1973-02-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, and in light of the increasing backlog of crisis situations in the east coast, west coast and inland fisheries of Canada, which are being left unresolved by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) and the government, I ask leave of the House, seconded by the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. Olaussen), to move as a matter of urgent and pressing necessity the following motion:
That in the opinion of this House the government should establish immediately an independent commission to make a public investigation of the fishing industry of Canada and of the role of the federal fisheries service; and that by its terms of reference the commission be instructed first to examine the ban on commercial salmon fishing in New Brunswick and Newfoundland, its impact on the livelihood of the people involved, and whether continuance of the ban is justifiable or necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni proposes a motion 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 and the motion cannot be put.


PUBLIC WORKS PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES ON PROVINCIAL BASIS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to request the unanimous consent of the House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the 1973-74 estimates of the Department of Public Works reveal that, despite the principle of equitable distribution as articulated by the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) on behalf of the government, British Columbia will receive $1.56 per capita of these expenditures, and whereas the province of Ontario will receive $9 per capita excluding expenditures in the national capital, and in view of the
high rate of unemployment in the province of British Columbia, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose):
That the question of inequity in the per capita distribution of public works expenditures be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works to throw light on the real criteria used in determining the 1973-74 expenditures.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the difficulties encountered by those in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits, particularly due to inadmissible delays in payments, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration recommend the decentralization of the benefit payment system.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Champlain. Under the Standing Orders, that 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 unanimity and the motion cannot be put.


FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO TRAIN ATHLETES FOR 1976 OLYMPIC GAMES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the poor support given to our Canadian amateur athletes in their training and the mediocre per-

February 27, 1973
Main Estimates, 1973-74
formance of Canada in international competitions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That this House create a special committee which will consider the possibility of direct financial assistance by the federal government to help amateur sport present qualified athletes at the Montreal Olympic Games in 1976, the said committee being asked to report within six months of its establishment.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion of the hon. member for Portneuf. Under our rules, this motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimity, the motion cannot be put.


MAIN ESTIMATES. 1973-74 REFERENCE OF ITEMS TO STANDING COMMITTEES
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr.Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 59 I move, seconded by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury):
That the estimates of the sums required for the service of Canada for the year ending March 31, 1974, be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows:
I have circulated some copies of this motion which is very detailed. It would take a very long time to read it. I hope we can dispense with the reading of the votes.
[Editor's Note: The balance of the motion follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, L20, 25 and 30 relating to the Department of Agriculture.
Vote 35 relating to the Canadian Dairy Commission.
Votes 40 and 45 relating to the Canadian Livestock Feed Board. Vote 50 relating to the Farm Credit Corporation.
To the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 relating to the Department of the Secretary of State.
Vote 45 relating to the Canada Council.
Votes 50 and L55 relating to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Vote 5 relating to Information Canada.
Vote 60 relating to the Company of Young Canadians.
Vote 65 relating to the National Arts Centre Corporation.
Votes 70 and L75 relating to the National Film Board.
Vote 80 relating to the National Library.
Votes 85 and 90 relating to the National Museums of Canada. Votes 95 and L100 relating to the Public Archives.
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence
Votes 1, 5, 10 and 15 relating to the Department of External Affairs.
Votes 20, 25 and L30, relating to the Canadian International Development Agency.
Vote 35 relating to the International Joint Commission.
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 relating to the Department of National Defence.
Vote 30 relating to Defence Construction (1951) Limited.
To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs
Votes 1, 5 and 10 relating to the Department of Finance.
Vote 20 relating to the Department of Insurance.
Vote 25 relating to the Tariff Board.
Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20, 25, 30 and 35 relating to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Vote 40 relating to the Standards Council of Canada.
Vote 45 relating to Statistics Canada.
Vote 20 relating to the Economic Council of Canada.
Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Department of National Revenue.
To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry Votes, 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 relating to the Department of the Environment.
To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 relating to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 relating to the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Votes 55 and 60 relating to the Medical Research Council.
Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. Votes 10 and L15 relating to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Votes 20, 25 and L30 relating to the National Capital Commission.
To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20, 25, 30, 35, L40, L45, L50, L55, L60, L65, 70, 75 and 80 relating to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Vote L85 relating to the Northern Canada Power Commission.
To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works
Votes 1, 5, 10, L15 and 20 relating to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Votes 25 and 30 relating to the Atomic Energy Control Board. Votes 35, 40, L45 and L50 relating to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
Vote 55 relating to the National Energy Board.
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, 35 and 40 relating to the Department of Public Works.
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Vote 1 relating to the Department of Justice.
Vote 5 relating to the Law Reform Commission of Canada.
Vote 10 relating to the Tax Review Board.
Vote 1 relating to the Department of the Solicitor General.
Votes 5, 10 and 15 relating to Correctional Services.
Votes 20 and 25 relating to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration
Vote 1 relating to the Department of Labour.
Vote 30 relating to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 relating to the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
Vote 25 relating to the Immigration Appeal Board.
To the Standing Committee on Regional Development Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20, L25 and L30 relating to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.

February 27, 1973

Votes 35, 40 and 45 relating to the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
To the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Department of Communications. Vote 15 relating to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. Vote L10 relating to the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation.
Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Post Office.
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, 35, 40, 45, 50 and 55 relating to the Department of Transport.
Vote 60 relating to the Atlantic Pilotage Authority.
Votes 65 and 70 relating to the Canadian Transport Commission. Vote 75 relating to the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Ltd.
Vote 80 relating to the Laurentian Pilotage Authority.
Votes 85 and L90 relating to the National Harbours Board.
Vote L95 relating to Northern Transportation Company Limited.
Vote 100 relating to the Pacific Pilotage Authority.
Votes 105 and 110 relating to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority.
To the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections Vote 10 relating to the Chief Electoral Officer.
To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 and 55 relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates Vote 1 relating to the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors.
Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Privy Council Office.
Vote 15 relating to the Commissioner of Official Languages.
Vote 25 relating to the Public Service Staff Relations Board.
Vote 1 relating to the Ministry of State for Science and Technology.
Vote 5 relating to the Science Council of Canada.
Vote 105 relating to the Public Service Commission.
Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Department of Supply and Services. Vote 10 relating to Canadian Arsenals Limited.
Vote 15 relating to the Auditor General.
Vote 15 relating to the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
Votes 1, 5, 10,15 and 20 relating to the Treasury Board.
Votes 25, 30 and 35 relating to the National Research Council of Canada.
To the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization Vote 1 relating to the Senate.
Vote 5 relating to the House of Commons.
Vote 10 relating to the Library of Parliament.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I have spent two hours looking through the list and it would seem to be reasonably well in order. However, I should like to take a moment on a point of order. I realize this is not a debatable motion and I do not intend to debate it. I have a very serious suggestion to make to the government House leader and in fact to all hon. members. We have had one parliament in which we have had experience with this method of dealing with the estimates. I have reason to believe we are rapidly approaching the end of another parliament which will be the second experience. There is no doubt in the minds of all hon. members who have participated in committees that we have developed a committee jungle. I am not saying that disparagingly of any party or any hon. member, but it is a fact of life. We have discovered it. Your Honour knows as well as I do the complaints,
Main Estimates, 1973-74
requests, points of order and questions of privilege that have been raised in the House and have made it abundantly plain that this is the case. In addition, an increasingly large number of votes in the estimates are of a legislative nature but are not based on legislation, thereby preventing hon. members from having that opportunity for discussion they would normally have on the second reading, report and third reading stages of a bill.
For these reasons, while we do not intend to oppose this motion-we did toy with the idea-I urge the government House leader to give some consideration to the proposition which has been discussed on a number of occasions that several departments might well be dealt with by the House under conditions that would supply ample safeguards so that there can be a reasonable method of dealing with some of the departments that by their nature need to be discussed in the House as well as in committees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has pointed out, this motion is not debatable. However, I wonder if I could be permitted to ask the government House leader one question so that the point will be clear to all hon. members. Can the government House leader indicate whether there are any changes in this motion from the comparable motion of last session? In other words, are the estimates of any department or agency being referred to a different committee than was the case last year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I went through the votes I believe there was one vote which had been shifted from a former standing committee to reflect new ministerial responsibilities. It is not a matter of principle with me, and I will advise my hon. friend in detail about it. If the House wishes to have anything altered there would be no objection.
If I may, Your Honour, I should like to comment briefly on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Peace River. The supply Standing Orders under which we are working may be a jungle and the committee system may be a jungle, but it was a jungle into which we voluntarily entered as a House of Commons. There were certain controversial aspects of the rules changes but the House as a whole did accept the new supply procedures and the new committee structure with, I believe, a sincere hope that they would improve the situation.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to co-operate with hon. members to bring estimates before the House of Commons provided there are certain safeguards. It seems to me that was a point of view I held when the procedure committee examined the matter of estimates, but wiser heads prevailed, including that of my hon. friend from Peace River, and that advice was not followed. However, I am glad to see that he has reached the same destination after four or five years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Lotbiniere on the point of order.

February 27, 1973
Main Estimates, 1973-74


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat what the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have said, since I share their fears and opinions on this matter.
I could speak at length about the committee system and about the way in which the government uses committees for referring budget estimates; I want it to know that this party does not approve of this procedure. Even though there were special circumstances that led to this budget's being presented earlier than expected, the fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that the government acts unilaterally when it refers these estimates to committee in this way, and thus prevents those of some departments from being studied by the committees.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order but my remarks are in a slightly different direction. The point concerns the government House leader and it should also concern the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). My point of order concerns the requirements of Standing Order 82 (1) having to do with reports and returns which it is mandatory that public officers and private corporations make to the House of Commons. In order to have any intelligent discussion of the estimates, either here or in committee, it seems to me that the law should be complied with and the reports required to be tabled in the House tabled on time.
The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs tabled its report on January 4 last year for the year ended March 31, 1971. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources tabled its report on January 30 last year for the year ended March 31, 1971. The Department of External Affairs tabled its report on January 4 of this year for the year ended December 31, 1971. The Department of National Health and Welfare tabled its report on January 4 of this year for the year ended March 31, 1971. The Department of Public Works tabled its report on January 4 of this year for the year ended March 31, 1971. We can see that all of these reports for these departments are at least a year old and should have been tabled a year ago. We cannot have intelligent discussion of estimates under these conditions.
The report on the fitness and amateur sport program was tabled on January 4, 1973, for the year ended March 31, 1971. The report on the Canada Assistance Plan was tabled on January 4 of this year for the year ended March 31, 1971. The report on the Canada Pension Plan was tabled on April 25, 1972 for the year ended March 31, 1971. The report on old age assistance was tabled on June 14, 1972 for the year ended March 31, 1971. The report on the Unemployment Insurance Act was tabled on January 4 of this year for the year ended March 31, 1971.
Here, Sir, my point of order resolves itself into a question of privilege concerning documents which, contrary to the legal requirements, have been tabled late. The Department of Agriculture is to table its report within the first 21 days after a session of parliament commences. It was tabled on February 7, 1973. The Department of Communications is supposed to table its report on or before January 31 following the end of the fiscal year, or within the

first five days of the next session. It was tabled on February 12, 1973. The Department of the Environment did the same, its report being tabled on February 21, 1973. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion also did the same; its report was tabled on February 9, 1973. The Department of the Secretary of State was supposed to table its report within the first ten days of the next session; it was tabled on January 4, 1973, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1971, and on February 16, 1973, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972. This, of course, only treats of departmental reports.
The other day the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) had something to say about his capital budget. According to my reading of the rules, under Standing Order 82(1) the budget of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should have been tabled at the end of the year, and that has gone by.
We cannot function properly and conduct the business of the House or of the standing committees efficiently unless the government complies with the law and tables these reports as required.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may rephrase the question I asked a few minutes ago, in the hope that I may get the answer I feel the House is entitled to have at this time. Is it a fact that the estimates of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission are being referred this time to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications rather than to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, but that otherwise all of the estimates are being referred to the same committees to which they were referred last session?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe that is the particular vote I had in mind, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what I wanted you to say the first time.


Gerald William Baldwin: What's the matter? Is your telephone line to him broken down?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-153, to regulate trade and commerce.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to put into effect certain conclusions arrived at by a number of commissions that have examined the operations and structure of the oil industry. The aim is to ensure the return of the operation of service stations to the individual proprietors and to permit the further expansion of small business.


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


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, one of our main concerns today is the increasing wholesale prices index. My question is therefore directed to the Minister of Finance. In light of the fact that the government's own figures show that wholesale prices rose by a full 2.5 per cent last month, an increase, I may say, Sir, of 12.3 per cent over January, 1972-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: My question to the minister is this: in light of the fact that this index has been rising at an accelerating annual rate since last August-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -would the Minister of Finance advise the House what action the government is now going to take to avert the accelerating retail price increases that will ultimately follow these wholesale price increases?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in the budget last week we took steps to increase the disposable income of all Canadians, particularly lower and middle income Canadians, in order to compensate them for the rise in cost of living, particularly food prices, and we lowered the sales tax and tariff on several food and near food items in order to increase the average Canadian budget to meet this situation.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: If that is the only action the Minister of Finance intends to take, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could pose a question to the second in command, the Prime Minister. Is he prepared to hold emergency conferences- this is an emergency we are facing right now-with the provinces at this time to see if common targets and common policies for stabilizing prices can be established?


Mr. Hees:: No fuddle-duddle, now.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.


FOOD PRICES-GOVERNMENT DEFINITION OF ACCEPTABLE INCREASE-CONTINGENCY PLAN
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In response to the growing inflationary expectation in the economy, may I ask whether the minister is prepared to
Oral Questions
advise the House and the country that he has now arrived at a definition of reasonable price increases for 1973, and is he prepared to state that he is now going to act to keep prices within such a level?


John Napier Turner: I think I have already dealt with that question in answer to the same hon. member, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the minister-perhaps he did not understand my question-if he is prepared to tell the House and the country at what level the government expects an emergency to arise in regard to price increases? In other words, at what level of price increases will the government's so-called contingency plan be put into effect?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I said before that present circumstances do not warrant the imposition of any sort of price and wage controls, particularly as it relates to food. That could not be achieved unless there was a strong public consensus to that effect. I do not find that consensus with labour, with the farmers or with other significant groups, including provincial governments.


TARIFF AND SALES TAX REDUCTIONS-MONITORING SYSTEM TO ENSURE CONSUMERS GET BENEFIT
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance. In light of the declared intention of the tariff and sales tax reductions to reduce prices in certain areas, can the minister tell the House whether machinery has been set up to ensure that these reductions are passed on to the consumer?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are setting up a monitoring system. I am satisfied that the initial reaction to the sales tax reductions has been good. Many of the major retailers across the country have taken 15 per cent to 10 per cent off children's clothing and food and near food commodities. I think it has been very encouraging to this stage.


PRICE INCREASES-IMPACT OF MONOPOLY POWER ON ECONOMY
Ronald George Atkey: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. What steps has the minister taken or is he prepared to take to investigate the impact of monopoly power on the economy as a contributing factor in the shocking price increases?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: A real socialist.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will continue to see that the officials of the combines branch of my department carry out the statutory duties imposed upon them by parliament.

February 27, 1973
Oral Questions


PRICE INCREASES-POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHMENT OF PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the price increases referred to earlier as well as increases in areas such as farm machinery, can the minister state whether the government or his department is considering the institution of a prices review board to monitor and act on unjustified increases in prices?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have already dealt with that situation very fully on budget night.


REQUEST FOR GRANTS TO AVOID INCREASE IN PRICE OF MILK PRODUCTS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the hon. Minister of Finance.
In view of the reduction of sales tax on soft drinks announced in the recent budget, would the minister consider granting subsidies to the producers to prevent a rise in the prices of dairy products?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that comes under my colleague's jurisdiction. I will discuss it with him in any case.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Three or four members are seeking supplementaries on this subject. Perhaps the Chair might be allowed to recognize the hon. member for Edmonton Centre on a last supplementary for the moment, and then we will try to conclude the first round of questioning. If hon. members think we should spend more time on this subject, I will return to hon. members who are seeking to ask supplementaries.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed either to the Minister of Finance or to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I would ask those ministers to please have their officials check into the price of dietary and low calorie foods-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: -so that unfortunates who are diabetic and overweight will not be discriminated against, as the price of these foods has risen between 50 and 80 per cent?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to consult with my colleague, the Minister of Finance, on this. It is my impression that the reductions he announced with respect to sales tax and customs duties will apply to those catego-

ries of foods as well as to those more specifically referred to in the budget.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Would the minister make a statement on motions as soon as he has gathered all the information? This is an unfortunate situation in that sugar is taken out of these foods but the prices still keep going up.


CANADA-UNITED STATES-SUGGESTED RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS IN LIGHT OF STATEMENT BY U S. OFFICIAL ON CANADIAN ASSISTANCE TO EXPORT INDUSTRIES
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I am still chortling about the last question. I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce arising out of a report I have received that the executive director of the President's Council on International Economic Policy, giving evidence before a Senate committee this morning, informed the committee that the President of the United States intends to use every effort to discourage countries like Canada from subsidizing, as he called it, export industries such as Michelin. I would ask the minister whether negotiations have now been resumed between the two countries, since such a policy declaration would affect not only the grants given to Michelin but a good many other policies and programs of the Canadian government?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on previous occasions I have told the House of our concern with respect to the decision on Michelin and the reasons why we think the United States government should review that decision. All this was put before the House in a note tabled on January 19. The other point I would make, in answer to the hon. member, is simply that in that note we asked for formal consultations with the United States under article 22-1 of GATT.


David Lewis: I knew that, of course, and I would therefore like to ask the minister whether there has been any reply from the administration in Washington to the note that has been sent?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we are still awaiting that reply and hope to receive it shortly so that we can enter into the formal consultations we have requested.


David Lewis: In view of the extreme importance of this development to Canada and its future and the necessity to try to exert some influence before a decision is made which may then become irreversible, is the government taking steps to expedite the negotiations with Washington and to see to it that answers are given not in due course but with some expedition?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, of course we have followed up the formal note with further representations at the official level, and we are awaiting the reply, as I told the hon. member. I do not want to create the impression that we are likely to be able immediately to effect a reversal,
February 27, 1973

because the settlement of this issue may well have to go to the United States courts and that may well be a lengthy process.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As testimony in Washington this morning by a key official of the senior advisory body to the President constituted in effect a repudiation of the Canadian government's position, whether or not the Americans have yet replied formally to the Canadian note, will the minister undertake now to make a direct appeal to GATT on the U.S. decision?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, under GATT the rules require that there first be formal consultations between the two parties to the dispute, and then and only after that can there be a registration under the multilateral provisions.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Does the minister not feel, in the circumstances, that it is absolutely essential to recommence negotiations at the ministerial level at once in order to reach some accord which would allow Canadian businessmen, provinces and other interested parties to plan effectively?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is essential that the Secretary of the Treasury and I meet immediately on this point. I think the Canadian government's position has been put very clearly in more than one way and at more than one time. I would hope that this message has got through. I look forward, let me assure the House, to meeting with the Secretary of the Treasury in the near future.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In view of Mr. Flanigan's further suggestion that Mr. Nixon should be given strong powers to raise or lower tariffs as bargaining chips in trade negotiations, does the minister still feel that the Canadian government played Canada's chips well in making unilateral reductions in tariffs in the budget of last week?


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleagues for their welcome: they were as anxious to see me again as I was to see them. As a French Canadian, I suffered from bilingualism for a few weeks; I had the English flu.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, London is not bothering me now.
I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Can he tell the House about the study undertaken by his department into the request for a subsidy made by those in charge of TEMBEC with a view to reopening the pulp
Oral Questions
and paper mill at Temiscaming? Can he tell us when he will be in a position to advise us of the decision that will be made in this regard?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased, subsequent to the House sitting, to confer with the hon. member in detail on the state of the negotiations. If I may answer as briefly as I know Your Honour will permit, the situation is that there have been a number of meetings, that we are prepared in this particular case to interpret the mandate of the department as broadly as possible in order to accommodate this situation, that the difficulty at the moment is with pollution standards and that we are consulting with the Department of the Environment and with the promoters of the project as well as with the union in an effort to resolve the pollution question. If that question can be resolved with reasonable satisfaction, then I am hopeful the project may be able to go ahead.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, has the minister met recently the TEMBEC authorities precisely in connection with pollution?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I personally have not met with them since about three weeks ago, but officials have been meeting virtually on a daily basis. I believe there was a meeting yesterday and I had a report this morning. I am looking forward to receiving further information within the next two or three days.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask a question of the government leader.
In the light of the remarks made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, could the Prime Minister inform the House if in fact a decision has been taken to extend from 60 to 90 days our initial commitment in Viet Nam and, if so, when was such a decision taken?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Secretary of State for External Affairs is that should we have to withdraw at the end of the 60 days, and should it be agreeable to other countries that we extend our stay for 30 more days to allow them time to find a substitute, we would give consideration to this 30-day extension.


VIET NAM-PROTECTION OF CANADIAN NEWSPAPER REPORTERS
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the brief detention of Canadian Press

February 27, 1973
Oral Questions
photographer, Peter Bregg, yesterday, could the Prime Minister undertake to assure maximum protection for Canadian reporters on duty in Viet Nam?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure our officials and personnel there are doing their best to protect every member of the press, particularly my friend, Pierre Bregg.


VIET NAM-CANADIAN ELEMENT IN SUPERVISORY COMMISSION-INQUIRY AS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WITHDRAWAL
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the decision of Red Cross officials to return home almost immediately as a result of a lack of co-operation on the part of the authorities in Viet Nam, can the minister inform the House whether he has received similar recommendations from Canadian officers in the field and, if so, what action does he intend to pursue in this matter?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we have received no such recommendations from our commander.


INDOCHINA-METHOD OF EXTENDING AID FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. What success has the government had in getting agreement from other countries for the principle that aid for reconstruction and rehabilitation in Indochina be multilateral, through the specialized agencies of the United Nations, rather than bilateral?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot help the hon. member on this, but I will ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to consider the question.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is with regard to the proposed bill on family allowances which the minister referred to last week. In light of the fact that universality has been a longstanding feature of the family allowance system, is the minister prepared to indicate to the House and the Canadian public what consideration is being given to preserving universality in the future?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing all aspects of this matter now and I regret not being able to say right now what specific option I shall recommend to my colleagues and to the House.
* *
*


HARBOURS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. In an answer he gave last week to a question I had on the order paper with regard to the lack of expansion of Ladner harbour, the minister said that expansion is still in the discussion stage. Because of the urgency of the problem and because of the fact over 5,000 people in that area have signed a petition, can the minister give us a date when he expects the discussions will be completed and the harbour constructed?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a definite date but I will be very happy to try to expedite the matter as much as I can under the circumstances.


VIET NAM-INQUIRY RESPECTING LIST OF CANADIAN PRISONERS OF WAP
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.
My question deals with Viet Nam and particularly Canadian prisoners who are held there.
The protocol on the freeing of prisoners stipulates that lists of prisoners were to be exchanged on the very day of the signature of the agreement.
Is the list of Canadian prisoners in the hands of Canadian authorities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am going to inquire, Mr. Speaker.


John Douglas Reynolds: Can the minister tell us whether this will happen in 1973?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, we always try to do the impossible but we cannot promise it.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In his capacity as the minister in charge of reporting for the Crown corporation, Canadian National Railways, is the minister aware of an alleged work slowdown of CNR yard crews in Vancouver possibly causing a slowdown of the movement of
February 27, 1973

prairie grain through that port? Can he inform the House on that situation?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am very well aware of that situation. We are investigating it right now. I hope to be able to report to the House shortly.


ALLEGED SLOWDOWN BY VANCOUVER YARD CREWS- REASON FOR LOWER PRODUCTIVITY
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister considered investigating whether or not any lowered productivity at the rail terminals in Vancouver is due not to a deliberate slowdown by the men but because of an arbitrary decision by Canadian National to cut yard crews from three to two men despite the fact that today two men are asked to handle twice the number of cars formerly assigned to a three-man crew?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this aspect is also being investigated and I hope to have a report on this also.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. The minister kindly agreed to investigate the productivity aspect of two-man crews in non-automated yards. Will he also consider investigating the safety aspects of handling large trains by men under considerable pressure to produce while 75 per cent of them have no job protection in these times of high unemployment?


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have no desire to take up the time of the House, but I believe that my supplementary question to the Minister of Transport was not heard by him. Can the minister possibly give me a reply to the third question about which I gave him notice earlier?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might receive a better answer if he would direct that question to the Minister of Labour who has a report that I do not have.


BUS PASSENGER FARE INCREASE, NEWFOUNDLAND- REQUEST FOR MAINTENANCE OF OLD RATES UNTIL COURT CASE DECIDED
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. I have given him notice of it. The question concerns the recent increase in fares by Canadian National Railways in Newfoundland with regard to their bus passenger service. In view of the fact that their application to the Newfoundland government's public utilities commission was rejected and the fact that the case is still pending before the Newfoundland Supreme Court, will the minister undertake to instruct Canadian National to revert to their old fare structure pending the outcome of the Supreme Court decision?
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if the facts as revealed are true, I will certainly ask Canadian National to revert to the former fare structure.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Since the Pretty-Polly Company of Mont-Joli has now suspended operations and that it was granted $608,000 by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, is the minister aware of this matter? If so, what action has he taken or does he intend to take in order that his department's investment of taxpayer money be turned into profits?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it is not possible within the rules of the question period to answer that question in detail. I can only tell the hon. member that the matter is being investigated and I hope to have a report for him and other interested parties shortly.


FINANCE
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to return to the first question regarding the rise in the cost of living and direct a further question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact recent polls have shown that the overwhelming majority of the people of Canada want something done to control rising prices, will the minister reconsider this matter in view of this overwhelming desire of the people that something be done?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check those polls again with the hon. member.


George Harris Hees: As the Minister of Finance is unable or unwilling to answer the question and as the second in command, the Prime Minister, is unable and unwilling-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -may I direct this question to the third in command-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -the hon. member for York South.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member resume his seat.

February 27, 1973
Oral Questions AIRPORTS


VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL-PROPOSED NEW RUNWAY-REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF EXPROPRIATION ACT TO ENSURE APPLICATION OF RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact the Federal Court on February 21, 1973, ruled that the hearing officer hearing the complaints of objectors to the proposed runway at Vancouver airport was not bound to apply the rules of natural justice, and in view of the fact that when the Expropriation Act was before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs the then minister of justice stated "we hope that the rules of natural justice would be followed", can the minister advise the House whether he is prepared to introduce immediately an amendment to the act to ensure that the Expropriation Act in fact reflects the intention of parliament so that objectors are not denied the protection of the rules of natural justice?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between a technical challenge to the rules which may not be relevant and applying the rules in spirit. I will check the proceedings in parliament to see whether we in fact find that situation to be fully in place today and consider the hon. member's representation.


John Allen Fraser: I thank the minister for saying that he will look into the matter, but in view of what is now obviously a defect in the act would he assure the House that as Minister of Justice he will consult his cabinet colleagues to the end that the present expropriation at Vancouver airport will be stopped until these objectors have had a chance to be heard in a form that properly reflects the intention of parliament and the rules of natural justice?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the hon. member appreciates that a question asked in those terms is hypothetical.


WELFARE
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Finance has talked about tax relief for people on low incomes in face of rising food prices, what action does the government intend to take to come to the aid of welfare recipients who are not on the tax rolls and whose benefits are now being eaten up by rising food prices?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peel South.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare. Perhaps he will answer the question I was just asking.


Marc Lalonde: I will answer with pleasure, Mr. Speaker.
As the hon. member surely knows, the Canada Public Assistance Act provides that the federal government will pay 50 per cent of all assistance to the poor. Therefore, it is up to the provinces to decide on the amounts to be paid to those people.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, may I pose a further supplementary question to the Prime Minister. For that reason, would the Prime Minister convene an emergency conference with the provinces, as was asked of him today?


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On February 22 last as reported at page 1549 of Hansard, when replying to a question by the hon. member for Scarborough West concerning the difference between the cost of charter flights from the United Kingdom to Canada and flights from Canada to the United Kingdom the minister said:
I think it is easy for the Canadian public to understand that it costs less to charter a plane in England, since labour itself costs less-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think hon. members ought to realize that it is not in order to preface a question by making reference to statements. I think more questions might be included in the question period if questions did not contain these lengthy statements that seem to precede most questions.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister understand that the same planes carry the same passengers, and will he inquire as to the reason for the different rates charges by the same airlines with the same crews using the same equipment when carrying U.K. passengers from London to Toronto and when carrying Toronto passengers to the United Kingdom? The difference is between $105 and $180 roughly.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply to that part of the hon. gentleman's statement which was a question.


Jean Marchand: The only problem, Mr. Speaker, is that this is a very difficult question to answer briefly. I am aware that there is considerable confusion at the moment over the new regulations on advance booking charters, and I should like to make the matter quite clear. All I meant to say was that companies that own planes leaving, say, London for Toronto and later returning to London may, even if they are Canadian companies, charge lower prices than a company whose planes leave Montreal for London and come back to Montreal. If the hon. member wishes to know all the reasons, I can only say that it is a matter of costing.
February 27, 1973


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, what I really want to know from the minister is whether he will inquire why it is that foreign corporations can fly Canadian passengers at a more expensive rate than they can fly foreign passengers, apart from labour costs and aircraft maintenance costs?


Jean Marchand: As you know, Mr. Speaker, England has set up a system that is comparable to ours, and charter planes are subject to regulations that apply in England.
Our regulations are different from the English ones; here, mileage rates are decided by the Canadian Transport Commission, while the cost to the passenger is decided by those who charter the planes. But the economic situation in England is not the same as ours, which is why the prices are not the same.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My impression is that this would be a very good debate for the proceedings at ten o'clock. The hon. member for Vegreville may ask a supplementary question and we will then try another subject which is perhaps less complicated.


ADVANCE BOOKING CHARTER REGULATIONS-ACTION TO OVERCOME DIFFICULTIES
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether he has had any discussions with the Air Transport Committee regarding the confusion surrounding the advance booking charter regulations? In particular, has he had any discussions with a view to overcoming the difficulties of many ethnic charter groups in handling charter flights, particularly to eastern Europe?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had a discussion with the president of the commission and he is aware that there is a certain confusion and that we will probably have to establish some kind of transitional period in order to pass from one system to the other.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Would the minister inform the House when we might expect a statement as to the changes or transitional measures that will be adopted in order to overcome this confusion and get charter flights back into the air?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will get in touch immediately with the president of the commission and report to the House. He is the one who will make the decision.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


RECOMMENDED RATIONALIZATION OF CANADIAN
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of a report by a consulting firm in British Columbia, Reid and Associates, which recommends the rationalization of the Canadian National railway line and the British Columbia Railway in northern British Columbia, with specific mention of a redirection of the route contemplated by the B.C. Railway? If so, has the government or the minister given any endorsement or approval of the contents of this report?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this report which has been studied by the railways, the government of B.C. and my own department. No conclusion has yet been reached and we have made no commitment at all. We are still discussing both reports, the report made to the department and the report made by Reid and Associates.


Frank Howard: Is the minister aware that a statement has been attributed to him to the effect that the minister or the government have committed themselves to sharing the cost up to $10 million of redirecting the B.C. Railway into northern British Columbia?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of this, but I am sure I never made such a commitment.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Has he or his colleague the Minister of Justice investigated racist pamphlets being mailed regularly by an association calling itself the Loyalist Association to determine whether they contravene the Criminal Code?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: I shall check on this, Mr. Speaker, and reply to the hon. member later.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which arises from a requirement for the presentation of the so-called Burgess report dealing with the prospects for a third national park

February 27, 1973
Oral Questions
in Nova Scotia. Has the minister received that report, and has he received any advice or instructions from the government of Nova Scotia with respect to whether or not the memorandum of agreement that now exists will or will not be proceeded with?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister oi Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, every indication I have to date is that we are going to proceed with the establishment of a third park in Nova Scotia, as was decided last year. As to the Burgess report, I have not yet received it. As soon as I do I shall advise the hon. member.


NEWFOUNDLAND-PROPOSED GROS MORNE PARK-DISCUSSION OF BOUNDARIES WITH PROVINCE-ASSISTANCE IN RELOCATING PEOPLE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of his expressed willingness in the House last week to consider meeting with the province of Newfoundland regarding renegotiation of the boundaries of Gros Morne Park, will he advise whether he has consulted with the minister and indicate what the plans are?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am to meet with the minister in question and perhaps with the Premier of Newfoundland in a few days.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, will the minister advise whether he has discussed the matter with the national parks people and has he come up with a plan to offer Newfoundland for the purpose of helping those people who will be moved against their will?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we always have solutions to offer to the parties concerned.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention of his department to conduct further studies on whether a metro-Toronto garbage dump should be allowed to be located in the vicinity of the proposed Pickering Airport in view of the safety factors involved?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Mr. Forrestall.l


Jean Marchand: You have the answer, Mr. Speaker. Of course, we have followed this event very closely because of its importance to those people who are going to travel from Pickering. A check was made, and I think the Department of the Environment was also involved. Because of the importance of the matter, you can be sure I am ready to have it doublechecked.


Norman Augustine Cafik: In view of the minister's intention to make a doublecheck into this very important question, I wonder whether the department will take steps to prohibit this location or to at least suggest a delay in the approval of that site, as a decision is expected to be taken on Friday of this week?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if it is proven, demonstrated or indicated that there might be a danger there is no doubt that we are going to prevent the dump being located there.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I have another supplementary question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Parliamentary secretaries should be seen and not heard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow a supplementary question, and then recognize the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, as this is a very important question affecting the people of Pickering and, indeed, the people of all Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Norman Augustine Cafik: -would the minister make representations to the Ontario Municipal Board asking it to delay the decision approving the site for garbage purposes until the inquiry has been completed?


An hon. Member:: They should put you on the garbage dump.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if we receive a recommendation to that effect from the Department of the Environment we will certainly ask for such a delay.


George Harris Hees: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. He will be recognized in a moment, but I understand the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings is rising on a point of order.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Following yesterday's discussions with regard to speeding up the work of the House, it is obvious the business would be greatly accelerated if members on the government side and members of the NDP would raise these questions at their joint caucus meetings which are held every week.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 27, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member for Mal-peque, but we are running short of time.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I was only going to suggest that it seems to me someone is trying to incinerate somebody.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of the Environment because the application under discussion has to be made to the Ontario Environment Board, not the Ontario Municipal Board. For a change, will the federal government intervene in this matter and make specific recommendations through the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I just want to protect my own position by pointing out that when I informed the House that a decision had to be made by the Ontario Municipal Board this is, indeed, the fact. It has to make the decision whether rezoning will be allowed in Pickering Township to accommodate the location of a garbage dump in that area.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that is hardly a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Those four votes are disappearing rapidly.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will again recognize the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham on his supplementary question and then we will have to call orders of the day.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question-


An hon. Member:: You just lost your four votes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would hon. members resume their seats. I will recognize the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham on a supplementary question and, because some time was taken up by a point of order, two or three further questions might be allowed to make up for the time we lost in the last three or four minutes.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. Is the government of Canada going to involve itself by making representations in respect of this important matter? A simple yes or no answer will be sufficient.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, we are having a report prepared on wildfowl problems in that area. It will be available to all interested parties.
Oral Questions


MANPOWER
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Can the minister tell this House whether he has looked at the economic report on unemployment in Canada submitted to the United Nations by OECD and indicating that a 3 to 4 per cent reduction in the unemployment rate in Canada is utopian? Would the minister agree to table a copy of this report in this House?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had time to peruse the report to which the hon. member has referred, but I will examine the question to determine what can be done.


TRANSPORT
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. On January 8 I asked a question about the wanton closing of railway stations and the whole matter of transportation in western Canada. At that time the minister promised he would meet with provincial representatives some time after the throne speech. Can he now indicate when he will hold that meeting?


Jean Marchand: I do not
have a date yet and as I have not met with those representatives I can say nothing more than I said at that time.


INFORMATION CANADA
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for Information Canada. In the light of difficulties experienced by many small municipalities in becoming informed of federal programs which could be valuable to them and for which they are qualified, will the minister consider the possibility of publishing a directory of such services and making it available to the small municipalities?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

February 27, 1973
Oral Questions BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


DATE OF PROCEEDING WITH BILL C-125
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as government House leader. In view of the fact that on February 3 the Prime Minister indicated legislation in the form of Bill C-125 would be reintroduced in the House within a few weeks, yet on page 1448 of Hansard the government House leader is reported as having indicated other items of business which would take up the entire period to the end of March in reply to a question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, will the minister tell us when that bill in respect of abuses of the Unemployment Insurance Act will be reintroduced?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid my hon. friend misunderstands the situation. That particular bill has not been withdrawn and does not require reintroduction. It is on the order paper along with all the other bills and will come forward in the normal course.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Prime Minister indicated it would be taken up within a few weeks of February 3, can the minister give us a more precise date when this matter will be before the House for debate?


An hon. Member:: Ask Stanley.


George Harris Hees: Stanley will tell you.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible at this stage to give a precise date in respect of any particular item of legislation, including the unemployment insurance bill. The program for the month of March is almost totally predetermined by the supply situation.


George Harris Hees: And by the NDP.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It will be very difficult to bring on additional items, including this particular bill in which we are both very interested.


IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the great hardship being caused persons from overseas countries because the new immigration regulations force them to return to their country of origin before they can apply for landed immigrant status, will the minister consider amending the regulations to permit those already in Canada or in transit at the time the new regulations came
into force to apply for landed immigrant status in Canada instead of having to return to their country of origin?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think the rationale for the revocation of regulation 34 in November was clearly set forth at the time. I have also indicated to the House in answer to similar questions that we are not planning any general amnesty from that regulation. We will look at hardship cases, and any cases of refugees, and will deal compassionately with them; but otherwise it is our intention to have the regulations stand.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, will the minister consider changing the regulations to permit those whose applications were already in progress at the time the new regulations came into force to continue their applications for landed immigrant status?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, any visitor or any person in Canada legally at that time, who had in fact registered with an immigration centre his or her desire to apply for landed immigrant status, would have the application proceeded with. There is no prohibition on that if in every other way the applicant is qualified to gain landed immigrant status.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and then the hon. member for Hamilton West on one supplementary and will then call orders of the day.


INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENTS TO IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he can say when the Immigration Act will be up for discussion in parliament?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Immigration Appeal Board Act will be brought forth in due course. I think I would defer to the comments of the House leader a few minutes ago as to the precise date.


POSSIBILITY OF VISITORS SMUGGLING ALIENS INTO UNITED STATES
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended asking the minister about the problem faced by foreign students today in terms of jobs, but I will save that for another day. I am wondering whether the minister is aware of the fact that visitors are smuggling aliens into the United States and, if so, has he been in consultation with his United States counterpart with regard to this problem and what has developed?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I must admit this has not been brought to my attention. I am very interested in the member's comments and would be appreciative if he could give me any details so that I could try to look into it.
[Mr. MunroJ


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, February 26, consideration of the motion of the Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance) that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I am most grateful to have this opportunity, on behalf of the primary producers in this nation and the processors as well as the allied industries, to speak out at this time on what I believe is one of the gravest injustices perpetrated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in his budget when he indiscriminately removed tariffs on foods coming into this country. This was not only a shocking action on his part, but what was equally shocking was the apparent collusion between him and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) on that particular occasion. They seemed to be congratulating each other-as a matter of fact they did shake hands-on a policy concerning the primary producers of this country which will strike at the very heart of many of our farming and processing enterprises in this country which, under the present policies of this government, already operate on a very marginal or non-profit basis.
The agriculture industry is upset to a degree I have never before experienced, not only because of the fact that the tariffs were lowered, but also because as long as two years ago this government approached all the commodity groups in agriculture requesting that they bring forward a careful detailed study on how the tariff problem in respect of GATT might be approached in order that we might grant some concessions that would not injure the industry and gain some concessions in return from the other countries involved. This government which issued this invitation deliberately slapped every commodity group in the face by the action taken on February 19 when it deliberately lowered the tariffs before the results of any of these studies could be made known to the government. Thousands of dollars were wasted, and thousands of hours of study and research were wasted, because of this action on the part of the government. This is the action of a government that derides and criticizes the policy put forward by our party. This is a government which is trying to lay the cause of inflation as well as the high cost of food at the door of the primary producers of agricultural products.
This government is trying to make agriculture the scapegoat for inflation. This is the government which has derived our policy whereby we would seek, in a twopronged attack, to achieve the objective of controlling inflation and prices without putting anybody out of business and without destroying an industry. Our alternative was to lower taxes, provide some incentive for increased 25789-35J
The Budget-Mr. Danforth
production of food in this country, make it possible for small businesses to survive, give the individual taxpayer more money with which to buy groceries and at the same time introduce some price controls on all items except food. These controls would be imposed for a short period of time in order that we might, in consultation with the provinces, develop guidelines that could provide a reasoned measure of control of inflation about which we are so fearful today. But this government would not even consider such a proposition and pressed the panic button when the latest figures on inflation were brought out. The government indiscriminately lowered the tariff on foods entering this country from offshore. Disruption in the industry and the effect on unemployment will be tremendous.
I do not think the government to this date realizes the trouble it has caused in industry. The minister, in his budget speech, said that he was taking a risk. But, when the government takes a risk, does it have to be a risk that involves the livelihood of farmers and the existence of farms which have been in the same family for three generations? Does it have to be at the risk of small processing companies which have just begun to function on an economic level and which are now having their chances of survival taken away from them? Is this the risk which must be taken? The Minister of Finance said that the Minister of Agriculture would be the watchdog over this program. This minister watched while half the proceeds and profits of the Canadian agriculture industry were swept away in a budget speech. This is the minister who indicated that if this measure should cause any hardship it would be reversed in 24 hours. The occasions on which this government, after having lowered any rate of tariff, ever replaced it have been very few and far between.
The sheep industry of this country, when the tariff was removed on mutton coming into this country from New Zealand and Australia, was assured that if hardship resulted it would be rectified. We do not have any sheep industry in Canada today. It is gone. What does this mean? I am grateful to the hon. member for Peel-Duffer-in-Simcoe (Mr. Madill) for having provided me with this document, and it is from the Peel-Halton Beef Improvement Association. It gives us some indication of what we are up against. The tariff on beef coming into this country was lowered by 1.5 cents a pound. But what does it mean to the primary producer who sells in one year 150 head of cattle, which is not a great number, and there is a great number of producers who sell more? Based on his average return per year, 1.5 cents a pound adds up to the startling sum of $4,800, and that could be the difference between a profit and a loss in the operation of his enterprise.
This government took this action in spite of the fact that the opposite action has been taken by all our trading partners. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that the European Economic Community has allocated $3 billion in order to smooth over the bumps experienced by this trading group? Do you realize that of that $3 billion, 86 per cent is directed toward subsidizing agriculture and ensuring that these countries have a viable agriculture industry within the confines of the European Common Market? This is an

February 27, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Danforth
indication of the importance they place on agriculture in those countries. You do not see the Unites States cutting tariffs on food entering that country because, unlike this government, they place a priority on their agriculture. They are not only adopting a policy to protect their agriculture industry now, they are even considering other barriers to stop the inflow of food into their country if there is an indication of damage in the foreseeable future. They are not only dealing with the present, they are dealing with the future, and this is what we need in this country, a long range agricultural policy which we have never had since the government came into office.
The government mentions that this drop in tariffs of 1.5 cents a pound will be passed on to the consumer. This means life or death to the primary producer in many instances, but 1.5 cents a pound, I suggest to you, will never be passed through the whole complicated food chain to the consumer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: Talk about a chaotic policy! I would like to demonstrate what a chaotic policy we have today. We have a government which is making grants for the construction of freezer plants, cold storage, gas storage and common storage. At the very same time they are removing the specific duties, the surcharges, on fruits and vegetables to such a degree that this will shorten the season and make absolutely worthless the economic investment in freezers and in storage in any form. On the one hand, they are telling primary producers to go ahead and buy their policy; on the other hand, they are saying: if you do, we will bankrupt you just that much quicker.
Not only did the government cut these tariffs without consulting anybody in the industry-and I should like to make this point very strongly-but when this policy was adopted, the Minister of Agriculture was not consulted either or else he did not care or understand the ramifications of the drop in the tariffs. I know this Minister of Agriculture. I know his background and I know that this measure was passed without his having been consulted in any way whatsoever. They lowered the tariffs on citrus juices, fruits and vegetables coming into this country at a time when contracts were being negotiated between the processors and the primary producers. I predict that this will have a disastrous effect on these contracts which are being negotiated. The government does not realize what it has done.
I had a phone call from one of the biggest producers of cabbage, a common, everyday staple. He is one of the largest producers of cabbage in my area. As a result of what is considered to be only a slight reduction in tariffs, he decided not to plant one single seed this year because he said that under this program he could not realize a profit. There is a man who is out of business as a result of the policy applied by this government.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Harold Warren Danforth: When the Minister of Finance took this step, it was quite evident to us on this side of the House that he did not understand the tariff structure so far as fruits and vegetables are concerned, a tariff structure which is different from that on other commodities that
are manufactured. When he spoke about specified time periods for the application of a specific duty and then a surcharge, he should remember that these specified time periods were agreed upon by the industry in the 1930's, not in the 1970's. They were agreed upon before research had made it possible for Canadians to extend their production period, both early into the spring and later into the fall, and to develop a greenhouse industry which made it possible for us to produce during the winter months.
Now, what has happened? When the tariff is reduced, what little tariff is left to cover these specified periods results in the cutting off of either the early or the late production. Then, when the surcharges on many of our tender fruits and vegetables were removed, that made it almost impossible for them to be produced at a profit because very often these fruits and vegetables were protected by the surcharge and not by the specific duty. The price structure of the imports was such that the surcharge was much greater than the specific duty. The price of the imported products on an ad valorem basis was much greater, but this was not taken into consideration. What the government has done, when it allowed the inflow by removing the tariff on fresh produce from the United States at a time when we do not have this fresh produce here, has been to run exactly contrary to the interests of our canning industry which processes the produce for which they contracted with the farmers.
This is going to have a serious effect because the processors, to stay in business, will have to make the contracts of payments to Canadian producers low enough to compete with fresh fruits and vegetables coming into the country. This is an almost impossible situation. The tariffs on some of the canned fruits have been lowered to such a degree that the change in tariffs alone, let alone the devaluation of the U.S. dollar, takes every cent of profit out of a case of canned fruit produced in this country. When there is no profit, there is no production.


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


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to take part this afternoon in the debate on the budget.
First of all, I must congratulate my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) for his excellent budget. It is not only a responsive and responsible budget, but also a generous and a deeply human one.
The area with which I will try to deal in my remarks is the scope, the influence of the budget and of the main programs of the government concerning the economy of the Atlantic provinces, and more particularly of my province of New Brunswick.
In its review of the month of December, the Atlantic Advocate reported a statement of the right hon. Prime Minister which I believe to be quite correct to the effect that "no federal government in the history of Canada has backed up its concern for the welfare of the peoples of the Atlantic provinces with more effort or more dollars than the present government".

February 27, 1973

In human terms, the ideal of equal opportunity for all Canadians is absolutely basic. With that in mind, the equalization payments enable the poorer provinces to provide public services comparable with those of richer provinces.
As we all know, last year the equalization payments amounted to $135 per capita for Nova Scotia, $164 for New Brunswick, $213 for Newfoundland and $215 for Prince Edward Island. Without that generous but fair contribution of the federal government, the Atlantic provinces would simply be unable to give to their citizens a reasonable standard of living for Canadians of our generation.
This is why I was quite pleased to hear the Minister of Finance announce Monday last in the budget that he would increase the equalization payments. The new amount will be paid as new subsidies based on municipal school taxes. And according to that much more generous new formula, the four Atlantic provinces will now receive $194 per capita for Nova Scotia, $218 for New Brunswick, $284 for Newfoundland and $285 for Prince Edward Island. In so far as New Brunswick is concerned, it is an increase of $164 to $214 per capita in one year.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that this new federal infusion will contribute largely to the economic development of my province and will enable a greater number of people to remain and prosper in New Brunswick.
In fact, New Brunswick was the only one among the four Atlantic provinces to reverse the periodic exodus of its working people-mostly young-towards other labour markets and to have a net inflow of residents.
As every one knows, Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic provinces have a great deal of natural resources and human wealth. Should the Atlantic wake up, like the Sleeping Beauty, I see no reason why the federal government would not play its role as Prince Charming.
In 1968, we know that the federal government launched a 15-year program of regional economic expansion program to run over a period of 15 years. There are clear signs that the economy is moving along as it has turned a corner and is now going to narrow the economic gap.
Although the unemployment rate is too high in our estimation, its rate for the four provinces is clearly lower than was expected. It has been estimated that, without the massive infusion of federal funds into the region since 1968, the unemployment rate would be 30 per cent above its present figures.
The direct federal grants of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion have generated more than $200 million of investments in new or growing industries, which amounts to about $28 per man, woman and child in the Atlantic region. This will result in 10,000 new jobs.
Another one of the key approach to regional ressources development policy will have been the stimulation and expansion of growth centres capable of accommodating new industries and an expanding population.
Twelve such centres have been identified in the Atlantic provinces, and more than $250 million has already been
The Budget-Mr. Dube
spent by the federal government to enhance the infrastructure.
The benificial federal influence is felt also in the smaller municipalities, small villages, parishes which are not growth centres, through the Local Initiatives Program. And in the framework of the Local Initiatives Program, for the first time in the history of our country, last year our government was directly supporting local projects conceived by people from small communities.
Last winter, and again this winter, you can hear the pound of hammers disturbing the quiet of parish halls, of Canadian Legion premises, of barns and repair shops.
Instead of idling, and being unemployed in all such places people are building, painting, sewing, repairing furniture, helping each other, making positive achievements. In the province of New Brunswick alone, the program has created 24,000 man-months of employment this winter.
Mr. Speaker, during the past five years, the Department of Public Works for one has allocated close to $190 million for various structures in the Atlantic region. I shall mention, for instance, the major tanker terminal at Point Tupper in Nova Scotia and Come-by-Chance, Newfoundland, the ferry-boat wharves at St. John's, New Brunswick and Digby, Nova Scotia.
I should also mention the bridges along the Trans-Canada highway and the international bridges, among them the one between Maine and Saint-Leonard, which is already finished, and the one between Quebec and Flat-lands, New Brunswick, which is under construction.
There is a very impressive list of less spectacular projects that are much appreciated by the local population, such as federal buildings, post-offices, docks and harbours.
Our estimates in the last financial year for maritime building alone amounted to $8,500,000 for the Atlantic area. And as a result of the importance that we attach to small construction to meet the needs of local fishermen, we plan to spend $2 million more on subsidies in the region.
The primary industries in New Brunswick are generally in good shape, Mr. Speaker, as income from agriculture and forestry has held up especially well. On the other hand, it is well known that the pulp and paper industry is still very shaky. In the aim of somewhat lightening the heavy burden under which it labours, the pulp and paper industry is considering installing industrial complexes involving, for example, new sawing techniques, better use of wood residues and the manufacture of products such as plywood. The manufacturing industry will be encouraged to produce equipment for the forest industry, for domestic and for export sale.
In Dalhousie, located in my own Restigouche constituency, paper exports will be facilitated by the construction this year of a new seaport designed to harbour the large modern ships of the Ro-Ro type. On account of the mercury recently discovered in the mud and the waters close to the place that was designated at the very beginning for the construction of the wharf, apparently this wharf will now have to be erected somewhat further up north-east of the first expected location. But we do not

February 27, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Broadbent
anticipate that such a change will delay the construction of the wharf or of the seaport itself.
So, Mr. Speaker, the basic contribution made by the federal government since 1968 has left the Atlantic region poised for dramatic economic achievements in the seventies.
Many changes have vastly improved the climate for economic development. For instance, let us mention the improvement of the highway network all over the Mari-times; I have in mind especially the north of New Brunswick where a generous government grant of $20 million will allow the renovation of Route 11 and its continuation up to Moncton, with much updating. I must also indicate the establishment of the container transportation services at the two main ports in the area, that is St. John, New Brunswick, and Halifax, Nova Scotia. We must also emphasize the development at all levels of the educational and technical services and institutions. We now benefit from a labour force with more education, mobility and flexibility than before thanks due to the programs established to increase workers' mobility and skill, programs that are mainly administered by the federal Department of Manpower and Immigration. Greater resources now provide the industry with the technical and scientific research services heretofore unknown and the assistance provided each provincial government of the Atlantic area permits the planning of community infrastructure, especially in major urban areas.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the potential for development in the Atlantic area is apparent on account of the tremendous advantage of its geographical situation in relation to the large market on the eastern seaboard of the United States. In the days of super ships in which we live, the deep waters of the Atlantic coast are a more and more valuable asset. Moreover, the environment in our areas is stable and the manpower intelligent and industrious. Congestion does not pose any serious problems and the forms of pollution that exist can be fought and checked at a reasonable cost.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the government firmly believes in the future of the Atlantic area. The massive federal effort will ultimately bear fruit, there is no doubt about that. Nevertheless, the citizens of that area and all their representatives will have to be more positive and optimistic.
With this in mind, let us recall one of the first visitors to the Maritime provinces, Samuel de Champlain. During the first winter he spent in Nova Scotia, he created l'Or-dre du Bon Temps in order to keep the morale of his officers and soldiers, in the midst of a rigourous winter and depressing circumstances. That Order of Good Time, now known throughout the world, should inspire our deeds and speeches, because positive thinking is father to the powerful results.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, various spokesmen for the New Democratic Party so far in this debate have attempted to indicate, (a) why we are giving general support to the budget and, (b) simultaneously to raise questions about what we would have done

differently had we been in a position not only to influence government but to make the final decisions ourselves. In my few remarks this afternoon, I should like to add some further arguments to this general approach that we have been trying to make as a party.
Before doing so, however, I cannot forgo the pleasure of responding to some of the comments made by the party on my right, the official opposition.


Mr. Nowlan:: The only opposition.


John Edward Broadbent: At various times they have suggested that the New Democratic Party, because it has decided under the present proposals of the budget to give support, has somehow been lacking in principle.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You are right.


John Edward Broadbent: They suggest that we are abandoning the objectives that historically our party has fought for in this country. I find that argument rather curious, coming from that motley crew on my right, a party which, if we are to accept the word of the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) as the spokesman for the Conservative party, has at least progressed from the 18th century and Adam Smith as represented historically right up to last week in the speeches of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I ask all members of this House, Mr. Speaker, who is the real voice of the Conservative party? Who speaks for that party today? Is it the hon. member for Don Valley, on the one hand,-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In his position he does.


John Edward Broadbent: -who is arguing that what we need is greater deficits, and who is now arguing for the Conservative party something that the New Democratic Party has been advocating for years that we should use our reserves of U.S. dollars to buy back control of certain sectors of the Canadian economy which are currently foreign owned. Up to last week such an argument was heresy in the Conservative party of Canada, yet the hon. member for Don Valley is now coming forward with these suggestions.
The hon. member for Edmonton West conventionally argues for control of inflation and that we must have a balanced budget at all costs. Last year when the foreign takeover bill was before this House he opposed any movement by the government, and therefore the people of Canada, into the foreign-owned sector to gain control of our economy for the people of this country. When the foreign takeover bill is reintroduced I will be interested to see who is the Conservative spokesman; will it be the hon. member for Don Valley or the hon. member for Edmonton West? We could see another historical shift in that party at that time.
The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that in this debate the New Democratic Party has not in any way abandoned its principal concern with the redistribution of income and wealth, the redistribution of power in Canada. All its spokesmen have argued consistently in support of this budget.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: To save your necks.
February 27, 1973


John Edward Broadbent: -not because it implements our program but because it at least moves in our direction. There has been no suggestion at all from the Conservative party of a coherent move, whether in our direction or any other. For them to suggest that somehow it is we who have abandoned a principle in our current situation is, to understate it by about 1,000 per cent, a little curious.
What specifically are we supporting, Mr. Speaker, and how would we perhaps have improved, even in those areas had we had the real power as opposed to merely the influence to do it?
First of all, we like that universal minimum $100 tax cut. That is the kind of idea for which we have been arguing for some time. We proposed in an amendment to the budget last year in debate that we have a minimum of $100-in fact, an inclusive $100 tax reduction for everyone. We regard that as a progressive type of proposal as opposed to cuts of a certain percentage right up the scale. With the $500 ceiling proposed in this budget, at least we do not have the across the board percentage reduction all the way up the scale that we had in last year's budget, so that certain taxpayers could save thousands of dollars and those at the bottom of the scale a mere pittance.
How would we have changed it had we had the real power to do so? The kind of thing we would have done would have been to give an across the board $200 tax cut to every taxpayer. We would not have given more than $200 in tax cuts to any one taxpayer in Canada. That seems fundamental to us on grounds of equity or justice. It would have involved a fair redistribution of income and net disposable income available to average and poor Canadians would have risen. We would have removed that $500 limit that is part of the Liberal government's proposal and would have said that nobody will be allowed more than $200, but all will get that $200. So, on grounds of equity and fairness that measure would have been good. Also, it would have stimulated the economy by putting more money into circulation, increasing demand and therefore creating more jobs. According to our research, that measure would have put the same number of disposal dollars into the economy and would have stimulated jobs to the same degree as the present proposal. Furthermore, it would have put money into the hands of those who need it most. We would not have needed to go up to the $500 ceiling in tax cuts which benefits only the upper top 10 per cent of taxpayers in this country. They will really reap the gain of that $500 limit. From our point of view that is unjustified.
Another point I wish to mention has to do with the pension increase. Increasing the basic pension to $100 a month is good. The increase is $14. We support that. However, may I draw something to Your Honour's attention? If you take the level of pensions prevailing in 1952 and consider how much the cost of living has increased since then, how much inflation we have suffered from, how much the dollar has decreased in value, and how much the gross national product has increased since 1952, I submit that the pensioner in Canada today, if he is to maintain his position in the community as it was in 1952, should be entitled to a basic pension of $110. With those considerations in mind, my party would have increased
The Budget-Mr. Broadbent
the pension ceiling and gone well beyond the $100 that the government has adopted. Nevertheless, we welcome the $100. With this increase, we are getting more from the Liberal government than we would have received from a Conservative government, according to what was said in the last election.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are getting exactly the same thing.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) would read the literature his own party put out in the last election.
Next, I shall touch on consumer spending. There has been an average reduction of 5 per cent in tariffs, which is good as far as it goes if it is passed on. This tariff reduction will help the average consumer in an equitable way, and therefore we support that. I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and other government spokesmen have exaggerated rather grotesquely the benefits of this measure. I, for one, see that tariff concession as being aimed at trade negotiations with the United States. I think that is what is really involved. The government took unilateral action of this kind hoping, somehow, to mitigate the hostile feelings of the United States at this time. That country is suffering difficulties in connection with its balance of payments in international trade. The government sought to mitigate hard feelings; that was the real object of that measure even though, as I say, the Canadian consumer is to be given some benefit.
Another item that we support in the budget is the reduction of the 12 per cent sales tax on children's clothing. This is important, particularly for low income families in Canada. This reduction goes towards an important aspect of daily living, in that our people must clothe their children in an adequate way. We support that initiative. Sales taxes are regressive taxes. The same tax in dollars is paid by upper income, middle income and poor families; therefore, this is a regressive form of taxation and, as far as we are concerned, the sooner we get rid of all sales taxes in Canada the better. However, as the government in Ottawa is moving in the direction of eliminating that tax, it is good that it has begun with taking it off children's clothing. I was pleased to see that Eaton's and Simpson's in Toronto, two large merchandisers, have indicated that they will pass the tax savings on to consumers immediately. I hope the taxpayers benefit from similar action by other merchants, and I hope particularly that the Minister of Finance sets up some monitoring body within his department to make sure that these benefits are passed on to consumers.
Another item we support is the increase by nearly 20 per cent in war veterans' allowances. Again, that is overdue. Again, my party unreservedly supports the government on this, as it is something for which we have been arguing enthusiastically for some time.
Next, may I mention a budget item that will go a long way towards improving the tax position of ordinary people in what are regarded as "have-not" provinces of Canada. I am speaking of the change in the equalization payment formula proposed by the federal government. This will take into account the spending at the provincial level on education. May I point out that education funds are largely derived from taxation of property owners, in

February 27, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Rynard
other words, average people, who in most provinces have had to pay a disproportionate part of the education cost through property taxes. By taking this factor into account in the equalization payment formula, the property tax, for example, of the average person in Saskatchewan will be reduced substantially. Speaking as one who comes from a province that, compared with others, is well off and fortunate, I am pleased to see that we are to redistribute income in this way. Therefore, the government deserves credit for the steps it is taking in this direction.
I have indicated my support for the kinds of measures that my party historically has argued for in Ottawa and in the provinces. I have suggested that we would have made definite changes and improvements if we had formed the government. Nevertheless, we are pleased to support steps that the government has taken in that direction. The single most important deficiency in this budget relates to the deficit. We think that the treasury department finally has won, as the government's approach to spending in terms of gross amount has not changed basically since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was elected in 1968. If we had formed the government, instead of being able to influence in some marginal way those who now make the decisions, we would have doubled that forecast deficit, not only for the next year but for the next five or ten years, so that we could move effectively to cure unemployment. We would not wish to create miracles overnight, and for the short run bring unemployment down to 4 per cent-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, this is a critical budget. What will it do? Will it do what the government hopes? Last fall, during the election campaign, there were three principal items with which people were dissatisfied, namely, unemployment, inflation and taxes. The public had already seen the inane actions of a government in increasing taxes and limiting credit to stop people buying. That, in the long run, created unemployment, because industry was not able to sell its products. The government's purpose was, of course, that of halting inflation, Mr. Speaker. Instead, we wound up with both unemployment and inflation. This is all a matter of record, regrettably. The people were annoyed. Can you blame them? Tax measures were taking more and more money from pay envelopes, from industry and from business. Mr. Benson's taxation reforms had upset the business world. Business people could not interpret the new laws, and neither could Members of Parliament. Closure choked off debate on this tax legislation after 75 clauses had been passed, and with less than one quarter of the 735 pages of the bill discussed. Hon. members will recall it required 135 amendments to deal with those clauses which were reviewed. What a bureaucratic jungle he wished on the people.
When pressed for tax cuts last May, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) came through with a 3 per cent rebate on income, but only effective until January 1,1973. There will be a pay day here. He reduced corporation taxes, but this was overdue. Corporate taxes could be
PMt. BroacHaent.]
lowered more. In fact, they are down to 35 per cent in Japan. They are also lower in other countries. Profits were running between 5 per cent and 6 per cent and we were asking the Canadian people to invest in Canadian companies. They were running twice as high 20 years ago; in 1964, 20.5 per cent; 1965, 19.4 per cent; 1966, 17.6 per cent; 1967, 14 per cent; 1968, 14.3 per cent and 1971, 12.4 per cent. Our exports were falling relatively and our imports were increasing relatively. The minister knew that 25 cents out of every dollar came from our exports.
The minister also knew that if people were to be induced to invest in Canadian industry, they had to see prospects for returns. In spite of the leader of the New Democratic Party and his corporate rip-offs, people were not rushing to take advantage of this so-called bonanza. If Canadians do not invest, then outside interests will come in. With over 600,000 people unemployed, we need them badly.
How wrong and inept this government has proven itself to be. It was out millions of dollars when predicting its revenues and $1 billion more or less in its calculation of the unemployment insurance fund. If this were a private business, that fellow would get bounced awfully quick for doing such accounting work. The Minister of Finance has been collecting millions of dollars from taxpayers across the country, money to which he had no right. It took an election to show the minister how wrong he had been. According to his own statement, he has now entered the villa of political bankruptcy by lowering taxes. This is something that could have been done months ago when it was proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).
What did the budget do? Let us take a look at it. It raised the old age security pension to $100 per month. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, this in no way makes up for the increase in the cost of food and shelter since 1963 when the basic pension of $75 was fixed. The country is still cheating these people. Nothing was done about including drugs in the medicare plan, yet this was part and parcel of the Hall Commission Report on National Medicare which a Liberal government introduced. People over the age of 65 require a good deal more prescription medicines than those under that age.
According to the Economic Council of Canada, one in four people today are below the poverty line. The government consistently refuses to help the most needy, the sick and the ailing. The budget did not provide anything for chronic nursing care or anything to prevent the necessity for active hospital care, yet governments scream about the cost of health care and rising hospital costs. They blame the doctors, everyone but the governments who do not provide chronic nursing care for the sick so that patients can be discharged from hospitals. What a mess governments make when they take over administration.
Health care costs will increase 14 per cent this year. The government and the minister say they do not want anyone asking for a raise. We must all show responsibility. The day after the minister said this when presenting the budget the government brought in its own spending estimates, which showed an increase of 17 per cent. This was one day after the minister pleaded with the people of Canada not to ask for a raise. The budget will help with
February 27, 1973

the financing of children's clothing, candy and soft drinks, jewellery and cosmetics, but I wonder what manner of reasoning was used in arriving at this decision when a young couple who want to build a home for those same children find themselves faced with a 12 per cent sales tax on the building materials for that home. Surely, the cost of shelter should not have been overlooked. This sales tax accounts for thousands of dollars in the cost of the house and its financing.
What kind of a deal is this exemption to the farmer and his son when the family farm passes on from generation to generation? If anybody is going to win, it will have to pass on from generation to generation from here to eternity. Very few farms continue to be held by the same family beyond a couple of generations. Let us take an example. A farmer buys a farm for $25,000. On valuation day, it is worth $50,000. The son gets the farm after 20 years, but 10 years after that he has to sell because of urban sprawl, ill health or a dozen other reasons and the price is $100,000. Does the son pay capital gains on $75,000 or $50,000? The government is always the silent benefactor while over the years the farmer was the worker, the caretaker and the one who make the investment. The government can even change the rules before the farm is disposed of finally. If anyone does not believe that, just go back to 1936. The Liberal government of the day pleaded with people to invest in Canada. The government sold what were known as 1936 perpetual bonds which cost 98 cents on the dollar. What can you get for them today? If any member opposite wants to bid 40 cents on the dollar he can have them.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Have you got some, Doc?


Philip Bernard Rynard: No, I do not have any. However, I have received many letters from widows and old people who are wondering what in the world to do with them. They thought these would provide a good living for them in their old age. They thought the government would be honest and fair with them, and they would be able to cash them when the coupons ran out. That is what governments do.
Although we welcome the income tax reduction, just what does it amount to? The minister was to increase taxes by 3 per cent on January 1 of this year, so in effect I suggest the 5 per cent reduction is really only 2 per cent. The minister also said that he was going to take three-quarters of a million people off the tax roll, and I am sure some hon. members of the House remember what a former minister, Edgar Benson said. He said that he was going to take three-quarters of a million people off the tax rolls and he did, but within a year they were nearly all back on the roll again paying taxes. The Minister of Finance has now done a flip and is putting three-quarters of a million people off the roll who will all be back again within a year or so.
Has the minister lowered taxes sufficiently that the people can spend more, and more jobs will be created? That is the burning question. If he has, then are controls necessary to hold the line? The public is losing faith in the ability of governments, governments that blunder. The budget is complicated. Its end results are not certain and
The Budget-Mr. R. Caouette
the new tax forms are so complicated that the public just does not understand them. The public is in rebellion. People want a better accounting system, a simple system so that they will understand what goes on and may judge whether or not the servant is worthy of his hire.
In my opinion, with the tremendous yields in taxes from Mr. Benson's tax reforms, more money should be poured into industry that is manpower oriented so as to produce jobs quickly. More money should be poured into research to develop our raw resources and manufacture new products. We should do far more processing in Canada of our own goods. At the present time over 60 per cent of our exports are of raw materials or are only partly processed, which I think is a disgrace. A little less than 40 per cent of the goods we sell are processed. Some 50 per cent of the value of the products that we produce are exported, while two-thirds of our imports are processed.
The labour content of a processed article is three times that of a raw resource product. This indicates the necessity for tax cuts and for the stimulation of the manufacturing sector. This fact strikes home when we realize that Canada has over 600,000 people unemployed out of a population of 22 million and a work force of around eight million. We have the greatest known amount of raw resources per capita in the world, yet we have the highest unemployment rate in the developed world. I say that without criticism but with a good deal of sadness. There are nearly 80,000 jobs in Canada that cannot be filled because there is no one to fill them, yet Ottawa spends $2 billion a year on benefits to the unemployed. What a way to run a country. We have manpower centres for training people and we have unemployment offices; nevertheless, in face of the stark facts we must point the finger at the inability of the government to solve our problems. The socialists say that they would cure the trouble. They would probably adopt the Swedish method-work or starve and this is not acceptable to a free society.


David Réal Caouette: February 27, 1973
The Budget-Mr. R. Caouette
look at us, they acknowledge us, they even smile to attract our attention and sympathy, there is no doubt about that.
Mr. Speaker, the budget really reflects that change of attitude from a majority to a minority government composed of almost the same men, the same ministers and the same Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
In his speech, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) told us strongly that the budget would result in creating more than 300,000 new jobs, that the LIP projects would be more fully and more easily subsidized than before. In my opinion, the budget as it was tabled, even with the pension increases and the tax reductions of around 5 per cent, will not create a single additional job in Canada.
It does not promote industry either. I shall give a striking example. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier), a riding which I well know, talked about his region. I did not have the pleasure of hearing him but, last February 22 he talked about the unemployment problem and the economic doldrums in his riding; it is not the only one in that position. The riding of Saint-Hyacinthe encounters difficulties in the same areas, what with economic stagnation and now hopes raised in the budget of the hon. Minister of Finance.
There is a good reason to hope that Sherbrooke will become again the prosperous queen of the Eastern Townships. The hon. member for Sherbrooke emphasized the situation of unemployment and distress in his riding and this is still true after more than ten years of continuing Liberal administration. If things are going badly in Sherbrooke, in Quebec and throughout Canada, with regard to the economy, the Creditistes are not to be blamed because it is the Liberals who are running the government. They laughed at the Creditistes when we offered solutions. When we made suggestions to the government, they found that funny but here is a Liberal member who complains that the Liberal riding of Sherbrooke is in distress. The Creditistes do not run the government, they do not administer the Canadian economy nor are they responsible for unemployment, low wages and distress which exist in Canada and in Sherbrooke in particular.
As I found it from reading Hansard at page 1561, here is what the hon. member for Sherbrooke said:
From 1965 to 1972, employment in the manufacturing sector in Quebec rose by 7.4 per cent, while it dropped by 10.8 per cent in Sherbrooke.
I think that in Drummondville, in Saint-Hyacinthe, in those parts of the Eastern Townships, the problem is about the same.
Therefore, if the manufacturing sector is important, our region is becoming a marginal area-
It is the hon. member for Sherbrooke who is speaking.
-and we can prove, in the light of valuable information that the city of Sherbrooke can in no way expect to have an economic recovery without substantial grants from the federal government.
At that time, the citizens or the industries in Sherbrooke will be called corporate welfare bums because the government will help them or will try to help them. The hon. member for Sherbrooke has complained saying that industrial structures were lacking, that the wages paid in Sherbrooke were below those paid elsewhere in Canada in the garment industry.

The unemployment rate varies from 11.6 to 11.8 per cent in Sherbrooke, while 20 to 25 per cent of the people in the Eastern Townships live in poverty. That is what the hon. member for Sherbrooke says.
But whose fault is it, Mr. Speaker? Who is to be held responsible for unemployment in Sherbrooke or elsewhere? Whose fault is it if wages paid in Sherbrooke are lower than the national average? Whose fault is it if plants in Sherbrooke leave this town to go to Ontario?
A plant closes down because of imports in the area of footwear, for instance. The manufacturer blames the government for not taking the necessary steps to help Canadian workers.
I have here a letter dated February 2 that was sent by the Kaufman Footwear Company Limited in Sherbrooke to its employees. The government is in office. What does management say?
Due to the economic situation, the company deemed necessary to stop production in Sherbrooke.
The decision to close down was based on the fact that the plant is in a non-competitive position mainly as a result of footwear imported from countries where wages are very low.
Italy, Czechoslovakia, Japan are countries which sell footwear in our country. Mr. Speaker, here are statistics related to the import of footwear of all kinds during the first 11 months of 1972. Manufacturers are right to complain about imports. From the countries I just mentioned, 47,117,826 pairs of shoes have been imported. The people from these countries manufacture footwear at a cheap cost because salaries there are not high.
Mr. Speaker, the material is less expensive than in Canada and the Canadian government allows the import of 47 million pairs of shoes so that industries like Kaufman Footwear Limited are obliged to close down. I have before me a letter from which I shall quote an excerpt:
Many attempts to create new lines such as boots for ladies and shoes for men, have not succeeded in producing the number of additional pairs needed by the plant to increase its productivity. The government has heard the representations made by shoe manufacturers with regard to the situation of the footwear industry, but it does not want to "listen" and take corrective measures which would help the Canadian workers in the footwear industry.
It should be clearly understood that the recent demand of employees for representation is not the reason which has brought about the above-mentioned decision.
The production will continue until or about May 4, 1973. A committee will be set up to help you, if possible, find jobs in other places. If there are employees who are interested to be sent else-wherere-
But in other places, measures are taken to reduce employment. After 25, 30 or 40 years of employment, in Sherbrooke city, how could workers consider being moved to other places like Matagami, for example? Workers are told to go to James Bay to face an intolerable situation in Canada. The company says and I quote:
If there are employees who are interested in being employed elsewhere, they should speak to their foreman so that the necessary information could be directed to the responsible persons.
We regret that this is the only course available to us. Your cooperation through the years has been appreciated.


KAUFMAN FOOTWEAR LIMITED DIVISION PROSPECT
[Stage Direction]
February 27, 1973
[Stage Direction]
Here is a situation where 300 workers are losing their jobs, while the minister says in his budget speech: We will create 300,000 new jobs in Canada. What a joke! On the other hand, the minister of Finance said: We will present a budget which will create employment and after two or three weeks, or after the budget speech, manufactures and mines are closing up in my region as well as elsewhere. An exclusive control over the dairy industry is being set up in the province of Quebec because small industries cannot operate with profit. Therefore large organizations buy the small dairy operations to gain control over that industry throughout the province of Quebec. Yet no one hears about that. The "big people" who buy do not say a word and the small businessmen who sell are appointed directors of a new plant that is set up to control exclusively the production and distribution of dairy products in our province.
That happens in a particular sector of the economic activity. But the budget will not create a single job, and I am deeply convinced of that even if the old age pensions are increased to $100 a month as we have been urging for many years. We advocated the payment of the old age pension at 60, the same pension for the spouse, but the government does not take that into account. Today, all hon. members know that a 60 year old man cannot find a job because there is no place for him in our society. And the government does not do anything to help her.
In the field of initiatives, the government thought it would have more money for the LIP program, money that would be earmarked for worthwhile projects from municipalities or intermediate organizations. But they say now: We are getting too many applications. They have paid for ads in the newspapers, on the radio, in all media telling people: Quick! Send in your local initiative or opportunities for youth projects. They have received
30,000	projects, they approved 7,000 so that leaves 23,000 citizens or groups who are not treated fairly, even though they have submitted worthwhile projects. Again, they are laughing at people when they pay advertisements to tell them: Submit your projects quickly and we shall approve them. Everyday, they turn down local or municipal initiatives projects from young as well as not so young people.
Mr. Speaker, we have also asked for assistance for university and CEGEP students. A kind of salary for students, they think that it is funny. Why are the young people on strike in universities? Because they are not learning French? Because they are learning too much English? Because they cannot pay for their tuition fees!
Mr. Speaker, if war broke out tomorrow morning-
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Temiscamingue, but the time given him by the House order passed on February 22 has expired.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The Budget-Mr. L'Heureux


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Pursuant to an agreement with the four parties, taking into account the agreement which you have just referred to, we agree to let the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada speak for five minutes more. To this end, would you kindly request the unanimous consent of this House? As far as we are concerned, we agree.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the extension agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleagues and I will not speak for five minutes.
If a war broke out, the government would find the means to finance the studies of all those students who are striking in Montreal, in military colleges or universities and in such a case we would not call this aid anticipated salaries but a pay which would enable them to pursue studies paid for by the government.
Mr. Speaker, if, in wartime, it is possible to help young people of 18, 19 or 20, there is no one valid reason in the world for not helping them in peacetime in order to prevent them from sinking into disorder and helter-skelter as it is presently the case at the University of Montreal and at the University of Quebec in Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, there are limits to preposterousness and it is economic preposterousness to bring forward a budget which aims at distributing crumbs to the population on the whole. We will go on suggesting to and asking the government to entertain broader views. They have broad views when it comes to paying the interest on the public debt; the budget of the Minister of Finance will increase the public debt by $21 billion or $3 billion in interests only. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) said recently we should have increased that debt by $4 billion or perhaps $5 billion. We say that instead of going into debt with figure makers, we should use the Bank of Canada. Let us have its new governor write the figures which are necessary to the normal development of a country like ours. Then Mr. Speaker, we would be able to bring in a progressive budget, a budget of initiatives, in short a budget which would really serve the superior interests of the Canadian nation.


Mr.   Yvon@: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to take part in the debate on the budget and to express my satisfaction on behalf on my constituents concerning the measures proposed by the minister to fight unemployment and to reduce taxes for the middle class and the low-income group. I was particularly pleased to see that the old age security pension and the veterans pension were to be increased.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) brought in a realistic budget which aims at controlling inflation and fight-
1706

February 27, 1973
The Budget-Mr. L'Heureux
mg unemployment. He even specifies that 300,000 new jobs will be created. This is auspicious and likely to give confidence again to manufacturers and businessmen. We rely on their investments to create new jobs.
Mr. Speaker, a great portion of my riding is industrial: Boucherville, Saint-Bruno and Saint-Hubert, Chambly and Beloeil have well organized industrial parks. For example, Boucherville, Saint-Bruno and Saint-Hubert have agreed to take advantage of the new facilities offered by Quebec Industry and Commerce Minister Saint-Pierre who made funds available to them to help pay qualified commissioners and to interest other industries in settling in the area.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion paid to date several million dollars in my riding and I recently heard the new incumbent of this department (Mr. Jamieson) say that a review of those programs would be made and that even more substantial benefits would be granted to small and large industries.
In another part of my riding, we find heavy industries. Mr. Speaker, this could be the Canadian Ruhr if only the government accepted to build deep water wharves on the south shore at Varennes and Contrecoeur. I made representations to have some of the Montreal harbour facilities moved to the south shore but without result. The officials talk nonsense. One day they say yes, the other they say no, and discussions have been going on for 15 years. I am fed up with those stupidities. I urge the minister to approve the establishment of industries such as Gulf Oil Limited in Varennes and others such as The Steel Co. of Canada Ltd. and Dosco Steel Division, Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation Limited in Contrecoeur, that employ thousands of people. We must act.
Mr. Speaker, the economy of the south shore, and especially of my constituency, is at stake. Several heavy industries lack only the permission to go ahead with planned expansion. Branches are planned at Varennes and Contrecoeur. Heavy industry naturally covets this site, and the construction of wharves there is of the first importance.
I suggest that we do without the intermediary of the Port of Montreal, which has too many problems to face. I again call on the minister to study this situation so that a decision may be taken without further delay, for unless it is, the south shore will continue to be an underprivileged area.
I was pleased that the Speech from the Throne mentioned that the question of feed grain would be dealt with in this session. Bravo! The dairy industry, too, should continue to benefit from a dynamic policy, so that farmers may be assured of a just and equitable income.
I should like also to congratulate the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford), who is responsible for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, on having made it possible for more young and not-so-young people to have their own homes and to move to my constituency, which is the natural dormitory for the city of Montreal.
There is some amazing development going on in my area. Serious promoters and contractors are helping to develop this small stretch of land that has become a

marvellous place thanks to the new facilities I mentioned just now.
In my constituency, there is also a part of the Chambly canal which, since last June, has been transferred from the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport to that of the National Parks Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Built over a century ago, this canal is in an appalling condition besides harming considerably the normal evolution of the Chambly area. The obsolete bridges built for horse-driven carriages should have been replaced years ago to conform with minimum standards acceptable to modern traffic.
The construction of a detour to the highway at present closed to traffic has become necessary on account of the canal. The Richelieu River, which hit critical levels for the last three years, threatens to create a situation which could prove catastrophic this spring. And despite those urgent needs, among so many others, various papers in this country have been literally shocked at the sight of the credits granted Quebec by the federal government.
I do not want favours for the Chambly constituency, but only that works which have been delayed for too long and which are absolutely necessary be carried out if this area is to achieve normal economic development.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I urge the responsible minister to make a list of the credits voted for the Canadian canal system. He will see that Chambly canal over 20 years has received only poor grants compared with the Trent and Rideau canals. Chambly, a historical site because of its fort and its monuments, has a particular touristic role to play. In fact, the American people coming from New York take the canal, stop at the Chambly marina, follow the Richelieu river to Beloeil where, again, a marina is to be found. Those marinas probably have benefited from help, for the tourist industry is necessary and has importance for our country. And that magnificent district could benefit from help given those marinas. But up to now, they are the concern of benevolent organizations still at work, but which should not be discoui'aged, because they do care for the valuable aid they could obtain and that could benefit the whole area.
I hope that the minister will seriously consider these requests. He can be sure that I will renew my requests in order to get justice for that region.
Presently a study jointly conducted by the federal and provincial governments aims at cleaning the Richelieu river and at the diversion into that river of the Chambly canal, which I mentioned a while ago, where old bridges are on the verge of falling down. However that study is proceeding at a snail's pace. Three provincial and three federal engineers are carrying out that study. I recently heard that two were going to resign to take up new positions. In my opinion, the task should be entrusted to an independent study group, the matter being so important that decisions should be taken without delay to do justice to that area which experiences troubles and problems and I am asking the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and the Quebec government to resume that study after having entrusted it to an independent organization.

Mr. Speaker, all the demands are surely timely because I have been interested in public administration for over 28 years. I was elected to work constructively with a party and a team which I trust and support. However, we must take into consideration the claims and difficulties of which the government is probably unaware. I do not wish to speak about my background, but I have examined those problems and I would like some assistance to solve them in the interests of my constituents.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak for the first time in this House and I hasten to join other hon. members in congratulating Mr. Speaker on his re-appointment as well as Mr. Deputy Speaker on his appointment. Other hon. members have spoken in glowing terms of their past association with Mr. Speaker. I cannot do that, inasmuch as I did not know Your Honour until a few weeks ago, but I have come to respect the Chair and admire the many capabilities of its occupants.
As I make my contribution to this budget debate, I will propose some radical changes which, I believe, have not been heard in this House previously. I shall develop a case for the elimination of taxes on personal incomes and the substitution of a tax on personal spending.
But first, I would like to say that I have observed another tradition in the House, which is to include in a maiden speech a detailed account of one's own riding. If I say that I have been pleased to have lived there for 17 years, that should say quite a lot about Vancouver Quadra. However, it may be helpful to what I am going to say to explain that Vancouver Quadra is probably a choice example of an urban residential riding. Vancouver Quadra stretches two thirds of the way across the centre of the city of Vancouver. It is eight miles from end to end, and varies in depth from one and a half to two and a half miles. It is the only riding in Vancouver that has boundaries in common with each of the four other ridings in the city. It contains no industry; the commercial areas are principally neighbourhood oriented; and there is not a single major shopping centre.
Although Vancouver Quadra is quite different from some rural ridings with their enormous distances, and from some of the high rise ridings of the big cities, the residential cross-section is complete. We have new high rise apartments and ancient walk ups. We have luxurious stone mansions and modest frame cottages. We have the university residences, low income housing, old folks homes, an army base, and even a youth hostel. These buildings are all called "home" by their occupants-the people, the families who live in Vancouver Quadra.
These are the families that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has overlooked in his budget. Yet, he said he had produced a family budget. Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister is a smooth talker and is well known for this quality. He may have been able to smooth over the rough spots, and the morning after budget night it is possible that many families thought the minister was truly their knight in shining armour.
I am sure that nobody on this side of the House, least of all the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield),
The Budget-Mr. Bill Clarke
would condemn the budget in total. Our leader has been trying to sell this package to the government for years. Just think of his policies on the issues of tax cuts, pensions, and unemployment. But by now the analysts have had a chance to dig deeper into Turner's maze, and the media are telling the whole story. In short, as one editorial put it, there is less to it than meets the eye at first glance.
I will not repeat the words of previous speakers on this side of the House except to say that the people in Vancouver Quadra are now aware that the budget lacks the incentives to business which would ease the unemployment problem; lacks incentives to Canadians to invest in Canadian business; and lacks policies to combat inflation. They have heard that a Conservative government would have gone full speed on expansion of the economy and would have introduced temporary controls on prices and incomes. This is what the voters in Vancouver Quadra said they wanted last October 30.
There are no farms in my riding, Mr. Speaker, but the residents of Vancouver Quadra have had a chance to wonder why the family owners of small businesses should be less entitled to pass them on free of capital gains tax than should the family owners of farms. The government's policy of discrimination was undoubtedly arbitrarily political. It has no basis in logic. But my constituents have been disappointed in Liberal budgets before, and they have been disappointed in the Liberal government for years. They can recall the early days of tax reform when the government said that the primary aims of tax reform were equity and simplicity. They know that the Liberals have given us neither.
My constituents have been frightened and confused by white papers. They have seen business decisions postponed because of uncertainty about taxation. There is no telling how much unemployment can be attributed directly to this uncertainty. It is an accepted fact that businessmen will work under any given set of rules, but it is an equally well accepted fact that the one thing that businessmen cannot tolerate is uncertainty about those rules. When businessmen are faced with uncertainty about the rules they pull back on the reins and, as a result, there is a general slowdown of business activity. This slowdown costs jobs. Some of my friends at home have given up waiting for the government to untangle the tax mess. They cannot understand the new tax law themselves, so they go to some of my fellow chartered accountants who are in the tax advisory business. These professional tax advisers are unable to give any more than the most basic advice on taxation, in spite of the fact that some of them have done little but study the government's tax reform for years.
The minister had a chance truly to reform his predecessor's so-called tax reform, which has been so justly criticized, but the only reform this budget contains is the removal of one arbitrary restriction on small businesses. Now, they can invest their surplus funds in other Canadian companies on terms equal to those granted to foreign investors. Wasn't that a nice gift? After the Minister of Finance takes away the whole loaf, Mr. Speaker, he expects people to appreciate it when he gives back the crumbs.

February 27, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Bill Clarke
The real test of the budget is yet to come. The government says it got the message on October 30 of last year. Well, Mr. Speaker, just wait until after April 30 this year, after the taxpayer has had to wrestle with the new simplified tax return, complete with schedules in glorious colour. Then, the government will get a real message from the voters. What we really need, in addition to the policies we have heard from my colleagues, is some real tax reform with simplicity and equity.
I would like to ask hon. members to reflect for a moment on the origin of income tax. Most of the members were not even born 56 years ago, and certainly only a very few could remember that horrifying day in 1917 when the government of Canada first imposed a tax on incomes. Of course, it was a temporary measure, its purpose being merely to cover the costs of the Great War. In fact, Mr. Speaker, until 1949 when we had a major revision of the tax law it was known at the Income War Tax Act. Now, we have the distinction of paying 10,000 civil servants to see that we pay the proper amount of income tax. The estimated cost of operating the Income Tax Department for the coming year is $153 million, nearly five times as much as the cost of operating the whole House of Commons for the same period.
In addition to that, the people of Canada must bear the cost of legal and accounting assistance to help determine what amount of income is considered taxable, and to advise us of the tax consequences of our every move. Bitter disputes are commonplace, and invasion of privacy becomes ever more frequent. So much for simplicity, Mr. Speaker.
Now let us have a look at equity. The present system is often thought of as being a tax on the rich. If one thinks about it, one can see that the rich man cares little about rates of tax on incomes. The income tax does not tax his wealth. Income tax is a tax, not on the rich but on the poor who are willing to work hard to become rich. Income tax is a disincentive. It discourages hard working and able Canadians from their good endeavours, and even has caused some of them to leave the country taking their labour, capital and initiative with them. We have a strange tax system, Mr. Speaker. Instead of taxing what a person takes out of the economy in consumption we tax what a person puts into the economy. We tax labour, by wages and salaries tax, we tax savings by tax on investment income; we tax initiative by capital gains tax.
Surely a more equitable measure of ability to pay tax is what a person takes out of the economy in consumption. If the amount of consumption were taxed, the result would be the equitable situation of everyone paying in direct proportion to his material standard of living. What could be fairer? A man would not be penalized for doing well and saving his money. Young people would find it very much easier to save up for furniture or a house. Such a system would have the added advantage of simplicity, and gone would be the annual tax nightmare. Gone would be the huge government police force, and gone would be the endless arguments about the amount subject to tax. This system of taxation was thoroughly discussed in a 1955 book by Nicholas Kaldor, a noted British economist and adviser to the British Labour Party.
There is also a precedent for this idea in this country. Already the government allows individuals to save up to $4,000 per annum tax free in a registered retirement savings plan. This money is taxed when it is taken out of the plan and spent, usually after the taxpayer has retired. Look at the effect of this idea on a young family starting out-and much is said about the difficulties facing them. At present, two young people working side by side to make a start for their family are forced to pay a vast portion of their income in tax, even though their consumer expenditures are very low. My suggestion would allow them to get a boost by paying a tax only on the amount they spend. Similarly, those on low incomes would pay little in tax, and high living Canadians would pay their fair share based on their high expenditures.
It may be said that such a system would be regressive. Well, Mr. Speaker, if it is the desire of any government to have equity and simplicity in a tax system it should be obvious that the existing system has so many faults that it is incapable of reform. In that regard, I should observe that it has a great similarity to the government of the day. So, Mr. Speaker, I say that 56 years of experience with a patched up system that taxes incomes has been a flop. I advocate the elimination of personal income taxes, together with all the problems and faults that have come along with such taxes since 1917. I encourage in-put to our society by freedom from tax, and recommend the institution of a tax on expenditure or consumption.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister oi National Defence):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) upon bringing in what in fact is a typical Liberal budget. In addition to the increases for old age pensioners and veterans, and the reduction of taxes generally, I express to him and to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) our appreciation in rural Ontario for the removal of the capital gains tax on the family farm. I also observe with great satisfaction that we are to have a considerable increase in expenditures for the Department of National Defence, to the tune of $236 million, which is approximately a 12) per cent increase.
I would like first to draw attention to the National Capital Commission. Our country is rich in history, and particularly in local history. We have not and do not put the kind of emphasis on our past that the people of pioneer days deserve. For example, the names of the counties clasped in the V of the Ottawa and St. Lawrence Rivers- Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry-ring like the echoes of an old hunting horn. Here the Macdonells, disbanded from the Royal Regiment of New York, were first in occupation. Other Scots followed and established the same tightly knit communities as in their native highlands. They adopted the routines of their French-Canadi-an neighbours, serving their land from May to October and going into the lumber camps for the rest of the year. By the 1860's, there were men of substance among them, and timber had become their business, so that they were acutely conscious of the receding forest. Their eyes were on the Ottawa valley where magnificent stands abounded, but this area was in fee to Montreal by virtue of the river route. Hence, their thoughts turned to railways and the possibility of a local line which would link up with the
[Mr. Clarke.l
February 27, 1973

systems of New England, whose markets clamoured for Canadian lumber.
The value of railways was exemplified during the Fenian invasion of the Niagara Peninsula on May 1, 1866. F. W. Cumberland, General Manager of the Northern Railway, received orders to concentrate the militia to meet the enemy; within 24 hours he had delivered 1,240 men at the threatened point, and twice that number were on their way. The invasion was over before it had begun. Perhaps we can say, Mr. Speaker, that Mobile Command is something that was not born just yesterday. Therefore, security, the profit motive and the status symbol of the railway business made this an attractive business to men of energy and ambition.
In the years immediately following 1871, a series of railways were built between Montreal and Ottawa. In 1879, a man by the name of J. R. Booth who was born in 1826 at Waterloo in the eastern townships came on the scene. At an early age he had learned the routines of railway construction in Vermont. In 1852 he arrived at Hull as helper in the construction of a sawmill; within a matter of months he was in the timber business for himself. From an initial venture at Chaudiere Falls, his interests rapidly spread until he owned 7,000 square miles of timber limits in the Ottawa valley as well as substantial holdings in other parts of the province. He was among the first to develop his own sales organization in the United States and his press for business grew beyond the capacity of the water route to Montreal. Hence, he was advised by his personal expert to go into the railroad business to transport his timber and lumber to market. He formed the Canada Atlantic Railway Company along with his partners William Perley of Ottawa and G. C. Noble of St. Albans.
On September 13, 1882 the first train steamed into the capital from Coteau Landing on the St. Lawrence. The Canada Atlantic succeeded from the start. What had begun as a timber carrier quickly became a general purpose railway traversing a wealthy area. A western extension along the Ottawa valley which would serve not only the Booth mills but the growing market towns, Arnprior, Renfrew and Pembroke, grew necessary. Beyond these settlements a vast expanse of merchantable forest awaited exploitation, and this necessitated the building of a new railroad up the Ottawa valley.
On March 24, 1888 the Ottawa, Arnprior and Renfrew Railway Company was incorporated to build the first 55 miles westward from the Canadian capital. Six weeks later, the Ottawa and Parry Sound Railway Company was entrusted with the construction of 157 miles between Renfrew and Scotia, on the Toronto-Callander branch of the Grand Trunk. The two companies were merged as the Ottawa, Arnprior and Parry Sound Railway. Construction began immediately in both directions from Renfrew to be completed in the following stages: Ottawa-Arnprior, 38 miles, opened May, 1893; Arnprior-Madawaska Junction, 93 miles, opened September, 1894; Madawaska Junction-Cache Lake, 36 miles, opened May 1895; and Cache Lake-Scotia, 46 miles, opened December 1, 1896. This was perhaps the first railway of any importance to be both financed and built by Canadians. At times 2,000 men were
The Budget-Mr. Hopkins
at work; the roadbed rose and the steel went down with the swing and precision which were the hallmarks of the Booth enterprises.
On October 5, 1896 the J. R. Booth group took over and completed the Parry Sound Colonization Railway between Scotia and Parry Sound. Another subsidiary, the Pembroke Southern Railway Company built 21 miles of track to join the town of Pembroke with the Canada Atlantic at Golden Lake, 88 miles west of Ottawa. This project cost $264,500 of which $139,500 represented federal, provincial and municipal subsidies. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we can readily assume that regional development programs did not start yesterday.
At one stage a passenger could buy a ticket at the town of Renfrew for 75 cents and receive not only a round trip ticket for 117 miles of travel, but also a 50 cent seat at the Ottawa Opera House. The J. R. Booth railways eventually ended up in the CNR system; and today the line is still in operation from Ottawa to Arnprior, Renfrew, Eganville, Golden Lake, Wilno, Barry's Bay, Madawaska and Whitney on the edge of Algonguin Park.
It is my proposal to the national capital commission that a passenger train for tourist traffic could be developed as a great attraction, because all these places in the Ottawa valley and the Madawaska valley as well as the timber resources of that area have played such a major role in the area history and economic life of our national capital of Ottawa. Tourists visiting Ottawa could travel to Algonquin Park on a train that should be modelled after those of the pioneer days. We might even bring back the so-called old-fashioned steamer and the pot bellied stove in the coach if the Minister of the Environment would permit it, Mr. Speaker. Not only would the train ride be of an original nature for the tourist traffic, but passengers would be free to get off at any community along the line to play golf, go fishing, water ski, to stay at a resort area for a day or a week, or to go skiing, skidooing at Mount Madawaska at Barry's Bay, or go on hikes through Algonquin Park. Other forms of attraction would be limitless, including the natural beauty and history of the region. The old station buildings along the way could be rejuvenated or rebuilt, to serve as entertainment centres as well as places to purchase tickets; though I doubt very much if they could purchase a ticket for the National Arts Centre for 50 cents. Not only would this be an added attraction for Ottawa as a capital city, but it would bring back the prominent economic relationship between the valley and our nation's capital.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I make this proposal in all seriousness because we, as Canadians, have a habit of destroying those things of our past history rather than preserving and promoting them. Therefore, I call upon the National Capital Commission, the various historical societies up and down the valley, to back this project before it is too late and the rail line is destroyed in the name of progress, hence destroying one of the most romantic symbols of Ottawa valley history. May I also appeal through you, Mr. Speaker, to Ottawa City Council to back this proposal so that relationships between Ottawa and its valley communities will prove of great value to all concerned.

February 27, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Hopkins
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to go on to another item of primary importance to me and every Canadian, that is the increase in the defence budget of 121 per cent, something that is not only needed in order to take the strain off many areas of departmental personnel at this time, but is also necessary if we are going to keep pace with modern equipment, training and everyday demands on the members of our armed forces. We do hear complaints about the spending estimates of the Department of National Defence from time to time but this, I believe, is basically because the critics, who intend to be sincere in their comments, really do not fully realize the extent and depth of the operations, the demands and the expertise of the men and women in the forces. Fortunately, most people do fully understand their impact on Canada and the world at large.
Historically, the Canadian forces have pioneered in virtually every major field necessary for getting into the Arctic, living there and working in the extreme climatic conditions. Most of the airfields and airstrips which are now under the Department of Transport or civilian jurisdiction were started by military forces. The fear of the Arctic which was a major drawback to any northern venture before the Second World War, was largely overcome by the presence of the search and rescue organization of the forces. If people know that the government is going to look for them if they are lost or forced down, the fear of non-survival is substantially reduced.
In the post-war period, when the Royal Canadian Air Force was photographing the whole of Canada, their operations took them into every corner of the high Arctic. The maps which resulted from these efforts made navigation possible. New techniques for air navigation were worked out by the forces, which were adopted by the United States Air Force and civil operators and provided for accurate air travel where the magnetic compass was useless. At the same time, army ground survey parties were adding to the knowledge and topography of Canada with new data for maps and a mapping section.
The army, too, for nearly 20 years maintained the Northwest Highway system.
The navy pushed the first large ship, the icebreaker HMCS Labrador, through the northwest passage, showing the way for future commercial ventures.
Communications in those early days were primitive. From 1946 to 1964, the forces constructed and operated the Northwest Territories and Yukon radio system, which was finally taken over by CN Telecommunications. The DEW line, too, provides radio communications which up to now would have been economically impossible for small civil use but became more and more important to north-south communications for civilians.
As communications improved and airfields became available, as maps were produced, as navigation became possible, as fuel was available and as the fear of northern flying was dissipated, more and more civilians pushed north for a wide variety of reasons, many of them economic. This is only a short list of the major contributions made to northern development by Canadian forces.
I would like now to speak about the training of the Canadian forces and their preparation for tasking by the government in both their national and international roles.

The people of Canada and, I think, many members of this House, assume, and rightly assume, that the Canadian forces can do just about any job that is given to them. We assume that they have such training and such expertise in thousands of specialities that they can go into any environment, on land, on the sea or in the air, and do what we ask of them. In recent years we have asked them to fly into the middle of a shooting war between India and Pakistan, to pick up Canadian civilians. We have asked them to fly 4,000 miles south to earthquake-ravaged Peru on a humanitarian mission for Canada, and to operate off tiny airstrips high in the Andes evacuating the sick and the injured. We ask them to buck North Atlantic gales to rescue the crews of foundered vessels. We ask them to parachute into the scene of a crashed aircraft, with all the survival skills and medical knowledge necessary to save the crash victims. We have asked them to operate in the deserts of North Africa and in the heat of Yemen, in the jungles of the Congo and the mountains of the Himalayas for the United Nations. We have asked them to control and clean up a giant oil spill on the east coast of Canada. We have asked them to build six airfields in the high Arctic, to serve both civilian and military air traffic. We asked them to dive 2,000 feet into the sea in highly sophisticated submersibles and to take a good look at our Continental shelf. We have asked them to keep under constant surveillance the million and a half square miles that we designate as the Canadian north. And, most recently, we have asked them to assume the dangerous and delicate role of supervising the cease fire in Viet Nam.
These are just examples taken at random. But in each of these instances they have done what we asked of them without question, and with a skill and professionalism which has often drawn international praise. However, the variety of tasks that we give to our soldiers, sailors and airmen taxes them almost to the limit. All of this requires a lot of training to bring the new recruits up to the high standards required by the forces and to keep the old hands up-to-date with ever-expanding technology, a technology which is often reflected first in the vehicles and weapons of defence. That is why we need an increased defence allocation in the budget. This training requires a large and highly professional teaching and instructional staff. It needs schools and sophisticated training facilities and training aids. It needs-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before calling on the next hon. member to speak, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie)-National Defence-Alleged exclusion of Gagetown from bases sharing funds for labour-intensive projects; the hon.
February 27, 1973

member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)- Social Security-Retired public servants, armed forces personnel and RCMP pensions-Status of consideration of raising or removing ceiling on escalation; the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Clarke)-National Defence-Jericho Land, Vancouver-Inquiry as to calling of tenders concerning disposal.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, those of us who are privileged to sit in this House for the first time find ourselves caught in a set of unique circumstances, many which have had the effect of thrusting freshman members into the thick of the fray sooner than it has been customary. At least, that is the impression I get from some veteran members, Mr. Speaker. Speaking for myself, I have been struck by the excellence of some of the speeches given by some of my colleagues, on both sides of the House who, as I am, are sitting in the House for the first time. I am also impressed by the way the new men appear to be so eager to be involved in the business of the House and in committee work. If I may remain on that issue for another moment or two, I believe that my party in this House is fortunate in many respects. For one thing, we new members have an exceptionally talented and knowledgeable group of veteran members to lead us through the difficult days of learning our way around. In my view they have made it possible for us to become effective members in a shorter time than I would have expected.
As to the budget, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to try to take this budget item by item and expose its deficiencies. This has been done most effectively by my leader and many of my colleagues. I understand that in budget debates a member can digress and dwell on issues that for him or her have a special meaning or interest. This is what I would like to do; and while I will not guarantee that all of my colleagues will agree with everything I say, I would be less than honest if I were to let that fact deter me from my course. To set the stage for my remarks, I would refer my colleagues to a statement made by the mover of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne on January 5, the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais). As recorded on page 25 of Hansard for that date he said:
I am sure that no member of this House was directed by his or her constituents to come to the House to squelch debate.
1 give the freshman member for Nipissing full marks for that observation, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot extend the same charity to the seconder of the Address in Reply to
The Budget-Mr. Mitges
the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker). As recorded on page 28 of Hansard for January 5, he said:
Many of us had thought that the great debate on Canadian unity
was over;-
What a statement that was, Mr. Speaker. I referred to those statements because I intend to speak for a few minutes on the question of national unity. National unity is one of the subjects closest to my heart, Mr. Speaker, and I will question some of the misconceptions that are presently being bandied about by some people for purely personal and partisan purposes.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, no thinking person in Canada could accept the statement that the debate on national unity is over. The debate on national unity will continue long after those of us here have gone to a better or a worse place. I will refer to one more statement in Hansard before I continue. As recorded, on page 58 of Hansard for January 8, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said:
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the question of national unity has not been solved in this country.
The Prime Minister should know that better than anyone, Mr. Speaker. During the terms of the last two governments, and especially during the term of the present government, the cause of national unity has deteriorated as at no other time in our history. Canadian voters tried to tell the Prime Minister just that on October 30 last year; and while he admits that that is so, I still do not believe that he or his government plan to alter their stand on the issue. There is great danger that too many people in Canada today will accept the view of the hon. member for Lachine, that we should not engage in any further dialogue on the question of unity. The hon. member must be afraid that his views on the subject will not stand scrutiny and he must be afraid that his views will not stand the test of dialogue.
After the recent election, the Prime Minister complained that there were members of this House who had used racism in their election campaigns; so far he has not yet named any names, and I doubt if he will. The Prime Minister has said, Mr. Speaker, that there will not be real unity in Canada until we in English Canada accept the fact that we are a bilingual country. We accepted that fact back in 1966; all of us accept that fact today. Yet, what do we see today? Almost daily on CBC television we see evidence that the Quebec separatist movement is growing as it has never grown before in our long history.
Whatever we are doing to achieve national unity and weld our people together in a common bond is not working. That is the main reason I believe we should undertake further study of the problem; and we should not be afraid of dialogue. It is when people do not talk about problems that the small problems develop into big problems. I do not mean the small, whimsical comments of the type characterized by the Prime Minister when he said that bilingualism will be a fact when a French Canadian can go to Vancouver and order a hamburger in French. This is not what the issue is about, but the trouble is that there have been too many people talking in just that way about a very serious problem.

February 27, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Mitges
I have read and heard, Mr. Speaker, that whenever anyone dared to stand up and ask questions about this subject, he was branded a bigot. If I worried about such things as that, Mr. Speaker, I would not be here. I happen to care a great deal about where we are going and I am concerned about what will happen to us if people continue to use the issues of race and language for political gain. In my case, I am a Canadian of Greek heritage. I am proud of my heritage, but I would not let it stand in my way of being a Canadian because that is exactly what I am. I do not want a hyphen in front of my name. I am not prepared to go along with anyone who proposes policies that will dilute or diminish the strength of Canadianism, not as an alternative but as a fundamental and basic philosophy.
Last Friday the Leader of the Opposition said in this House that we need in Canada an effective government, an honest government, a government that can be trusted. I cannot help feeling that that is at the root of most, if not all, of our problems in Canada today. We do indeed need honest government in Canada, a government that has the trust of the people, if we are to move forward and root out the real causes of dissent and disruption in our country. There is a group in Canada that professes to present the Canadian viewpoint, Mr. Speaker. They make a lot of noise, but they are not the answer. The Committee for an Independent Canada is not presenting or pushing the cause of Canadianism. They are anti-American, first and last, and that is negative. What I want to see is a government that will inspire people throughout our country to proclaim their Canadianism. I am a Canadian because I want to be, and in my view anyone who lives here and shares the bounty of Canada should be just as willing and anxious to say the same.
The Prime Minister keeps coming up with ad hoc policies designed to demonstrate his feeling for the different cultures in our country. Since money is no object to this government, he offers everyone and anyone money to do his or her thing. We do not need government assistance to divide our people into cultural segments. We need a government that will recognize the clear fact that the majority of the people in our country want to be recognized as Canadians and that everything else we want to do will be made easier if we take that logical step.
I hear that we must hurry and erect barriers here and there to preserve our cultures from exposure to other societies, such as that in the United States. People complain that we are becoming Americanized and that we must take action to reverse the situation. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is palpable nonsense. All the world is changing; people are changing and countries are changing. Anything that cannot stand up to exposure to other cultures and ideas is not worth saving. It would be working against natural forces, against nature itself, and it would mean that we would have to adopt a policy of isolation.
The only cultures, in my view, that we as Canadians must work to preserve in their pure form are the cultures of our native peoples, the Indians and Eskimos. Their cultures are distinct from any other on the continent and they should be preserved. These people differ in their viewpoints, in their living and work habits and in their approach to the whole process of living. In many cases

these people choose to move into the mainstream of Canadian life and so they will decide for themselves how much or how little of their native culture to keep. But, where people want to live in their own regions in a style of life different from our own, they must be encouraged and assisted. And, Mr. Speaker, they must be protected.
A final point on this subject might best be summed up by saying that our Canadian culture is only in danger of extinction if and when we admit that it is, and I do not admit that there is any real danger. As long as people talk openly and honestly about what they are, what they want to be and how this might be accomplished, there is no way that a small or even a large group of separatist rabble can accomplish the breakup of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, each time I have the opportunity to rise in this House, I am always honored by the impressing attendance of my colleagues and this is most stimulating for me.
The budget speech of February 19 last is a new example of this government's concern about the individual's welfare and about those most in need. Indeed a host of measures announced in this speech are aimed at giving to the average Canadian and to the have-nots a more equitable share of our national resources through more generous tax cuts and for our pensioners notably increased pensions.
As underlined by the Minister of Finance himself (Mr. Turner), the objective of this budget is to reduce unemployment and inflation pressures, to eliminate the ill effects of past inflation, to increase take-home pay and to give to our senior citizens a more equitable share of our country's affluence so as to contribute to a balanced economic expansion throughout Canada.
No wonder this budget is welcome at all levels of our economy. The opposition finance critic, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), having no serious criticism to make and dumbfounded as he was-and as everyone opposite was that night in the face of such an achievement by the Minister of Finance-merely criticized the minister and the government for borrowing from his party's platform, for having taken into account the needs of Canadians and for at last becoming aware of the situation of our senior citizens.
Who are those Conservatives to give lectures on the right of our senior citizens to government consideration when throughout the whole history of Sir John A. MacDonald's great party with their adulation or supposed adulation for our senior citizens, they barely managed to pay them $19 a month as compared with $82.88 and $155 which they now receive and $100 and $170 they will get starting April 1, 1973? They should be ashamed of such a meagre record. They are truly conservatives. To them this is not only a word, it is reality.
Instead of whimpering because, for instance, the minister announced a better formula than the one advocated by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to
February 27, 1973

eliminate the erosion of the purchasing power caused by inflation and progressive taxation, he should have rejoiced. If the leader of the official opposition was serious, as I think he was when he made that suggestion, he should not recriminate because the Canadian citizen will have a better fate thanks to the beneficial action of this government. We would also have thought that the budget, which according to them is nothing but plagiarism, would not have prompted them to bring in a non-confidence motion. Since when, unless someone is off his rocker or marked by trappistine austerity, do we scourge ourselves and censure ourselves? It becomes more and more evident that the official opposition, its leader included, has only one purpose: Power at all costs. In the pursuit of that objective, whether the legislation is good or not, the main interest is to defeat the government.
I do not venture to claim that the budget will solve all the social and economic problems of today. Besides, what budget has ever performed such a feat? However, undeniably it will somewhat benefit the security and welfare of a great many Canadians. The economic consequences of increased old-age security pensions, veterans' allowances as well as substantial lowering of income tax, elimination of sales tax on some products and of customs duties on some goods cannot but bring great relief, particularly to lower income groups.
It is customary for the debate on the budget speech to provide an opportunity for hon. members to speak about their constituencies and the needs of their constituents. For the benefit of those who might not be over-familiar with the geography of the province of Quebec, I shall say that my constituency comprises two totally different areas. The first is the continental area-Bonaventure- located on the South-East coast of the Gaspe peninsula, north of Chaleur Bay and adjoining the province of New Brunswick. This area extends over more than 150 miles from East to West, and includes 38 localities, 30 of which are organized as municipalities. The second region comprises the Magdelen Islands, 150 miles from the coasts of the Gaspe peninsula, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, covering an area of some 75 miles from East to West. These islands comprise 12 different localities, six of which are organized as rural municipalities. The population of the islands is close to 14,000 inhabitants, totalling, with Bonaventure, 56,700.
The main industries of these regions are fisheries, agriculture, forestry and tourism. In order to function as decently as possible and in a competitive way, they need increasingly easy access to foreign markets and to the major business centres. An adequate transportation system, at reasonable rates, is a primary necessity. Our fishermen and businessmen need modern harbour facilities, in keeping with their needs.
In so far as sea ports are concerned, there have been important improvements in the Magdalen Islands, as well as at Bonaventure, especially during the past years, although much remains to be done. For instance, the construction of the multipurpose harbour of Cap-aux-Meules is not yet completed. There has been proscratina-tion for over a year as to the site of an unloading docks for the ferry Manic. The construction of the fishing harbour at l'Etant-du-Nord was postponed because of last
The Budget-Mr. Bechard
year's delay in asking for tenders. I may say we are grateful to the minister directly on my right for obtaining this harbour last year.
Moreover, in order to retain a large number of fishermen in their industry, a suitable fishing harbour has been demanded for years in the Millerand area, more specifically in the municipality of Havre Aubert in the Magdalen Islands. Until now, we have been living on hope. It is essential that this work start this year if the number of welfare recipients is to be kept down, otherwise it would mean a further outlay of public funds. Entry Island has been retained as an unloading harbour. What has been done to date in order to improve conditions there other than letting the only wharf go to rot until fall, when a call for tenders will be made for long awaited repairs?
When one considers, Mr. Speaker, that this wharf is the only point from which the fish can be shipped to outside markets, and the only supply point for the island, one can easily wonder about the efficiency of our planners.
Still with regard to fishing, I am willing to recognize that there must be some centralization of our port facilities, for instance with regard to offshore fishing, in view, among other things, of the size of our modern fishing fleets and the fishing boats themselves. Such centralization results in better facilities for the fishermen, facilities better adapted to their needs. I am also willing to recognize that centralization for greater efficiency and better shelter is justified. However, I do not admit, and never will, that all the small harbours in the area should disappear, as has been the case in Bonaventure where over a distance of 100 miles, for instance, only three ports of harbours have been kept.
I sometimes wonder, Mr. Speaker, as you must also, what supergenius, what technocrat in need of publicity and, above all, promotion, wants to make sport of the fishermen by crossing out with a single stroke of his pen the facilities that are essential to fishing! As long as the sea produces lobster, there will be inshore fishermen. I wish the technocrats would understand that once and for all. The fisherman will therefore always need harbour facilities to bring in his catch and shelter his boat, unless the expert planners want us to go back to the mid 19th century, when the shore was often the only home port. Hippies develop in that direction!
Therefore, I call once more publicly for the development of harbour facilities for inshore fishermen from Port Daniel to Hopetown included, and especially in New Carlisle, in Bonaventure, in Ruisseau leBlanc which was favoured last year, in Caplan, as well as a proper maintenance of structures in March's Lane and Shigawake. Fishermen are calling for it and wish to retain their livelihood rather than to live on welfare, which they will be forced to do if we go on listening to some technocrat dreamers who issue their orders from the top of their ivory tower!
The economy growth of the whole Gaspe peninsula as well as the Magdalen Islands was seriously threatened in the past and still is today for lack of proper transportation means. Now that highway 6 is being rebuilt thanks to a Canada-Quebec agreement for the economic development of eastern Quebec (Lower St. Lawrence, Gaspe peninsula, Magdalen Islands), to which the federal government makes a financial contribution of 50 per cent, we should

February 27, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Bechard
develop an air transport policy. How many times did I say in this House that the Gaspe peninsula and my riding in particular had almost no air transport service at all? We are not less Canadians than others. I believe that it is no longer necessary for us to prove our devotion to the Canadian flag. But we should not be forever considered as simple-minded. Why should we be deprived of this basic modern link with other regions? We are calling for the setting up of a first class airline service for the Gaspe peninsula, on which passengers could rely because the carrier would keep to his schedule. Besides there is a splendid runway in Bonaventure, another one in Gaspe as well as in Havre-aux-Maisons, in the Magdalen Islands. The runway in Bonaventure, once improved and provided with the required instruments and facilities, could complete the network in our area. Why not develop it? With a little imagination, a first class service could pay for itself in our area. Subsidies, which are available elsewhere, would be just as welcomed in the Gaspe area, I believe. The mail which is so often delayed could come by air. Thus we could enjoy the same privileges or at least the same rights as those enjoyed by such remote areas as Newfoundland and British Columbia.
In the Islands, following numerous requests and representations of all kinds, the government created a roll on and roll off ferryboat service, operating between Prince Edward Island and Cap-aux-Meules, in the Magdalen Islands. While it is not the ideal solution, that ferryboat is a great improvement on what existed before. But what happened last summer clearly shows that it cannot fully meet the economic needs of the Magdalen Islands, especially with the increasing inflow of tourists in that beautiful area.
In addition, the trucks used for moving fish and perishables have a lot of difficulties finding room since they have no priority. It is urgent that this situation be corrected at least during the rush period between June and September. A parking lot should be provided on the Islands to relieve the approaches to the dock which are already overcrowded. The wharf I mentionned a while ago, intended for the ferry-boat, within the harbour should be built without delay in order to prevent unfortunate accidents. Because of the development of the tourist industry on the Islands, action should also be taken following the repeated requests for improving existing airport by extending the runways to give better access to larger aircrafts.
Since 1946, an interprovincial ferry service has been in operation between Dalhousie which is in the riding of the minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube), in New Brunswick, and Miguasha which is in the riding of Bonaventure in the province of Quebec. Subsidies have been payed up until now to the operator of that boat. However, at the close of last season, the agreement between the Canadian Transport Commission and the present operator having expired, in spite of the many representations made to both the previous minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and the Canadian Transport Commission, the future of that ferry service is still very uncertain. I hope it is only an impression because our area would then be set back 30 years. I cannot believe that a population which has been
JMr. Bechard.]
neglected to such a point in the immediate past will be forgotten. If both levels of government develop a tourist industry by establishing a national park, tourist facilities and areas, they will be driving away those they want to attract by depriving them of an absolutely necessary link between the two provinces.
The role played by the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Chairman, is becoming very important for the economy of our area. There was a time not so long ago when railways were the only means of transportation. It cannot be said that all is well in the best of possible worlds, at present. For some time especially in our area we have been witnessing a kind of dance of death involving railway stations and station masters, cleverly orchestrated and directed by the authorities of this Crown corporation, for efficiency and economy reasons, as they say. I should like for my own information and for the information of my constituents to hear details on the savings that will follow from the replacement of the station master by a janitor paid on commission, in view of the rent that he will be paid for his accommodation and the fantastic number of long distance calls that will be necessary, compared with the salary now paid to the station master. This is pennywise and pound-foolish.
I wish to object once more to such an arbitrary and retrograde decision by the CNR in our area. Let me mention only one example. In Maria, Mr. Speaker, there is a hospital serving the community in a radius of more than 100 miles; it has a home for older people, one of the only medical clinics in the area, many dealers and businessmen; it is unthinkable that they should insist on depriving this community of a station master. Despite the very numerous representations made these past few years, I cannot understand this attitude and I hope that my message will reach the Canadian Transport Commission. I ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) to use his influence and to order this agency to revise its decision to accept the request of the Canadian National Railways. [English]


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is customary, on the occasion of a member's maiden speech, to extol at great length the virtues of one's own riding. Traditionally, this has made maiden speeches rather prolonged and often tedious affairs. However, I am privileged in being able to forgo this practice for I know of no prose, poem or song that can enhance or do aesthetic justice to the beauty of Winnipeg and Manitoba and the friendliness of our people.
Although words prevent me from expressing an accolade fitting to the true splendour of western Canada, I am sure the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in view of his literary background and his party's showing in Manitoba on October 30, could recite some sort of verse for us. Let me assure him, though, that the ringing rhetoric of "fud-dle-duddle" will not suffice. Hopefully, the Prime Minister's new set of songwriters are more adept lyricists than his last.
I have the privilege of representing a constituency that for many years was represented by one of the most able and well respected parliamentarians of our time. I refer, of course, to the Hon. Gordon Churchill. My only hope is
February 27, 1973

that I, too, will be able to serve the people of Winnipeg South Centre, and Canada, in the same distinguished way.
The budget recently brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is indicative of the manner in which the present government deals with problems. There is seldom any decisive leadership; rather, the government tends to meander along in a quandary until situations manifest themselves to such an extreme that action is unavoidable. Such is the case with the current budget. Some much needed proposals have been brought down, but only after the placing of great pressure upon the government from all sides, particularly the left.
The personal income tax cuts are a welcome measure, but this is a measure which has been long advocated by everyone, including the Economic Council of Canada. The $100 basic old age pension and the increase in veterans benefits are to be welcomed as beginnings. However, the government has proposed nothing to compensate these pensioners for the tremendous increase in food prices during the last year. Instead, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) maintains that Canadians should be happy with our food prices because compared with certain other countries our prices are relatively low. A budget which does not explain how a government is going to reduce the rate of increase in the cost of living is not good enough.
The government continues its wild spending spree. At the time of the last budget in May, the Minister of Finance called for expenditures of $16.5 billion, a 10 per cent increase over the previous year. Now the Treasury Board has asked parliament for an additional $1.8 billion to cover the government's spending obligations between now and the end of the fiscal year, March 31. This means that within a period of two years, federal spending has gone up from $13.2 billion to $18.34 billion, a 35 per cent increase. The government, however, appears to have no intention of arresting these growing expenditures. This is evidenced by the Minister of Finance's recent announcement that the government plans to spend a record $19.3 billion of taxpayers' money in the coming fiscal year.
The situation is such that Canada's GNP is growing less quickly than is the percentage being spent by government. In 1971 the total value of goods and services produced by the public was $67 billion. Of this, the government's revenue share was 37.7 per cent, almost 10 per cent higher than in 1961. During this ten-year period the government's role as a purchaser of goods and services from the private sector increased by nearly 300 per cent. In terms of money, this was an increase from $7.9 billion to $22 billion.
These are the facts. What they mean is that under the present government, Canada is being slowly steered toward increased state control of our lives. The government does not appear to have any intention of curbing its spending, especially with the possibility of an election at any time. Thus, a situation appears to exist which, if carried to its ultimate conclusion, will lead to a system of government capitalism instead of individual and private enterprise. This state capitalism would be the dominating unit in the economic system. It is obvious to me and my Progressive Conservative colleagues that something must be done to stop this ever-increasing government expenditure.
The Budget-Mr. McKenzie
One current government expenditure of particular concern to me is that of the federal bilingualism development program. Between January 1, 1970, and December 31, 1972, $167.8 million was spent on programs administered by the Secretary of State in an effort to implement various government bilingualism programs. I suggest that spending great amounts of money in an effort to implement the bilingualism program is an excellent idea, but only where a sufficient proportion of the population makes such an effort justifiable.
I do not believe that regions of Manitoba which have been designated as potential bilingual areas by the bilingual districts advisory board should be declared such. Like the Commissioner of Official Languages did in his second annual report, I question the need for and the negative effects of the establishment of bilingual districts outside the Ottawa region. The 10 per cent minority population rule used in designating bilingual districts is an arbitrary one. Furthermore, how are the lines on the maps to be redrawn? Will there be a redistribution of bilingual districts every ten years? There are numerous unanswered questions. I am in agreement with the commissioner when he suggests possibly abandoning the concept of districts altogether, instead of relying on strengthened interpretations of "significant demand" and "feasibility" as stated in the Official Languages Act to decide where bilingual government services should be provided.
lished so as to allay the fears of not only French-speaking Canadians but those of English-speaking western Canadians. Such a program might deal with the language problem by allowing the use of both languages in the federal civil service, but only in direct proportion to that particular language group's statistical number in the population. As it is now, the program does little but breed alienation in western Canada. It is also resulting in the unnecessary spending of millions of dollars.
The throne speech promised that in this session parliament will be asked to reaffirm the basic principles of bilingualism. In light of Mr. Spicer's comments and the tremendous expense being generated in efforts to implement the program, parliament would do well to re-examine not only the principles of bilingualism but their implementation. It is only by reviewing the effectiveness of the bilingualism program that parliament will find a fair and just solution satisfactory to both of Canada's founding peoples.
I have used the term "western alienation". This is a rather overworked term; none the less, it seems to accurately depict the feelings of discontent which characterize many Canadians. It is an honest feeling of westerners that they are not getting their share of the pie. Such feelings have been given substance by the actions of recent Liberal governments. In my riding of Winnipeg South Centre one particular government action more than any other is responsible for widespread feelings of dissatisfaction. I am speaking, of course, of the decision by Air Canada many years ago to move its overhaul base from Winnipeg in an effort to consolidate its overhaul functions in Dorval. Then, contrary to the promises made, the complete phasing-out of the Air Canada operation occurred.

February 27, 1973
The Budget-Mr. McKenzie
On April 3, 1969, the Minister of Transport announced that negotiations had been completed between CAE's parent firm, Northwest Industries, of Edmonton, and Air Canada for the sale of the Air Canada overhaul base. The Minister of Transport indicated that the federal government through its departments and agencies would lend strong support to the new enterprise. However, such has not been the case.
In mid-1969, CAE Aircraft signed a contract with the United States military through the Canadian Commercial Corporation which works for the Department of Supply and Services. The contract was to repair and overhaul military jet aircraft. This contract involved the direct employment of approximately 250 skilled workers. Suddenly, though, this T-39 contract was terminated. This, together with the Viscount phase-out, resulted in tremendously decreased employment.
A similar situation exists today. It is an urgent one. While the province has done what it can at the provincial level to assist CAE Aircraft, unless the federal government uses its resources to secure work for CAE it will be unable properly to maintain its operation. Lack of a viable air industry in Manitoba has resulted in great loss to the province in terms of expertise as all our skilled personnel leave to seek employment elsewhere.
Lay-offs in this industry are devastating. CAE is currently operating with skeleton crews. They have recently lost 17 more men, trained by Air Canada, who have gone to work at Dorval. Approximately 90 per cent of the aeronautical personnel, including engineers, consulting staff, supervisors and licensed mechanics, have been forced to move to Montreal. This is to say nothing of the expense of such a move. I have spoke to people who have been forced to move; they inform me of low morale amongst workers both at Dorval and CAE in Winnipeg. In both places there is much resentment of the government stemming from the government's failure to honour its many promises.
A great proportion of those who formerly worked at the Air Canada overhaul base in Winnipeg were constituents of Winnipeg South Centre, as are the bulk of those working for CAE Aircraft, its successor. The facilities and airports where men worked also are within my riding. Therefore I am concerned with the state of the aerospace industry in Manitoba. The aerospace industry held a special place in Manitoba's economy and the decision to transfer the base to Dorval dealt a serious blow to that economy.
The logic of the transfer escapes most people associated with the industry in Manitoba. Winnipeg should be the centre of a viable aerospace industry. Our geographical location, in the centre of North America, and proximity to the markets of the American mid-west are obvious reasons for the establishment of what could some day be a prosperous industry. At the time of the transfer to Dorval, definite promises were made by the Liberal government to do everything possible to maintain employment at the base and, if possible, to increase it. However, it appears that the government has little intention of honouring its commitment.
In order that hon. members may understand the situation, let me review it briefly. On November 22, 1963, Prime

Minister Pearson, as he then was, speaking in the House of Commons acknowledged the importance of the base to the economy of Winnipeg. He said:
For at least as far ahead as planning now extends, that is at least ten years, the Winnipeg facilities will continue to be used.
On June 5, 1964, in a letter to Mr. D. A. Thompson, Q.C., of Winnipeg, the then minister of transport in a letter to the Manitoba government assured Premier Roblin that every effort was being made to "maintain the level of Air Canada's activities in Winnipeg". On May 23, 1968, Prime Minister Trudeau wrote to Premier Weir of Manitoba stating:
You may be assured that the present government will honour the commitment made by my predecessor and that we will in addition vigourously search out alternatives aimed at maintaining a viable aircraft support industry in Manitoba.
Here are the remarks of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) on the air base being moved:
One of the worst decisions made in Canadian history.
He further stated:
No one endorses more strongly than I do the concept of decentralization of industrial activity.
Within the past fortnight the Prime Minister has visited Winnipeg. He has assured us that western interests are of equal importance to those of Quebec, that we must take the initiatives to press for their realization and that we must not passively wait government intervention. We will take him at his word. We believe in the importance of maintaining and promoting an air base in Winnipeg to serve central and western Canada. Winnipeg is the logical location. We believe that the Prime Minister should fulfil his promise to honour the commitment made to us by his predecessor to maintain a viable aircraft support industry in Manitoba.
We do not doubt the sincerity of the Minister of National Defence in his wish to serve western Canada, and we sympathize with the difficulties and restrictions he faces in this regard. But this issue is so essential to Winnipeg that we believe it is his responsibility to press for its realization. We believe that he should be prepared to resign from the cabinet and move to the back benches to challenge the Prime Minister's sincerity. Our cabinet representative should be expected to remind the Prime Minister of his advice and promise to us, and demonstrate that he stands by this principle. In my opinion, the Minister of National Defence has no other choice.
The people of Winnipeg South Centre remember these promises. They demand to know if the federal government recognizes its long-standing commitments to the aerospace industry in Manitoba. If the government does not recognize its commitments, then this feeling of alienation can only grow stronger not only in my constituency but among all the people of western Canada.


Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, when I look about me and see that the democratic left has virtually gone, I remember the very apt lines of Alexander Pope:
The hungry judges soon the sentence sign,
And wretches hang that jurymen may dine.
I wonder, therefore, whether I should call it six o'clock.
February 27, 1973


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, it makes a difference to be addressing this House after rather than before supper. At least we have all returned replete with meat if not with wisdom.
I do not want to address myself to the specific points in the budget because so many of my fellow members in this party have addressed themselves to these points in particular. I could certainly tell the House what I like about the budget and what I dislike about it in terms of its particular elements, but I feel that in the past few days these elements have been adequately covered on both sides of the House.
My remarks will pertain to the budget: I will avoid making a travelogue about the beauties of Scarborough West. I know this is very difficult to resist, but I will manage to resist the temptation and will try to speak about the budget in general terms which are at least of interest to me and might be of interest to other members of the House.
First of all, it will not surprise members to my immediate right that I am prepared to congratulate the government on the budget. I think that the budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is a kind of milestone for the parliament of Canada. Mind you, it is a retarded milestone because it is one that we should have passed many years ago. Nevertheless, it is rather nice to get to this particular milestone.
I should like to congratulate the Minister of Finance and the members of the government for returning to the age of Keynesian economics. We left them solidly behind three or four years ago, particularly in 1969 when in a fit of despair the government gave up trying to understand how to run an economy on the lines enjoined by Lord Key res and decided to go back to much more classical, indeed we could call them Victorian, procedures. The result of this kind of decision-making certainly caused an enormous amount of distress and pain across this nation. We all know now, including the government, that the policies adopted by the government some three years ago to fight what they thought was the great bugbear, namely inflation, simply brought about acute unemployment in this country and enormous distress to tens of thousands, indeed, hundreds of thousands of Canadians.
Therefore, I congratulate the government on having moved itself from the day before yesterday to yesterday so that now we are in a position to start talking about today. Now we are in a position to start talking about the problems that really face Canada, not the problems that the government then thought faced Canada. We are now in a position to start talking about the problems of this economy as an economy that is of the post-industrial age.
The Budget-Mr. Harney
Having congratulated the government, I must express a concern. I am not too sure that the government knows where it is going. I say this because there was so much left out of the budget and the address relating to the budget. For example, there was nothing in the budget or in the budget address about the spending and investment plans of those corporations which are directly owned or controlled by parliament. I refer to the Crown corporation in Canada. There was nothing, even in estimation or in prediction, about the spending and investment plans of the provincial governments or, indeed, of other levels of government in Canada. There was virtually nothing-just one sentence, I think-on possible monetary policy as it would apply in Canada in the coming year, and there was simply no attempt to try to ascertain what would be the plans and the position of the private sector in Canada.
The budget speech, in effect, was like a treasurer's report for a rather large bowling league. There was some talk about the cost of membership in the league. There was some talk about the benefits that would accrue from membership in the league and there was some talk of an annual banquet. But there was no attempt to try to understand what is really going on in the country. Can this House, then, know what is going on in the Canadian economy? Can it ascertain from the budget and from the address relating to it what will happen to the economy in the future? Is it possible for the government to be guiding the economy on the basis of so little consideration and so little information given to the House?
There was promise in the budget of tax cuts. We on this side, particularly in this corner of the House, welcome the provision for tax cuts. But at the same time, in the supplementary papers issued on budget night we were given a very clear indication that there would be no particular shift in the tax burden as the taxes applied to individual Canadians as opposed to corporations. For example, we are told in that supplementary document that last year some 44 per cent of all taxes received by the government came from individual contributions, and that this year some 44 per cent of taxes would come from the same sector; that last year some 15 per cent of our revenue came from corporations, and this year some 14 per cent would come from corporations-a decrease in taxes coming from the corporate sector. I am told that these projections include the effects of the bills that were to have been passed following the budget of May 8 last.
I want to tell the members of the government that if these projections are actually carried out through the implementation of corporate tax cuts, we will have achieved nothing in terms of real redistribution of the tax burden in this country and I and many others in this party will not stand for that kind of shell game. It is very obvious, upon any close analysis of the budget, that the only meaningful way in which the budget can have a beneficial effect on the average Canadian is to have personal income tax cuts and no corporate tax cuts, because it will be apparent to most Canadians that the tax cuts proposed by the Finance Minister a week ago last Monday will be totally ineffectual if the bills emanating from the May 8 budget are brought in.

February 27, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Harney
I have another reason for congratulating the Minister of Finance. I do not know whether he really deserves it. At any rate, he seemed to go all out for a policy of budgetary expansion. What I am going to say may sound a little heretical, Mr. Speaker, but heretical things have been said before from this corner of the House. It has become very obvious to many students of the dismal science of economics that even the Keynesian approach to economics will not work any more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Paul Harney: I was rather pleased, in a way, to see the people on my immediate right fall into the trap. Their immediate reaction, in effect, was to overturn all the sacred tablets which they had been carrying for many years and to call for a vastly more expansionary kind of budget because, I suppose, if they are the apostles of faith in growth they believe, as does the government, I think, that growth will solve all problems.
We really have to ask ourselves whether the nature of unemployment facing the people of Canada today is of the classical kind. I know there are certain sections of the country where there is massive and very evident unemployment, where the individuals who are thrown out of work feel, at the very least, a certain kind of fellowship in that they see themselves not to be alone. But for many citizens of this country, being unemployed is a lonely, solitary and alienating business because they see themselves as alone out of a job, keenly aware of a sense of uselessness in a society which seems to be busy and bustling all around them.
We really have to ask ourselves whether a purely expansionary budget, in the classical sense, will do anything to change this pattern. The point I am coming to is simply- since I have very little time I would like to dwell on it for my last two or three minutes-that I urge this House, and particularly the government, to take a totally new look at our economy. I urge all hon. members not to fall into the old trap of simply encouraging more growth, because growth by itself will not change the quality of life of Canadians. We must look for a different way of living our economic life in this country. I would urge on this House a policy which concentrates upon qualitative growth as opposed to quantitative growth. We must set out to improve the quality of life for the individual and the community rather than simply the quantity of goods.
There are figures that I could quote. We now know, for example, that 10 per cent of disposable income is saved by Canadians. That is a very high proportion. I do not mean to indicate by this that everybody in Canada has money to save, but there certainly are certain sectors of our population which have money to save. Any simplistic, classically-based expansionary approach to the problem of unemployment will simply give them more money to save, without giving to those people who have not enough money to live on, enough money with which to survive.
We must look at every impetus we put into the economy to see whether it changes the nature of our economic existence. I would urge on the Minister of Finance and on the government a totally new look at the world of work,

because it is becoming very obvious to many people that simply to create jobs as a way of giving people remuneration so that they can buy the goods that we can produce- there is no question that we can produce the goods-will not get them out of the squirrel cage in which they find themselves.
Surely this parliament should be ready to invoke some new thinking rather than simply saying to the country, "Look, we can make the squirrel cage run faster and let those who have drop out, drop out." There are many attendant aspects to what I have said. I am sorry, although I am sure several members are not, that I cannot expand on this matter but I hope that I can on another occasion. Somebody has to stand here and say what a lot of people outside parliament are saying, simply that growth by itself does not change the nature of our existence, that by increasing the gross national product what we are doing in large measure is increasing the production of junk, not changing the quality of our production and the quality of people's lives. What people outside are saying is that the production of junk by a lot of people makes junk out of their lives.
Let us ask ourselves this question as we look at our economy: How many people are truly usefully employed? I end on a note which is not mine, Mr. Speaker. Unlike some other hon. members, I admit that I am plagiarizing. Here I quote from an article by a Mr. Anderson:
Generals are traditionally accused of wanting to re-fight the battles of their youth instead of meeting the weapons or tactics of a current war. The record of politicians (and of many economists) is infinitely worse. They cling tenaciously to techniques devised by their grandfathers to deal with circumstances that have long ceased to exist; and when (as happens sometimes, though not often) a new idea does emerge it is regarded as dangerously novel for at least a generation, and then misapplied.
The new idea that emerged a generation ago was the thinking of Lord Keynes. I am afraid that today it is in danger of being dangerously misapplied because we, the politicians, the representatives of the people of this land, cannot push ourselves into the post-industrial society and cannot begin to realize that the nature of the unemployment beast that faces us has changed radically. We must realize that we must look at the world of work and make sure that henceforward people who do the hard work of this nation are adequately remunerated for it; that there are still many people in this nation, some in this parliament and many in the professions, who are unemployed effectively in terms of real usefulness but nevertheless are extremely well paid. We have to look at the kind of work that is done by the people of Canada. In many cases it is soul-destroying work. In many cases the work we force them to do for remuneration is totally-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him by the order made last Thursday has expired.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Consumer and Corporate affairs I would like to draw attention to those features of the budget which are of interest to consumers. This budget is important to consumers. It has a number of provisions which were designed to be of direct benefit to them. The proposed reductions in sales taxes, excise taxes
February 27, 1973

and customs duties will affect a wide range of consumer goods and will have a correspondingly wide impact upon consumers' well-being.
Let me first comment upon the proposed changes in the sales tax. As the House knows, it is proposed to remove the sales tax on confectionaries, chocolate bars, soft drinks, fruit drinks and other near-food products. The effect of this measure in so far as food is concerned will be to exempt from federal sales tax all food and drink for human consumption, except alcoholic beverages.
Furthermore, it is proposed that the federal sales tax will be removed from children's clothing and footwear. These measures will be of great benefit to Canadian consumers, particularly to those in the lower income groups. Already a number of important companies in the food distribution field have announced reductions in the price of soft drinks, fruit drinks, confectionary products and snack foods.
Within one or two days after the announcement of the proposed removal of the sales tax on children's clothing and footwear, several of Canada's leading merchandising organizations announced reductions on the prices of these items. One firm announced a 10 per cent cut, a second announced a 15 per cent cut, while a third made a statement the import of which was that its price reductions would conform completely to the reduced sales tax.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the budget proposals include the elimination of the 10 per cent excise tax on cosmetics and toilet articles. Furthermore, it proposes the removal of the excise tax on clocks and watches except those on which the manufacturer's price or duty paid value exceeds $50. These also are constructive proposals from the consumer's point of view and already the benefits are appearing at the point of sale.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: For example, two important supermarket chains have announced cuts in the prices of specified cosmetics and toiletries, and two local Ottawa firms have announced cuts in the prices of cosmetics, toiletries, clocks and watches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Next, Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the benefits to the consuming public from the reductions in customs duties proposed for many articles imported into Canada. The products on which tariff cuts will have the greatest significance for the greatest number of consumers are probably those in the food category. Food prices have been rising more sharply than other consumer prices in recent months, particularly the prices of relatively unprocessed foods. The aim of these cuts is to help moderate those food prices.
Probably the most important food items to be affected by the proposed cuts are fresh beef and veal, fruit juices, bananas and sugar, although several other categories are also involved. The tariff on raw sugar has been reduced, in effect, by 33 cents per hundredweight. Bananas, formerly dutiable at 50 cents per hundredweight, will
The Budget-Mr. Gray
become duty free; duties on fresh beef, veal, pork and certain other fresh meats will be reduced to zero, while the duty on lamb and mutton will be reduced by one-third. Cuts of various amounts are proposed: for canned beef 50 per cent, canned pork 40 per cent, canned hams and other canned meats 25 per cent.
The 10 per cent ad valorem duty on imports of a number of vegetables and fruits will be removed. Thus, duties on these imports will fall to zero except during the season when the Canadian crops come on the market. During this season, these imports will continue to be subject to specific duties of various amounts. The purpose of the proposed cuts is obviously to help moderate prices of the products in question.
Turning now to another matter of continuing concern to Canadian consumers, drug prices, I might recall at this point that the federal government has made a very considerable effort over the past six years to help reduce the price of prescription drugs to Canadians. The proposed reductions in the customs duties on drugs represent a further step in the direction taken by the federal government when it removed the federal sales tax on drugs in 1967. The present proposals provide that customs duties on a wide range of drugs, both prescription and non-prescription, be cut by 50 per cent.
Those who are furnishing their homes or who are setting up housekeeping for the first time will be pleased to know that customs duties will be reduced on vacuum cleaners, washers, carpet sweepers and power lawn mowers. Homemakers will benefit also from the proposed reduction in duties on kitchen or household hollow-ware of aluminum, nickel, iron or steel, as well as the proposed reduction of duties on chinaware and porcelainware.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in his budget speech on February 19 indicated that the reductions in the sales and excise taxes taken together would reduce federal revenues in the coming fiscal year by about $190 million. It seems likely that the dollar volume of imports which will be affected by the proposed reductions in customs duties may well be of the order of $1.3 billion per year. Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that the reductions proposed by the Minister of Finance in sales tax, in excise taxes and in customs duties will prove to be advantageous to the Canadian consuming public.
A very basic aim of the budget is to ensure that there is more money in the consumers' wallets and pocketbooks for them to spend. To achieve this aim the government has proposed increases in personal exemptions as well as a substantial cut in personal income tax. This cut involves a 5 per cent reduction in the basic federal income tax up to a maximum of $500. But to ensure that there is meaningful tax relief for the middle and lower income groups, the government has proposed that there be a minimum reduction in personal income tax of $100. This means that the actual tax cuts for many hundreds of thousands of Canadian taxpayers will be far higher than 5 per cent.
For example, as the Minister of Finance has pointed out, taking into account the increase in individual exemption and the cut in personal income tax, for a married couple with two young children and the breadwinner earning $5,000, the total tax will be reduced by $137. This represents a 47 per cent reduction from what the tax

February 27, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Darling
otherwise would have been this year. If this same family has an income of $8,000, the total tax reduction will be $141, or 13 per cent.
As the Minister of Finance said, another way of looking at the effect of these cuts in taxation is to note that a married wage earner with two young children living in any one of the provinces will pay no federal income tax until his income goes above $4,473. Therefore, looking at the 1973-74 fiscal year, Canadian consumers will have available to them an additional $1.3 billion through this reduction in personal income tax. Seventy per cent of this will be in the hands of the majority of Canadian taxpayers-those with an income of less than $10,000. Consumers who are old age pensioners will also benefit from the increase in the basic old age security pension to $100 monthly.
Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I think it is clear that the reductions proposed by the Minister of Finance of sales tax and customs duties as well as the other budget measures-particularly the cut in personal income tax and the increase in the old age pension-will prove and are already proving to be of worth-while benefit to the Canadian consuming public. These measures will help the Canadian economy and at the same time will constitute a countervailing force against inflationary pressures. Therefore, I urge the House to support this budget to ensure that its benefits are in fact available to every Canadian consumer.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, at long last, after listening to my colleagues on this side and to other members I have a chance to say a few words. This is my maiden speech, Mr. Speaker, so I would like to begin by congratulating Your Honour on your appointment for another term to the post of Speaker of the House. I would also like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) on his appointment as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole House.
May I at this time say I am proud to represent the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka and to have been selected to follow Mr. Gordon Aiken, Q.C., who was an outstanding member of this House for 15 years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: He served unstintingly in the House until he was forced to retire because of ill health, and I know his many friends here will join with me in wishing him a complete return to health. As an aside, Mr. Speaker, I had a letter from him today and he is enjoying the best health he has had for the past 20 years.
I should like to say a few words about my constituency of Parry Sound-Muskoka. I am sure that many members of this House have been to my region at one time or another and those who have not been so fortunate have heard of the area. My riding is without doubt the finest tourist area in this great Dominion of Canada. This certainly must be so, Mr. Speaker, as more members of this House visit my riding during the summer months than visit all other ridings combined. I might say that one of 
our visitors is His Excellency the Governor General. Tourism is our biggest industry. This can be very good when an area has a strong attraction as a tourist paradise because it brings in people from far and wide. They bring with them not only money but new faces, good will and companionship. The chances are they will enjoy themselves and will tell others. Many of them will build in our area and add to the vitality and prosperity of our region.
These are serious times for our country, Mr. Speaker, and I share the concern expressed by my colleagues who have spoken in the past few days on this budget. These are times that call for leadership and for decision. These are times that call for courage. For that reason I was disappointed, both for myself and for my constituents, at the lack of real evidence in the budget that our country is getting leadership or decision from this government. The only evidence of courage in the budget is the indication that this government is prepared at last to accept some of the recommendations of the official opposition.
I realize that it would have taken courage of a very high order for the present government to bring down a budget that would satisfy the people of Canada rather than the NDP. However, I realize also that it was more expedient, politically, for the government to enter into an arrangement with the NDP in order to prolong its stay in power. This is all the more difficult to accept, Mr. Speaker, and is all the more distasteful when you recall that the official opposition is on record as having told the government that it need not fear defeat so long as it brought down legislation that was meaningful.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) did not offer any deals and he did not propose any arrangements in exchange for personal reward. It was a straightforward announcement of purpose. The government was told that as long as it made a serious effort to govern responsibly and showed signs that it was prepared to grapple with such problems as inflation and unemployment, we in the opposition would act just as responsibly.
It is easy to sit back and criticize. I served as the head of a small municipal government for over a quarter of a century before coming to Ottawa as a new member. Criticizing for the sake of opposing is not good enough. During my campaign I emphasized certain things as priorities which I hoped would be included in the budget, and I thank the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) for those things which were included. The top priorities in my area are, first and foremost, the high cost of living caused by spiralling inflation and the great need for increases in old age pensions for the elderly and many others living on fixed incomes who are hardest hit by inflation.
While the budget does provide some relief for the people in my area, the top priority, to my way of thinking, for the people in rural Canada is to find a way to stop spiralling inflation and the high cost of living. This can only be done by the kind of wage and price freeze suggested by my party earlier in this debate. A great many people in the rural parts of Canada are living on low and fixed incomes. Therefore, they are hardest hit in endeavouring to make their income dollars stretch. This is not the case in the great metropolitan areas where the highest wages are paid and where the great unions are able to demand,
February 27, 1973

and receive, wages which naturally force the cost of goods up. Those of us not so fortunate have to pay for this.
I was pleased, Mr. Speaker, to see the old age pension increased to $100 a month. I still feel, and I know it is the feeling of our party, that this pension should be geared to need. To my way of thinking, the very minimum for all old age pensioners should be $110 a month, with the built-in protection that if the cost of living goes up, the pension goes up automatically.
We are divided into ten provinces, Mr. Speaker, and two great areas, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Also there are two other areas, those of the haves and of the have-nots. The have areas are growing like cancers. If the present trend continues, by the year 2000, or sooner, we will have to redraw the map of Canada and throw out the present provincial boundaries. The new map will consist of super areas such as Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Calgary and perhaps our capital city of Ottawa.


An hon. Member:: And Edmonton.


Stan Darling: All right. Call them what you will, city states, super cities or provinces, these concentrated concrete jungles will have 90 per cent of our population and as much or more of its wealth. The other area or province will be the entire balance of our country and could be named Canada. Let me say a word about redistribution. If we still have the same number of members in this House, those areas will be represented by 238 members and all the rest of Canada by 27.
Something has to be done, Mr. Speaker, to keep people in the rural areas and in towns and villages and to stop this erosion of population to the cities. The top priorities are, as I said before, jobs, housing and control of inflation. In rural Canada today our chief export and most valuable commodity is our young people. We pay to raise and educate them, and then they leave for the great rat race in the monster cities. In recent years some cities have had a twinge of conscience and are now willing to repay us by sending us, in return, their garbage. This pattern of growth means declining populations. It means the underuse of existing local and municipal services. It means an erosion of the municipal tax base. It means under-used school facilities. Something must be done to halt this and provide a way of life to the many people who want to remain in the regions where they were born and raised.
The backbone of the rural areas across our country is the small businessman and enterpreneur who is having a hard job getting by, in making a comfortable living, and who is paying the high wages now demanded and the many other high costs. He is also in a very serious financial position during certain periods of the year. In our particular area, where the economy is buoyant in the summer season, the lean months in the winter eat up the profits and he must borrow money at the bank and pay, in many cases, high interest rates. I feel that low interest rates should be available to these hard working and enterprising citizens who provide the great majority of employment in the many small villages and towns scattered throughout our country.
We have heard much said, Mr. Speaker, during the present session regarding the high water problem in the
The Budget-Mr. Darling
Great Lakes. The entire western boundary of my riding borders on Georgian Bay, and the high water is certainly a serious problem to many tourist and marine operators, as well as to cottagers. They have suffered considerable financial loss. I am hoping that this government will have sufficient funds set aside for emergencies so that it can make a worth-while contribution in conjunction with the province of Ontario.
Let me say a word about the LIP program, Mr. Speaker.
I am aware that the money has now been overspent and a great many applications turned down, some of them very worthy. Having served as a member of a municipal government for a long period, it is my opinion that top priority should have been given to all applications submitted by municipal governments before projects submitted by private individuals or other organizations were considered. If money was left over, it could then have been divided among such individuals or organizations. It is my considered opinion that the elected officials of municipalities know their needs far greater than any individual or organization in the area. I will concede that many worthwhile ones were approved.
I trust that all members of the House who represent constituencies on our coast will pay particular attention to this: they have been daily making life miserable and have been badgering the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) for the tabling of the long-awaited document known as the Darling report. Here it is, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure they will all be delighted with it.
I would be remiss if I did not indicate my pleasure at being able to sit in a parliament with so many colleagues from the Progressive Conservative party. At the same time, I would like to convey my respects to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Although my colleagues and I may take exception to many of his policies, it is in keeping with the intended spirit of our parliamentary system that when he speaks we afford him the respect due Canada's first minister. I certainly take exception to the way he has been treated time and again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: There has been some doubt expressed as to the wisdom of removing the 11 per cent tax on building supplies. Some hon. members feel that such a measure would provide little relief for the lower income groups. It is true that outside of pure Marxism, equity is an elusive quarry. Nevertheless, repeal of the 11 per cent building supply tax would represent a significant reduction in the final price of a home and allow many more Canadians to own their own home. Apart from the obvious social benefit, a stimulus in the order of $365 million would be injected into the economy. This stimulus, in conjunction with increased sales of building materials and related products, would serve both to boost this sector of the business community and to increase employment in all facets of the housing industry.
At the same time, this policy would serve to dampen the wage demands of workers who have come to view their jobs as uncertain and demand wage rates to compensate for their seasonal nature. This aspect of many of our

February 27, 1973
T7ie Budget-Mr. M. Roy
industries is a prime contributor to our high unemployment rates, inflationary tendencies and outsized Unemployment Insurance Commission payments. In this light, elimination of the 11 per cent tax on building supplies would be a significant step toward a sound economic and a more equitable distribution of funds for all income groups.
I believe I have gone over my time, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for the consideration shown to me.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: I have here a letter from Major Guy E. Methot, of the 687th Squadron, dealing with the budget. His squadron totals 170 cadets and its total budget is $800. The cadets have met three times a week, but they must now make up the deficit. These boys have to solicit for funds in all sorts of ways. It seems to me that during the summer months, the Department should seriously consider revising its policy and grant subsidies as well to the girls cadets who, even if they are accepted in theory, do not receive the $3 annual allowance paid to the boys.
Mr. Speaker, that is very dear to me. In my opinion, the Opportunity for Youth Program meets a need, but one must also not forget or underestimate the cadets.
I would like to make a last suggestion concerning the Departments of Public Works and Environment. I am speaking on behalf of many of my colleagues whose ridings border the Des Prairies and Mille-Iles Rivers.
For about 25 years, we have been asking for the canalization of the Des Prairies and Mille-Iles Rivers, in order to avoid happenings unpleasant every spring.
This year, we anticipate heavy flooding on all the lands along the Des Prairies and Mille-Iles Rivers.
As for the Department of Public Works or Environment, I would have been very happy if moneys had been allocated to such works which, in my opinion, and in the opinion of all the other members, are of a great priority for that sector.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to speak in the budget debate wishing it could have been under different circumstances. The bitter disappointment felt by the people of Canada is beginning to filter through. Editorial comment on the budget is anything but complimentary. There is a feeling of dissatisfaction and bewilderment, and in some quarters downright anger.
My mail since the budget reflects these emotions. One letter from a student doing a school project asked me to explain what the government is doing to reduce unemployment. Another letter tells of a visit to a bank for a loan under the Small Business Loans Act. The writer was told that the bank does not lend money under the act because the interest rate is too low and the bank cannot make a profit at the rate set by the act.
Representatives of several secondary industries have called about tariff cuts and to ask whether this is the forerunner of future cuts to be bargained away at the GATT meeting. It is unfortunate that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) did not consult some of the agricultural associations which will be affected by his tariff cuts on fresh vegetables and fruits. We suspect that the Minister of Finance did not even consult the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I have received a letter from the proprietor of a small manufacturing company in my riding who writes as follows:
It has been brought to our attention that the proposed budget will decrease the tariff on finished toys while not altering the tariff on components which require further manufacture. If this is the case, then in essence the government is encouraging importers of finished toys at the expense of domestic manufacturers. The toy
The Budget-Mr. Kempling
industry tends to be labour-intensive, and thus I believe an asset to our community and country.
Those are a few of the letters I have received, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you are aware, as I am sure everyone is aware, that many of our secondary manufacturers and secondary industries have not recovered from the accelerated cuts in tariffs in 1972 which were billed as an anti-inflationary measure. I have had numerous conversations with my constituents regarding the game being played by the government and the NDP over the corporate tax cuts and the accelerated depreciation provision in the May, 1972, budget. Is it in the budget, or is it not in the budget? Some say it is, and some say it is not.


An hon. Member:: Now you see it, now you don't.


William James Kempling: Now you see it, now you don't-exactly. But what a game to play with the people who hold the key to employment! According to a press report, the leader of the NDP said he did not want to play dog-in-the-manger over this matter of accelerated depreciation.


An hon. Member:: He wants to play monkey in the granary.


William James Kempling: The names I have heard in reference to that hon. member are not "dog-in-the-manger" and I could not repeat them in this House. The mood of the business men I talk to is one of anger. They had all hoped for a more expansionary budget, one that the business community could grab hold of and begin to display some confidence in the future. Certainly, we would have presented a much more imaginative and forward looking budget, one that would take a real bite out of unemployment and come to grips with inflation.
This government stands condemned by the business community for failing to face the realities of the day. This is the seventh budget this government has presented which was supposed to deal with unemployment and inflation. There seems to be lack of purpose and direction by the government. It is a sort of ad hoc approach to economics filtered through the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis).
The main thrust of this budget seems to be that by cutting income taxes by 5 per cent and raising old age pensions to $100 a month, by dropping the sales tax on children's clothing and candy bars, all this coupled with devaluation of the U.S. dollar will create an internal and external demand for products that will create jobs and thus reduce unemployment. In fact, the government is beginning to hedge on this, because as the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) said last night:
If there is not enough stimulus for the economy, then in a few months the Minister of Finance can certainly provide more.
I quote that sentence from page 1679 of Hansard, in the event the hon. member wants to raise a point of order. There is no mention in the budget of what position the government will take on small business, secondary industry and the service industries. These businesses collectively are the largest employer in Canada, yet they have no status in the economic life of our country.

February 27, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Kempling
The major problem affecting all business is a continual shortage of money. Let us look back at the havoc caused by the ill-conceived tight money policy of 1969 through 1970 and a part of 1971. The only real winners were the banks. We had inflation, wages went up and the cost of money rose to its highest level in memory. The banks made record profits and, indeed, today have assets of some $60 billion, neatly protected by the Bank Act.
Without exception, the greatest deterrent to business expansion in this country is the lack of money. It is only by expanding the business base that we will make headway toward lowering unemployment. Small businesses, secondary industry and the service industries do not want government grants. They know from long experience that anything the government gives, it must first take away. All they want is access to money at a reasonable rate and they will do the rest themselves. They want less government, not more. They want simplified tax forms and fewer reports to send to the figure filberts at Statistics Canada. In other words, they want the government off their backs.
In my riding there are several small industries. I had a recent call from a businessman who was having a problem with-you guessed it-money. He had orders, but no money. His company had designed a unique hydraulic device that found a ready market in the United States. Our banks could not help him and his company unfortunately became caught in the clutches of the Industrial Development Bank. He was really in trouble then, with orders coming in, demands on cash at a high level, no help from the chartered banks and the IDB charging 12 per cent interest.
With this dilemma facing his company, he met with a group of United States customers and explained his problem. They came back with a solution. The United States customers recommended that he move his manufacturing operations to New York state. They would organize a new company in the United States, give my constituent 49 per cent of the stock, refinance the operation, set up a DISC and ship goods back to Canada. That is what happened.
There are hundreds of similar occurrences, with slight variations, each year in Canada. A lack of money, high interest rates in Canada and plenty of money south of the border at equitable rates is a familiar tune to businessmen. The answer this government gives is that it will set up some conditions and a screening agency, but no mention of solving the real problem. I have mentioned the man in my riding who tried to borrow money from the bank under the Small Businesses Loans Act only to be told he could not borrow money at that rate because the bank could not make a profit at 61 per cent interest. The bank then steered the man to the IDB, which suggested he borrow at 12 per cent interest.
There is nothing in the budget presented on February 19 that will make money any easier for small business, secondary industry and the service industries. There are none of the massive changes in the Income Tax Act promised by minister of finance Benson when Bill C-259 was rammed through this House. These are the same changes echoed by the present minister when he took over the finance portfolio. A few minor changes have been made,

but nothing to make it a workable tax act which the average businessman can understand.
There is no statement of policy by the government as to its over-all plan for secondary industry. In fact, you could easily say this is an anti-business budget. This shows how far to the left this government has gone. The people operating small businesses, secondary industry and service industries in Canada have no status in the economic life of our country. They know how far to the left this government has gone. In spite of being the largest employers and tax contributors, these operators are continually downgraded and held at bay by a government that does not know, does not want to know or just does not give a damn.
The strange part of this indifference by the government is the cost involved. Small business, secondary industry and the service industry want amendments to the Bank Act to ease the flow of money to their operations. Along with everyone else in Canada, they want revisions to the tax act so it is workable, understandable and can be lived with. They want simplified tax forms in keeping with their business records. They want a moratorium on Statistics Canada forms until the value of such forms is proved.
These people want the same access to export credit as large industry. They want an end to the numerous faceless and nameless forms that cross their desks with unintelligible signatures. They want to be able to talk to the faceless and the nameless person who wrote the letter, rather than to be told that he does not accept phone calls. These people want a government with guts enough to face up to the issues of the day, one in which they can have confidence and under which they can plan their business in an orderly fashion and an atmosphere of co-operation.
These requirements would cost the taxpayers nothing, but the budget presented by this government falls way short of expectation, as does the government itself. I cannot support this budget and I join my colleagues and millions of Canadians in condemning this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   Jean-R. Roy@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity of speaking during the budget debate, but not to dwell on the excellence of the government's budget because there is no need for that. The people in my riding, as well as people across Canada, are already aware of the many measures in this budget that will help the fixed income earner, the low income earner, the old and the young-all of them consumers. The government has indeed put together a package that will receive the approval of a very large majority of Canadians, to the chagrin and frustration of members opposite including the hon. member who has just spoken.
The matters I would like to bring to the attention of several ministers for their immediate consideration and correction have to do with several continuing bureaucratic administrative procedures which frustrate some of our citizens and make my blood pressure rise to boiling point. It is amazing how often parliament adopts a law, with much good will and the best intentions, which is designed to serve the small citizen of this country, yet after the regulations have been compiled by departmental officials it develops that parts of the law become simply bureaucratic nightmares.
February 27, 1973

The first example with which I shall deal is the additional $1,000 personal exemption that was proposed for persons 65 years of age or over for income tax purposes. To all members of this House the meaning was simple and clear. Persons 65 years of age, because they have more medical bills and particular needs because of age, in most cases have no ability for normal earnings and have limited income, should have an additional $1,000 deduction to ensure that their meagre income would not be taxed. To all members it was a simple matter. If it involved a married couple, the additional exemption was two times $1,000, or $2,000. Is this what we have? No. After the officials got through with the income tax forms, it turned out that in order to claim the $2,000 deduction both husband and wife must have earnings of at least $2,500. If only the husband has earnings and the wife simply has her $994.86 old age pension as earnings, her $1,000 additional exemption is useless to her and to her husband.
Again we have a case of gross discrimination. If each one of a couple has earnings of $2,500, their exemption in practical terms can reach over $5,000, but if only the husband has earnings of more then $5,000 the exemptions can reach only $1,000 less. If a way can be found by a bureaucrat to make life hard for the politician, you can bet your life he will find it. In this case they have found a way to make it tough not only for the politician but for the poor, old age pensioner through another example of discrimination which is more helpful to the high income earner than the low income earner. I would therefore ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) to quickly correct this injustice.
Another example relates to the deductions allowed a working parent for child care in the amount of $500 per child up to a maximum of $2,000. Again, members accepted this measure with great pleasure and pride, with much good will and the best intentions. However, Mr. Speaker, when the bureaucrats got through with the regulations for this bonanza to working parents, it became a nightmare that frightened away both the parents who needed the relief and the babysitters who are trying to help out. The babysitters want to quit because they become full-time employees. The parents throw up their hands in frustration because they become employers. This involves them in all the implications of unemployment insurance, the Canada Pension Plan, income tax deductions, forms of all sorts, and reports. This disgusts the two parties to the point that the benefit is refused. They would rather not have the help than become involved in all the bureaucracy. Surely a quick, easy and reasonably simple procedure can be found to accommodate these people. Surely we can do away with this nightmare without destroying the value of this measure.
The third point I wish to bring to Your Honour's attention has to do with unemployment insurance. I recognize that Bill C-125 will be in the House shortly and that my recommendations might be more appropriate at that time. But the situation I wish to talk about is in my view so distasteful that I feel a correction must be brought in now. It has to do with the infamous practice of having benefit control officers ask people who are seeking unemploy-
The Budget-Mr. Wise
ment insurance to make statements. The officer interprets the statement, writes the report and has the claimant sign the report as his own. Some officers will ask, "How much do you have to earn to properly support your family?" The claimant will answer, "About $100 a week." The officer will mark on the sheet, "Will not accept less than $100 a week."
The officer then will ask, "Would you take a job in another area?" The claimant will say, "Well, I am established here. I have my family and my house here." The officer will write down, "Will not accept work outside of town." Then he writes, "I am writing these statements knowing exactly what they mean". He turns the sheet to the claimant and says, "Sign here". The claimant is so eager to receive his unemployment insurance benefits that he quickly signs, not knowing he is disqualifying himself completely from benefits.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You are right.


Mr. Roy (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I will vote for all the amendments the minister presents to prevent abuses in the system. I find the loopholes that were left repugnant and I will support the elimination of abuses as much as possible. However, in this case it is the system that is wrong and abusive. This procedure must cease. If any claimant is to incriminate himself, he should at least be left to do it alone without the help of a benefit control officer. It is a despicable practice. I sometimes ask myself why the control officers have not revolted against this procedure and forced the commission to abandon it. I urge the minister to change this situation, one which is the very opposite of the democratic process and the simple rights of an individual.


An hon. Member:: He is not here.


Jean Robert Roy: He will read about it tomorrow; I will make sure of that. It may be difficult to find a more efficient method to disqualify people from unemployment insurance benefits, but surely the nature of this procedure condemns it outright as an inhuman and unjust one. I urge the minister to quickly dispense with that sort of sordid practice. I have often thought we should have a committee of the House for the purpose of studying the consequences to individuals resulting from regulations which complement our laws. Mr. Speaker, the examples I have brought to your attention confirm the need for such a committee and I commend it to my House leader for consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion I have had to participate in debate in this House and I sincerely welcome the opportunity. My first wish is to join my fellow hon. members in expressing congratulations to you upon your election to the high office of Speaker, an office in which you conduct yourself so ably, with dignity and a great sense of humour. My congratulations and best wishes are also extended to the Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), on his elevation to that high post. At this time,

February 27, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Wise
Mr. Speaker, I have a desire to recognize the abilities of two other gentlemen among us, Mr. A. Fraser for his sincere personal interest, and Mr. J. Gordon Dubroy for his keen expertise.
I realize that it is customary for one in my position to spend some time setting forth some of the great virtues of the riding. Realizing that other members wish to speak in this debate, I will not linger in this area at any great length except to inform the House that the riding of Elgin is one that is steeped in some of the most interesting history of our great nation. Elgin, like many other ridings, is a mixture of urban and rural communities. Its industries range in size from a few employees to the giant Ford Company of Canada assembly plant at Talbotville employing between 3,000 and 4,000 people.
A great number of these industries are American-owned and they are excellent corporate citizens. I make that statement without any hesitation, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, any move to restrain or restrict American investment by this or any government would have extremely adverse effects upon the economy of an employment in my riding. Its agriculture is diversified, involving both dairy and beef cattle production. I might say that the Elgin herds possess some of the finest and highest producing cattle that can be found across this country. Food and vegetable growing is very common. We have cash crop production including corn, wheat and beans of many varieties. These are only some of our products.
It is my wish to point out that the single, most valuable crop grown in Elgin is flue-cured tobacco. Its production from Elgin growers alone recently brought in $35 million. When we consider that over $24 million goes for provincial and federal income taxes, and over $551 million for excise tax and duty, one can clearly appreciate the input of the flue-cured tobacco growers and the tobacco industry in our over-all economy. I would be remiss if at a time when I am mentioning some of the aspects of Elgin agriculture I did not draw the attention of hon. members to the world championship awards which were received by my constituents for soybean and tobacco production.
I was pleased to read in the government's estimates that significant amounts of money were granted for the construction of a new post office in the town of Aylmer, and that moneys will be expended on the Lake Erie Harbour of Port Stanley. In a recent conversation which I had with officials of the Department of Public Works regarding damage to the pier at Port Bruce, I was informed that the situation had been investigated, a report was being prepared and the port facilities would be repaired.
I regret that the government continues to ignore the deteriorating harbour, port facilities and property at Port Burwell. I am convinced that the neglect of Port Burwell is clearly a mistake. I make these remarks without fear because I want to draw to the attention of the government the fact that this harbour is within walking distance of the site of the new Dofasco steel plant and hundreds of acres of land have already been purchased for that purpose.
I want to be fair, and without taking too much of hon. members' time I should like to acknowledge with satisfac-

tion those budget items that were welcomed by Canadians across the country. However, the minister and his colleagues can hardly take credit for them because they were measures we had recommended and they had been severely ridiculed by hon. members opposite in many instances and on many occasions.
For many years I have been of the opinion that income tax and tariff legislation governing farmers, farmlands, agricultural products, marketing rights and quotas have been grossly unfair. After studying some of the new proposals relative to these matters, I am convinced of their unfairness. If the reaction I have received is typical of producers across Canada-and I am positive that it is- then this government should well realize its shortcomings in this area. Mr. Speaker, this is another prime example of the lack of understanding, the lack of recognition or the absolute refusal to recognize conditions as they really are. It points to the huge, untravelled distance between those in the ivory towers and those at the grass roots level of this country.
All Canadians have a vital stake in the employment and income-generating potential of the agricultural industry. You will be interested to know that 20 per cent of the gross value of our manufactured goods is supplied by the agricultural industry; 33 per cent of the freight moving through the St. Lawrence Seaway and 20 per cent of the goods moved by our railways are of agricultural origin. How has agriculture performed over the past few years? It is a known fact that the number of farm operators has rapidly declined and their average age has rapidly increased. These are two serious and drastic trends that are still continuing, but they seem to be of little or no concern to this government.
During recent years the output per agricultural worker has increased 100 per cent as compared to 50 per cent for his counterpart, the industrial worker. The consumer has been the major beneficiary of these developments. Today Canadians spend less of their pay on food than ever before, about 19 per cent of the family budget as compared to 28 per cent in France, 24 per cent in the United Kingdom and 37 per cent in Italy. In fact, we Canadians require less of our pay cheques for food than people anywhere except in the United States.
There are two questions that I would like to pose to Canadians in other walks of life. First, what would you do if you had put in the same number of hours of work in your job, or the same effort into your business, but your sales or output dropped by 50 per cent in that year? Second, what would your reaction be if your wages, or prices for products, declined to 50 per cent of those in the previous year? Such things happen to large groups of farmers and are very commonplace in the agricultural industry.
Some of the principal reasons for these problems are poor production incentives, inadequate tariff protection, lack of sufficient export sales promotion and subsidies, and high support prices paid to producers in our traditional markets outside Canada. An example is the fact that in France, barley is subsidized for the export market at $1.23 a bushel more than the Canadian farmer receives for his barley. The average expenditure in agricultural subsidies in Canada per person in 1968 was $350, com-
February 27, 1973

pared to $1,287 in the United States, $1,059 in the United Kingdom and $1,502 in Switzerland. I mention these examples because there is a widening gulf of misunderstanding between farmers and the rest of the economy about the reason and need for assistance to Canadian agriculture.
It is only through an expansive, outward looking agricultural and food policy that the farm sector can ensure that its contribution to the general economy will continue. We need in this budget an energetic and positive program of incentives for our business and industry, both large and small, a program with guidelines which would ensure that public moneys earmarked for the purpose of improving employment truly end up in the creation of more jobs. Too often in the past moneys have ended up in modernization, automation and plant transfers, resulting in even fewer jobs than before.
No mention was made in the budget of lowering the age at which our senior citizens receive their pensions. I am of the opinion that serious consideration should have been given to such a course of action. It is most regrettable that the government has refused to remove the sales tax on building materials. The elimination of this tax would encourage construction and, speaking in human terms, I would remind the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) that construction creates jobs. A glance at the present national unemployment figure in this country would indicate that jobs are still high on the priority list, at least they are on this side of the House.
There are numerous other areas of concern that I would have liked to talk about at length tonight, but because of the limited time available I will be unable to do so. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have submitted these words with sincerity and genuine concern, and will continue to do so on future occasions for as long as I have the good fortune and the honour to represent in the House of Commons the great people of Elgin.


Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: Mr. Speaker, I take this occasion to make a few comments on the budget.
It is rather interesting, Mr. Speaker, to listen to a series of speeches on a budget which, according to some, seems to be the solution to all our problems and, according to others, seems to be the worst budget ever introduced and would have no beneficial effect.
I should like to express in an unbiased manner, as I always attempt to do, very honest opinions in respect of this budget. It is certainly not as great and not as good as some hon. members would have us believe, though it is not as bad as some other hon. members, in view of their opinions, tried to make us believe.
The outstanding points and objectives of this budget are of course to lower the unemployment rate and stimulate more rapid growth, to reduce inflationary pressures, also, and deaden the effects of past inflation, to increase actual income and to assure elderly Canadians or a more equitable share of the country's prosperity, and, lastly, to work towards a better balanced economic development of all regions of Canada.
The Budget-Mr. La Salle
How far will this budget allow us to carry out all of these objectives. I am not as optimistic as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), who believes and claims that these measures will create 300,000 jobs. In any case, I hope that whoever estimated that 300,000 jobs could be created are not the same people who dreamt up the 100,000 jobs that the government of Quebec promised us a few years back, or the other 100,000 jobs that the building of an airport at Saint-Scholastique was guaranteed to provide. We know very well how wrong those forecasts were, and I trust, Mr. Speaker, that those responsible for the estimates in this budget are not the same people.
Taken as a whole, of course, the budget is not as bad as some would have us believe. The budget is definitely the product of a minority government. That is nothing new, and I have said several times before that a minority government could achieve in six months what a majority government has failed to achieve or could not achieve in four years. We see the government having to do more and better, when forced to act. In my opinion, the opposition should join forces to force the government to fulfil the people's hopes and needs.
The budget now under consideration is much more worthwhile than those of past years and I must say objectively that I will support it in spite of its deficiencies as most measures are generally deficient in one way or another. It remains nevertheless that this budget on the whole has some merit and that in my opinion it is preferable to support it rather than to reject it.
I could also dwell on some commitments in this budget concerning a basic exemption for taxpayers which will increase from $1,500 to $1,600 and an exemption for a married couple which will augment from $2,850 to $3,000. Moreover, the basic federal income tax will be reduced by 5 per cent and the personal income tax rate will be escalated from 1974. We are pleased also with the $18 monthly increase in old age security pensions.
I regret to see that the government has not seriously considered giving the old age security pension to people who are 60. We could at least have given it progressively over a period of 5 years, as was the case when the eligibility age was brought down from 70 to 65; I think we could also have thought of giving the old age security pension to the spouse of the beneficiary, even if he or she is not yet 65.
I think it is important to remind hon. members and the minister in particular of the problem that arises for an old couple, when one is not yet 65 and could get $170, when we know perfectly that a couple both aged 65 will be able to get $325 a month.
I think it will be important for all hon. members, when new bills issued from this budget will be brought in to propose the necessary amendments, and if we failed to legislate in order to control unemployment, I think I would not hesitate to remind them of the importance of bringing in amendments designed to force the government to give the old age security pension at 60, even if it is done progressively over a period of 5 years, if it appeared impossible for the government to do it quicker. I think that if we seriously want to find a solution to the problem of unemployment, this kind of measure would be quite right.

February 27, 1973
The Budget-Mr. La Salle
I recognize that the government made a tremendous effort to reduce unemployment by injecting new credits into the economy but after five years we realize not only that the rate of unemployment has not diminished but that it even has a tendency to grow. Now, I think it is the duty, the government to improve the social climate: what better way of doing it than by giving holidays to people who have reached an age when they deserve them? Of course, some will tell me that it will be extremely costly for the government to give the old age security pension as early as at 60.
I should like to put this question to the Minister of Finance: How much does it cost to provide for 500,000 to
600,000	unemployed, for instance? If the required calculations were made to grant the old age security pension as early as at 60 years of age, on an optional basis for some months and shortly after on a compulsory basis, we would finally achieve a truly acceptable social policy. Of course, people would become unemployed at 60, but they would be happy unemployed, thanks to a decent pension, contrary to our 20-year old unemployed who are rather inclined to be revolutionary. To my mind, the government always errs in a masterly manner when it applies itself to increasing the benefits and allowances of those who make up a generation we are in the process of spoiling.
In my opinion, it rests with the Opposition members, especially under the present circumstances, owing to the membership of the House, to suggest amendments to the bills which will be referred to us. The official opposition should make a point of introducing constructive measures and I would like to see the New Democratic Party take position on such proposals. Up to now, I somewhat regret the lack of aggressiveness of the New Democratic Party which is too readily approving the budget.
Once again, I admit as many others do that it contains some good provisions; moreover, on the whole, I will support the passage of the budget, because it contains a minimum of good provisions.
I heard this afternoon a member of the New Democratic Party say that if he had been a government member, he would have done better. But is there anything preventing the New Democratic Party from proposing positive amendments? The Progressive Conservative party has proposed an amendment, the Social Credit party has proposed a sub-amendment, but the New Democratic party has proposed no amendment. We could have made some evaluation of an amendment, voting for or against it.
I believe it important for the opposition parties not to subject The New Democratic party to difficulties, but to allow it to support a measure that would improve the lot of our older citizens. We do know that that party has always paid much attention to the older or the poorer citizens, and I believe that it would be very interesting to know about the amendments and suggestions that could be introduced in this House inviting the New Democratic party, as all the other opposition parties, to force the government to act, because the Canadian people know very well that the opposition is in a position to do so. No doubt the government will not allow itself to be defeated on a positive and worthwhile measure. We all know that 
the government is obliged to come to some arrangements and that it also pays heed to positive solutions or suggestions. Therefore, I consider it my duty to invite the opposition parties to discharge their primary responsibilities, forcing the government to improve the legislation placed before us.
I do not hesitate to say that the $20 increase in old-age security payments is welcome by those who can get it, but, there again, I believe that we would have benefited from lowering the eligibility age in order to make some room for the unemployed and for the young people waiting openings on the labour market.
For instance, I would have been happy if this budget had provided some moneys for amateur sports. I know that the Speech from the Throne says that amateur sports could eventually obtain some additional credits. When this government talks about youth's motivation toward physical fitness, I wonder to what point it is serious. A year and a half ago, I suggested to the Minister to grant some very special funds enabling municipalities to acquire the basic tools. But what are those basic tools? Whether one is talking about physical fitness, financial participation, direct or indirect, to the 1976 Olympic Games, youths must still be offered training facilities. But basic tools in municipalities mean arenas, playgrounds, lighting systems, public swimming pools, etc. How can municipalities acquire these? If they were acquired, I am convinced that volunteerism would follow, that interested people would offer to participate, and that at last we would set up facilities so that youths may acquire that physical fitness which is absolutely required.
I thought that the federal government was in a position to bring in a tripartite policy at the financial level. There should be no cheating, of course. The municipalities could ask the province to supply 25 p. cent, contribute themselves 25 p. cent and let the federal government pay the other half of the expenses incurred for the project.
In that way, we would not infringe upon the provincial jurisdictions and the fact that the municipality would be compelled to make a request to its province would enable the latter to adjust its planning at leisure. So, if the province accepts to pay 25 p. cent of the cost of an arena or of a public swimming pool, the federal government would pay 50 p. cent of the expenditures, would respect at the same time the provincial jurisdiction, would leave the province free to monitor the planning, the municipality would show its interest and good will by paying 25 p. cent of the cost of the project. I think this would be a way to prove that the federal government is willing to help youth in need of physical training.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, in 1789 social needs were vital in France and Marie Antoinette responded to the cries of the French people for bread with, "Let them eat cake." In 1973 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) meets the cries for employment, decent housing and the alleviation of poverty in Canada with, "Let them eat candy and drink pop". When we examine this budget closely, we see it for what it really is, a tale full of
February 27, 1973

sound and fury, signifying nothing. It purports to improve the lot of Canadians on fixed incomes by raising the old age pension by what appears to be $18 a month; in reality is a mere $15 per month.
We in the New Democratic Party find the increase a half-hearted response to the needs of our people who exist on fixed incomes. Even though it is a crumb, we will accept it. What were the Tories prepared to offer the pensioner? During the October election campaign that party was prepared to raise the basic old age pension to $90 a month. Since the election they have suddenly discovered the old age pensioners and are now calling for a greater increase than the government has proposed. It only serves to show that the Tories are just as opportunistic as the Liberals. But we must not forget that these two corporate parties have now entered a new era of disincentives for the poor and incentives for their corporate friends and allies. After all, the Liberals and the Conservatives would not want over one million Canadians, 65 years old and over, becoming lazy with large pension cheques.
Another crumb is in the area of personal taxes, where the government broke with the traditional concept of across the board tax cuts. The budget proposes a minimum $100 cut in tax. We accept this crumb also. The indexing system proposed is a small step in the right direction-another crumb, and we accept it. Apart from these meagre offerings forced out of this government, the rest of the budget does not deal seriously with unemployment and the urgent social needs of the Canadian people. On the contrary, the selective federal sales tax cuts might very well find their collective way into corporate pockets. We warn the government that the day will come when the people of Canada will want to eat at the table and will not be content with crumbs. They will want to share in the meal. Then these two old-line parties can exist side by side as the corporate concubines they really are.
The list of items on which the federal sales tax has been lifted indicates, first of all, that the government is not interested in the production and availability of necessary goods such as building materials and adult clothing. These members to my right, Mr. Speaker, would suggest that the 11 per cent federal sales tax on building materials be dropped. I should like to ask them why they would not use their influence with the premier of the province of Ontario to get that government to drop the 5 per cent sales tax on building materials, if they are so interested in stimulating the building market.
Stimulation of the consumer market, as I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, would certainly have served to create employment opportunities so vital to the nation's economy today. By what logic is the tax on candy and pop removed, and not the tax on building materials? Even if the saving is passed on to the consumer, how does the Minister of Finance justify stimulating consumerism in a non-essential area? I grant that the selective federal sales tax on various items has been reduced, but what assurance have we that these decreases will result in savings to the Canadian people? The government has refused to implement any kind of monitoring system to ensure that the Canadian people get the benefit of these sales tax cuts. The minister seems to have blind faith that the market-
25789-37i
The Budget-Mr. Demers
place of the free enterprise system will lower prices to the Canadian people. Alas for such faith! We know from past experiences that when the federal sales tax on prescription drugs was dropped by the last minority government- that was another crumb-the people never received the benefit. So why do we think we are going to receive benefits now?
If the minister is interested in dealing with one of Canada's most serious problems, why not provide a tax rebate to individuals who build their own homes or have their homes built for them? It seems to me that two problems would have been attacked by such a tax incentive, namely, unemployment and inflation. While the budget indicates the extent to which the Liberals are willing to tinker with the economy, it also exposes their opportunism and inability to effectively redirect the human, financial and natural resources of our country so that poverty may be eliminated and a better quality of life may emerge for the Canadian people as a whole.


Mr. Yves Demers (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on Monday, February 19, 1973, is considered by the vast majority of financial analysts as a masterpiece.
Its main objective is to check unemployment. But its strength, and this is what most surprises those financial analysts, lies in the fact that in addition to checking unemployment the budget also considerably dampens the effects of inflation.
Normally, in our North American economic context, when unemployment goes down, inflation goes up. By decreasing inflation, one creates more unemployment.
By reducing income tax, not only in the lower income brackets but also in the average income levels, the budget gives Canadians more purchasing power. Automatically our industries will have to produce more; they will therefore require more labour.
What I admire most in this budget is that the average-income group will also benefit from tax reductions. We often think about the Canadian middle class. Unfortunately, every time this happens, it is for the purpose of paying more taxes, indirect taxes as well as municipal and school taxes.
I even know about administrators who are looking for new ways of increasing taxes in future. This middle class which is made up of workers form the greater part of Duvernay. They are people who contribute heavily to all levels of the Canadian economy.
Finally in this budget the minister of Finance has shown that this middle class is also representing the overtaxed silent majority, to such an extent that many are discouraged in seeing such a large share of their working hours wasted on taxes of all kinds.
It must be remembered that, basically, our economy leans on the middle class which must be encouraged as best we can. It is due to these people that our gross national product is so high and that we are in a position to improve our social assistance such as old age security

February 27, 1973
Adjournment Debate
pensions, unemployment insurance benefits, social welfare benefits, etc.
I said earlier this budget is intended to stop inflation to some extent.
In fact, by reducing the sales tax on several products, especially on children's clothing and shoes of all kinds for young people, there results an appreciable reduction of the family cost of living.
Indeed, I should have preferred to see an increase in family allowances, but the elimination of the sales tax is equivalent to an indirect increase of those allowances.
The budget provides for the Canadian taxpayer tax cuts varying from $100 to $500 a year. This reduction, which increases purchasing power, will also contribute somewhat to bringing down salary increases, a primary cause of inflation in this country.
A decrease in tax rates equivalent every year to the percentage of inflation has also been provided, a provision that will, I believe, most effectively curb the inflationary pressure. I shall clarify my statement.
In the late 50's, a construction worker earned an average of $100 a week. Now, hourly rates have gone slightly over $5 an hour for a 40-hour week, bringing present salaries slightly over $200 a week. Thus, in 14 years, salaries of those workers have doubled, from $5,200 to $10,400 a year. After payment on taxes on a salary of $5,200, a married, childless workers was left with a purchasing power of $4,300. Today, with a salary of $10,400, the purchasing power in the same case is only $8,100. Salaries have therefore doubled whereas taxes, because of increased rates, have gone $500 over double their amount.
These calculations therefore show that the progressive tax rate has substantially contributed to inflation during the past decade and that during the past 13 or 14 years the increase in tax rates accounted for some 20 per cent of inflation in Canada.
In order to curb this effect, there will be an indexing of personal income taxes as of January 1, 1974, in order to halt the erosion of purchasing power.
I should also like to point out another cause of inflation, the collective agreements which, over the past ten years-
May I call it 10 o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, on January 22 I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) if he could tell the House why base Gagetown

in New Brunswick was omitted from the 40 bases sharing the $13.3 million allotted for federal labour intensive projects. I have referred previously to my concern about the increasing rate of unemployment in New Brunswick and in particular to the alarming rate of increase in my own constituency, York-Sunbury. The largest employer of unskilled and semi-skilled labour in New Brunswick is Canada's largest military training establishment, base Gagetown.
I believe that several hundred thousand dollars was requested by the authorities at base Gagetown under the winter works program to carry out much needed maintenance on defence properties, including accommodation occupied by military personnel and their dependants. I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence why, with such a large rate of unemployment in that particular area and the obvious wastefulness of allowing valuable properties to continue depreciating, he would select base Gagetown as one of the few military stations to receive absolutely no grant from his allotment of $13.3 million.
As part of the program of work that was proposed from base Gagetown involved a large portion of labour-intensive work on armouries and other defence properties throughout New Brunswick, it would seem that other hard-hit communities in my province have also been deprived of this opportunity for employment, opportunities that have been given to all other provinces except Alberta, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
I ask the minister to reconsider what appears to me and to the people of my constituency to be a case of unfair discrimination in the allocation of funds placed at his disposal. Urgently needed work has to be done at base Gagetown and a large number of men, most of them heads of families, are willing and able to do it.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, it was perhaps incorrect to direct this question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) because he does not have total discretion in the matter. If the hon. member will recollect, during the discussion on the $350 million winter works program an allocation of this sum of money was made across the country by provinces in relation to population, the rate of unemployment and the degree of seasonality of unemployment. It was hoped there would ensue a fair distribution of this money.
At the same time, the government set aside-this was subsequently approved in the supplementary estimates- the sum of $60 million in a Treasury Board vote for direct employment through the federal government for federal labour-intensive programs. The moneys were allocated by provinces in exactly the same way, using the same criteria as the federal winter works program, the larger program. Departments were then invited to submit proposals for work showing the cost, the type of project and the number of man-hours, from which it was possible to grade them in order of number of people employed per dollar expended or number of dollars required to secure one man-month of employment. The allocation of funds was made by provinces in accordance with the formula suggested by the provinces in respect of the $60 million and in relation
February 27, 1973

to those projects which would produce the greatest number of man-months per dollar expended.
In the case of the camp Gagetown projects, the number of man-months employed for the given number of dollars expended tended to be higher than others. For this reason, Gagetown was not selected. I sympathize with the hon. member because there is unemployment there, but the money could not usefully be used; it could more profitably and more urgently be employed elsewhere.


SOCIAL SECURITY-RETIRED PUBLIC SERVANTS, ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL AND RCMP PENSIONS-STATUS OF CONSIDERATION OF RAISING OR REMOVING CEILING ON ESCALATION
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, January 24, as recorded at page 610 of Hansard, I put this question to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury):
In view of the assurance given by the minister toward the end of the previous session that consideration would be given to raising or removing the 2 per cent ceiling on the escalation of pensions of retired public servants and also retired armed forces and RCMP personnel, can the minister say what is now the status of that consideration?
The President of the Treasury Board replied:
Mr. Speaker, in view of the genesis of the 2 per cent figure in the Superannuation Act, namely, its relationship to the Canada Pension Plan, perhaps these two matters could be looked at together.
I then asked a supplementary question which raised another issue in the same field. As the President of the Treasury Board knows, I am concerned about both issues. The second issue was that of the position of retired armed forces and RCMP personnel who are under 60 years of age and have to wait until that point before the escalation of their pensions begins. As the President of the Treasury Board knows, it has been my argument for some time, particularly since certain changes were made regarding early retirement, that such personnel should not have to wait until age 60 to start drawing their escalation.
However, let me concentrate this evening on the removal of the 2 per cent ceiling on escalation of the pensions we are speaking about tonight. As the minister knows, the first escalation of pensions was on the old age pension, and it was subject to a 2 per cent ceiling. But we make progress, even when the Liberals are in power, and we have now got to the point where old age and certain other pensions are escalated by the actual percentage rise in the cost of living. Indeed, we have gone a step further: there is now on the table of the House a report from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs which recommends that war disability pensions be escalated by an even more beneficial factor, namely, the wage index, and I emphasize the fact that that is higher than the cost of living index. That, in my book, is a wonderful report and a tremendous recommendation, and we shall get to it later in this session.
In light of the progress that is being made, I think it is unfair to retain for retired public servants and retired members of the RCMP and armed forces the 2 per cent ceiling, so that no matter by how much the cost of living goes up in a year their pensions cannot go up more than 2 per cent. I got back to the minister on this question again
Adjournment Debate
on Friday, February 9. I thought I made a good point, but all he did was look at me while the Speaker called order. On another occasion, namely, on February 12, I drew attention to the fact that figures which had been tabled that day showed a tremendous increase in the amount of money in the special fund out of which these escalation payments are made, to which the minister responded that this additional money had to be looked at as providing for a greater charge on the fund in later years.
Time is at a premium but I should like to argue with the minister on that point. I went back over the debate in 1970-even though I remembered it quite well-and I found no suggestion that this fund for escalating the pensions of retired public servants and others was to be put on an actuarial basis. The key sentence of the then President of the Privy Council, the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), is to be found at page 4589 of Hansard for March 10, 1970, and is as follows:
These increases will in turn be financed by additional contributions of one half of one per cent by present employees, contributions that will be matched by the government.
As the minister knows, every time we have been faced with complaints by present employees that they have to pay this one half of one per cent in order to pay for the escalation of pensions received by those who are now retired, our answer-the minister's and mine-has been that when they get to the point of retirement the working public servants of that day will pay one half of one per cent to provide for the escalation of their pensions.
I feel that there is nothing in the record to indicate that this fund is on an actuarial basis. It is on a current or pay-as-we-go basis. I contend that, partly because the fund is growing rapidly, but even more so because of what is right-namely, that it is unfair to retain this 2 per cent ceiling-early action should be taken either to raise that ceiling to a much higher figure, or to put it on the basis of the actual cost of living or remove it altogether and accept the formula recommended by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
I do not expect the minister to stand up tonight, give me the perfect answer and say, "Yes, we shall get at this tomorrow morning and bring in the legislation tomorrow afternoon." But I do urge him to activate consideration of this matter. If it requires further consultation with representatives of the staff associations, for goodness sake let us have that consultation right away. 1 ask the minister not to wait until something is done about the Canada Pension Plan, because that involves federal-provincial relations and the minister knows how long that can take. In the meantime, it is only fair and just for retired public servants, and retired armed forces and RCMP personnel that their pensions should be accelerated every year by at least the rise in the cost of living.
Therefore I urge that steps be activated now so we can get rid of that 2 per cent ceiling, and I hope while he is at it the minister will take steps to get rid of the unfairness in respect of retired armed forces and RCMP personnel who are under age 60.

February 27, 1973
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has now expired.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Under the rules, Mr. Speaker, I believe I have only three minutes, so I will have to compress my remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You could say yes in a few seconds.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The first benefits to which the hon. gentleman refers apply not only to public service superannuation annuitants, to members of the armed forces and the RCMP, but also to those receiving benefits under the RCMP Pension Continuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, so we are dealing with a much larger group than merely a certain selection of public servants.
It was quite clear in 1970 when this act was passed, as the hon. gentleman pointed out, that the cost of these additional benefits and the escalation was to be financed by employer contributions by the government and by employees under these various statutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Present
employees.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, present employees. Reference has been made to the desirability, and with this I heartily agree, of escalation starting at the time of retirement, but because the dates of retirement vary under each of these different acts, given a common contribution, and a common fund, a common age was sought, and 60 appeared to be the most appropriate to cover the largest number of people.
It is possible for members of the armed forces to retire on full pension at a considerably earlier age than is possible for public servants. It is possible for Members of Parliament to retire on pension at a considerably earlier age than age 60 provided for in respect of most public servants. As a result, age 60 was thought to be a common ground in view of the fact they were all drawing from a common pool of contributions on a common basis.
There are obvious difficulties. Present public servants are making contributions to this common fund to be used to finance, not only the pensions of public service annuitants but also pensions of armed forces personnel who start drawing their pensions very much earlier and, perhaps even more interestingly, the pensions of Members of Parliament who may theoretically retire at age 37 or 38.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That ought to be amended.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: But that is the way it currently reads.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the President of the Treasury Board, but his allotted time has expired.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-JERICHO LAND, VANCOUVER- INQUIRY AS TO CALLING OF TENDERS CONCERNING DISPOSAL
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, on January 26 I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) a question concerning a property commonly known as the remaining 38 acres of Jericho defence land in the city of Vancouver lying north of Fourth Avenue. My question asked whether the government was making plans to sell this land. The minister's answer was that his predecessor indicated that if the city wished to reopen negotiations, because there was already an agreement with the city of Vancouver, the city could do so. He seemed puzzled that I should think they were going to sell this land, although the terms of the agreement, as I will show in a minute, with the city of Vancouver provided that the government could sell it.
There have been many briefs, hearings and discussions in respect of this land. I think it would be worth while to run through the history in respect of this land. Prior to World War II the land was used for recreational purposes by the city of Vancouver as a golf course and beach land. During the war, in 1942, the Department of National Defence acquired the use of the land primarily by lease and the citizens of Vancouver were willing to give up their recreational land as part of the war effort, particularly since the government assured them it would be returned after the war.
In 1947, instead of having the land returned, it was purchased by the federal government. There were several parcels, but they ended up with a total package of 172 acres. Then followed 20 years of discussions, meetings and letters. During the 1968 election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) landed on the land by helicopter for an election rally. He assured the voters or perhaps he mislead them-but in any event they received the impression they were not to worry about the Jericho land and that the government would certainly be returning it to the citizens of Vancouver.
In 1969, the agreement with the city was entered into which provides that 72 of the 172 acres would come to the citizens for park-land and 38 acres would be sold by the federal government in order to recover the cost of relocating the military installation. The agreement fails to mention, and the government certainly has not often mentioned it recently, that they still retained 62 acres south of Fourth Avenue. That is the situation today.
In 1971, certain groups of concerned citizens who realized this was not the best use of land in the city of Vancouver formed what is known as the Jericho Parks Committee. The membership is made up of representatives of 17 citizens' groups from the whole of the lower mainland of British Columbia. I was involved with this group during 1972. I took the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) there. It was agreed that a Conservative government certainly would return the land to the citizens of Vancouver for park use for the price of $1. In May, 1972, Mr. Benson, the then minister of national defence, said that the government would certainly part with the 38 acres, but wanted money for it. My Liberal opponent during the election campaign said he was cer-
February 27, 1973

tain Vancouver would get the land back. We will come to the matter of price in a moment.
Today the Vancouver paper carries a report that the parks board chairman has been to Ottawa and has spoken to officials here, I assume in the Department of National Defence, and that he finds the government now is asking questions such as, how does the city propose to use the land? I also find that he took back the date of March 6 when a final decision is expected by the government. But I am in Ottawa and I do not know what goes on in our area except by reading the papers.
Let us talk about price. In 1965, when the government first decided it would dispose of the Jericho lands, the price talked about was $12 million. Later, when we were about to have an election, the price being talked about by the government was $41 million. In this day of inflation that is wonderful. That was for 110 acres, the whole of the section north of Fourth Avenue. By October, 1972, we were down, according to my Liberal opponent, to a price of about $500,000.
Let us talk about the moving cost. Certainly the government had to move the installation, but that was its choice. It certainly is not reasonable to have the citizens of Vancouver paying for an inevitable move that the government chose to make. Our Conservative defence critic told me that after his research he found that some two dozen similar cases existed in Canada and in most instances the investment by the government had been written off in the year of purchase.
The government still has the 62 acres on the south side of Fourth Avenue about which I have spoken. The latest blow, I believe, to the citizens of Vancouver happened two weeks before the election when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) announced in Toronto that the federal government would give a gift of 86 acres of farm land to the citizens of Toronto at a cost of $30 million. The people of Vancouver wondered if they were still in Canada. Vancouver's reward for its contribution to the war effort in giving up the use of its land is to end up fighting the federal government in order to get it back. The government has no right to be there, and they make
Adjournment Debate
much of not charging us any taxes during the time they were there and making grants in lieu. We have been deprived of the use of our land for all these years, and we think we should be charging the government for the loss of its use.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I am not in the middle of an election campaign; I am just delivering an official answer for the Department of National Defence.
The hon. member's representation on behalf of his constituency of Vancouver Quadra and the city of Vancouver is one that he has been most assiduous in pursuing. I note that on January 12 he placed a private member's notice of motion on the order paper concerning this subject. This was done following a very detailed reply by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) in a letter to the hon. member dated January 3, 1973. At that time the hon. member was advised that there are no immediate plans to dispose of the 38-acre development area although such disposal is part of the understanding with the city of Vancouver.
In the same letter the minister enclosed a detailed departmental position paper on the whole subject of the Jericho beach lands. This was done to provide the member with the whole background of the subject, as there has obviously been much local misinterpretation of this issue. Further, on January 26 the minister, in response to a question in the House from the hon. member, as recorded at page 685 of Haiisard, confirmed the departmental position.
Basically, the department made an agreement with the city of Vancouver whereby 78 acres of waterfront land at Jericho beach was turned over to the city of Vancouver for $1. The remaining property, some 38 acres, was to be sold by the department. This agreement is still in effect. The basic departmental position is that if the city of Vancouver wishes to reopen this agreement, the minister is prepared to listen to any official representations that may be made.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

Wednesday. February 28, 1973