source of risk capital. How much risk
The Budget-Mr. Pringle
capital do we get from our wages which we spend entirely on living expenses and which we need to keep our homes and to provide our families with the necessities of life and the recreational facilities so important to us? How much surplus do we have to provide risk capital? Not very much! It is the philosophy of my friends in the socialist group that business should operate on a break-even basis. That has bankrupted many businesses, Mr. Speaker, and I submit that if we in this country attempted to operate our business on a break-even basis it could bankrupt our workers and our new opportunities almost overnight.
It therefore follows that economic expansion necessary to provide more jobs and increase purchasing power can only be assured by permitting more funds to accumulate as risk capital or profit. The Minister of Finance has recognized this need, and I am convinced that thousands of Canadians will respond by again initiating a new wave of production expansion. In my riding there is already an indication that this is taking place. The minister has proposed reducing the top rate of corporate tax on manufacturing and processing profits to 40 per cent, and the rate on small business to 20 per cent as of January 1, 1973.
I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, the importance of the small business in Canada. When we talk about corporations, it is thought we talk about giant corporations, that we think of those corporations operating at Windsor and areas such as Toronto. Nevertheless, we must think about the thousands of small businessmen who line the main streets of our nation. They are the backbone, the people who provide jobs for other people of their areas. We must think of the small operator, the dairy producer, the man who operates the small store in our small towns. People like that have not disappeared. Some of them stay open after hours, for which they earn extra recompense. They provide a real service and fill a real need of our consumers. It is unfortunate that we seem to refer to giant corporations when we speak in this House of corporations, because the real backbone of this country, in my opinion, is still the small businessman.
The minister has also proposed that we should permit manufacturers and processors to depreciate fully the cost of machinery and equipment acquired, after budget night, within a two-year period. This provision is not being enacted for the giants alone; it is being enacted for the smaller processors of our nation as well as for the manufacturers: it is to benefit those in business in all parts of our country who need to be given an incentive to provide more jobs. To allow them to do this, they will not be so heavily taxed. They now know that they will not need to pay such a high percentage of their profits to the federal government but can divert some of this money and produce jobs with it.
The manufacturing and processing sector, Mr. Speaker, is the largest single source of employment in Canada, providing jobs for more than one-fifth of all working Canadians. The suggestion that employment of new workers will be negated by automation is nonsense. This concept was loudly expounded following the invention of the cotton-gin during the revolution and has yet to be proven valid. Automation has been used to relieve the worker and shorten periods of labour.

June 12, 1972
The Budget-Mr. Pringle
I give the labour movement and its leaders full credit for the leadership they have shown over the years. I have always given them full credit. I know that in the past the leaders of the labour movement provided essential leadership for the people they represented and a reasonable balance was struck. I wish I could say the same thing today, but I am afraid I cannot.
It has also been suggested, Mr. Speaker, that tax reductions to individuals would be preferable to reductions in corporation tax, on the basis that consumers would be given greater purchasing power. The weakness of this suggestion can be seen if one compares imports of products into Canada against increasing Canadian production which is necessary to compete with foreign imports. We are all human: we all buy where we can get the best deal, and we do not always buy Canadian-made products if we want to get the best deal possible by virtue of volume production. An increase in volume of production decreases the per unit cost. Therefore, we ought not to increase the sale of imports but, instead, increase the sale of Canadian products and in that way make it possible for costs per unit of Canadian products to be lowered, to improve. We must encourage Canadian production, not imports. I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has taken the right stand in this regard.
I ask, what about jobs? Is inflation on a collision course with jobs? At this date control of inflation is virtually, in my opinion, non-existent. The voluntary approach based on gentlemen's agreements cannot work. Over the years, codes of ethics and gentlemen's agreements have been prevalent. In other words, there has been no shortage of gentlemen's agreements-just, possibly, a shortage of gentlemen.
Economists treat inflation control much as we treat the weather-lots of lip service but really no solution. A suggested cure, Mr. Speaker, which seems to be gaining popularity is the concept of price and income controls. I favour another phrase which in my opinion more properly labels the dilemma: cost control, or controls of all costs. I am speaking of all costs, not just prices charged at the grocery store or the excessive demands of organized wage and salaried earners. In this I do not include reasonable demands-I emphasize that reasonable demands I do not include-but excessive demands I do include. I am speaking of all costs.
If each Canadian were assured that cost increases were to be frozen, then the law would apply to everyone in our society, to those in the professions, to landlords, bankers, land speculators-to everyone. It sounds a bit gruesome, does it not? Well, government control of our daily lives is gruesome. However, I can think of nothing more unfair or potentially discriminatory than selective controls. We learned this during the war, although we do not like to admit it now. Let me ask, again, what about jobs, and what about inflation? These two questions, stated together, remind me of a dog chasing its tail. The puzzle is, which of the two is the dog?
One cardinal fact every processor, every manufacturer knows is that any increase in costs without matching productivity results either in price increase or bankruptcy. Therefore, it has been my experience that any increase in cost without matching productivity is inflationary. I

have never seen any statement contradicting this or proving the concept wrong.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, those responsible for causing increased costs do not always pay their fair share of the increase. Two-thirds of Canadians either live on fixed incomes or are self-employed. The real threat of inflation is felt by our senior citizens, farmers, fishermen and the like. Pension adjustments and tax relief to small businesses, as evidenced in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance, will help to some extent.
May I reiterate my congratulations to the minister for the relief to be given to these people through income tax measures, as announced in the budget. However, I am disappointed that adjustments were not announced which could correct some of the unfair anomalies relating to excise tax and sales tax. For example, tea, coffee and powdered drinks are exempt from federal sales tax. Ice cream cones, popsicles and the like are free of federal sales tax.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


M. Ervin Pringle: I am delighted the Minister of Finance is listening and has shown his interest. Soft drinks, Mr. Speaker, are not so exempt, being subject to a 12 per cent tax which, when fairly examined, will be seen as a discriminatory tax. I will not discuss any comparison that is based on essential, nutritional values. Anyone who has experienced, "coffee nerves" as opposed to the "pause that refreshes" will agree that all these beverages are consumed principally because they provide a pleasant break and, as well, provide some psychological relief of tension. I am not in the soft-drink business, Mr. Speaker. We in British Columbia enjoy a beautiful, balmy climate and drink many soft drinks. On occasions when people in the cold climate of the east would probably require tea or coffee, our people prefer soft drinks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, I am serious about my submission.


Mr. Deachman:: Don't forget a plug for ice cream, Jerry.


John Napier Turner: Montreal is the biggest consumer per capita.


M. Ervin Pringle: Of course, soft drinks, tea and coffee all provide an excuse for a break from work. The choice of beverage depends to a great extent on the season of the year and the whim of the consumer.


John Napier Turner: It's the real thing!


M. Ervin Pringle: It is interesting to note that even with the discriminatory 12 per cent federal sales tax, the soft-drink industry has responsibly held prices to a much more reasonable level than brewed tea or coffee. If nothing is done, a rise in price is inevitable and the youngsters of Canada will suffer the most.
I am also concerned, Mr. Speaker, with the lack of direct federal support to the handicapped and retarded. It
June 12, 1972

is true that under the Canada Assistance Plan we provide unlimited financial cost-sharing on a 50-50 basis with the provinces. Where provincial governments approach the problem realistically, and some do, we can help. Unfortunately, there are provinces-I fear that my home province of British Columbia is one-which are willing to provide only inadequate minimum financing though the federal government stands willing, ready and able to pay half the cost. A direct approach on our part, or at least the right to share in administration, could raise the necessary assistance to a more acceptable level.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I remind the House that a more equitable approach to imports of agricultural products should be made by this government. Although the dairy and grain industries enjoy the support of tariff commitments, the small fruit and vegetable commodity groups constantly suffer from off-season shipments of vetetables such as lettuce, celery and potatoes.
Strawberry growers are unable to realize any real stability as a result of the threat of imports from low labour cost countries-such as Mexico. An investigation undertaken by the tariff board last October has not yet been reported to the interested people in the Fraser Valley. The strawberry industry is vital to the Fraser Valley. They supply some of the best strawberries on the North American continent. Not only is the quantity and the economy being hurt by this lack of attention, but the quality of strawberries is being affected. I consider this to be a very important matter and I hope the Minister of Finance will take it into consideration.
A great deal has been accomplished through marketing legislation designed to enable producers to improve stability through marketing procedures. I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). The fowl slaughter policy recently announced by him has been unanimously accepted by egg producers. I do not expect all of those within the sound of my voice to understand the facets of this policy and I will not take the time to explain it. It has been accepted by the egg producers, not only because of the financial assistance provided but because it provides for responsible action by producers to plan production more in line with potential markets. The program will have a lasting effect in helping to stabilize the industry.
I am very pleased to support the motion to approve the recently announced budget. It is a good budget. It has been accepted right across this land. The budget was announced in the House on May 8. This is June 12, and we are debating a budget which has already been accepted by the people. Any speeches of a derogatory nature will certainly be lost as far as the people of Canada are concerned. It is a good budget, as will be substantiated over the coming months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Breau:: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to pass, but I believe the hon. member for Edmonton Center (Mr. Paproski) should speak.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, Mr. Speaker-
The Budget-Mr. Paproski


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I understand that the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) wishes to concede the floor to the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski).


Herb Breau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. But I want to be recognized after the hon. member.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I suppose as long as members can get up and speak in the budget debate there is still democracy left in this country. This is one of the few remaining signs of democracy. Parliament has become hobbled by the government in the application of rules designed to frustrate and stymie ordinary MPs. What is the point of sitting in the House if you are compelled to go along in the stream of meaningless government motions and legislation that often has no real purpose but to paper-over the cracks in our society?
The application of rule 43 has become a joke. The opposition was asked to go along in order to expedite the business of the House, and we did so. Day after day we have members rising with serious and urgent matters in the national interest and trying to focus attention through rule 43, and time and again there is lack of consent. How can you bring to the attention of Parliament lapses by the government, when you have to have the consent of government members? Rule 43 has done more than any other procedure to bring this House into disrepute and make Parliament a laughing-stock.
Canadians are scrutinizing this House. They want to know what is going on. There is no way they can find out. They are wondering if the entire proposition is not a waste of time and money. The opposition sits here while the government brings in legislation, generally insufficient, watered-down attempts to get a few headlines. And when we point out the deficiences, we are stymied by the rules. Parliament should be made to operate for the benefit of the people, and not vice versa.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: We are now being asked to deal with a budget. It is perhaps our only chance to say how we feel- probably the last time before the next election. We are asked to say whether we approve of the government's financial policies, and then the budget goes to committee. We are not even able to vote on the details of the budget in this House. My answer to the question whether we approve the policies or not is very simple. The answer is definitely no. How can you approve policies when you cannot find out what they are?
The former minister of finance has gone to the defence portfolio. We hope he will make as good a defence minister as he did a finance minister. If he does, the enemy will have nothing to fear. His policy was to tax and tax, to get all the traffic would bear, as he once put it. Well, they have been following that policy for ten years and I tell them that they are at the end of the line. The traffic will not bear any more. Canadians are fed-up to the teeth with high taxation: they have had it.

June 12, 1972
The Budget-Mr. Paproski
When Canadians have to give up from 15 to 20 per cent of their incomes to support waste and government extravagance, it is no wonder they want to call a halt. It is only necessary to look at the latest report of the Auditor General. Never has there been an indictment of a government in office by an officer of Parliament to equal it. The government has broken all the rules of responsible fiscal accounting.
This government has allowed the bureaucrats to take charge of spending enormous amounts of money. There is no one to call a halt, because the government itself is made up of ex-bureaucrats. When you allow the cats into the dairy, who is going to keep them out of the milk pail? That is what is happening today. Ministers and top functionaries are trying to outdo one another in crazy, harebrained schemes to spend and spend. Meanwhile, unemployment increases, taxes go up, waste goes on and the taxpayer becomes more and more fed-up.
Canadians are paying more in taxation than any nation in the western world, and they are getting less for it. The purpose of the policy was to tax in order to cure inflation. Now we have both taxes and inflation! We were to suffer taxes in order to provide jobs. Now we have high taxes and still no jobs. If this is policy, Mr. Speaker, I'll take spinach.
How long does the government think it can lead Canadians around by the nose? Even its own army of highly-paid flacks, its monolithic support from the CBC, its army of tame commentators and columnists, cannot go on convincing Canadians that what they have been subjected to for the past five years is good government. There has never been worse government. Its record is one of confusion wrapped in indecision, compounded by uncertainty.


John Napier Turner: Beautiful!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Where are they going? They are so far behind that they think they are first. They don't even know where they are coming from. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how can they have the nerve to come before Parliament with a document such as the present budget? I am not criticizing the present minister: he inherited the mess. But he is known as the white-haired boy of the cabinet. And now we know how his hair became white. They ended up with a billion dollars more than they had calculated. What fine budgeting that is. It is so scientific. It is certainly budgeting for the scientific age. It is budgeting for the technological age!
Then the government took $750 millions of the billion dollars and handed it to industry. Let me make it plain that I am not objecting to industry getting something. But I do object to this government talking about buying Canada back and then turning around and handing out millions to American subsidiaries as they have in this budget. I think it is high time they took off the mask and stood revealed for what they are-a government subservient to big business and high finance. They know how to look after their own. The Minister of Finance is smiling. I wish they had given a little more to the oil industry and to the construction industry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McKinley:: Good old Canadian-owned industry!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Oh, no. The industries that get help from the government are those that come around at election time. That is why the government brought down the so-called reform bill to amend the Elections Act in which, once again, the identity of the big givers to the Liberal party continue to be protected. Is that policy? Was it policy to produce a budget in which there is not one red cent for the ordinary taxpayer?
This government has created a financial mess such as we have not seen in this country for many years. And that is not the only area in which they have muddied the waters of public administration. The present immigration policy is inhumane and uncivilized. I refer in particular to the case of Alicia Wiercioch which was brought to the attention of this House by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz). Regrettably, he was not given the necessary consent to move his motion. I say "regrettably" because the department showed lack of humanity and bureaucratic heartlessness which was almost unbelievable. It seemed certain that the House would have taken a more humane course. I am sure that if hon. members had known the facts of the case, their reaction would have been different.


An hon. Member:: The minister has given the facts.


Steve Eugene Paproski: If the hon. member who interrupted would like to speak, I would be glad to concede the floor. In the application of immigration laws we are dealing with people, people who have suffered a great deal, people who came to Canada to start a new life. They are freedom-loving people. And Alicia Wiercioch was one of these. It is too late now to help her, but perhaps we can at least give her a decent epitaph. She suffered much in Poland. Separated from her husband and with two small children to worry about, she came here from the unhappiness of life behind the iron curtain hoping to find that freedom to which everyone is entitled.
I hear further interruptions. This is the kind of nonsense we have to take over here when we try to call attention to the case of a woman who committed suicide because she could not stay in Canada. It is a stupid system. As I was saying, she arrived in 1968 and four years later her case was still not disposed of. Are people supposed to starve to death in this country? Why are they not allowed to take a job? We give handouts to people who won't work, and we deport people who want to work. There is something seriously wrong about a policy which grinds out and crushes down humanitarian considerations in a manner almost as brutal and ruthless as is found behind the iron curtain. Alicia Wiercioch was driven to desperation and suicide by the inhumanity of immigration policy and the inability of bureaucrats to visualize her problems in human terms.
When bureaucratic regulations are ruthlessly applied without regard for human values, that is not democracy. Members of this House are responsible to a point because we have allowed the bureaucracy to override human rights. We have allowed our powers as legislators to be taken over. We have allowed human rights to be trampled on. How can we tolerate a system through which a mother of two children, whose only crime was love of freedom
June 12, 1972

and a desire to provide for her family, can be sent a bureaucratic ultimatum telling her she is going to lose her chance for freedom? Is this what democracy has come to mean in Canada?
Alicia Wiercioch is not the only victim. I was brought into the case of a Ukrainian girl in Edmonton who would have suffered immediate imprisonment had she been returned to the Soviet Union. And yet this person, because there was no publicity in the case, was told by the department she would have to return. I was able to get hold of the minister who is a very humane man and understands such problems, and a respite was secured. But the minister cannot handle all these cases.
My information is that many people are being sent quietly back to a living death behind the iron curtain. It is not appropriate that a freedom-loving country should be in the position of acting as a kind of enforcer for the iron curtain. This is not what the Canadian people want; at least, Mr. Speaker, not those Canadians who live in my part of the country. Nor was it ever intended that departmental officials should wield the power of life and death over helpless individuals.
The Immigration Department must be shaken up until the officials who are carrying out policies and making these decisions learn the meaning of humanity. The department has to be put under a full-time minister who will see that not only justice but mercy is applied. No one minister can be responsible for dealing with unemployment, manpower direction and training, unemployment insurance and immigration as well. The present minister has too much on his plate. The entire immigration policy must be re-examined because at present its application is inhuman and heartless. Draftdodgers are greeted with open arms while honest, hardworking people whose only desire is freedom are treated like criminals.
The principle must be accepted in law, particularly in immigration law, that people who are patently and obviously political refugees must be given asylum. Freedom cannot be for ourselves alone. Is it the attitude of the government that those who are seeking immigrant status from eastern Europe are second-class applicants? Will anyone say that immigrants from eastern Europe have not contributed to this country?
We are not going to stand still while this government reshapes this country in its own image and likeness. Seven million Canadians who are neither French nor English cannot go on being ignored. Perhaps we should be known as the silent minority. The government is going to hear from the Poles, Ukrainians, Czechs, Italians, Germans, Dutch and other races in this country, including Chinese and Hindus, who are sick and tired of being treated as though they did not exist.
Freedom cannot be a monopoly of the government or the immigration department. People who come here with a desire to be good Canadians and to work for this country should be given a fair hearing. It is time to scrap the heartless and meaningless points system which has no relation to the real contribution and the real value of people. Half of the members in this House could not aualifv under the points system; neither could the majori-
The Budget-Mr. Paproski
ty of officials who are administering it. We do not want any more Alicia Wiercioch cases in this great, freedom-loving country of ours. We do not want people driven to suicide by unfeeling bureaucrats. As far as I am concerned, no single person should be expelled from this country from now on unless and until the case has been brought before the House of Commons, and I ask the government to give that undertaking.
We are elected to represent the people of this nation and to make decisions. I think it is time we took back some of the powers we surrendered to the bureaucrats. I am not asking for explanations from the department because I know what explanations will be forthcoming. I know that this department can produce regulations, memoranda and excuses justifying everything that took place. That is not what we want. We want a change to policies so that they will not treat people like cattle. We are supposed to be a democratic nation and it is time our immigration policies reflected that fact. I hereby give notice that I intend to oppose every case of an individual against whom no criminal charge is pending-I am not talking of extradition cases, because that is a different category-being sent back to prison and to persecution behing the iron curtain.
Immigration is a privilege, not a right; we agree about that. But that does not mean that because people come here to seek admission they give up their rights as human beings. Yet that is the attitude of the department. It has got to come to an end. It has all the appearance of being a device to keep people out rather than to allow them in.
It may be that our complacement and arrogant attitude about immigration can be justified under present circumstances from a purely administrative point of view, but I am convinced that before too long this country will be out in the immigration market begging for people to come to Canada. And when we are, we will need all the goodwill we can get. We are not going about getting this goodwill in the right way. The last time I was in Europe I met a lot of people who complained bitterly about the attitudes and the approaches of our immigration policy. I hope something will be done to correct this.
I think we have got to do more to recognize the existence of young people in this country, not by giving out one-shot handouts, like the LIP program or Opportunities for Youth, but by creating a climate in which young people will see a consistent future for themselves in contributing to the expansion of the country in new fields of research and science, the opening of the north, or new industrial expansion.
There is confusion in the country, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) contributes to it when he goes to western Canada and accuses opposition members of contributing to alienation. He shows he just does not know what he is talking about. To us, Canada means freedom. It does not mean being placed in a little straitjacket designed by the bureaucrats in Ottawa. Nor does it mean accepting cultural programs designed by academics with a kind of hothouse approach that has no relationship to what people are thinking and feeling.
I am tired of hearing people say there is no Canadian culture and no Canadian identity. This is "bull fuzz", to use the kind of language the Prime Minister likes. Canadian identity is strong in western Canada and we do not

June 12, 1972
The Budget-Mr. Breau
need anyone to tell us what it is. Culture comes from people, not from some hothouse plant cultivated by government experts in government offices. There is more real Canadian culture in western Canada than in all the government departments and boards in Ottawa. When they learn that, then this government may be on the way to understanding some of the real facts of life in Canada.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to support the motion which the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) introduced and which reads as follows:
That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
The minister's budget is realistic, Mr. Speaker. It does not try to be dogmatic nor impose any economic philosophy. It comes to grips with the situation as it exists and deals with it in the most pragmatic way possible.

The opposition, of course, are saying that the budget is not much of an exercise in the proper management of the economy. I appreciate that it is their role to criticize, to oppose and, if necessary, to obstruct. But I am at a loss to understand the opposition parties when all they do is criticize and never suggest responsible alternatives. They say they have alternatives, but anyone can suggest alternatives and not mention the cost. I mean cost not only in dollars and cents but in the over-all effect of their proposals. All they do is try for the spectacular, the good-looking headline, and for narrow political purposes only.
The Conservative leader speaks of taxing Canadians on a constant dollar. To the ordinary Canadian who reads about this in the newspapers, it might sound pretty good; he might be led to believe that this is a practical approach. But he is not told by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfied) that for this to become a reality taxes will have to be increased each and every year, otherwise the economic power of the federal government will be eroded. Quite a bad thing to say for the leader of a party who advocates the concept of a guaranteed annual income, at a cost so high that he has not finished calculating it yet! Certainly, if he has, he has not told the people of Canada what the cost amounts to.
Neither has the ordinary Canadian been told that such a proposal would disrupt federal-provincial fiscal arrangements and make the estimates required so complex that it might ruin the have-not provinces. Quite a proposal for the leader of a party who is a former premier of a province and who preaches for more flexibility and better relations between the provinces and the federal government!
Nor has the ordinary Canadian been told that if this famous "constant dollar" concept should reduce the impact of the federal government in Canadian fiscal policy, it would mean that the efforts of the past and present to standardize basic social services in the country could not be continued. The role of the federal government as an equalizer would be minimized, as would its role in the field of regional development. Quite a thing to say for a maritimer, who like myself should be sensitive to the need of our area for more federal intervention to

improve our standard of living! To impair in any way the strength of the federal government would result in a economic disaster for the eastern provinces.
There is no question in my mind, having thought of the implications of the "constant dollar" concept, that the Leader of the Opposition was sincere when he suggested it, that all he was doing-


Mr. Yewchuk:: He is more sincere than you are.


Herb Breau: If he was sincere, then all I can say is that the Conservative party is bankrupt of ideas.


Paul Yewchuk: He also knows more about it than you.


Herb Breau: I wish he did. If he was sincere in leading Canadians to believe that such a concept was consistent and compatible with our political system, then he must be bankrupt of ideas.
Then again we have the New Democratic Party floating from one idea to another during this debate. They are the believers in economic theology who are intellectually and politically isolated in this chamber. The one thing I regret about that party is that they have left the little man. They have forgotten about the disadvantaged, whether in terms of people or in terms of geography. The NDP is now becoming under its new leader-or old, I don't know which-the spokesmen of the bourgeois middle class. They are the proponents of universality in social programs, the supporters of programs which have not closed the gap between the haves and have-nots. I used to have a lot of respect for that party, whose members were often in the past called the social conscience of this chamber. I regret that to save their political skins they have abandoned that role to speak for the high-income labour class which pushes up costs in this country to the detriment of the more than 60 per cent of non-unionized workers, the working poor. And even worse, in respect of economic development policies they are becoming more and more the spokesmen of the Ontario-dominated Canadian business establishment, those who oppose regional development because it hurts their pockets in central Canada and because it creates competition for their products in the slow-growth areas.
How else can one explain the crusade of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) and the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) against the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, more specifically, the Regional Development Incentives Act. If they were speaking in any political constituency in the Maritimes or anywhere in eastern Canada, they would not have the guts to speak of such a thing. The truth of the matter is that the NDP believes in government control over everything. They will not admit that this would only perpetuate centralization in Canada. If they were honest in respect of their economic thesis they really would not believe in regional development. More bureaucracy, more control over the economy will only mean more for Ontario, which fortunately for them and unfortunately for the other regions of Canada, has become prosperous with nationalistic politics.
June 12, 1972

There has been a big change in the NDP. There has been a big change in the leadership of that party. It changed its leadership from one who was once premier of a province which had difficulties to one who is a member of the Toronto establishment. I can see why the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby would buy this but I do not understand how the hon. member for Regina East, who is from a disadvantaged area, could be such a sucker.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the only party which always sticks to the same social philosophy is the Social Credit Party. The only problem is the following: the Creditistes do not yet understand it and I will even add that they never could get anybody to understand it.
However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about a much more important matter which concerns me more than the opposition parties, namely my constituency and northeastern New Brunswick. Hon. members will recall that last winter, on many occasions, there were demonstrations designed to draw the attention of all Canadians to the economic situation of that area. The federal-provincial FRED agreement has often been mentioned in this connection. That agreement has just been revised and renegotiated by the two levels of government, and it should be signed shortly.
I pointed out repeatedly to the House and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) that there was an almost total lack of flexibility in the administration of the agreement and that the lack of authority in the field contributed to making it more of a program that imposed a certain development to a group of people instead of a real program through which the resources of an area would be grouped, and the government services already there co-ordinated and improved, and above everything else the natural elements of progress taken advantage of in the area. Whether those elements are human, social, economic political or cultural, any development must encompass them all.
This also calls for the full participation of the people, as well as the commitment of every sector of society. I trust the new agreement soon to be signed will offer the people greater opportunities to particiapte in their own development.
I would like this evening, Mr. Speaker, to discuss three particular points concerning the efforts of the federal and provincial governments in northeastern New Brunswick.
I will deal in the first place with the need for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and other federal departments not to be satisfied in my area with the administration of the FRED agreement. A number of other economic sectors in northeastern New Brunswick require the special attention of federal departments. Fisheries are an example. Harbour development for deep-sea fishing in the Lameque, Shippegan, Caraquet and Lower Caraquet area is another. A more flexible policy, more closely directed to the construction of wharves for offshore fishing, especially in the Lower Gloucester area, is quite essential. Off-shore fishing today does not only represent a financial contribution for our area, it also has a social aspect.
The Budget-Mr. Breau
Transport will not be unduly affected by the FRED agreement, whether it be road building, railway service, or air transport. In fact, northeastern New Brunswick needs a much more rational and attractive policy concerning air transport service. Instead of subsidizing an inefficient service, we should favour the establishment of a jet service which would become profitable if airport facilities were centralized.
The FRED agreement must not either become a way out for the federal departments involved in northeastern New Brunswick.
The second point that I should like to raise is of great concern to me because it is related to a problem which may have nefarious social effects in the future. I am referring to the present political context in New Brunswick, to the political fact that this government has almost no members from northeastern New Brunswick. To this I add the lack of French representation in the provincial civil service. In fact, northeastern New Brunswick has fewer civil servants than the other regions of the province in Frederiction.
Even if we all want a political system more concerned with the establishment of priorities on an economical basis than with decisions of a purely political nature, when the time comes to decide upon programs or the allotment of government funds, one has to be realistic and think that the government will always protect its political interests. It may do so by taking more or less partisan decisions, but nevertheless a government must, if it wants to survive, satisfy its constituting elements.
We must remember that the FRED agreement signed in 1966 has brought to northeastern New Brunswick capital from the provincial government through the Equal Opportunities Program that come into operation on January 1, 1967.
In the same way as the federal equalization concept, this program equalized taxation in New Brunswick, as well as social services. It extended to northeastern New Brunswick services which has been inexistent for the past 100 years and direct results have been improvement of social services to the population, with secondary effects on the economy of the region.
This means that the FRED program, at that time, speeded up and intensified the development initiated by the then provincial government. As I understand it, that is the federal government concept of regional development: the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, together with the Department of Finance, through the equalization scheme, make resources available to provinces in order to intensify their development under a special agreement.
With this new FRED agreement, we have yet to see special efforts on the part of the provincial government, even though its own resources are reinforced by some $100 million from the federal government under the form of equalization payments intended to alleviate the economic problems of northeastern New Brunswick. Without such an injection from the provincial government the FRED agreement will be distorted by a conflicting philosophy about regional development between Ottawa and Fredericton.

The Budget-Mr. Breau
The FRED agreement should not be used to pay for any new project of the provincial government in northeastern New Brunswick. It was not so conceived by the federal government and I do not think it should. For the last few years the New Brunswick government not only at the political level but also at the administrative level, has had the habit, for any project in northeastern New Brunswick or as soon as the population exerts pressure to obtain something, of quite carefully looking up the FRED agreement for any available funds to meet those needs.
Clearly it means that the FRED agreement will be used to meet certain provincial expenses which should have been paid by the province anyway. And we should not forget that in addition to its own budget, which New Brunswick allocates in total freedom from federal influence, the province receives some $100 million from the federal government as equalization payments. In my opinion, it would be logical that most of these payments should be channelled toward northeastern New Brunswick because that region needs them most. Otherwise, the economic gap between northeastern New Brunswick and the rest of the province is going to widen instead of closing.
I noted with interest the statement that Premier Hatfield made recently in the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick to the effect that the province would commit itself to spend an additional amount of some $5 million under the FRED agreement. But do these $5 million actually represent an additional payment or the amount that the province expected to spend anyway as compared to what it spends elsewhere? It may well be that the provincial government appropriates $5 million for certain programs but what is the purpose of this if it spends $10 million in another area of the province to meet similar needs?
It is obvious that, over the past few years, no special effort has been made by the provincial government in the Northeastern part of New Brunswick with its own resources. There have been some efforts, but always under the FRED agreement. And I must add that the resources of the provincial government over which it has sole jurisdiction, include $100 millions in equalization payments from the federal government.
Approximately one year ago, the federal government announced a grant of $20 millions to the Province of New Brunswick for the construction of Highway 11, connecting Campbellton to Moncton. It appears that, because of this federal interference in an area of provincial jurisdiction such as highways, the province decided that the Northeastern part had already received its share for the next few years and that it would concentrate its own resources which, as I have said, include approximately $100 millions in equalization payments for the federal government and which are available for road construction in the other regions of New Brunswick. Therefore, I am asking what is the purpose of the federal government intervention in the building of Highway 11 if all it does is to make an expenditure that the province should have made anyway.
It seems to me that the province should have an annual budget of several million dollars for building highways. I feel that on top of the $20 million from the federal government, the province should spend far more than had been

allocated in its highway construction estimates for eastern New Brunswick as that area has the worst highways in the province-maybe in the whole country. In fact, it is the area in which the economy makes the building of new highways most essential.
I am most concerned, Mr. Speaker, with the conflict which seems to be developing between the federal government and the province of New Brunswick over the concept of regional development and of the FRED agreement with regard to northeastern New Brunswick. Unless that province uses its own resources, which will be increased through the FRED agreement, the gap between northeastern New Brunswick and the rest of the province is not going to decrease, but rather to become ever wider, for if one excludes from the general budget of that province statutory expenses related to education, welfare and hospitalization, that budget is only going to help develop other areas in New Brunswick.
The third point I want to raise concerns not only New Brunswick but also all provinces which have negociated special agreements with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
I have noticed in New Brunswick that when civil servants speak about development programs which are undertaken by both levels of government, they lack understanding of each other's viewpoint. I speak, of course, of civil servants of the federal governmant and of the provincial government.
I will take as an example the Community Improvement Corporation, called the CIC, an agency of the government of New Brunswick which is responsible for the administration of the northeast New Brunswick FRED agreement. The CIC, under its president Mr. Pat Blanchard, has to be one of the most responsive government organizations of which I have ever heard. Many people have criticized it, perhaps with justification. I also have criticized the CIC in the past. But the lack of results from the northeast agreement is not the fault of those who have administered it. The fault, rather, lies in the agreement itself, its rigidity, the lack of participation and involvement of the local people themselves at the conceptual stage. The fault does not lie with the CIC.
I take the CIC as an example, however, to demonstrate how difficult it is for a group of civil servants of one government to administer a program which involves also a group of civil servants on another level of government 800 or so miles away. The negotiations for the revised northeast agreement have been unnecessarily long because the two negotiating groups were not sufficiently sensitized to each others problems. The CIC civil servant in New Brunswick lives out the problems of northeastern New Brunswick. Most of the time he is born and educated there. But he does not know and does not appreciate how the federal government functions and, therefore, feels frustrated many times when he notes a stumbling block in some of his activities originating in Ottawa.
On the other hand, how does the DREE civil servant know about the way of life in New Brunswick? Sometimes for justifiable reasons, not very much. I have wit-
June 12, 1972

nessed hundreds of times conflicts between the federal government and the New Brunswick government which had nothing to do with the different politics of the two governments. The conflicts were neither due to difference in philosophy nor to lack of knowledge of the facts, but were merely conflicts of attitude between civil servants. This was not intentional, and often both sides were right.
However, one sometimes does not understand or appreciate what the other is planning or what he is thinking. It is impossible for a CIC civil servant in New Brunswick, for example, to grasp the policy intentions of DREE in northeastern New Brunswick after two, three or even 30 meetings. Even federal civil servants have to work here for many years before they really understand a policy of the federal government. On the other hand, it is impossible for a DREE official to grasp New Brunswick's policies and even less possible for him to appreciate the economic, social or cultural history of New Brunswick after a few visits or meetings in New Brunswick.
It is expedient that DREE implement a program of exchange of civil servants with the provinces with which it engages in special programs of development. Politicians can grasp policies faster because of the close relationship of political parties at all levels in Canada and because it is one's job in politics to continually study new policies and to read about them. However, a civil servant works in a specific field and more often than not it is too limited a field.
DREE officials should temporarily become civil servants of a province, and vice-versa, without a reduction in salary and with the least possible interference in their family lives. I am sure that even if it were done on a voluntary basis, a great number of provincial civil servants would take the opportunity of working with DREE for a period of time; and the same applies to DREE civil servants who would go on probationary work in some of the provinces as temporary provincial civil servants. I am sure that details as to the cost, because of the different salary scales of the different governments, as well as moving expenses could easily be worked out with the provinces.

For both sides, the benefit of such a program would be so huge that the extra expenses for either government would be readily justifiable.
Given the endeavours of this government in regional development, perhaps it would be only reasonable if it assumed the whole cost of such a program. I urge the government,, and especially the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, to earnestly study my suggestion and to discuss it with the provinces. Perhaps he could initiate an adequate pilot project in the northeastern area of the province, particularly under the FRED agreement.
An exchange between the officials of his department who were involved in the review of the FRED agreement and officials of the CIC might be quite profitable for those officials themselves and for both governments, and might bring closer together the federal bureaucracy and the citizens of my area.
Moreoever, the result cannot be anything but better understanding between all groups concerned. Federal
The Budget-Mr. Gleave
officials would understand provincial policies and, in turn, provincial officials could better understand and appreciate the federal policies.
I shall therefore conclude by asking the House to pass the motion introduced by the Minister of Finance that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government. As I said a while ago, the budget of the Minister of Finance is realistic and comes to grips with the present situation, and I hope that the House will adopt it.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the last two speakers on the government side. Each paid some attention to the party of which I am a member in this House. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), if I am not mistaken, referred to us as the party which would give the government control over everything. That was at the start of his speech. At the end of his speech he pleaded that the federal bureaucracy could come closer to the people of his area. I say he had better pray that the two do not get closer to each other.
It's a laugh, Mr. Speaker. It is the ultimate in humour for a member or supporter of the government to harpoon any party in this House for attempting to exercise government control. At the present time, in the Standing Committee on Agriculture we are debating a bill which will permit the government to administer $150 million through the Farm Credit Corporation over a period of years, but the government refuses even to divulge to the committee its latest study of how that money will be spent. Somebody behind the curtain says that it may be because the government doesn't know itself. Let me tell the hon. member for Gloucester, for his edification, that when the government gets that bill bulldozed through this House, as it will in due time, a fair amount of that money will be spent in his province to adjust his farming community to what the bureaucracy in Ottawa think it ought to be. And if he thinks that will be a happy event, he should ask his neighbours in Prince Edward Island what they think of it, because they are the first victims of the whole lousy scheme.


Herb Breau: I did not refer to that in my speech. You did not listen.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I listened. I can understand English, and when I put on the earphone I can understand the translation from the French. I am literate, Mr. Speaker; I even went to school. As I say, this has to be a big laugh.
The budget gave the biggest plums to big business. The government has created one of the biggest bureaucracies Ottawa has ever seen. When the hon. member talks about some future government creating a bureaucracy, I would point to what Charles Lynch, that enemy of the Liberals, recently wrote:
The Privy Council Office, which includes the Prime Minister's establishment and represents our equivalent to the White House in Washington-
I think that's a nice touch.
-goes up from $7.2 million to $10.8 million. This is more than the

The Budget-Mr. Gleave
$6.3 million it costs to operate the Senate, and it is gaining rapidiy-
This is what is happening to the present government bureaucracy, yet the hon. member talks about what we might do when we come to power.


An hon. Member:: There's no fear of that.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the arrogance which habitually belongs to the Liberals. They think they have the God-given right to rule Canada forever. They have been around for a while, but I don't think they should consider themselves indestructible.
I am sorry the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is not in the chamber at the moment. If he would like to have an assessment of how the people of western Canada view the budget, I suggest, that he read the Western Producer of May 18. The headline of its editorial was, "Budget ignores the farmer." That is a pretty fair assessment of the budget. It is true that the budget gives something to processors who are the people one step removed from the farmers, but the Western Producer points out that in effect the government is saying that if it gives enough concessions to industry, to the corporations, then all will be well. According to the Western Producer, the government is working on the trickle-down theory, which holds that if you put enough money up top it will trickle down to the people below. That is an old theory, Mr. Speaker. The only trouble with it is that generally it doesn't work.
The Western Producer says that the government would have got a lot more action and generated a lot more employment if it had injected significant amounts of money into the purchasing sector, which includes the farming community. Real purchasing power should have been given to the consumer sector, but instead the government stayed with the idea of giving concessions to the corporations, many of which are not even Canadian. Much of the savings which these corporations will make in reduced taxes on profits will go straight out of the country. In effect we will be subsidizing these companies and the subsidy will be leaving the country completely.
Another provision in the budget deals with accelerated write-offs. It provides a two-year write-off for depreciation on equipment bought for manufacturing or processing goods in Canada. I am a farmer; I have operated a business and I know something about what depreciation means. If someone gave me a two-year write off on the equipment I use on my farm, I would think it was one of the biggest tax breaks I could get. It is the next best thing to getting a hefty cut in your income tax rate.
The ordinary, everyday Canadian is paying for this kind of write-off. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) was crying about the small businessman. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that small businessmen, teachers, professional people, workingmen and their wives, whether they are on salary or hourly rated, and farmers are the people who will pick up the tab for the tax free concessions that are being given to big business. These are the people who will pay. I do not know how the government managed to justify this kind of approach, but I suppose by one means or another they will try to justify it to the people in addition to the concession that they have already given.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) enunciates policies in this House which are different from the approach he takes on the hustings. For instance, after it had been decided to pay a subsidy on hog production, this is what he said in Quebec when speaking on this question, according to an article in the Western Producer of February 17:
Agriculture will not be able to meet the challenge of the future if it does not become economically independent.
"Like any other industrial sector, it has to operate and will have to operate without subsidies, without outside aid, as a mature organism that has developed its full potential.
"It is becoming less and less acceptable that consumers bear the cost of farmers' deficiencies."
I wonder where the Prime Minister of Canada gets these ideas about the deficiencies of farmers. I wonder how long it took some of his experts to reach the conclusion that "Like any other industrial sector, it has to operate and will have to operate without subsidies, without outside aid . .An article in the Toronto Star of June 10 is headed "Logging threatens Quebec's environment". I do not know whether it does or does not, because I am not an expert in that field, but it struck me that in this area concessions have been given to International Telephone and Telegraph Company from both the federal and provincial governments. This article, written by Walter Stewart, reads in part:
As part of the incentive to encourage the deal, Rayonier is receiving $57.3 million in grants and loans from the federal government and the province of Quebec, along with the timber-cutting rights.
Mr. Speaker, $57.3 million from the two levels of government, while the Prime Minister stands in the same province and says that agriculture will be treated like any other industrial sector! I do not know whether the Prime Minister is trying to mislead the people of Canada or whether he does not know any better.


Mr. Benjamin:: Both.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: It is very hard to tell, at times. The article winds up by taking a very serious view of the whole development. I think hon. members on the other side of the House ought to know the serious view taken by the Western Producer, the spokesman for western agriculture, in respect of this kind of statement. The editorial of February 17 reads:
If, on the other hand, Mr. Trudeau believes what he said in Quebec, and sees it as future policy, all we can say is that February 2 was a bad day for Canadian agriculture, and at the same time a further alienation of the farm community. That, Mr. Trudeau may find, is something that Ottawa Liberals cannot afford.
That is the kind of reaction evoked in western Canada when the Prime Minister makes a speech in Quebec. Today we have television and radio, and so on. It is not like the days of Jimmy Gardiner and Mackenzie King when they could make one speech in Quebec and then go out to Saskatoon and make another. I think the Prime Minister had better realize that the time has come when these speeches are heard right across the country.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if the minister and hon. members on the other side of the House realize the effect
June 12, 1972

that fiscal policies they have been following have on our exports. We can see a decline in the price per bushel of wheat, barley, rapeseed and oats by just following the upward movement of the Canadian dollar. The fiscal policies of this government permit or encourage this increased value of the Canadian dollar, and it will have its effect in one of two ways: it will result in exports being curtailed or it will result in less income in the hands of the individual or company exporting the products whether primary or manufactured. Between May 23 and June 2 the effect of this policy on the price of barley was 1 i cents per bushel. That may not seem much to members across the way, but it means a lot to the man selling the product.
Mr. Speaker, this budget does nothing about foreign ownership. In fact, by reason of tax concessions I suspect that it tends to accelerate rather than retard the pace of takeover of Canadian companies by foreign companies. I found it rather shocking, that a few days ago a committee of this House decided to hold its meeting in camera while it made up its mind who it was safe to hear on the subject so that the Committee would not be unduly influenced. The press was unable to be present at that meeting. The Citizen, in an editorial today, wrote:
The Commons committee examining the foreign ownership bill was wrong to exclude the press from its first meeting. The action should not be repeated.
In another article on the same page, Charles Wheeler wrote:
More than half of Canada's manufacturing industry is American-owned, so is the whole of Canada's oil industry, almost all its motor industry, and perhaps most important, virtually the entire means of exploiting Canada's vast reserves of mineral wealth.
Yet this does not appear to concern the government unduly, Mr. Speaker. The article goes on to say: "The process goes on". The proposals which the government bring before the House are not taken seriously by the press of this country. The government of Saskatchewan became concerned, and is concerned about the takeover of land in that province and has taken steps to protect our heritage there.
Land is surely one of our basic resources. For three generations people have homesteaded and developed this land. We want to protect it and make sure it remains the property of Canadians. Our desire shocks and scares to death the cabinet minister for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Land). I suppose that is understandable because his frame of mind is the same as that of his colleagues who want to do nothing about this problem. For a long time I suspected that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt did not know too much about farming: I accept that because his whole education, his training has been in law. I thought he knew something about law, considering that he was dean of the faculty of law at a university.


Mr. McCleave:: Not necessarily.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, he has commented on a provincial bill which is not an act. According to my information, this bill must go to committee; it will be examined and changes and alterations may be made to it and its approach. Before this has happened the minister has com-
The Budget-Mr. Gleave
mented on it. He has said, "Ottawa opposes it." He cannot wait to make his comments. He cannot wait until the clear, sharp outlines of the proposal emerge. He said that although there has been no formal communication with the Saskatchewan government, that government knows how the federal government feels.
The final sentence in the report before me says that the Saskatchewan bill has not been passed. This may be the first time that a minister of the federal government has taken a position on a bill before a province has enacted it into law. I suppose that is understandable in view of the way this government feels about foreign ownership. Apparently it welcomes it and hopes it will move in and take over larger chunks of our land and resources. The Minister of Justice said in the House, as reported at page 2353 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, the bill has indeed been brought to my attention and I have sought comment on its constitutional validity. Although it is only in the bill stage, it does seem to me that if it is not unconstitutional it ought to be.
I am surprised that the minister at this stage should seek a ruling. Apparently he himself has already made one. If this government displayed half as much zeal in finding ways and means to protect the interest of Canadians so that at the end of this generation or perhaps the next Canadians could be assured that they would be master in their own house, it would be worth while.
I am not talking about our owning every tree in this country, every bit of beach, every bit of shore and every bit of cultivated land; I am talking about steps which are necessary and will make Canadians confident that they will be master in their own house. Let the government do that instead of, as it has to this time, running around and letting out screams of frustration and rage because a province is concerned and wants to protect its own resources. This concern is not peculiar to Saskatchewan. The government of Alberta is moving to protect Crown lands there. Prince Edward Island is concerned, Nova Scotia is concerned and Ontario is becoming concerned.
I wonder when the federal government will become concerned. If the minister I have referred to, or any of his cohorts think they can go to Saskatchewan in the next election and use this negative approach to carry them to victory, they will be the most disillusioned men who ever ran for office. The people of Saskatchewan know what is important and they have not forgotten the antics of men like Gardiner and Mackenzie King who tried to make all sorts of deals.
Before it is too late, let the present government take concrete action and make sure that the economy can provide for our people that well-being, material and spiritual, which it is capable of providing. The government is wrong when it says, "We must have so many jobs; let us leave it to the private sector to provide them." The hon. member for Fraser Valley East said we ought to be realistic. I am realistic. I do not expect private enterprise or business to act like a sugar-daddy. As a farmer, I do not behave like a sugar-daddy: I run a farm; I produce as well as I can and make as much as I can for myself and my family. If someone were to come along and say, "We want you to hire three more men," I would wonder who would pay them.

June 12, 1972
The Budget-Mr. Lefebvre
Let us be realists; let us be practical. It is not right to ask private industry to behave like a sugar-daddy. It is not right to put this load on private industry and say to it six months or one year from now, "You did not provide the jobs we need, therefore we are going to clobber you." This is the implication left by the government. Doing this job is the government's responsibility; it must not load somebody else with that task.
When government persists in acting in that fashion it abdicates some of its responsibilities. It is for the government to administer the financial and fiscal policies of this country. It must not turn its responsibility over to the private banks and then scourge them because they charge too much interest. It is up to the government to control interest rates in this country. That is their responsibility, and they are not discharging it. I think the members in my part of the House are realists. We know that Adam Smith is buried. I sometimes think those on the other side of the House still think he is walking around.


Mr. T. Lefebvre (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, for a number of reasons I am glad to take part in this debate. The first of those reasons is that I wish to congratulate the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), a young, active and devoted minister, who has proved that he could present a budget both sensible and serious, worthy of an excellent administrator.
Mr. Speaker, this debate also gives me an opportunity to list the priorities which must apply to the citizens of my constituency, and which in my opinion most of the citizens of Pontiac would support unanimously.
And when I talk about priorities, I do know what I am talking about because I came to know them through a questionnaire which I recently sent to all the families of my constituency.
The third question of that poll was the following:
What are the major problems facing Canada today?
And the 900 answers received from all parts of this vast constituency, comprising 60 municipalities in the three provincial ridings of Pontiac, Gatineau and Labelle, all pointed out to the following problems:
1.	Unemployment.
2.	Roads.
3.	No industries.
4.	No jobs.
5.	Social welfare.
It is therefore very easy to see that people are asking for jobs and an increased industrial development.
I agree with them and support their requests. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am always available to those who are interested in industry in my riding. Whenever, in my office here in this building, or at home over the week-end,
I meet with any officials of companies anxious to settle in my area, I do so with tremendous interest and in the hope that the action I am taking will result in creating the jobs that are so badly needed.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion is extremely important to us, and I am very happy to thank

its officials for having always given me their co-operation by accepting to meet with the businessmen who are looking for information on the grants available to industry in designated areas such as mine.
Unfortunately, applications for grants are not always accepted; but to this day several have been approved and several others are under consideration. We must not give up, and this is why I go on making representations to promote industrial development in my constituency.
Mr. Speaker, the House is certainly aware that the area which I represent went through a difficult period recently. I should like to emphasize something which has not received the attention it deserved, namely, the role of the ordinary citizen in my constituency. Every time a problem arises, be it floods in Fort Coulonge or its vicinity, or the closing down of plants in Maniwaki or Mont Laurier, the people of these communities are always ready to contribute their share in seeking solutions by joining in with study groups and task forces that are set up to deal with these problems.
I wish to commend the people in my constituency who have joined these citizens committees. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that a committee representing all our social classes can help in a concrete way to find solutions to the problems which concern us all.

There is no doubt that the Local Initiatives Program put forward by this government last winter has been an outstanding success nationally and locally in my own constituency. No less than $1,600,000 in projects was approved, creating approximately 1,000 jobs in 25 different municipalities in the constituency of Pontiac. There were, of course, many more good projects which unfortunately were not approved due to budget limitations. However, the over-all results were excellent, and I ask that the cabinet members consider seriously that this program be continued next year with even more funds allocated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Lefebvre: We often hear that too many unemployed persons are not willing to work. In so far as my constituency is concerned, that statement is very much untrue. I spoke to many of the project leaders and asked if they had encountered difficulties in finding personnel for their projects. In almost every case I was informed that the unemployed, when approached, were eager and willing to work.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says there is a right not to work.


Thomas Lefebvre: I am talking about those who are willing to work. I am talking about residents in my constituency who have proven that the often heard statement that unemployed people are not willing to work is very much untrue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Lefebvre: I have visited many of these projects and have been amazed at the ingenuity of the promoters. There were a wide variety of projects, including the
June 12, 1972

rebuilding of the old, historic wooden bridge in Mansfield township near Fort Coulonge, the one at Grand Remous, a handcraft centre at Maniwaki, an arena and swimming pool at Mont Laurier, many community halls and recreational projects such as snowmobile trails and day care centres.
The project in Shawville is also very interesting because it secured for this municipality the ownership of a fine old building which formerly housed the post office. When the postal department vacated the old building I was happy to co-operate with the Shawville council in contacting the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. As a result, the building was sold to the village of Shawville at a very reasonable price. Through a Local Initiatives Program grant, the council made a complete renovation of the building to accommodate the municipal offices, a meeting room and a public library. Further to this, an Opportunities for Youth grant was approved for a group of students from the area who wish to make a complete history of the district, and this will be housed in the new library.
These are some of the reasons I am a firm believer in this type of program. They involve the citizens of this country from coast to coast. This government deserves congratulation for its innovation and planning of these programs, including the highly successful Opportunities for Youth program. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of this country asked for government by participation, he got it. I am proud to serve with him and I hope we continue in this vein. There is a wealth of knowledge and skill in my constituency, and these programs have proved it. The people like government by participation and they want it to continue.
There have been many notable achievements in the past four years both on a national and a constituency level. We cannot rest on our laurels, however, and we, the members supporting this government, must continue our efforts on behalf of all Canadians. The new budget will result in increased pensions for our aged citizens in need of extra financial help and to other groups in need. Also of great importance is the fact that the measures announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) will instil new confidence into the business community, resulting in more and more jobs for Canadians.
The region I represent possesses great potential, especially in the tourist industry. Everyone knows, of course, of the skiing facilities in the Wakefield area of the Gatineau Hills which attract thousands of tourists all winter. The new development at Mont Ste. Marie is also becoming another major winter recreational facility. The federal government, through the National Capital Commission, has been involved for many years in the tourist industry through its continued development of Gatineau Park where many of my constituents have found employment. Leslie Park, a new development in the Otter Lake area, will also help bring many more tourists into Pontiac. There is also the well known provincial park, La Veren-drye, which is continually improving its facilities and attracting increasing numbers of visitors. All these facilities are becoming year-round attractions and will eventually provide continuous employment for an ever growing number of people.
The Budget-Mr. Lefebvre
Pontiac is one of the few unspoiled areas in eastern Canada readily accessible to major urban population centres. The development of Pontiac industrially must take place bearing in mind that our lakes, forests and streams must remain unpolluted, in which case the tourist industry also can develop bringing in thousands of visitors and creating jobs for our citizens. I have been in contact with NCC officials regarding the possibility of making part of that property in my constituency available to the Ottawa Zoological Society for the establishment of a zoo. Mr. Fullerton, the chairman of the NCC, replied to my letter informing me that this is to be done and brought to the attention of the persons responsible for choosing the site of this zoo. If such a facility were established in Pontiac, the development brought about in a wide area surrounding it would be fantastic.
Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Parliament since 1965 I have learned increasingly to understand the problems of my constituents, working with them and for them. I have also learned to appreciate their suggestions and ideas, and together we have found solutions to some of these problems. In my opinion, this is the ideal way, the team work way. The citizens of Pontiac have ideas, aspirations and knowledge. They want their government and their representative to listen. This, I believe, has been done.
Another interesting project in which I have been involved is the effort to obtain recognition of old Fort William as a national historic site. This area of Pontiac county is rich in the history of the fur trading years, and I believe official recognition is deserved. The officials of the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board have replied to my letters informing me that they are at present studying the request. This area is not only of historical significance but it is one of the most beautiful along the Ottawa River. Its magnificent sand beach and towering pine trees could be developed into an outstanding tourist attraction. As far as I know, there are no official national historic sites in Pontiac, and I believe this one would be a natural choice as number one.

As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, there were many problems in my constituency when I was elected for the first time and problems still exist. But the Pontiac citizens are aware of the tremendous efforts made by this federal government and their Member of Parliament in order to find a solution to those problems. I have always believed, Mr. Speaker, that a Member of Parliament must first of all serve his electors, that is why I keep travelling from one end of my constituency to the other so as to meet as many people as possible and offer to help them.
We have certainly improved the lot of Canadians since 1968, Mr. Speaker, the federal government's record with regard to the social measures that have been passed is very impressive.
When I was very young, Mr. Speaker, our parish priest used to say that paradise on earth does not exist, only in heaven will we find paradise. I often think of those words when I listen to members of other parties who are always criticizing and making unrealizable election promises.

June 12, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The Canadian people are very well informed; they want a strong, realistic, responsible government, a government truly representative of the Canadian people, as the present government is.
Mr. Speaker, a political party which really wants to govern in a responsible manner must introduce measures for all Canadians: senior citizens, both young and not so young people, citizens from both rural and urban areas, members of both the working and the professional classes.
It is very important that we members of this House pass legislation designed to improve living conditions for all Canadians.
We must also take into account the fact that the budget of the Canadian government is that of all taxpayers, and that all citizens have to pay their share of it. A responsible government mustt bring down a realistic budget taking its priorities into consideration as well as all of the government expenditures. In my opinion, the present budget meets these criteria and most Canadians will endorse it.
In closing, I should like to emphasize the importance to my constituency of Bill C-5, an act to amend the Farm Credit Act, which would make it possible for the Farm Credit Corporation to make loans to facilitate the efficient operation of a farm rather than being tied to the more rigid rules laid down by the present act under which it must be proven necessary to operate the farm. There are many good farms in Pontiac. Some of the best dairy farms in eastern Canada are in operation there, and beef producers are also becoming increasingly important. I know some farmers who are rapidly approaching the age of retirement. They need an opportunity to secure loans so that younger men can take over.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has also stirred up interest by his recent statements about helping family farms so that the owner can enlarge his holdings or retire if he prefers. I am sure this legislation could bring benefit to my area, one in which farming is among the most important industries. Those engaged in it are honest, industrious and experienced. There are young men willing to take over if the opportunity is given them for a fair deal, which is all we are looking for.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on May 311 questioned the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) on several points arising from the proposed village Lake Louise project.
[Mr. Lefebvre.J
Other questions have been asked in the House concerning this proposal. A public hearing has been held at which the views of various organizations and individuals were heard and recorded. To date, however, the minister has avoided giving any indication as to the government's decision with regard to the proposed village Lake Louise project.
At the outset I must say I am totally opposed to this type of commercial enterprise being allowed in our national parks. I am amazed that our national parks branch would even consider such a proposal. I am also amazed and upset that the minister in charge of our national parks system has not indicated his opposition to this type of commercialization which is entirely out of keeping with national parks objectives. It is almost unbelievable to think that any consideration would be given by the minister to a foreign-owned corporation, in this case Imperial Oil Limited, obtaining a foothold in our national parks system.
In October 1968 the minister made the following statement in a speech to the Canadian National Parks conference:
Our national parks are special places. They are dedicated, not to providing artificial sources of recreation and entertainment, but to preserving, for the benefit of present and future generations, significant natural features of our national heritage. They do not meet the over-all need for outdoor recreation space and they should not attempt to do so.
To do so would be to neglect the essential purpose of our present national park system-that is, the need to preserve parts of our environment in a natural, unspoiled state.
I endorse that statement, Mr. Speaker, and it certainly runs counter to the proposed building of the village Lake Louise project in Banff national park. We do not need the urbanization of our national parks, for this is what we are trying to avoid in park development. Our citizens should be able to enjoy the natural beauties of our parks without turning them into Coney Islands.
If we give way to the proposed commercialized project called village Lake Louise, then the very objectives and principles laid down for the preservation of part of our Canadian heritage for all time will be destroyed. It will be the start of a series of commercialized projects throughout our parks system. It should be stopped now. Let us at least give preference to quality of life and of the environment over the almighty dollar as far as our national parks system is concerned.
It is surprising that no thorough ecological impact study has been done by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development prior to the announcement of this proposal. To my knowledge these studies have never been made, yet they should be a requirement, especially for a project of this kind. Again, it is disturbing to think that those in control have ignored this very important aspect of conservation. This information is required before any consideration should be given to approval of the project. To my knowledge this survey has not been made. And if it has been made, it certainly was not made public at the hearings held several months ago.
I might point out that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been rather lax, not only so far as our national parks' system is concerned but also in having adequate ecological studies made, for example in the James Bay and Arctic areas. We have seen a water-
June 12, 1972

ing down of land use permits in the north. This indicates to me that the department is more interested in the almighty dollar than in preserving the ecological balance in any part of the Canadian terrain.
I do not have much time left, Mr. Speaker, but in closing I should like to point out that Canadians generally would like to see a sharp extension of our national parks system. They would like to see more national parks spread throughout Canada. There are still several provinces without a sufficient number of national parks which would really protect the heritage of these provinces and of Canada.
But to return to the subject of village Lake Louise, we are not opposed to commercial enterprises of this nature being set up outside the park boundaries. There are many opportunities for those who wish to invest several million dollars in a topnotch ski project. This is where such a project should be built. Let us retain 100 per cent Canadian ownership of our park resources particularly insofar as village Lake Louise and Banff national park are concerned. Imperial Oil Limited, a foreign owned corporation, must be stopped from investing in this project.


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the hon. member say he is in favour of a sharp extension in our national parks' system. The only thing he failed to say and to recognize is that in the past four years more national parks have been established in Canada than in the previous 50 years. We now have parks in every province and territory in Canada. Until this government came into power there were a number of provinces and territories which did not have national parks. I think a great deal of credit is due to the minister for this very sharp extension to our national parks system.
The hon. member, in his question of May 31, referred to evaluation of material gathered at the recent public hearings in respect of Lake Louise. I wish to deal with that aspect of his question. He went into the whole Lake Louise proposal. I could speak for a long time on that subject but I want to deal only with the matter he raised on May 31. The public hearing on proposals for the Lake Louise areas was the largest held to date in the series of public hearings that the national parks branch has held on national parks in Canada. We received 2,118 registered briefs plus more than 500 letters and other submissions which arrived after the deadline for official briefs. Including the transcript of presentations by 191 speakers at Calgary, the submissions and recommendations by the public total approximately 5,500 pages. This is a tremendous volume of material to review. However, we have assigned additional staff to the task of initial analysis, and the minister will soon be in a position to consider summaries and recommendations on some of the major issues.
As the minister stated on May 31, he still hopes to be able to inform the House before the summer recess of the government's decision. However, he wants to ensure that adequate consideration is given to the many reasoned and well documented submissions which were made by the public, including the recent views of the government of Alberta. I also want to point out that while many individu-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion als and organizations adopted a simple yes or no position on the proposals, others argued in favour of a variety of modifications. Our decision is not a simple one because some future course of action must be charted for the total Lake Louise area and there is a great range of alternatives to consider.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-OFFER OF GOOD OFFICES BY UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY GENERAL RESPECTING VIET NAM WAR-CANADIAN POSITION-REPRESENTATION TO UNITED STATES

['Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has posed a number of questions but as we all know, I am restricted under Standing Orders to three minutes. Therefore I will attempt to deal with the major question, liaison with the private sector under the auspices of OFY.\nThe hon. member will appreciate that our liaison with the private sector to encourage participation in Oppor-\nProceedings on Adjournment Motion tunities for Youth-type projects has necessarily been experimental. Our efforts to date have established three avenues of possible involvement by the private sector in this new employment style: one, shared-coast programs on projects of an entrepreneurial nature; two, referral of submitted OFY projects for complete funding by the private sector; and three, development of OFY-type programs by the private sector.\nBoth Shell Canada Ltd. and John Labatt Ltd. are participating in the shared-cost projects to create 39 jobs at a total cost of $18,500 to the government and $50,000 to the private sector. An example of this approach is a project in Victoria, British Columbia, to produce toys and playground materials specially adapted for use by exceptional children. Using $20,000 and donated materials, this project will supply hospitals and institutions with equipment valued at close to $100,000 and is viewed as a pilot operation for the possible development of a new industry for the Island.\nJohn Labatt Ltd. is also experimenting with funding projects, which are referred to them by OFY, entirely by themselves. At a cost of $15,000 they have funded a project submitted by students of the University of Toronto business school to do management consulting for small businesses in the city. Finally, many companies have expressed interest in developing OFY-type programs within their own organizations. To date, only Dominion Textiles have done so, creating 28 project-oriented jobs filled by student applicants, at a cost of $40,000.\nThus our liaison with the private sector to date has created approximately 70 jobs with $125,000 committed by business. I must emphasize that each of the projects is highly experimental and is being closely followed by others in the private sector. We feel that the success of these initial projects will encourage others with whom we are presently consulting to participate themselves.\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.', 'Tuesday. June 13, 1972']
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, on April 25 I asked the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) the following question:
In light of the initiative taken by the Secretary General of the United Nations in making available his good offices in the settlement of the regrettably escalating conflict in Viet Nam, can the minister advise the House whether the Canadian government was consulted on this matter and whether it is lending its support and encouragement to the Secretary General in his efforts toward bringing to an end this tragic and long continued conflict and, if so, have the views of this government been conveyed to the government of the United States?
Whereupon I received the usual answer given to spokesmen of this party when the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) said:
I will take notice of that question on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Since then I have heard nothing of Canadian consultation or extension of good offices or good wishes. There are times when in this withdrawal phase of foreign policy there seems to be a determination on the part of the government to substitute wilful blindness for involvement or concern in ticklish international affairs and episodes. While, naturally, we can find many reasons for a comfortable detachment from the Viet Nam conflict, we cannot really insulate ourselves from its outfall both potential and actual. What this long-sustained war is doing to our most powerful ally and its world role cannot be brushed aside or ignored. Viet Nam has become a horrible albatross around the American neck, a grievous burden and an issue painfully divisive of the American body politic.
At the time the Secretary General made his offer there was widespread anxiety that a sharp and dangerous new level of escalation had been reached. The action of the President of the United States in ordering the new bombing of the north and blockades of the harbour of Haiphong was a dangerous move. So was the escalation of the ground fighting ordered and executed by the North Vietnamese. This regrettably came at a time when there at least seemed some reasonable prospect of the conflict winding down. Nor can we say that there is not still a grave and serious danger: as late as today the ominous rumble of thunder out of China could be heard.
While I fervently wish to see the United States disengage completely from its debilitating and painful role in Viet Nam, I do not belong to those who rail at the American role and cast upon Washington the full load of blame and responsibility. Others are fishing in troubled waters and the people of both Viet Nams continue to suffer and die. But the war cannot go on for one bruised and bitter

June 12, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion year after another. The awful suffering and terror must end. Therefore, we should welcome the proffered initiative of Secretary General Waldheim. We should welcome, too, any conciliatory moves among the great powers.
For this reason I believe we should all welcome the fact that the recent escalation did not prevent the President from carrying out what was seemingly a very useful series of meetings in the Soviet Union. No one believes that summitry is the answer to all our ills or the balm of all international tensions. Yet the over-all result of the American-Russian and the Sino-American meetings cannot be anything but beneficial in a day and age when reduction of world tension is an absolute essential.
I think the time has come, too, for us to look carefully at our ICC role. If there is nothing that can be done, there is nothing to be gained by retaining the pretence of value. In this area a move by the British and Russian co-chairmen for another general conference on IndoChina might be useful. But there seems to be reason for pessimism in this connection. The reasons are well known.
In this difficult and painful problem I assure the government that any useful effort it attempts toward peace will have the hearty and sympathetic support of the official opposition. I should also say that we must retain a distance between encouragement and disillusionment. Without that, we cannot proceed to any useful role in this tangled, painful and difficult international episode.


Mr. lames Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are undoubtedly aware, the difficulty affecting the possible involvement of the United Nations in the Indo China situation continues to be that neither of the parties most directly concerned, South Viet Nam and North Viet Nam, is a member of the world body, and North Viet Nam and its allies have always vigorously denied the authority of the United Nations to discuss the war in Viet Nam.
The new Secretary General of the United Nations is convinced, however, and the Canadian government shares his view, that this regrettable conflict can and should only be solved through negotiations. It was in this spirit that I understand Mr. Waldheim offered the good offices of the United Nations to all the parties concerned, on condition that all the parties concerned agreed to it. Unfortunately, as the Secretary General reported in an interview a few weeks ago, none of the parties gave any clear response to his offer.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) indicated in the House on April 26, Canada would be willing to co-operate with the Secretary General in any way that might be useful in order to promote the peaceful resolution of the Viet Nam conflict through negotiations. However, the question of whether an offer of good offices, including that made by the Secretary General, will be successful depends on whether the various parties agree to negotiations and are prepared to discuss the issues. Of course, a form for negotiations already exists in the Paris conference on Viet Nam where both public and secret talks have been held. We have favoured the return of the parties to the Paris conference but negotiations cannot be forced on them.
As has been said in the House before, there must be disposition to negotiate and there must be disposition to agree. As soon as there is any hope in this respect there may then be an opening for Canada or for the United Nations to make a helpful contribution. I can assure the House that in the meantime the Canadian government will persist in its efforts to promote the resolution of the conflict through negotiation.



Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, on May 31 I put a question to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) regarding the Opportunities for Youth program. I asked:
In view of the fact that the government has had a team calling on businessmen during the month of May to solicit private support for the opportunities for youth project applications turned down by the government, would the minister inform the House when he will publish the list of corporations that have agreed to participate in this plan?
At that time the minister said he would consider it, but he regretted to inform me that the list was not a long one. Today or yesterday I read an article, I believe in the Ottawa Citizen, which reported that a spokesman in the minister's department had said two companies had agreed to participate in picking up project applications. I cannot believe that there can only be two such companies, so I decided to raise the matter on the "late show" tonight. I believe the minister must be more successful than that. Also, today I noticed a report in the paper that Opportunities for Youth officials in Regina had talked to businessmen there, trying to encourage them to pick up Opportunities for Youth programs that had been turned down by the government.
Tonight I want to know more about this program, how many companies have agreed to participate in it, how many projects they have picked up and how many people will be employed. I would also like to know about the team that is going out to solicit support from corporations. How much is the department spending on this team and how many people are participating in it?
I think that in general the Opportunities for Youth program is basically and essentially a good idea. It is an idea that allows students to participate in creating something that they think is useful. But I do have many concerns about it. One of the chief concerns I have is shared by some hon. members opposite as pointed, out, I believe, in the Cohen report that was commissioned by the department. It said that last year most of the emphasis was placed on middle-class students, that most of the jobs went to those who could afford to go to university without student jobs, that these students were wealthy enough and could get by without Opportunities for Youth grants.
This is one of the criticisms of the program. It is very middle-class oriented. This is something the government should try to correct. For that reason I have suggested that an Opportunities for Youth or similar program should be started for non-student young people so that the young unemployed, the young workers, the young farmers could take advantage of such a program. This is one of

June 12, 1972

the recommendations the government should act upon if it is to make this program really relevant and meaningful to our young people.
I believe that in this year's Opportunities for Youth program only about 9 per cent of the participants are non-students. The rest are students. I suggest that this is a serious oversight. Also, the Opportunities for Youth program, in the way it is set up today, is a very short-term solution. Maybe it should be a continuing thing. The Opportunities for Youth program in many ways, for many young people is partly what they would call tokenism.
[DOT] <2220)
I would be glad if the parliamentary secretary would tell us what is going to happen to our university graduates. I noticed in the latest edition of the Financial Times an article which said that a lot of university students coming on the labour market this year are unable to find jobs. In 1965, corporations and companies were asking students to work for them, but now we find the reverse to be true and students cannot find jobs. The University of Toronto predicts that 25 per cent of the graduates will not be able to find employment, this despite the fact that many graduates will go back to university to continue their education.
I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary to elaborate on this part of the Opportunities for Youth program. How many companies are participating, how successful are they and what are the plans to approach large corporations?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has posed a number of questions but as we all know, I am restricted under Standing Orders to three minutes. Therefore I will attempt to deal with the major question, liaison with the private sector under the auspices of OFY.
The hon. member will appreciate that our liaison with the private sector to encourage participation in Oppor-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion tunities for Youth-type projects has necessarily been experimental. Our efforts to date have established three avenues of possible involvement by the private sector in this new employment style: one, shared-coast programs on projects of an entrepreneurial nature; two, referral of submitted OFY projects for complete funding by the private sector; and three, development of OFY-type programs by the private sector.
Both Shell Canada Ltd. and John Labatt Ltd. are participating in the shared-cost projects to create 39 jobs at a total cost of $18,500 to the government and $50,000 to the private sector. An example of this approach is a project in Victoria, British Columbia, to produce toys and playground materials specially adapted for use by exceptional children. Using $20,000 and donated materials, this project will supply hospitals and institutions with equipment valued at close to $100,000 and is viewed as a pilot operation for the possible development of a new industry for the Island.
John Labatt Ltd. is also experimenting with funding projects, which are referred to them by OFY, entirely by themselves. At a cost of $15,000 they have funded a project submitted by students of the University of Toronto business school to do management consulting for small businesses in the city. Finally, many companies have expressed interest in developing OFY-type programs within their own organizations. To date, only Dominion Textiles have done so, creating 28 project-oriented jobs filled by student applicants, at a cost of $40,000.
Thus our liaison with the private sector to date has created approximately 70 jobs with $125,000 committed by business. I must emphasize that each of the projects is highly experimental and is being closely followed by others in the private sector. We feel that the success of these initial projects will encourage others with whom we are presently consulting to participate themselves.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

Tuesday. June 13, 1972