1973-03-06

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (B) for the financial year ending March 31, 1973, was presented by Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I should like to table a copy of Supplementary Estimates (B) for the financial year ending March 31, 1973.
Hon. Allan ]. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the following motion pursuant to Standing Order 59:
That Supplementary Estimates (B), 1972-1973, tabled this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we have not objected to this procedure. Although we cannot debate the matter, I would suggest that in future, before we are required to give our assent and accept this procedure, that at least the supplementary estimates should be shown to members of the opposition parties.


HOUSING
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the consent of the House to present a motion which I believe expresses a view held by every member of the House. I hope the House will see fit to agree to its being presented and passed, preferably without debate. Without further word, therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight):
That this House deplores the action of certain landlords and nursing homes in increasing rents and other charges against old age pensioners immediately following and since the announcement of pension increases made in the budget of February 19, 1973.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is submitted to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43. It requires the
unanimous consent of the House before it can be put. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be unanimous consent. The motion will therefore be put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I should like to propose a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity involving thousands of Canadians now unemployed.
Since many Unemployment Insurance Commission officials demand that applicants for benefits supply proof that they have effectively looked for a job, and since such a procedure is detrimental to the dignity of the individual and contrary to the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That this House consider action to prevent abuse of prerogatives by civil servants and to make them discontinue demanding conditions not provided under the present act in order to obtain unemployment insurance benefits.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Richmond under Standing Order 43. It requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity. The hon. member's motion therefore cannot be put.
Name Change, Waterloo Riding FINANCE

March 6, 1973



MEASURES TO INCREASE BIRTH RATE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION

Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under section 43 oi Standing Orders, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House in order to move a motion relating to a matter requesting urgent attention.
The birth rate in Canada, and more particularly in the province of Quebec, is now at its lowest level. We live in one of the largest countries in the world that barely numbers 20 million inhabitants. If we want to ensure our country's future development, we must consider developing out human resources, that is increasing our population in order to populate our vast territories. The present government policy regarding the family has a negative effect and will discourage parents from raising children. The economic policy now in force will put a heavy load-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member for Rimouski, to remind him that it is out of order to make a speech in support of a motion put under Standing Order 43. The hon. member may not present arguments to support the motion that he wishes the House to consider. I therefore suggest that he state the motion he wishes to put to the House.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Tetrault):
That this House study the various financial means that might be employed to lighten the burden of fathers of families and to enable them to bring up as many children as they wish, with a view not to removing financial limitations but to promoting the full development of the family and of the couple.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member for Rimouski. Under Standing Order 43, the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there does not seem to be unanimous consent, the hon. member's motion cannot be put.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-156, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to draw attention to the recent amalgamation and change of name of the historic Waterloo County city and towns of Galt, Preston and Hespeler. They have now become the new city of Cambridge.


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


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the numerous reports from Washington that the United States is seriously considering increasing trade restrictions against foreign imports, has the minister been in personal contact with the Secretary of Commerce of the United States to point out very strongly that Canada has not in any way been responsible for the United States imbalance and that there is no justification whatsoever for increasing restrictions against Canada?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister oi Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on previous occasions, the government's views with respect to restrictions on trade liberalization have been made known to the United States authorities.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: While the minister is contemplating the desirability of personal diplomacy, would he advise the House, in light of the statements by a senior U.S. official that the intent of its trade legislation is to help the United States achieve a significant trade surplus in manufactured goods in order to offset increasing energy imports, whether the government is going to advise the United States that Canada is not prepared to accommodate growing United States energy problems by accepting further constraints on the potential of Canada to export manufactured goods?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions I have made it quite clear that the Canadian government has stated that we are not contributing to the United States deficit on balance of payments. Indeed, because we are in a deficit position with the United States on a current account basis we are helping them solve their problem, not contributing to it.


GOVERNMENT INTENTION RESPECTING ASSOCIATION WITH EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY TO COUNTERACT UNITED STATES POLICIES
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have one further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since United States administration officials have indicated that their new trade legislation is designed to remove all impediments to natural "market forces", for instance, the duty on U.S. cars sold in Canada, DREE and the screening legislation, is the government now going to join with the European
March 6, 1973

Economic Community to protest DISC and to work with the EEC to find multilateral responses to the present trend of the trade policies of the United States administration ?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think there are many questions rather than one question in the hon. member's representations. Let me make it quite clear that reports coming out of Washington that would attack DREE, Canadian manufacturing industries and our ability to compete internationally are not positions that we are prepared to accept. Indeed, we have taken measures and are committed to a strong manufacturing industry in Canada, for example, such measures as the corporate tax reduction. Further, I think the hon. member mentioned the foreign investment review legislation which is of concern to certain quarters in Washington. This government believes it is important to ensure that foreign investment provides significant benefit to Canada through the proposed screening process.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on a supplementary.


RESPONSE BY UNITED STATES TO PROTEST AGAINST COUNTERVAILING DUTY ON MICHELIN TIRES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the strong opposition expressed by the minister to the delegates from the Canadian Labour Congress yesterday concerning any discriminatory trade measures that are taken by other countries against Canada, would the minister inform the House whether or not he has yet heard from the United States concerning our government's protest regarding their countervailing duty against Michelin tires?


Alastair William Gillespie: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the minister's equally strong assertion yesterday that our government would not sit back passively but would take some kind of retaliatory action against discriminatory measures, would the minister inform the House what the government plans to do if, as seems likely, the United States is not going to change its position on the duty levied against Michelin?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if we are not able to settle the Michelin protest in a satisfactory manner we shall have recourse to the courts and take the issue to the courts in the United States.
Oral Questions HOUSING


REPORTED RENT INCREASES AFFECTING OLD AGE PENSIONERS FOLLOWING PENSION INCREASE ANNOUNCEMENT-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Is the minister aware of the increasing number of reports that pensioners are having their rents and fees increased by landlords and nursing homes following the announced increase in old age pensions, and has he asked Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to set up some kind of mechanism to monitor the situation across the country and ascertain whether injustice is being done to our pensioners?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister oi State ior Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of reports in the press and from other sources that some landlords have taken this action. I am not aware of any large number of complaints having been made to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. CMHC has set its rent policy for 1973, but as for trying to monitor privately-held property over which we have no mortgage or other control, any influence the corporation might have would be extremely limited.


David Lewis: As every member of the House knows, there are bound to be some homes providing private accommodation to pensioners that are financed by mortgages under the National Housing Act. It is in this context that I ask the minister whether he will create some mechanism to examine what is happening, at least in the case of those properties that have been built through the assistance of CMHC?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Where the property is owned by CMHC, as is often the case, I have ordered that there be-


David Lewis: If the minister would answer-


Stanley Ronald Basford: If the leader of the New Democratic Party would listen-


Some hon. Members:: Watch it!


Stanley Ronald Basford: -he would find out what the government has done. I have ordered CMHC not to increase rents for this year where the corporation owns the property.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: In the case of limited dividend projects where we are bound by contract to take into account increases in the owner's operating expenses, I have ordered CMHC to be extremely strict before allowing such increases. In cases in which we only hold a mortgage we only have the rights of a mortgagee, which are very limited indeed. I will review the terms of the mortgage documents, or of our practice, to ascertain whether there is anything we can do in these cases, but I think the hon. member is as aware of the terms of a mortgage as I am.


David Lewis: Has the minister initiated discussions with his provincial counterparts and, if not, is he prepared to do so, to urge them to impose rent controls as far as
1928

March 6, 1973
Oral Questions
accommodation for pensioners is concerned, and only in this area? I would ask him to take some initiative there.


Stanley Ronald Basford: One province has already taken action in this regard. Others, as I understand the position, are contemplating the establishment of rent review boards. I think this is a matter purely within the jurisdiction of provincial ministers. I would be happy to see that the remarks of the hon. gentleman are brought to the attention of provincial governments, but he will recognize as well as I do that this is a matter within their sphere of jurisdiction.


REQUEST FOR MORATORIUM ON RENT INCREASES AND FORECLOSURES ON CERTAIN PROPERTIES
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary along the same lines. In light of the fact that the Canadian Labour Congress in its brief recommended that a moratorium should be placed not only on rents of properties under the jurisdiction or direct control of the CMHC, whether limited dividend projects or not, would the minister order a moratorium against (a) rent increases, and (b) foreclosures? I ask this question in light of the fact that in connection with limited dividend projects rents recently went up by 20 per cent, in spite of the hon. gentleman's words.


Stanley Ronald Basford: have already answered the question with respect to limited dividend projects. With regard to foreclosure action, I believe each case should be decided on its own merits. It is our policy when there is default on a mortgage to make every possible effort not to foreclose and to reach some financial arrangement with the owner of the property.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister said he has ordered CMHC to look into the circumstances strictly before allowing rent increases. Does he consider an increase in the rent charged to tenants of limited dividend projects amounting to 20 per cent as late as January, 1973, as evidence of any strictness in the policy he is setting out today?


Stanley Ronald Basford: It is a very large increase, obviously. It is, however, provided for in the contract governing the property. What I have said is that the corporation has been instructed to follow these agreements strictly in so far as any applications for increases are concerned.


ALLEGED INDICATION BY LANDLORDS THAT RENT INCREASES AUTHORIZED BY CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether he is aware of the fact that in some cases landlords in giving rental increase notices to their tenants are saying in writing that the increases are with the authorization of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and will he ask the corporation to review its policy in this matter?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. gentleman would give me the letter to which he is referring. I presume he is probably referring to the case of a limited dividend project, and I think it is a misnomer to say in such cases that a rent increase is authorized by'the corporation. I think the letter is wrong in that sense and I wish the hon. member would give it to me.


ATOMIC ENERGY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since the Gentilly nuclear plant which cost several million dollars is experiencing difficulties due to a scarcity of heavy water, could the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce inform the House if, during the past two years, the government has sponsored research for a larger production of heavy water in Canada in order to meet our needs?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed with the Ontario and Quebec provincial governments the heavy water problem and the possibility of building another heavy water plant in one of those provinces. No decision has been reached yet on that matter but it is obvious that the success of the Canadian nuclear program will increase heavy water needs.


INFORMATION
Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In view of the concern expressed by the Canadian Labour Congress in its brief yesterday, and by the Consumers Association of Canada, regarding the increased use of data banks in Canada and the fact that these data banks violate and infringe upon the right of Canadians to privacy, I should like to ask what steps he proposes to take to implement the recommendations of the task force on privacy and computers, particularly in light of the fact that the legislation of last session was allowed to die on the order paper?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the two parts of this question are very different. We certainly intend to come back to the House with legislation dealing with electronic and other forms of surveillance, making that an offence. As far as the task force report is concerned, hon. members will have noted that the task force did not suggest we were in a crisis situation at the moment but what is required is action to avoid that happening. We
March 6, 1973

Oral Questions TRADE
did begin work immediately within the government on the question of what we ought to do regarding our own informational data banks in order to ensure the individual's right to privacy.
The other matter in respect of data banks outside the government is rather more complicated, involving quite frequently areas within provincial jurisdiction as well, but we anticipate discussions with the provinces on that matter in the near future.


POSSIBILITY OF USE OF RETAIL CREDIT CORPORATION BY DEPARTMENTS TO OBTAIN INFORMATION
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Will the minister advise whether any department of the federal government is a client of the Retail Credit Corporation or company, or of any other commercial reporting agency and, if so, does it use the information received for purposes other than as an employer?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am
sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I was not paying attention and I did not hear the question.


Ronald George Atkey: I will repeat my question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister advise whether any department of the federal government is a client of the Retail Credit Corporation or company, or of any other commercial reporting agency and, if so, does it use the information received for purposes other than as an employer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would respectfully suggest to the hon. member that this question should be placed on the order paper. If there is any urgency, it can be considered at the time of adjournment.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact this has been declared Consumer Week, and in view of the concern across the country about these data banks, will the minister make a statement in the House outlining the government's position on the right to privacy and what precisely the government intends to do about it to protect Canadians?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter about which I am very disturbed as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I think, however, this is something that falls more directly within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice with regard to developing policy proposals for presentation to the House.


IMPOSITION BY UNITED STATES OF COUNTERVAILING DUTY ON MICHELIN TIRES-POSSIBLE CANADIAN ACTION THROUGH U.S. COURTS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, this question is supplementary to the first questions which were asked earlier of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He advanced a novel suggestion toward the end of his last answer that unless the United States did what Canada hoped and desisted from anything in the nature of discriminatory action the matter could be taken to the United States courts. That is a most novel suggestion. I would ask him to what courts the administration of the United States would be taken if it failed to do that which Canada desires?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there is a provision under the Tariff Act of 1930, I believe, whereby aggrieved parties can take action in the United States customs courts. Those are the courts I was referring to.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the minister going back to 1930, but we are now in 1973. I ask the minister what courts Canada can go to in order to punish, admonish or secure an injunction against the United States of America? That is the question.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the United States federal court system, and I do not think it is a question of securing an injunction so much as it is a question of securing a judgment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does the minister suggest that in order for Canada to get justice it would have to go to a United States court in any proceeding? That is one of the most nonsensical answers ever given.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in his capacity as minister in charge of the prairie farm rehabilitation administration. In view of the fact that the fees for patrons of PFRA community pastures across the west have been increased by some 30 per cent at the same time that the main estimates show that the operating costs have not gone up in terms of what the government is putting in, can the minister inform the House why there has been this increase?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the reason for the increase, as I believe was stated in the public announcement, is that there has been a substantial increase in the operating cost of these pastures and the two will just about even out under the new arrangement. I call the hon. member's attention to the representations he made to me earlier which were also acted on in that we have substantially
1930

March 6, 1973
Oral Questions
increased the amount of the benefit to the users of these and other pasture lands in terms of deep water wells, dams for cattle and so on.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the increase of expenditures in this area does not necessarily mean an expansion of community services to producers in terms of grazing land, can the minister outline any program under PFRA to increase community pastures in the west where those possibilities arise?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in a very general way I might say that I have had consultations with one of the ministers of the government of Saskatchewan, and my officials have also discussed the same subject with officials of the government of Saskatchewan with a view to getting certain changes made in the ARDA agreement, but at the moment this has not been completed.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who is in charge of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. In view of the concern that has been expressed to me by the supervisory staff of the Cape Breton Development Corporation employed at Princess Colliery that there may be a shutdown of operations for a three-month period as a result of lack of proper development work underground and an apparent shortage of necessary equipment for a long time in the future at this coal mine, would the minister investigate the situation as soon as possible and provide a report?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to do so.


SUGGESTION THAT FEDERAL GRANTS BE PAID DIRECTLY TO QUEBEC ATHLETES
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
In view of the fact that, to safeguard its autonomy, the province of Quebec is refusing federal grants to amateur sports, would the minister tell the House whether he is studying the possibility of direct financial assistance to qualified athletes?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to answer this question as it is rather a matter under my department's jurisdiction. I am not aware of the facts mentioned by the hon. member. I am going to inquire about this and inform the House at a later date, if necessary. If the hon. member will

call specific facts to my attention, I will gladly look into them.


HIGH WATER LEVEL IN LAKE ERIE-REQUEST THAT ARDA FUNDS BE PROVIDED IN CERTAIN AREAS SUFFERING EROSION
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that $2.7 million remains available for flood control at the western end of Lake Erie under the ARDA program, will he indicate that the same assistance can be provided for other areas along Lake Erie which are suffering from erosion damage?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, this money was made available under the ARDA agreement which is for the protection of agricultural land and was made on the advice of the Ontario government. The federal government agreed to share 50-50 in that plan.


William David Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the minister and some of his colleagues are meeting with their counterparts from the provincial government of Ontario in the near future, will he put forward the suggestion that the federal government would be willing to use the ARDA program to compensate farmers for farmlands lost through erosion?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That matter was discussed with ministers from Ontario who were here in Ottawa this morning, and that compensation was agreed upon.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the growing complaints of failure by the government to establish a reliable postal service to and from Canadians serving in Viet Nam, will the hon. gentleman indicate what steps he is taking to remedy this situation?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly doing what is needed to insure better service to Canadians in this country, and we are also taking sill the necessary steps so that Canadians in Viet Nam will receive their mail regularly.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, do I take it from the hon. gentleman's reply that in addition to the other problems facing Canadians serving in Viet Nam they are to be assured only of the same poor quality of service as Canadians everywhere receive?
March 6, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question would appear to be argumentative.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries. Now that the federal government has legalized as well as subsidized the catching of whales in Hudson Bay as an attraction for tourists, will he inform the House why he placed a ban on commercial whaling on the Atlantic coast and refused to take the scientists' recommendation of sustained yield quotas of sei and fin whales at Blandford, Nova Scotia?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the taking of Beluga whales in Hudson Bay this coming summer is under review.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of the fact that the world's whaling nations are planning to catch 38,000 whales this year while Canada's quota is only 265 whales, has the minister received any indication from the International Whaling Commission that it is prepared to accept a ten year moratorium on the catching of whales?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the world's whaling nations met in London last July and looked critically at the Canadian take of whales. It was partly because of criticism from other whaling nations that we stopped taking of whales off our coast.


INQUIRY AS TO STUDY ON CATCHING OF WHALES IN HUDSON BAY
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. Did the Department of the Environment prepare an impact study on the effect of the program of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to help finance tourist interest in whale hunting in Hudson Bay and, if not, is such a study now being undertaken and when will it be made public?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer basically is no. As I said before, we are reviewing the matter of whether or not we will grant licences this summer.
Oral Questions


MANPOWER
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Last Thursday in the House in answer to a question of mine he said that the officials of his department were not acting upon his instructions when former Liberal candidates notified local initiatives program applicants that their applications had been approved before they were notified by the department. If that is not the case, I should like to ask the minister upon whose instructions officials of his department are acting if not upon his?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am not even sure how the defeated candidate got the information, but I presume that the sponsor of the LIP project would be in communication with him and perhaps should have shared it with my hon. friend.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Since this has happened in many ridings and there are many such cases, would the minister undertake to investigate the matter and report to the House?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker-


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


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I understand the minister wishes to answer my question. If he did not hear it, perhaps I could repeat it. Since this has happened in several ridings across the country and there are many cases, will the minister undertake to investigate the matter and report to the House?


Robert Knight Andras: It is an interesting suggestion and I will give it consideration.


FINANCE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance arising from the recent budget. In light of the confusion that appears to exist with regard to the postponement of the capital gains tax on family farms, would the minister inform the House whether the policy of the government would allow a farmer upon his death to pass the farm on to more than one member of his family? For example, could a farmer upon his death leave the farmhouse to one member of the family and the land to another?

March 6, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the minister to give his interpretation of a statute. In that respect the question is not in order.


RESERVE FUND HOLDINGS OF UNITED STATES
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the renewed monetary crisis, has the government contacted the United States authorities with a view to obtaining exchange guarantees for our large and increasing holdings of U.S. dollars?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we have gone over this road before. I will be seeing the Secretary of the Treasury in Paris later this week and we will be talking about a number of things relating to reserves.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a short supplementary question for the minister, Mr. Speaker. When the minister goes to Paris will he take with him a very firm policy on what the position with regard to the value of the Canadian dollar will be in terms of other world currencies?


John Napier Turner: I will take a very firm policy on the floating dollar, Mr. Speaker.


HIGH WATER LEVEL IN LAKE ONTARIO-RESULT OF MEETING WITH PROVINCIAL OFFICIALS
Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the meeting today between the minister and the provincial minister responsible for resource development policy, would the minister indicate whether the provincial minister indicated what steps he would take, if any, respecting the high water levels in Lake Ontario?


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the officials from Ontario did not come for the purpose of advancing any proposals. They did ask us what programs we had at the federal level either for building protective works or for providing funds for the compensation of those who suffered flood damage. We described those programs to them and they may take advantage of one or the other of those programs.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Did the provincial minister indicate that they would be making any studies on an urgent basis to find out-


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: I rise on the same point I have raised on two recent occasions. This is a flagrant abuse of the ordinary procedures in the House. These gentlemen get $4,000 a year extra for answering questions, not asking them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: He does not do either very well.


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


Norman Augustine Cafik: I rise in defence of the fact that I put a question. It has been a longstanding tradition, at least during my membership in the House of Commons of over five years, that parliamentary secretaries have been recognized and I expect will continue to be recognized. In addition, the constituents whom I represent are entitled to have answers to these questions which seriously affect them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Resign!


An hon. Member:: Go to your caucus!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We had a debate on this very interesting issue some time ago. I indicated that I was not prepared to make a distinction between backbenchers on the government side and members of other parties. I think there can be no question that they have the right at any time to ask questions the same as the frontbenchers or backbenchers of any other party do. I said at the time that I had some reservations-they were related perhaps more to propriety than to the procedural aspect of the problem-about parliamentary secretaries being placed in the position of both answering and asking questions to the extent where we might have a parliamentary secretary asking a question of another parliamentary secretary.
The difficulty, of course, is whether parliamentary secretaries are allowed at all to reply to questions on behalf of ministers. If we recognize that parliamentary secretaries have a right to reply to questions on behalf of ministers, I have wondered whether it was proper to allow them at the same time to ask questions. I felt that the problem was worthy of consideration.
The hon. member for Peace River suggested in order to be helpful, I believe, which he was, that this matter might be looked into along with many others that have been referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. That committee will be meeting within the next few days and perhaps it could look into this situation.

I know the committee will want to look with interest into a problem of such burning actuality and examine the arguments which could be brought forth in support of the right or privilege of parliamentary secretaries to ask questions and answer those which could be raised by other members.
March 6, 1973



I think that the suggestion that the matter might be looked into by the committee is good. In the meantime, I felt that perhaps these hon. members should be allowed to ask questions. I must say in all objectivity that until now the right has not been abused by parliamentary secretaries.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue with the supplementary question that I was in the process of putting to the Minister of the Environment, would the minister indicate if the provincial minister in question indicated to him whether he would conduct urgent studies into the nature of the problem in order to come forward with recommendations?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, they will conduct those studies, Mr. Speaker.


PORT HOPE, ONT.-ASSISTANCE TO THOSE WHO SUFFERED DAMAGE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Was the very serious flooding and damage at Port Hope, Ontario, last weekend brought to the minister's attention and, if so, is there any federal government program to assist those people who suffered damage?
Oral Questions


WHEAT-DISPARITY BETWEEN COST OF HOPPER CARS PURCHASED BY GOVERNMENT AND THOSE BOUGHT BY UNITED STATES RAILWAY
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and concerns the hopper cars recently purchased by the federal government. In view of the fact an American railroad has purchased 1,000 hopper cars of the same size, 100 tons, and the same capacity, 3,300 bushels, for $18 million or $6,000 per car cheaper than the Canadian government paid, can the minister explain the discrepancy between the American and the Canadian prices for what appears to be the same kind of cars designed to carry the same product and the same load?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I noticed a reference to this matter on an earlier occasion and I have asked for a report on the exact nature of the cars involved in the order referred to. There is a good deal of room for difference in the engineering and make-up of cars, even though they are superficially the same size, with regard to braking systems and the existence or nonexistence of bearings in the wheel system, and so on.


Jack Burnett Murta: Twelve million dollars worth? Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


AIR TRANSPORT
John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The prospective damage there has also been brought to our attention. As I said, we did describe the federal program which is in support of provincial programs to take care of damage of that kind.


FINANCE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact the Canadian government has entered into an international agreement that regulates charter travel, is the minister aware that people living in areas remote from major international airports are being discriminated against by the air charter regulation amendments which allow only one point of origin on booked charter flights and which is obviously a misinterpretation of the international agreement on air charters?


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he would be prepared to give us at his very early convenience a breakdown of the estimated cash requirements of the government for the next fiscal year, a breakdown of the approximately $2 billion the minister has indicated he requires in cash in addition to the proposed budgetary deficit?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will take that under consideration.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that chartered aircraft in Canada, particularly those from abroad, are subject to the same restrictions as those which apply to our own aircraft in foreign countries.


Frank Oberle: The minister replies that we have special regulations for our own charters, but this is an international agreement and in the United States the airlines are not restricted by this kind of regulation.

March 6, 1973
Oral Questions HOUSING


REASONS FOR INCREASE IN LUMBER PRICES
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that lumber prices have risen very dramatically over the last year, in some cases as much as 100 per cent, and in view of the fact this is causing a rapid escalation in the price of new housing in Canada, can the minister indicate whether officials of his department are investigating this matter and can he inform the House what factors are causing it?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, that is really a question for the Minister of Finance, not for me. I understand that demand in the United States is reflected in large measure in the increased price in Canada. I would be happy to give the hon. member a fuller explanation later.


Harvie Andre: In view of the rapid escalation in the cost of housing, which I am informed is to a large degree attributable to the rapid use in the cost of lumber, can the minister indicate what steps he is contemplating or will recommend that the government initiate to keep the price of housing within reach oi thousands and millions of Canadians who so far have been unable to afford a house of their own?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would suggest that such information should be conveyed to the House by way of a statement on motions.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the severe criticisms directed at the minister's department with regard to the Canada Pension Plan by the hon. member for Simcoe North and myself during the recent study of the department's supplementary estimates, is the minister in a position to tell the House now or at the first opportunity on motions whether he has conducted a review of his medical advisers under the Canada Pension Plan or any other action he has taken?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, about the issue raised by the hon. member and others on this side of the House, I can say that I am reviewing this question with the officers of my department; I hope to be able to announce certain developments concerning this within a few days, at most within a few weeks.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Taylor (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the apparent change of policy by the United States government in imposing restrictions on the importation of whale meat into that country, would the minister investigate the effect of this regulation upon the whaling industry at the port of Churchill, and would he also make representations to that government in order to obtain exemption from such restrictions?


Hon. lean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see that the hon. member for Churchill approves the project we have undertaken for the Indians in the area and that he hopes the American government will not impose restrictions on whales caught by the Indians in that area. Consequently, I shall see whether or not representations to the American government are indicated in this regard.


CANADIAN CULTURE
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for mul-ticulturalism. In view of the fact that for a number of years now the Saskatchewan provincial library has been buying books in the languages of the major ethnic groups in Saskatchewan, in view of the fact their budget is limited, and in view of the fact that last year when they attempted to get a grant from the Department of the Secretary of State they were refused because they were a provincial government agency, is the minister considering revising official government policy of last year in order to make it possible for the provincial library to extend its collection of books in French, German, Ukrainian, Polish, Hungarian, Dutch, Slovak-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask the question as promptly as possible. I hope he does not propose to run through all languages, known and unknown.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: -and library books in other languages as well?


Hon. lames Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the scope of the question I should like to take it as notice.
March 6, 1973


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. When he sets up the negotiating committee that the Prime Minister approved when the Yukon Native Brotherhood presented its brief, will he ensure that there are members on the federal side of the negotiating team selected from residents of the Yukon Territory, preferably through the Commissioner in Council?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have already considered that possibility. We have received requests to that effect from various people and organizations in the Yukon, and we intend to start consultations in concert with some Yukon residents.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill larvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the fact that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and many other farm groups regard the budget provisions for taxation of farm marketing quotas as, to use their words, "thoroughly inequitable and hopelessly complex", what steps does the minister intend to take to correct this situation and, specifically, will he undertake that such quotas will have valuation day values as do all other capital assets?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, though not accepting the premise of the question, may I say I met with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture executive last week and we will be meeting and discussing these matters further. I am not of the opinion that they are that dissatisfied.


CONSULTATION WITH MINISTER ON TARIFF REDUCTIONS ON HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND BEEF PRIOR TO BUDGET
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Was the minister consulted about the changes that were to be made by the budget involving the reduction of tariffs on horticultural products and beef, and if he was consulted did he agree with them?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that this is a very consultative group on this side of the House and that we discuss many things. I think he understands also how the budget is prepared and that he has to wait as I do until it is presented to the House.
Oral Questions


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is a poor way for any government to do business. I ask the minister, what reciprocal benefits will come to Canadian farmers by way of other countries lowering their tariffs?


Eugene Whelan: Again, Mr. Speaker, many of these matters are under discussion. As late as yesterday they were under discussion in Washington by myself and the Secretary of Agriculture of that country.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, that is just another way of saying none.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before calling orders of the day I will recognize the hon. member for St. Catharines.


HIGH WATER LEVELS IN GREAT LAKES-POSSIBILITY OF LOWERING BY DIVERSION INTO MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM
Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of the Environment concerning water levels in the Great Lakes system. As the city of Chicago needs lots of water because of its pollution problems, have negotiations been carried on with the state of Illinois to lower the level of the water in the Great Lakes system by emptying it through Lake Michigan into the Mississippi Valley system, which is what Illinois and Chicago have wanted for a number of years?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Canadian government over many years has been to resist any diversion through the Chicago drainage canal into the Mississippi River system. If an attempt were made in the next few weeks, for example, to remove water through the present canal, only a very small amount could be discharged into the Mississippi. This would have a marginal effect on Lake Michigan and none at all on Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.


J. Trevor Morgan: I agree with the minister that it would not help the condition this year. Does the minister not agree that an adequate treaty could be made between the government of Canada and the state of Illinois to regulate water levels properly so that an adequate system of controls could be effective throughout the Great Lakes system?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have a basic policy, that we are opposed to the export of water from the Great Lakes and from Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Harney:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to the answer given by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The minister suggested that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has no direct involvement in authorizing rent increases in limited dividend housing projects. I

March 6, 1973
Effect of Budgetary Proposals believe the minister has been misinformed or has never received information to the effect that most standard forms of lease used by owners of such limited dividend projects contain a clause which provides in part as follows:
The tenant agrees that should Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approve a rental increase for the rented premises then, and in that event, the rental hereinbefore set forth shall be increased to the amount approved by the said Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order. It is, rather, a point of debate between the minister and the hon. member. Perhaps the matter might be pursued tomorrow during the question period. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Consideration of the Business of Supply-The President of the Privy Council.
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if it would be proper for me to raise a point of order at this time on the proposed motion. I should like to do so at the earliest appropriate moment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Chair, without putting the motion formally, might at least read it so that it is on the record and so that hon. members who may have arguments to submit in respect of the motion might be given an opportunity to do so.


ALLOTTED DAY S.O. 58-NON-CONFIDENCE MOTION-   ALLEGED INADEQUACY OF 1972 BUDGET PROVISIONS FOR CORPORATIONS AND 1973 PROPOSALS TO MEET COUNTRY'S NEEDS
Mr. Speaker:: The motion is as follows. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) would move:
That this House expresses its lack of confidence that the combination of the corporate tax reductions and accelerated depreciation write-offs contained in the Budget of May, 1972 and proposals contained in the Budget of February, 1973 constitutes an adequate and equitable response to the needs of the country.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I regret the necessity of raising a point of order on this proposed motion. However, it seems to be so seriously deficient that one would be lacking in respect for the usages of parliament and the House of Commons if the opportunity were lost of pointing out the deficiencies in this particular motion, as proposed.
May I begin by referring Your Honour and hon. members of the House to Votes and Proceedings for Wednesday, February 22, 1973. On page 155 of Votes and Proceedings the following is recorded:

The House resumed debate on the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton), seconded by Mr. MacEachen,- That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
The record goes on to state that at 5.45 o'clock p.m. Mr. Speaker interrupted the proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 60(8), and the question being put on the said motion, it was agreed to on the following division, 143 members supporting the motion approving the budgetary policy of the government and 102 members opposing the budgetary policy of the government. That is the basis upon which I have founded my point of order, as today the notice of motion that has been put before the House deals with that very question which has already been dealt with and decided upon in this House. The notice of motion reads:
That this House expresses its lack of confidence that the combination of the corporate tax reductions and accelerated depreciation write-offs contained in the Budget of May, 1972 and proposals contained in the Budget of February, 1973 constitutes an adequate and equitable response to the needs of the country.
The House has already declared itself upon the budgetary policy of the government, as contained in the budget of February, 1973. The House of Commons debated the matter for six days. When the budget was before the House there was an opportunity, as provided under the rules, for members to move an amendment and subamendment and, on the final day, for a vote to be taken disposing of the budgetary policy of the government, or disposing of the motion which read:
That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
The motion presently proposed tries to revive the same subject. It tries to revive the matter of the budgetary policy of the government, a matter that has already been adopted, and it now asks the House to regard as inequitable and inadequate the budgetary policy which the House just last week approved in general.
My first submission is this: Standing Order 60 provides a method by which the House can come to grips with the budgetary policy which has been presented. The House can come to grips with this policy through a certain procedure, and having failed to win support on previous amendments, it is not now open for the leader of the official opposition to bring forward a third amendment to the budget.
In addition to that point, may I draw Your Honour's attention to Standing Order 35 which reads:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of His Excellency or the person administering the Government of Canada;-
I am not suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has done that. I shall continue reading:
-nor use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof. No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
It seems to me crystal clear, if I may use a phrase frequently used by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the House in a formal vote has already approved the budgetary policy of the government. Today the House is asked to declare these policies as inequitable and inadequate. If that is not a reflection upon
March 6, 1973

the vote of the House of Commons made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in the words put before the House in the motion, nothing is. I suggest that if this motion is put before the House it will certainly constitute a very direct reflection upon a vote already made by the House of Commons.
I will come to the final point of my argument. If the preceding two points have not been convincing to my hon. friends, perhaps the paragraph that I shall read from Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, citation 200(1), will have the desired effect. The citation reads as follows:
An old rule of Parliament reads: "That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House." Unless such a rule were in existence, the time of the House might be used in the discussion of motions of the same nature and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arrived at in the course of the same session.
The old rule of parliament is a very sound rule. In this session, just a week ago, the House of Commons approved the budgetary policies of the government. This motion asks the House this week to condemn as inequitable and inadequate the budgetary policies of the government. I suggest that one of the functions of the rules of parliament is to prevent the House from reaching contradictory conclusions, and one of the purposes of the rules of the House of Commons is to prevent members of the House from making fools of themselves to the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Presumably the hon. member who is proposing to move the motion is hoping desperately that the motion will carry. What would the situation be if it did carry, at least from a logical point of view aside from other consequences that my hon. friends may wish? The logical situation may be that last week the House of Commons approved the budget and this week it disapproves it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, before I commence, I wonder if the minister will file the power of attorney he exercised in this connection from his hon. friends to the left.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I looked at my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I was hoping he might intervene because I have here a list of the various statements made by his leader, passionate purpose prose in which the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) disclosed his views about the issue of this subject matter. I expected the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to spring to the defence of his leader in an effort to have this matter ventilated and made the subject of discussion, but I see this is not to be the case.
Never have I heard such an effort made by a government to circumscribe opportunities for fair debate in this House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Effect of Budgetary Proposals


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: -which have been slowly diminishing over the years. Since the 1968 election, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his friends have surely and inexorably attempted, and in many cases have succeeded, to take from this House opportunities to debate matters of consequence. My party and the people of this country take a serious view of this attempt to interfere with the traditional and historical rights of this House to challenge governments on the issue of supply.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: In any discussion of this matter, Mr. Speaker, that is a principle which dare not be forgotten. I ask Your Honour to examine the terms of the motion which stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) as follows:
That this House expresses its lack of confidence that the combination of the corporate tax reductions and accelerated depreciation write-offs contained in the Budget of May, 1972 and proposals contained in the Budget of February, 1973 constitutes an adequate and equitable response to the needs of the country.
What is it that this House decided when the vote was taken last Wednesday with regard to the question raised by the government House leader? "That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government." What budgetary policy? I will not take the time, and I suppose I would be out of order if I did, to outline what I thought of the budgetary policy. That has been done most effectively. However, the budgetary policy is contained in the budgetary proposals introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on February 19, and which are the subject of Ways and Means resolutions. There is no question at all that an examination of the minister's speech on that day refers to a number of items. The minister started off by addressing some preliminary remarks on this issue and then we find the heading "May, 1972, Budget Measures". Referring to the budget of February 19, 1973, the Minister of Finance said and I quote:
This budget reinforces and builds upon the budget which I put before the House last May.
Obviously, the Minister of Finance, this House and the people of this country made the clearest possible distinction between the budgetary proposals contained in the budget which the Minister of Finance placed before the House in 1972 and the measures which the Minister of Finance placed before the House on February 19, 1973. Here is the Budget Speech which was circulated in the country and to all members of the House. It differentiates in every way between the budgetary proposals of May, 1972 and February, 1973. At page nine, the minister recapitulates what was attempted in the budget of 1972 which was not passed. He is peering into the future, dealing with unemployment and inflation. Then he says: "I now turn to the budget measures themselves." What measures? The measures he is intending to bring forward, measures expressed in the ways and means resolutions which attach to the budget and which are restricted exclusively to the budget proposals of February, 1973.

March 6, 1973
Effect of Budgetary Proposals
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that what the Leader of the Opposition has placed before the House amounts quite simply to a combination of two issues, the effect of the reductions to corporations and accelerated depreciation allowance write-offs contained in the budget of 1972, and the proposals contained in the budget of February,
1973.	How could any reasonable person suggest that these could be compared in any way with the subject of the vote which was taken in this House last Wednesday?
I do not intend to stop at this point. I believe there is an issue here so fundamental and so important that the House should consider what is involved. The procedure under which we presently examine budgetary measures and supply measures was introduced following proposals which were considered in 1968 and 1969 after discussion by the Committee on Procedure and Organization. What has been the situation, traditionally? It has always been fundamental to the parliamentary system of government that supply cannot and should not be granted until there has been every opportunity to seek redress of grievances. This is a right which goes back to Cromwell and Charles I, and it has been embodied in our system of supply, in the way in which parliament deals with the voting of money to the government.
In the course of the debate which took place at the time the present rules were considered, some interesting comments were made. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in one of his rare contributions to our debates, had this to say on December 10, 1968, as reported in Hansard at page 3784 of Volume TV, 1968-69:
For purposes of supply business the Committee proposes that the annual session be divided into three periods. On five days between the opening of the session and December 10, the opposition would select the business of the House with complete freedom.
I underline the words "with complete freedom". A similar thought was expressed by Mr. Gordon Blair, then a Member of Parliament and chairman of the select committee:
In connection with allotted opposition days I would emphasize that it is the recommendation of the Committee that the opposition would have complete freedom to choose whatever topic for debate it desires.
These are words which the Chair should bear in mind in reaching a decision on this particular proposal.
Then again, the report of the Committee on Procedure and Organization dated March 13, 1968 contains the following words with reference to a proposal to alter the manner of dealing with supply-there had been some discussion about British practice:
The British practice, while it avoids discussion of the estimates items, has the great value that it permits the Opposition to explore whatever shortcomings, either small or great, it detects in the policies and conduct of the ministry before supply is voted.
These are very wide words and must be read in conjunction with the rule which is not being considered. The report continues:
If our sessions were normally to begin in October it should be possible to complete the business of supply before the end of June. If the Opposition had entirely at its disposal a certain number of allotted days to be taken between the day on which the Address in 
Reply is adopted and the end of June, the Opposition would then have an adequate opportunity to publicize the shortcomings it sees in the ministry.
Following the debate on the tabling of this report and the adoption of the new rules, the new rules came into being. They replaced the practice of permitting the widest possible discussion on the motion to go into supply, at which time any matter, any issue, could be debated. This had been the practice for many years. It is the substitution for this practice which we are now considering.
I recognize that Your Honour's attention has been drawn to a precedent which appears in Beauchesne, paragraph 201, but it is surely incumbent upon the Chair to exercise the utmost vigilance in circumstances such as these. Even if this motion were closer to the line than it is, there would be a heavy responsibility upon the Chair to look very sharply indeed at any argument which sought to limit the opportunities available to the opposition to discuss shortcomings in the policies of the government before granting supply. This is the fundamental issue before us. Your Honour is, in effect, being urged to restrict the limited rights which this House presently enjoys to call attention to shortcoming, to bring forward grievances and to seek redress. This would be the result if the Chair were to give effect to what the government House leader is urging.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Througnout the session, questions
addressed to the Minister of Finance have had the effect of making a clear distinction between the budget proposals in May, 1972 and the budget proposals of February 19, 1973. For example, as recorded at page 22 of Hansard of January 5, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) asked the Minister of Finance the following question:
In view of the indication that the bills left over from his old budget relating to income tax, corporation income tax and so on will be reintroduced, is it the intention of the minister that the House consider these bills immediately or that they should be considered at the time he presents his new budget in 1973?
The minister's answer made it quite plain that he recognized this distinction.
On February 6, as reported at pages 993 and 994, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) put this question to the Minister of Finance:
May I ask the Minister of Finance one or two questions on the general subject which has been raised? May I ask whether, in view of the fact that the reduction in corporate taxes and the accelerated write-off in respect of certain machinery and equipment which he proposed last May were justified by him on the basis of the need to protect Canadian manufacturing against the Disc program in the United States, and in view of the fact that all information so far has shown that the effect of the Disc program has been minimal on Canadian manufacturing, he is now reconsidering the corporation rip-off which he proposed last May?
The Minister of Finance made it quite clear in his answer that he recognized this distinction clearly existed between what he intended to do in the budget to be brought in, and the budgetary proposals of May, 1972.
March 6, 1973

Again as reported in Hansard for February 13 at page 1225, the hon. member for York South, persisting in his interest in this matter, said:
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance on another topic. It arises out of the report of a survey of corporate profits for 1972. In view of the fact that this survey shows an increase in corporate profits of 20 per cent in 1972 over 1971 ... is the minister reconsidering the additional concessions to what I have called the corporate welfare bums that he suggested last May?
On three other occasions this clear distinction was made, and it was repeated in the 1973 budget. I submit to the Chair it cannot be suggested that distinction is not to be made between the budgetary proposals of May 1972 and the budget of 1973. What we did in challenging the budgetary policy of 1972-not the policies but the budgetary policy-was to vote against the policy contained in that budget. If what the minister contends is given effect to, this would be the result. Once the motion has been passed there is a complete taboo. No hon. member would be able to discuss any of the areas relating to the budgetary proposals which are the subject of the motion. However, I will make this admission. If we had brought into this House a motion couched in identical terms as the motion with which we sought to amend the budget, then a very good case might well be made out for saying that citation 200 read by the government House leader, and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would apply. But that is not the case.
If you take the situation that would result from the application of the budgetary proposals of May 1972, and add to it the proposals contained in this 1973 budget, then by putting them together we can say that the combination is such that, in the terms of this motion, it does not constitute "an adequate and equitable response to the needs of the country". I submit to Your Honour that it would take a great stretching, a great torturing of those words to permit you to say to the Leader of the Opposition, in a matter as important as the granting of supply, an issue that traditionally and historically goes back so far it has become woven into the tapestry of our parliamentary structure, that because of the terms of this motion we are prohibited from continuing debate.
I could take more time, Mr. Speaker, but my point is that the government is inhibiting the opposition's opportunities to place before the House the substance of this motion. I conclude by pointing out that there are many instances of motions having been moved by members of the New Democratic Party, and by members of the Credi-tistes party, dealing with matters that constituted part of a preceding budget, In no way and at no time was it suggested on those occasions that it was not competent for a member to proceed with the motion, have it discussed, the question put and the views of the House recorded.
I leave the matter with Your Honour, but I repeat that I take the most serious view of the attempt to further restrict the very limited opportunities that exist for members of this House to have the right to challenge the government in respect of supply. If we are prohibited from proceeding with a motion of this kind, then as far as I can see the whole business of supply and the rights of the opposition might just as well go out of the window.
Effect of Budgetary Proposals


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) I take a very serious view of the procedural point that we are debating this afternoon. I feel very strongly that Your Honour should find this motion out of order.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: No doubt.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But before there are any catcalls, may I make it perfectly clear-I suppose I should say crystal clear-that we of the New Democratic Party are not in the least embarrassed by this motion. We regard it as somewhat silly, as an attempt to go both ways, but we will be quite happy to have it debated. We want to see the issue ventilated, and if Your Honour sees fit to allow this motion procedurally, we shall be quite happy to vote against it when it is called at 9.45 tonight.
May I point out that among the points of confusion and contradiction contained in the motion is the very clear suggestion that the corporate tax reductions proposed in 1972 are not adequate. What the sponsors of this motion want, Mr. Speaker, is an even greater reduction in corporate tax than that proposed by the Minister of Finance. We do not take that position. Therefore, if this motion comes to a vote, there is no question where we stand: we are opposed to it.
Speaking of the motion, may I point out that there is an interesting citation in Beauchesne, which I admit relates to amendments but I think should also apply to motions. It is to be found in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition at page 171, citation 203(1), and I should like to read the relevant sentence:
Every amendment-
As I say, this deals with amendments but I think it should also apply to motions.
-proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the House the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
I submit that this motion does not meet that criterion. On the one hand, it seeks to convey the impression that it is a vote against the corporate tax reduction, and therefore it is supposed to trap us. On the other hand, it leaves the way open for the Progressive Conservatives to say that when the vote does come on the corporate tax reduction they can vote against it because they want a greater reduction. I suggest that kind of playing fast and loose with the procedures of this House does not become a group of men and women who are known as the Official Opposition in this House of Commons. Apart from my procedural objection to this motion, I think it is stupid. I think it would be a waste of time to have a debate on this motion today, but as I say my main concern is that I think it is procedurally wrong.
Although I had intended to leave this part of my argument to the end, I am switching my thoughts and I shall deal with it now. I want to deal with the main argument advanced by the hon. member for Peace River. His contention is that there is an ancient and sacred right that permits the House of Commons to have a redress of grievances before supply is granted. When any hon. member of this House stands up and talks about ancient rules, I am with him.

March 6, 1973
Effect of Budgetary Proposals


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You and Cromwell.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon.
member says there must be no curtailment by the government House leader or by Your Honour of the rights of private members in the House of Commons to seek redress before supply is granted. I remind the hon. member for Peace River, the rest of the House and Your Honour, that there is a citation on this point of very particular significance.


Steve Eugene Paproski: 32 B.C.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is to be found on pages 198 and 199 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, and this is the main citation regarding the ancient doctrine about the redress of grievances. The preliminary sentence reads:
The ancient doctrine that the redress of grievance should be considered before the grant of supplies is maintained in the House of Commons of Canada-
We all say "hear, hear" to that, but I ask the hon. member to go on and read the next paragraph, and this is in reference to the rule under which a supply motion is presented. Our structure is a little different since the rules were changed in 1968, but basically we are still under the rules, under the traditions and the regime of supply. I ask the House, and Your Honour in particular, to listen to this: When such motion is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the Federal Parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance; provided that the discussion shall not relate to any decision of the House during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed to the Committee of Ways and Means-
Sir, one almost needs to read no other citation. The fact of the matter is that there has been a decision of the House of Commons during the current session on the general budgetary policy of the government. It is also a fact that resolutions are to be proposed to the Committee of Ways and Means.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They have not been proposed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are to be proposed. Do not interrupt unless you have read the citation. It says: "nor to any resolution to be proposed". The resolutions are to be proposed. They flow from the fact that the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) was carried. He has given us these resolutions and we have them in Votes and Proceedings. Resolutions are to be proposed to the Committee of Ways and Means regarding tax changes, and the motion that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) attempts to move today relates to the subject matter of those resolutions.
Later on the next page of the same book, or over here somewhere, there is a provision that a motion of this kind cannot deal with a bill to be presented to the House. I think the hon. member for Peace River gets his case a bit mixed up when he switches back and forth between 1972 and 1973. At times he talks about the 1973 budget as

though it stands on its own feet, and then he talks about the 1972 budget being part of this one because he uses the work "combination". I suggest this is part of the poor draftsmanship at which the official opposition seems to be so competent. Sometimes I wonder how they could ever draft bills as the government of this country when they cannot even draft proper motions as the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) seeks the floor on a question of privilege.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege has to do with the NDP write-off. For the last 11 minutes we have been listening to the House leader of the-I do not know which party it is-NDP, yet a good deal of what he has been saying has nothing to do with the point of order before us. I ask Your Honour, in making a ruling, to consider the fact that 45 minutes, and whatever length of time the hon. member continues with this kind of argument, should not be taken off the time of the debate which will ensue after the point has been decided. Most of what the hon. member is saying has no relevancy to the point of order. It is a debate and it accuses people of not having the ability to draft proper motions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: The hon. member seems to be trying to escape from the box in which that party presently finds itself. I respectfully submit that a good deal of his timeconsuming argument is not in order and should not be deducted from the debating time we are allowed after this point has been decided.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if anything I said was offensive to the hon. member, at least I shall not repeat it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: However, if the difficulty he is complaining about concerns the fact that time is being taken on the procedural point rather than on the substance of the motion, members of that party have only themselves to blame for putting forward this kind of motion.
I think I have demonstrated that the traditions and the rules about the right of grievances before voting of supply are very clear. Our rights are wide but we do not have the right to violate the rule of anticipation. As a matter of fact, perhaps I should read one more significant sentence:
The debate in such a case is limited by the rules respecting past decisions, anticipation, sedition-
The right to raise grievances on supply does not include the right to anticipate something that is coming in the normal course, or the right to reopen something which has been decided in the past.
The point which I am sure must concern Your Honour as you wrestle with this issue is the fact that on many a day when we have had an opposition motion, particularly
March 6, 1973

on days when there has been no vote, Your Honour has taken the view that you had to show leniency and had to extend latitude. I suspect you have even done it for us, but that has always been done on the understanding that the matter was not coming to a vote.
Your Honour may feel that today you should exercise some of that latitude, but I submit that to do that on a day when theoretically it would be possible for the House to make a decision which would be the very opposite of a decision it made a week ago makes this procedural point a very serious one, and I urge that you should not allow this for these procedural reasons.
I still get these interjections from here and there, but this is not embarassing to us as we are happy to have the issue ventilated, and happy to get up and be counted as to where we stand on this motion. I do not want to offend the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate, but perhaps I can go on.
I think we should note again some of the citations, even though the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEac-hen) did draw attention to them. On page 164 of Beau-chesne's Fourth Edition we find the basic rule set out in Citation 194(1) which reads:
A motion or amendment cannot be brought forward which is the same in substance as a question which has already been decided, because a proposition being once submitted and carried in the affirmative or negative cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House.
I point out, Sir, that not only do we have the fact that this House voted on the general budgetary motion moved by the Minister of Finance, we also have the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) in these words:
While acknowledging certain beneficial provisions in the budget proposals-
They always like to have it both ways, don't they? Let me continue:
-this House regrets that they do not contain measures that will substantially reduce continuing high unemployment, effectively contain the spiralling cost of living or provide any incentives to Canadians to increase their participation in Canadian business enterprise and development.
Now they ask us to pass an opinion on the budget because it does not constitute an adequate and equitable response to the needs of the country. I ask, what is the difference between talking about the needs of the country in general terms and spelling out such things as unemployment, inflation and so on. On all counts we are being asked to debate again, and take a decision on, the same subject matter and points on which we took decisions when we were on the budget debate.


An hon. Member:: What about old age pensions?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If my hon. friend wants to get into the matter of old age pensions, of course, if this motion should be ruled out of order I suppose we shall be back on government business and back on the subject of old age pensions today. Perhaps that is what my hon. friend wants. At pages 167 and 168 there are
Effect of Budgetary Proposals
found citations about reviving debate. Citation 200 (1), which is the one to which the minister referred, reads:
An old rule of Parliament reads: "That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House." Unless such a rule were in existence, the time of the House might be used in the discussion of motions of the same nature and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arrived at in the course of the same session.
I also point out, Sir, that our standing orders include Standing Order 61 which is very clear. It reads:
Only one amendment and one subamendment may be made to a motion proposed in the Budget Debate or to a motion proposed under an Order of the Day for the consideration of the business of supply on an allotted day.
We have had the one motion, the one amendment and the one subamendment to the budget debate and for the Leader of the Opposition to try to drag in another one, no matter what he proposes to call it, is a violation of the sacred rules, traditions and rights of this House. If we are to be in this position where we can give a decision one week and have it opened again the next week, I submit that something has gone wrong with the procedures of this House.
Although I repeat what I have said, that we find no problem in so far as this debate is concerned, the Conservatives are trying to embarrass us and, failing in that, are trying to prepare the ground so that when the corporate tax reductions come up they can vote against them because they will say they are not big enough. We will not fall into the trap. Neither are we going along with their proposition for even greater corporate tax cuts. In any case, Sir, we leave the decision in your hands.


Some hon. Members:: Hurrah!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear some of my friends saying "Hurrah". I could add something, but I shall not. The plain fact of the matter, of which Your Honour is well aware, is that this is a very serious procedural point. I do not think since our new rules came into effect that there has been a procedural point of this kind in respect of an opposition motion on a non-confidence day. There have been procedural points on other than non-confidence days, but this may well be the first of this kind and I submit the seriousness of violating the rules against reviving an issue on which a decision of parliament has been taken is a very important matter. Therefore, Sir, I hope you will find that this motion goes beyond the rights accorded by the rules to members of this House and that you will rule accordingly.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, after the comments of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and of the hon. member of Winnipeg-North-Cen-tre (Mr. Knowles) about the acceptability of this motion, I am surprised to see that its subject matter has already caused some discussions.
To start my comments, I would like to remind my colleagues that we must make a distinction between the subject matter and the form of this motion, and even if the New Democratic Party finds that the form is ridicu-

March 6, 1973
Effect of Budgetary Proposals
lous, being inconsistent or unjustifiable, as a member of the opposition, it is also true that I would agree with the views of the hon. member for Peace River.
However, we will vote against this motion. I will try to make comments which will be in order. Certainly we will vote against this motion of the Conservatives because its subject matter is ridiculous.
Mr. Speaker, the motion reads as follows:
That this House expresses its lack of confidence that the combination of the corporate tax reductions and accelerated depreciation write-offs contained in the Budget of May, 1972 and proposals contained in the Budget of February, 1973 constitutes an adequate and equitable response to the needs of the country.
We will vote against this motion because it is nonsense, at least as far as its subject matter is concerned, no matter what the reasons of the different parties are. If we are going to discuss, at your invitation, the acceptability of this motion, we have to talk about its subject matter and, in this respect, I am merely referring to Standing Order 58.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 58(2) lists a series of items on the business of supply and I shall not read them before the House. Opposition motions are defined as follows in paragraph (3):
Opposition motions on allotted days may be moved only by members in opposition to the government and may relate to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada-
I maintain that the motion now before the House, however ridiculous it may be, is within the jurisdiction of Parliament, anyway.
Paragraph (5) of the same Standing Order deals with the allotted time for the business of supply. I shall now put forward an argument which has apparently been Qverlooked by those who spoke before. It reads as follows:
For the period ending not later than December 10, five sitting days shall be allotted to the business of supply. Seven additional days shall be allotted to the business of supply in the period ending not later than March 26. Thirteen additional days shall be allotted to the business of supply in the period ending not later than June 30. These twenty-five days are to be designated as allotted days.
Under a general agreement between House leaders, that number of days is fairly divided in proportion to the number of members.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we cannot have opposition days whenever we choose; we have to present a motion at the time provided under Standing Orders.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre maintains that this is a question of anticipation but I think he is wrong and I believe he disavows the position he was holding at the time the government had a majority, namely that the object of an opposition day is to enable any opposition party to present a motion on supply or on the budget, in short, a substantive motion blaming the government for not having done such or such a thing and expressing doubts about the efficiency of this or that government policy.
Mr. Speaker, however ridiculous the subject matter of the motion presented by the Progressive Conservative party, which gives absolutely nothing and against which we shall vote, I nevertheless believe the hon. member for Peace River presented arguments to support the interests
[Mr. Fortin.l
of the opposition parties and I hope that the Progressive Conservative party will carefully draft their motions from now on so as not to cast any doubt on the work and rights of the opposition parties in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I might say that I would be prepared to give a ruling now, but I certainly do not want to limit the right of hon. members to contribute to the procedural debate. I am not sure whether the right hon. gentleman wishes to rise on a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I had nothing to do with the drafting of this motion. For that reason I feel I can be perfectly objective. The rule is very clear that there cannot be repetitious motions or amendments in the same session. However, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has carefully and meticulously distinguished this resolution or amendment from coming within the ambit of that general rule.
I must say that I have been tremendously moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as he wrapped himself in the unctuous purity of parliamentary perfection. If I did not know him as well as I do, I would regard his views as sanctimonious declarations in order to exculpate his party from the difficult position in which they find themselves.
It has been an interesting afternoon. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) spoke with that eloquence that always characterizes him when he has a bad case. It was interesting that, from time to time as he spoke, he turned toward the right and looked at the left.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: It reminds me of the old song "Absolutely, Mr. Gallagher; Positively, Mr. Shean". He spoke of parliament and its greatness. Then came the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and he said: "I am not a bit frightened. We don't mind what decision Your Honour makes. We are fearless and we are going to go contrary to everything that we declared during the election campaign".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: If it had not been for that declaration, Your Honour, I would not have referred to this at all during the course of what I have to say. But I have never seen anything since Damon and Pythias that equals that fine relationship. Here was the President of the Privy Council. One good turn deserves another. Only a few weeks ago the NDP threw out a life line to save the government, and in doing so saved not only the government but itself.
Today there is a return performance. I know how the heart of the President of the Privy Council burns within him as he thinks of the desperate position in which the NDP finds itself. I say these things because throughout the argument up to the present moment there have been references to parliament and what parliament stands for.
March 6, 1973

You, Sir, are in the position of being the protector of parliament, the preserver of its great traditions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The members of the Liberal party laugh. They do not regard you that way. There is no question whatever as to what the rule says. There is equally, as I see it, no question that the hon. member for Peace River has fully answered the suggestions that were made to the contrary by the President of the Privy Council. When the President of the Privy Council and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spoke of parliament and what it meant, I looked over at the government benches. What they have done in the past few years to parliament is to degrade it to a degree that has never been equaled in all the history of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The President of the Privy Council says that we must maintain the rules. These rules are not the laws of the Medes and the Persians. These rules are designed to ensure that this institution shall be the protector of freedom and that we shall have the fullest opportunity to examine supply. We do not have it today. Is parliament then effective today? Somebody asked me a moment ago whether it was fluid like this on other days. The fluidity of parliament today reminds me of a dried up creek in the month of July. There is practically no right left with us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, geese not eagles saved ancient Rome. I hear these hon. gentlemen acting the part of geese. I will remind them that they will not save their government by this kind of conduct. Today, have we any control over our expenditure in this country?


Some hon. Members:: None.


John George Diefenbaker: As a result of closure, this institution has been emasculated-it is a eunuch. There is no examination of expenditures. The expenditures go to committees. When the committees sit, the press is not there; nobody speaks out, and the result is that the various departmental estimates come back here. Do we get any chance here to speak about them? There is not an opportunity. I think of that awful scene of a few months ago when we voted through $16 billion in four and a half hours because the rules imposed by closure had actually determined the denial of the right of parliament to examination. Every time there is any motion tabled, these people stand up and parade as the lovers of parliament.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the NDP have nothing to fear. They are going to leave the conscientious declarations that they made throughout the election at the door of parliament. They will vote in support of what they condemned with all their hearts and souls. I ask you, Sir, on the basis of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Peace River not to continue this degradation of parliament. That is what it is. Do we get a chance to raise anything under Standing Order 43 any more? Nothing of the kind. On every resolution that comes up we hear the "nos" from the
Effect of Budgetary Proposals
Liberal party. Are we able to advance our efforts in regard to expenditures? The answer is no. The last opportunity we have is through the medium of amendments, because those amendments will embarrass the New Democratic Party.
Their joint allies, the government, decided to raise the question of the illegality of the amendment in question and at the same time the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) gets up and says "I don't care what you do, Mr. Speaker, we are going to vote against it".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if I remember the last words of the argument put forward by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), he stated the motion moved by the Progressive Conservative party today was identical to that moved during the budget debate, he was compelled to admit that the motion would surely be out of order.
He also said that just the same there were a few differences between the motion introduced today and that brought in during the budget debate. However, it seems obvious that both motions have something in common, namely that both specified that the budget presented by the government was unsatisfactory and that, consequently, the government had lost the confidence of the House. Now, to maintain today that the motion moved by his party is different from the one introduced last week is absolutely false and I will not make any other comment in that connection.
I will only quote four excerpts from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition; the first one appears at page 137 and reads as follows:
A mere alteration of the words of a question without any substantial change in its object will not be sufficient to evade the rule that no question shall be offerred which is substantially the same as one which has already been expressed in the present session.
At page 164, citation 194 reads as follows, and I quote:
(1) A motion or amendment cannot be brought forward which is the same in substance as a question which has already been decided, because a proposition being once submitted and carried in the affirmative or negative cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House. This rule applies to the decision taken on amendments to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. A question once put cannot be altered by the member moving it, without the consent of the House. The reconsideration of a question already decided is not allowed under British parliamentary practice, but it prevails in many public bodies and societies.
Also, at page 164, citation 200 reads as follows:
(1) An old rule of Parliament reads: "That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House." Unless such a rule were in existence, the time of the House might be used in the discussion of motions of the same nature and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arrived at in the course of the same session.
Finally, at page 172, the Speaker's ruling is commented thus:

March 6, 1973
Effect of Budgetary Proposals
(7) Mr. Speaker Sproule on the 13th February, 1913, decided that a proposed amendment which was substantially the same motion as the member had moved on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, was not in order because "a motion must not raise a question substantially identical with one on which the House has given a decision in the same session".
There is, Mr. Speaker, my modest contribution to the debate on this matter. As can be seen, I wanted to limit myself to a few appropriate quotes and not do as the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has done, that is try and get a few laughs.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) seeks the floor. Again, I wish to indicate that I am quite prepared to give a decision, but if hon. members think we should discuss the point of order rather than other things I would hear them further. However, I have some doubts whether any valuable object can be achieved by continuing the discussions on the point of order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. There is one point that I think has not been adequately made and I should like to make it as briefly as I can.
In my opinion, the situation before us today is totally without precedent. The motion before us ties together in a very fundamental way proposals which have been put forward in two budgets, not just in one budget. We are dealing with proposals that were put forward in the budget of May, 1972 and other proposals put forward in the budget of February, 1973. In both cases, Mr. Speaker, the resolutions consequent upon these budgets have yet to be presented to and approved by the House. Here we have a situation unprecedented, I believe, in the history of Canada.
The people of Canada are subject to two sets of laws simultaneously, neither of which have been approved in detail by this parliament. The motion before us is therefore a package, a package which purports to say that the two sets of proposals, those presented last year which have not yet been dealt with in detail and those presented this year which have not yet been dealt with in detail, are totally inadequate.
As for the spurious suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Lake Centre that the corporate rip-off is inadequate he must have had his tongue well extended in his cheek when he said that. It is the total effect of the package-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I do not mind being connected with the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) by way of being given his old riding in Lake Centre, but that is so far back in history perhaps I had better be called the member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If I made a slip, Mr. Speaker, it was only because the hon. member's principles have slipped so much recently that it is very difficult to keep him placed.
The point I was making, Mr. Speaker, is that the total package-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The total package presented in these two budgets is totally inadequate. It is inadequate to meet the real needs of the Canadian people-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member would not seriously suggest that he is now discussing the point of order. He is making a speech which he may want to make later if this debate is allowed to proceed. I really think that after much more than an hour on this point we should be able to limit ourselves to the strictly procedural aspect of the point which was raised originally by the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). I invite hon. members to limit their observations at this time to the procedural aspects of this matter.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I will abide by your ruling. I agree completely. I think the relevant point is that this motion is not the same as other motions which have already been dealt with during the present session but is one which goes far beyond any such motion in content and scope, since it relates to the actions of the government over a two-year period and longer. On that basis I submit the motion should be allowed. We think that a vote should be taken later tonight. We do not think the motion in any way makes a fool of the House of Commons, although we think it might do that with respect to some members of the House who are inconsistent in their voting patterns.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their enlightening contributions to the procedural debate. I could not think, when debate started, that there would be so many different aspects to this question. I had given it very serious thought during the hours which preceded the opening of the House this afternoon. It was anguished consideration which I gave to the matter in looking for light.
The Chair appreciates the comments which have been made by hon. members. They have certainly assisted me in reaching a decision in this respect. A number of arguments were made, so many I should say that I doubt if I will be able to refer to all of them. I had begun to put them down and was hoping I could refer to them individually during the last hour or so; however, many of them, I am sure, I have forgotten. There was one point made, I believe, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and perhaps by others. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) took exception to the form of the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). I think I must admit that, I, myself, have had serious doubts about the drafting of this motion.
The motion states, "That this House expresses its lack of confidence that the combination of the corporate tax-" etc. On reading this motion, I suspect what is meant is, "That this House doubts that the combination of the corporate tax reductions and accelerated depreciation" will achieve such and such a decision or result. That, indeed, is the text of the French version.

That this House expresses its lack of confidence that the combination of the corporate tax reductions and accelerated depreciation write-offs ... constitutes an adequate and equitable response to the needs of the country.
March 6, 1973



I have serious doubts myself. I have to express my lack of confidence as to whether this is a motion of non-confidence, but I think that the matter would be much too technical for me to make a ruling on that basis, and I have no intention of doing so. At the same time, I have great sympathy for those who suggest that motions of this kind perhaps ought to be drafted more clearly.
Having said this, I shall now deal with what I consider to be the more important points which have been made in this respect. Obviously, the serious procedural objections which can be made and have been made during this debate, and the most serious defect, relate to the well established practice that the House cannot be asked to vote twice on the same subject during the course of the same session. There are many citations and precedents in support of this rule. Hon. members have referred to Citation 201 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition. I think all hon. members will agree that it is a fundamental rule of parliamentary debate. Certainly, there could not be intelligent, logical and meaningful debate if the same motion were voted on by the House from time to time and repeatedly during the same session. There is no doubt that that rule is important and hon. members should try, both in their motions and amendments, to bear it in mind.
However, the rule so clear in principle is not always easy of application, and difficulty often arises as to whether a question put for determination by the House is really the same as that on which the House has already expressed itself. It could well be argued, in support of the procedural acceptability of this motion, that the motion proposed for decision today is not the same as that on which a vote was taken following the budget debate. That is the point made forcibly by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and supported by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). I put some value and importance on the point made by the hon. member for Trinity. I agree with him that he added an aspect of the situation that perhaps had not been made too clear before.
The House resolved in a previous vote that it agreed in general with the government's budgetary policy. The hon. member for Peace River suggested that the present proposed motion is a different motion in that it refers more specifically to a combination of certain aspects of the 1972 budget and proposals contained in the 1973 budget. In other words, the suggestion has been made that even if the House had approved, by its vote, the government's budgetary policy, that it may not agree to the combination of those recent proposals and those proposals contained in the 1972 budget. The argument, of course, is deserving of very serious consideration by the Chair.
I think the point made by the hon. member for Lot-biniere is also quite relevant. The Standing Order allows non-confidence motions to be moved on so-called opposition days. The Standing Order which allows non-confidence motions on opposition days is couched in very general terms. Standing Order 58(3) reads:
Opposition motions ... may relate to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada ...
That point was made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere and I think it is quite relevant. The Standing Order, as the hon. member said, gives the opposition very wide scope in
Effect of Budgetary Proposals
proposing motions. That is one of the reasons why, since the inception of this particular Standing Order in 1968, not a single opposition motion has ever been ruled out of order. On a number of occasions the Chair expressed doubts as to whether an opposition motion would not bring forward for the consideration of the House a matter on which a decision had already been taken in the course of the then current session. However, in all cases the mover was given the benefit of the doubt. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated that this had happened from time to time, but suggested that perhaps this kind of argument had never been made by the Chair or that the point of order had never been raised in the case of a supply motion which was, at the same time, a non-confidence motion.
There is at least one instance on which this point was made by the Chair. It was made when a motion was moved on January 29, 1969 by the Leader of the Opposition. On that occasion I expressed some reservation as to whether that motion, then moved by the Leader of the Opposition under Standing Order 58, might not tend to revive a question which had already been decided; but, for certain reasons, because we were operating under this very wide Standing Order, and in order to provide an opportunity for debate, the Chair reached the decision that the hon. member should be given the benefit of the doubt.
I would be inclined to reach the same decision in this instance. This is an opposition day, when a non-confidence motion can be introduced on a subject to be chosen by the mover. In my view the Speaker should not intervene to prevent debate, or a vote, unless the motion is clearly and undoubtedly irregular. When the procedural aspect is open to reasonable argument, I suggest it is the duty of the Chair to accept the motion and allow the House to make the decision on the question of confidence.
I feel very strongly that when there may be debate on whether a question is in order or not and when a reasonable argument can be made to suggest that a motion is in order, it would be extremely difficult for the Chair to interfere in such circumstances and say that the motion is out of order, cannot be submitted, cannot be debated, and cannot be voted upon. I am not setting aside in any way the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). I recognize how important it is to maintain the traditions and principles which indicate that the House should not be in the position of being asked to vote twice in the same session on the same subject.
Because there is some doubt in my mind, as evidenced by the arguments which were submitted and by the lengthy procedural debate through which we have just gone, as to whether this is a different question and as to whether hon. members are being asked to vote for a second time on the same point, I think it is the duty of the Chair to give the benefit of the doubt to the mover of the motion. On that basis, I feel that the motion has the right to be put and that the Leader of the Opposition should be heard.

March 6, 1973
Effect of Budgetary Proposals


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I move the motion, as previously read by Mr. Speaker.
The motion before the House deals with the fiscal measures that the government proposes to introduce during the present session, either by order in council or as a result of the passage of bills in this House. It deals with the budgetary proposals of February, plus the proposals regarding corporate tax cuts and fast write-offs, as proposed during the budget of May last year by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) who indicated that he intends to deal with the provisions of the present budget separately and apart from those of the budget of May 8.
These are part of the combination of fiscal measures that the government proposes to introduce. I suggest the resolution places the whole package honestly before the House as opposed to the sleight of hand that we witnessed by which the Minister of Finance sought approval of the new measures contained in the February budget and made some predictions that the measures arising from May 8, 1972 had nothing to do with the case, but that these to be introduced this year were not part of the government's fiscal proposals for this session. This is another instance where this government finds it very difficult to put something forward in an honest, straightforward manner. Clearly, the budget proposals of February, 1973 and the 1972 proposals to be implemented in 1973 are in fact part of one package, although the government attempts to treat them differently.
This resolution gives the House an opportunity to consider both the 1972 measures and the February 1973 measures as one package. The resolution deals with this package which includes corporate tax reductions and fast write-offs. As to the fast write-offs, the Minister of Finance has expressed his belief that the governor in council has the power to adopt these without the approval of this House. If I understood him correctly, the Minister of Finance indicated that he is considering doing just that. In other words, he will not be introducing the fast writeoffs into the House, but dealing with them by regulation or order in council. To do what the minister says he is considering, particularly while parliament is in session, would show the very depth of contempt for this House by the minister and his government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is only one possible reason the Minister of Finance would consider bringing in these fast write-offs by order in council or regulation rather than by approval of the House. He believes that parliament, the House of Commons in particular, would not approve of these measures if they were put before the House. That is the only possible reason the minister could have for adopting such an attitude of disrespect for the House. It is hard to imagine a more flagrant disregard for parliament than for the minister and the government to adopt, while the House is in session, a tax measure by regulation or order in council for the sole reason that the government is concerned that the House might not approve the measure.

What could be a more flagrant disregard for parliament than that?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister intends to proceed with the fast write-offs in one way or another. They should be put before this House and the House should accept the responsibility of either accepting or rejecting the government's proposals. Clearly, this is a matter of principle. Surely, all opposition members will readily agree that these tax measures should be dealt with by the House and not by the governor in council or the minister. I hope that on reflection all members of the government will also agree that these tax proposals must be dealt with by parliament. This is a question of principle going far beyond the merits of the particular tax proposals.
In so far as the budget proposals of February 1973 concern employment, they rely principally upon increasing purchasing power through the lowering of personal income taxes and increased expenditures. In other words, the government to some extent has adopted the position we advocated through 1972, the election campaign and since that time. However, I wish to emphasize that if it had been our responsibility, we would have taken a twopronged attack, that is, an expansionary budget to fight unemployment and a temporary freeze followed by subsequent methods to fight inflation. By expansionary, I mean tax cuts, eliminating the sales tax on building materials, eliminating the tax on all clothing, not just children's clothing, and a real program of incentives for small business.
I emphasize that by expansion we mean tax cuts rather than relying upon increased expenditures. If we have learned anything, it should be that if we want to create jobs and encourage enterprise in this country, the least effective way to do it can well be based on the assumption that this can be done by direct government expenditure. In other words, we believe in expansion through tax cuts not in any way adding to government waste.
Whatever emphasis the government put on the measures to increase employment in the budget presented in 1973 was directed toward increasing purchasing power. This is in marked contrast to the budget presented by the minister in May of last year. The attitude then, and this point of view was expressed by several ministers, was that there was no use increasing the purchasing power of the Canadian people. They said there was so much leakage, so much of it would go on imports, that increased purchasing power in Canada, as was expressed by the government in 1972, would not stimulate the Canadian economy. Their position in May 1972 was that it would simply go on imports.
It is strange to find that in his budget of 1973 the minister deliberately adopted measures designed to encourage not only an increase in spending power, which he said was a faulty way to go about this, but deliberately took measures to encourage expenditure by Canadians on imports. This is another in the series of very remarkable contradictions we have seen in the course of a year and sometimes in the course of a few months by this minister.
A few months ago, tax cuts were the worst thing that could happen. They would drive the country into bank-
March 6, 1973

ruptcy. A year ago a proposal to index personal income tax was sheer folly. In May 1972, any measure designed to increase the purchasing power of the consumer was sheer folly and would only be spent on imports. In 1973, with unemployment at approximately the same rate, the minister has completely reversed himself. He is now increasing purchasing power and encouraging Canadians to spend money on imports.
The minister can hardly deny that his measures are, in fact, increasing competitive pressures on Canada's producers and manufacturers. There are many instances of this. I hope the minister is looking into them. I am sure they are being brought to his attention as they are to mine. In British Columbia, where the rate of unemployment is about 8 per cent, the plywood industry and the fish packing industry are now obliged to suffer from an added competitive advantage that the minister has bestowed upon imports. General Steel Wares, a manufacturing industry unique of its kind in Canada, is now confronted with increased competition from imported goods at a time when a more sensible policy would surely be to encourage expansion and sales at the domestic level.
I could go on to give other instances. I am merely pointing out that the minister has veered around in the course of the last year; whereas the whole thrust of the May 8 budget was to improve the competitive position of the Canadian manufacturing-processing industry, this has all been forgotten as far as the February budget is concerned. The effect of the February budget is to bring about a worsening of the competitive position of large sectors of the manufacturing and processing industries in our country. Last May we were told that measures to assist industry were the only effective way in which to create more jobs, though the minister admitted it would take some time for the measures he proposed last year to bring about the desired effect. But this year the emphasis has shifted completely.
I pointed out when I spoke on the budget in May, 1972 that the minister's proposal with respect to fast write-offs and with respect to the reduction in the corporate tax write-off in connection with operations of a manufacturing or processing nature contained a number of grave shortcomings. First of all, they were of no use to corporations which, although they might be highly efficient, were losing money because of competition. In other words, they would be of no help whatever to an industry which was earning no income upon which to pay taxation. Even more important, I said then, and I repeat, those proposals were of no use to new Canadian companies. New ventures do not look forward to making a net profit for a number of years. Consequently, the minister's proposals would provide no inducement at all to Canadians to undertake new manufacturing and processing operations. Obviously, if we are to succeed in bringing unemployment down to a satisfactory level we need many new manufacturing and processing industries in this country. The minister's measures constituted no inducement in that regard. Third, the minister's proposals did nothing, and do nothing, to encourage Canadians to invest more of their money in Canadian businesses and thus to play a bigger part in the ownership of our own economy. The benefit of
Effect of Budgetary Proposals
the minister's proposals are, obviously, just as readily available and just as attractive to foreign capital as to Canadian capital; they are worth just as much to foreign subsidiaries as they are to Canadian-owned enterprises.
So, when we assess the value of the government's budgetary proposals, and say they are inadequate and inequitable in response to the needs of the country, we are pinpointing the lack of any co-ordinated approach, the lack of any real leadership. I think it is clear from what I have said today, and what I said in the debate on the budget, that the government has no strategy. There is no plan, there is no organized consistent thrust. The government just changes its proposals from year to year. Indeed, it changes them from month to month. There is no consistency in what it proposes to do. There is only the spectacle of a government fuddling through a grab bag of disconnected policies to cover up a crisis here or some need for expediency there, and this is surely a perverse luxury which cannot be afforded today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a nation, we must rely on support from a strong partnership between the public and the private sector. We are a nation which must believe in itself and which must invest in itself. We all know that these are fundamental truths. Knowing these truths, how did the government react to the fact that the over-all level of business failures in this country last year, particularly among small businesses, was the worst in any year since the depression? The answer to that question is, very simply, that the government did not react.
How has the government reacted to the fact that small business ownership in Canada is suffering severely from lack of adequate capital-I am speaking particularly of equity capital for expansion or for starting new enterprises? Again, the government has simply not reacted. Here is a vital segment of the economy, small business, which creates more goods and services and, possibly, more employment, than any other. And it is one which pays more taxes, perhaps, than any other segment of the economy. Does the government show leadership in promoting the development of small business? Is it disturbed sufficiently by the failure rate to be prompted to take quick action? Does the government offer partnership in risk-taking to make what is, really, the life blood of small business, that is to say, capital, available to this sector? The answer must be a very damning "no".
We have put forward a proposal. We sought to encourage the individual to invest in the expansion of his business or in any small Canadian business, to invest in any new enterprise on his own, or in partnership with others. We proposed a Canadian investment credit incentive, which would be available to any Canadian citizen making a direct investment in the equity of a Canadian-owned small business. The credit, which would amount to 50 per cent of qualified investments to a maximum of $5,000 each year, would either be offset against the individual's income tax for the year, or rebated directly to him. Before the credit could be granted, the business would be required to register with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, since only investment in Canadian-owned small businesses would qualify. Small business

March 6, 1973
Effect of Budgetary Proposals would include corporations with net worth up to $1 million and annual revenue of up to $10 million. In the case of corporations approaching the upper size limitations, it would be necessary to establish that new capital requirements would provide substantial additional jobs and careers in Canada. No corporation would be able to qualify as a small business if its shares were listed on a stock exchange or if it were controlled by a corporation which did not qualify.
Certain kinds of business would not qualify for investment credit. For example, oil and gas exploration and development businesses, mining businesses and the like, would not qualify. Similarly, real estate ownership and development, leasing and financial business would not qualify. The advantage of the tax credit would remain with the investor as long as he continued to hold it, but would be repayable to the government if and when the investment were realized. If the investor did not recover his full investment, the amount of credit would be half of his recovery. No capital loss deduction would be allowed. If the investor realized a gain, the gain would be taxable in the ordinary way.
I have made no pretence that this is a perfect proposal or, in specific terms, the only proposal which could be effective. I think it is a good plan. I know that such a plan is urgently needed. And this plan, at least, would have been immediately put before parliament by a Progressive Conservative government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We are all aware that there was a reference to some kind of plan for small business in the Speech from the Throne. We are all aware that the Minister of Finance has been talking about this as an area of concern. But what are we to expect from the minister when he finally gets around to producing something? All I have to go by is the reaction that he expressed to the plan that I put forward. He said:	. . it would provide an opportunity
for some individuals to reap a rich bonanza", and, even more significantly, he continued "without meeting any demonstrated need of small business for funds". In other words, the minister was not only attacking my plan but was questioning whether there was really any demonstrated need on the part of small business in Canada for this kind of equity capital.


John Napier Turner: That was not the meaning of that statement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This minister says that that was not the meaning of that statement, but like the Speaker I have to make the best I can of words that are put before me and interpret them in a fair way. That is the way that I interpreted the statement of the minister at the time it was reported in the press, and it strikes me that that is the only possible interpretation I can give it.
I think that the minister's statement is rather insulting to individual Canadians and an affront to the small business community. We say that our proposal would encourage opportunity. The Minister of Finance says that it would encourage profiteering. We say that such a policy is

needed by small businesses in Canada to allow them to get started at some time, and at other times to grow. It is needed by small business so as to encourage Canadians to grow in the Canadian economy. The minister says that the small businessman in Canada has not demonstrated the need. We say that the answers to our serious problems of unemployment and Canadian development must be found by encouraging individual initiative and enterprise. The Minister of Finance says that you cannot trust people, yet this is the same minister who was espousing such trust in his limited proposals contained in his 1972 budget which, in the nature of things, will be made available mainly to large enterprises.
We believe that the kind of incentive that we propose will do more in a single year to stimulate private initiative and provide more new opportunities for jobs, and to stimulate demand for goods and services, than any combination of direct government loans, concessions and subsidies presently in effect. Such a policy would give new initiatives to our young people, many of whom today are deprived and denied opportunities to participate in our economy. Such a policy would reinvolve the average Canadian in the achievement of national objectives, among them the urgent need for full employment and the need to encourage Canadian investment, participation and ownership in the development of our national economy.
On this matter of Canadian self-determination, I want to reassure all members of this House that the only viable alternative to the present government does accept its historic responsibility to give leadership in this issue. Leaders of this party who, have preceded me have given their dedication and their loyalty, and not merely lip service, to the concept of an independent Canada. We believe that Canadians ought to be given the maximum opportunity to develop and apply their own entrepreneurial and managerial skills so as to ensure the increased participation of Canadians in the business and industry of their own land.
May I take a minute to remind you again, Sir, that it was the present government that made the decision with respect to the development of communications satellites- the $90 million Telesat program. It was also the decision of this government to ship 80 per cent of the investment in satellite technology and 80 per cent of the investment in development to the United States. In doing so, it rejected a bid which would have seen only 35 per cent of this investment go out of the country. And the excuse given was that there was a differential of $13 million in the final contract bids. I believe that Canadians understand-I am sure they do-that there may well be, in the struggle to develop Canadian competence, technology and expertise, a premium that has to be paid; but I also believe that Canadians are prepared to pay it.
The combination of a small business incentive such as we have proposed and a more effective government purchasing and procurement policy encourage Canadian technology and surely define the direction that is the right direction for this country at this time in its history. The lack of any direction that we see today is unacceptable. Responsibility for that lack of direction lies upon a government that will only stall, stutter and delay for as long
March 6, 1973

as it remains in office. It is our duty to take every opportunity available to us to minimize that period of wasted time.
As was the case during the budget debate, one must keep asking oneself about the question of confidence. What do the members of government really believe? Do they believe, for example, that we have to improve the competitive position of Canadian industry, as they emphasized last May? Or do they believe that the competition facing Canadian industry should be increased, as they seem to believe in 1973? We have gone all through this in regard to tax cuts, income tax indexing and so on. I do not have the time, and there is no need for me today, to go over once again the inadequacy of the government's program with regard to employment or the inadequacy of the budget as a stimulus to the creation of employment. I do not need to go over the weakness of the budget with regard to inflation. I went over all of that during the budget debate and we put before the House clearly what we called a two-pronged attack on unemployment and on inflation. Really, it is a three-pronged attack because it ought to include the encouragement of new investment in small Canadian business, a point that I have put forward here this afternoon. We have an attack on unemployment, and perhaps the best method available to us for increasing ownership by Canadians of Canadian business.
Therefore, I say that in view of these considerations the government's package of proposals is neither adequate nor equitable among Canadians; and of that I think there can be no doubt.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, ever since this parliament opened early in January the Conservative opposition has been huffing and puffing but has failed to bring the House down, and because it has failed to bring the House down its huffs and its puffs become more tiresome and less meaningful as the days go by. The opposition keeps trying ploy after ploy, and trick after trick, and thinks that we in the NDP will be intimidated by its huffing and puffing. Let me tell hon. members of that opposition that they are wasting their time and wasting the time of this House.
Let me tell the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, and I am sorry he is not here, for, I am sure, very good reasons, that his thunder is always amusing. We listen to him with a great deal of respect and with a great deal of chortling as he speaks, but I ask him not to exaggerate his power. His thunder will not bring down the House either, Mr. Speaker.
We set a course for ourselves when this parliament opened, and we set that course before the people of Canada. It has been approved by the vast majority of the people of this country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: My mail and the feedback of all my colleagues across this country indicate that the people of Canada want to see this parliament work and produce useful legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Effect of Budgetary Proposals


David Lewis: No hokery-pokery or imaginative Conservative party is going to change that course, Mr. Speaker. In view of what has been said by some-not since the debate started on the motion, I must say, but during the procedural debate-I want to make one thing very clear. I have done this, I suppose, dozens of times since October. I want to make it clear that I believe, and my colleagues believe, that both aspects of the May 1972 budget in respect of concessions to corporations should be before parliament and decided by parliament, and we will insist on that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: When?


David Lewis: When those resolutions and bills that come from the May 1972 budget in respect of corporate concessions come before this House, we will oppose them just as we have constantly opposed them ever since we heard them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: We do not intend to be caught by the kind of hokery-pokery the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has indulged in and vote for a motion that is meaningless and purposeless because it makes some reference to the corporate situation in the May 1972 budget.
As I listened to the Leader of the Opposition I thought: What in heaven's name is this gentleman doing? I heard that speech just a week ago, almost word for word and thought for thought. He added some new material about small business, which he had enunciated, and I will come back to that in a moment, during the election campaign, but he repeated the same type of thing he said in two speeches during the budget debate. He is merely using the time of this House for games, and he is welcome to play them if he wants because he is doing it so often and with such obvious political maladroitness the people of Canada realize what is happening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: The new thing in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition had reference to small business. What was he really saying to us and the people of Canada? He was saying: I am dissatisfied with the corporate concessions made by the Minister of Finance in his May 1972 budget. I want more. I do not want corporate concessions to go alone to businesses that exist, I want the corporate tax concessions to go to the corporations that start new businesses or that invest in new businesses. The Leader of the Opposition parades himself as wanting to defend the situation. I want every member of this House to understand, as I do and I am quite certain I understand it correctly, that what he is suggesting is that the tax concessions the Minister of Finance proposed in May, 1972 are inadequate and do not go far enough. He wants further tax concessions to investors in new business.
He thinks that by this kind of thing he can catch us and throw us over with his huffing and puffing. We do not go for that, Mr. Speaker. His statement on this matter reminded me of some things he said before when we had the Liberal tax bill before us, the so-called reform bill which made a very few minor changes in the corporate

March 6, 1973
Effect of Budgetary Proposals tax system. Let me read the statement of the Leader of the Opposition on October 14, 1971, as reported at page 8694 of Hansard:
So far as corporations are concerned, there would have been a much more beneficial effect on investment and incentives-and this would not have cost the government a cent-if the minister had announced that he was going to defer implementation of those parts of his tax reform bill relating to corporations.
These small changes that were made to close some of the loopholes through which corporations climb did not satisfy the Leader of the Opposition. He wanted the Minister of Finance to throw them out the window. This is the gentleman who cries about the small businessman not having the necessary money. I cannot help but remember that when we had before us in this House the regional development incentives bill that hon. gentleman moved a motion and in his speech said, on June 6, 1969, recorded at page 9848 of Hansard:
If someone happens to get his hands on a few thousand dollars or even on a million dollars he may not really need, I do not think we should worry too much. After all, the government can recover that money eventually through taxation.
He did not even take the trouble to note that incentive grants under DREE are not taxable.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: This is the thing with which we are presented, and when this motion contains reference to something being inequitable I must remind this House again of the statement made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on June 22, 1971, less than two years ago, when he was the financial critic for his party.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Don't look for happiness in that direction, my pleasant and corpulent friend.
I remind the House again of what the hon. member for Edmonton West said on June 22, 1971, as reported at page 7222 of Hansard:
-some people think that you can have equity between taxpayers. That is impossible in this country and anyone who suggests otherwise is not aware of our financial and economic requirements. It is absolute nonsense to talk about equity between taxpayers or within the income tax system.
This country can do without a government composed of gentlemen like that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to vote for the motion because it is a meaningless ploy. I want to say to this House-


An hon. Member:: Say it in English.


David Lewis: I could put it in English if I thought it was worthwhile, and if I thought members of the Conservative party would understand it.
I want to spend the few minutes I have left, because I believe I am limited to 20 minutes if I remember the rule correctly, dealing with some of the positive aspects of

what is before us. On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I completely reject the kind of policy presented by the Leader of the Opposition. I think it succeeds-and this is really a remarkable accomplishment-in being even worse than that of the Liberal government and one really has to be an artist to accomplish that. The proposition is for more corporate tax concessions or greater corporate tax concessions and the implication in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition is that the resources which are now entirely in foreign hands will remain in foreign hands. He does not intend to do anything about this. Also there is the fact that our minerals are in foreign hands and 50 per cent of our manufacturing is in foreign hands, and he is not going to do anything about this.
When it was suggested that oil exports be controlled, his members from Alberta and the Premier of Alberta objected to any kind of limitation in respect of the export of oil or gas. The only thing the Leader of the Opposition would do would be to make some tax concessions to his wealthy friends who invest in little businesses. I understand he, himself, has had some excellent experience. I suggest that will not do the thing that needs to be done in our view. Let me in the very few minutes I have left indicate what that is. What this country has needed, and needs now more than it needed anything in its history, is an economic and social plan that will cover all areas of this country and that would give Canada some economic and social goals for the benefit of all the people of Canada and which would serve all the regions of this country. We need, starting from now if it were possible-and neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives will do that-to eliminate all the tax concessions which have been given to corporations in this country and which have resulted in a distortion of our economic development where all the resources of this land are being yanked out at breakneck speed and exported elsewhere across the world instead of being retained for future generations of Canadians.
I challenge the Conservatives to say that they are ready to remove the tax concessions and tax holidays which have been given to corporations through the tax statutes of this country. We need that which my friends to the right will have no part of, as they have often indicated. We cannot build small business in the disadvantaged areas of this country on the basis of private entrepreneurship or on the doctrinaire stuff which oozes out of the Conservative and Liberal spokesmen every time they talk about the economy.


An hon. Member:: Doctrinaire!


David Lewis: Doctrinaire. Free enterprisers are the only doctrinaires left in this country and it causes immense harm to the development of Canada, to its economy and to social objectives. We have said many times, and I repeat today, that the only way in which the small businessman can be helped, and the only way in which the disadvantaged areas of this country can be advanced economically, is by giving direct assistance through public investment to the small businessman who wants to open a business instead of sending him to private investors who will then receive a tax concession while somebody else behind them will receive another one. Then, you not only make a contribution but lose some more money out of the revenue of the treasury at the expense of the ordinary
March 6, 1973

taxpayer. It is best to have a program for the small businessmen which consists of an anti-monopoly and antioligopoly law and, secondly, direct capital assistance to the small businessman at a reasonable rate of interest so that he is not forever the servant of some large private corporate investor who receives a tax concession.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that our history over a period of 106 years has shown us that we cannot develop the disadvantaged areas of this country by relying on the ordinary profit motives of private enterprise because private enterprise has not found those areas profitable in the past and will not find them profitable in the future. The only way in which the disadvantaged areas of this country can be assisted and developed economically, in so far as the resources of the people, their traditions and culture are concerned, is by public investment and public help from the public treasury and wherever possible, from the provincial treasury. I remind members that the miners and steel workers of Cape Breton Island were assisted by the federal government taking over the mines and the provincial government of Nova Scotia taking over the steel industry and, incidentally, that was a Conservative government.
I say that what we require is the total reconstruction of the Canada Development Corporation to make it a public operation with large funds which are garnered through legislation which requires all corporations in Canada, public and private, financial and industrial, to invest a certain proportion of their investable capital in the Canadian Development Corporation. This corporation would be under public control and management for the precise purpose of buying back parts of the Canadian economy for the people of Canada or supplying the provinces with the revenue they need and the necessary capital to develop their economy. In this way the necessary capital could be made available to the small business entrepreneur at reasonable interest rates. These are the ways in which some real economic and social development in this country could take place. Exchanging those on my left for those on my right in government would not make the slightest difference. Canada would merely perhaps be a little duller place and perhaps members of that government a little less imaginative than sometimes the people opposite are, although I find it difficult to imagine that.
Some basic transformation is needed in the economy and the society of Canada. We will not get that from the Liberals and we will not get it from the Conservatives. So long as there are before parliament bills which would increase the old age pension, which would reduce the tax burden on the ordinary taxpayer, which promise increases to veterans in their allowances and pensions, which promise improvements in the housing legislation of this country and which promise improvements in the foreign investment situation in this country as well as other proposals, the new Democratic Party members of this House will not fall for any of the silly ploys of the Conservative party.


Mr. Barnett I. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted with the interjection of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the procedural
Effect of Budgetary Proposals
portion of this debate when he quickly dissociated himself from the drafting of the motion. I wish he were here now. I think another form of tax might be the entertainment tax which we would have to levy every time the right hon. member speaks. But I have to borrow from him because the other day he used the expression that the mountain laboured and brought forth a mouse. That is rather "corny" and a cliche now but there has been an air of expectation about this debate. There was the great question about the procedural validity of the motion. There was the waiting period of the first of the two allotted days to learn what this great motion was about which was to be brought forth. It could have been a great motion, and we really expected something constructive. However, all we got was a list of complaints which we have heard before and a question about the lack of a co-ordinated approach by this side of the House.
Then, we heard about the three-pronged attack from the hon. member from Action Canada. Instead of the two pronged A.C., we get the three pronged D.C., but the three pronged attack did not come. I was waiting and waiting. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) regurgitated his great proposals which he made during the election regarding incentives for small business which, incidentally, I think, have some merit in a small way. His ideas are not always wrong, but they are usually poorly thought out. One example is the question of the indexing provision to fight inflation which is not original; he dragged it out from somewhere else. However, our Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) made this proposal administratively possible. But to suggest that this great three-pronged attack and the co-ordinated policy of the opposition as represented by this 50 per cent write-off of the $5,000 invested in businesses which qualify is the solution to the problems of 50 per cent of our unemployed who are under 25, is to suggest something that is far from the truth. To talk of this as being an answer to the question of Canadian ownership, or a solution to all economic problems that face this country I think puts the hon. member in his own element, the element of small business, because I have never before seen quite so small-minded an approach to such a major problem in the House.
He did not directly attack the principle of the corporate tax cut or capital cost allowance, but he sniped away. These provisions are not for the benefit of the major corporations; they are for the benefit of the small businessmen who are the backbone of industry across the country, the tens of thousands of companies, of which I have founded one, which need the incentive and a fighting chance to compete and to expand. The Leader of the Opposition is a very nice guy, no matter what he says himself; he is good, sincere and genuine and even has good Liberal ideas. It is not a matter of the government being under attack but a matter of the economy being under attack. This is not a political game; we are at economic war.
There are important considerations here that go quite beyond who stays in power in the House. We are in a highly competitive international economy. We have the problems of DISC in the United States and the international monetary crisis. We have the question of foreign investment facing us and the problems of small business, in which I am particularly interested and which were

beyond 1974, but it is vitally important that we meet this commitment.
The leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) raised the issue of corporate rip-off in the last election. I suspect that he was really referring to the resource rip-off. A lot of people who have not been in business do not understand the problems of cash flow and return on investment, so it became a very popular theme during the election. It was not an easy one to discuss in the heat of a campaign. The Conservatives did not strongly oppose us on it because I think many of them have some appreciation of the problems of business.
The article in the Financial Post continues:
Such raw expediency on the part of the Conservatives could make the Liberals look very attractive-
This is the raw expediency that we see today. Later the article reads:
So far he hasn't been terribly convincing that he has a better plan, certainly not sufficiently so to persuade many companies faced with the present state of indecision.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Who is responsible for the present state of indecision?


Barnett Jerome Danson: We are quite prepared to move along. I think we are victims of many of the problems of indecision. I do not say that we have done everything perfectly, but we are prepared to move along and overcome the indecision. I have the greatest respect for my hon. friend, but surely he knows that it is only his desperation and that of his colleagues to change places with us that is responsible for this delay and this sort of motion. I cannot believe that men who have had experience in business and who understand finance could oppose the reduction in corporate taxes at this time, or the accelerated capital cost allowance. This motion is a political tactic, although I think it is legitimate, and I think the country recognizes it for what it is. The only positive proposal in my hon. friend's speech that had any merit was the one concerning small businesses. We might even be able to find a way of making it work and putting it into practice one of these days.
The question of the review of corporation taxation is extremely important at this time, Mr. Speaker. The leader of the New Democratic Party has raised some serious doubts in the minds of all Canadians and I think the matter should be clarified. Although those of us who do not believe that a lot of it is a rip-off, even though there is a grain of truth that makes everyone wonder-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Maybe you should bring in tax reform.


Barnett Jerome Danson: The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) says that maybe we should bring in tax reform. I am not sure that is the answer. We tried to do that a couple of years ago. We also tried to reduce taxes at that time, and it was impossible to do it gently: passions were roused by the whole question of tax reform and it was found quite impossible to be reasonable and look at the problems in a way that would bring proper answers. Of course, many other factors were involved such as gross-up in credit. I forget some of the terminology. We politicians sitting on the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs were subject to really tough political pressures-
Effect of Budgetary Proposals


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Barnett Jerome Danson: -yet we saw all the resources of one side of the corporation tax argument coming before the committee. These representatives were well prepared, well financed and submitted excellent briefs. I regret that we did not hear more of the opposing view. I do not think businessmen are looking for a rip-off; they are looking for a fair shake and the things necessary to keep the economy going. We in this party have different views from those of the New Democratic Party on what keeps the economy going. I am not dogmatically opposed to socialism; I just don't think it works. What we need is not an investigation by a parliamentary committee subject to the same pressures we went through in tax reform, but an independent body-I hate to say a royal commission or task force- people who are qualified and respected in this field to take a second look at corporate taxation.
The question has been raised, it has received a response but I think it needs to be clarified. As a businessman, I want to see it clarified. I am not interested in being part of any rip-off; I am interested in doing a job, building a business for my family and my country and, in the process, making some money. The money is not the motivating factor, however. It is the only measurement and it is not bad-I would rather have it than not have it-but it is not the primary factor which motivates people beyond a certain point.
Another question is monitoring the corporate tax allowance and the capital cost allowance. I think this is particularly important, though I do not like any connotation of looking over anybody's shoulder. But we should know, on a regular basis, what has happened. The Financial Post article suggested that perhaps two years was not enough time to get all the answers, but I think we can keep pretty close contact with the private sector and get their co-operation. There is no reason why any businessman who makes an investment which is eligible for accelerated depreciation should not report to the Department of Finance. That would give this government an opportunity to see how such decisions are made. Of course, I cannot guarantee that honest answers will be given by all businessmen. Nevertheless, by adopting the suggested process we shall obtain a better feeling about what is going on in this respect.
Certainly we must maintain the present number of jobs; increase employment and increase productivity or we shall be in difficulties. Probably the suggestion I am about to make is dangerous. I suggest that it is more important to maintain a high degree of productivity and competitiveness in the export and import markets than merely to create jobs. If the economy is healthy, we can build a rich society. We all know the direction in which we are going. People will be working a shorter work week; they will have more leisure time. They will need more training and retraining if they are to take advantage of the benefits available. If we lose our competitiveness in the world, we will lose everything and will not be able to survive.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Change the government and both those areas will be guaranteed.

March 6, 1973
Effect of Budgetary Proposals


Mr.   Dcm@: They will be guaranteed under this government. So we must look to other ways for people to be absorbed into the labour market. I should like to explore, because it was mentioned by the leader of the NDP, the establishment of, say, a national youth service which could absorb many of our young people. Much of our unemployment affects those who are under 25. Young people could participate in the service. I am not talking about conscription; I am talking about non-military, noncompulsory national service. I have spoken about this suggestion to many young people in my riding and elsewhere and they are terribly interested. They want to help build better communities and parks and work on the ecology. For instance, in Toronto they could be employed in building a park of the same sort as the one in the Gatineau Hills where there are 30 miles of ski trails, woods and lakes. We are in the process, in Toronto, of expropriating 17,000 acres which can be used for that purpose. We must consider areas such as these if we are to provide new employment. As a supporter of the government, I urge the House to look more closely at such areas.
We must be careful, when debating economic affairs, not to get any distorted idea of profits. Profits in themselves are not evil. I have said many times that it is the lack of profits which is evil, since when profits are lacking the economy is not working properly. Certainly, excessive profits are not good, neither are excessive dividends. I am interested in the proportion of earnings retained and distributed in other countries. That is something we ought to consider when studying the question of our own corporate taxes.
Corporate tax cuts are not a corporate rip-off. Let me explain what happens to profits. First, of course, they are taxed. That part which is left after taxation is reinvested, and that money creates jobs and increases productivity. It leads to research and development and to various types of innovation. Without these activities our industry could not maintain its competitiveness, survive and provide the jobs that are needed, let alone provide new jobs. Some of the dividends are distributed and are taxed again. As I say, a substantial part of the money left is reinvested.
I do not think one can claim that the present system is completely equitable. I do not think any system is completely equitable. Nevertheless, the system works in a rough and ready way. We should see to it that it works more fairly, more equitably and with more compassion. We should care more for the underprivileged in our communities and for those who do not have enough drive to go out, build businesses and make work. Business is not the only thing that makes life worth living; it is only part of life. There are many other worth-while endeavours which are just as worthy as those involving business and making money. Nevertheless, I suggest that we cannot do very much in our society unless the private sector is successful and encouraged to be productive and competitive. The government is trying to make certain that the private sector is successful and is responding to the challenge.
I do not think it is possible for one to be specific and say what one will do in responding to the variety of crises which arise on the international scene, particularly those involving the United States. We have talked in this House

about problems pertaining to the automotive trade agreement. Because of our actions in the fifties we established a basic manufacturing industry in this country that was able to expand and take advantage of the automotive trade agreement. It may be that the tax provisions of the previous budget will give our businesses a fighting chance; I do not know. Perhaps they will permit them to respond to changes which might be made in the automotive trade agreement, although I do not think any changes are anticipated.
We must maintain our flexibility and the health of the private sector. We must not pin down our businessmen; we must permit them to be flexible and give them a fighting chance. We must do much more, as well, for smaller businesses and provide working capital at reasonable interest rates, as the leader of the New Democratic Party suggested. This could be done by helping them under GAAP, by guaranteeing bank loans and by other measures. Although such businesses cannot borrow at prime interest rates, I think they ought to be able to borrow money at rates one point and a half below rates otherwise prevailing in the market. The Small Businesses Loans Act has failed, I submit, because interest rates have not been sufficiently attractive to encourage banks to lend. The amounts involved are much too small.
The Leader of the Opposition suggested, I believe, that a small business should be defined as one with $1 million net worth and $10 million turnover. I would try to avoid a rigid definition of small business. In speaking to Mr. Tom Kleppe, the head of the United States small business administration, I learned that they avoid definitions like the plague because what is a small business in one place may be a very significant business in another. The business doing several million dollars worth of trade in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver may be considered small in those places but may be considered large in, say, Moncton, Halifax-I would not say Sherbrooke-or Brace-bridge.
I suggest that there is no simple answer to our problems. The government is seeking to provide the answers necessary. It has responded well to the needs of our community both in the budget just debated and in the budget of May last year. Hon. members are playing games when they try to suggest that the government is not doing what it ought to do and that others could do better. So far I have not heard what those better things are. I listened, I heard the mountain in labour, I heard the mouse squeak, but I did not hear any answers. For that reason I suggest we should get on with the job of running parliament efficiently and helping industry, instead of waiting for so-called new answers. Let us help industry to produce. The government is doing its best to encourage industry.
The people of this country will not be given a fighting chance unless our industry is progressive and responds to needs. Our taxation system must be fair and equitable. When we talk of giving concessions to manufacturing industries, we are not talking about mining companies, we are not talking about trust companies, we are not talking about banks and we are not talking about doctors or lawyers. We are talking about encouragement being given to people in manufacturing and processing businesses.
March 6, 1973

That encouragement is vital and will lead to our economy being strong.
I think the accelerated capital cost allowances will induce people to begin businesses because they will know that certain capital assets can be written off quickly. At the same time, I hope this measure will not mean that the people who need money most will not be able to get it. I shall be watching what happens. I do not think that measure will answer all the problems of small businesses. It is an aid for small businesses. I look forward to more help being brought forward. I insist on it. I shall expect more measures to be announced by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I will be waiting for the announcements. I am impatient for them. If enough is not done, I will not be satisfied and will complain.
Let us support good measures and put away our crying-towels. We expect measures to be introduced that are good, and in the future we shall expect better measures. Let us not play politics with an economy which is under attack even from its best friends. We must respond flexibly in this House and give a fighting chance to our businessmen. It is our responsibility to give them a break. If you want to raise taxes in the long run, that is great; but let them make enough money before we start taxing it. If they do not make it, we cannot tax it.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the last speech was of a different tone than that of the leader of the New Democratic Party. However, being as respectful as I can, I do not think one added much more than the other to the central issue the House has to face on the motion before it.
There has been a great deal of talk about the government having won a vote of confidence. There has been a great deal of talk, especially from the government side, about the government having the confidence of the House. However, what everybody has missed is the real question: Has the government got the confidence of the country on these economic matters? There is a very substantial body of evidence to indicate that it has not. That is why this motion is before the House-not for reasons of narrow expediency, because one party is going to keep the other in power. This motion is before the House because there is grave doubt about whether the government has the confidence of the country. I wish to give some examples. The day after the budget was presented there was a reaction in the Vancouver newspapers. The president of the B.C. Federation of Labour said:
Translating the budget into jobs still leaves-
I wish to emphasize this phrase.
-a great credibility gap ...
The trade union movement and the public have a right to be sceptical about the forecast of job-producing. We have had a couple of budgets and all that has happened is a worsening of the unemployment situation when we were told there would be more jobs.
That is a great indication of confidence in the government! Senator Edward Lawson, the international vicepresident of the Teamsters had this to say:
Effect of Budgetary Proposals
-I can't imagine just how this budget will really create 300,000 new jobs-
He went on to say the inflation would still be there. He also said:
So the unions will still have to continue negotiating wage increases to keep pace with the inflationary spiral-
That is another indication of confidence in the government. Jim Kinnaird, president of the B.C. and Yukon Building Trades Council, said:
-I am sceptical about the job-producing ability of the budget-
Confidence in the government? It did not stop there. Mr. Michael Ryan had this to say:
I see very little in the budget that is directly beneficial to the Canadian economy. Specifically, there is nothing in it that would spur on employment and we are encouraging purchases of foreign goods by reducing tariffs.
Mr. Ed Scholz, president of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, said:
-the budget does not contain "very much that will help to reduce unemployment."
When we ask the question, how much confidence has the country in the government, we have to look at the evidence. It does not matter what happens in this House on matters of short-term expediency or perhaps long-term expediency, depending on their wishes and desires. The day after the budget was presented, an article appeared in the Toronto Star entitled "Less here than meets the eye". Some potent comments were made. This is the way one of the largest newspapers in the country looked at the situation. This paper had always been a great supporter of the government party. It saw that the problems of the country were more important than its traditional allegiance to a political party. My hon. friends did not want to make any reference to it. I quote from the article:
There are two key questions about the budget. What does it do to reduce unemployment? What does it do to curb inflation? The short answer to both is: Not enough.
The first problem is that given Canada's severe unemployment problem there is not enough real stimulation of the economy.
Later it states:
-the real level of economic stimulation remains unchanged.
That is a considered comment which represents a great number of people in the constituency. In the past week some hon. members of two parties in particular forgot that when they talked about having the confidence of the House. The Toronto Star article said that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is complacent about inflation. It went on to say something which members opposite and members of the New Democratic Party do not want to hear but which the people of Canada are obviously interested in hearing. I quote:
Only mandatory controls could now bring costs and prices under control-
One could say, "We do not want to listen to a newspaper that after 50 of 60 years decided not to support us," and that that paper could not possibly represent the views and thinking of the Canadian public. If you do not believe it, that is fine with us. You will find out, no doubt at your peril, that some of the comments being made are very similar to those that were made during the election cam-

March 6, 1973
Effect of Budgetary Proposals paign, which members on the government side did not listen to either.
I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we should adjourn.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner recess I was directing some remarks to members of the government and other hon. members. The point of my remarks was that there has been continual discussion among hon. members on the government side, and among some who are not on the government side, about the significance of votes of confidence in this House. What members of the government should bear in mind, however, is that votes of confidence in this House should not be substituted in the mind of any honest man for the idea that the country as a whole has confidence in the government.
Before dinner I went to some pains to read evidence from the press and elsewhere to indicate that the country has no confidence in this government as far as economic and fiscal matters are concerned, and despite what has taken place in this House in connection with votes of confidence based on a short-term, or perhaps even a longterm hope of survival by other parties, we should not forget there is substantial evidence that the country does not possess confidence in the economic policies of the government. The final item to which I referred appeared in the Toronto Star. Only mandatory controls, the writer told us, could now bring costs and prices under control. The Toronto Star may not be a paper the government wants to hear from. It changed its politics during the election.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was utterly disillusioned.


John Allen Fraser: My hon. friend says it was utterly disillusioned. This paper put the interests of the country ahead of its political loyalty. During the last two months there has been considerable evidence that a number of members of this House are not prepared to put the interests of the country ahead of their own political survival. Sadly, this applies to members on both sides of the House-and I exclude my own party when I say this.
To continue in the same vein, on February 26 the Financial Times had something to say about the government's understanding of economic matters. The article reads:
Finance department officials admit it is almost impossible to say what the labour force growth will be during the coming year.
Officials say that assuming there is no increase in the participation rate and assuming that economic growth actually produces the number of jobs Mr. Turner says it will, then unemployment could be reduced to an average of 5.2 per cent for 1973. It seems to be a big "if".
Is this evidence of confidence in the government? On February 20, 1973, the Montreal Star carried an article under the heading "Sleight-of-mouth proposals". Then our own party had a chance to say what the Progressive Conservatives would do if we had introduced the budget. There was a lot of hooting and hollering, but let me give an example of the kind of support forthcoming in the country for the propositions we advanced. Basically, our submission was this: we need an expansionary economy kept in check by wage and price controls, preceded by a temporary freeze. The Toronto Star of February 24 had this to say:
Progressive Conservative finance critic James Gillies has finally got hold of the real formula for reducing the current unacceptable level of unemployment in this country: expand the economy and impose controls to deal with the consequent threat of inflation.
In Vancouver, the third biggest city in this country, the Vancouver Sun, which supported the government in the election, said in an editorial which appeared on February 24, 1973:
The public will now hold the minority Liberal government totally responsible for continuing inflation in Canada.
The official opposition very cleverly put the government on the spot yesterday by calling for a wage-price freeze of 60 to 90 days, followed by temporary controls.
In the first and largest city in Canada, the Gazette said on February 26:
The Progressive Conservatives have the makings of an effective and positive attack on government economic policy in James Gillies' first speech as financial critic for his party.
The article goes on to refer to the "widely-heard criticism that Turner's expansionary policy was not strong enough in view of the level of unemployment." I must say I was interested to see that the Minister of Finance was reported in this morning's Gazette as saying:
I don't think there is the necessary consensus to bring in controls now. We would need such a consensus before we could bring in controls which would work.
I suggest hon. members on the other side should ask themselves one common sense question. They said they had a contingency plan. Did they expect to bring in that plan when there was a consensus, or to bring it in when they had decided in their own minds that there was a need for it? I say to the Minister of Finance that it is up to him to tell the Canadian people, without any more equivocation, whether he is in favour of a system of wage and price controls or not. Or is he, as seems to be the case from this statement, just sitting around and waiting until people come to him as delegations or through some sort of cosmic association and say there is now a consensus in the country? This party believes that there is a need for this in an expansionary budget and we will not wait to find out whether there is a consensus. This party is prepared to put leadership into the government of Canada, which is exactly what this country has needed and is what the people want.
Let me tell hon. friends to my extreme left, and I do so gently but with sincerity, what the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Donald MacDonald, said when he met with the government yesterday. As reported
[Mr. Fraser.l
March 6, 1973

in this morning's Globe and Mail, after discussing the government's economic policies Mr. MacDonald said:
We have not heard one thing that in any way suggests there is going to be any effective measures or policies introduced to cope with Canada's No. 1 problem-that of unemployment.
Having a long Scottish ancestry, Mr. Speaker, I have as great an instinct for survival as anyone in this House. But even an instinct for survival has to stop at a certain point of principle. I say to my friends on the left that there is a very large body of evidence to indicate that the country does not stand behind the financial, fiscal and economic programs of this government, and that the duty of every member in this House today is not to think of his own survival or his own short-term benefit, but to think about what the great constituency outside this House really thinks and feels. I think that the constituency outside this House is more important than any short-term interests within it, and I ask all hon. members to remember that when they vote tonight. Confidence votes in this House, on the basis of short-term or long-term expediency, depending on how it turns out, are not the same as saying that the country has confidence in the economic polices of this government.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up too much time of the House in discussing the notice of motion before us, which quite astutely joins the provisions of the present budget with those of the May, 1972, budget in an attempt, as someone has said, to unify the opposition when the vote comes later this evening and defeat the government.
I think it is fairly obvious that there is no economist in the world today with all the answers to the economic problems of any particular country. Like everyone in this House, we all have our favoured economists, our favoured economic magazines, books or theories. But I think deep down all of us know that the role of a minister of finance is, under the best of circumstances, an extremely difficult one. Whether or not this budget is expansionary enough, only time can tell. There are so many factors that are beyond the control of the government or minister of finance of any particular country.
For example, one has only to look at some of the events that were outside our control over the last 18 months and which affected, I think, the recovery of this country. There was the prolongation of the war in Viet Nam, the monetary crisis in the United States and the rate of inflation that existed there two years ago. We had a form of price and wage controls without a consensus, which means that we limited our public servants to a 6 per cent salary increase whereas the provinces granted increases to many of their public servants of 12 to 13 per cent. I suspect this is why the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has emphasized the need for a consensus before we move ahead with many of the contingency plans that exist. The minister also pointed out that one point of aggravation to this country today is the cost of food, which even in the United States, with their wage and price controls, was left free because in theory the cost of food varies more than any other commodity in accordance with supply and demand.
I think we have to realize, perhaps for the first time, that the constant booms and busts of any nation, particu-
Effect of Budgetary Proposals
larly our own, do not react as swiftly as was once the case to fiscal and monetary policies. I think, for instance, multinational corporations to a great degree are immune to the fiscal and monetary policies of a country. Their own cash flows which must be determined five years ahead often result in the price of automobiles being increased at a time when you would imagine the cost would decrease in order to stimulate competition which may or may not be present.
Having said that, I think any government that in future uses fiscal and monetary policies in order to check inflation is running a grave risk when it reverses its policies to restimulate the economy, because it might find that the economy does not react in the usual, traditional manner. That was true between 1958 and 1962, and it is true today for a rash of reasons which have been beyond the control of the government, though probably there were a few which were within the scope of the government to manipulate.
The problems that confront this country are unique. Indeed, the problems confronting any country are unique in that country's particular context. First of all, we are a country that is very dependent upon the export trade. Although we may look at our trade figures and think we are doing wonderfully well, if we removed from those figures exports of raw materials, exports of grain and transactions under the auto pact, I think we would find that our contribution to exports of manufactured goods in the world is a rather lowly, nominal one compared with some of our competitors that are growing in increasing numbers around the world.
When you add to that Great Britain's entry into the Common Market with other countries like Denmark and Ireland, traditional customers, and when you realize there is a growth in protectionism in the United States, which has suddenly realized that their currency, like any other, can create problems. It is apparent that as an exporting nation Canada must overcome our shortcoming of a small domestic market. Compared with our territorial size we are badly underpopulated, with a potential market one-tenth that of some of our competitors.
With the tremendous cost of transportation in this country, it becomes apparent that we start with a certain disadvantage. Our advantage, of course, is our proximity to raw materials, and the processing of raw materials into manufactured goods is something we have not exploited, perhaps, as fully as we should. But I think that is obvious to all of us.
I should like to concentrate a little more on the items brought in by the minister in his May, 1972, budget- accelerated depreciation and the reduction in corporate tax. As the former minister of labour, I had to look into these areas in the past more than I normally might have. Certainly labour unrest was one of the problems with which I was faced. Certainly the cost of settlements was something that made any politician, including the minister of labour, vulnerable, especially when they tended to be on the high side.
I think it was only three or four years ago that this country participated in the Kennedy Round with other

March 6, 1973
Effect of Budgetary Proposals trading nations. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) may have had the responsibility at the time, but I do know that tariffs were reduced in some 30 or 35 areas concerning imports to Canada in return for a reduction in tariffs of other countries. The end result of the reduction of those tariffs was to make certain industries in this country more vulnerable than they had been. I speak now of the shoe industry, the textile industry, the pulp and paper industry, the chemical industry, the furniture industry and others that hid behind high tariffs and thus prolonged inefficiency, putting off the day when some of the profits could be devoted to new machinery and more sophisticated methods. They had the hope, perhaps, that high tariffs would provide a rich market and profits to satisfy shareholders.
With the reduction of tariffs after the Kennedy Round, which was a government decision, not a decision of industry, these industries became very vulnerable. Some of them were prepared to adjust rapidly, but unfortunately others were not. Because it was government action that made these industries so vulnerable it was logical that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce should develop programs to stimulate the industries affected by that government decision. Hence the fact there are so many programs within the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce placed at the disposal of business both large and small in an effort to offset their vulnerability caused by lower tariffs, and to help them take advantage of the potential exports to countries whose tariffs, in return, had been reduced.
So from this particular vantage point I do not think this or any other government has any reason to apologize for providing, through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce or any other department, any type of assistance it felt necessary to extend to small or large industries. I think this is where I differ primarily with the NDP. We all share their concern for people, but they seem to have a blind spot when it comes to helping industry which in turn must provide the jobs for the people of this country.
I remember the passing of a Liberal bill not too long ago which spelled out for the first time the undeniable right of industry to introduce technological change whenever it felt like it. Prior to this it had always been an area of no man's land, so to speak, particularly since Judge Freedman's report was published some years ago. Coupled with that right of management was the moral and legal obligation to negotiate the effects of technological change on its employees.
What, really, is accelerated depreciation? Accelerated depreciation is no more than a thrust, shove or push by the government through tax incentives in respect of industries no longer protected by high tariffs to take advantage of sophisticated methods and new machinery in order, in some cases simply to survive and in the case of other companies to expand. I know of one company in the Montreal area, not a large company, true, that had 20 or 25 workers. It was able directly, with the help of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to buy a piece of machinery it needed for stamping out panel boards for the electrical industry. Its exports alone to Schenectady, as a result of co-operation with the trucking

industry-Smith and some of the others-made it feasible for that company in Montreal to compete successfully with companies in the United States and to deliver more rapidly. Consequently, it is staffed now by about 100 people, rather than 25. It has repaid the cost of the equipment and it is eternally grateful for the help the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce extended.
I know these types of programs such as accelerated depreciation are sometimes abused. But so is unemployment insurance, as we pointed out a few weeks ago. So are all our social policies abused. We have the obligation and responsibility to make sure that the companies taking advantage of these types of programs do not abuse them. It would seem to me that the question of accelerated depreciation and reduction of corporate taxes should not pose the same problem or dilemma to the NDP today as it did a year or so ago. I say this because it certainly does not bother me. In May, 1972, our budget was obviously directed to stimulating the secondary manufacturing sector of the Canadian economy rather than oriented toward people, so a very valid case could be made at the time that the budget, taken by itself, was in fact top heavy or was thrust to meet problems in one direction and one direction only, the concept being that if we could stimulate the manufacturing industry in a hurry, this would create the jobs needed.
As I said, the Phillips curve has shifted and events beyond our control will make things more difficult now and in the future. Therefore, we have to think a little more clearly and go a little more surely before we direct the economy. It may be that the methods are the ones suggested by the hon. gentleman who just sat down, but anything would be better than a fiscal or monetary policy that ends up putting half a million people out of work without curbing inflation.
Having said that, I doubt if there is anybody in the House of Commons who could really define what is the source of inflation. Is it demand-pull, or cost-push inflation? Is it the increased cost of wages, the effect that property taxes have on inflation, or the effect of sales taxes? Nobody knows these things. Certainly none of the papers I have looked for in the House or the library would indicate that anybody has studied these areas in any great depth or with any precision.
Let me refer to what this motion attempts to do. It deals with the two main points of the May, 1972, budget coupled with the present budget. Taking the two together, I think the attitude of the NDP in respect of accelerated depreciation and corporate taxation is unrealistic. While I would be the first pragmatist to say there is evidence that some companies have perhaps taken flagrant advantage of some programs, that does not mean to say the programs are not good. Perhaps the policing, the conditions or the criteria of the programs need reviewing.
Certainly depreciation for small business has provided incentives for them to buy bigger machines which they may not have done under normal circumstances. On the other hand, there still could be conditions under our taxation laws in respect of which it is more logical to extend depreciation over five years rather than over two. In light of that, I fail to understand the concern of the NDP over the particular situation of accelerated depreciation.
March 6, 1973

Turning to the corporate tax reduction or the eventual reduction from 49 per cent to 40 per cent, as I have said, when you look at this in the budget of 1972 and compare it with what was being done in that budget for people, a very good case could be made that the budget was top heavy in its thrust and other features toward industry and perhaps not oriented enough toward those who are the victims of inflation.
That is not the case when you couple it with the present budget. When you look at what we have done for senior citizens and veterans and what has been done in the way of reducing personal income taxes, then it is very difficult to say the corporate tax coming down to 40 per cent is an abnormal feature. This is particularly true when you consider the fact that in other countries, including Sweden, the United States and most of the other large manufacturing countries, revenue from corporations is much less than it is in Canada.
I am not saying the budget is perfect or is in totality imperfect. I think much more could have been done in the budget for senior citizens, not in the way of money but in the way of providing homes. I think one of the saddest things in this country is the fact that our senior citizens have nowhere to go when they are 65 years of age. People who are chronically ill are in a difficult situation. I know that in a community such as mine there is only one decent senior citizens' home built with any kind of government assistance.


An hon. Member:: Your party has formed the government for ten years.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, and it has done more in ten years than your party ever did. If you want me to drop discussion of the budget and become partisan, I will. Your party had no decent unemployment insurance plan, Canada Assistance Plan or any of the present features in respect of the unemployed. So if I were in your position, the last thing I would want to do is become involved in an argument which would get someone like me on to this subject. However, I am quite prepared to do so.
I am interested in speaking to the motion on which we expect a vote in a short time. The point I want to make to the New Democratic Party is that the issues of accelerated depreciation and corporate tax reduction are of insignificance in light of the events which have transpired since May, 1972. By the time we reach those two resolutions a year will have transpired, a very eventful year.
Our revenue is higher than was anticipated, I must admit, but it is difficult to anticipate with any certainty the result of the capital gains tax, and so on. I think the New Democratic Party has selected the wrong issue to dig into. I certainly would not regard a defeat in the House of Commons on these two issues as a vote of non-confidence. I think the government should bring forward these measures shortly, and if we are defeated on them then the opposition could decide to bring in a vote of non-confidence. However, the effort of the opposition today to reintroduce these measures and the budget as separate but indivisible, which is really what the motion is all about, makes accelerated depreciation and corporate
Effect of Budgetary Proposals
taxes very insignificant in light of the total package of budgetary changes which were introduced less than a month ago.
There is a great deal to be accomplished in this country. I believe we all realize this. I think our manufacturing industry needs all the stimulation this government or subsequent governments can provide. For instance, I believe accelerated depreciation should have been, or must be linked with some moral obligation on the part of the person taking advantage of it to at least consult with the people affected. Under the federal legislation, when one brings in a piece of machinery, if the result of the accelerated depreciation affects the lives of people to the extent of reducing the work force, then one should be obliged to negotiate what the effect will be. It seems to me that that type of obligation could have been linked with accelerated depreciation so that companies which wished to take advantage of these provisions, if this should have a disruptive short-term effect even if it meant additional business in the future, should have a moral obligation to make certain that the men effected are looked after, in respect of attrition, by pensions or in some other manner.


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


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully and with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). He said something which I think is perhaps the key to this debate. As a new member I suppose he was trying to see things resolved from his own particular viewpoint. However, he should reflect on what he said. He said the government may have the confidence of this House in a way, but that it does not have the confidence of the country. I want to add to those remarks that none of us has the confidence of this country, and what is going on in this country is not designed to correct that. I do not think we should kid ourselves in this regard. It is true that the last election did not give the Liberals a mandate. However, it did not give the Tories a mandate and it did not give the NDP a mandate. All of us are here to try to make parliament work under those particular circumstances. When we have to face an election, whenever that comes, the people of the country will be looking at what went on in this fun house.


An hon. Member:: Shame on you.


Max Saltsman: I put it that way because there are a lot of games being played here. I am not naive enough to think like one member, who said we are turning parliament into a political arena. Our parliament is a political arena but it is also a lot of other things. Many of us who have been here a long time understand that politics play a legitimate role, but we also know there are periods when people of all political parties must co-operate in order to continue the function of parliament and must think in terms of the good of the country and the continuation of certain policies. Any one of us who wants to take the trouble to consult his constituents will get a reading of uncertainty on the part of people who are looking at this parliament to see what is going to happen. They know how difficult the situation is. They know there is a minority government and that there is a reinforced Conservative opposition
1960

March 6, 1973
Effect of Budgetary Proposals which wants another election. They know we are in a difficult position. I am being very frank about this. Our position in this House is very difficult.


Mr. Alexander:: You are being less than honest. Shame on you.


Max Saltsman: I do not know that the hon. member who made that statement is really in a position to do so. We as a party hope to find some way to make parliament work and make our influence felt in the deliberations which go on here. Admittedly there are times when supporting the Liberals gives me a twinge of conscience.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Max Saltsman: I have to admit that. I will tell you that twinge continues up until the point that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) rises and puts forth some of his crackpot economic policies. Then I feel somewhat better about what I am doing, because after listening to the nostrums advanced by the Conservative party to cure this country's ills, I am not at all sure I wish to replace one government of Neanderthals with another group. At least the Liberals know they are vulnerable and are in a minority position. They want to accommodate themselves to the situation. They have been willing to listen to various ideas advanced by the opposition. They have taken ideas from the opposition and have incorporated them in their budget. That at least is something to say for a government, rather than the attitude of hon. members to my right that they have the answers and will not listen to anyone.
I wish to make some comments on the ideas advanced . by the Leader of the Opposition in his intervention today. He said this government has done nothing to encourage investment in Canadian business. The truth of the matter is that this government has done a great deal to encourage investment in Canadian business, but everything it has done in that direction has been a disaster. The kind of policies the Conservative party would bring in would be even more disastrous. This government over the years has bonused business in Canada to an unbelievable extent, and the more business has been bonused, the more it has been sold out to foreigners.
The effect of being the only country in the western world without a capital gains tax-incidentally, a proposal was put forward attempting to bring it in but the Conservative party was violently opposed to a capital gains tax- has been to make it worth while for Canadian businessmen to sell out rather than to put a brake on their businesses. They could make a fast buck by selling out, and there was no taxation on capital gains. That is the kind of policy which the Conservative party has been supporting.
We have had a 20 per cent dividend tax credit in one form or another, and now we have a 33 per cent tax credit. It seems that the more we give away to business, the more incentive we provide for the investor in Canada, the faster they sell out to the United States. There is no way of effecting control of business in Canada or leaving the control of business in Canadian hands except to do it by legislation. You cannot outbid the American buyers.

We have been trying that for years and it does not work. There is some hope that the legislation which is on the order paper dealing with foreign takeovers will be far more effective than the billions of dollars we have handed out in bribes to Canadian investors, which did little to stop the sell-out of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Waterloo, but the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) seeks the floor on a point of order.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been making many comments about the terrible things that this party is doing and the great solutions that he would propose. I wonder why he does not put in an amendment to that effect, particularly with regard to foreign ownership.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members should remember the established rules. When a member has the floor, he should not be interrupted except for the purpose of asking a question if the hon. member who has the floor will allow it. That is not a point of order.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Frankly, I do not know how one can amend anything as atrocious as the Conservative amendment.


An hon. Member:: It's silly.


Max Saltsman: It is not silly; it is just bad English. I also want to say something about small business. Every once in a while there is a new "motherhood" item. Now the current Conservative "motherhood" item is small business. I do not want to talk about small business in a disparaging way. I myself was involved in small business at one time and I know that people in small businesses work very hard and are making a very useful contribution to this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: I really wonder whether the problem of small business today is that there are too many small businessmen. If you spoke to small businessmen you would find out why so many of them are going bankrupt. The reason is that too many people have been enticed into small business. Offering incentives to small businessmen will not improve the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Max Saltsman: Some hon. members are saying "Shame" because it is one of those things that we must not discuss. Small businesses should be stimulated without limit. But that is a thoughtless, mindless approach, and anyone who is in business knows that there is a limit to the stimulation you should give to any kind of enterprise. The Leader of the Opposition stands up in mock surprise-perhaps I should not say it is mock surprise; perhaps he is genuinely surprised but only looks that way-and says, "Look at the business failures. Why are those businesses failing?"


Steve Eugene Paproski: Because of the government.


Max Saltsman: That is the way the system works. What are the Leader of the Opposition and his mighty stalwarts going to do? Are they going to do the sort of thing that the
March 6, 1973

premier of Saskatchewan did at one time when he tried to save a box factory and a shoe factory? If any kind of business is in danger of going under, will they rush in, take it over and give it large injections of money? What will they do?
If they want to leave the impression that they are friends of small business, that when the Tory millennium arrives there will not be a single bankruptcy in Canada because the Tory party will take care of it, this is nonsense. This does a terrible disservice to small business generally. Small business needs assistance. My leader pointed out one important area in which we can provide assistance to small business, that is, by providing low interest rates. There are other things we can do. But to start talking about making money grants in order to induce people into small business creates chaos and does a terrible disservice to small businessmen. The effect of that will be to destroy small business, not to help it.
There are examples where a certain kind of endeavour was offered subsidies. Do you think we are short of dress shops and barber shops in this country? I notice that the Leader of the Opposition did not exclude the retail trade, where the bulk of small business is, so I presume he will hand out all kinds of largesse to anyone who wants to open up. That will be a great thing. If we suffer from anything, we suffer from a surfeit of shopping centres, a surfeit of stores, which makes it difficult for the legitimate businessman to survive and to continue making some kind of profit from his energies and efforts.
The kind of solution that is being offered by the Conservative party is a pack of nonsense. If they took the time to talk to a small businessman, the kind of man they say they are concerned about, they would find he has problems and he deserves to be assisted, but the kind of proposals that are coming from the Conservatives are not what he wants. I do not want to be unkind, but there is one remark that I think deserves comment. It was made by the Leader of the Opposition. He said something to the effect that we have to encourage individual initiative. I am all for individual initiative, but we are not living in the age of Marie Chapdelaine any more, that great Hungarian hero.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


Max Saltsman: We really have to look at this sort of assumption, that you pull yourself up by your bootstraps in a modern society. Again I say I am not saying this in an unkind way, and I hope it is not taken so. I am sure that when the Leader of the Opposition was premier of Nova Scotia he did everything he could to encourage initiative in the Nova Scotian people. I am sure the people of Nova Scotia are not without initiative. But what point is there to the encouragement of initiative when there are so many things going against that province?
I am not holding the former premier of the province to blame and I am not saying he did not try, but when he says that individual initiative must be encouraged, surely his own experience belies that statement. Did he, as premier of that province, refuse federal grants whenever they came along? Did he say, "No. That might do something to our initiative. I will have none of that"? Did we hear him say that we should get rid of all the DREE programs because they destroy the initiative of the people
Effect of Budgetary Proposals
on the Prairies? On the contrary, he says that we are callous and that we are unfaithful to the people in the Maritimes when we oppose these programs.
I am dealing with the motion before us, Mr. Speaker, and if some of my remarks are sharp-


An hon. Member:: They are not too pointed.


Max Saltsman: -and some unkindness creeps through them, is not as much as this motion deserves but-


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to receive the question at the end of my allotted time. I felt that there was one great omission in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. He did not dwell on wage and price controls, although they seem to have been the most important item to him up to this point. I do not know if it is because his friends in Alberta have pointed out to him that if he were to bring in such a program, he would have to go to the premier of Alberta and tell him that he could not double the price of gas to the people of Ontario.
I am not sure what happened. I do not know whether some of the farmers, who for the first time in many years are getting some sensible prices after all their work, have asked him if he thinks it is the time to bring in wage and price controls when they are trying to make a living. All mention of price controls was conspicuous by its absence. I hope that was not inadvertent; I hope he is going to drop it altogether, because it will not work unless he wants to be grossly unfair to many people in this country.
Some of my hon. friends have suggested that perhaps I should conclude on a more positive note-


An hon. Member:: You should not have started.


Max Saltsman: What should be done in fact, Mr. Speaker? One of the things that has to be done, and I wonder whether my friends of the Conservative party would agree with this-


An hon. Member:: You have no friends here.


Max Saltsman: -is to curtail the export of all raw material and energy supplies from Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: March 6, 1973
Effect of Budgetary Proposals incentives. Neither is it what the Conservatives are saying. The answer is that there has to be direction and management and planning of the way we are going to conduct our economic future. My leader pointed this out earlier today. Unless we have a government that is prepared to do these things, we are not going to solve the unemployment problem.
I cannot be totally hopeful that the present government is going to see it that way-although they are beginning to see some things-but I hope there is the possibility, if positive proposals are advanced and discussed, for a measure of success. I see no chance of success in following the Conservative line of "Throw them out and throw us in". I do not see anything positive in that proposal. Canadians are not likely to forget the arrogance displayed by the Conservatives when they were the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Same old gang.


Gerald William Baldwin: Move an amendment.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I hope the government comes to the conclusion that the corporate rip-off measures, rapid depreciation and lower corporation rates are not the answer to Canada's dilemma. The hon. member for Verdun made some interesting remarks and pointed out how rapidly things are changing-that the situation has changed very much since the minister first introduced these measures. He is right, things have changed enormously. These are no longer the solutions to Canada's problems, if they ever were, and I doubt that. We are in a real bind. We will have to take extensive measures to save this country. We should not respond by trying to outbribe the Americans when they offer DISC to their people, but we-


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


An hon. Member:: That is too bad.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. If the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) is rising for the purpose of asking a question, he will have to seek the unanimous consent of the House because the hon. member's time has expired. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: There does not seem to be consent. I recognize the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate on a point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: I was going to make a suggestion to Your Honour to perhaps facilitate the business of the House and accommodate the hon. member who suggested that we talk about the inadequacy of the program and not of incentives. I think the House would entertain an amendment from him, if he had the courage to move it. And if he did, I wonder if he would vote for it.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: That is hardly a point of order. The Minister of Finance.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the budget debate and earlier today the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said the fundamental issue is credibility. I fully agree with him. I very much welcome this debate on the motion because its transparent indulgence in political gamesmanship further exposes the crumbling credibility of the Conservatives in their desperation for power at any price.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I think the Leader of the Opposition, on behalf of his party collectively, betrayed a shameless political lust that would not be excused in any civilized party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I have a good deal of sympathy for the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). His motions are usually drafted well, but this one was just a procedural sham and he was not able to disguise it. As recently as Sunday, February 18, just one day before I introduced my budget, the Leader of the Opposition was contending in a speech before the Quebec Progressive Conservative Association-


Mr. Lefebvre:: All two of them.


John Napier Turner: There was a large crowd there and I have to assume that the entire political association of the Conservative party was present in one room at the same time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: There were 2,500, at $75 a plate.


John Napier Turner: The Leader of the Opposition was contending that three basic steps had to be taken to deal with the twin problems of inflation and unemployment. In the previous budget debate, the Leader of the Opposition said that there should be substantial cuts in personal income taxes to provide a stimulus for the economy and to break inflation by containing what he termed the expectation spiral.
While the Conservative leader has repeatedly proposed a cut in personal income taxes of up to 7 per cent, the reduction proposed in the budget is equivalent to almost twice that amount, between 12 and 13 per cent, and the cost in terms of reduced taxes represents $1.3 billion. In
March 6, 1973

addition, commodity taxes, tariff duties and sales and excise taxes were reduced by a further $200 million. Yet he says that these budgetary provisions are inadequate, and those are the terms of his motion.
The second action that the Conservative leader said was essential as a further means of containing inflation was adopting the proposal he borrowed from Europe for offsetting the impact of inflation on the progressive personal income tax system. As hon. members know, I proposed a system of indexing the personal income tax that will accomplish the objective advocated by the Conservative leader in a way that is workable and practical.


Gerald William Baldwin: But our leader made the suggestion before the budget was introduced.


John Napier Turner: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) accused me of stealing his leader's underwear. I did not steal his underwear; I took off the buttons and put on a zipper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: And our leader speaks very highly of you, too, John.


John Napier Turner: The third thing that the Leader of the Opposition wanted was for the government to cut the fat from government spending. The Leader of the Opposition said it was necessary, if we were to deal with the problem of inflation, that the government cut the fat from the spending program. Those were his words in Montreal at that remarkable meeting. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, we have cut too much fat for the liking of the Conservative party, to judge from the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), one of the three members who make up that party's financial troika. Every time I enter the House I am prompted to ask, will the real financial critic of the Conservative party please stand up? At any rate, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre bitterly complained that we had failed to provide for a sufficient increase in our spending estimates for next year and he tried to lift the book of estimates, and despite the help of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and my help he could not quite throw it across the floor.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You did not give it to me.


John Napier Turner: I did not give it to the hon. member. But the hon. member for Edmonton Centre used a cleaver first before he tore up the book.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister is not being accurate. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) suggests that I did not rip the blue book of estimates, that I used a cleaver first. I want to say that I did not use a cleaver before I ripped it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Withdraw.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I should like the Minister of Finance to withdraw that statement.


Mr. Trudeau:: Here is another book. Do it again.
Effect of Budgetary Proposals


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly withdraw that statement. I do not want to meet the hon. member in other circumstances after this debate is over.
In these three areas alone the budget has far more than matched what the Conservative leader was contending were the three essential steps to deal with the problems of inflation and unemployment. Given this position which the Leader of the Conservative party expressed on the night before the budget, surely it could have been expected that he and his party would have been left with no alternative but to welcome what I proposed in my budget speech. Introducing a sham motion and attempting to deny that position is nothing but a political travesty.
The fact is that on the night of Monday, February 19, the Conservative party was saying that the measures in the budget would do absolutely nothing to relieve the problems of unemployment and inflation. Yet these were measures which, on Sunday, they contended were the answers to these various problems. I leave it, Mr. Speaker, to members of this House and to Canadians generally to judge for themselves just how credible is the position now being taken by the Conservative party, a position of condemning as absolutely useless today what they argued to be absolutely essential on the day before the budget.
The position of the Conservative party has further been called into question by its entire position on the matter of price and income controls. In his speech, the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) said that if a Conservative government had been bringing down a budget-what a hope, what wishful thinking-it would have announced a 90-day freeze on all wages, prices, dividends and other incomes. Only a few days before, the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Edmonton West, the seat-mate of the hon. member for Don Valley, had said that the Conservatives would not hesitate to introduce controls if necessary to curb the development of inflationary expectations.
On the CBC program "Encounter" of February 8, the hon. member for Don Valley said-this was only three or four weeks before his subsequent statement-that a move toward controls could only be made on the basis of a "national emergency". Let me read from the transcript of that interview. The questioner asked:
Do you think that five per cent inflation would justify a national emergency?
The hon. member for Don Valley answered:
No, I'm not suggesting that.
In the next question, the hon. member was asked if he was really criticizing the Minister of Finance for not introducing an emergency measure to deal with 5 per cent inflation. "Was there any need for controls at the moment?" The hon. member for Don Valley replied "No, no" before a national television audience.


Gerald William Baldwin: That was before the budget.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The minister was merely quoting Ron Collister.


John Napier Turner: I submit to Your Honour that nothing so demonstrates the erosion of Conservative

March 6, 1973
Effect of Budgetary Proposals
credibility as the almost total reversal of that party's position on the corporate measures I proposed in the budget last May to bolster the competitive position of Canada's hard pressed manufacturing and processing industries. While Conservative spokesmen now tend to find nothing good to say about these measures, last May they were expressing their approval, even grudgingly. Speaking on the budget debate on May 15, 1972, the Leader of the Opposition said specifically and repeatedly, as recorded at page 2265 of Hansard, that he was not criticizing these corporate measures. I will repeat the words he used as recorded at page 2265 of Hansard:
I am not objecting to this sort of encouragement being given to manufacturing and processing concerns, because I believe it will help them to be more competitive in the world as it actually exists.


David Lewis: That is exactly what he said.


John Napier Turner: He went on to say:
I have been for some time emphasizing the importance of Canadian corporations being able to compete in the world as it is.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But he said something else, too.


John Napier Turner: Those were the words spoken by the Conservative leader, and any member with time on his hands can compare the words I have cited with the words reported originally in Hansard.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But he said something different afterwards, just as important.


John Napier Turner: In his speech to the Empire Club in Toronto on October 19, 1972, the Leader of the Opposition reiterated his general philosophy when he said:
I am not opposed to the established practices of providing incentives to corporations through the various devices of accelerated depreciation write-offs, deferred profits and the like. My experience in government persuades me that these are not only acceptable, but are, in many instances, essential.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Come back to earth, John. The measures could be combined with others.


John Napier Turner: The Leader of the Opposition spoke today as if he had a monopoly on the interests of small business in this country. I remind him that the measures he is criticizing in this motion reduce taxes for manufacturers and processors from 25 per cent to 20 per cent. The budget of February eliminates restrictions on the sources of income for any small business; that is, any small business with an income of less than $50,000 a year, or earned surplus of less than $400,000, can qualify. The Speech from the Throne, I remind hon. members, recommends that measures be brought forward to facilitate access to financing and to facilitate management counselling, and that the government expand and broaden the terms of reference of the Industrial Development Bank.
In his capacity as chairman of the Ontario Economic Council, the hon. member for Don Valley appeared before the Ontario Select Committee on Economic and Cultural Nationalism on February 17, 1972. It seems that in Ontario every committee is a select committee. He appeared to urge the adoption of a provincial tax incentive scheme to

encourage exports by Ontario firms. This is his testimony before that committee; it appears on the records of the committee:
Surely, if DISC goes in the United States it would put our Canadian manufacturers at a terrible disadvantage in all markets unless we have something comparable to it. In other words, we are arguing that Canadian manufacturers ought to be in as competitive a position as any manufacturers in the world.
In other words, Canadian manufacturers ought to be in as competitive a position. DISC has gone into effect in the United States. Let no one be lulled into believing that because its immediate consequences have not been disastrous it would not leave Canadian manufacturers at a "terrible disadvantage", in the words of the hon. member for Don Valley, over the longer term unless we take positive steps to protect Canadian manufacturers and the jobs they provide.
As I have emphasized many times before, DISC is by no means the only threat to this vital sector of our economy. Our manufacturers and processors are jeopardized as well by the increasing competitiveness of the newly emerging giants on the international stage, Japan and the enlarged European Economic Community. They are threatened by the strong protectionist forces rampant in the United States, not the least of which are the member unions of the AFL-CIO that are strenuously pushing for passage of the severe trade restrictions proposed in the Burke-Hartke bill. Because they are the most exposed and the most vulnerable, Canadian manufacturers and processors are the most endangered by the renewed international monetary crisis, a crisis that of course also poses a threat to the future stability of world trade.
I say to Your Honour and hon. members there should be no misunderstanding about the fact that we in Canada are faced with an international situation that is difficult and dangerous. Until now we have weathered remarkably well the storms that are blowing all about us, which is evident from the fact that our currency has remained one of the most stable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I would attribute that to a good portion of luck and some good management. In terms of good management, I would say the decision to float the dollar was a wise one at the time, in terms of maintaining a competitive exchange rate. The decision of the Canadian banks authorized under the Bank Act by myself to limit the top rate on short-term deposits to 5.5 per cent for 100 days, or 6 per cent for a year, has turned out to be the right decision for stopping the inflow of short-term money into Canada. I think the co-operation that we are eventually receiving from the provinces to use the Canadian capital markets where at all possible is beginning to bear fruit. As I said, we have had a remarkably stable position up till now, but if this international situation deteriorates, this government may have to propose even further measures beyond the ones we have already contemplated.
I am leaving the day after tomorrow to attend a conference of the major industrial nations in Paris on Friday,
March 6, 1973

which hopefully can come to grips with the problems that underlie the current crisis. No one, however, can yet be confident about the outcome. These developments only serve to underline the urgency of implementing the measures proposed to help reinforce the competitive position of Canadian manufacturers in a very uncertain world.
While the motion before the House expresses non-confidence in the government, what it really does is to demonstrate beyond any doubt why the Canadian people should have no confidence in the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh'!


An hon. Member:: Go to the people now.


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I am not sure which side of the House is making the most noise, but the Chair is having a difficult time following the speech of the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: This motion also demonstrates that the Conservative party, and I think this was admirably pointed out by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis)-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: It's O.K., John.


John Napier Turner: -has not the slightest intention, will or desire to make this parliament work to serve the best interests of the nation as a whole.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: This sham motion
demonstrates that the Conservative party is prepared to play any game at all with the Canadian economy, the Canadian working man and woman, that might serve its own narrow, partisan interests.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: This motion demonstrates that the Conservative party is prepared to seek power whatever the price may be to the Canadian people. In short, this motion demonstrates that in its desperation the Conservative party has totally abandoned any sense of responsibility to Canadians that it might once have possessed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it was, as Your Honour suggested, difficult to follow the minister's speech both because of its content and the repartee in the House. It may be a hard act to follow, but I hope that the one I have to offer will be more constructive, not partisan and not in the nature of mere political bantering such as we just heard from the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Effect of Budgetary Proposals


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This afternoon I was very disappointed in the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). As one who for many years held the New Democratic Party in some respect, believing that they were often true at least to principles that were comprehensible, I admit to particular disillusionment at this time.
The hon. member for York South seemed to be criticizing the Conservative party for huffing and puffing but not blowing down the house. But he should be reminded that just one small puff from him tonight, the big, bad wolf in sheep's clothing, and the house would fall. The hon. member insists upon being apologetically grateful for a few bones thrown by the government which enables him to rationalize his desire for self-preservation. He has given the House some examples of these bones, including reductions in personal income tax and increases in old age pensions. Let us examine these two briefly to see whether the Canadian people should be as grateful as the hon. member appears to be. First, the modest income tax cuts. The typical taxpayer, we are told, will add $1.97 a week to his take-home pay.


An hon. Member:: Big deal.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That calculation is based on figures for a married man earning $150 a week, with two children under 16. But here is the rub. The same man will lose $445 a year through inflation. That amounts to $8.55 a week. Imagine it. The typical taxpayer loses $8.55 a week through inflation and gains $1.97 through the benevolence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) who spoke so eloquently earlier. This leaves the taxpayer, notwithstanding the eloquence of the Minister of Finance, with a net amount of $6.58 a week less than he might otherwise have had.
Is this the kind of situation which deserves the applause of the New Democratic Party? Is this the treatment they feel the average Canadian taxpayer deserves? Do they feel the average Canadian taxpayer is deserving of this $6.58 cut in take-home pay due to the maladministration of an imcompetent and inept Liberal government? Of course, the average "poor sucker" taxpayer would need a pay increase well in excess of $6.58 a week in order to break even, because any increase would be subject to both tax and to erosion due to inflation. Consequently, the average taxpayer earning $150 a week, with two children under 16, would need a wage increase well in excess of $6.58 a week in order to wind up the year where he started under the benevolence of this great Liberal party!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is a sad story, and it applies to old age pensions as well. The increase in the old age pension is welcome. Our senior citizens have suffered too long at the hands of this unfeeling and unsympathetic government. Now the government is increasing the old age pension by an extra $13.39 in one year. It would have been increased automatically from $82.88 to $86.61 in April in any event, but now this benevolent government is going all out to add the extra $13.39 to bring the total to $100 a month. My hon. friend from Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) pointed

March 6, 1973
Effect of Budgetary Proposals
out in the House the other day that the $100 a month does not even restore the purchasing power of the pension to the equivalent of what it was when the present government took office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: So the old age pensioners, too, are worse off as a result of inflation. Moreover, they have not shared in the increases in productivity which have taken place. They have not shared in the increases in national output. It is difficult to comprehend the political and moral bankruptcy of the New Democratic Party when it applauds tax cuts which are less by far than inflation losses and endorses, however reluctantly, increases in old age pensions which similarly fail to compensate for inflation losses, apart from failing to provide senior citizens with a share of productivity increases.
I must admit I find it unfair that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) should be criticized for moving the traditional want of confidence motion. He is doing nothing different from what leaders of the opposition have done traditionally. He is following the prescribed course. He is doing what is expected of a leader of the Official Opposition. He is doing what every leader of the Official Opposition has done in every parliament since parliamentary democracy began. The only thing that is different tonight is that if the NDP vote with the official opposition, as they have often done in the past when they followed their consciences, the government would fall.
The Leader of the Opposition has been totally responsible. He is consistent, too. During the election campaign, members of this party and members of the NDP said we thought this government was a disaster for Canada. We still think so, and at least on this side we still act on the basis of our conviction. Do we have a duty to keep in office a government which allows the highest unemployment levels in more than a decade?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Do we have a duty to keep in office a government which allows the highest inflation rate in more than 20 years?


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I believe we do not. I believe we have a solemn duty to defeat this mediocre government of proven incompetence and to replace it with one which is truly contemporary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And one that tells the truth.


An hon. Member:: Little David is getting cross.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You know the song.
Little David was small,
But oh my!
I think that is a little thing they used to play in the pops. One thing is obvious. The present government is not con-

temporary. Contemptuous, but not contemporary. The high rate of unemployment in Canada was government-induced. We all remember the television commercials, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) standing in front of the cameras and saying, "People say we do not have the guts to let unemployment rise to 6 per cent, but I say to them they are wrong." That is what the Prime Minister told the Canadian people. They are trying to forget it now.
The government induced high levels of unemployment by its tight money policy of 1969-70. As a matter of fact, the principal secretary to the Prime Minister admitted this during the election campaign until the campaign committee called him and told him to shut up and reverse his position. The hon. member for Verdun (Mr. MacKasey) believes it, too. I can see him smiling. He practically said as much tonight. That is where the unemployment came from-from the government's tight money policy of 1969 and 1970.


David Lewis: And you were a member of the government.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, I was not. I resigned before that, believe me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I could see what was coming.


Steve Eugene Paproski: David is getting hot.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If the combined annual rate of growth in employment from 1960 to 1966 of 3.1 per cent had been maintained, there would have been over one quarter of a million more employed people in Canada today. That rate compounded at 3.1 per cent during those years dropped to 2.5 per cent in the period 1966 to 1972. Therein lies the difference between a totally unacceptable, a totally immoral rate of unemployment and what might under other circumstances have been a reasonably acceptable rate of about half the present level.
The government's attempt to control inflation by monetary policy was not contemporary. The inflation, as has been stated by my colleagues in this House, is cost-push. It is something entirely different from classical inflation and requires entirely different treatment. The government's failure to come to the realization that only mandatory guidelines of some kind can cope with this situation is responsible for the fact that throughout all these years they have been trading off unemployment and inflation instead of pursuing the twin goals of low unemployment and stable prices. The government has stubbornly refused to face reality and so has the NDP, its bedmate in this situation. The results are unacceptable inflation and unacceptable unemployment, unemployment which is a national shame and a blot on the national conscience.
In face of this impossible situation, the Progressive Conservative party has grasped the nettle. It has put forward a three-pronged attack. First of all, we have proposed a much more expansionary budget than that brought down by the Minister of Finance. He has scoffed at the suggestion that we would increase the deficit beyond that forecast by him. He has stated that an additional cut in taxes of something of the order of $2 billion would be highly
March 6, 1973

inflationary. This, Mr. Speaker, is nonsense when one looks at the additional capital investment that is required to put 100,000 people to work. When one realizes that at least $25,000, and perhaps as much as $50,000, is required in capital investment for each person who is added to the labour force, one is given some idea of the magnitude of the problem we are facing and the capital expenditures that have to be made. So that additional expenditures and tax cuts of this kind are absolutely essential in order to reduce the unemployment rate by even as much as 1 per cent within a reasonable period of time.
The Progressive Conservative party has therefore proposed a further substantial reduction in taxes and a more expansionary budget that would not just maintain the status quo but would at the same time start at once to reduce the high level of unemployment to a more acceptable level. At the same time, the Progressive Conservative party has proposed, in conjunction with that expansionary budget, a temporary freeze on wages, prices and profits. Then after consultation with labour and management and the provinces, we would introduce mandatory guidelines which would do the job.
In addition, the Leader of the Official Opposition talked this afternoon about special incentives for small business to enable Canadians to invest in their own country. He referred to means by which Canadians could participate in business, means by which Canadian entrepreneurs could be more directly and rewardingly involved in the development of their own resources and industries. Surely this is a legitimate and basically essential part of any three-pronged attack.
I suggest that the only way to meet the problems of unemployment and the working poor is to have a threepronged attack along these lines. We have to provide more jobs in order to get people off the unemployment insurance rolls, a matter which upset the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) so very much. We have to give them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the development of a greater Canada. At the same time, by the imposition of mandatory guidelines it would be possible to accelerate wages at the bottom end of the scale so the working poor can breathe and have enough take-home pay to look after their own requirements for food, clothing and shelter, without handouts by a benevolent administration.
If any real progress is going to be made toward the twin goals of full employment, in the definition given to us by the minister of jobs available for all those who would like to be gainfully employed, and at the same time stable prices, only a policy such as that brought down by the Progressive Conservative party can hope ever to achieve those goals.
It has been suggested that the policies put forward by the Progressive Conservative party were adopted as a matter of political expediency. I should like to set that rumour at rest. As one who sat in on the deliberations, I should like to say that this represents the soul-searching acceptance of reality in the second half of the twentieth century. The Progressive Conservative party is the first party to admit that we do not have a pure market economy. It is the first party to admit that big business and big unions can set inflationary expectations beyond realizable
Effect of Budgetary Proposals
levels for the whole economy. It is the first party to admit that we have monopolistic power on the business side and monopolistic power on the union side which has to have some kind of mandatory control so that its actions meet the test of the public interest. To my hon. friends on the other side of the House may I say that this is what people at college used to call an old Liberal principle. I hope that they will reread it.
In taking this fundamental change in policy, the Progressive Conservative party has become the cutting edge of reform in Canada. As a Toronto Sun columnist, Douglas Fisher, says, it puts the Progressive Conservative party economically well to the left of the Liberals and the NDP. Without arguing the validity of the old labels of left and right, I should like to say that it is obvious that the Progressive Conservative party has been put at least ten years ahead of both the Liberals and NDP. As a matter of fact-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, listening to members across the way and to the left this evening reminds me of a quotation that I saw recently to the effect that the only thing that ever consoles a man for the stupid things he has done is the praise that he always gives himself for having done them. The style of this government could best be categorized as a government by trial and error. Every time there is a trial there is another error. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the succession of errors by this government is taking a tragic toll in human terms. This is so much more tragic when it is recognized that, notwithstanding the important principles borrowed from the Progressive Conservative party, neither the May, 1972 budget not the February, 1973 budget, nor the two of them put together will produce the solutions to Canada's unemployment or inflation problems.
On this fact, Mr. Speaker, many labour leaders and labour organizations wholeheartedly agree. Confidence by all Canadians in this government is at a low point in our history. Confidence by business is at an all-time low. This arises in large part from the unfinished business of government in such critical areas as taxation, competition and ownership. No corporation and no individual can act decisively or, at times, make any decisions at all when the rules of the game are constantly in the process of revision.
This condition is no less disturbing to business than it is to labour. The prosperity of labour and business go hand in hand. A golden opportunity exists today for strong leadership in Canada to bring together into a close working relationship labour, government and business. This government has steadfastly refused to play this role, thus contributing further to a serious reduction in confidence. This is what the government of this country must correct. Only a Conservative government can restore confidence to this nation at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Colwell Bawden: The decade of the seventies presents the greatest challenges and, at the same time, some of the

March 6, 1973
Effect of Budgetary Proposals greatest problems Canada has yet had to face in its history. Over a number of years I have had the opportunity to participate in the development of many other countries. I have seen their strengths and their weaknesses, both in their natural and their human resources. I have no hesitation in saying that Canada, its opportunities and its future potential are second to none. I am dismayed, indeed I despair when I see the terrible record of under-achievement written into our history during the Trudeau years.
The leader of the NDP, speaking in this debate, spoke of
the failure of this government's policies to date, concluding therefore that a much bolder step should have been taken. In his words, "the government did not have sufficient guts and imagination to pour at least another $1 billion into the economy as it could and should have done". If he supports this government, where are his guts?


An hon. Member:: He hasn't any.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Colwell Bawden: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I turn to the NDP and remind them of what their leader has said over and over again: we are not going to change our position whatever the consequences may be.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being nine forty-five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to section (9) of Standing Order 58 to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

Accordingly, the question is on the motion of Mr. Stanfield. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
At 10.15 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday. March 7, 1973