1973-02-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and vital importance. The provisions of the federal Bill of Rights are being challenged by Bill 42 of the British Columbia legislature, the Land Commission Act, which denies the public the right to appeal decisions of the commission. Section 11(5) states that the decision of the commission is final and no appeal lies from that decision. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary (Mr. Whittaker):
That this House instruct the Minister of Justice to immediately set up a parliamentary committee to investigate the constitutionality of the B.C. Land Commission Act, and to report its findings to this House.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is proposed to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTOMOTIVE AGREEMENT-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Because of the circumstances I am sure the motion will receive the unanimous consent of the House. The motion arises out of the statement made in Washington yesterday by a United States treasury official that, in spite of a very substantial trade deficit on Canada's part in Canada-U.S. automotive trade for 1972, the United States will continue to insist on the removal of the Canadian job-protection safeguards in the Canada-United States automotive agreement. In view of this major and continuing threat to employment in Canada, I move seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman):
That this House reassets its commitment to maintain the Canadian job-protecting safeguards in the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement of 1965.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member is put before the House under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion therefore cannot be put.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to request the unanimous consent of the House on a matter of urgent and presseing necessity.
In view of the difficulties encountered by unemployment insurance recipients with respect to stoppage of work due to illness, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That medical certificates filed by applicants' doctors be automatically accepted with respect to the period of incapacity to work.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to request the unanimous consent of the House on the very important problem
1736

February 28, 1973
Canada-United States Auto Pact of the viability of grants made by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That this House instruct the Standing Committee on Regional Economic Expansion to examine the viability of grants made by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to alledgedly create jobs and determine whether those same votes could not be more profitable to the Canadian economy and would not create more jobs if they were applied as a compensated discount to Canadian consumers when purchasing Canadian products now in difficulty because of foreign competition.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the hon. member that there is not unanimity. Therefore the motion cannot be put.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTOMOTIVE AGREEMENT-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of vital and common concern to all members. In view of the fact that the auto pact has not ensured for Canada an equitable share of production and employment in the automotive industry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That this House asserts that there should be improved safeguards in the auto pact to guarantee just levels of employment and production in the Canadian automotive industry and that the government negotiate improved safeguards at the forthcoming trade talks with the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. I regret, therefore, to advise the hon. member that his motion cannot be put. Is the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby rising on a point of order?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I trust that Hansard will record that the opposition to this motion came from the Liberal benches.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
(Mr. Boisvert.]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions of less than $25 per month?
2.	How many are in receipt of a pension of $25 per month?
3.	How many are in receipt of pensions of $25.01 to $29.99 per month (b) $30 to $39.99 per month (c) $40 to 49.99 per month (d) $50 to $59.99 per month (e) $60 to $69.99 per month (f) $70 to $79.99 per month (g) $80 to $89.99 per month (h) $90 to $99.99 per month (i) $100 to $124.99 per month (j) $125 to $149.99 per month (k) $150 to $199.99 per month (1) $200 to $299.99 per month (m) $300 per month and over?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: The information shown being as of December 31, 1972 and does not reflect the escalation in pensions granted effective January 1, 1973. 1. Number of pensioners receiving less than $25 a month, 264.
2.	Number of pensioners receiving $25 a month, 105.
3.	Number of pensioners in receipt of: (a) $25.01 to $29.99 a month, 471; (b) $30 to $39.99 a month, 435; (c) $40 to $49.99 a month, 616; (d) $50 to $59.99 a month, 1,940; (e) $60 to $69.99 a month, 805; (f) $70 to $79.99 a month, 662; (g) $80 to $89.99 a month, 570; (h) $90 to $99.99 a month, 587; (i) $100 to $124.99 a month, 1,622; 0) $125 to $149.99 a month, 1,742; (k) $150 to $199.99 a month, 3,743; (1) $200 to $299.99 a month, 6,552; (m) $300 a month and over, 6,005.
In a number of cases the amounts of pensions paid by Canadian National Railways do not represent the total pensions payable to employees for railway service. Pensions payable by the CNR to international employees (service in both Canada and the United States) relate to their service in Canada only. Such employees also receive annuities payable under the U.S. Railroad Retirement Act or the Social Security Act for service performed in the United States. For example, in the group receiving pensions under $25 from CN, there are 27 former international employees who also receive U.S. Railroad Retirement or Social Security annuities in respect of CN service rendered in the United States. The balance of this group consists of employees who elected early retirement (before age 65) with reduced basic pensions ($25) and employees who had very short service and small contributions.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	On what date is it now intended to raise the Irving Whale or to relieve it of its cargo?
2.	On what date were tenders called for this project?
3.	From whom were tenders received and in what amounts?
4.	For what reason or reasons were contracts not awarded?
5.	Since this time, what inspections of the Irving Whale have been carried out?
February 28, 1973

6.	What are the reasons or factors which prompted the delay in raising the ship or its contents?
7.	What is the nature of any technological developments which have come about in this type of salvage since the rejection of the tender bids in Part 2?


Jean Marchand: 1. No date has been set to raise the Irving Whale.
2.	Tenders were called on September 13,1971.
3.	Tenders were received from: (a) Atlantic Salvage & Dredging Ltd., Smit Tak International Salvage Ltd., $1,770,000; (b) Marine Industries Ltd., M.I.L. Tug and Salvage Ltd., The Foundation Co. of Canada Ltd., $2,350,000; (c) Murphy Pacific Marine Salvage Co., International Underwater Constructors Incorporated, $4,400,000 (U.S.).
4.	Tenders received were much higher than estimated with no guarantee that there would be no risk of pollution as a result of the methods of salvage submitted. The Treasury Board declined to accept these tenders and requested that the Ministry reassess the raising of the Irving Whale and attempt to gain further data and technical advice.
5.	Visual inspection of the water surface in the vicinity of the sinking by aircraft and surface vessels for evidence of oil slicks.
6.	There was a considerable delay from the time of the sinking until tender calls were made and tenders assessed due to various legal and technical problems. The preparation of specifications was very lengthy as the Ministry had not been faced with a project of this nature in the past. After the receipt of tenders and a review of the methods, it was finally decided to seek further information from various world sources who may have been faced with this problem, with the view of determining whether it might, in fact, be safer to leave the wreck undisturbed rather than attempt to raise it and thus create a potential pollution hazard.
7.	The Ministry initiated further research into technological data on a worldwide basis which, it was hoped, could be incorporated into a project of this nature. To date, the information received is inconclusive but the technical data favours the leaving of the Irving Whale where it is in an undisturbed state.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	Is Professor Istvan Meszaros being allowed to enter Canada and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Was Professor Meszaros previously barred from entry into Canada and, if so, what was the reason for the change in the decision?
3.	Is the Department of Manpower and Immigration considering a quota system on admission of foreign scholars or other means of protecting the priority of Canadian scholars to academic posts in this country?


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister oi Manpower and Immigration: 1. Yes. When Professor Istvan Meszaros was examined in England in the first week of January 1973, he was found to comply with Canadian immigration requirements and consequently his application for admission was approved. He is now in Canada as a landed immigrant.
Order Paper Questions
2.	Professor Meszaros gained entry to Canada by misrepresenting himself to be a visitor when in fact he intended to reside here permanently. He was ordered deported and appealed to the Immigration Appeal Board. By virtue of this appeal, he had effectively removed himself from the Minister's jurisdiction. It was not until after he had withdrawn his appeal and returned to the United Kingdom that a departmental review could take place. Since the illegal entry prohibition no longer applied, the results of the review were favourable and his immigrant application was approved.
3.	No. The Department of Manpower and Immigration will not interfere with the hiring preferences of academic institutions since this is a field which comes under provincial jurisdiction.


Mr. Matte: Is Mr. Jean-Paul Matte still a Special Assistant to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and, if so (a) what were his duties between August and December, 1972 (b) what was his salary during that period (c) what expenses did he claim?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes. (a) Special Assistant to the Minister responsible as any assistants to other ministers for projects and tasks assigned to him directly by the Minister; (b) $15,000-$17,500; (c) nil.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	How many employees are there at the Sherbrooke Regional Office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission?
2.	What is the area, in square feet, available to the employees?
3.	Is the government considering the possibility of increasing the number of personnel in this office and, if so, on what date?
4.	Is the government considering the construction or enlargement of the present quarters of this office and, if so, on what date?


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister oi Manpower and Immigration: 1. There are presently 254 employees on strength in the Sherbrooke District Office.
2.	The total usable area in the Sherbrooke District Office is 19,816 square feet.
3.	No increase in staff is expected at this time.
4.	The UIC requirements in the Sherbrooke area are under review. Consideration is being given to improving the office facilities in Sherbrooke.


Mr. Reynolds: Has Host Rent-a-Car applied for space in the Vancouver International Airport and, if so (a) is it the intention of the government to approve the application (b) will the government give the coffee shop, the cigarette stand, the barber shop, the gift shop, expansion facilities on the same competitive basis?


Jean Marchand: 1. Host Rent-a-Car has not applied for space at Vancouver International Airport, (a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable.
1738

February 28, 1973
Order Paper Questions CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


Mr. Holmes: 1.	As of December 31, 1972, what was the total number of personnel in the Welfare Assistance and Services Division of the Department of National Health and Welfare responsible for the administration of the Canada Assistance Plan either on a full-time or a part-time basis (a) the number of staff full or part-time administering the plan at central headquarters (b) the number of consultative staff full or part-time administering the plan at central headquarters (c) the number of field staff in each province (d) the number of full or part-time personnel providing consultative services in relation to (i) Indian welfare (ii) institutional care (iii) accounting and auditing (iv) welfare services (v) community care services (vi) work activity (vii) rehabilitation (viii) family and child welfare (ix) public assistance policy and administration (x) community development (xi) staff training and development?
2.	What was the number of personnel responsible to the provincial and municipal authorities working on a full or part-time basis responsible for administering the Canada Assistance Plan?
3.	What was the total federal administrative cost for the Canada Assistance Plan for the years ending March 31, 1971 and March 31, 1972?
4.	What was the total provincial and municipal cost for administering the Canada Assistance Plan for the years ending March 31, 1971 and March 31,1972?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister oi National Health and Welfare):: 1. (a) Full-time, 36; Part-time, 4; (b) Full-time, 9; Part-time, 2; (c) British Columbia and Yukon, 2; Alberta, 2; Saskatchewan, 2; Manitoba, 2; Ontario, 5; Quebec, 6; Nova Scotia, 2; New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, 2; Newfoundland, 1; Total field staff, 24; (d) Included in (b) above; (i), 1; (ii) 2; (iii), 2; (iv), 1; (v), 1; (vi), 1; (vii), 1; (viii), 1; (ix), 2; (x), 0; (xi), 0.
2.	None. All personnel responsible for administering the Canada Assistance Plan are federal employees.
3.	Year ending March 31, 1971 $634,556, Year ending March 31, 1972, $785,819.
4.	The provinces and municipalities administer their own income support and welfare services programs, certain costs of which are shared on a 50 per cent basis by Canada under the federal-provincial agreements authorized under the Canada Assistance Plan. Therefore, they do not have any costs for administering the Canada Assistance Plan. However, in 1970-71, the costs of administering provincial and municipal programs as used in compiling claims on Canada were $88,953,000 and in 197172, $100,556,000. A significant portion of these administrative costs were in fact related to professional social services such as counselling, homemakers and similar services provided by employees of provincial and municipal governments to recipients of provincial income support programs (including children who are wards, residents of welfare institutions; and needy persons living in their own homes).


Mr. Reynolds: Can waiters and waitresses include gratuities as wages in calculating unemployment benefits in the same manner as for income tax purposes and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: In so far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxa-

tion, is concerned: Gratuities received by waiters and waitresses directly from the customer are not included in insurable earnings for purposes of calculating unemployment insurance benefits. The legislation provides that premiums are to be deducted only if the remuneration is paid by the employer. Further to this, the employer does not know the amount of gratuities received by each employee. Where an employer includes a service charge in the billing to the customer and in turn passes this service charge on to the employees, he is required to deduct employees' premiums and pay employer's premiums with regard to gratuities that are paid in this manner. These gratuities would then constitute insurable earnings.


Mr. Forrestall: What action has the government taken with respect to the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development that the government consider defraying part of the costs of imposing user charges on commercial shipping in the Arctic?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Given that there are no Polar icebreakers presently in operation it has not been necessary to make an immediate decision on the imposition of user charges on commercial shipping in the Arctic. However, before such a vessel enters into service the implementation of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development will be given further consideration.


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Does CBC host a free-time television program in New Brunswick in which spokesmen for provincial political parties participate?
2.	Were plans prepared to broadcast the program during the 1972-73 season?
3.	At what hour was it planned to broadcast the program?
4.	What facilities are available in Fredericton, the provincial capital of New Brunswick, for producing such programs?
5.	Have protests been received from the Progressive Conservative and Liberal parties of New Brunswick about the 12.25 a.m. Sunday broadcast time and the lack of facilities for producing the program?
6.	What are the Corporation's plans for a better broadcast time and provision of adequate broadcast facilities in Fredericton?
7.	In what other provinces in Canada are free-time provincial political programs broadcast at 12.25 a.m. on Sundays?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. No such program has yet been broadcast in New Brunswick during the current season.
2.	Yes. Free-time TV program periods were offered to official New Brunswick party associations.
3.	At 12:15-12:20 a.m., following the hockey game, "Countrytime" and "National News". However, the Saint John affiliate CHSJ-TV might have been prepared to schedule the broadcasts early afternoon on Sundays. This possibility was not fully examined by the party associa-
February 28, 1973

tions following a meeting held November 14, 1972 at station CBZ in Fredericton.
4.	A one-camera studio set up at station CBZ provides the possibility of microwaving the basic program material to Moncton for recording and final assembly.
5.	No protests were received beyond the reservations expressed by the PC and Liberal association representatives at the November 14 meeting. At that time, strong unfavorable views had been put forth regarding the proposed late night broadcast time and the lack of flexibility of the production facilities.
6.	The broadcast time is governed by programming constraints affecting the three maritime provinces. In addition, the CBC having no English network TV station of its own in New Brunswick, any discussion regarding a more suitable broadcast time should take into consideration the problems and requirements of the private stations called upon to distribute the programs. At the present time, the Corporation does not plan to provide broadcast facilities in the capital city. Production facilities, although minimal, are considered adequate for this type of program.
7.	The normal release time for all provinces is 11:15 p.m. to 11:20 p.m. on Saturday nights following the National TV News. However, due to the hockey being telecast live to the Maritimes from 9:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m., followed by "Countrytime" from 11:30 p.m. to 12 midnight, then by the National TV News from 12 midnight to 12:15 a.m., "Provincial Affairs" in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island is scheduled from 12:15 to 12:20 a.m., and in Newfoundland from 12:45 a.m. to 12:50 a.m.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Did the Northern Transportation Co. call for tenders for marine engines to be used on four large tugboats to be used on the Mackenzie River?
2.	How many and what type of marine gear engines were involved?
3.	What were the names and addresses of all the companies that submitted tenders?
4.	On what date (a) were tenders called (b) were they let?
5.	Was the contract let to the lowest bidder and, if so (a) for what amount (b) to whom?
6.	Was the contract let to a Canadian company and, if not, for what reason?
7.	Will the installation of the motors and other assemblies be performed by Canadian labour?


Jean Marchand: 1. Yes.
2.	Sixteen engines and 16 gears involved. Diesel engines considered were Caterpillar D-399, and General Motors 16V-149T1. Marine gears considered were Caterpillar model 7261, Lufhin RS1616F, and Western Gear model 180PCHR-AA.
3.	Tenders were submitted by: Hoffars Ltd., Burnaby, B.C.; R. Angus Alberta Ltd., Edmonton, Alta.; Finning Tractor & Equipment Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.; Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc., Houston, Texas.
4.	(a) November 9, 1972; (b) January 3,1973.
Order Paper Questions
5.	Contract was let to lowest bidder, R. Angus Alberta Limited; the amount is proprietary information.
6.	Yes.
7.	Yes.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	Has the Export Development Corporation offers outstanding which have been approved by its Board of Directors to provide Section 29 financing to Comision Federal de Electricidad and to Nacional Financinciera S.A., both of Mexico, for $54 million and $34.5 million respectively and (a) if not, were such offers made and what was their final disposition (b) if so, what are the dates of expiration?
2.	If one or more agreements have been signed for such financing or part thereof, what are the names of the main exporters in Canada who will benefit directly or indirectly from such financing and what are the terms of repayment for the loan or loans, including the interest rates thereon?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to starred questions Nos. 839 and 848 is the same, so I wonder if I could have your permission to read it once?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herb Breau: The answer is the following. The Export Development Corporation states that: 1. Approval of section 29 financing by its board of directors and EDC's offers to provide the financing are based on trade information received in confidence from Canadian business firms negotiating for export orders; as publication of any particulars would be a breach of the confidence, EDC is careful to treat all aspects of matters of trade security, (a) for the reasons mentioned above, EDC does not publish the fact that an offer is made, or the final disposition of any offer; it does publish the fact that a financing agreement is made, when that results; (b) similarly, EDC does not publish the expiry dates thereof.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	Has the Export Development Corporation offers outstanding which have been approved by its Board of Directors to provide Section 29 financing to (a) Companhia Siderurgica Nacional, Com-panhia Siderurgica Paulista and Usinas Siderurgica de Minas Gerais for $35,000,000 (b) Companhia Estadual de Energia Elec-trica for $13,000,000 (c) Centrais Electricas de Minas Gerais for $27,300,000, all companies being of Brazil, and (i) if not, were such offers made and what was their final disposition (ii) if so, what are the dates of expiration?
2.	If one or more agreements have been signed for such financing or part thereof, what are the names of the main exporters in Canada who will benefit directly or indirectly from such financing and what are the terms of repayment for the loan or loans, including the interest rates thereon?
[Editor's note: Please refer to starred question No. 839]

February 28, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many teachers are employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
2.	What are the minimum qualifications (academic) required for teachers hired by the Department?
3.	(a) How many teachers working for the Department have more than the minimum academic qualifications required (b) how many have a Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science, or Bachelor of Education degree?
4.	Is the Department giving consideration to the payment of a bonus or an allowance similar to the $1,000 bonus now being paid by the Ontario Department of Education to teachers in isolated northern schools?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. In 1972-73, 1,579 teachers, principals and counsellors were employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
2.	See answer to Parliamentary Question number 1,105, tabled in the House of Commons on March 4,1970.
3.	In 1972-73: (a) 1,537; (b) 523.
4.	See answer to Parliamentary Question number 1,105, tabled in the House of Commons on March 4, 1970.


Mr. Orlikow: How many Employment Placement Officers does the Indian Affairs Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development employ in each province and how many of these are of Indian descent?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Province	Placement Officers	Placement Officers of Indian DescentMaritimes	4	3Quebec	8	-Ontario	7	-Manitoba	1	-Saskatchewan	8	5Alberta	10	1British Columbia	7	2


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many Indian children attend elementary schools and how many attend secondary schools and of these how many are attending schools which are (a) purely Indian (b) integrated?
2.	How does the percentage of Indian students attending (a) elementary schools (b) secondary schools compare with the per-

centage of the whole population attending elementary schools and secondary schools?
3.	How many Indian students are attending universities or other advanced educational institutions?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. The following enrolment figures are for 1971-72, the most recent year available.
	Federal	Non-Federal	
Grades	Schools	Schools	TotalsElementary	26,445	32,844	59,289Secondary	439	9,174	9,613Special	143	1,338	1,48127,027	43,356	70,3832. The percentage of Indian	students enrolled	in elementary or secondary schools in 1971-72 was:	Percent of	Percent for Whole	Indian Population	of CanadaElementary	86.3	68.9 (provided bySecondary	13.7	31.1 Statistics Canada)
3. The following were the numbers of Indian students enrolled in post-secondary training during 1971-72. University, 559; Professional, 562; Nursing, 15; Teacher Training, 63.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	Is there a limitation on the use of field stone for construction or decoration in Jasper National Park and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Is there a limitation pending or in effect on the taking of gravel from locations within Jasper National Park for purposes of construction within the National Park and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Is there a general policy on the use or removal of rocks within the National Parks and, if so (a) what is that policy (b) on what date was each part of it brought into effect?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. No, as
long as the stone comes from outside the park.
2.	Yes, there is a limitation pending. It is the National Parks philosophy that in site geological material should be preserved to the same degree as flora and fauna. Furthermore, previous uncontrolled establishment of sand and gravel pits have left unsightly scars that have no place in a National Park.
3.	Yes. National Parks General Regulations No. 13. (a) "No person shall remove or displace any rock, mineral, fossil or other object of natural curiosity or interest in a Park without permission in writing from the Director", (b) latest amendment, 1965.
February 28, 1973


Mr. Cossitt: Has any person attached to, on loan to or employed by the Department of the Solicitor General compiled information files of any kind whatsoever on any persons serving as Members of Parliament since April 20, 1968 and, if so (a) what are the names of such Members of Parliament (b) for what reason were the files compiled?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: See the
answer that has been given in reply to Question No. 268 on February 12, 1973.


Mr. Cossitt: Are there any persons employed by, attached to or on loan to the Department of the Solicitor General whose duties in any way whatsoever duplicate work performed in any field by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and, if so (a) who are these persons (b) what is the exact nature of their duties?


William Warren Allmand: No.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	Has the Export Development Corporation an offer outstanding which has been approved by its Board of Directors to provide Section 29 financing to the Government of the Republic of Turkey for $26,150,000 and (a) if not, was such an offer made and what was its final disposition (b) if so, what is the date of expiration of the offer?
2.	Is Northern Electric Company Ltd. the chief Canadian exporter to benefit from such financing and, if so, what guarantee is there that all or part of the work will not be done in their plant in Turkey?


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, the Export Development Corporation states that: 1. It signed a loan agreement on February 13, 1973, with the Republic of Turkey to provide $13 million to finance the first half of a contract for telecommunications equipment and services required to implement the second five-year stage of Turkey's telephone expansion program; the loan agreement covers the requirements for 1972 to 1975 and, in addition, contains a commitment to provide similar financing of $13.15 million to support the remainder of the contract to be supplied over the period 1975-1977; (a) Non-applicable; (b) Non-applicable; and
2. Northern Electric Company Ltd. is the chief Canadian exporter to benefit from such financing, and the benefit will extend to a substantial number of Canadian companies who supply it. As to assurance that Turkish-made goods are not financed, EDC funds are disbursed only upon presentation of evidence as to the value and nature of the goods or services and as to the fact of export from Canada.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Stevens: What was the nature of the re-financing loan agreement No. 72-24R signed November 1, 1972 between the Export Development Corporation and the President of Pakistan for some $6,500,000 and what was its term, true interest rate and method of repayment?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Export Development Corporation states that: 1. The refinancing agreement signed on November 1, 1972 between the President of Pakistan and the Export Development Corporation for some $6.5 million was undertaken to provide Canada's share of debt relief established under a multilateral agreement among Pakistan's major creditors; the refinancing undertaken by EDC consolidates maturities falling due in the period from May 1971 to June 1973 under five separate financing agreements signed previously between EDC and Pakistan;
2.	With regard to the term, the last repayment of the amount refinanced will be due July 1, 1977;
3.	Interest, including accrued interest, is to be paid semi-annually from January 1, 1973; interest rates on Export Development Corporation long-term financing are not published since the disclosure of a rate established in respect of one transaction may seriously jeopardize current negotiations for export business; and
4.	Repayment of the amount consolidated is in six semiannual instalments beginning January 1,1975.


Mr. Hellyer: What was the total dollar amount of signed contracts under Section 29 of the Export Development Act as of December 31, 1972?


Alastair William Gillespie: Export Development Corporation states that: The total dollar amount of signed contracts, under section 29 of the Export Development Act, as of December 31, 1972, was $841 million.


Mr. Andre: 1.	What was the cost of production, printing and distribution of the Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972, for the Department of the Solicitor General?
2.	How many copies of the Report were distributed?


William Warren Allmand: 1. The total cost of production, printing and distribution of the Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972, for the Department of the Solicitor General was $15,567.27. The total cost consists of the following expenses: Production and printing $10,689.35; Addressing and handling $379.72; Postage and shipping to date $4,498.20.
2. 8,330 copies of the Report have been distributed to date.

February 28, 1973
Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What were the names of the corporations which received cash grants under the Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP), in each of the fiscal years 1968-69,1969-70,1970-71,1971-72,1972-73 to date and, in each case, what were the amounts of money committed and paid?
2.	What are the objectives of the program?
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?
Return tabled.



NUMBER OF LOANS, 1970-71, APPROVED FOR NEW HOUSING BY CMHC

Mr. Gilbert: 1.	What was the number of loans, in 1970 and 1971, approved for new housing by CMHC under the Special Innovative Program (Sections 16 and 40 of the National Housing Act), for all types of dwellings and tenures, distributed according to family income group (1,000 interval with no cutoff) for each province and territory, and for each of the 20 metropolitan areas (Hull and Ottawa separately)?
2.	What was the average size of these loans, distributed according to family income group ($1,000 interval with no cutoff) for each province and territory, and for each of the twenty metropolitan areas (Hull and Ottawa separately)?
Return tabled.



NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS FINANCED UNDER NATIONAL HOUSING ACT

Mr. Gilbert: What were the numbers of housing units (separately for singledetached dwellings; semi-detached and duplex dwellings; row dwellings) financed under the National Housing Act in each of the past five calendar years, distributed according to family income group ($1,000 interval with no cutoff) and price ($5,000 range with no cutoff), for each province and territory, and for each of the 20 metropolitan areas (Hull and Ottawa separately), excluding activity under the Special Innovative Program?
Return tabled.



NUMBER OF LOANS APPROVED UNDER NATIONAL HOUSING ACT

Mr. Gilbert: How many loans were approved under the National Housing Act for condominium tenure (new housing), for each of the past five calendar years, distributed by family income ($1,000 interval with no cutoff) for each province and territory, and for each of the twenty metropolitan areas (Hull and Ottawa separately), excluding activity under the Special Innovative Program?
Return tabled.



DISPOSITION OF CROWN LANDS BY CROWN ASSETS DISPOSAL CORPORATION

Mr. Forreatall: 1. By province and for each year since 1964 to December 31, 1972, how many acres of Crown land were disposed of by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation?

2.	How many acres of the above were disposed of to incorporated municipalities, and to which ones, in what amounts, and on what dates?
3.	Were all such municipalities given right of first refusal, regardless of other tendered prices and, if not (a) which ones were so treated (b) for what reasons?
4.	Is it the practice of the government to sell Crown land to the highest bidder regardless of the damage done to interests of the municipalities concerned and, if so, for what reason?
Return tabled.



PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES AND PRIME MINISTER'S STAFF

Mr. Stevens: 1.	Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to maintain the number of Parliamentary Secretaries at 16 and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Was the President of the Treasury Board requested to reduce the Prime Minister's personal staff and, if so, by whom?
3.	(a) What are the duties and salaries of the members of the Prime Minister's staff (b) what is the job description for each position?
4.	(a) What are the duties and salaries of the present staff of the Privy Council (b) what is the job description for each individual?
Return tabled.



LIP PROJECTS

Mr. Matte: 1.	How many LIP projects for the years 1972-73 were accepted in the following constituencies (a) Champlain (b) Portneuf (c) Saint-Maurice (d) Trois-Rivieres-Metropolitain (e) Villeneuve (f) Berthier?
2.	For each project, what is (a) the title (b) the location (c) the persons in charge (d) the number of jobs created (e) the amounts invested?
Return tabled.



Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): 1.	In each province, how many LIP projects were approved since the inception of the program and what were the amounts invested?
2.	How many LIP municipal projects were approved for the same period?
3.	How many local and municipal LIP projects were approved for each county of the Province of Quebec and what were the amounts invested?
Return tabled.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 TRADE STATE OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON AUTO PACT

Mr.   Terry@: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move a motion for the adjournment of the House pursu-
February 28, 1973

ant to Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the state of negotiations between Canada and the United States with respect to the Canada-U.S. auto pact, in view of recent statements by the vice-president of General Motors Corporation and officials of the United States Treasury Department concerning a $100 million trade deficit for Canada and particularly the proposed continuing insistence by the United States on the removal of the present Canadian safeguards.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Halton has forwarded the notice required under Standing Order 26 and I have had an opportunity to consider the several aspects of the proposed motion.
The precedents, as well as the Standing Order itself, provide that in ruling whether the business of the House ought to be set aside for an emergency debate the Chair should take into account a number of factors, including the opportunity for debate within a reasonable time. In the present circumstances it would be difficult for the Chair to ignore the fact that the House is now engaged in the budget debate. A long established practice indicates that the budget debate, as well as the throne speech debate, are both deemed to provide the type of opportunity for debate envisaged and contemplated by Standing Order 26. There are many rulings to this effect.
While I recognize the interest and concern of all hon. members in this urgent question, I have concluded that there are in fact, or will be, a number of opportunities for debate within a reasonable time, one of these being the budget debate which is to be called under government orders later this day. It is with regret that I have to reach this conclusion and make this ruling in the hope that the hon. member for Halton, who has proposed this debate under the terms of Standing Order 26, will have the opportunity during the budget debate or other opportunities within the next few days to bring this matter to the attention of the House, to make his representations and to institute a debate.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 14 and 24 are acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notices of motions Nos. 14 and 24 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions for Papers



EVALUATION REPORT OF THE SUBVENTIONS FOR COAL TRANSPORT PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 14-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Subventions for Coal Transport Program (SCT).
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 24-Mr. Rodriguez:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Machinery Remission Program (MACH).
Motion agreed to.
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 18 and 80 are acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that motions Nos. 18 and 80 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



EVALUATION REPORT OF INCENTIVES PROGRAM UNDER AREA DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 18-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Incentives Program under the Area Development Incentives Act (ADIA).
Motion agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES TENDER No. LKT8080-2-1392 INSHORE OIL BOOM
Motion No. 80-Mr. Hellyer:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of invitation to tender File No. LKT8080-2-1392 Inshore Oil boom and all correspondence addressed to or by the Department of Supply and Services in relation thereto.
Motion agreed to.
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 31, 32, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 130, 156 and 157?

February 28, 1973
Motions for Papers



EVALUATION REPORT OF EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 4-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Employment Support Program (ESP).
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, there is no evaluation report of the employment support program. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Edward Broadbent: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



EVALUATION REPORT OF DEFENCE INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 5-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Defence Industrial Research Program (DIR).
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, there is no evaluation report of the defence industrial research program. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, there should be, but I agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



EVALUATION REPORT OF INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP).
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, there is no evaluation report of the industrial research assistance program. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Edward Broadbent: I agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



EVALUATION REPORT OF BUILDING EQUIPMENT, ACCESSORIES AND MATERIAL PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 8-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Building Equipment, Accessories & Material Program (BEAM).
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, there is no evaluation report of the building equipment, accessories and material program. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we are getting a clear revelation of how seriously the government evaluates its programs. Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Nowlan:: We knew that so why don't you admit it?


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



EVALUATION REPORT OF THE DEFENCE INDUSTRY PRODUCTIVITY PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 12-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIP).
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, there is no evaluation report of the defence industry productivity program. I emphasize "report"; that does not mean there is no evaluation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



EVALUATION REPORT OF THE TRANSPORT SUBSIDIES PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 13-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Transport Subsidies Program (TS).
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, there is no evaluation report of the transport subsidies program. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know how the government can make an evaluation without a report.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, evaluation in this government is an ongoing process.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



EVALUATION REPORT OF THE SHIP CONSTRUCTION SUBSIDY PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 15-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Ship Construction Subsidy Program (SCSP).
February 28, 1973________________ COMMONS DEBATES______________________________________1745
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, there is no evaluation report of the ship construction subsidy program. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Edward Broadbent: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



EVALUATION REPORT OF INCENTIVES PROGRAM UNDER REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 17-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Incentives Program under the Regional Development Incentives Act (RDIA).
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, there is no evaluation report of the incentives program under the Regional Development Incentives Act. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Edward Broadbent: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



EVALUATION REPORT OF AUTOMOTIVE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 19-Mr. Rodriguez:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Automotive Adjustment Assistance Program (AAA).
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, there is no evaluation report of the automotive adjustment assistance program. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Rodriguez:: More of the same, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



EVALUATION REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COURSES PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 20-Mr. Rodriguez:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Development of Management Courses Program (DMC).
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, there is no evaluation report of the development of management courses program. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his question.


John R. Rodriguez: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Motions for Papers
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of these motions with the same answer-


An hon. Member:: Call them all at once.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure what is the wish of the House, whether they should be called individually-


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I think this farce ought to be terminated, the relationship between these two parties being such that they should all be withdrawn.


Mr. Hees:: They should have been discussed in caucus this morning.


An hon. Member:: One should not condone incest.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that Nos. 21, 22, 25, 26-the hon. member for York South.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, despite the expected smart-alecky remark of the hon. member for Peace River-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You don't know what smart-alecky is.


David Lewis: -I cannot agree to lumping them together. I think Hansard should show in each case that there are no evaluation reports for these important programs.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) talking about smart-alecky remarks. I made a few remarks which were not smart-alecky.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I intend to explain, Mr. Speaker. There is a difference between a smart-alecky remark and a smart remark.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The fact is that the alecks and the echoes to my left do not know the difference between being smart ar.d smart-alecky.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. member for York South may refer in any way he wants to the member for Peace River but the remarks I made were smart and were not meant to be smart-alecky. They were just describing an incestuous situation which is a farce in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair, of course, will recognize the hon. member for Skeena, but I am wondering whether we are serving a useful purpose by continuing the discussion on the point of order. The Chair is quite prepared to call the motions individually.

February 28, 1973
Motions for Papers


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask, is it not a bit early in the day for the hon. member of the Conservative Party who just sat down to be in the condition he is in?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, that remark by the hon. member for Skeena carries personal imputations of a highly questionable nature, to put it most kindly, and I think that he, as a gentleman in the House, should withdraw it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: If it were possible so to do, Sir, I would ask that Hansard not record it, but that would be impossible. The least the hon. member can do, as a gentleman, is to withdraw the remark.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will not persevere by asking the gentleman what he proposes to do. The remark was directed toward me and I must say I feel rather badly that it was. But I can tell hon. gentleman that, regardless of the hour of the day in my day I am still looking ahead and not behind me, as the hon. member is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Mr. Speaker:: I think hon. members will agree-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I do not ask the member to withdraw his remark-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -directed at me because, as far as I am concerned, when he says anything negative about me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the point made by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley. At the same time, it is the responsibility of the Chair to express an opinion on whether in the view of the Chair such remarks tend to be unparliamentary and sometimes go beyond the thought of hon. members. I am sure the hon. member for Skeena would agree with me that his remarks were of a personal nature and, in that respect, ought not to have been made. I am sure he would agree with me and would be prepared to govern himself accordingly.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I never disagree with you but I must say that the implication attributed to what I said about a condition obviously is the result of someone having an extremely thin skin. I did not mean it that way at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think it might be said in charity about the hon. member's remarks that they were at least the subject of misinterpretation, and in this sense

and to this extent I think the hon. member would want to clarify what he wanted to say and correct the record.


Frank Howard: If I were to clarify it, Mr. Speaker, it would be out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to ask the hon. member for Skeena for his co-operation. I appreciate that these remarks are made in the course of debate and discussion when it is easy for any hon. member in the House to go beyond his thoughts and use words which in his view might be in order but are not consistent with the traditions of the House. The hon. member has to appreciate that he should respect these traditions. One of the traditions or well established practices for the protection of all hon. members is that there should not be personal allusions of any kind. I hope the hon. member will agree, in view of the fact his remarks can be interpreted unkindly, to withdraw them.


Frank Howard: I tried to indicate that earlier. To the extent that the hon. member for Annapolis Valley finds them offensive, I apologize to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I would think the hon. member is apologizing to the Chair because the hon. member for Annapolis Valley has not asked for an apology. Indeed, the Chair did not ask for an apology. I simply asked that the hon. member clarify the statement and withdraw it. He has perhaps gone a little farther. He suggests that to the extent that the Chair finds it offensive he withdraws it. I find it offensive and, on behalf of the House, I accept the hon. member's apology.



EVALUATION REPORT OF COUNSELLING ASSISTANCE TO SMALL ENTERPRISES PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 21-Mr. Rodriguez:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Counselling Assistance to Small Enterprises Program (CASE).
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, there is no evaluation report of the counselling assistance to small enterprises program. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John R. Rodriguez: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



EVALUATION REPORT OF PROGRAM FOR EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 22-Mr. Rodriguez:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Program for Export Market Development.
February 28, 1973
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, there is no evaluation report of the program for export market development. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John R. Rodriguez: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



EVALUATION REPORT OF MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS' REMISSION PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 25-Mr. Rodriguez:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Remission Program (MVM).
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, there is no evaluation report of the motor vehicle manufacturers' remission program. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John R. Rodriguez: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



EVALUATION REPORT OF THE ACCELERATED CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 26-Mr. Rodriguez:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance Program (ACCH).
Herb Breau: There is no evaluation report of the accelerated capital cost allowance program. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John R. Rodriguez: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



EVALUATION REPORT OF NORTHERN MINERAL EXPLORATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 31-Mr. Firth:
That an Order of the 'House do issile for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Northern Mineral Exploration Assistance Program (NMEAP).
Herb Breau: There is no evaluation report of the northern mineral exploration assistance program. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Firth:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Motion for Papers
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



EVALUATION REPORT-PROSPECTORS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 32-Mr. Firth:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Prospectors Assistance Program (PAP).
Herb Breau: There is no evaluation report of the prospectors assistance program. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, this is the last of the evaluation reports, and the evaluation goes on.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, the reply to notices of motions Nos. 87 to 114 inclusive is the same. Must I read them out or may I dispense?


Mr. Speaker:: In the case of motions Nos. 87 to 114, is it the wish of the hon. member that they be called together or individually.


Mr. Grier:: Mr. Speaker, I am agreeable to having them all dealt with in one reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might hear the parliamentary secretary's reply to motions Nos. 87 to 114.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: Notices of motions for papers Nos. 87 to 114 are internal documents of a confidential nature and therefore cannot be tabled. For these reasons, I invite the hon. member to withdraw his motions.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, I would request that these motions be transferred for debate.



COPY OF PROGRAM FORECAST BY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 87-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.
[Stage Direction]
February 28, 1973
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 88-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of Veterans Affairs for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 89-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs for the lastest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 90-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Treasury Board for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 91-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of Transport for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 92-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of Supply and Services for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 93-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of the Solicitor General for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.
[Mr. Grier.)

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 94-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of the Secretary of State for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 95-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 96-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 97-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of Public Works for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 98-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Office of the Privy Council for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 99-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of Justice for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.
February 28, 1973

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 100-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of Labour for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 101-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of National Defence for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 102-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of Manpower and Immigration for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 103-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of National Revenue for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 104-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Post Office Department for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 105-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of Agriculture for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 106-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Auditor General's Office for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 107-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of Communications for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 108-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 109-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 110-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of the Environment for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. Ill-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of External Affairs for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.
[Stage Direction]
February 28, 1973
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 112-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A. B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of Finance for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 113-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of National Health and Welfare for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 114-Mr. Grier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the Program Forecast (Program Review) by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the latest year for which Parliament approved departmental expenditures.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 130-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of training and employment agreements prepared for the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline as referred to at page 61 of the Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Len Marchand: Sometimes white man's system crazy, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Len Marchand: While the department is in the process of preparing such an agreement, no final document exists and it is expected that considerable time will elapse before final consultations are completed with the pipeline industry. Under these circumstances, would the hon. member agree to withdraw the motion?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this withdrawn? I am not sure whether the hon. member for Kootenay West wants the motion dropped or transferred for debate.


Mr. Harding:: Transfer for debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.

COPY OF ORDERS ISSUED BY GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL Motion No. 156-Mr. Douglas:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy of all orders by the Governor in Council issued since September 29, 1970 under Section UA (2) of the National Energy Board Part VI Regulations, in respect of the reports by NEB.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board reports that no orders have been issued by the Governor in Council since September 29, 1970, under Section 11A (2) of the National Energy Board Part VI Regulations, in respect of reports by the board. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Douglas:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


COPY OF REPORTS SUBMITTED TO CABINET BY NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD SINCE SEPTEMBER 29, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 157-Mr. Douglas:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy of all reports submitted since September 29, 1970 to Cabinet by the National Energy Board under Section 11A (1) of NEB Part VI Regulations, in respect of the prices charged for exported Canadian gas.
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board has carried out a number of studies and is keeping under constant surveillance the matter of prices charged for exported Canadian gas, but as of this date there has been no report submitted to the Governor in Council under Section 11A (1) of the National Energy Board Part VI Regulations. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the parliamentary secretary check into notices of motions Nos, 152, 153 and 154? I understand they are available and it would only take five minutes to deal with them.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I will bring that to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary of the President of the Privy Council.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if we could get the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions so that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce could make a brief statement
February 28, 1973

on the current state of the trade talks that are going on between Canada and the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr.   Terry@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. With reference to the indication yesterday that our automobile and automotive parts trade position with the United States amounted to a $100 million deficit in 1972, will the minister advise the House of the reasons for such a deficit occurring and, further, whether this deficit is a temporary reversal or the beginning of a future trend?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada today published the figure. The figure is not $100 million; it is a $41 million deficit on the merchandise trade account. This reverses the position of last year when, according to our figures, we had a surplus on merchandise account of just under $200 million. I would expect with the auto pact that there would be shifts in trade balance figures from time to time. I do not see that there is any emergency or any reason to push any panic button at this time.


Mr. O'Connor:: In view of the fact there has been a transition from a $200 million surplus to a $41 million or $100 million deficit, as the case may be, is the minister satisfied that the production to sales ratio and the Canadian value-added safeguards contained in the auto pact were strictly adhered to by all auto manufacturers operating in Canada in 1972?


Alastair William Gillespie: I should like to take this opportunity to say I believe there is a lot of misunderstanding with respect to the so-called safeguards. They were transitional measures introduced at the start of the auto pact, and at present levels we are exceeding the levels of those transitional provisions by $1 billion or more.


Terrance Patrick (Terry) O'Connor: With respect, the minister has failed to answer my question. Is he satisfied that all manufacturers and parts manufacturers in Canada have strictly adhered to these safeguards as set out in the auto pact?


Alastair William Gillespie: As I have pointed out, by at least a billion dollars.


Terrance Patrick (Terry) O'Connor: Was the production and employment percentage of the total North American Market reduced from the levels achieved in 1971? Further, what steps is the
Oral Questions
government taking to ensure that these critical levels will not be substantially altered in the future?


Alastair William Gillespie: With respect to production-employment ratios, I would have to check. I will be pleased to do so and report back to the hon. member.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Will the minister insist, in his negotiations with the United States, that Canadians have the opportunity to buy cars made in Canada at the same price as Americans pay for Canadian cars?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: As hon. members will recall, one of the first tasks I took on as Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, was to narrow the gap between the wholesale price of vehicles made in Canada and those made in the United States. I received an undertaking from the automobile manufacturers in Canada that if there is any increase in prices in the United States there will be no increase in Canada. To the extent that there is an increase in the United States, the gap will then be narrowed. At the time I received this commitment the United States companies were pursuing an application for a 3 per cent increase.


Alfred Dryden Hales: We are not asking for the gap to be narrowed. We are asking for exactly the same price.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: My supplementary refers to the answer the minister gave a minute or so ago. This is the first time to my knowledge that any minister of the Crown has publicly acknowledged that the government regards the safeguards as being transitional. Would the minister make it clear now that the government regards the safeguards in the Canada-United States automobile agreement as being transitional only?


Alastair William Gillespie: I think it has been made clear in the past that the word "safeguard" is not a word used in the agreement itself. The phrase used in the agreement is "transitional provisions". When reference is made to the so-called safeguards I think the hon. member must be referring to the transitional provisions, because I am unaware of any other so-called safeguards in the agreement.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the fact that in the opening paragraphs of the agreement there is a statement signed by both governments that Canada is to get its fair and equitable share of the production in the North American automotive industry and that this is followed in the agreement by a commitment that the level of production in Canada is not to fall below that achieved in 1964, and in view of the fact that yesterday in the United States treasury officials reasserted their desire to get rid of these aspects of the agreement specifically, as I understand the position, can the minister tell the House whether or not the government of Canada has agreed with that approach?


Alastair William Gillespie: No discussions have taken place with the United States following the committee hearings to which the hon. member has referred. But let me repeat that the

February 28, 1973
Oral Questions
auto agreement is, in our view, working very successfully. We believe it is working very successfully in the United States, and it is presently operating in Canada at a level of a billion dollars over those transitional provisions.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister is still being evasive. Will he tell the House whether it is the position of the government that the job-protecting requirements relating to production levels in Canada which are written into the agreement should be maintained? Is the government committed to maintaining them or is it prepared to allow them to be taken out of the agreement?


Alastair William Gillespie: We are committed to making the auto pact work so that there will be increased employment. That is the important thing, I should like to remind the hon. member. I can see no point at this time in creating baseless fears in the minds of the public with respect to the so-called safeguards.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: We are committed to making the pact work, to building a larger market in North America and a larger share in that market.


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, when the minister says there are misunderstandings, he is right. Can he give any explanation for one of the auto companies saying there was a deficit last year of $100 million while according to Statistics Canada there was a deficit of $41 million? What is his department's estimate of the deficit last year?


Alastair William Gillespie: I have already stated that Statistics Canada has published figures today showing that the deficit on merchandise trade flow was $41 million in the past year.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: And I have asked for an explanation of that difference. Can the minister answer that question for me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member repeating the question he asked in the first instance? If he is, there is not much point in his continuing.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Then I will ask the minister whether any date for new trade talks is now under discussion with the United States?


Alastair William Gillespie: No date has been set. I should like to remind the hon. member that I am not the person who puts together the statistics issued by General Motors in the United States. If he wishes to find out the reason for the difference I suggest he call General Motors in the United States.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Don't you think you should do it?


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-CANADIAN REACTION TO UNITED STATES POSITION
Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Does the minister reject the position taken by United States treasury officials that the automotive trade figures last year were

nothing more than an aberration and that the auto pact is actually working to the detriment of United States interests? If he does reject that position, will he tell the House why the government is lagging in its negotiations in connection with this matter?


Alastair William Gillespie: I do not think the auto pact is any aberration. I do not think its success as far as Canada is concerned is an aberration at all. Nor do I think that spokesmen in the United States regard it in that way. In fact, one report I read stated that the auto pact had been of very considerable benefit to the United States, too.


J. Trevor Morgan: I would ask the minister again: does he reject the position taken by the United States and, if so, why has he not begun negotiations with them at an earlier date?


Alastair William Gillespie: I am not at all clear what particular position the hon. member is imputing to the United States government at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary and then the hon. member for Waterloo.


J. Trevor Morgan: United States officials have said that last year's trade figures were a mere aberration and that the auto pact is working to the detriment of the United States. That is the official position of the United States treasury. If the minister rejects that position, surely he is going to enter into early negotiations and, if not, why not?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he has made his point. He has asked the question twice and the minister has replied, though perhaps not to the hon. member's satisfaction. Perhaps we should allow the hon. member for Waterloo to ask his supplementary.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce regarding his statement about baseless fears. There may have been baseless fears prior to the minister's statements today, but some real fears have developed as a result of what he has said. Since this is the first time I have heard the minister use essentially the same language in describing the auto pact-a transitional agreement-as is being used by the United States government, does this mean that the minister is looking at the auto agreement in the same terms as the United States government and therefore describing it in the same language?


Alastair William Gillespie: [ Trans lation]


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-ISSUE OF SPECIAL COINS
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether the recent reported doubling of the price of silver will lead to a change in the government's policy on the issuing of special coins for the Montreal Olympic Games in 1976?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I cannot, Mr. Speaker, but I will make inquiries on the matter.


AIRPORTS
Mrs. Albanie Morin (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
In view of the increase in air traffic in the Quebec City area, could the minister say whether the runways are to be lengthened to 9,000 feet to make it possible for DC 9s loaded with passengers and fuel to take off and land without difficulty?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are informed that the Department of Transport has set up a continuous program of airport expansion, and the Quebec City airport is on the list. I cannot say by how many feet the runways will be lengthened, but the problem is definitely being looked into, and we will try to find a solution soon.


Mr. Danson:: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would like an airport I know where she can get one cheap.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: So that's your position.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: There goes Cafik again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Waterloo still had a supplementary to his previous question. He will be recognized for that purpose, after which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North.
Oral Questions TRADE


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-NATURE OF SAFEGUARDS
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the issue concerning the auto agreement I should like to give the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce a chance to clarify his position, as he seems to be so concerned about doing so. We have been led to believe that the safety features of the Canada-U.S. auto agreement, as they now are, are binding in contrast with the position taken by the United States government that they are transitional. Can the minister state in an unequivocal way whether the government still views this agreement as binding or does it see it as transitional?


Gerald William Baldwin: That is an impossible dream, Max.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think I made it quite clear that these provisions were provided for, in the language of the agreement, as transitional.


David Lewis: It doesn't say transitional.


An hon. Member:: Would you have a meeting with David Lewis, please, Alastair?


George Harris Hees: Why don't you go back to square one and start all over again?


Alastair William Gillespie: I am trying also to explain-


George Harris Hees: Start all over again like a good boy.


An hon. Member:: You shouldn't be talking about squares.


George Harris Hees: They don't build trade ministers today like they used to.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


SECURITY OF OIL SUPPLIES FOR EASTERN CANADA- REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORTS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the fact he confirmed last night the national energy policy which was established in Canada in 1961, and in light of his admission there has been a cutback in the export of crude petroleum of 3.7 per cent with the pipeline working at capacity, having regard specifically to supply east of the Ottawa line I should like to know whether there has been any consultation by the department, the minister or the government with other countries exporting crude petroleum to Canada, as our imports almost equal our exports, with a view to ensuring that imports will continue without disruption at this time as there is no pipeline into that area?

February 28, 1973
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister oi Energy. Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the arrangements with regard to imports either into the United States or the eastern part of Canada have not been conducted on a government to government basis but on a commercial basis between companies. We have no prospect of changing that at the present time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the fact they are not carried out on a government to government basis, can the minister assure the House there will not be any disruption of imports and that the domestic price of gasoline and other products from crude petroleum to the consumer will not go up in the next few months?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I like the suggestion that I have the ability to control the political situation in the Middle East, but I cannot give that assurance.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask a further supplementary question?


Mr. Fairweather:: I thought the only th.ng this government would not admit being able to control was the weather.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Last evening the committee moved a motion requesting the minister to produce all the reports for which he has asked in reference to production and transportation because of the inadequacy of pipelines at the present time. Is the minister now prepared to agree to table these reports at the appropriate time, including those he may have asked for from the National Energy Board, and disclose them to the House of Commons and the public in order that we may find out what studies have been going on in the last four years?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, under Section 23 of the National Energy Board Act that particular material is privileged. However, I did indicate to the committee that such material as was not covered by privilege, or would not in the public interest be difficult to produce, I would be prepared to produce. Many of the reports were, of course, made orally to myself and my predecessors.


MONTREAL OIL STORAGE CAPACITY IN EVENT IMPORTS CURTAILED
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. In the event of some sort of accident or international event which curtailed or cut off oil supplies to the Montreal market, can the minister indicate what our storage capacity is and how long refinery feed stocks would be available in Montreal?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has the impression that the question has hypothetical overtones. The minister might like to reply briefly.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Subject to confirmation, Mr. Speaker,

and without special arrangements with regard to the transport of oil in Canada, I would say about 45 days.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Because of the understandable public interest in the outcome of an inquest now being held in Yellowknife, will he instruct the coroner to permit counsel for the National Indian Brotherhood and for the families of those who died in the accident that is the subject of this investigation to participate in the inquest and to question witnesses?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the general conduct of the inquest is in the hands of the coroner and I do not think it would be appropriate for me to issue the kind of instructions to which the hon. member refers.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Has the minister, or someone delegated by him, discussed with the coroner, Mr. England, the need for special arrangements for this inquest?


Otto Emil Lang: I know that there have been many discussions with the press on the part of the coroner and the local authorities, including a representative of myself who is there in an attempt to give the maximum accommodation to the press.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary to the Minister of Justice as Attorney General for the Northwest Territories. Will he not intervene at this stage, as any provincial Attorney General would, and discuss the matter with the coroner so that a full and complete inquiry may be made to the end that justice will be met? Will he also inform the House why he thought it necessary, in view of the autonomous situation in respect of affairs judicial in the Northwest Territories, to send a special agent from his department, Mr. Trainor, to act on behalf of the Crown?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the reference by the hon. member to the presence there of a representative of myself as Attorney General for the Northwest Territories, this indicates we are indeed following the situation very closely and are offering such assistance to the inquest and to the coroner as is reasonable. The autonomy which is extended to the Northwest Territories as well as to the Yukon territory over local legal affairs does not remove the direct obligation of the Attorney General, myself, in connection with prosecutions and other legal matters.
The question of whether to use someone from outside the Northwest Territories or from the regular legal staff of the Attorney General in the Northwest Territories depends upon the workload and other considerations, having regard to the nature of the case.
February 28, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will recognize the hon. member tor a supplementary and then the hon. member tor Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. There are other members who have supplementaries. The hon. member for Vegreville would like to ask a supplementary and will be recognized later.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in the interests ot justice and of having a complete inquiry, will the minister not at least indicate to his agent there, who in turn could consult the coroner, that other counsel involved in these proceedings should be allowed to participate in the examination of witnesses appearing before the inquiry?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member the assurance that I have made it quite clear that the function of my agent in these proceedings is to make sure that there is the fairest possible hearing, and I have no reason to doubt that this is happening.


OIL SUPPLY-HEARINGS BEFORE NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD TO DETERMINE EXPORT QUOTAS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises out of the fact that the National Energy Board has set export quotas on Canadian crude oil at the very high figure of 1,235,000 barrels per day which is higher than the applicants indicated they intended to export during the month of February. I ask the minister how long it will be before the National Energy Board will have completed its hearings and be in a position to set more realistic quotas for export, having due regard to the dwindling reserves of Canadian crude oil?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I am correct in saying the board at the moment has not set a definite date for the hearings. I would anticipate it could be a matter of several months before it would be in a position to have the hearings proceed, and perhaps a month or so after that before it could complete its study in this regard. I would anticipate it would be some months yet before we can determine what the appropriate level of reserves is for oil and thereafter to set an appropriate export level.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the present export quotas that the board has set for the month of March seem to be based on exporting all the oil surplus to our immediate domestic requirements, I ask the minister whether he or the officials of his department are drafting guidelines for the National Energy Board that would ensure that exports of oil will be kept sufficiently low so that the life index of our reserves will be extended to enable this country to develop other sources of supply and to enable the environmental impact of pipelines in the north can be fully studied?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the short run position-that is, in the next several months
Oral Questions
and until the proper reserve level can be established-I would not anticipate that there would be a very substantial draw on Canadian reserves in relation to the amount that is available. I would agree with the hon. gentleman that the National Energy Board should determine a position as to the appropriate level which we should have in reserve. I think it would be more appropriate, really, that the board should do that after there has been an opportunity for public hearings and for participation by interested parties, not the least being the government of Alberta, and make a determination at that time. Thereafter, of course, the future development of the reserves of the great plains will depend upon the board's determination and also agreements with the government of Alberta.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands seeks to ask a supplementary, as does the hon. member for Calgary North. I bring to the attention of all hon. members that if we allow these two supplementaries we will just about reach the end of the question period. I am a little unhappy about the situation of other hon. members but I appreciate that this is an important matter. Perhaps the supplementaries and the answers could be brief.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mine will be brief, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the National Energy Board will have to make some far-reaching decisions in the course of the next few months, and in view of the fact there will be a need to harmonize these with the government's energy policy, can the minister be more precise as to when he intends to announce the government's energy policy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have to confess to the hon. gentleman that there has been slippage from late winter to mid-spring now.


INTERPROVINCIAL PIPELINE-REQUEST FOR EARLY DECISION ON APPLICATION TO ENLARGE CAPACITY
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact Dr. Howland said last night before the committee that they were not coming here on the basis of an estimated shortage of oil, would the minister now undertake to have entertained immediately the application to enlarge the capacity of Interprovincial Pipeline to 125,000 barrels of crude petroleum per day, so that the project can start and the question of shortage will not depend on procrastination or failure in respect of building pipelines?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking me to give instructions to private industry as to when it should bring forward its projects. I am interested that he would do that coming from one of his political party, but it seems to me that with the application being set down for next month it will go ahead in due course.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair indicated a moment ago that we should try to give other hon. members an opportunity to ask questions. The hon. member for Richmond.

February 28, 1973
Oral Questions


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Secretary of State a question.
Could he tell the House about the circumstances surrounding a budgetary reduction made by the National Film Board in the case of Mr. Gilles Groulx, a Quebec film producer.


Mr. Speaker:: This is perhaps a matter to place on the
order paper. However, the minister might take it as notice.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare a question.
Could he tell the House whether his department is still considering the possibility of maintaining flat-rate family allowance payments?


Marc Lalonde: As I said before, Mr. Speaker, my department is presently reviewing all possibilities in this respect.


CATALOGUE ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF THERAPEUTIC EQUIVALENCY
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the assertion of the minister that all drugs listed as approved by his department and published in a catalogue being sent to all doctors, are equivalents, would the minister assure the House that all drugs in this catalogue are equivalent in quality and have therapeutic equivalency in treating the same type of sickness?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the QUAD program is one of the steps taken by the government to help reduce the cost to the consumer of drugs in this country. The QUAD program contains three basic elements: one, to establish quality, the chemical testing; two, the evaluation of the manufacturing capabilities; three, the measure of clinical effectiveness. No single one of these three characteristics can guarantee equivalence, but if they are taken together these three factors provide extremely strong evidence of clinical equivalence. Thus, two brands of a given drug which have acceptable chemical analysis and bio availability, and have been produced under satisfactory conditions, can be expected to be therapeutically equivalent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Simcoe North, but the hon. member for Halton is rising on a question of privilege.


Terrance Patrick (Terry) O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of the remarks of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce this afternoon. On several occasions he referred to the transitional measures contained in the automotive pact. I was not sure at the time, but in the interest of being accurate I have since read the agreement and the letters of undertaking filed by various car companies, and nowhere in the agreement is there a reference to the measures of safeguards being of a transitional nature.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That cannot possibly be considered to be a question of privilege. The hon. member for Simcoe North has the floor.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is it a fact that in all cases the government cannot guarantee either the quality or the therapeutic equivalence of the drugs listed in the catalogue?


Marc Lalonde: I think my previous answer covers this point, Mr. Speaker.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the questions posed by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal and the hon. member for Yukon. I wish to direct it to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of the inquest being held in Yellowknife. In view of the evidence that was presented yesterday to the effect that non-directional beacons along the prescribed route are inadequate, weak and feeble, is the minister now considering stepping up the program of improved navigational aids in northern Canada along the main airline corridors?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I could give more details this afternoon but I would prefer to do it tomorrow if the hon. member will accept this. We are working very hard to improve all navigational aids not only in the Arctic but everywhere in Canada.


DC-8 CRASH IN TORONTO-INQUIRY AS TO SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport the following question. Following the unfortunate crash of a DC-8, Air Canada jet in Toronto two years ago this coming July, I think it was, can the minister indicate whether the insur-

February 28, 1973

ance claims have been met so that the estates of the deceased can be settled?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire into this matter. I will ask Air Canada to give me a report on it and I will transmit the information to the hon. member.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Dan Hollands (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Has the department at any time during the past 18 months engaged the services of Veterans Land Act land accessors to do a land appraisal in the province of Alberta?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question in those terms should be placed on the order paper. The minister will be allowed to reply briefly since the question has been asked, but I respectfully suggest to hon. members that questions of this nature should normally be placed on the order paper. The minister will be recognized for the purpose of replying briefly.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, my brief reply would be that I would be glad to look into the question and answer it either on the order paper or directly to the hon. member.



REQUEST THAT REPORTS OF STUDIES BE TABLED

Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would he table in the House the various investigative studies, including those in terms of bioavailability, which support the evidence presented in the QUAD 1972 presentation?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many trucks I would need to carry all that information, but I am looking into the matter at present and will try to make as much information available as is physically possible.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Paddy Neale (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that Air Canada now owns one-third of the shares of Wardair, where a legal strike is now in effect, would the minister have his department investigate the leasing of
Oral Questions
Air Canada hangar space at Vancouver international airport to Wardair and the supplying of Air Canada instructors to train Wardair personnel to man the 747 aircraft that Wardair is purchasing?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that strike, but I will inquire.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: I am not aware of the details of the strike. If the hon. member wishes to ask the Minister of Labour what the strike is about, O.K.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Why don't you ask him a question?



MEASURES TO COUNTERACT UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce which will give him a break from questions on the auto pact. In view of the use by the United States of countervailing duties in the case of Michelin and the use of DISC to promote its exports, and as the European Economic Community is using a value added tax to promote its economic interests, has the government of this nation any current policies, plans or measures to promote and protect Canada's economy as it is now, or must we practise passive endurance forever?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member made quite clear by his question, we are entering a very tough trading situation in the world. There is no question of it. That is all the more reason, therefore, for the House to adopt the corporate tax reductions so that we can put exporters on an equal basis and enable them to compete internationally.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Apart from the general reply the minister gave me, has he any specific plans similar in nature to the Employment Support Act which was brought in August of 1971 to counteract the surcharges? Have we anything tangible at this time to counteract this difficult position?


Alastair William Gillespie: I do not think there is anything more tangible than a tax cut which will put the exporters of end products, the manufacturers of this nation, in a better position.



SUGGESTED CONSULTATION WITH GOVERNMENTS OF ATLANTIC PROVINCES ON TARIFFS PRIOR TO DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES AND GATT

Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In light of the fact that tariff policies have an immense effect on the economic life of

Oral Questions
the Atlantic provinces and will affect future opportunities in this area, will the minister consult the governments of the Atlantic region regarding proposals on tariff policies before future Canada-U.S. trade talks and the GATT talks expected to be held this year?


Alastair William Gillespie: I expect to be discussing the Canadian position in the multilateral negotiations with the ministers of industry of the various provinces some time within the next five or six weeks.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns the tariff talks already referred to. In view of the concern expressed yesterday by the Canadian Horticultural Council, is the minister prepared to assure the House and the country that he will act unilaterally either by extending the embargo period with regard to fruits and vegetables entering this country or increasing the tariff to protect our thriving horticultural industry?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was present last night when I addressed the Canadian Horticultural Council and I am sure that he heard what I said there, namely, that my interest was to make sure that Canadian horticultural production-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes or no?


Eugene Whelan: -remains healthy. Yes, I am prepared to do that.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Because there continues to be concern regarding the necessity of Canadians travelling abroad on charters to pay higher fares than, for instance, Europeans travelling to North America, could the minister give us any justification for this hardship to Canadians?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission informs me that the relevant regulations authorize the Commission to remove or waive some restrictions in certain individual cases.
Now the Canadian Transport Commission has decided to waive certain delays for all travel towards Eastern

Europe, which means that no ethnic groups will meet with the problems they have faced so far..
On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to what I said a few moments ago about not being aware of the Wardair strike. As a matter of fact I am aware that a strike is on, but not of the status of negotiations, which is quite different.
I apologize to the hon. member-



TAXATION


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The budget included a provision that family farmlands will no longer be subject to capital gains tax when passed on to a son or daughter on the death of the farm owner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: I would like to ask the minister if this exemption also includes the buildings on the farm, or is it just the land?


Eugene Whelan: It includes the complete farm, Mr. Speaker.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Does it include the buildings?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member a supplementary?


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: In view of the fact that many family farms have been incorporated so as to make the family farm a more viable unit, does the minister intend to take steps to make sure that these family farm corporations will not be subject to capital gains tax and thus will be treated the same as family farm units which in fact they are?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fairly plain that the whole principle behind this provision in the budget is to make sure it is a family farm and that the family stays in farming. That is the idea of it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why do you have to die first?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about reached the end of the question period. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Lethbridge.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. As 75 per
February 28, 1973

cent of all irrigated lands in Canada are in southern Alberta, and since the ditches serving these lands are in a sad state of disrepair, has the government completed the agreement under negotiation with the province of Alberta whereby both governments would participate in the cost of upgrading this antiquated system?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I met with the people in that area of Alberta a week ago Saturday, and we are very close to completing this agreement. I am sure that even the hon. member will be happy with it.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY RESPECTING BRITISH COLUMBIA LAND *	COMMISSION BILL
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.
Is he familiar with Bill 42 of the government of British Columbia, which gives the Land Commission, whose members are not elected, the right to confiscate any farm land and dispose of it as it sees fit, to build land banks and parks, without concern for the rights of individuals or municipalities?


Otto Emil Lang: I have seen the bill, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I have just mentioned that we are coming close to the end of the question period. I had hoped to recognize another two or three members, without accepting supplementaries, before calling the order of the day.

[Eng lish]



FINANCE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the letter sent to him by the minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan protesting the removal of the tariff protection on cattle and beef coming into Canada from the United States, will the minister review this policy as requested and give farm organizations a chance to put their case before him?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, of course all the tariff reductions affecting consumer goods, whether they be industrial or agricultural, are on a temporary, one-year basis. They are meant, and were so researched, not to affect adversely either production or employment and we will analyse any adverse affect on either production or employment of every one of these reductions.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF RONALD PATRICK LIPPERT IMPRISONED IN CUBA

Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister on a subject I have raised on several previous occasions in the House, namely, the matter of Ronald Patrick Lippert, a Canadian citizen from Kitchener, Ontario, in prison in Cuba for the last ten years as part of a 30-year sentence. In view of the lack of success, or perhaps lack of initiative by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in dealing with the matter, will the Prime Minister consider approaching his counterpart, Prime Minister Fidel Castro of Cuba, in an attempt to obtain the release of Mr. Lippert as soon as possible?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has dealt with this matter on several occasions and I have nothing new to add at this point.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to hon. members who have supplementary questions and did not have an opportunity to ask them. Before calling orders of the day the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister or for the Minister of Justice. Have they received a telegram or a submission from the opposition parties in the British Columbia legislature asking for federal government assistance in removing those parts of Bill 42 that affect the individual rights of Canadian citizens and, if they have received such a telegram, what do they plan to do about it?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know I have not seen such a telegram. I will check in my office to see whether one has arrived.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which affects the business of the House. I would urge the government House leader to set in motion the various standing committees which will be inquiring into the estimates, not only because of the heavy burden involved and the late date at which we are approaching the examination of the estimates but because of a number of issues raised today that might well be inquired into in committee.

February 28, 1973
Oral Questions
I was particularly taken by the questions asked of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. If the appropriate standing committee were convened, the whole question of the controversy over and discrepancies in the auto trade pact could be the subject of discussion in that committee, with questions asked and answers given. I am not going to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that would relieve the burden you are now faced with in dealing with the question period, but I do suggest it would be a great measure of assistance to the Chair and to the hon. members if the committees were set in motion.


Mr. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding recognition of members of the House. It does not concern myself. Two members on the opposite side asked questions today, one on family allowances and the other on charter air fares, which were asked and answered in the House yesterday. Either these members were not present or they do not read Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think there has never been any suggestion that members on the government side are not entitled to ask questions, and as long as I am here I have every intention of allowing them to ask questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Dryden Hales: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, concerning the answer to written question No. 794 which I received today. In part 5 I asked:
Was the contract let to the lowest bidder and, if so (a) for what amount (b) to whom?
This matter concerns the Department of Transport. The answer was that the contract was let to the lowest bidder. That is fine. The name of the bidder was given but as to the amount the answer was that it is proprietary information. It has been a longstanding rule of the House that when a member asks for the name of a tenderer and the amount of the tender that information should be made available. I would ask the minister to see that I get information as to the amount and that I am not again told that it is proprietary information.


Mr. Danforth:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I apologize to the House for holding up the normal proceedings. I bring to your attention, Sir, and to the attention of all hon. members that we are very fortunate to have in our galleries today, I believe for the first time in history, the Canadian Horticultural Council in a body, an organization which has for so long represented the fruit and vegetable growers and horticulture in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


Mr. Heward Graiftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member, but the question period has ended. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My question was to the right hon. Prime Minister or to the Minister of Justice-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question, I point out that the question period ended about ten minutes ago. Only with the unanimous consent of the House can we revert to the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I would have no objection whatsoever if hon. members wished to revert to the question period. The hon. member rises on a point of order.


John Douglas Reynolds: The point of order is that my question was asked of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice as to whether they had received a telegram or submission. I received an answer only from the Minister of Justice, and I would not want the press to pick up that the Prime Minister said he did not receive a telegram. Perhaps the Minister of Justice would straighten out this matter, because the Prime Minister has left the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order. The Minister of Justice rises on a point of order.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to tell the hon. member that the Prime Minister indicated that his answer was the same as mine. Also, if the hon. member wishes to know whether we have received a telegram it might be wise to let us know in advance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order but an answer perhaps to a supplementary question. Apparently the matter has been cleared up to the satisfaction of the hon. member. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, February 27, consideration of the motion of Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance) that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Mr. Yves Demers (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, since I had to interrupt my speech yesterday evening, I should like to point out that another cause of inflation is that collective agreements have these past ten years provided the Canadian workers with annual salary increases of about 5 per cent. Five per cent raises are granted to one sector of the economy one year, and the next year other collective agreements make it necessary to give raises to other sectors, so as to ensure some degree of uniformity in salary
February 28, 1973

scales, and so it goes on and on. In the end, everyone is earning more but no one is getting more buying power.
Not that I am opposed to collective agreements or to unions; on the contrary, I consider that they have done a fine job and have greatly contributed to the workers' welfare. I would, however, suggest that the federal government, the unions and the employers carry out a joint study of this vicious circle, with a view to putting an end to this plethora of raises, which are getting us nowhere and are adding to the inflationary pressures.
The budget also assists small businesses, Mr. Speaker, through elimination of the ineligible investment test as from January 1, 1972. According to the fiscal reform, small Canadian businesses are taxable at the rate of 25 per cent of profits resulting from their operations. However, any investment income was taxable at 50 p. 100. As a result, management of small businesses had adopted a policy of distributing as dividends or otherwise a very substantial part of accumulated profits, resulting in a serious lack of liquid assets in our businesses. A reduction of the tax rate on investment income from 50 to 25 p. 100 therefore encourages small businesses to increase their operating funds in periods of stability and to invest surpluses in bonds, mortgages or other Canadian investments.
In this manner, when those businesses are prepared to expand, they will merely have to liquidate their investments in order to finance development.
This is a measure which will enable our smaller industries to save more; thus, a larger share of our economy will belong to Canadians and no longer to foreign investors.
This budget also introduces a new concept in our tax system, that of including in the calculation of equalization payments the amounts paid in school taxes. Today, most of our Canadian municipalities are faced with a crucial problem. In 1973-74, $190 million will be paid to the Atlantic provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan; this amount represents 28 per cent of the school taxes levied in those provinces.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) also increased to $100 the basic old age security pension. I am happy to see that not only the guaranteed income supplement has been increased but also the basic pension because, to my mind, those Canadians who have paid taxes all their lives have the right to that pension; it is not a social security benefit, but their due.
The workers who have contributed to superannuation funds of private companies or other employers are eligible when they retire to a pension at a fixed amount proportional to the amount they have paid, notwithstanding their eventual investment revenues.
The present gap between the basic pension and the guaranteed income supplement must be progressively reduced, because it is unfair to the Canadian worker who, through his work and because of the sacrifices be willingly accepted in order to save money, has often managed to save $10,000 or $15,000 a year throughout his life. Canadians are thus penalized, because in calculating the guaranteed income supplement, the interest gained on saved capital is deducted, which leaves him with a pension
The Budget-Mr. Wagner
altogether equal to that of the taxpayer who never took the trouble to save. Canadians are accordingly encouraged to spend all their earnings, knowing that when they reach 60 or 65 they can live at the expense of the state.
I even think that in the future the gap between the basic pension and the guaranteed income supplement should be further reduced even if the $1,000 tax exemption granted to pensioners has to be abolished.
The suppression of the $1,000 exemption would make the taxation system fairer, so that with an equal revenue, one would pay an equal tax.
This budget is certainly the best in many years, if not since the beginning of Confederation.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members have several ways of analyzing the budget now under consideration. One of them is to look at it with the eyes of the head of a family. The more time passes by, the more it seems fair to me to say that it is in terms of its social impact that the budget introduced by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) must be assessed.
The Liberal members and those who are no longer in such a hurry and who are sitting to my left cannot indeed contend decently that this budget is beneficial to the average Canadian family. Looking at it this way would amount to considering the family merely through a statistical prim.
Mr. Speaker, a family is a reality. In the province of Quebec-and I am referring here to the family in Saint-Hyacinthe, as well as the family almost anywhere else in Canada-the family relies more and more on the authorities in search both of a reassessement of its status and life conditions which would not only encourage its complete development, but even constitute its very existence.
It is sad to realize today that our colleagues of the New Democratic Party, the new "democratic paradox", find it normal that the corporate welfare bums should retain what they use to call privileges, and at the same time that the family should gradually lose its rights. Helping out the family meant in particular-and that is what we would have done had we been in office-suppressing the 11 per cent tax on building materials. If I may parody here our Social Credit friends, I would say that we would have thus made financially feasible what is physically possible, namely the desire of every father and mother to have their children educated in a home that would be personal to them and rich in comfort and in intimacy.
Concerning the suppression of the tax on children's clothing and footwear, that is a step forward, but a most bashful one. It is well known, Mr. Speaker, that the 39 cents saved on the one hand on the purchase of footwear for junior will not be enough on the other hand to compensate for the increase, due to inflation, in the price of the maternity dress which the mother has to buy.
And now we know it, Mr. Speaker: a Progressive Conservative government would have removed the federal sales tax on all kinds of clothing and footwear; as for the mascara of the fashionable woman, I couldn't care less!
This, Mr. Speaker, would have really helped the family.

February 28, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Wagner
This budget will not put luxuries within the means of people aged 60 and over. At least 786,000 Canadian citizens between 60 and 65 are being told once more, despite the people's will: "status quo". The government would not even agree to lower the eligible age for retirement. Some 145,000 persons aged 64 across the country are disappointed with the last budget. Yet it is time, Mr. Speaker, to forget about partisanship and to bring gradually into to the federal pension plan all those aged 60.
Even here, "David" did not dare pit himself against the Liberal Goliath. Making a U-turn, he preferred in an anti-historical gesture use his sling against people smaller than him and in some cases against those very people who favoured him at the expense of Goliath.
This budget, Mr. Speaker, is not either that of the Golden Age, nor will it ever come of age, because it was stillborn It was produced by a couple that entered into a friendly agreement which has more to do with political immorality than with the desire to create sound results for the people.
From the social point of view, Mr. Speaker, the budget of the present government is a failure since it ignores the family and minimizes the needs of older people.
From the purely economic point of view, my distinguished colleagues, and I am thinking here of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the hon. members for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), have shown in this debate the weaknesses of the budget speech of the Minister of Finance.
The rate of increase of the cost of living erodes the increases in salaries or welfare benefits for some and the incentive to work for pay for others and yet the government is still doing nothing more, as the Minister of Finance said, than calling for voluntary restraint as a means to curb inflation.
Earlier, Mr. Speaker, I spoke as a family man, as a Quebecker. I say that no province has more to be bitterly disappointed about in this budget than Quebec. A province whose people have the right to participate in the mainstream of Canadian economic life has been given no meaningful incentive or encouragement to do so in this budget. The pensioner, the workingman and the small businessman in Quebec can, with strong reason, be united in their disappointment.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and members of his cabinet have long prided themselves on the political success their party has had repeatedly in the province of Quebec. As I sit and look across the way at many of my fellow Quebeckers who chose to serve as Liberal members, and when I note the increase in costs and unemployment for Quebeckers under this government, I cannot but rephrase the words of a great parliamentarian of another era and say: Never have so many taken so long to do so little for those they represent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: For while it is all very well for government agencies such as the one formerly headed by the Minister

of Transport (Mr. Marchand) to seek to equalize disparity through regional development grants, the measure of a government's economic success lies in its ability to create a climate in which all citizens can help themselves to achieve a better standard of living.
Those who represent Quebec in this House know full well the type of people we have the honour of speaking for here in Ottawa. Whether a Quebec member sits with the government, the Creditistes or with the official opposition, he or she knows full well that those who sent us here are a self-reliant group of Canadians desirous of neither special economic favours nor handouts. We from Quebec know that Quebeckers want to participate in our nation's economy while standing on their own economic feet-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: -as opposed to relying on an election platform artificially propped up by some last minute grants. We from Quebec should ask ourselves what this budget should have done for young Quebeckers leaving CEGEP or college and seeking work, and what it should have done for housewives trying to meet the steadily rising cost of living. After asking these questions, Quebec members who support this budget know full well to what degree they are selling out their constituents' interests.
Mr. Speaker, we are getting closer and closer to the day when those whose interest was sold out on the carving block of parliamentary expediency will vote against those who so willingly made that sale. It may be very easy for government members from Quebec to join their colleagues in making parliamentary deals with the New Democratic paradox, but let them be fully aware that the price of NDP support this week in Ottawa will be paid by Liberal candidates in the 74 ridings of Quebec in the months to come. For when Quebeckers speak out at the polls they will be speaking out against a party that has allowed Quebeckers to suffer an unemployment rate which is at times a full two percentage points above the national average.


Mr. Paproski:: Right on. Shame.


Claude Wagner: They will speak out against a government that forces Quebeckers under the age of 25 to make their entry into the work force a particularly discouraging and difficult one.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, and I see the Minister of Transport smiling.


Claude Wagner: They will speak out against the type of price instability that makes maintaining a decent standard of living, let alone improving one's standard of living, a discouraging and impossible battle for Quebeckers of all ages.
My colleague for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) has already put forward the type of bold step a Stanfield government would have taken to move the economy of Quebec and of other provinces forward while ensuring that a basic form of price and cost stability was maintained. By comparison, the Turner budget lacks both imagination and understanding and deserves neither the trust nor support of the Canadian people.
February 28, 1973


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: This budget, as the Minister of Finance said, strengthens and supplements the budget introduced in the House in May 1972. It is true, Mr. Speaker, in this sense that it strengthens and supplements the image the people of Canada had of the incompetence and the loss of credibility of this government in general and the Minister of Finance in particular.
The challenge, Mr. Speaker, was not to convince the New Democrats but all Canadians. For our part-and it is the challenge-we are ready to meet the real needs of all Canadians.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to enter this debate on the budget. The hon. member who last spoke quoted that great statesman and made the analogy that never have so many taken so long to do so little for those they represent. After listening to his speech, with all its colourful rhetoric and very few specifics, I think I can say that never have I heard so many people in the opposition talk so much and offer so little.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: The hon. member talked about what the Turner budget has done for the young Quebecker. As I recall, this man should know something about progressive policies to help the young Quebecker because he was a member of the government of that province: he is aware of the jurisdictional limits on how we can intervene to help.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: I might ask him what he and his government did, and would he justify his own policies in terms of concrete assistance to young Quebeckers? Our record is quite clear, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member knows, we have shared, in terms of post-secondary education, half the operating costs throughout the province of Quebec and have done so for many years. Is he not aware of that fact? Is he not aware of the millions, indeed hundreds of millions of dollars which have gone to that province, as they have to other provinces, as our share in the cost of post-secondary education? Does he condemn the Opportunities for Youth program?


Mr. Blenkarn:: Yes.


An hon. Member:: Who said that?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I did.


John Carr Munro: I take it that whoever in the opposition said yes, he does condemn it, does not speak for the official opposition. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) talked about what this budget does for the housewife and the family in Quebec. Let me remind him that there are many tariff cuts and sales tax cuts which are designed to increase the purchasing power
The Budget-Hon. John C. Munro
of the very housewives in Quebec about whom he speaks. Let me also remind the hon. member that it was this government which not so many months ago brought before this House a family income security plan.


Mr. Forrestall:: Who killed it?


John Carr Munro: Precisely. I wish the hon. member would keep interrupting; he is very helpful. I will tell him who killed it. Members of the official opposition killed it by delaying tactics throughout the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Some members of the official opposition from Newfoundland-one or two are not here now because they did not survive the last election- will testify that the Conservative party's position on FISP was a positive embarrassment to them in that province. That bill would have redistributed an additional $180 million over and above the $650 million already in the program to those very children and families about which the hon. member spoke. The hon. member is now a front bencher of the party which did so much to destroy the legislation that would have greatly helped young families in the province of Quebec as well as in other provinces of Canada.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What about jobs?


John Carr Munro: The hon. member asks about jobs. That shows how preposterous is the economic thinking on the other side, when they do not realize that an increase of this kind in social security moneys going to those in the lower income groups increases their disposable income and purchasing power for goods they desperately need and, by its very nature, creates jobs. Is that not what the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) has been trying to tell us and his own party?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You are the minister of unemployment, not employment.


John Carr Munro: Maybe the hon. member who just spoke has one advantage. He is a new member. For obvious reasons, he has chosen not to take any responsibility whatsoever for the past conduct of the party he represents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe spoke with passion about the high rate of unemployment in the province of Quebec but offered very few specifics to correct the situation in terms of policies. He was a member of the Conservative party which not so many days ago took a position that would have cut off moneys to the very unemployed he pretends to care about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: He speaks about his concern for families of Quebec. Let him justify the position of his party on the FISP bill that would have done so much for the children of his province. I do not think he can. I had an opportunity to read the speech of the hon. member for Don Valley. I read in the newspapers that the hon.

February 28, 1973
The Budget-Hon. John C. Munro member lor Don Valley is the new financial critic for the Conservative party. I looked forward with considerable anticipation to his speech. Knowing his background in the academic field, I thought we might find something there of a novel nature which would be constructive. I found not one original thought in that speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You should hear yourself.


John Carr Munro: I hope his students felt he made a better contribution to their benefit than members of this House felt he did to theirs.


Mr. Gillies:: I doubt whether members of the government felt that way.


John Carr Munro: The hon. member who has just spoken referred to the great new formula which the hon. member for Don Valley had offered. But when you strip away the rhetoric, his solutions to unemployment and the economic problems confronting the country aside from policies already in place turned out to be wage and price controls. He talked about a 90-day period, a stabilization period, whatever that means; but I found an amazing lack of detail as to precisely what would happen after that period of 90 days.


Mr. lamieson:: Sixty days.


John Carr Munro: He talked about wage and price controls. Nowhere in his speech did I see any suggestion that there ought to be any type of control of profits. When we talk about wage and price controls and offer them as some solution to the economic ills of the country, I believe we should be careful not to raise expectations among the people who are suffering most from inflation and from unemployment-expectations which can never be fulfilled. I take it that the hon. member for Don Valley would be the very first to admit that in terms of the unemployment which we have been facing and which we have been trying to cure-


James McPhail Gillies: Unsuccessfully.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Oh, come on!


John Carr Munro: -wage and price control is not a solution which will lower unemployment in the short term.


James McPhail Gillies: Try it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: If he is suggesting that it will-and it would appear that his party is doing so by the line it is taking-he is misleading the Canadian people. The fact is that wage and price controls, unless one spells out specifically how they would work and to whom they would apply and whether they would apply to profits, all too often hurt the very people who can least afford to bear their weight. I refer to the people in the lower income groups. These are the ones earning wages and salaries.

These are the ones who could be subjected to control most effectively. These are the ones who enjoy the least benefits in terms of stock options, expense accounts, and so on, as a means of getting around controls. Any equitable approach to wage and price controls must ensure that the working population of this country is not asked to accept the full burden of such restrictions while those who enjoy profits, stock options and other sources of income escape.
The hon. member and other members of the Official Opposition talk about tax cuts. They suggest tax cuts across the board.


James McPhail Gillies: Right.


John Carr Munro: What novelty is there in that? Those in the higher income groups get the greatest benefit. That has been the traditional position of the Conservative party. I thought the hon. member for Don Valley would have something better to offer.
This budget places minimum and maximum limits on tax cuts so that they can exert maximum impact on the people who should benefit most-the people in the middle and lower income groups. Who would argue with that? This budget also increases real income by effecting reductions in sales tax. I think the hon. member for Don Valley would admit that, traditionally, sales taxes are retrogressive; they have been most severely felt by those in the lower income groups. By reducing sales taxes we are helping the people in the lower income groups who need help most. Surely, no one would disagree with that philosophy.
Mr. Speaker, we are considering a budget which increases disposable income, which reduces tariffs, which reduces sales tax, which reduces customs duties. Second, it reduces taxes. The hon. member for Don Valley has talked about this, but in a much less progressive fashion. The budget reduces taxes in a way which will have a major impact upon those who most need increased disposable income-the low income groups. Third, it contains a built-in mechanism as an inflationary hedge. It does so in a way which will work. I believe even the hon. member for Don Valley will admit that this type of inflationary hedge mechanism built into the platform of the Conservative party would have been entirely inoperative.
Fourth, it contains incentives to private industry to increase capitalization, modernize plants and upgrade technology, thereby improving the strength of its position in world markets. This is what hon. members opposite have been talking about during the question period. Fifth, it continues a policy of injecting money into the economy so as to provide jobs through such programs as Opportunities for Youth, LIP and manpower training. This provides a direct stimulus to the economy. Sixth, it increases disposable income in the hands of some 1,700,000 Canadians by expending many more hundreds of millions of dollars in this fiscal year on our senior citizens, one million of whom were surviving on all or part of the guaranteed income supplement. Now they will get a substantial increase in their pensions. Would anyone disagree that all these programs combine to increase substantially the amount of disposable income in the hands of Canadians?


James McPhail Gillies: Not enough.
February 28, 1973


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It is never enough.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret I must interrupt the minister, but the time allotted to him has expired. As hon. members know, we have only limited time available to us.


John Carr Munro: Could I have one more minute?


Mr. Knight:: Sorry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In the circumstances there is no possibility of an extension of time if we are to retain the order which has been arranged.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure to be back in the House of Commons after an enforced absence. On the occasion of my first intervention in debate in this parliament, I would express my appreciation to the electors of the Fraser Valley East riding and publicly pledge my best efforts to represent them faithfully and effectively.
The current debate presents the opportunity to deal briefly with some of the issues facing us today, not only at the riding level but on a national scale, because we are well aware of the fact that the attitudes and actions of the national government establish the broad economic framework within which all Canadians must operate. In view of this fact, it can be readily understood that the altered stance of the government, as indicated in the last two budgets, cannot help but cause wonderment and confusion in the minds of the general public as to the direction in which this country is being led. The dilemma was clearly presented by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) on Friday last when he asked the question:
How can you trust a government that within the short space of a few months has accepted so much of what it previously rejected, and in turn has rejected so much of what just a few months ago it readily accepted?
As my riding includes a substantial part of the limited arable land of British Columbia, I would first make some observations with respect to what is termed rural Canada. Economically and socially, rural Canada is facing a crisis in 1973, and the policies of this government are doing little to remove the source of that crisis. These problems are caused mainly by the increasing loss of manpower to the cities. Economically, rural Canada suffers an over-all loss in net income that has intensified over the past four years. In 1951, for example, 37.05 per cent of Canada's population was rural. By 1961, the rural population was down to 30 per cent, and in 1971 to 23.6 per cent. The reason for this exodus to the cities is obvious when we realize that in 1969 a full 36 per cent of families living in rural areas lived below the Statistics Canada poverty line. For unattached persons in rural areas the percentage was 50.4 per cent.
As well, four out of every ten Canadian farmers find it necessary to be employed to some degree in a non-farm job. In most cases this extra income only brings them up to the poverty line. Little wonder, then, that many farmers have given up the land and have moved to the city to try
The Budget-Mr. Patterson
to make a living there. In a lot of cases these individuals do not have the skills necessary for employment in industry and therefore end up on the welfare rolls.
Agriculture in Canada, then, is still facing serious problems. One example is the decrease in realized net farm income. When we study these figures, we realize just how serious that problem has become. It is during this period of falling income that inflation and the cost of living have been the highest. It is the responsibility of the government to see that no individual is caught in the price squeeze- that income is, for all, adequate to purchase the necessities of life. I would submit that this government has failed in this responsibility, especially as it pertains to rural agricultural Canadians. Increased costs of production have certainly not been accompanied by increased prices for products.
There are one or two specific matters to which I should like to direct attention today, but because of the time factor I would just call the attention of hon. members to the speech made by my colleague, the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) yesterday in respect of one of the most serious situations referred to in the budget.
British Columbia is perhaps in the most vulnerable position of all the provinces of Canada in regard to agricultural tariffs, mainly because of its location. Immediately to the south lie the states of Washington and Idaho which together produce by far the heaviest volume of potatoes of any area in North America. In addition, Washington is a major producer of most common vegetables.
British Columbia has already felt the impact of the rapid expansion of production to the south, a prime example being the collapse of the market structure for strawberries for processing following the sudden upsurge of production in Mexico in 1970-71. The resulting flood of berries in the North American market drove both U.S. and B.C. prices far below the cost of production. At that time this labour-intensive sector of the industry provided a return of $6 million annually in this province.
In view of this experience, it becomes readily apparent that the fruit and vegetable industry in my province is deeply concerned about the possibility that its position, already demonstrably vulnerable to external pressures, will be severely undermined by these concessions in the form of tariff reductions. They are unilateral and, as a result, we lose all our bargaining position with foreign nations with respect to their tariffs. I would suggest that not only does the reduction in tariffs place our producers in a very vulnerable position, making it extremely difficult in many instances for them to carry on their operations, but it will also have tremendously detrimental effects on the employment picture in Canada, for we all know that the agricultural industry provides a great deal of employment.
With the exception of southern Ontario and the Prairies, about three-quarters of all farms in Canada are considered small farms, according to the Statistics Canada census, 1966, and it is these small farmers who bear the brunt of the inept agricultural policies of this government. I believe this is what concerns a great many of us today. The big man can take care of himself, but the little man

February 28, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Patterson
gets trampled by not only the big man but the big government, big taxes, big inflation and a bigger cost of living.
It is the same in the business world. Figures compiled by Dun and Bradstreet of Canada Ltd. last fall show that Canadian business failures during August, 1972, were the highest for that month since the depression years. They rose a fantastic 61 per cent since 1971, from 145 business failures to 233. These figures show that the ailment was widespread and general, for by region there were more failures in August, 1972, than a year earlier in every province except Saskatchewan, while Toronto led the nation with more than twice the number recorded in 1971.
There should be no reason for puzzlement about the rise in business failure and the drastic loss in productivity. Since the beginning of last year the Economic Council of Canada, along with my leader, warned that a healthy economy would require giving far more purchasing power and initiative back to the small businessman. Yet this government, this finance minister both in the budget he presented last May and in the one he presented last Monday night has to all intents and purposes ignored the plight of small business in this country.
We all know that attempts at tax reform led big government to ignore the vital interests of small business, yet small business in this country generates more employment, more real growth, more tax revenue and bears more of the cost burden of government than does so-called big business. It is my position and the position of this party that provision should be made for Canadian citizens to invest in the equity of Canadian-owned small business. We believe that the credit, which will be 50 per cent of qualified investments to a maximum of $5,000 each year, will either be offset against the person's income tax or rebated directly to him. This means that a Canadian who invests, for example, $1,000 in a qualified business or company will receive a credit of $500 against his income.
If implemented, the cost of such a program would be about $300 million-"cost" in the sense that this would be lost to federal revenue and treated as deferred personal tax. It would, however, be far less than the $1 billion spent on unemployment insurance payments to sustain an unemployment rate of 7 per cent. I realize that this government does not learn lessons very easily or very quickly, but surely by now it has learned that if we want to create jobs and encourage enterprise, the least effective way to do it is by direct government spending. As has been so clearly stated in this debate, the budget does virtually nothing to assist small businesses nor to encourage investment in small Canadian-owned enterprises.
The mention of tax reform brings to mind the introduction of a bill to introduce a great new deal for the Canadian taxpayers but in fact was, I believe, the perpetration of one of the greatest hoaxes by the Liberal government. It was a massive document, so complex that not even its authors were able to adequately explain either its intricacies or its ramifications. Rammed through parliament with indecent haste and characteristic Liberal arrogance, it further aggravated an already unintelligible jungle of tax laws and regulations.
A further move of the present government was the introduction of a new set of income tax forms that in their
effect add insult to injury and have caused consternation in the minds of taxpayers across the nation. An advertisement in one of the west coast newspapers vividly portrayed the situation when it called attention to the fact that in view of the new tax forms there would be a tremendous demand for the services of tax consultants, and offered courses to prepare for this lucrative development. Accountants time and time again have complained that answers to inquiries cannot be obtained at the taxation offices of the Department of National Revenue. The magnitude of the muddle caused by the tax measure and tax forms is eclipsed only by the confused and confusing picture drawn either deliberately or unintentionally by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in the presentation of the budget currently before the House.
We appreciate the announced reductions in personal income taxes, but without an effective program to halt the constantly increasing cost of living, Canadians could well find that through the further erosion of the value of the dollar all benefits accruing from tax reductions will be effectively wiped out. We have constantly urged the elimination of the 11 per cent tax on building materials. I firmly believe this would be a practical and effective way to encourage the building of new homes. The exorbitantly high interest rates should be reduced and the interest paid on mortgage payments should be deductible for income tax purposes, as should the municipal taxes on property. We continue to advance these proposals as deserving of the consideration of government.
May I also raise another matter to which attention has been called on many occasions; that is, the desirability of the government facing up to the unfairness of the situation and settling in an equitable manner the pleas of the original purchasers of Government of Canada 3 per cent perpetual bonds sold, I believe, in 1936. There are a limited number of individuals involved and I believe the source of hardship and resentment should be eliminated by a settlement of the issue.
The government's policy with regard to inflation was even more disastrous than its agricultural and small business policy. I would remind the House of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in 1969 about his government's policy toward inflation. He said, on December 22, 1969, about what he termed our worst enemy, inflation:
There are a lot of people in this country who are bargaining that, oh well, the government can't hang tough for too long because it will only get frightened when it sees unemployment go up to 6 per cent. But if people think we are going to lose our nerve now, they should think again. We're not.
I think this is a shameful thing for the Prime Minister to say. If we look at the social and economic costs of the unemployment we have suffered, they would seem to indicate that there have been incalculable losses to the Canadian people, and this in the midst of statements by the Minister of Finance telling the poor people of the country that it was perfectly possible for a Canadian family to get along on $30 a week. If the government's policy to fight inflation had worked, then perhaps the Canadian people could forgive it for the chaos it brought about in the economic system. But the fact is that it did

February 28, 1973

not work and we still have inflation and high unemployment.


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


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to take part in this debate. We have heard from one Liberal, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), we have heard from a recycled Grit, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who has returned after having dwelt in the political wilderness of Quebec, and we have heard from the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson), a recycled Social Crediter who failed to mention the Bank of Canada. So the debate this afternoon has been close to being interesting.
I wish to deal with a number of matters. I note that with great piousness the government introduced a 5 per cent reduction in personal income tax in such a manner that the individual taxpayer will receive a reduction of a minimum of $100 or a maximum of $500; this will apply to the middle and lower income people in this country. I point out to the minister that it was this government, while it had a majority, which brought in a 3 per cent reduction in income tax in respect of which the greatest benefit went to those in the upper income group and not to those in the middle or lower income groups. Because of the development of a minority government in this parliament, the government has had to change its position and bring in this budget.
I believe there are things in the budget which will be of benefit, I hope, at least to the consumers of the constituency of Assiniboia. It is on that basis and with some reluctance that I support the budget. I want to point out that the government has increased the old age pension to $100 and the supplement to $170. I say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), who is present, that in terms of the real needs of the pensioners in this country that kind of increase is not good enough and the government must look toward a greater increase. In addition, there is the matter of the age limit being lowered from 65 to 60. This is a question with which we must deal in the near future. Many widows and widowers between age 60 and age 65 have real need and very limited sources of income. A drop in the age level for eligibility in respect of pensions is greatly needed. I do, however, accept the increases in the sense of meeting the need as of April 1, 1973. I shall continue to push for a further increase across the board to $150 a month which is advocated by the New Democratic Party.
I might mention the manner in which the income tax reduction of 5 per cent with a maximum of $500 and a minimum of $100 was brought in. That is a plank which was stolen from the platform of the New Democratic Party. I say to hon. members that they can steal these planks all they like, so long as it is done for the people of Canada and so long as the greatest benefit goes to the people in the middle and lower income brackets. On top of that, we have seen the raising of the exemptions which I spoke about in my constituency during the election.
The Budget-Mr. Knight
These exemptions have been increased for the ordinary taxpayers of Canada.
Further, we have seen a reduction in tariffs. There is a temporary reduction involving in the neighbourhood of $1.3 billion worth of goods. I point out to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) that the significance of this reduction in tariffs is that it establishes a precedent in the area of tariff-setting in this country. For the first time in a long while a government has moved in the area of reducing tariffs on certain commodities. This may or may not benefit the consumer of this country, but a precedent has been set which those of us from the west will watch with great interest, no matter which old-line party is in power. People in the west have lived for a long time under the protective umbrella of tariffs which did nothing but protect the interests of the people in the east. So a very important precedent has been set in terms of the future development of the country.
Because this government is in a minority position we have had a reduction in sales tax on such things as children's clothing, shoes and other footwear. That is significant. I have already had managers of stores and co-operatives writing me for further details in order to lower the price of their products. If this reduction is passed on to the consumer, it will help to lower the cost of living, especially for people who are at present raising children and are in need of all the purchasing power they can get.
Furthermore, there is in this budget an equalization formula which increases payments by some $190 million to the Maritimes, the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. This will be of further assistance in giving purchasing power to people in Saskatchewan where we are attempting to alleviate the pressure of the property tax, to shift it more in relation to a man's income. We are trying to reduce school property tax as a cost. That is important in terms of what is in the budget, coming from a minority government.
Further to that, there has been some change in the area of tax reform. I will not jump with joy over a couple of these changes, for a number of reasons. When the minister made his speech in the House of Commons, he mentioned that the capital gains tax has been removed from the transfer of a farm from father to son, so as to keep the farm units going. The Minister of Agriculture jumped with great glee at that and shook the hand of the Minister of Finance, praising him to his colleagues around him, I am sure. Then he probably went home that night and made the mistake of reading the details and finding out that first you had to drop dead before getting this exemption.
We in this party moved an amendment against the tax reform bill of 1971 to exempt the transfer of farmland which kept the farm unit going from father to son or even daughter-in-law. We moved that amendment, but the government has not gone far enough and the Minister of Agriculture, for all his talk, should not get so excited about it. I am sure there are other things in the budget that did not excite the Minister of Agriculture. There has been a move back to allowing a producer to set up a basic herd. That is important in my area for many people
1768

February 28, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Knight
involved in the cattle industry. This is a move in the right direction, although it does not go far enough in setting up basic herds. These are the things in the budget that have some merit.
We have now left the kind of dinosaur economic philosophy which was practised in 1969, 1970 and 1971 and are moving in the direction of an expansionary budget, although it does not go far enough. We are moving in this direction only because this is a minority government, and as insensitive as it has been during its four years of governing, the government now finds itself in a minority situation and reacts thereto.
I suppose that when we reach 5.45 p.m. tonight and we get to the point of voting on the final element of this budget, we will find the Tory party voting against the following measures. It will vote against an increase in the old age pension. It will vote against an increase in war veterans allowances. It will vote against the reduction of 5 per cent in personal income tax with a maximum of $500 and a minimum of $100. It will vote against the removal of the tax on children's clothing, etc. This budget provision will be of great value to the young consumers in my constituency.
Tory members from the Maritimes, Saskatchewan and Manitoba will be voting against the equalization formula in order to provide additional moneys amounting to $190 million to the revenue of those provincial governments, to assist in the education and property tax. That is what they will do at 5.45 p.m. They will vote against a change in the capital gains tax as it relates to farmers, limited as it is. They will vote against the change in the basic herd concept, limited as that change is. This should be on the record, Mr. Speaker.
In the few moments that I have left I want to say that this government which bases its philosophy on outdated concepts, as outdated as those of the party to my right, has not yet begun to deal with the real issues; and this budget does not deal with the real issues that face the people of this country, such as the redistribution of income. Although there is a limited redistribution of income in this budget, it has not been carried out in terms of a fundamental change in the tax system, in spite of the cries of some members of the Tory party that the system is unfair to their big business friends.
Further to that, there is a need to revamp our housing programs. There is real need for a strong foreign takeover bill, stronger than the one presented to this parliament, to meet the real challenge of the continual increase in the foreign ownership of our economy. One issue that will tickle the hearts and the fancies of the members of the Tory party is the energy policy. We are facing an energy crisis, and let there be no mistake about it, in spite of the cry from the Tory members from Alberta and in spite of the weak-kneed approach to the whole issue by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). The government's energy policy is a disaster. It is a disaster when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the National Energy Board come before the committee of the House and state that on the night of February 1 they did not know whether they had enough oil resourdes for the month of February.

Since one of the Tory members from Alberta is trying to speak up, let me remind him that the Tory members present in the committee said that there is no problem, no crisis; we do not need any quotas or controls, everything is fine, let us export in the traditional free enterprise system. One of the Tory members from Calgary pointed out in the committee a fundamental issue facing the people of this country, that is, the price that we will have to pay for our natural resources if we keep selling our present reserves. We will then have to rely on the reserves in the Mackenzie delta and in the Arctic. If we keep selling them, the consumers in my constituency, because of the free enterprise philosophy of that party in Alberta and of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, will be paying twice as much for their fuel requirements. This is what my constituents will have to do; and this applies to the farmer, the consumer of natural gas in the city, the old age pensioner and everybody else.
What this country needs is a fundamental policy related to the redistribution of income, related to housing, to control of foreign ownership, and above all in this decade we need a national energy policy to answer the real needs of the Canadian consumer.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on the optimism he has shown in the "Budget Highlights" which he handed out to hon. members on Monday, February 19, 1973.
In this publication, the first words of the Minister of Finance are as follows:
A budget designed to reduce unemployment and to stimulate a more rapid growth
If, as stated by the Minister of Finance, this is the first goal of his department and of the government on the fight against unemployment, we shall be the first to support him as long as the legislation proposed by the government is really adequate.
As the NDP spokesmen said, that party is naturally inclined to support the government as well as the budget of the Minister of Finance where the government states its intention of fighting unemployment.
As to hon. members of the official opposition, I think their feelings have been expressed by their financial critic, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who told the House on February 21:
Coming to the point of unemployment and those massive measures needed to turn the corner, Mr. Speaker, all sorts of proposals have been tried by the government over the past several years but there were still 688,000 people seeking work this last month.
The hon. member for Edmonton West has good cause for being shocked because 688,000 persons had no paid job last January. Members of the official Opposition are undoubtedly right when they state that the measures proposed in the past and still being proposed by the government to combat unemployment will not have the expected results.
February 28, 1973

The Canadian people are justified in distrusting a government which, at a time when all kinds of goods are plentiful, allow so many people to live in destitution.
Mr. Speaker, one may wonder whether the Progressive Conservatives could do better. Have they found practical ways to cope with the unemployment problem? What were their solutions when they were in office from 1958 to 1962? Do they have better answers to offer now and what concrete measures to they suggest?
We of the Social Credit Party of Canada would like it very much if the Progressive Conservatives could suggest solutions likely to solve the unemployment problem. We would like to be able to endorse all their criticisms about the present situation and we would like very much to see another government at the head of the country.
Unfortunately, the Progressive Conservatives who offer themselves as alternative solutions to the Liberals have no credibility when it comes to fighting against unemployment. They have no credibility and they will not have the chance, I think, to replace the present government because electors aware that the Progressive Conservatives have no solution to offer to settle the unemployment issue. They have shown their inefficacy and their ineffectiveness when they were in power in Canada from 1958 to 1962.
In September 1971, Statistics Canada published a most interesting and revealing study on the unemployment problem in Canada. Entitled "Unemployment Data, 196071" this study enables us to analyse the unemployment situation in the course of the years 1960, 1965 and 1970.
Here are the yearly average unemployment rates in relation to the total manpower for each of the five Canadian areas. For the Atlantic region, in 1970, the unemployment rate amounted to 7.6 per cent in relation to the total manpower; in 1965, it was 7.4 per cent, and in 1960, under the Progressive Conservative government, the unemployment rate reached 10.7 per cent.
For the Quebec region, in 1970, the rate of unemployment stood at 7.9 per cent; in 1965, 5.4 per cent, and in 1960, 9.1 per cent, which means that in Quebec also, the rate of unemployment was higher under the Progressive Conservative regime of the sixties.
In Ontario, we note the same occurrence: the unemployment rate was 4.3 per cent in 1970 and 5.4 per cent in 1960.
In the Prairies, unemployment reached 4.4 per cent in 1970 and 4.2 per cent in 1960.
Lastly, in British Columbia, the unemployment rate was 7.6 per cent in 1970 and 8.5 per cent in 1960, under the Progressive Conservative government.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that with such a record and so poor a performance in respect of unemployment, the Progressive Conservatives have nothing to teach anyone and they should be the least inclined to criticize the present government which has not been and is not able to check unemployment.
According to statistical data from January 1953 to December 1971, here is the unemployment situation from 1959 to 1962, under the Progressive Conservative government, and from 1968 to 1971, under the Liberal government.
The Budget-Mr. Godin
In 1959, the unemployment rate, by sex and age categories, was 6 per cent. It roses to 7 per cent in 1960. It reached 7.1 per cent in 1961, decreasing to 5.9 per cent in 1962, when the Progressive Conservative party was in office.
In 1968, under the government of the present right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the unemployment rate was 4.8 per cent; it fell to 4.7 per cent in 1969 and again went up to 5.9 per cent in 1970, reaching 6.4 per cent in
1971.
On pages 12 and 141 of Catalogue 71-201 showing unemployment and labour figures from January 1953 to December 1971, there is clear evidence that the unemployment rate, from 1958 to 1962, under a Progressive Conservative government, reached absolute figures higher than those registered under this government from 1968 to 1971.
Mr. Speaker, I would not take the time of the House to quote all the figures available to me, but may I say only that in 1961 the labour force had 2 million fewer workers than in 1971. The unemployment figure reached 716,000 in February 1961 and 702,000 in March 1961.
Under this government, the unemployment figure never exceeded 700,000, although in Canada the labour force has increased by two million workers.
Therefore, the unemployment rate stood at 11.4 per cent in March 1961, 11.24 per cent in February 1961 and 10.77 per cent in January 1961.
An analysis of these statistical data enlightens us on how the Progressive Conservative party members felt about the problem of unemployment when they occupied the front benches. I therefore cannot bring myself to place confidence in the Progressive Conservatives when they are dealing with this problem because they did worse than the present government when they were in power.
It is true that the Progressive Conservatives have changed their leader since 1962 but I believe, that the party's past record has not been impressive. We even have some documents to the effect that the present leader (Mr. Stanfield) has never been very popular. The people of Canada cannot even grant him the benefit of the doubt, saying "Let us gives him a chance to prove himself, since he has already been tested as premier of Nova Scotian".
As a matter in fact, in issue No. 39, for March 21, 1967, of the proceedings of the Joint Senate and Commons Committee on Consumer Credit, we find a brief submitted by Mr. Duncan MacIntyre, who represented a department of St. Francis Xavier University as well as low-income families of the eastern ridings of the province. Now, the author of this brief states that only three constituencies in the province had less than 40 per cent poor families. In fact, in some constituencies, 59, 56, and even 63 per cent of families were poor.
If one uses the same criteria as were used in writing the brief, one can say the Mr. MacIntyre was perfectly right, since the families he refers to were, and I quote:
(1)	families other than agricultural families, with incomes under $3,000;
(2)	agricultural families with incomes under $2,500;
25789-40)

February 28, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Godin
Using these figures, constituencies could be found in Nova Scotia where 63 per cent of families were not even getting the wretched incomes mentioned above.
Since, therefore, we cannot trust the solutions put forward by the Liberals, because they have not put an end to unemployment or prevented prices from rising, and since we cannot trust in the Progressive Conservatives, because they were no more successful in bringing prosperity and security to Canadians from 1958 to 1962, I suggest that all that remains to us is to try Social Credit, which has not yet failed us and is full of promises.
I imagine that the majority of hon. members are not happy about the misery and distress of almost 700,000 Canadians who have no jobs in this country. So we, of the Social Credit Party of Canada, want to ensure economic freedom and security for all Canadians. For this, we propose that the Canadian population apply a system which has never been applied anywhere, and which cannot be worse than the one proposed in turn by the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives.
It was on June 26, 1937, during a lecture he gave in London, that the founder of Social Credit gave a detailed definition of it. Here it is:
In the minds of many people, Social Credit is a plan for monetary reform, and that is why today when money and credit are scarce the monetary reforms it proposes are so popular. But Social Credit is not only that, Social Credit is the policy of a philosophy. This philosophy may be described as the partnership philosophy or the power of human beings living in partnership to get the wanted results in order to meet their needs.
If we make a more thorough analysis, we may ask ourselves: What is credit? This is the answer: Credit is just the belief that partnership brings along benefits. For instance, the first Canadians relied on the wealth which were within their reach and able to meet their needs. That is what is called the real credit of a country. This credit includes the country's wealth as well as all the men who want to exploit them. Therefrom one may conclude, that the real credit of a country is a social common thing. Therefore, the real credit or the social credit is a reality, a fact for our country. But, if social credit is a reality, a fact, why do members of the Social Credit party not stop complaining, asking above all for social credit, trying to change the monetary system and to have enough members elected in Parliament in order to reach their objective? The only reason is, Mr. Speaker, that the present financial system does not reflect reality and that our bank system prevents consumers from taking advantage of the result of their partnership, because the financial system keeps for itself the benefits of partnership which should normally belong to every citizen.
This is the situation, Mr. Speaker, which led the Right Hon. Mackenzie King to say once, and I quote:
Yesterday's promises are today's taxes.
So that Canadians really benefit from the results of their partnership, we must therefore relate the financial credit to the real or social credit, that is to say relate money and credit to what Canadians produce and provide and are able to produce and provide.

Values that were far sounder and far more basic than the present bank system have been put aside. Religion, Catholicism, papal authority, private property, respect for the human life of the foetus, and many other things have been put aside.
And, Mr. Speaker, what about the desperation of international bankers who are seeking a new international bank system. If the international financial system has to be reconsidered and worked out again from scratch, this is because the national financial systems also have to be reconsidered and worked out again from scratch.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the task which the Creditistes are trying to carry out, being precursors and innovators, misunderstood perhaps and rejected sometimes because they dare attack finance. Fortunately, finance is no longer a taboo subject today, the monetary system is no longer sacro-sanct, and because facts prove us right, Creditistes are going to continue even more successfully, I think, to expose the present system which has no justification in the nature of things and perpetuates a false concept of money in a human society.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this is rather irregular for the Chair, but before I recognize the next speaker I would point out that there are six names left on my list. We have 50 minutes left in this debate, and if those six members were agreeable that I call each of them for 81 minutes, that would give everybody who has offered to make a contribution an opportunity to do so. This, however, would have to be with the agreement of the six speakers on the list. Although it might be a departure from the normal practice, is it agreed?


Mr. Lefebvre:: We are always ready to agree on this side, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception; eight and a half minutes.


Mr. Dave Rooney (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I have decided to give my first address to this honourable House an official title: "Budgets may come and budgets may go, but inequalities go on forever." That statement is not likely to startle many hon. members; indeed, it is not my intention that it should do so, nor is it my intention to sound cynical or pessimistic. On the contrary, I am very optimistic about the future of this country and about the future of this government.
I am sure that the statement contained in the title will be forever true. But it is also true that the very uncomfortable extreme of inequality has always been borne by great numbers of dependent, unorganized and often helpless recipients of meagre financial means. What has always disturbed me greatly, Mr. Speaker, is that in our own times and in our own nation this situation has been perpetuated largely by the insensitivity and inaction of those with the political power to make more equitable adjustments to the distribution of our nation's wealth. I might add that, prompted by a remark made in this House, I had considered another title: "In this House there are many mansions". While that statement is made in jest, it also bears the reality that in our plush-bottomed chairs and
February 28, 1973

glamorous surroundings it is easy to become distracted from, and less sensitive to the extreme and persistent poverty that exists in the midst of affluence and great national wealth. Having accepted that inequalities will always exist, admittedly much more so today in other countries than in Canada, we must then be concerned with the degree of inequality that exists at a given time in our history and in our nation.
This, in my opinion, has been the greatest single achievement of this year's federal budget. This is not to say that our government has done anything near the ultimate, it is not to say that the measure of intention will be equalled or surpassed by the measure of success; it is to say that this Liberal government has made a vigorous and commendable attempt to counter the forces that ever threaten the common good, the common interest and the common comfort that Canadian democracy can and should provide to all who participate in that democracy.
Of course, the official opposition, playing their traditional opposition role, have to sneer and jeer and criticize. After all, their only hope of ever assuming office is to make our best programs look like their worst ones in the eyes of the general public. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) cannot admit that Newfoundland will this year receive in excess of $24 million in additional tax equalization payments alone as a result of the new budget. What does he say to Newfoundlanders? What does he say to his own people? That the federal government has given up on its theme of eliminating regional disparities!
A few days ago, the same hon. member told this House that I had not been saying much about the fisheries and related unemployment and, as if to chide me a little, wondered aloud when I would be making my maiden speech. I can tell the hon. gentleman quite sincerely that what I have to say, either in this House or in public will, I hope, be a little more responsible and more informed than certain statements he has made concerning regional disparity and the unemployment situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Richard David (Dave) Rooney: I have never in my life heard of a person getting so much mileage out of his biweekly interpretations of the unemployment statistics. I would remind the hon. member that to be unemployed at a given time and to be in need of employment are two very different situations, and sufficiently different to require explanation. I, too, have given some thought to the problem of unemployment, Mr. Speaker. In terms of those in need of work, with no acceptable alternative, an unemployment rate of 1 per cent is just as serious as an unemployment rate of 10 per cent. Bringing down the rate of unemployment a few percentage points does not alleviate the severity of the problem; it merely makes it less noticeable.
Mr. Speaker, time does not permit me to elaborate on the many unfair criticisms levelled at this budget. Let me say, however, that the opposition's reaction to the budget reminds me of the watchdog that guards his master's interests well until you find that he is only barking because he is afraid, afraid perhaps of being placed in the dog-house.
The Budget-Mr. Rooney
I should like now, in brief detail, to offer my interpretation of what the budget will mean in very real terms to the constituents of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, to Newfoundlanders in general-not in isolation but as one small part of our great Canadian nation. Essentially, the budget is committed to increasing the real income of the burdened Canadian consumer. This means not only an increase in terms of dollars and cents but an increase relative to the cost of living and the standard of living- that their dollar will either buy more or cost less.
Those concerned with tax reform are pleased to learn that the basic exemption for all taxpayers has been increased to $1,600 from $1,500, and that the basic exemption for married couples has been increased from $2,850 to $3,000. The working people of my riding are happy to learn that, beginning next year, income tax will decrease to offset any increase in the cost of living. The increase in the basic rate of old age pension, the increase in the guaranteed income supplement and the increase in war veterans allowances has prompted many favourable comments from elderly and other people in the riding. With a little more complexity, the new budget elaborates on the federal government's efforts to reduce the cost of living by removing federal taxes from numerous necessities, for which I am sure Newfoundlanders will be appreciative.
This government, through the budget speech, has committed itself to a complete overhaul of our welfare system. I assume that the slight delay in this area can be attributed to the necessary negotiations which have to be completed with the provincial governments concerned, including Newfoundland. This House has already been told that these negotiations will also include the long awaited family income security plan. I understand that we can expect an announcement soon after the conclusion of these negotiations which I am told will take place in April. I am confident that, in harmony with the spirit of the budget's specific commitments in areas of total federal government responsibility, the new welfare program will also be geared to both the rising cost of living and a decent standard of living.
With respect to the family income security plan which was vetoed by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), the delay in the implementation of this program has meant considerable hardship to the parents of large families in my riding.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member is right.


Richard David (Dave) Rooney: Since Newfoundland is a province of large families and relatively low incomes, this new legislation would have meant that the average child in Newfoundland would have been eligible for payments twice as large as those paid under the present family allowance plan. This had meant a loss of nearly $20 million per year to Newfoundland, and this loss is being borne by those who need it most. What bothers me most about the budget is the danger of our provincial government lapping up some of the benefits received from the federal government. In Newfoundland we have seen how, in mere anticipation of the-

February 28, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Bawden


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, particularly during his maiden speech. I thank him for his co-operation in accepting the suggestion made by the Chair a few minutes ago. ,


Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise on this occasion in the House of Commons. In prefacing my remarks, I would like to say a few words about my predecessors. Hon. Pat Mahoney represented Calgary South in the twenty-eighth parliament. Though I rarely agreed with the policies of the party Mr. Mahoney represented, I respected him as a Member of parliament and as a friend, one who has followed the high standards of members who have in the past represented this riding. The House will remember the contributions of Carl Nickle, Arthur R. Smith, Senator Harry Hays and Ray Ballard as well respected members who have represented Calgary South. Previous to the rapid growth of Calgary in the 1950s, my riding formed the southern part of Calgary West, a riding distinguished by the representation of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, Judge Manley Edwards and Arthur L. Smith. As I recall their contributions, I am truly humbled by the honour bestowed on me by my constituents in Calgary South.
Since coming to Ottawa, I have been continually grateful for the hospitality and assistance accorded to me as a new member. I congratulate Mr. Speaker on re-election to his high office. I learned to appreciate his skill and tact very early in my parliamentary life. I extend congratulations to Mr. Deputy Speaker and my thanks to the Clerk of the House for his generous assistance and the guidance extended to me and other new members.
In view of the time restriction imposed on speeches, I am particularly appreciative today of the works of Pauline Johnson who, in a few short lines, captured the pride and enthusiasm of my constituency in this excerpt "Calgary of the Plains":
Not of the seething cities, with their swarming human hives,
Their fetid airs, their reeking streets, their dwarfed and poisoned lives,
Not of the buried yesterdays, but of the days to be,
The glory and the gateway to the golden west is she.
This is Calgary, a city of the future with a rich and exciting heritage, centered in Canada's most prosperous province. Calgary's geographic location is ideal. The clean, crisp air of the foothills and nearby Rocky Mountains and the warm, sunny climate invite visitors from around the world. I invite members from all sides of this House to visit Calgary and hope that I may have the pleasure of being host to many of you in the months and years ahead.
May I now comment on the budget which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) presented to this House on Tuesday last. The people of Canada, more, I believe, than at any other time in the history of this country, were hoping and even expecting that this tired and disabled government would at long last come down to earth and give to this country leadership to lift Canada from its tragic level of underachievement of the last five years. Mr. Speaker, if I were to describe last Tuesday's budget in a word, I would say it is a humbug budget. I say this not because of any special treatment accorded confectionary but, in the words of the Oxford dictionary, a budget of sham and
(Mr. Rooney.]
deception; "a type of hard-boiled sweet, usually flavoured with peppermint."
It is presented as a budget to cure the country's economic ills, but it has no chance whatsoever of meeting such an objective. Its benefits to individual Canadians are small, and the minister must know that it will do little to bring down unemployment or to cure inflation. To be fair to the Minister of Finance, I do not think he is the kind of man who would purposely present a humbug budget to this House. I just do not think that he and his advisers have the knowledge, experience, staff or courage to produce what is needed.
It has become painfully obvious to this House that this government has abdicated its responsibility to govern Canada on the basis of any principles or policies of its own. It has no policy, as was evident to the Canadian people during the election last fall, and it has no principles. Today it is governing as a coalition between the Liberal and New Democratic parties. Canada today has a coalition government, and it is now clear that much needed legislation will be sacrificed in the interests of narrow political gain. For that reason, this government is not master of the destiny of Canada. In fact, it never has been.
The cost to Canada, in just one case, is illustrated in the government's handling of the bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. The government refuses to debate the bill. The minister has said that passage of the bill would save Canadians $1 million per year, or over $275,000 per day. Why has this bill been stalled? The reason, I suggest, is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the leader of the NDP are playing "house" while the taxpayers of this country are paying the price of this common law arrangement. In short, Mr. Speaker, this budget confirms the belief of many in this country that the government continues to be incapable of managing the economy. Notwithstanding its acceptance of some important Conservative principles, it now refuses to consider a temporary freeze on prices and incomes. I am sure that by August they will again be adopting our policy and bringing it before parliament, but it will be six months late.
The approach of this government is that of trial and error. Every time there is a trial, there is another error. The hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) when speaking in this debate defended this approach by saying, "If necessary, the minister can bring in two or three budgets." Canada cannot afford such a "try and try again" type of government. I am sure the members of the NDP also recognize this, Mr. Speaker, and if they support the government in today's vote they will know that they are not, in a moral sense of right or wrong, acting in the best interest of the people of Canada.
A budget is expected to be a future looking document which, on the basis of experience and sound judgment, sets the ground rules under which the country can achieve its economic and social goals in the year and years ahead. The minister said last Tuesday that this year we are expecting the expansion to be driven mainly by business capital investment, inventory build-up and exports. Can we really expect the necessary expansion in capital investment? The Economic Council of Canada reported in the fall of 1971 that capital investment intentions in Canada
February 28, 1973

fell far short of levels necessary to provide sufficient jobs for the growing labour force. Such investment continues to fall short.
That, Mr. Speaker, brings me to the matter of confidence. Business will only respond to the required degree when a climate for confident economic growth has been restored in this country. The creation of jobs is directly related to the investment of capital. For many years a pall of uncertainty has hung over the business community of this country. It is still with us in the areas of taxation, competition and labour legislation and is increased by many unnatural interventions into the marketplace by government. These uncertainties weigh much heavier on small business as few have legal or accounting experts on their staff, nor can they afford to employ such people. What has this budget offered small business? It has offered a correction of mistakes handed to them in the last budget.
Has not the time arrived in Canada to consider a royal commission to investigate the Department of National Revenue and determine whether the method that the department is using to deal with smaller businesses is as it ought to be? The adverse effects of harassment by this department on the smaller company are much more significant than on the big company. Small business cannot afford to proceed and fight the claims in court. Former employees of the department freely admit that unreasonable tax assessments are often imposed on the little man because they know he cannot fight back.
The result of this, Mr. Speaker, is that the morale of businessmen in Canada is low. With the credibility of this government completely shot with the business community, I can see no less than a new, fresh Progressive Conservative government to get this country going and to recognize that business strength and morale is a vital and integral part of the community, not distinct from it; that national economic defence requires building of business strength and morale so it may meet the competitive assaults from government-supported foreign business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Colwell Bawden: A Conservative government would have recognized the important role of small business in Canada as an employer and as a potent force in stimulating the economy by offering positive measures to encourage Canadians to invest in such enterprises.
A factor overlooked by ministers in this government and large numbers of their boffin-ridden staffs is that profit is still a good word in Canada and it is a necessary word if a free enterprise system is to work. Profits are simply a payment for the use of capital, including an allowance for the element of risk. The government is a full partner of business, sharing through taxes the rewards of success, but business failures are for the account of the investor. It is only from a healthy growth in tax revenues that we can advance-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I thank the hon. member for his co-operation.
The Budget-Mr. Walter Smith


Mr. Walter Smith (Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed delighted to take part this afternoon in the debate on the budget, already known across Canada as a budget for the Canadian family. Members across the floor do not appear to approve of this budget. I did not expect they would. This is no surprise. It is clear they are determined to criticize everything this government proposes.
I am pleased to learn that the senior citizens of this country are going to receive an increase in their old age pension. The basic pension will be increased by 15 per cent to $100 a month effective April 1, 1973. The maximum payment with income supplement will be increased from $150 to $170 for individuals and from $285 to $325 for married couples, the highest guaranteed income pension in the world.

Veterans' allowances will now be $151 for single persons and $257 for married veterans. Guaranteed income for veterans over 65 has been increased to $206 and for those over 65 who are married, to $357.

Income tax is being cut 5 per cent, with a maximum reduction of $500 and a minimum reduction of $100. The individual tax exemption is being raised from $1,500 to $1,600 and, for married couples from $2,850 to $3,000.1 am also pleased to learn that starting in 1974 personal income tax exemptions and rates will be adjusted to reflect the changes in the cost of living. With these tax changes, about 750,000 Canadian taxpayers will be dropped from the federal tax rolls. All this is aimed at increasing real income and improving the standard of living for Canadians from one end of this country to the other.
The 12 per cent federal sales tax on all children's clothing as well as shoes and other footwear is being abolished. This is very important. The federal sales tax on confectioneries, chocolate bars, soft drinks, fruit drinks and similar food products is being abolished. This is well accepted across Canada. The 10 per cent luxury tax on toiletries and cosmetics is being abolished. The 17 per cent luxury tax on clocks and watches, except when the manufacturer's price exceeds $50, is being removed. With regard to small business, corporations receiving the small business deduction are allowed to reinvest earnings without restriction. The government will announce additional specific proposals to assist small businesses. Family farms are now permitted to pass from generation to generation free of capital gains tax.
Many times I have talked to farmers in my region about feed grains. There is an injustice with regard to farmers in Quebec and the Maritimes where the price of feed grains is much higher than in any other part of Canada. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the minister responsible for the Wheat Board have promised that a solution will be found and announced in the near future. I will not be satisfied until a fair solution is found.
The federal government represents every Canadian in every province and territory. It is responsible to all Canadians, not simply to those in the wealthy regions or those in regions where additional political popularity would be helpful in elections. That is why we shall continue the system of equalization payments, for it is one of the

February 28, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Walter Smith basic pillars of our federal system. If it is our belief that the unity of Canada is essential, as it is mine, then no party leader can claim the luxury of opting out when situations demand standing up and speaking out for principle.
There are many issues which will involve us in the course of this session, but I repeat that none is so important as my belief that this Canada is a favoured place and that it is so because persons in every part of the country are able to seek fulfilment through the help and understanding of their fellow Canadians.
The opposition are constantly criticizing the high percentage of unemployed. However, in the five-year period 1965-70 more than one million jobs were created. This figure exceeds the total number of new jobs created in Belgium, Germany, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom combined. The total population of these seven countries, 12 times as great as Canada's, created fewer jobs than did Canada in the same period. In Canada this momentum is continuing. In 1971 more than 200,000 new jobs were created. It was this government that created the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and has spent millions in the past three years creating new jobs in regions of Canada in greatest need.

In the riding of Saint-Jean, several industries have benefited by federal grants for building new plants and for expanding and modernizing others.
The constituency was proclaimed a designated zone in 1970. Several industries are therefore eligible for a maximum grant of 10 per cent of cost, up to $2,000 for each new job created.
Many jobs have been created in my riding, thanks to the Local Initiatives Program which has been well received by many. Unfortunately, some of the projects submitted were not accepted. Over a million dollars have been allotted to date under this program, and my thanks go to the officials of the manpower department who approved constructive projects. The local manpower office in Saint-Jean, and others have been very helpful in preparing and suggesting projects to be created-projects to correspond with the local needs in each section of city or country. Many new projects are being submitted at the present time under another program called Opportunities for Youth. This had much success last year, its first year of experience. Students welcome such initiatives and it is hoped that many worth-while projects will be accepted for this coming summer, permitting students to earn enough money to continue their studies next fall.
Agriculture is very important in the country, and the dairy industry is perhaps the industry which occupies most of our farm people. Only two years ago this industry was not too healthy, but thanks to the dairy commission and the federal-provincial marketing plan which was brought about and accepted by the dairy producers, today there is nothing but praise for the government's guidance in the production and marketing of dairy products. The price of butter, milk, cheese and milk powder has

increased in the past years. My congratulations extend to the industry for their co-operation and good understanding.
Market gardeners occupy an important sector of the country, especially in the rich, black soil where several thousand acres are sown to potatoes, carrots, turnips, onions and many other small vegetables every year. Nevertheless, more protection should be given to producers of green vegetables in full season by better control of imports from the United States. The wet season this year really set the farmers back, and although they are receiving a $400 grant, it is in many cases too little. I have just noticed that I am running out of time, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his co-operation.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to rise today to make my first speech in the House of Commons. I would like to extend to you, Mr. Speaker, and to Mr. Deputy Speaker the best wishes of the people of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton, and to add to them my congratulations on your election and appointment to these high offices.
I shall not dwell at length on any topic other than the budget, as time is short. First, I would like to say that I wonder whether this is a good budget. I would not like to say that the whole budget is bad, for indeed the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the Liberal-NDP coalition have taken four of the major points in this budget directly from the Progressive Conservative party platform made public in the autumn of 1972. This is a compliment, of course, to the Progressive Conservative party and it adds a great deal of credibility to our party as being the party of the future, the party which does the thinking.
The fact that the Liberal party did not have any policy shows they are bankrupt of ideas and unable to conceive of intelligent, economic planning. One of the four major planks which were taken had to do with a decrease in personal income tax. During the last election the Progressive Conservatives called for a decrease of at least 7 per cent. The Minister of Finance intimated during that campaign that this was not being responsible. However, on budget night we saw a reduction of 5 per cent.
During the election campaign, part of the Conservative party platform for 1972 was a call for an increase in old age pensions. At that time this was pooh-poohed as not being responsible. The Liberals said they had given the old people an increase to cover the cost of living in the spring of 1972. On budget night the old age pension went up by the sum of $13, to $100 a month.
The Progressive Conservative party during the election campaign called for the exemption of the family farm from capital gains tax when it was passing from father to son. This was casually brushed aside by the governing party as a phony issue. On budget night, the minister announced that the exemption would stand and that no longer would the family farm be taxed as a capital gain when it passed from father to son.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in May, 1972, put forward the constant-dollar theory in relation to taxation. This policy became a major plank in the plat-
February 28, 1973

form of our party and as early as June 6, 1972, the Minister of Finance, speaking in Truro, Nova Scotia, ridiculed the idea and charged the Leader of the Opposition with being irresponsible. On budget night, this very proposal was adopted almost without change.
It can therefore be readily seen that many of the proposals contained in this budget come originally from the Conservative party. However, it is not a good budget because it does not go far enough. By adopting only half the measures put forward by the Progressive Conservative party it has not resulted in a good budget. All the measures we proposed should have been accepted, not just half measures. If someone likes a package of free paper and pretty ribbon, they will like this budget, Mr. Speaker. But if a person likes to wait until they open the package to see the prize inside, then I think he will find the budget disappointing.
The 5 per cent income tax allowance turns out to be only 2 per cent over last year's rate. In terms of dollars in one's pocket it might not be too impressive. A married breadwinner supporting two children under the age of sixteen years and earning around $7,000 a year will have in his pocket about $1.97 more. It certainly won't burn a hole in his pocket. I was very surprised that the old age pension was not raised to at least $115 a month. I would hope that this goal will be attained in the very near future. My personal feeling is that our senior citizens deserve this consideration.
In the long run I think this budget will fail. It will not reduce unemployment below the present rate of 6 to 7 per cent. I think inflation will continue. The Minister of Finance should have continued to follow the Tory policies. He should not have drawn back. He should have gone much further. He was too timid. He should have pulled the throttle wide open and made personal income tax cuts of the order of 7 to 10 per cent. The old age pension should have been raised to at least $115, and he should have introduced across the board tax cuts for Canadian-owned corporations to encourage expansion and Canadian ownership.
Perhaps even more important, he should have introduced a price-wage-profit-dividend freeze to cool our inflationary psychology for a 90-day period during which we could have held discussions with business, labour and other sectors of the economy with a view to agreement upon a more permanent scheme of controls so that inflation would not run rampant.
In the budget of February 19 the minister told us the government would lead the way in showing restraint in terms of expenditure. In fact, expenditures increased. I believe the government should set an example and cut down on money being spent on unnecessary programs. I believe the government should have the courage to introduce Bill C-125 and have it debated. I suggest the introduction of a small business tax incentive to encourage small business, which is the lifeblood of our society. Incidentally, this would help create more jobs.
I believe the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials should be removed so as to stimulate the construction industry and provide more employment. I believe sales taxes should be removed from all clothing, thus placing more purchasing power in the hands of the individual. I
The Budget-Mrs. Morin
believe, further, that we should encourage Canadian equity ownership by means of tax incentives.
Unfortunately, the budget did not include provisions for encouraging the export industry. This industry definitely should be encouraged so more jobs will be created and Canadians will have a better standard of living. Lastly, I believe there should have been included a definite "buy Canadian" program with the Canadian government encouraging Canadians to buy the products of Canadian industries rather than continuously purchasing abroad.
I believe my time has expired, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his co-operation.


Albanie Morin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to seize this opportunity to bring up a matter which, in my opinion, is very important for the riding of Louis-Hebert and for the whole metropolitan region of Greater Quebec.

Several projects to provide infrastructure, currently under way, in the vicinity of Quebec City will enable that area after 300 years of existence to catch up gradually with the rest of Canada, or at least to reduce the gap separating the standard of living of Quebeckers from that of Canadians in other provinces.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to serve this large metropolitan area which is in the process of becoming one of the great Canadian capitals, we, in Quebec, need an airport capable of meeting the needs that will spring from the economic vitality that is just around the corner for Quebec.

Is Quebec asking to be treated differently from other areas of the country?

Is the extension of the runways important to the development of the Quebec area? Let us look at the situation, Mr. Speaker.
Of the ten provincial capitals in Canada, Quebec is the one that has the shortest landing strips. Of the metropolitan areas with more than 400,000 people, Quebec is the one with the shortest landing strips. Finally, of the ten largest metropolitan areas in Canada, Quebec is the only one that is not served by an international airport.

Mr. Speaker, we were pleased to learn that the main runway at Windsor airport, which was 7,000 feet long, would be increased to over 8,500 feet. We were also pleased to learn that the main runway at the airport at London, Ontario, would also be lengthened. Yet in terms of passenger arrivals and landings, these airports are in eighteenth and nineteenth places, whereas the Quebec city airport is in tenth place.

February 28, 1973
The Budget-Mrs. Morin

Mr. Speaker, those few facts answer well the question of knowing whether or not Quebec City is asking for a favour by requesting extended runways. In the past, it was always argued that, in order to develop, Quebec could eventually bank on the use of medium-range planes such as DC-9s.

However, just recently a group of businessmen who wanted to charter a DC-9 found that, fully loaded, the plane would have to stop at Montreal airport for an hour to refuel since the length of the runway at the Quebec City airport would not allow it to take off with full tanks.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. McGrath:: We want Jamieson.


Albanie Morin: Mr. Speaker, now that I have clearly established that we do not request any preferential treatment but the equivalent of that asked by the other regions, let me remind hon. members that this equivalent is important for the long-term economic growth of the region.
The most promising aspect in the field of economic growth, at least as regards job creation, seems to be the expansion of tourist industry.
The Quebec region is now increasing considerably the number of hotel rooms, namely by over 2,000 units. Most of them will be built by major international hotel enterprises. Those enterprises believe it possible to extend the tourist market of the region.

On the municipal level, the city, to aid in stimulating expansion, has agreed to invest $4 million to build a conference centre. This clearly demonstrates the willingness of Quebec taxpayers to promote their own expansion. On the federal and provincial level, as you know, important work is being done to increase tourist attractions in Quebec City. I will just mention the restoration of old Quebec and the development of Mont Ste-Anne. [Translation]
Everyone will agree that surely it is our interest, for a country such as Canada, to facilitate the restoration of this old capital which saw the advent of the country and of America and which, given the number and the quality of its monuments which resisted the elements until now, is undoubtedly the major historical asset of North America.
Finally, tourism promotion budgets have increased fivefold and now amount to half a million dollars and this is indicative of the private and public sectors willingness to exploit fully the tourism market potential. A whole set of new marketing structures, and mainly the systematic chartering of planes during tourist seasons, are now under preparation. But our contacts with external market representatives demonstrate that we must improve our air services.

The question of air services, including the lengthening of runways, is important not only to tourist development but to industrial growth. Air freight is playing an increasingly important role in industrial development. In addi-

tion to air cargo potential, especially in the case of large corporations which must maintain regular contacts between various factories and the head office, passenger transportation is a factor that cannot be overlooked. [Translation]
Now it is certain that any possibility of establishing new air routes, both for freight and passengers, is related to the problem of extending runways, particularly when one realizes that even medium range aircraft cannot leave the Quebec airport with a full load of fuel, passengers and luggage.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Quebec City airport, once its runways have been lengthened, could be used as an accessory emergency airport, especially when bad weather prevails at Dorval and Ste-Scholastique. At the moment it is the Bagotville military airport which, although unable to provide the other complementary services, is being used for this purpose.
Moreover, Europe bound charter flights for Quebec groups could take off from Quebec City rather than from Montreal, which would allow the citizens of eastern Quebec to save both on costs and disadvantages.
Mr. Speaker, in the light of those facts, we ask that runways be extended to a minimum of 9,000 feet, in order to meet fully the requirements of medium an long range aircraft.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I thank the hon. member for her co-operation.


Mr. Haliburton:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles E. Haliburton: I should just like to say that I agree with much of what the last speaker said, but the founding of Canada took place in my constituency, at Port Royal, and not in Quebec.


Mr. Keith Taylor (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to have the opportunity of saying a few words during this budget debate, although I realize it is just about concluded. I should like to congratulate you, Sir, and Mr. Speaker upon appointment to the very high offices which you hold. I know from the short time I have been here that you are a credit to those offices and to this House.
It is an honour for me to represent the people of Churchill. They are accustomed to good representation of the kind provided for the past five years by Mr. Bud Simpson. I certainly hope I will be able to provide the citizens of the Churchill constituency with the same type of representation.
I have one of the largest, if not the largest, constituencies in Canada. The difficulty of representing a constituency of that size is very formidable. Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you will agree, it is a privilege to be able to represent
February 28, 1973

people whose livelihood ranges from living directly off the land to being involved in the most advanced space age technology.
The people of Churchill, of course, have the same problems as those experienced by other Canadians, namely, unemployment and inflation. This is especially so in the northern area of the province of Manitoba where transportation costs add considerably to the cost of construction projects and even the food all of us buy every day. The budget presented in this House will do very little for the citizens of the north. Our party has offered many suggestions during the course of this debate which would considerably improve the lot of all Canadians. I would have hoped that all parties in this House would have adopted them. However, I am amazed at the attitude of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis). This is the man who during the throne speech debate called for more action in the field of housing. He now says that the Conservative proposal to remove the sales tax on building materials would be the biggest bonanza in Canada for gouging developers.
Now, of course, we are used to extreme language from the hon. member for York South, so his latest inflammatory remarks do not shock us. But it is interesting to note the length to which he will go in order not to support a Conservative proposal no matter how meritorious. What he would do, he says, to deny this bonanza to gouging developers would be to rebate to the person who buys a house the tax on building materials that went into the construction of the house. I noticed that while he was saying it even some children in the parliamentary gallery were laughing. This would not only be a bureaucratic nightmare, as the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) said, but it would be so difficult to administer that much of the revenue saved would be spent on administrative costs. It would be a totally useless exercise.
If conditions were such-and theoretical and empirical evidence suggest that they are not-that the developer would not pass on the tax reduction to the home buyer, then the NDP proposal would not make one iota of difference. There is nothing in that proposal to prevent a developer from raising the price of the home enough to offset any rebate that the home buyer would receive. The trouble with the position of the hon. member for York South is that elimination of the building materials' sales tax would reduce the cost of housing, increase construction and create jobs; so he cannot admit to being against it. At the same time, however, it is a Conservative proposal, so he cannot support it. Thus he finds himself in a quandary, and in his attempts to wiggle out of it he becomes ludicrous.
It is the same thing with sales taxes. Studies show that lower income groups pay a greater proportion of their income on sales taxes than higher income groups. But the hon. member for York South cannot support our proposal to eliminate sales taxes from all clothing because it would also eliminate taxes on all clothing of higher income groups. It is difficult to know whether to feel sorry for the members of the NDP or to be angry with them. Their fear to face the electorate is understandable. It is irritating, however, to sit in this House and note their mock pleasure at the latest budget.
The Budget-Mr. Taylor


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I thank him and the five other hon. members who have participated in the debate in the last 55 minutes.
It being 5.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section 7 of Standing Order 60, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker::