1973-02-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions.
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr.. Speaker, there is, as is known, a motion standing in my name to concur in the first report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I would not desire to proceed with it today but it is urgent. Without cutting into the time of the House available for public business, I wonder whether I could put forward the suggestion that the House consider, by consent, dealing with this motion without debate so the House may have an opportunity to express its view on the need to enter into negotiations with the Yukon Native Brotherhood as soon as possible.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would be more than happy and eager to concur in the suggestion of the hon. member that the motion be put and carried without debate.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side are agreeable to the proposal. We agree with the hon. member who, in explanation of seeking concurrence in the motion, said that the negotiating committee should begin its work as soon as possible. It may not be possible to meet the target outlined, but subject to that reservation we have no objection to this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it my understanding from the discussions that have taken place that reference has been made to a motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Skeena?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: that the first report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House Friday, February 16, 1973, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-152, to amend the Canada Evidence Act.


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


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motions:
February 23, 1972-The President of the Privy Council:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization be authorized to consider the Standing Orders of the House and procedure in both the House and its committees with special regard to all the matters that Mr. Speaker suggested during the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth parliaments that may require the consideration of the said committee, and to report to the House its views on any facets thereof that may require reform and to recommend what manner of reform may be required;
And that the committee be authorized to travel outside of Canada during consideration of the aforementioned subject.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Gleave: From January 1 to November 30, 1972, did Canada import butter and, if so (a) from what countries (b) in what quantities (c) at what price (d) what was the duty paid on the butter (e) which agency was responsible for importing the butter (f) at what price was the butter sold on the Canadian market?


Hon. Alcistair Gillespie (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: In so far as Statistics Canada is concerned: (a) (b) and (c) Data for the month of November, 1972 is not yet available The stable below gives data on butter

February 26, 1973
Order Paper Questions
imported into Canada for the period January 1, 1972 to October 31. 1972.
(a) Country (b) Quantity Butter
Imported from:	Imported
(c) Value of Quantity Imported
Average Price per pound
Australia

13,400 lbs 8,262,300 lbs

$1.94/lb.<2>
.52/lb.

8,275,000	lbs $4,345,000.(u	,53/lb.
<u Total does not coincide with sum due to rounding. m Unique packaging and type of butter for specialized use.
(d) Twelve cents per pound duty on butter imported from the United States; (e) Canadian Dairy Commission; (f) The Canadian Dairy Commission sold the butter at 68 cents per pound.
INFORMATION CANADA-PUBLICITY AND/OR INFORMATION CONTRACTS


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by Information Canada on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms or individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	What contracts for publicity and/or information were awarded in the current fiscal year, what are the names and addresses of contractees, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: 
Mr. Laprise: Did the Canadian government grant any subsidies to La Compa-gnie Maritime des Chargeurs Reunis and to La Societe Navale Chargeurs Delmas-Vieljeux and, If so, what was the amount granted to each?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: No.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS-USE OF ANIK SATELLITE IN RIMOUSKI AREA
Mr. Allard: Is it the intention of the government to use the Anik Satellite to improve telecommunications reception in the Rimouski area?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: The local telephone service in Rimouski is provided by the Quebec-Telephone Company. The quality of the service locally provided by Quebec-Telephone will in no way be affected by the orbiting of the Anik satellite, except perhaps, that it will be easier and quicker for Quebec-Telephone subscribers to complete a telephone call with points located, say, in Western Canada. As a matter of fact, as the Trans-Canada Telephone System has already reserved two of Anik's channels, the routing of telephone traffic and data transmission from one end of the country to the other will generally be faster since more telephone channels will thus become available. Therefore, but in a very indirect way, it is possible to say that even if the quality of the local telephone service of Quebec-Telephone will not be improved by Anik, the telephone subscribers in Rimouski will benefit, since their calls to or from other regions will be efficiently and rapidly routed. Moreover, the advent of Anik will in no way affect the
February 26, 1973

quality of the diversity of the radio or television signal routed by the Quebec-Telephone network.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION SERVICES
Mr. Cossitt: Is it the intention of the government to (a) take measures to improve the efficiency of services to claimants by the Unemployment Insurance Commission office in Kingston, Ontario (b) take steps to improve the public relations of the office (c) establish Zenith phone service so that claimants served by the office can telephone from their places of residence toll free?


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister of Manpower and Immigration: (a) The Unemployment Insurance Commission Office in Kingston has already improved the efficiency of its services to claimants by: (i) providing in-person claims taking facilities; (ii) Increasing the number of its insurance officers, examiners and inquiries clerks, (b) the public relations program in the Kingston Office is being strengthened by the addition to the staff of a full-time Public Liaison Officer, (c) Zenith phone service is not being considered at this time because of the availability of Canada Manpower Centres in Brockville, Picton, Gana-noque, Napanee and Trenton with direct telephone lines to the Kingston District Office.


POST OFFICE, STOUFFVILLE, ONTARIO
Mr. Stevens: 1.	Has the government any immediate plans to build a new post office in Stouffville, Ontario and, if so (a) do they now own the site on which they plan to build the post office (b) on what date does the government intend to call tenders if they have not already done so (c) on what date do they anticipate the post office will be completed (d) what do they plan to do with the present post office facility?
2.	If the government does not plan to build the post office does it plan to rent a suitable building and, if so (a) have rental arrangements been completed (b) what is the name of the lessor (c) on what date do they anticipate the post office will be ready for occupancy?
3.	Does the government plan to commence door to door mail carrier service in Stouffville and, if so, on what date and, if not for what reason?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Department of Public Works and the Post Office Department as follows:
1.	Yes. (a) The new site is not yet owned by the Crown and
Order Paper Questions
has still to be selected and acquired, (b) Tentative plans are for May 15, 1973. (c) February, 1974. (d) No plans at present.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not at this time, because the basic requirement of at least 2,000 potential points of call concentrated in a well developed area has not yet been reached.


RELOCATION OF RAILWAY PROJECTS
Mr. Hueglin: 1.	Have any relocation of railway projects been funded in whole or in part in the years 1970,1971,1972 and, if so (a) where did these projects take place (b) what was the cost of each one (c) what was the federal contribution to each one?
2.	What is the maximum federal contribution for these projects under existing legislation?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1. The
following railway relocation projects have been approved since 1970: Brandon, Manitoba. Relocation of transfer track approved by Order No. R-11405 dated April 6, 1971. The actual cost of the project was $82,484.65 and $65,987.72 was paid from the Railway Grade Crossing Fund; Woodstock, Ontario. Removal of CNR's Hickson Spur was approved by Order No. R-13076 dated November 18, 1971. The estimated cost of this project is $114,000 and a commitment of $48,000 was authorized from the Railway Grade Crossing Fund; Guelph, Ontario. Relocation of the CNR's Guelph City Spur was approved by Order No. R-13582 dated February 10, 1972. The estimated cost of this project is $64,500 and a commitment of $36,000 was authorized from the Railway Grade Crossing Fund.
2.	Under existing legislation the maximum contribution that could be made is 80 per cent of the actual cost or $500,000 for each project.


BEEF IMPORTS
Mr. Beaudoin: Since 1970, did Canada import beef and, if so (a) in what quantities (b) from what countries (c) at what price?


Alastair William Gillespie: Statistics Canada reports that: (a), (b) and (c). Statistics on the imports of beef for the years 1970, 1971 and eleven months of 1972 are provided in the table below. Figures are not yet available for December 1972.


BEEF, FRESH OR FROZEN
[Stage Direction]
Country
cwt	$'000 $/ewt	cwt
$'000	$/cwt
Jan-Nov. 1972
cwt	$'000	$/cwtUnited Kingdom	
6	-	-	7	-	-	-	-	-Australia	
505,978	23,159	45.77	221,911	11,984	56.55	459,415	27,746	60.39New Zealand	
733,308	31,021	42.30	611,470	28,237	46.18	469,877	26,555	56.51United States	
58,071	8,020	138.11	175,282	16,206	92.43	236,580	23,623	99.85TOTAL	
1,297,363	62,200	47.94	1,008,670	56,427	54.95	1,165,872	77,924	66.83
February 26, 1973
Order Paper Questions
[Stage Direction]
UNEMPLOYMENT-CONSTITUENCIES OF SAINT-MAURICE, CHAMPLAIN AND TROIS-RIVlfeRES-MfiTROPOLITAIN
Mr. Matte: What is the rate of unemployment in each municipality (a) of the constituency of Champlain (b) of the constituency of Saint-Mau-rice (c) of the constituency of Trois-Rivieres-Metropolitain?


Alastair William Gillespie: Statistics Canada reports that the information requested is not available. Except for selected large metropolitan areas such as Quebec City and Montreal, unemployment rates are published only for groupings of economic regions at the subprovincial level.


NEW HORIZONS PROGRAM GRANTS-CONSTITUENCY OF SAINT-HYACINTHE
Mr. Wagner: 1.	To date, how many individuals or agencies in the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe have applied for grants under the New Horizons program?
2.	What were the names and addresses of the applicants and their sponsors?
3.	Were any requests rejected and, if so (a) what were the names and addresses of the applicants (b) for what reasons?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 
IMPORTS OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	During the years 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972, how many gallons of (a) alcoholic beverages (b) wine, were imported into Canada and what was the value of each?
2.	From which country is the greater volume of (a) alcoholic beverages (b) wine imported?


Alastair William Gillespie: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. The table below shows the number of gallons and the value of (a) alcoholic beverages, and (b) wine, imported into Canada for the years 1969, 1970, 1971, and the first eleven months of 1972. Figures are not yet available for December 1972.
1969	1970	1971	Jan.-Nov. 1972(a) Alcoholic beverages	
gals.	6,950,718	7,172,577	8,897,036	8,507,492S value	$27,440,274	$28,837,089	$35,603,012	$36,918,121(b) wines	
gals.	6,799,331	6,145,225	7,596,173	6,647,011S value	$34,118,926	$32,106,718	$39,102,311	$39,980,0402.	(a) The greatest volume of alcoholic beverages imported originated in the United Kingdom, (b) The greatest volume of wine imported originated in France.


YARMOUTH WHARF
Mr. Haliburton: 1.	Has the geographical survey of the Yarmouth Wharf been completed?
2.	Has the location been finally established and, if so, in what place?
(Mr. Gillespie.)
3.	Has the design of the Wharf been completed?
4.	Have the tenders been prepared?
5.	When the tenders are called, what will be (a) the total estimated cost (b) the total estimated cost of land acquisition?
Hon. ]ean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works): 1. No.
2.	Yes at a place known locally as Lobster Rock which is south of the ferry terminal.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	(a) It is not customary to reveal the estimated cost before a contract has been awarded, (b) Total estimated cost including survey and legal costs is $38,000 on the
February 26, 1973

basis that an option to purchase has been secured from the owner at $37,500.


HIGHEST RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT 1961-62 AND 1971-72
Mr. Mather: What was the highest rate of unemployment in Canada in 1961 and 1962 and in 1971 and 1972?


Alastair William Gillespie: Statistics Canada reports that: The table below shows the months with the highest rates of unemployment in Canada for each of the years 1961, 1962, 1971 and 1972:
Seasonally Adjusted	Unadjusted
Rate Per cent.	Month	Rate Per cent.	Month1961	7.7	February	11.2	February1962	6.2	February	9.1	February1971	6.9	September	8.1	February1972	7.1	September	7.7	January


CBC-BILINGUAL POSITIONS, CBWT AND CBWFT, MANITOBA
Mr. McKenzie: How many employees of both CBC networks in Manitoba (CBWT and CBWFT) occupy positions which must satisfy the government's bilingual criteria and what are the positions in question?


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follow: Inasmuch as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a Crown Corporation, it is not subject to government criteria for bilingual positions in the Public Service. However, the CBC does have a comparable bilingualism policy whereby all areas requiring bilingual services are staffed accordingly.


ELECTION, 1972-CHOICE OF ELECTORAL OFFICERS
Mr. Godin: 1.	In what manner was the choice of electoral officers in each constituency decided upon for the general election on October 30, 1972?
2.	How many were chosen from lists provided by (a) Social Credit Party of Canada (b) NDP (c) Progressive Conservative Party (d) Liberal Party?
3.	What were the names and addresses of electoral afficers recommended by (a) Social Credit Party of Canada (b) NDP?


John Mercer Reid: 1. Returning Officers are appointed by the Governor-in-Council pursuant to section 7 of the Canada Elections Act.
2.	No political party provided lists of prospective returning officers for the general election of October 30, 1972.
3.	Not applicable.
Order Paper Questions


&quot;REOPENING OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION OFFICES
Mr. Rynard: Does the government propose to reopen the Unemployment Insurance Commission offices in those cities where they were previously closed and, if so (a) will such offices be close to or in the same building as the Canada Manpower Centres (b) what criteria, if any, will be used for the reopening of such offices?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the goal of the Unemployment Insurance Commission is to humanize its services by bringing these services closer to the client population. The matter of opening new Unemployment Insurance Commission offices or of reopening those offices that were in existence prior to 1967 is under continual study as part of this goal.
The answer to sub-question (a) is as follows: The Unemployment Insurance Commission tries to locate its services in the same premises as the Canada Manpower Centres, provided space is available, otherwise the commission tries to establish its facilities as close as possible to the Canada Manpower Centres.
In reply to sub-question (b): The criteria used for the opening of offices are mainly; the numbers and geographic distribution of the claimant population, the availability of adequate transportation and/or parking for clients and; in so far as possible, the commission is trying to use the same area boundaries that are used by Canada Manpower Centres.
Of course, administrative costs have to be taken into consideration, and the availability of properly trained personnel is another factor.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE- TRANS-ATLANTIC AIRCRAFT
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	How many aircraft, with trans-Atlantic capacity, are on the strength of the Department of National Defence?
2.	What was the cost of each?
3.	How many additions are planned to the fleet?
4.	Were cost-benefit studies of the use of civilian aircraft for this trans-Atlantic service made before the purchase?
5.	Were the major Canadian airlines asked to tender for the trans-Atlantic service?
6.	How many civilians (a) employed (b) not employed by the Department travelled on the trans-Atlantic planes in 1970, 1971 and 1972?
7.	How many of those in Part 6(b) were (a) relatives of personnel of the Department (b) relatives of Armed Forces personnel (c) other government employees?
8.	What was the cost involved in each category?
9.	What is the unit cost of transporting persons across the Atlantic on a departmental aircraft?
10.	How does the cost compare to travel on a civilian aircraft?
11.	Have any protests been received from Air Canada and/or CP Air about the transport of civilians and, if so, how many?


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1.	There are five Boeing 707/347C and 23 Hercules (C130) aircraft with a trans-Atlantic capacity. The Boeings normally carry 157 passengers whilst the Hercules are restricted to freight only on trans-Atlantic flights. As all

Order Paper Questions
following questions appear to be directed toward passenger service, information has been supplied only in regard to the Boeing 707s operated by Air Transport Command.
2.	The total program costs of the Boeing 707s were $64,900,000 exclusive of 12 per cent sales tax but including conversion compartments, $385,000 worth of spares, 400 hours of flight simulator time, and in-flight fueling conversion costs for two aircraft.
3.	None.
4.	No, the Boeing 707/347C aircraft were purchased to replace the existing fleet of Yukon aircraft and cost analyses were conducted to determine the economic feasibility of continuing to operate 12 Yukon aircraft or replacing them by a lesser number of jet transport aircraft.
5.	No.
6 and 7. Travel by both military and civilian personnel on duty, and by personnel outside the Department when travelling in the interests of the Department, is authorized as a routine procedure at appropriate administrative levels throughout National Defence, and no detailed records are kept. However, in general terms, the following passengers travelled on duty: 1970, 25,992; 1971, 30,818; 1972 (Up to November) 23,169.
Non-duty travel on leave or "space available" basis again does not distinguish between military personnel, dependants or others. The total number of passengers in this category was: 1970, 13,566; 1971, 14,425; 1972 (Up to November) 11,849. Travel by personnel outside the Department e.g. other government departments' officials, requires special authority and since April 1971 to November 1972, 2,572 non-DND personnel are known to have made trans-Atlantic flights. These figures are included in the numbers shown above.
8, 9 and 10. Many factors enter into the determination of unit costs, including the fact that in so far as military personnel and dependants are concerned on non-duty travel or "space available", the cost is considered as being part of the Pay and Benefits package. Departmental records are not maintained in a manner which would make the unit cost in each category, readily accessible.
11. In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, no protests have been received from Air Canada or Canadian Pacific Air.


PAPER PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
Mr. Fortin: Has the president of International Pulp and Sulphite made representations to any department asking that no investment be made in Canada during the next ten years in the paper production industry?


John Mercer Reid: No.

(English]


UNEMPLOYMENT AVERAGE BY PROVINCES
Mr. Horner (Crowfoot): By province, what was the average percentage of unemployment in 1970,1971 and 1972?


Alastair William Gillespie: Statistics Canada reports that: The table below gives the twelve-month average unemployment rates for the years 1970, 1971 and 1972 by province.
Year	Canada	New- found- land	Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	1970....	. 5.9	10.8	5.4	5.7	8.0	1971....	. 6.4	11.4	7.7	7.6	7.4	1972....	. 6.3	12.1	10.0	7.5	8.4	S ask at-	BritishYear	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	chewan	Alberta	Columbia1970....	. 7.9	4.3	4.5	4.3	4.3	7.61971....	. 8.2	5.2	4.9	3.7	4.7	7.01972....	. 8.3	4.8	4.5	4.3	4.4	7.6


INFORMATION CANADA ADVERTISING
Mr. Muir: Since its inception, how much money has Information Canada spent annually on television, newspaper and bill-board advertising?


John Carr Munro: 1970-71-$55,-105.98 (Including $45,435.47 for advertising publications); 1971-72-$115,052.70 (including $86,774.75 for advertising publications); 1972-73 (year to date)-$11804.42 (including $5,880.57 for advertising publications).


SEARCH AND RESCUE, BRITISH COLUMBIA COAST
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Is the Vancouver Marine Aeradio station short staffed and, if so (a) has this affected search and rescue operations on the B.C. coast (b) did it have a direct bearing on the sinking of the vessels MV Dona Anita and MV Pacrover and the fire on Cruise Ship Meteor?
2.	Was the station operating at full staff at the time of the sinking of these vessels mentioned in Part 1(b)?


Jean Marchand: 1. No. Vancouver Marine Aeradio station is not short staffed and the station is fully capable of meeting its Search and Rescue commitment at all times. The staffing of Vancouver Marine Aeradio had no bearing on the sinking of the MV Dona Anita and MV Pacrover or the fire on the Cruise Ship Meteor.
2. Yes. Vancouver Marine Aeradio was operating at full staff at the time of the sinking of the above mentioned vessels.
February 26, 1973


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION-APPOINTMENT OF HON. J. W. PICKERSGILL
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	On what date was Mr. J. W. Pickersgill appointed as chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission?
2.	On what date did Mr. Pickersgill retire from the Canadian Transport Commission?
3.	What was his effective date of retirement re allowances, severance pay etc., and remuneration regarding same?
4.	What is the annual pension, or superannuation, paid to Mr. Pickersgill by the Canadian Transport Commission, on what date did it commence and on what basis was his superannuation established?


Jean Marchand: 1. There is no post of chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission. The Hon. J. W. Pickersgill was appointed President of the Canadian Transport Commission effective September 19, 1967 for a period expiring June 23, 1975.
2.	Mr. Pickersgill resigned from the Canadian Transport Commission effective August 31, 1972.
3.	Mr. Pickersgill was granted a cash gratuity in lieu of
salary representing four weeks retiring leave effective September 1,	1972, the normal benefit under the
regulations.
4.	The Canadian Transport Commission is not empowered to pay an annual pension or superannuation to anyone. Mr. Pickersgill is entitled to benefits under the Superannuation Act calculated in accordance with the terms of that Statute.


OFFENCES COMMITTED BY PERSONS FREE ON BAIL
Mr. Stackhouse: How many men and women, released on bail, were charged in 1972 with offences said to have been committed while they were free on bail?


Alastair William Gillespie: In so far as Statistics Canada is concerned the information requested is not available.


CANADIAN MERCHANT MARINE
Mr. Forrestall: Is it the intention of the government to institute a Canadian Merchant Marine which would be given preferred rights in the Arctic Zone?


Jean Marchand: The government has no intention at this time to institute a Canadian Merchant Marine for ocean going trades; however, Canada does have a large internal fleet which, at the present time, is largely concentrated in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade. This national fleet has, at the present time, preferred rights when trading between ports and places in Canada. However, Commonwealth vessels are allowed to participate in coasting trade activities which involve the Arctic zone. The government is presently examining our coasting trade policy with a view to extending the opportunities for the Canadian internal fleet by reserving the Arctic zone and offshore areas to Canadian flag vessels.
25789-31J
Order Paper Questions ARCTIC NAVIGATION


Mr. Forrestall: In view of the characteristics of the Arctic area, does the government intend to attempt to persuade foreign purchasers of recoverable or non-recoverable resources to ship a percentage of the extract product in Canadian bottoms and, if so, what percentage is presently contemplated?


Jean Marchand: Notwithstanding the characteristics of the Arctic, the question of cargo preference to Canadian flag vessels must be considered in an overall resource policy. It is not, at the present time, the policy of the government to reserve overseas cargoes to Canadian flag vessels.


ARCTIC WATERS POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What steps has the government taken to ensure that all foreign flag vessels going into the Arctic area actually meet the Pollution Control requirements?
2.	Will there be inspectors in the area who will be prepared to board those ships that have not been pre-cleared for compliance to the Pollution Control requirements?


Jean Marchand: 1. Provision has been made in the Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations for a foreign flag vessel to be issued, after inspection, with a certificate which, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is proof that the vessel complies with the requirements applicable to it. Officers of the Marine Administration of the Ministry have been designated as pollution prevention officers by Order-in-Council in order to enforce the provisions of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act and the regulations made thereunder.
2. Yes. Selected officers of Canadian Coast Guard vessels will be provided with the necessary authority to carry out the inspections required.


ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR TORONTO HARBOUR PARK
Mr. Stackhouse: Does the government intend to complete in 1973 acquisition of property required for the Toronto Harbour Park?


John Mercer Reid: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.


POSTMASTERS GENERAL OF CANADA 1953 TO 1973
Mr. Mather: Who were the Postmasters General of Canada from the years 1953 to 1973?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Postmasters General of Canada 1953 to 1973: Hon. Alcide Cote, Feb. 13, 1952 to Aug. 7, 1955. Vacant, Aug. 8, 1955 to Aug. 15, 1955. Hon. Roch Pinard (Acting Minister), Aug. 16, 1955 to Nov. 2, 1955. Hon. Hughes Lapointe, Nov. 3, 1955 to June 21, 1957. Hon. William McLean Hamilton, June 21, 1957 to June 12, 1962. Vacant, July 13, 1962 to July 17, 1962. Hon. John Angus MacLean (Acting Minister), July 18, 1962 to Aug. 8, 1962. Hon. Ellen Louks Fairclough, Aug. 9, 1962 to

February 26, 1973
Order Paper Questions
April 22, 1963. Hon. Azellus Denis, April 22, 1963 to Feb. 2,
1964.	Hon. John Robert Nicholson, Feb. 3, 1964 to Feb. 14,
1965.	Hon. Rene Tremblay, Feb. 15, 1965 to Dec. 17, 1965. Hon. Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Cote, Dec. 18, 1965 to July 5, 1968. Hon. Eric Kierans, July 6, 1968 to April 2, 1971. Hon. Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Cote (Acting Minister), April 3, 1971 to June 10, 1971. Hon. Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Cote, June 11, 1971 to Nov. 26, 1972. Hon. Andre Ouellet, Nov. 27, 1972.


TOTAL IMMERSION COURSES
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	How many persons partook of the total immersion courses where families were moved into (a) French communities (b) English communities?
2.	What was the total cost of this program to date?


Gilles Marceau: I have been given the following answer by the Public Service Commission: 1. Participation in the Bicultural Development Program from 1966 to date into (a) French communities, 525; (b) English communities, 230.
2. Total cost to December 31, 1972, $2,604,021.


DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS REPORT, 1971
Mr. Andre: 1.	What was the cost of production, printing and distribution of the Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1971, for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
2.	How many copies of the Report were distributed?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. $1,921.
2. 2,185 English and 1,135 French.


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND CANADIAN PENSION COMMISSION REPORT, 1972
Mr. Andre: 1.	What was the cost of production, printing and distribution of the Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972, for the Department of Veterans Affairs and of the Canadian Pension Commission?
2.	How many copies of the Report were distributed?


Hon. Daniel I. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1971-1972 Annual Report of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Canadian Pension Commission, Pension Review Board, War Veterans Allowance Board and Bureau of Pensions Advocates. 1. $7,086.20.
2. 2,230.


CONTRACT FOR FORKLIFT TRUCKS
Mr. Hales: 1. Was a contract, MY.66048-2-H246, for industrial forklift trucks in the amount of $70,921 awarded to Otis Elevator Co. Ltd., Hamilton, Ontario?

2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of governement?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. Yes. Contract Serial OMY2-0316, dated Jan. 2, 1973.
2.	Yes. Names and addresses of firms who tendered follow: The contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer. Otis Elevator, Burlington and Wilfred, Hamilton, Ontario. Stathmos Scale Manufacturing Ltd., 8 Steelcase Road, Milliken, Ontario. Blue Grant Equipment of Canada Ltd., P.O. Box 5075, Station "F", Ottawa, Ontario. Lansing Bagnall of Canada Ltd., 651 Orly Avenue, Dorval, Quebec. Horwood-Bullock Ltd., 2635 Paulus Street, Montreal 386, Quebec. Montgomerie Reid (Canada) Ltd., 7502 Bath Road, Malton, Ontario. G. N. Johnston Equipment Co. Ltd., 578 Orly Avenue, Dorval, Quebec. M. L. Baxter Equipment Ltd., 45 Fenmar Drive, Weston, Ontario.
3.	No.
4.	The forklift trucks are to be used by the Department of Supply and Services at Halifax, Port Credit, Montreal, Ottawa and Edmonton.
5.	By formal Invitation to Tender to all firms (28) on the official source list for this commodity.


FINES FLOWERS LIMITED, OTTAWA-CONTRACT FOR POTTED PLANTS
Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract, GV.T8082-2-1285, for potted plants in the amount of $10,936 awarded to Fines Flowers Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	What was the description of the goods purchased?
5.	Where were the plants used and by what department of government?
6.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes (a) Fines Flowers Ltd., 2216 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ontario. R. E. Smith & Son, Box 413, RR No. 4, Ottawa, Ontario, (b) Yes.
3.	No.
4.	Five specific types of plants plus maintenance of previously installed plants.
5.	Place de Ville, Tower "C", Ottawa, Ont. Ministry of Transport.
6.	Invitation to Tender.
February 26, 1973


H. FINE AND SONS LTD.-CONTRACT FOR CANNED FRUITS
Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract, GD.2542004-8, for canned fruits in the amount of $14,546 awarded to H. Fine and Sons Ltd., Ottawa?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, is so, what were they?
4.	What was the description of the goods purchased?
5.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
6.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes. (a) Scotian Gold Co-operative Limited. P.O. Box 370, Kentville, N.S. Ernest St-Arnaud Inc., 2185 Ave., Francis Hughes, Chomedey, Laval, P.Q. Hickeson Lang Supply Co., 103 Orfus Road, Toronto 390, Ont. Sun-Rype Products Ltd., 1165 Ethel Street, Kelowna, B.C. M. W. Graves & Company Limited, P.O. Box 340, Berwick, Kings Co., Nova Scotia York Farms, Division of Canada Packers Ltd., 1191 Sheppard Ave. E., Willowdale, Ont. A. Lassonde & Fils Inc., Rougemont, Que. H. Fine & Sons Ltd., P.O. Box 8332, Ottawa, Ontario KIG 3H8 Kelly, Douglas & Co., Ltd., P.O. Box 2039, Vancouver 3, B.C. Van de Water-Boyd (Eastern) Ltd., 2300 Monterey Rd., Chomedey, Laval, Que. (b) Yes.
3.	No.
4.	Canned Apples Sliced. Canned Apple Juice.
5.	Department of National Defence, Canadian Forces Bases at Montreal, Bagotville, Trenton, Petawawa and Kingston.
6.	By invitation to tender.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What were the names of recipients benefitting from the Transport Subsidies Program (TS), in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 to date, and what were the amounts of money involved in each case?
2.	What are the objectives of the above Program?
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the Program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?
Return tabled.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE PERSONNEL
Mr. Cossitt: What were the names of all persons who were employed by, attached to, or on loan to, the Prime Minister's Office as of (a) July 31, 1972 (b) October 30,1972 (c) January 8, 1973 and, in each case (i) what was the individual's function (ii) what was the individual's salary?
Return tabled.
Orders for Returns


CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSES AT INDIAN RESERVE, WEYMONTACHIE
Mr. Matte: From 1968 to 1973, have any contracts been awarded for the construction of houses or for other projects at the Indian Reserve of Weymontaehie in the northern part of the constituency of Champlain and, if so, in each case (a) what was the nature of the contract (b) the amount (c) the name of the contractor?
Return tabled.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE PERSONNEL
Mr. Fraser: 1.	What were the names of each individual on salary in the Prime Minister's Office from January 1 to August 1,1972?
2.	What was the monthly salary of each individual employed in the Prime Minister's Office from January 1 to August 1,1972?
Return tabled.


NUMBER OF EMIGRANTS FROM CANADA, 1946-72
Mr. Stevens: In each year 1946 to 1972 inclusive, what was (a) the total number of emigrants from Canada (b) their places of destination (c) their occupations categorized generally (d) their educational status categorized generally (e) the number of Canadian born emigrants (f) the number of non-Canadian born emigrants, showing their places of birth?
Return tabled.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder whether I could bring to the parliamentary secretary's attention questions Nos. 606 and 607 which are of some importance in relation to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and the lower inventory for tomorrow legislation. May I also refer him to questions Nos. 609, 626, 627, 628, 929, 930, 931, 932, 961, 985, 998, 1045, 1046, 1056, 1077, and 1083.


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order I should like to bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary questions Nos. 583, 708 and 715. There is not one of those three questions that could not be answered in less than a week. Everyone knows this is one of the most mediocre governments in the history of Canada, and its inefficiency seems to be rising at the same rate as prices are rising.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Speaker, I draw attention to starred questions Nos. 839, 848 and 896 which I feel should be answered as soon as possible.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the parliamentary secretary's attention to question No. 220 placed on the order paper on January 9. Two other questions which I asked about the same matter were answered last week and I see no reason that this third question which was asked previously should not be answered. I

February 26, 1973
Oral Questions
realize it is on the subject of the gigantic staff of the Prime Minister's office that is running this country and this might prove embarrassing.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members can, if they wish, bring to attention of the parliamentary secretary certain questions they feel should be answered more quickly, but it is not according to the well established practice of the House for hon. members to make the kind of comments or speeches such as those made by the hon. member and the hon. member for Trinity.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We have to get their attention, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, may I call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to Question No. 21 which, in addition to having been on the order paper since 4 January 1973, has also strirred special public interest, and ask him whether it will be answered soon?


John Mercer Reid: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I shall direct this question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. As a result of the opportunity the minister had over the weekend to reflect and to observe the Minister of Finance when he appeared on television and said, as I heard his words, that unlike last year he was now able to predict the unemployment insurance figures, will the minister give a simple clearcut answer concerning the cash requirements in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Commission for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974 and/or the amount of the contributions to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund when unemployment exceeds 4 per cent?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would wait for the Minister of Finance to make his forecast before I would undertake to give those figures. I indicated the other day that by the Unemployment Insurance Act and the amendment recently made to that act cash requirements become appropriations as such in the following year and this amount is known and included in the main estimates at this time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Did the minister obtain from the officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission any information as to the cash requirements for the ensuing fiscal year and/or the contributions which might be required to

be made in respect of the government's share of the contributions?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee, I believe, we can forecast a range of cash requirements based on various levels of unemployment and based on the many other variable factors involved in such a calculation, many of which have been indicated by the Minister of Finance and many which are applicable to the straight question of unemployment levels. We can give a range of requirements which will be accurate within certain boundaries, but it does depend on the length of time people will be on benefit, the average weekly wage, the level of unemployment and a whole series of other matters the complexities of which it has been indicated, would make it very difficult to give an absolutely accurate forecast at this date.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in order that the House may have this very important information before it is asked to approve the budget of the Minister of Finance I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would require the former Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the hon. member for Verdun, who apparently is able to answer these questions, to answer the questions I have asked?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand.


COMMISSION POLICY RESPECTING UNEMPLOYED AGRICULTURAL WORKERS SEEKING BENEFITS
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary and is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It relates to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Is it now the policy of the Unemployment Insurance Commission deliberately and systematically to disentitle seasonal agricultural workers from unemployment insurance benefits?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, absolutely not, as such. The disentitlement of any worker is based on certain factors, including proof of search for work, availability for work and willingness to take work if in fact it is available.


William David Knowles: That being the case, would the minister investigate the gestapo-type tactics that are being employed in my area to deliberately and systematically disentitle the seasonal agricultural workers from their proper benefits?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, without in any way accepting the premise or description the hon. member has applied to the activities of the unemployment insurance commission, I would be very glad to investigate any specific instances. In fact, it would put me in a much better position to answer such questions in the House if the hon. member would give me advance notice of the question, provided he really is seeking information.
February 26, 1973


SAVING TO BE MADE BY ENACTMENT OF BILL C-125
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact Bill C-125 stands on the order paper for second reading and is supposed to result in a saving of approximately $100 million, and as the minister is reviewing this bill, can he still state that the bill will save the country $100 million?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would hope so.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Can the minister advise whether his involvement with the bill in terms of reassessment and bringing in amendments has been completed? Has he completed his investigation on behalf of the New Democratic Party and, if so, when can we expect the bill to be proceeded with?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that a question asked in those terms is not in order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: May I rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of the matter and in view of the fact the bill will save the country $100 million, can the minister advise when the bill will be brought forward again and, if not in the very near future, what is holding it up?


Robert Knight Andras: I expect it to be brought forward in due course, Mr. Speaker. One thing about the situation is that we know at least where two parties stand on this bill. We do not know-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Fraser Valley West rising on a supplementary question?


Mr. Rose:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


ALLEGED INCLUSION OF IMPROPER PHRASES BY OFFICERS IN PREPARING APPLICANTS STATEMENTS
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and it is supplementary to previous questions. Is the minister aware of the current practice of benefit control officers who, when interviewing clients, often smuggle into the statements of those clients, which the benefit control officers themselves write, words that condemn the clients or force them to testify against themselves such as "no transportation" and "excessively high salary expectation"? Is the minister aware of this practice, because it has been going on now for a year, and is he prepared to do something about it?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, in every case where I can prove such action by a benefit control officer or anybody else he will be dismissed as quickly as I can make the
Oral Questions
arrangements, but I would like to have concrete proof before doing so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will complete the first round of questioning, after which I will return to the hon. member for Fraser Valley West on a supplementary question.


HIGH WATER LEVEL IN GREAT LAKES-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO AVERT DAMAGE
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Prime Minister as there would appear to be several departments of the government concerned, and in view of the seriousness of the situation. In light of the statement by an official of the International Joint Commission that nothing more can be done to control the rising water levels in Lake Ontario and the other Great Lakes and that further flooding is therefore inevitable, can the Prime Minister give the House assurances that all courses of action open to the federal government are being actively pursued in order to avert, so far as possible, flood damage, and will the Prime Minister or the appropriate ministers indicate to the House specifically what these steps are?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second is that various answers have been given by the Minister of the Environment who is responsible in the government for co-ordinating action in these areas.


Terrence Wyly Grier: In an effort to attract from the government benches more specific answers, may I put this supplementary question. Has the government taken the initiative to discuss joint preventive programs with the governments of the province of Ontario and/or Quebec? My question is again directed to the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take notice of the question, Mr. Speaker. I have not had such discussions personally, but I will have to refer the question to the Minister of the Environment who has been retarded on his way in from the west coast and is expected later.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HIGH WATER LEVELS IN GREAT LAKES-USE OF ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL TO CONSTRUCT PROTECTIVE WORKS
Terrence Wyly Grier: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. May I ask him whether specific plans have now been made to assign units of the armed forces for flood prevention construction and other works.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, as I advised the House last week, the armed forces are available for this type of emergency, but we

February 26, 1973
Oral Questions
have had no request from the government of Ontario or from anyone else at this stage.


HIGH WATER LEVELS IN GREAT LAKES-PROTECTION AND COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY OWNERS ALONG ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Can he assure the House that property owners along the St. Lawrence River and in the Thousand Islands area will be given adequate warning and all possible protection in the event of an unusually high run-off from Lake Ontario and that they will receive adequate compensation for any damage that may result?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot, of course, give a general answer to that very wide-ranging question. It is a matter of policy which has to be announced in specific instances.


HIGH WATER LEVEL IN LAKE ONTARIO-REQUEST FOR PROVISION OF ENGINEERING SERVICES TO ONTARIO RIDING
Mr. Norman A. Caiik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In a previous response he indicated that he had not received any specific requests for assistance from any sources in respect of possible flood damage. In light of the fact that I investigated this problem in my riding over the weekend-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Norman Augustine Cafik: -I would like-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Norman Augustine Cafik: I will get to the question, if you will be patient. This is an important problem to the people in my area.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Norman Augustine Cafik: I would like to give the minister notice right now that I am requesting-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has the floor for the purpose of asking a question, not to give notice.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will ask the minister right now if in fact he will supply engineering services to the municipalities in my riding that want to assess what preventive steps can in fact be taken?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Patronage!


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, we will give immediate consideration to the request from the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AGRICULTURE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Yesterday I met a delegation of manufacturing milk producers; they are quite concerned about the considerable increase in the cost of feed which is threatening the financial balance of their operations. Can the minister tell the House what steps he intends to take immediately to hearten the manufacturing milk producers in this regard?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we are studying ways and means of aiding them now.


DAIRYING-REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN PRICE OF INDUSTRIAL MILK-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Has the minister perused the brief submitted by industrial milk producers, whereby they request an immediate increase of industrial milk prices to the extent of 60 cents per 100 pounds? If so, could he inform us shortly of his reply?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I stated in reply to another hon. member in the House that we hope to be able to announce something soon.


HOUSING
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. Would he inform the House on what basis he was able to state on the television program "Question Period" yesterday that housing costs increased by only 3 per cent last year, and can he inform the House whether the priority given to housing in last week's budget was based on that 3 per cent figure?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think that if the hon. member reads the transcript he will see that I was talking about the general increase in service charges, including housing, over the year 1972, and
February 26, 1973

saying, in relation to the reason why I did not choose to reduce or eliminate the 11 per cent tax on building materials, that I was confident that the amendments to the National Housing Act introduced by my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, would provide a good, remedial measure for this problem.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I listened with great care to the minister's answer in reference to the 11 per cent sales tax, but in light of the fact that from December, 1971, to December, 1972, the cost of new housing increased by 12.5 per cent and the cost of building materials rose by 15.2 per cent-I refer the minister to Statistics Canada's Catalogue 62 for those figures-would he now reconsider his position in reference to the 11 per cent sales tax?


Mr. Hees:: No, because David Lewis says no. That is the simple reason. David Lewis says you can't do it, and you don't dare do it.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when the increase in housing costs or costs of renting are brought into the general income picture, they are brought by Statistics Canada into the category of service charges, and those were the figures to which I was referring.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that we now have serious unemployment, particularly in the building industry, and in light of the fact that the International Union of Elevator Constructors is on strike in nine provinces with a slowdown strike in the province of Quebec, throwing construction workers out of work by the thousands across the nation, would the Prime Minister now take the lead, in spite of his constitutional argument, and call together the ten provincial ministers of labour with a view to sitting down and getting this strike settled which is really motivated by an international union in the United States?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly consider the request of the hon. member that I demand that the provincial premiers come and listen to my word on that.


An hon. Member:: He did not say "demand".
Oral Questions


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary on housing for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact the amount of money to be spent by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is of crucial importance to the government's housing plans, would the minister inform the House why the capital budget for CMHC has not been laid before parliament when in normal years it is before us by this time?


Hon. Ron Basiord (Minister oi State lor Urban Aiiairs):: Mr. Speaker, the capital budget is normally discussed when the estimates of the corporation go to the committee. I will be happy to see that the capital budget is laid before the House.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. A few minutes ago I asked the Minister of State for Urban Affairs a question about the laying before parliament of the annual capital budget of CMHC. He said to the House that it was not the practice of the government to do so and that it would be brought before the appropriate committee at the appropriate time. My question of privilege is that inasmuch as in each year in recent history the government has laid the capital budget of CMHC before parliament the minister, if I understood him correctly, misinformed parliament, I assume inadvertently. I therefore ask him to explain the statement he made just a few moments ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a question of privilege. I suggest to the hon. member that it might be the subject of a supplementary question. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply to the hon. member's point by way of a supplementary answer to the alleged question of privilege.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I should like to check the precise words in the blues. What I said was that it was the practice to examine the capital budget when the estimates of the corporation were being examined and that if the hon. member has questions to ask they will be answered when the estimates go to the committee. I also said I would be happy to lay the capital budget before parliament. I hardly see that there is any misinformation being given to parliament.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will return to the hon. member in a moment.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I repeat the point that the minister said a while ago that it was not customary to lay the capital budget before parliament. He has now acknowledged that it is and I should now like to ask him when he will lay that budget before parliament?


Stanley Ronald Basford: In accordance with the usual practice, Mr. Speaker.
1640

February 26, 1973
Oral Questions FINANCE


POSSIBILITY OF DISCUSSION OF BUDGET WITH NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADER PRIOR TO DELIVERY
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the statements he made yesterday on the television show, would the minister confirm to the House whether he did or did not have discussions with the leader of the New Democratic Party on the budget before the budget speech was delivered?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will, of course, allow the minister to reply to the hon. member's question as I have shown some leniency in regard to questions asked earlier this afternoon about the statements made outside the House. As hon. members know, it is long established practice that normally questions are asked only of the Prime Minister to inquire whether statements made by ministers outside the House represent government policy. However, as the question has been asked the minister may wish to reply.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that before the budget I discussed budget measures neither with the leader of the New Democratic Party nor the leader of the hon. member's party.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why did he say that you did?


John Napier Turner: He did not say that.


STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROVINCES ON PROVISION OF CHRONIC CARE IN NURSING HOMES
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and he may want to make his reply on motions. In view of mounting hospital costs and the federal government commitment in this field, would the minister state whether general agreement has been reached with the provinces for providing chronic care in nursing homes to relieve hospital overstay or in the prevention of illness leading to a cutdown in hospital admissions?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we recently had a meeting on that subject with representatives of provinces. The federal government made a proposal in view of easing health services and specifically developing less expensive services such as mentioned by the hon. member, as compared with the very expensive hospital services. If the provinces agree to the formula we proposed, we hope there will be a substantial reduction in health service costs in Canada.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I will debate this question at ten o'clock.


REPRESENTATION OF YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES COUNCILS AT RECENT CONFERENCE-   TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION OVER SERVICES TO TERRITORIES
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister. Were the elected bodies in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories represented at the conference of which he speaks, and what is the time frame within which federal health services will be transferred from federal jurisdiction to the jurisdiction of the governments of either the Yukon or the Northwest Territories?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first question, that was a federal-provincial conference of ministers of finance and of health and the Northwest Territories and Yukon were not represented as such.
Replying to the second question, the matter has been under discussion for many years between the federal government and authorities involved, and is permanently under review.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ian Arrol (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like, with my question, to introduce a note of harmony if it would not be out of order today. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a musical question. In view of the importance of promoting any good idea in aid of Canadian unity and the Canadian identity, could consideration be given to encouraging the railway systems of Canada to reintroduce the unique "O Canada" train whistle refrain that was so popular in the year of Canada's centennial?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member's question ought normally to be placed on the order paper. However, since it is intended to bring some harmony to the House the minister might be allowed to reply briefly.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to discuss that with the presidents of the two railway companies.


REQUEST FOR LIST OF DRUGS THAT FAILED TO MEET TESTS AND NAMES OF COMPANIES
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will his department make public the list of drugs that failed to meet the standards set by his department in its QUAD tests, as well as the companies by whom they were manufactured?

February 26, 1973


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly look into this matter.


David Orlikow: May I ask the minister what action the government will take in connection with those drugs which apparently did not pass the test standards set by the government?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it should not be deduced from the fact that I do not give an immediate reply to the hon. member's question that his premise is accurate. I shall make inquiries and see whether there has been one case of a drug not being submitted to the tests involved.


FINANCE
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the grave concern of many primary producers of food commodities and the food industry in general about their economic future under the new reductions in tariffs and the loss of jobs involved, can the minister tell the House if any of these groups were consulted in any way before this government action and, if so, can he indicate which agricultural and labour groups were consulted?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, obviously in direct terms one cannot consult groups before the introduction of budget measures, particularly tariff measures, but a thorough review was made with the various departments concerned to ensure that any tariff reductions would not unduly affect employment potential or farm income. I am in constant consultation with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture to ensure that this does not happen.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact the Minister of Finance in reply to a question on Friday said that the Minister of Agriculture would see to it that farmers were not hurt by the tariff reductions, did he consult with his colleague on the fact that cans imported into Canada for use by Canadian processors for Canadian products have a 17 j per cent tariff, while those already filled in some other country, and being imported into Canada now have no tariff?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed that recently.
Oral Questions SOCIAL SECURITY


OLD AGE PENSIONS-REQUEST THAT DEPARTMENT BE MORE FLEXIBLE RESPECTING QUALIFICATION OF PERSONS RETURNING FROM ABROAD
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister give consideration to introducing more flexibility and compassion in his department when dealing with Canadian born senior citizens returning to Canada from abroad and seeking old age security qualification, particularly the avoidance of such incidents as advising an 88 year old gentleman to come back in 33 i years with his application?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly be very happy to examine the regulations in question, and more particularly those relating to the point raised by the hon. member. I should mention, however, that these regulations were enlarged a few years ago, as the hon. member knows. I shall certainly look into the matter.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the commitment made on behalf of Canada by the hon. member for Verdun when minister of labour at the International Labour Relations Conference held in Israel in 1972 that the Canadian government would host the next international labour relations conference in 1974, can the minister inform the House what stage the planning for this conference has reached?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is still the intention of the government to host that conference. As far as I am aware, planning is going on as well as can be expected.


Ronald George Atkey: Would the minister advise the House of the details of the projected arrangements for this conference, and when they might be available to the participating countries?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter.


POSSIBILITY OF ALLOWING DOMESTIC WHEAT PRICE TO FLOAT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for the
1642

February 26, 1973
Oral Questions
Canadian Wheat Board. Does the government have any plan at this time to change the domestic price paid for wheat, at present $1.95 i per bushel, and allow the price to float with the world price of wheat?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: No, Mr. Speaker. The government is now paying the difference between $1.951 and $3 out of the treasury. In reviewing this matter recently it was decided that it would be better to continue doing that rather than shift the cost to the consumers of bread in Canada.


Jack Burnett Murta: As the minister has sent a survey to wheat farmers in western Canada on the method of payment under the two-price wheat system, is not the prairie wheat producer at present being asked by this questionnaire really to subsidize the users of domestic wheat in Canada? Is this not what is really happening at present with the price of wheat?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that is not a question but argument.


WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO ACREAGE PAYMENT
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice who is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Can we expect an acreage payment before spring planting, because additional money would be beneficial to the farmers at that time?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the questionnaire now in the hands of farmers is part of the process of determining the method of paying to them the amount of money which will be available, which will likely be in the order of $57 million. Part of that is clearly a consumer subsidy, if you like, on the price of bread. If an acreage payment is to be made we would expect to make it in April.


FINANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Can he give hon. members a copy of a paper from the federal government in which it is estimated that in 1973 the Canadian dollar has a value equivalent to 55 cents compared to 1949? In 24 years, therefore, the value of our dollar has decreased by 45 per cent.


John Napier Turner: I shall check whether such a document exists, Mr. Speaker.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
What is the present value of the Canadian dollar based on the price of gold on the open market which is now selling between $93 and $96 per ounce?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that this question could be put on the order paper.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the worthy citizens of Edmonton Centre, I thank you for recognizing me. I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Transport. As the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport are listening attentively these days to the needs and wants of the west with a view to curing the west of its so-called discontent, would the Prime Minister or the Minister of Transport use their good offices to give Edmonton at least one direct flight to Ottawa at a reasonable hour?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that suggestion might correct the discontent of the west although probably, if the hon. member used the service too often, it would increase discontent in Ottawa.


FINANCE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. What assessment has the minister made of the value-added tax system presently utilized in the European Economic Community and the effect it may have on Canada's inflationary difficulties?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing aspects of this tax, particularly since Great Britain has adopted it and it seems to have general support in the European Common Market. Aside from that, any adoption of that tax would have to be related to a general budgetary statement.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: With respect, I suggest the minister has not done his homework. I suggest that the tax is not applicable-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now debating. He should ask his supplementary question.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, although the minister has already partially answered my question, may I ask him if he has any immediate plan to study the effects in Canada of such a value-added tax?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is being studied.
February 26, 1973


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. After tabling on Friday his rather pointed letter to the minister of communications of Quebec, I wonder whether the Minister of Communications can be a little more definite and precise now as to when he intends to lay before parliament the green paper, so-called, on communications policy? The second part of my question, which I ask now so as not to take too much time, is this: after tabling the green paper, does the minister intend to convene a federal-provincial conference on this long-smouldering problem?
[ Translation]


Gérard Pelletier: do not have to alter my predictions about the publication of the government green paper at the end of March, Mr. Speaker. As for another federal-provincial conference on communications, several provincial ministers of communications have approached us about it and we are now considering the matter. The federal government warmly welcomes that proposal. We will have to agree so to include it on the agenda of federal-provincial meetings which, as we all know, is quite full; we will also have to agree on the agenda of such a conference, which will be much easier.


CABLEVISION-GOVERNMENT POSITION RESPECTING JURISDICTION
Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette wishes to put a supplementary question.


Roch La Salle: Since, Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Minister of Communications has reminded his federal counterpart that Quebec has jurisdiction over cablevision and that it was taken for granted, what is now the government position in that connection?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the position of the federal government is quite clearly indicated in the letter which I sent to my Quebec counterpart and of which I tabled a copy in this House last Friday.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR APPLICANTS-ESTABLISHMENT OF REVIEW COMMITTEES
Mr. Keith Taylor (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In view of the fact there is a
Oral Questions
March 1 deadline for opportunities for youth applications, would the minister advise the House whether more specific guidelines have been prepared for the use of applicants and also for the use of the committees that are to review and recommend projects?


Hon. lames Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Keith Taylor: Would the minister tell us whether these committees have been established? If so, would he tell us how the members were selected, and by whom?


James Hugh Faulkner: They have not been finally established, Mr. Speaker, but the opportunities for youth staff are looking at names that are coming from the field and the committees will, I believe, be established some time next month.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR APPLICATIONS
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could help the minister by asking him a question to which I hope he will have a positive answer. Is he prepared to advance by a couple of weeks the deadline for applications under the opportunities for youth program, bearing in mind that hundreds of communities geographically removed from central Canada are not aware of the March 31 deadline?


James Hugh Faulkner: I understand the hon. member's question. I should like to talk to him about it. This is the first indication I have received that there is a problem of this kind. I do not know whether I am free to make the change suggested, but I should like to talk to the hon. member in order to determine how serious the problem is.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-AUDITING OF PROJECTS
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I should like to ask the
Secretary of State whether all the moneys provided for opportunities for youth projects will be audited by one of the government departments?


James Hugh Faulkner: They are always audited, Mr. Speaker.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-INVESTIGATION OF APPLICATIONS BY POLICE OR SECURITY PLANNING GROUP
Erik Nielsen: I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. Can the hon. gentleman inform the House whether it is any part of the responsibility or activities of the police and the security planning group in his department, or of any other personnel coming under his jurisdiction, to vet applications before they are approved of after they are granted?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Only if there is a request to do so from the agency itself.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE

February 26, 1973


FARM MACHINERY-MASSEY-FERGUSON PROFITS- INVESTIGATION BY MINISTER-POSSIBLE ACTION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: My question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the profits of the Massey-Ferguson farm machinery company increased by more than 340 per cent last year, may I ask whether the minister is investigating this unjustified rise in profits and can he tell us whether he is considering recommending some form of price control in a situation of this kind?


Gerald William Baldwin: In due course.


Eugene Whelan: I was not
aware that their profit was that high. As I stated earlier in the House, we have been meeting with ambassadors and trade representatives of other countries that are in a position to supply farm machinery in an attempt to work out agreements with them or to help them with their sales in this country so that these other companies will be faced with some competition.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The minister failed to answer my question. Is he considering the establishment of a prices review board or some form of price control in a situation such as I have described where the increase in profit amounts to 340 per cent?


Eugene Whelan: We will certainly consider every avenue open to us to make them accept a realistic mark-up when selling machinery so that they do not take advantage of agricultural producers.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Revenue. Bearing in mind the deadline for income tax returns, which is coming up shortly, and with reference to my question of February 8, reported in Hansard at page 1076, with regard to the possibility of extending the office hours of income tax offices throughout the country in order to assist taxpayers seeking information in connection with income tax returns, may I ask whether the minister has now had time in which to consider this matter?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. For the benefit of people unable to use the inquiry service during the day because they are at work, we are extending both the local and long-distance toll-free telephone inquiry service until 8 p.m. every Monday and Tuesday until April 30.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Is the minister contemplating engaging Fred Davis and the rest of his staff at another million dollars to publicize this fact?


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps hon. members have heard this question of privilege before, but I raise it again because it brings into question the whole practice of this place in entertaining questions by parliamentary secretaries to ministers.
I can understand backbenchers seeking legitimate information. If they cannot get it on the telephone, they may seek to get it in the House. But parliamentary secretaries, in my submission, are in a far different position. They are assistants to ministers, in this case, to the Minister of Transport, and there is a clear line of communication available between the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of National Revenue through which this information could have been easily obtained.
It is unfair to opposition members whose chief responsibility it is to seek information in this House for parliamentary secretaries to abuse the question period in this way. I submit that Your Honour should take this whole matter under consideration and at some later time advise members of the House whether you feel it is fitting and proper for parliamentary secretaries or, for that matter, ministers, to be asking each other questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say first of all that I have been elected in just the same way as the hon. member from Yukon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: And by a lot more voters.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: And, Mr. Speaker, may I say to you that it is very difficult for a member of this side of the House to sit here daily listening to some of the nonsensical questions posed from the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: At least we ask questions that make sense and benefit Canadians. Also, I am sure, because we are all equal as Members of Parliament, we are entitled to have questions recorded in Hansard on the same basis as members on the other side. The time has come for this to be recognized. Regardless of whether we are parliamentary secretaries or not we should be able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, when we have important questions to ask pertaining not only to our constituencies but to Canadians throughout the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This matter was raised by way of a question of privilege by the hon. member for Yukon and I have no hesitation in ruling that while it may be a point of order which is of interest to all hon. members, and certainly to the Chair, it is not a question of privilege.
I am not entirely in agreement with what is suggested either by the hon. member for Yukon or by the hon. member for St. Boniface. The hon. member for St. Boniface suggests-and I suppose in theory he is right-that members on the government side have the same rights as members of the opposition in asking questions. Yet that is
February 26, 1973

not in accordance with the traditions of this House or of any parliamentary democracy. It is a long established practice in Canada, going back for many years, that questions are essentially, or basically, the privilege of members of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The other point is perhaps a little more subject to controversy-whether parliamentary secretaries have the same right as members of the opposition or as backbenchers on their own side to ask questions during the question period. I must say I have some reservations about this point. It seems to me that if parliamentary secretaries are to be recognized as having authority to speak on behalf of the government in reply to questions, it is debatable whether they ought to be given the privilege of asking questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This is the aspect which worries me somewhat. The hon. member for Yukon and others have raised this matter before. I am not clear in my mind, because the points made by the hon. member for St. Boniface are worth considering and the points made by the hon. member for Yukon and others on his side are also worthy of consideration. I have been thinking of this problem for some years now and there seems to be no solution except, perhaps, to count on the discretion and co-operation of parliamentary secretaries not to ask questions too often. I have tried in a subtle way not to encourage them too much to ask questions, and I will continue that practice as much as possible. I realize there are arguments that may be made in support of the proposition advanced by the hon. member for St. Boniface today, and by the hon. member for Saint-Denis and the hon. member for Ontario.
However, perhaps the question should be whether it is proper for a parliamentary secretary to ask a question rather than whether the rules and practices of the House give him the right to do so. I should like to reserve the question. I will take it under advisement and perhaps some day it can be resolved to the satisfaction of all hon. members, including backbenchers to my right and distinguished parliamentary secretaries. The hon. member for Yukon and others might have noted that when the hon. member for St. Boniface was given the floor a moment ago the question period had expired. That is a point that the hon. member for Yukon and others might like to take into consideration.
This having been said, perhaps in fairness to a few members to my left and to my right in the back benches who have been trying to ask questions we might recognize two or three for quick questions before calling orders of the day.


Mr. Prud'homme:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member on a point of order.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I am of course with you when you say that one ought not to put questions to the minister whom one represents as parliamentary secretary, but before you make a decision that might affect the rights of members in future, and set up new precedents, I must say that I do not see why we should not exercise our privilege of addressing questions to other ministers, just like any other member.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker,-and this is in reply to a remark by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen)- if government members can ask a minister for information simply by picking up the phone, I suppose that there is nothing to prevent any opposition member from doing the same. I could easily reply any time to the hon. member for Yukon on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to respectfully point out to you, before you make a ruling, that if a parliamentary secretary or anybody else asks questions to a minister from whom he could get answers over the phone this is likely to inform the public.
If the hon. member for Yukon directs a question to a minister it is because he expects that a reply will be given in the House so as to permit reporters to inform the population. Questions from the opposition to ministers could easily be asked outside the House-


AIRPORTS
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and arises from a news account carried in the Hamilton Spectator late last week. Is the minister planning to meet tomorrow members of the Hamilton civic airport committee? If so, would he consider allowing members from the Hamilton area to join the Minister of Labour in attending the meeting?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have just been told that they have asked for an interview tomorrow but I do not know at what time. I shall have to discuss the matter with the minister from Hamilton.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which perhaps I could direct to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister advise whether other Members of Parliament from the Hamilton area will be allowed to attend the meeting?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, what happened, I think, was that the chairman of the civic airport committee was in touch with members of my staff to see whether a meeting could be arranged between the committee and the Minister of Transport. Following that, I believe we got in touch with the minister's office, but I

February 26, 1973
Oral Questions
am not yet aware of the precise time. With regard to the hon. member's question, if he and other members from the area are to be involved I think this would be up to the Minister of Transport to decide.


Mr. Muir:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. For quite a number of years in this House members from a province could ask a minister from that particular province questions about matters other than those looked after by his department. Then, Your Honour made a ruling that, for instance, members from Nova Scotia could not ask the minister from Nova Scotia any questions about matters other than those pertaining to his portfolio. In this way, many times he could avoid answering many questions because he was not responsible for those matters to the House.


Mr. Bell:: Heavy water, for example.


Robert Muir: A moment ago a question was directed to the Minister of Transport. It was then redirected to the Minister of Labour, who I am sure has nothing to do with transport matters which I think would be for the Minister of Transport. The question related to a particular area of Ontario. Now that the precedent has been reset once again, I hope that members from Nova Scotia will be in a much better position to pose questions to the minister from Nova Scotia, questions pertaining to the office of the President of the Privy Council, especially with regard to the announcements that he makes about everything under the sun.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has raised an interesting point. Without getting involved in a discussion may I say that the rule was made not by me but is of long standing. In this respect I can quote to the hon. member a number of past rulings and a citation from Beauchesne. If the supplementary question asked a moment ago was asked of the minister as representing an area or district, then it was entirely out of order and should not have been asked. I was so busy looking at the back rows to see who might next be recognized that I did not follow as closely as I should the question that was being asked by way of a supplementary. If the question was asked of the minister in his capacity as representing an area, then it was certainly out of order, and that is my ruling. Orders of the day.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order having to do with House business and the very interesting point that was raised previously. Might I suggest to the Chair that no decision on the matter be made, and also bring forward for the consideration of the government House leader the suggestion that one of the first items of business for the procedure committee, which will engage itself in a discussion of the questions put before it by the terms of reference, be this particular issue. While it is not necessarily binding on Your Honour, this was done in 1968, I think, when certain guidelines were laid down. I suggest that the question period and the answers given might well be considered a priority item for the committee on procedure and organization so that this question period might be made more useful and meaningful.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, February 23, consideration of the motion of the Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, and the amendment of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (p. 1526).
Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, it is not without emotion that I rise in this House, which you chair with so much competence and fairness, in my capacity as elected representative of the people. I have delivered many speeches during my life, but this one is not at all similar to the others. The opinions which I will submit today are proceeding from a mandate solemnly given through a democratic election.
Curiously enough I solicited this somewhat frightening responsibility which now falls upon me of representing others, and which is so personal and so total a commitment. The democratic process requires one to take the initiative of this office in its first stages. Such an enterprise may seem presumptuous, for who can claim to speak for others? Yet, this is necessary.
The only way to adequately fulfil this duty of representation is to listen to those who elect us and to reflect their concerns as much as possible. Then it is important to agree to the duty of pondering on the needs and expectations of the electorate and to restate them from the point of view of the legislator.
Then the time comes to project these conclusions in a debate in parliament, as I am doing today. Hon. members on the other side of the House also take part in this process. Their analyses and criticisms lend a character of full representativeness to our proceedings.
Parliamentarism is the very basis of our democracy as it is a means to have those especially elected by their constituents to insure the welfare and the progress of the people through adequate and progressive legislation. Freedom of speech in the House is indeed the best means to ensure our century old parliamentary institutions their strength and forever present characteristics.
This is why I am particularly happy to have this opportunity to comment on a budget which has been presented in such a clear and rigorous way by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).
Last Monday's budget is a significant answer to the needs of the average class of people who make up most of the constituency of Montreal-Ahuntsic.
Mr. Speaker, families in my constituency earn $8,000, $12,000 or $15,000 a year. They are made up of two to four children, they own a car, a garden and some of them have a cottage. Here is a still more meaningful fact I am glad to tell the House. The Ahuntsic constituency is one where the education level is the highest.
February 26, 1973

Indeed when I travelled through it I discovered that in each home all the young people, almost without exception, either those of 16 or those of 22 were still students. It is undoubtedly such families which are the cornerstone of our society: those whose children have the courage to get an intellectual and professional training allowing them to accept the challenges which are awaiting them as adults.
The budget we are discussing today is for those families.
Having ensured, through previously submitted bills, the attenuation of unemployment rates' effects that measures designed to create employment cannot succeed in reducing as fast as desired, having established in co-operation with the provinces one of the world's best systems ensuring essential services for the people, the government now undertakes to protect the income of middle classes. It is the middle class people who bear the cost of programs of a social nature. It is them, not that they are so rich, but because they are the most numerous, who provide the money required for public expenditures of the size of those incurred in Canada.
Rather prosperous, hard working and generous, these middle class people accept this civic duty, showing thus a very high social awareness.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I was not elected for having promised tax reductions or increases of marginal benefits. I have rather taken advantage of my contacts with the people to explain the reasons behind our social policy and outline the necessity, for a country as prosperous as Canada, of taking progressive social measures in order to protect those who, for various reasons, cannot earn a decent income. And it is to the Liberal government's credit that it has been to the forefront in the social field.
The voters in my constituency have shown themselves very aware of this fact. Although these programs were a heavy burden to them, they chose to elect a government that planned to unite the resources of the strong in support of the weak. The present budget accordingly leaves income in the hands of those who earned it, so as to increase their purchasing power, which should in turn help increase employment and give a boost to economic activity.

In this respect, the measures to reduce taxes announced by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner); measures such as the increase in the principal exemptions and the lowering of federal tax rates, are of fundamental importance.
Moreover, in order to shield middle income families from inflation, these exemptions, as well as the income brackets, will, as of January 1, 1974, be set in such a manner as to ensure that the tax reductions will continue to be just that; tax reductions. Therefore, if, on account of inflation, a middle-income earner obtains a salary increase that would normally put him into a higher tax bracket, he will find that his exemptions and his income bracket have also moved upwards and that the increase in his income is protected. This, I feel, is the clearest possible proof of this government's sincere desire to put more money in the hands of middle-income families. Of course, the government could merely have lowered taxes for
The Budget-Mrs. Sauve
these people. But since, in a certain way, the government stands to gain from inflation, because of the increase in tax revenues that it can produce, the indexing of rates and exemptions is a guarantee to all taxpayers that the tax relief announced today will still be real tomorrow.
This budget will also protect the income of the average wage earner in other ways, such as through the reduction of tariffs, and taxes on certain consumer goods. It is important to note, however, that these reductions are of limited application, or, in the case of some products, such as fruits and vegetables, that they vary with the time of year, specifically for the purpose of avoiding unfavourable side effects on Canadian production and on employment in our farms and factories.

Some may have smiled at the inclusion of cosmetics and other beauty products among these exemptions. An yet those are products whose consumption is very important and which-


George Harris Hees: The government did it to get female votes!


Jeanne Sauvé: That was a good idea.
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that women are more particularly interested in those products although the latest statistics reveal that more and more men are using beauty products. Is this one of the reasons why the hon. Minister of Finance took those products into consideration?
Nevertheless, women will benefit from this exemption. Rich or poor we all have in our purse our lipstick, some powder, mascara and many other items. It is true that this measure was the subject of superficial comments and there are more to come. However, let us not forget that this industry's yearly turnover amounts to almost $600 million.
Women are involved in this budget not only through the exemption on beauty products, of course, but by the resulting increase in their income. As main consumers, repeatedly harassed by consumption enticements, administrators of the family budgets, they will find it easier to shop for themselves and their families and perhaps to add a few new items.
I find comforting that this budget is unquestionably aimed at a class of women with the lowest incomes and who need more than others to improve their situation. It is not always through exceptional measures involving the word "woman" that women can most be helped but by allowing them to share equally the advantages of social and economic life through the introduction of an increased degree of equity and justice in our legislation. The budget paves the way toward this ideal. It indicates to the average earners that when the economy is developing they should be the first ones whose income must increase.
The budget will be approved by the female consumers that will know, as was asked other groups of citizens by the Minister of Finance, how to reduce their expenses so as not to start a new round of inflation.
In the progressive perspective of compensating measures for the protection of income, the government naturally took account of older people who worked hard to

February 26, 1973
The Budget-Mrs. Sauve
build this country and still want to play their full part as citizens.
At the time of the last budget, we increased old age pensions from $82 to $86. And so, as we are fully conscious of the increasing needs of older people, we wish now to boost the pension basic rate to $100 a month beginning from April 1, 1973. Those changes will enable older people to live more decently and reduce the gap between their income and the income of other citizens.
Mr. Speaker, within a federal government, we must closely co-operate with the provinces in order to give the people the services they are entitled to on the part of a government knowing how to assume its responsibilities.
It is also on that account that the federal government decided to change the equalization formula for the benefit of provinces, by adding new grants based upon school tax revenue.
There is no doubt that such measures will help support the provinces in their governing responsibilities.
Federalism requires a sense of balance and measure, some concern for community well-being and, above all, steady co-operation from all levels of government.
This government not only shows positively that it wants co-operation, but this time it even anticipated the requests of the provinces.
As concerns the department of which I have been made responsible, the Minister of Finance stated, and I quote:
... the experience of many decades has shown that advancing technology brings with it continued expansion in productivity and output, continued expansion in the real income that workers are able to earn, and continued expansion in the number of productive jobs available.
The very creation of the Department of Science and Technology is intimately associated with such an objective. It bears testimony to this government's new awareness of the eventual impact of science and technology on the development of this country. Innovation, research and know-how are the core of the progress achieved by modern societies.
If Canada has managed to maintain its prosperity up to now, it is mainly on account of its great natural resources and thanks to its exploiting industries. But if we want to maintain and improve our position in relation to other industrialized countries, we must now proceed to some structural changes in our industries.
Through the operations of the department of which I have the responsibility will be worked out the long term programs aimed at ensuring continuity between research, development, industrial process and marketing. In order to survive against our competitors, to dodge their control, we must in turn direct our efforts toward industries using highly skilled labour. We must know better the influence of exterior factors, such as fiscal measures, tariffs, taxes, foreign investments that affect our industrial development. One of the responsibilities of the department is to assess the influence of those factors on our economy and to pave the way for the future.
To this effect, Mr. Speaker, let me remind hon. members that, as of March 31, 1972, we have set a rule to assign the Canadian industry an increasing part of the federal needs in research and development. This initiative was
[Mrs. Sauve.l
taken by my predecessor and has been known for some time as the "Make or Buy" principle; it enables us to elaborate in details and to implement a policy to bring research near development, to spread its effects throughout the country and to bring our industry an intellectual and innovating incentive. It will also ensure better employment opportunities in the private sector.
We must innovate if we want to ensure more and better jobs. At least, however insufficient it may be we must not lose the jobs we already have.

It is not only the person who perfects a new product or process who gains from innovation, for it also stimulates those companies that do business with the innovator: the supplier of materials, of parts, of services and of capital goods. By dealing with those firms the innovating company acts as a spur to their development. As a result, our entire industrial base and our capacity for innovation are strengthened. But that is not all. When the company perfects a new product or process, it needs new materials, new services and new capital goods, and the more the new product or process is technologically advanced, the more advanced will the new material, services and capital goods have to be.

In terms of other advantages, technical innovations mean, over the long term, increased profits for businesses, increased real income for labour, and improved work conditions with its "corollary", work satisfaction, a strengthened economy, and thereby increased business profits.
It is thus quite clear that innovation and increased activity in the field of science and technology are the way of progress for our economy.
Briefly, our aims in industrial technology are these: to increase innovating activity within Canada and, if we have to import technology, to do so in the manner most advantageous to the Canadian economy.
And so, Mr. Speaker, these various reflections on the budget and on the department's activity in promoting the role of science and technology in industrial development show unequivocally that our government's first concern is for the needs of Canadians; it listens to their requests, and tries, as it always has, to further their welfare and progress.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by congratulating the very charming and able Minister of Science and Technology (Mrs. Sauve) on a very well delivered maiden speech. It was informative and delivered with fine style. I am sure she will make her constituents very proud that they sent her here.
Following the night of February 19 it became very clear that the budget that had been presented to the House and to the country was a 100 per cent election budget aimed at appearing to give something to as many as possible of those who will be voting in the general election which will
February 26, 1973

come later this spring. It was delivered by the greatest con artist that this country has ever had as Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) because on January 1 this government raised taxes by 3 per cent to all personal income tax payers, but six weeks later the minister had the unmitigated gall to pretend that this 5 per cent tax reduction was anything more than a net 2 per cent reduction in income taxes. Just how gullible does this minister and this government think the people of Canada are, and just how phony can you be?
As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) have pointed out very ably, this budget contains no stimulus to the economy and nothing which will reduce unemployment to a reasonable level of around 4 per cent. Also, it contains no plan to control inflation and nothing to keep the annual increase in the cost of living down to around 3 per cent a year.
Because of the lack of a practical and effective plan to deal with unemployment, inflation, or any of our other economic ills, the government will call an election in April, with a vote no later than 60 days from that date, which will be in June, with the intention of getting in the votes if possible before three important things take place. First, the government wants to have an election before it becomes obvious that the few prices which have been lowered as a result of the removal of excise taxes have again gone up and have reached levels above those that prevailed before the taxes were removed. Second, they want the election to come before those who have been taken off the tax rolls find out that inflation has once again put them back on the tax rolls. Third, they want the election to come before the people of Canada realize that unemployment and inflation have not been reduced by this budget and that it, like the five budgets which have preceded it, has simply failed to deal with the economic problems facing this country and has fallen flat on its face. This budget was presented with the sole aim of trying to maintain this government in power, and the people of Canada will come to realize this more and more in the weeks ahead.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal briefly with a matter about which the government has said very little in the presentation of this budget for fear of offending its new-found bedfellows, the New Democratic Party. I speak, of course, of the government's proposal to reduce corporate income taxes from 49 per cent to 40 per cent for manufacturers and processors as a means of stimulating employment in those two sectors of the economy and thereby reducing unemployment. When the minister first introduced his plan on May 8, he confidently predicted that manufacturers and processors would start expanding their operations as a result of the windfall that they would receive on January 1. The result of this would be to reduce unemployment. When the minister announced his plan, unemployment in Canada stood at 5.2 per cent of the work force, seasonally adjusted. Today, it is 6.2 per cent, seasonally adjusted. The natural question is: what went wrong?
The first mistake the minister made was that he did not seem to realize that our manufacturers and processors had three options open to them for spending the windfall
The Budget-Mr. Hees
they would start receiving on January 1, 1973. They could either expand their operation in anticipation of the cash windfall they would start receiving on January 1, or they could decide to put the extra money into the company's reserve fund, or they could plan to pay out the money in additional dividends. Judging by the results that have accrued from the minister's policy, the great majority of our manufacturers and processors must have decided on one or the other of the two latter alternatives.
The second mistake which the minister made was that he did not seem to realize that although taxes would be lowered on January 1 for manufacturers and processors, who together make up 34.2 per cent of the Canadian economy, they would also be substantially raised on the same day for the other two thirds of the economy because of an item in the budget of 1971. The minister did not seem to realize that lowering taxes for one third of the economy and substantially raising taxes for the other two thirds does not add up to a stimulus for the economy as a whole and, regrettably, today's very high unemployment figures show just how true that is.
Now, as though this was not a sufficient deterrent to reducing unemployment, the minister did not seem to realize that the money which would be invested in plant expansion by manufacturers and processors today means investment in labour saving machinery to lower costs and make management less dependent on their labour force. So our manufacturers and processors who started investing in plant expansion in anticipation of the windfall which they would start receiving on January 1, 1973, have been making these investments to reduce their labour force rather than to expand it.
It is fair to ask: what measure to increase employment should the minister have introduced last May 8 and what should he be introducing in his present budget? If a government wants businessmen to do something which it believes is necessary for the good of the country, it must not simply hand over to businesses a gift in the form of a tax reduction and hope that they will make use of it in the way in which the government desires. This simply does not work, and I speak with 20 years of experience as a manufacturer and six years of experience as a member of the government dealing with businessmen.
What the government must do for the good of the country is to tell businessmen what it wants to accomplish and that it will reward their efforts to bring about this aim in proportion to the effort which they make. In the present case, the government should have said to all business, not just the manufacturers and processors, that it will reward over-all increases in employment during the year in direct proportion to the increases in employment that are made by individual companies, and that it will do so in the form of a tax rebate at the end of the year. This is simply a matter of comparing the total number of man years of employment by a company in the tax year under consideration with the man years of employment by that company in the previous year. The tax rebate would be in proportion to the increase in employment, and the company would be able to calculate a year in advance what cash rebate it would receive for various improvements in employment.

February 26, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Hees
This would enable Canadian businessmen to calculate in advance how much their labour costs would be reduced on any additional business which the tax rebate would make it possible for them to undertake. At present, many orders are out of the reach of Canadian producers, both in Canada and in the export market, because of low prices quoted by foreign competition. Lower labour costs would put some of this business, as a matter of fact I believe quite a lot of it, within their reach, and orders obtained in this way would be a net gain for employment in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in this way the government would receive a 100 per cent return for every dollar that it spends to increase employment, instead of the expensive, give-away program which the minister has presented to the House and which the government intends to push through parliament. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the businessmen of this country would respond very well indeed to the incentive program which I have presented. I have talked it over with a great many businessmen. They tell me that it would be exactly the kind of program that all businessmen would like.
They tell me that this incentive program means the possibility of lowering labour costs, so that they could go after business that is out of their hands today. By achieving lower labour costs through a direct rebate given to them by the government, which they know will come to them at the end of the year, in direct proportion to their increase in employment, they will be able to go out after new business with prices which are competitive, get business for Canada and produce the jobs that are not available to Canadians today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: So, Mr. Speaker, through you I say to the minister and to the government, forget about your candy bars and your cosmetics. Bring forth plans that will deal with the basic problems facing the economy today. Through you I also say to them that failure to do so will result in their making that short trip across the aisle to sit on your left, Mr. Speaker, sometime later in June.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I see that I have a minute and a half left, and I would like to clear up a slight misunderstanding that occurred in the House a few weeks ago. After I spoke in the throne speech debate I was followed by the Minister of Finance who stated the belief that, during the Grey Cup game of 1938, which the Argonauts happened to win by defeating Winnipeg 30 to 7, I had sat on the bench. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell this young upstart of a minister that in those days we played 60 minutes of football, and I happened to play 60 minutes in that game. I am glad to have the opportunity to correct that, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding).


John Napier Turner: On a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I want formally to withdraw-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Kootenay West as the Minister of Finance seeks the floor on a question of privilege.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hon. gentleman's statement I want formally to withdraw the remark which I made in the throne speech debate, and to say to him that I recognize that in those days he was a 60 minute player, able to go both ways, but I think that in current circumstances he is better on defence.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate the Minister of Science and Technology (Mrs. Sauve), who represents the riding of Ahunt-sic, on her maiden speech. I think she has made an excellent start in the House of Commons, and I trust that in the months to come we will hear more from her.
I have listened with interest to the budget debate over the last three sitting days. Some constructive criticism has been offered, and many good suggestions have been made by speakers representing all parties. I feel that these suggestions should be carefully examined by the government, which might be able to incorporate some of them into future budgets or into the administrative policies of the various departments concerned. Our nation is in deep economic trouble, and it is obvious that the government is in need of guidance, both devine and otherwise.
There has been a great deal of criticism of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) for bringing in a budget which contains a number of NDP and Conservative measures which were advanced during the election campaign some four months ago. There is absolutely no doubt that the present Liberal government has done a complete about-face on the financial policies which it was advocating over the past three or four years. Its tight money policy and the restrictive measures ensuing from that policy have resulted in tremendously high and unacceptable unemployment rates in Canada. This budget is a reversal of the government's past tight money policy, but one of the main criticisms of the budget is that it is not sufficiently expansionary to meet the crisis in unemployment which is facing us.
I am not going to be critical of the minister for incorporating a large number of NDP and Conservative ideas in his budget. I only regret that this action was not taken several budgets ago, and then perhaps had that been so, we might have the unemployment rate at manageable proportions by this time. I see nothing wrong with a democratic and responsible government changing its plan, or accepting ideas advanced by other groups. The adoption of these ideas might show up the fallacies of its past policies, but will result in better government, and in a much better deal for the taxpayers of the country. And that is what government should be all about. Too many governments fail because they try to stick too closely to preconceived ideas in a policy and a program which are often faulty. I do not believe in the old philosophy that majority governments have always used in this country, to the effect that suggestions from opposition groups must seldom be accepted because that is apparently a sign of
February 26, 1973

weakness. No government is always right, just because it received majority support in a certain election.
In a minority situation the government of the day is forced to make major adjustments. For this reason, some of the best legislation ever passed in this country came during a period of minority government. I would remind hon. members that our old age pension legislation in 1926 was brought in to accommodate a minority group of progressive members who supported the government of that day on the condition that old age pension legislation would be one of the items passed by the government. During the last 10 or 12 years some major pieces of social legislation were also processed through the House of Commons under minority governments. Some of the important legislation passed under minority administrations included family allowances and our national medicare plan. Good legislation can also come out of the present minority situation if the government is flexible enough to adjust to the current political situation.
I would like to make my position on the current budget crystal clear. Our party has agreed to support generally the budget of February, 1973, and feels that most of the proposals stemming from it would be beneficial to the Canadian people. Our group voted solidly against the budget of last year, primarily because of the corporate rip-offs which it contained. I, personally, see no reason to change either my opinion or my vote so far as the corporate rip-offs in the May 8, 1972, budget are concerned, and I have no hesitation in stating that any bill containing corporate rip-offs which comes before the House of Commons will not receive my support.
The last general election date was less than four months ago. It resulted in a minority government. The Canadian people do not want another election immediately, despite the minority situation in which we find ourselves. They want the elected members and the parties to try to make this parliament work. We are being asked to make every effort to solve the serious national problems facing us, and to try to produce good legislation for the Canadian people. Our NDP group has decided to give the minority government an opportunity to produce this type of legislation and we will base our support and decisions on each piece of legislation as it is presented to the House of Commons.
One thing has become crystal clear since this session opened just over seven weeks ago. The Conservative party has no intention of trying to make parliament work. It has only one goal in mind, and that is to take over the reins of government. Its obstructionist and delaying tactics are deliberately designed to prevent any good coming from this minority government situation. The lust for government office by this power hungry group of Tories is really something to behold. Their drive for power has become an obsession and this fact has not been lost on the Canadian people.
Last November, our NDP group met and drew up a list of eight objectives which we felt this new parliament should work toward. The Throne Speech indicated that action would be taken in all the areas outlined. The budget presented one week ago, makes some progessive
The Budget-Mr. Harding
moves in this direction, and for this reason I will support the motion on the budget when it comes to a vote this coming Wednesday. I trust that all the legislation to implement the progressive measures outlined in this budget will be introduced and dealt with as soon as this debate is concluded. This legislation is needed and should be given top priority by the government and by the committees which will deal with it. Early action on these measures will also show the Canadian people that parliament can work and pass progressive legislation in a minority situation.
Perhaps the most widespread benefits from the budget will come in the area of income tax reductions. These will be retroactive to January 1, 1973. The proposed 5 per cent reduction, with a minimum tax reduction of $100, is a welcomed tax relief, especially for those in the lower income brackets. When this tax cut is combined with the increased exemption to $1,600 for single people and $3,000 for married couples, along with the plan to index the personal income tax system and so end the erosion of purchasing power resulting from the interaction of inflation with the progressive tax system, I feel we have measures which can be supported by all members in the House.
The increase in the basic old age security pension to $100 is another move in the right direction, although this government has the financial resources which would have enabled it to raise the basic old age pension to a much higher figure. Our group has been pressing for a basic old age pension of $150. We intend to continue our campaign until we reach this goal. The raising of the basic pension, however, will help all pensioners, including those who were unable in the past to get any of the guaranteed income supplement. In addition, the combined old age security and guaranteed income supplement which becomes $170 a month for a single person and $325 for a married couple, again raises the monthly amount a little closer to an acceptable income goal.
The war veterans allowance, and the civilian war allowance which will be increased to a minimum of $150 per month for single and to $257 for married recipients is long overdue. With this goes the raising of the guaranteed income for those veterans over 65 to $206 per month for a single and $357 per month for married couples. As I said earlier, these benefits are steps in the right direction and certainly warrant support.
Despite many of the good features which I have briefly mentioned, the government's financial policies are not adequate to deal with the serious unemployment situation facing us. Canada has the highest unemployment rate of any industrialized country in the western world. The present budget is not sufficiently expansionary to really do a job of drastically reducing the unemployment rate in Canada. The fear of further inflation throughout the country apparently led the Minister of Finance to cut down on expansionary measures which many economists feel are needed at this time. I am of the opinion that the major problem facing us today is unemployment and budgetary measures should have reflected this to a greater degree than we find in the present budget. I suggest the Minister of Finance should closely study this situation over the next few months and, if necessary, make the

February 26, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Harding
financial commitments to do the job of effectively reducing unemployment.
There is no reason why the old age pension could not have been increased to a much higher figure. This would not only have further alleviated the plight of many of our senior citizens but would also have stimulated economic growth. As I indicated earlier, revenues currently available to the Canadian government warranted further increases. We should have had higher income tax reductions but, most important, the budget should have clearly laid out those programs which must be initiated to lay the base for permanent jobs throughout Canada rather than the use of the stop-gap programs which we have been faced with over the past two or three years.
Mr. Speaker, most economists will agree that unemployment is probably the major probem facing Canada today. Over the past four years, we have seen the objectives of this government and of many economists outside the government change in so far as the maximum rate of unemployment is concerned. Four years ago, 3 per cent was the maximum goal for unemployment in this nation, and then we find it going up to 4 per cent. Now, some of our financial leaders are talking in terms of a 5 per cent float of permanent unemployment in this nation. The fact must be coming clear to Canadians that neither this government nor the Conservatives who wish to follow have the economic policies to provide the people of Canada with full employment. The only time since the war that the unemployment situation was worse than today was during the last Conservative government in the early sixties. Most of the trouble stems from the economic policies which both these old line parties have been espousing for years. Their policies have made Canada a supplier of raw materials to practically every country in the world and these policies have basically neglected the job-intensive secondary industries which we require to help meet the unemployment crisis currently facing us. This is one of the main reasons we have increasing unemployment in an apparent period of prosperity.
This budget should have produced measures to ensure that immediate steps were being taken to lay the base for increased secondary processing in our nation. We should be taking steps now to regain control of many of our resource industries which currently belong to foreign dominated corporations, whose only object in obtaining them is to obtain a cheap source of raw material for the parent plant which is outside Canada. These are some of the basic measures that Canadians would like to see this government carry out. These are some of the basic measures which our party intends to press for over the coming months.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has indicated that, if necessary he will bring in two or three budgets per year to help meet the problems facing Canada and Canadians. I suggest to him, and to this government, that as soon as the budget debate is over, he start planning for the next one within a few months time. There are a number of emergencies in Canada at this time and this parliament should be prepared to meet them. By all means, let us pass this budget and pass the legislation based on the proposals contained in it, and then let us move forward into newer fields and give all Canadians, including those

who are just starting out in the labour force of Canada, some real hope for the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago we heard the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) refer to this budget as a pre-election budget. He did that, while at the same time saying that a number of things were wrong with it so I cannot quite understand the logic of the hon. member in putting those two thoughts together. Lest there be any doubt about the matter, we should all take it as a fair and firm prediction that it is anything but a pre-election budget now that the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings has referred to it in that fashion. I suggest that it will require about six such references before eventually, by effluxion of time, he is right about something being an election matter. Indeed, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) has spoken about the responsibility and the opportunity to make parliament work. It seems to me that there should be a good, long time between now and the next election, so long as parliament assumes all its responsibilities and faces all the challenges which now face it to do work and produce good legislation for this country. I think it will be up to members in this House to make sure that the country understands from where any obstruction is coming, from where the delay is coming and who are those who do not want to see parliament work but, through their attitudes and actions, wish to delay good legislation brought forward by this government for the benefit of this country.
I was interested in observing in this debate a number of interesting differences of view expressed by members of the official opposition about what should have been done or should not have been done in connection with the economy. The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) has spoken of the importance of considering threats that this country faces from things over which it has no control. He was talking about matters of international concern and about the policies of other countries. Neither he nor his colleagues have so far repeated what formerly had been the position of his party, namely, that the reduction in taxation for manufacturing businesses and accelerated depreciation allowances were necessary protection measures for particularly vulnerable areas in secondary manufacturing. This area is particularly vulnerable because of the smallness of our national market and it is important, therefore, for us to meet international competition both at home and abroad. That was that party's position.
Indeed, rather than come out flatly and say that their position is still that of supporting assistance to industries in these vulnerable areas, some hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) have come forward with a new idea. It is not unusual for each Conservative spokesman on finance to introduce a new major plank as he goes along. Only some of those members are allowed to say that they are speaking on behalf of the party when they do that.
February 26, 1973


Mr. Dinsdale:: And the government steals all those good ideas.


Otto Emil Lang: I take it the hon. member's remarks do not fall into that category. He talked about windfalls in our policy. He did not seem to see the windfalls in his. He suggests that there should be a direct bonus to employers in all sectors of industry, for increasing employment. I wonder how he would distinguish between those increases which would take place in any event and those which take place as a result of special effort on the part of the employer? I do not know how he would do that. Indeed, he did not deal with the rather strange situation that would result from those industries which are strongest, most able to grow and most able to hold their own in international competition, receiving the maximum of help under such a plan, whereas those which are most vulnerable and are struggling to survive in the face of competition would receive almost none. I take it that in this idea he has not received the blessing of his colleagues who seem to be more responsible in matters of finance. They are busy, in the meantime, trying to decide what size of deficit would be appropriate in present circumstances to provide a sufficient degree of expansion through the budget.
In making his proposals in the budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) tried to strike a balance between stimulation for purposes of employment and undue stimulation which would encourage inflation. He was exercising important judgment on what was the right amount of expansion needed for our economy. Hon. members opposite suggested that the deficit should be greater, which is not surprising, since, when the government does anything, the tendency of the opposition is to say that it should do more.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) was provoked during his speech to name a figure. When asked how large a deficit the Minister of Finance ought to have brought in, the hon. member suggested that it should be, "perhaps $2.5 million or perhaps $3 billion". I see a spread of half a billion dollars there, yet I suppose we are to believe that the half billion dollars difference between the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton West and the proposal of the Minister of Finance in the budget is crucial, or very important. I note that the hon. member for Don Valley did not name a similar figure. No doubt he will, one of these days, come in with a new and different version of what ought to be done. I understand the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) was more generous in this regard, having suggested that $4 billion perhaps is the right figure. So, the Minister of Finance had better take note before he prepares his next budget; the bidding is under way, and almost any figure seems to be right. The figure that the Minister of Finance included in his budget was one that he had arrived at after judging carefully what was right for the country.
The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings did something else which I found remarkable and interesting. He talked about the negligible difference between the proposed income tax reductions and the situation if the 3 per cent reduction had remained in force from the previous year. Perhaps he suggests that the reductions are negligible, because for those with incomes over $50,000 a
The Budget-Mr. Lang
year the reduction in income tax under this budget is 3 per cent, which is what it would have been if the 3 per cent surtax had remained in place. So, for those with incomes of over $50,000 a year, there is no change. However, it is significant that for a great number of other Canadians, namely, those with the lowest incomes, the reductions are much more significant and, as the Minister of Finance has pointed out, they are in total worth about four times as much as the previous 3 per cent reduction would have been worth.
Hon. members of this House should focus their attention carefully on reductions in the total amount of tax for those in the lowest brackets. Those reductions are significant. The reductions are also significant for those in the middle income brackets. The wage earner with $7,000 income is to receive a tax reduction of approximately 10 per cent. This is important and this is the right direction in which tax reductions ought to go. It is that aspect of the budget to which I particularly want to direct the attention of hon. members. It is specifically in keeping with the traditions of the Liberal party of the past that we continue to improve the progressive nature of our tax system and attempt to reduce the burden on those in the lower income categories who can bear it least.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Oh, come off it!


Otto Emil Lang: In doing this at this time the Minister of Finance has given the greatest part of the benefit to the lower income Canadians who are wage earners, or to Canadians with low incomes, wherever they may be.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The minister begins to sound more and more like Edgar Benson.


Otto Emil Lang: Therefore, the greatest amount of tax reduction will affect those regions where the taxpayers are in the lowest income categories. The minister has thereby provided for a tendency for greater expansion in those areas where incomes are lowest, where unemployment normally is highest and where expansion is most needed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: But this budget will not cure unemployment, Mr. Speaker.


Otto Emil Lang: In keeping with that principle this budget provides for an increase in equalization payments; for here, too, the government is following traditions which were developed by previous Liberal governments and saying to all Canadians that, just as individuals who have most must bear the greatest burden of running this country so, too, those provinces, those areas, which are most prosperous when taken as a whole should assist those other areas where cost payments are highest and where tax revenue is proportionately lowest.
At present our government pays large sums of money to provinces under a variety of programs, many of which are cost-shared. Under those programs we pay as much as 50 cents on the dollar for post secondary education, hospital and medical care and the Canada Assistance Plan, to name the principal programs. Under all these programs, the payment made is equal to half the cost. Many of the poorer provinces have proportionately higher responsibilities than the more wealthy provinces, because of the

February 26, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Lang
nature of these programs. Under the equalization program, moneys are made available to the provinces, particularly to those which need money most. Under this budget, for instance, $190 million has been added by way of equalization payments. Of this amount, I am happy to say $26.4 million is to go to Saskatchewan, a province which has been going through economic difficulties and population decline as a result. It will receive an amount of money which should help it reduce tax burdens further on many provincial taxpayers, particularly upon property owners, as property taxes in some ways are the most regressive of taxes.
I hope the provincial authorities will take the suggestion of the Minister of Finance and make sure this money is used for the reduction of these taxes. As a citizen of Saskatchewan, I was pleased to note the increase in equalization, Mr. Speaker, especially as a number of years ago it appeared that Saskatchewan might be moving out of the so-called "have-not" category and into the "have" category, and might cease to receive equalization payments. I hope that day will come again. I want to say, now, that I shall continue always to support the equalization principle under which money is taken from across the country to help areas where available tax revenues are lowest. This is a fair and decent program, and one which is an extremely important part of the budget. It means that the provinces which have the lowest incomes and, often, the highest unemployment, find themselves in a better financial position to do something about it.
The budget contained another feature of direct interest to me and to people in my part of the country-the removal of the capital gains tax on family farms passing from father to son. This is an important measure psychologically and it leads me, again, to say to governments of provinces where estate taxes still apply in these circumstances, that it would be well for them to follow the lead of the federal government in this budget and to remove estate taxes, at least in this area, so that those succeeding to family farms need not fear a demand for taxes at that particular point.
Many hon. members will say, of course, that old age pensions should have been further increased. They should bear in mind the freedom which provincial governments have to pay more money to pensioners in their provinces where they see the need, and notice how few of the provinces have taken up this challenge or possibility. As far as a national program is concerned, consideration must be given to the needs of people across this country. There are other groups whose needs are also great and if there are additional funds to spend we must consider their needs also. But the challenge to the provinces is there-to pay more to those who need more in whichever province they are found. Not only does the challenge exist, but because of the arrangements made with the provinces under the Canada Assistance Plan it is easy for provinces to set up programs in such a way that the federal government pays 50 cents on every dollar made available. However, under the national plan, this is an important step to protect our old age pensioners and it is another part of this extremely significant budget. It is a budget which, as I have said through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Prince

Edward-Hastings is one of many which the present Minister of Finance will be bringing before the House before the election.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the minister but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, on rising to speak for the first time in parliament, I wish to pay tribute to the excellent manner in which you preside over this House, along with the Deputy Speaker and your other officials. It is a privilege for any Canadian to be able to speak in this chamber and to take his place among so many distinguished parliamentarians from all parties.
I want my first words to be addressed to the youth of Canada. I want to reassure young people who are legitimately questioning the validity of old institutions that parliament is the preserver of their freedom. I want to tell them to have faith in this institution and to participate, in some way, in the continued development of our country and to help make our society more human in an age when the computer threatens to submerge the individual. We are not at the end but only the beginning of a new century of development in Canada.
Little did I realize, Mr. Speaker, as I sat in the Commons public gallery many of an afternoon in my youth, that I would one day stand here. The fact that I am here, as an ordinary Canadian, ought to be but one example to young people that there is room for them in society. We need their ideas and their energy.
One of the most important functions of a member of parliament is to reconcile the divergent interests in the community so that we can move forward together. It is necessary, therefore, as Edmund Burke has said "to unite circumspection with vigor". For we live in a time of exciting change and new possibilities, and parliament must show that it is responsive to people's needs if people are to continue to believe in it. Our job is to rule and not to wrangle.
Let me say at the outset that I believe the cornerstone of public policy in Canada today must be the rights and dignity of the individual human being. That is the principle which will reinvigorate Canada with economic prosperity, human freedom and national independence. Thus, I am convinced that the federal government today is too big, too dominant, too expensive and imposes itself too much in people's lives. Look at the government estimates for 1973-74 as the latest reflection of this: a federal budget tripled in 10 years; government spending up 17 per cent in one year; a 10 per cent increase in civil servants in one year and $300 million more for their salaries; a public works program of $97 million in the City of Ottawa alone.
Little wonder that the Economic Council of Canada has warned us against this government extravaganza. With 47 cents out of every dollar earned going to the three levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal, we have too much government in Canada. Too many people are made overly dependent on government; those who truly need help, the handicapped, the aged, the infirm, are hurt in the process. I advocate a hold-the-line approach on government spending so that, as our economy expands over the next decade, the percentage of government in the
February 26, 1973

gross national product can be reduced. Mr. Speaker, it is time to blow the whistle on big government in Canada, and the people of Edmonton-Strathcona have sent me here to do a lot of whistling.
Many people today are asking, "What does Western Canada want?" What we want, in brief, is an even break in the opportunity to participate in industrialization, in scientific, technological and economic endeavours. Western Canada, with its tremendous agriculture, resource and energy base, is of vital importance to Canada's total wellbeing. Yet the over-centralized operation of the federal government treats the west as a hinterland. Tariff, transportation and marketing policies of the federal government work to the disadvantage of the west. There must be a better economic balance between the prosperous centre of Canada and the western provinces. We want economic justice. That is the central message the Lough-eed government is transmitting to the country. That message will be at the heart of the forthcoming conference between the governments of the four western provinces and the federal government to discuss "western economic opportunities". It is imperative that this conference produce action and not just another report for the already overloaded library shelves.
Precisely because the distance from Parliament Hill is so great, the federal government must pay constant attention to the modernizing of the west so that westerners feel the spirit of confidence that is necessary for economic success. The Ottawa-Toronto-Montreal triangle has dominated Canada for too long; the future lies with the western, building end of Canada where the spectacular openings to the north and Pacific will be concentrated. I hope the government will not discount the urgency of my message because I am a member of the Progressive Conservative party. Western development must transcend politics. For my part I endorse the stand of Manitoba Liberal leader I. H. Asper, who criticizes "the freight rate structures, the custom tariff situation, the centralized banking system, the tax laws which create no incentive for western development, the immigration laws which presently create no impetus for settling in the west, and a host of other instruments of federal authority."
The situation of Edmonton today is an example of why stronger western influence is needed in Ottawa. Edmonton, host to the 1978 British Commonwealth Games, is witnessing the rapid beginnings of a five-year boom. Because of oil, gas and mineral finds in Northern areas, Edmonton is now the pivoted city in western Canada. We are not only a major distribution centre and staging area for the Arctic developments, we are strategically located to take advantage of great new markets opening up in the Pacific. Because of the Yellowhead highway, we are the only western Canadian city directly linked to two coastal cities, Vancouver and Prince Rupert.
The new trading opportunities waiting for Canada in Asia are bound to add to the Edmonton boom. Similarly, the coming direct link between Edmonton and Tuktoyak-tuk in the Arctic and the development of the Mackenzie valley energy corridor will make Edmonton one of the great action centres of North America. But we are hurt by inadequate transportation. The Yellowhead highway must
The Budget-Mr. Roche
be upgraded immediately to trans-Canada specifications. There must be more equitable trans-Canada air service. For example, Edmonton has more annual passengers than Winnipeg-780,885 to 702,375-yet Winnipeg has twice as many domestic flights as Edmonton, 29,006 to 15,412.
The opening of direct air service to the United States is long overdue. It is vital that Edmonton be included in daily jet service from Twin Cities, Minnesota, to Anchorage. Northwest Airlines has agreed to fly this route. This will give Edmonton a connection to the central United States and gives Canada its first connection to Alaska. Also any bilateral trading involving an air bridge from Alberta to California must include both Edmonton and Calgary. We are a north-south oriented province, not an east-west strip. Air route negotiators must recognize that Edmonton is the largest city in the province and Calgary the second largest.
In the past quarter century more than 3,500,000 people have come to Canada from other lands. Canadians whose mother tongue is neither English nor French now comprise 26 per cent of the population. In Alberta, a province whose "rugged grandeur" is praised by author James MacGregor, there are more than 50 ethnic cultures which have enriched our total life style. These groups have added to the scope and beauty of our music, our dance, our art, our films. The intellectual, cultural and construction achievements of new Canadians have been an important factor in the maturing of the Canadian society. They have brought instant skills to a country that needs those skills.
Yet the federal government has been slow to recognize the value to Canada of cultural groups that are neither English nor French in background. Ethnic groups have received little in government grants. Our goal must be nothing less than the recognition that cultural diversity is a basic human right, a fundamental human value which must be encouraged by government. The Canadian constitution, now in the process of revision, should spell out that Canada is a multicultural country with many languages, two of which, English and French, are official; and that every ethnic group in Canada has a natural right to the pursuit of its own language, religion and cultural identity. [Translation]
In the Edmonton areas, the French fact is reflected through new structures. In the last 25 years, we have seen the establishment of radio station CHFA and C.3.C. French TV station CBX-FT. The high school sections of the College Saint-Jean and the Academie de L'Assomp-tion have been replaced by a new bilingual institution, the J.-H. Picard School. It is attended by over 500 students some of whom are from English-speaking families.
In short, the present structures recognize the French fact in my constituency and endeavours to contribute to its fulfilment. There is still some progress to be made. On the other hand, the recent achievements are quite important and show the official acceptance of the French fact in Alberta, especially in Edmonton.

A discussion of the problems and potential of Canada inevitably brings us back to our constitution. The joint Senate-Commons committee on the constitution gave us

February 26, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Roche
an excellent report on necessary revisions to meet modern demands. Why do we not implement it? The joint committee struck at the heart of the Canadian problem when it said:
A new Canadian constitution should be based on functional considerations, which would lead to a greater decentralization of government powers in all areas touching culture and social policy and to a greater centralization in powers which have important economic effects at the national level.
Here is the situation in brief. The federal government has the main access to the growth fields of taxation, such as personal and corporation income taxes. The provinces and the municipalities are boxed in by such slower growth taxes as retail sales taxes and property taxes. At the same time, the provinces and the municipalities are the levels of government which are faced with the most rapidly expanding demand for services. This situation has been intensified by the vast growth in welfare costs borne by big urban municipalities as a direct result of unemployment.
The lack of government co-ordination in urban planning is shocking. We now have an intergovernmental jungle in Canada with all three levels of government clamouring for more money. Their competition, and the lack of consultation, weakens government programs; meanwhile, the taxpayer is financing an expanding bureaucracy. This produces a spirit of confrontation throughout the country. The role of the federal government should be one of co-ordination and support, not domination. Decentralization means shifting as much power as is compatible with the national interest to provincial levels of government and from the provinces to the municipalities. That is the way to give people more control over their own lives and a greater say in their own destinies. Ottawa should lead, not dictate.
The constitutional committee has told us: "More communications and fuller co-operation among all levels of government are imperative needs . . ." That is what we are putting into practice in Edmonton-Strathcona. We have an informal intergovernmental team consisting of Mayor Dent, Aldermen Menzies, Purves, McLean and Olsen and MLA's Getty, Crawford, Schmid and Koziak and myself. Essentially, the same voters elected all of us to the three levels of government, and we are trying to find ways to co-ordinate our service. Last Friday we held our second meeting to plan co-operative action on a senior citizens high rise, co-ordinated social services and the introduction of rapid transit without damaging communities. We hope to give a report on intergovernmental co-operation in this one federal constituency at the next national trilevel meeting.
The immediate problems of unemployment, inflation and taxation are undoubtedly pressing us, but we must not be diverted from global problems. Parliament must focus national attention on the opportunities and responsibilities Canada faces in contributing to world order. The astronauts have shown us that the whole of humanity is compressed into a global village. The central question today is whether our world will become a community or a wasteland. There is no alternative to the United Nations as the major focus for building a world order guaranteeing peace, justice and progress for all peoples. The only wars we can now tolerate are the wars on poverty, injus-

tice, discrimination, ignorance, disease and the befoul-ment of the planet. Yet the United Nations is struggling for its existence and the gulf between the "haves" and "have-nots" is growing in an unbalanced world economy. Sixteen per cent of the world's population, largely North American, has 75 per cent of the wealth; the number of illiterate people in the world is actually growing, liberation struggles are common.
World aid programs total $7 billion annually, but the value of that aid is diminished by inflation and the world's population is growing by 78 million people per year. By the year 2000 the world will be inhabited by eight billion people, six billion in underdeveloped countries and two billion in the developed zone. The last quarter of this century will be dominated by people under 25, largely alienated and living in ghetto continents. We have the ability in Canada to make a vital contribution to the survival of man in the new age. We can decide whether to build a system of economic humanism on this planet or to blindly allow technology to widen the gaps between men. Canadian leadership can stimulate a new era of world co-operation.
Our goal should be to become an international nation, pioneering research and training through an expanded Canadian International Development Agency. Canada could stimulate an alliance of middle states, north and south, east and west, to move policies for world development and conciliation to the prime place that human survival demands. Our goal should be to move beyond the concept of foreign aid, necessary as that is; world development demands organized trading systems under which the poorer countries may enjoy a fairer share of export earnings. Canada has made a modest beginning in tariff cuts, but we must do more to open our markets so that developing countries can sell their primary products to us. Canadian industries affected by increasing imports would be given adjustment assistance.
A strong Canadian economy is a prerequisite to Canada playing a larger international role. But if a strong domestic economy is our only goal, we will be failing to recognize that international social justice is the only route to world peace. Thus, I want to see a higher Canadian government priority given to involvement in United Nations programs for food growth and distribution, literacy development and health services.
Finally, the Science Council of Canada has recently given us a very controversial report questioning the growth syndrome as the criterion of national success. The council wants us to use the same energy and genius that built this country "to create new social organizations, new transportation mechanisms, new waste disposal systems and the whole panoply of new services which our emerging life style will demand". In other words, we must put the national spotlight onto improving the quality of life rather than just increasing the abundance of goods. This ties in with the international examination of our life support systems now going on through the Club of Rome.
Population, industrialization, food production, depletion of non-renewable resources and pollution can no longer be viewed as separate things; they are interconnected in many ways. The resources of this planet are limited and the demands made on them increasing. Thus, the protec-
February 26, 1973

tion of the environment demands constructive political action and creative social change. I believe it is possible to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability and justice that is sustainable far into the future.
Canada cannot remain oblivious to this global problem. We need to re-define our national priorities. Parliament is the place to do it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him by the House order the other day has expired and it cannot be extended.


Mr. Francis Fox (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):: I am
particularly pleased, Mr. Speaker, to participate today in the debate on the budget.
As member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, a riding which incidentally has sent to this House a Prime Minister, Sir John Abbott, and several other distinguished par-liamentaries, Progressive Conservatives as well as Liberals, I would like first to congratulate you for your election as Speaker of the House of Commons. You are known both inside and outside this chamber, for what you are: an honest, fair and impartial man whose contribution to the efficient work of this House is above criticism.
Mr. Speaker, my fellow citizens and I believe in a strong, united, wealthy and humane Canada. The legislation that we pass in this House must be considered in the light of these criteria.
One criterium, Mr. Speaker, underlies all others, includes them and gives them their meaning: the human criterium.
Our constituents entrust us with a rather general mandate. We are responsible for public welfare, for the conduct of government affairs geared to improving the lot of the population. However, our constituents also vest in us a specific duty: to see that the ever more powerful government remains and becomes increasingly aware of the aspirations of the individuals it is to serve.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has brought forward on behalf of the Canadian government does meet this very concept.

I do not believe it is necessary to repeat the highlights of the budget. It will suffice to underline that the main objectives of the budget are to reduce unemployment and encourage faster growth, to reduce inflationary pressures and offset the effects of past inflation, to increase real income and ensure older Canadians of a fairer share of prosperity and to contribute to more balanced economic expansion among all regions of Canada.
I was particularly pleased to see increases in both old age pensions and in war veterans allowances. I have always felt that parliament has a special responsibility toward those who have made a contribution to the building of this nation, and I am particularly proud to be a member of parliament at this time.
The Budget-Mr. Fox
The budget before the House can justly be called a family budget. Along with increased pensions for Canadians aged 65 and over, basic tax exemptions have been increased for all taxpayers effective January 1, 1973, and a tax decrease of 5 per cent is proposed.
Perhaps the most important long-term innovation is the indexing of the tax system beginning in 1974. It will raise tax brackets and income tax exemptions each year by an inflation factor based on the consumer price index. Reductions in tariffs and cuts in sales tax should also help curtail the rise in the cost of living.
Furthermore, the government has come to the help of the ratepayer. The general equalization system will be broadened in the next fiscal year to include grants on account of municipal taxes. This should enable provinces to come to the relief of hard pressed property owners and tenants who have had to carry an increasing burden of local school taxes. Under this program, the province of Quebec will receive an additional $78.6 million in equalization payments from the federal treasury in 1973-74.
I was also pleased to note the undertaking by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) that measures will soon be announced for assisting small business. I find this area to be of utmost importance, as approximately 60 per cent of the Canadian labour force is working in establishments having the characteristics of small businesses. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) recently noted that 3,500,000 Canadians are employed by businesses with 15 or fewer employees. Small business provides the economic livelihood of the majority of working Canadians. Small business constitutes a source of entrepreneurial activity and growth that should be tapped when seeking increased job opportunities and greater regional development.
The Minister of Finance also proposed a change to the Income Tax Act which is important for the preservation of the family farm. Under the present legislation, when a farmer dies and leaves his farm to his children, his farm is deemed to have been sold and there may be a capital gains tax liability. Under the proposed changes, effective January 1, 1973, if adopted by parliament, there would be no deemed sale on the death of a farmer and hence no capital gains tax liability if the farm is left to the family. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it should not be expected that the budget will solve all the problems of Canadian society. Its purpose is to promote an expanding economy and the development of an economic climate allowing our citizens to progress towards achievement of their destiny.
Conversely, one short and long-term problem which we must face is that of employment. I did notice with great pleasure the following paragraph of the masterly speech delivered in this House on January 11 last by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), and I quote:
the social security system as it applies to people who can work must contain incentives to work and a greater emphasis on the need to get people who are on social aid back to work.
I believe that most Canadians agree in this regard.
The employment problem brings forward challenges that politicians of the 70's will have to take up. As years go

February 26, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Fox
by, the number of Canadians and technological innovations increase. New plants incorporate these technological advances which demand more and more investments and less and less labour.
It is time for us to begin to think seriously about benefits and other consequences of this post-industrial era.
Will our present work ethic be able to solve these problems? Should our society not get prepared at once for such changes? We must try without delay to find answers to those questions.
To palliate these problems forthwith, the government introduces a highly expansionary and innovating budget, a student employment program, the Local Initiatives Program and winter works projects. All these programs are excellent, though I suggest that the Local Initiatives Program could be improved. In my view, its criteria should be altered in order to bring more incentive to municipalities. We are all aware of financial problems encountered by municipalities. I suggest that we might take advantage of such a program to try to bring along the decentralization of decision making process which might be very valuable.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want, in my first statement in this House, to let aside the fact that at the beginning of 1975, Mirabel, the new Montreal international airport, located in the riding of Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, will welcome its first passengers. Its effects have been felt since 1969 in the riding of Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes.
The airport area being designated as a "special area", many projects have been achieved which are designed to improve the infrastructure of this riding.
For the expropriated people the airport is not a future development but a reality of every day and it has been so since the expropriation plans were tabled in 1969.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Parliament must not forget in his concern to see this country move ahead that men and women, even whole families, have and still have to move to make room to that progress. Houses, land held by the same families from time immemorial, neighbourhood relations dating to the beginning of our history are wiped out by bulldozers and concrete runways.
The federal government has expropriated over 3,000 owners many of whom have now become government tenants.
These people who used to be owners are now in daily contact with federal government officials responsible for the management of the expropriated territory.
And I say to all those officials, Mr. Speaker, that they must remember that they are essentially at the service of the public and that it is their main raison d'etre.
Mr. Speaker, Ste. Scholastique, now Mirabel, is not a land concession for the administration of a few civil servants; Ste. Scholastique is people, men, women, children who were upset in their daily life and who have a right to be treated with all the dignity that their pride as Canadians calls for.
In addition to a fair expropriation allowance, these people want clear and specific information inasmuch as it is possible on what their territory is to become.
[Mr. Fox.l
I know, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Transport (M. Marchand) is very concerned about those problems. Last week he met in his office with the Ste. Scholastique community information and animation committee and the citizen help committee. In the light of those meetings I am confident that some of the problems will soon be solved.
In conclusion let me reiterate my fundamental belief in people-oriented government. "Policies for people" is a motto to which I wholeheartedly subscribe. It is a motto which ensures our responsiveness to the aspirations of the Canadian people whom we have the honour to represent in this parliament.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to represent the historic eastern Ontario riding of Leeds, famous for its dairy farming and its Cheddar cheese, known for its tourist resorts and its fishing, yet at the same time being a beehive of bustling industrial activity. This partly rural, partly urban riding was represented in this House for two decades by the Hon. Hugh Stewart, a member of the Bennett government. The Hon. George P. Graham from Brockville served with distinction in the governments of Laurier and King, and his descendants play an active part in the Leeds of today. And naturally I cannot help but recall another Leeds man, a great grandfather of mine, William H. Comstock, who was elected to this House on April 20, 1899. A further distinguished son of Leeds I will mention later in my remarks for some very special reasons.
I was a member of the party opposite until January 15 last year, and like many others across the country I left it when it became obvious that its policies, or perhaps I should say lack of policies, were destroying this nation. Almost from the beginning, this government ceased to be genuinely interested in people and their problems. Everything was subjugated to the new image. Everything became a matter of slogans. Blinded by a false euphoria, this country was swept down a road toward disaster in the greatest con game ever perpetrated on the Canadian people. Our major problems went unsolved and grew steadily worse. In most cases they were not even tackled. Unemployment has stalked the land in ever-increasing proportions since this government took office. A couple of years ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) pronounced inflation dead and since then it has been the most active dead body in the history of Canada. Everything looked so easy through those rose coloured glasses held before our eyes in 1968. But the dream has been shattered. We still have our problems. It takes more than an image to run a country.
What about those great slogans, participatory democracy and the just society? Participatory democracy turned out to mean the privilege of plugging in for orders from above. There has been less and less participation in the democratic process of government by the people of this country, and that has been accompanied by a down-grading of parliament as well as an attempt by the Prime Minister's office to create government. The just society turned out to be a society of gross economic mismanagement and social injustice.
February 26, 1973

For the past five years we have been governed by "Father knows best-ism". And what is even worse, we have been governed by a group for whom maintenance of power is the only real consideration. I do not believe there has ever been in the history of Canada a government more concerned with its own survival than this one. It has shown itself prepared to sacrifice any principle, change any policy, jump in any direction and promise anything it is asked-all since October 30, 1972 when the people of this country clearly declared they were not prepared to accept autocracy in the place of democracy, that they would not accept any longer government by bumbling bureaucrats and heartless technocrats.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) was one of the first to adopt a changed attitude when he announced in December that the supposedly perfect public service bilingual program, in effect, was not so perfect after all. Then, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) acknowledged the necessity of raising the old age security pension. There are dozens of other examples, not the least of which was the sudden conversion of the Prime Minister on the subject of the monarchy, followed by his dash to London for tea with Her Majesty the Queen. Then, in a discovery worthy only of a Christopher Columbus, the Prime Minister found western Canada after all these years. Recently, he daringly called for "Manitoba Power" in Ottawa. And now, in this budget, this inept government proposes all sorts of things in a last desperate effort to remain in office.
Last fall the Progressive Conservative party called for income tax cuts to stimulate the economy. "Impossible", they said, but now they take a somewhat inadequate step in that direction. "The capital gains tax on the family farm should go" said those on this side of the House. "Nonsense", the government replied. Yet now they say it should be done. The Liberals laughed when the leader of this party said that an inflation factor should be applied to the income tax system. Now, they advocate just such a thing. The pensioner did not need more assistance before election day, but the government suddenly recognizes there is a need.
I recall when this House first met that a member of the opposition suggested a theme for this government called, I believe, "Those Nobodies are a Bunch of Somebodies Now". I should like to suggest as a theme for this government, "What a Difference a Day Makes". Politicians who will turn in any direction in order to maintain power demonstrate all too clearly that the welfare of their own needs is more important to them than the welfare of the Canadian people. It is not very difficult to imagine what would be the fate of this country if a group which operates on such a level of motivation was again ever able to obtain a majority of seats in this House.
As one who was a member of the Liberal party for over 30 years and who served in the executive side of that party on the local, provincial and national levels, I believe I can claim some accuracy in assessing its steady destruction in the hands of those who have controlled its destiny-and unfortunately the destiny of this country as well-since April 20, 1968, a destruction that has proceeded to the point where the so-called Liberal party of today is not even an unworthy shadow of its former self, while
The Budget-Mr. Cossitt
at the same time, as the government of this country, it has utterly failed in its responsibilities to the Canadian people.
When I was a young boy, Prime Minister Mackenzie King came to Leeds to officially open the Thousand Island Bridge with President Roosevelt. The afternoon before the ceremony Mr. King came to Brockville in his private railway car and I remember asking a man at the entrance to the car if I could take the Prime Minister's picture. A few minutes later, to the wonder and delight of a small boy, Mr. King stepped from the car and talked for a while about Canada and how every individual and the problems of every person in this nation were important. It was not rhetoric for a crowd, as he sat for a few minutes on a pile of railways ties and talked about the Liberal party and his hopes for Canada. There was no one there but a small boy. The so-called Liberal government of today is a sad reflection of its predecessors. The individual and the problems of people are no concern except at moments when fear of losing power engulfs this heartless machine. Then, this government, in the traitorous style of a Judas, is prepared to sell what principles it has left for the support of the socialists in a fantastic display of its belief it has a divine right to govern at any cost.
When I asked that man years ago at the entrance to Mr. King's railway car if I could take the Prime Minister's picture, I assumed he was a member of Mr. King's staff. In later years I came to know him when he served nine years in this House as the Liberal member for my riding of Leeds. I refer to one of my predecessors, George T. Fulford of Brockville who is in the gallery today and who, last year, put his country ahead of the Liberal party. He is now a member of the Progressive Conservative party and, like so many former Liberals in Leeds and across Canada, he is working for an end to the folly that calls itself the government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: The sense of democracy and the love of the House of Commons so often displayed over the years by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker), who is still such a vital presence in the House today, is something this government could never comprehend, let alone emulate.
There must be a return to the days when the individual member of parliament was the link between government and people instead of the regional desks in the Prime Minister's office. The government of Canada must be returned to the House from the Prime Minister's office. There must be an end to persons sitting on the Treasury Benches guided by methods of the technocrat and the autocrat instead of being guided by a feeling and an understanding of people. There must be an end to the financial irresponsibility that has been the most outstanding feature of the last five years.
Since last October, we have been witnessing an effort to cover up the impossible. We are told the Prime Minister is indulging in a new-found love affair with the Canadian people. The latest grey eminence in the Prime Minister's office has promised us that things will be different in the

February 26, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Clermont
future. But nothing has really changed. The leopard has not changed his spots. It is the same stale old piece of cake with a little new icing smeared across the surface.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: The Prime Minister has said that he will now listen to the people. It is as if the emperor had suddenly decided to give the people his ear. It is a mixture of gross condescension and demogoguery. This is a floundering government that has staggered aimlessly for five years in a sea of problems it is incapable of facing. On its deathbed, it indulges in the sickening performance of trying to buy and hoodwink the people of Canada by flip-flopping all over the place, and if there ever was a time for the people of Canada to get whatever they want, let them just come to Ottawa and ask for it now.
In conclusion, I believe that this country stands at a vital crossroads, and the seriousness of the situation cannot be over-emphasized. I can think of no better way to close these remarks than to quote words that were spoken in the British House of Commons on July 22, 1803 because they seem to me to be so applicable to the situation existing in Canada today. These words were spoken by the prime minister of the day, William Pitt, and they are as follows:
We must recollect what it is we have at stake, what it is we have to contend for. It is our property, it is our liberty, it is our independence. It is our existence as a nation. It is our character. It is our very name. It is everything dear and valuable to man on this side of the grave.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, in his budget speech of last February 19, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) spoke of several aspects of Canadian society.
In the area of social security, he recommended that parliament bring the basic old age security pension to $100 a month from April 1, 1973, which, added to the guaranteed income supplement, will give single people who have no other income, $170 a month and married couples in the same financial situation who get both the old age pension, $325 a month.
Some people say that it is not sufficient, that the government should have given much more but if I examine the basic pension and the guaranteed income supplement paid on April 1, 1970, that is to say $111.41 a month, I notice that, in the case of single people, there is an increase of 52.5 per cent and for married couples, an increase of 46 per cent. I think it is a very appreciable increase within three years. We are right when we say, Mr. Speaker, that Canada offers its elderly citizens the highest old age security pension in the world.
Other people claim that the pension should be paid to persons who are 60 or more, that it should be also paid to the wife of a man who receives it, even if she is not 65. These two measures would no doubt be of great help to a good many people and I am quite convinced that the Liberal government will implement them, as was the case for nearly all benefits under the Canadian social security plan.
Moreover, when Parliament will adopt the recommendation enclosed in the budget of May 1972, concerning the

increase from the special exemption of $650 to $1,000 which applies to persons aged 65 or over, fewer of those persons will have to pay income tax.
We find also an increase in veterans' allowances and war allowances for civilians.
In the field of individual income tax, it is recommended to raise the basic exemption for all taxpayers from $1,500 to $1,600 and for married couples from $2,850 to $3,000 effective January 1, 1973. We proposed to Parliament a 5 per cent reduction on basic federal income tax effective January 1, 1973, and the maximum will be $500 and the minimum $100.
From 1974, individual income tax will be related to the cost of living; this will put an end to the purchasing power erosion which comes from the combined action of inflation and the progressive taxation system. The escalation will be made effective by raising tax brackets and increasing each year basic exemptions with an inflation coefficient based on consumer price index.
When Bill C-259 entitled "An Act to amend the Income Tax Act" was under consideration the former Minister of Finance, the hon. Edgar Benson, made it clear that in his opinion changes should be brought to the taxation system in the light of this new law. The present Minister of Finance has recommended some changes in his budget of May 1972 and again in the budget of February 19, 1973. A change is more particularly needed for small businesses. The Income Tax Act contains a feature of prime interest to the businessmen concerned. It deals with the deduction granted to small ventures. A provision allows a reduced tax rate on business incomes.
Provisions of Part V of the Income Tax Act annul the effect of the deduction granted to small businesses inasmuch as such undertakings are using the operating excess to make long term investments not related to their activities. The policy serving as a basis for those investments is doubtless sound, but its application is very complex. In most cases, the small businesses to which the reduced rate will apply, will use the resulting savings to expand, improve their techniques and create more jobs. As a study of the eligibility of the investments seems useless, its abolition, retroactive to January 1, 1972, will be proposed to the House.
The second change proposed, that dealing with protecting family farms, is very important. Under the present regulation, the farmer who leaves his farm to his children before he dies is deemed to have sold it for a fair market price. A capital gains tax can be levied. For many farmers, the problem is serious because it can lead to many complications. Now, to remedy those problems, it will be recommended that, retroactive to January 1, 1972, any farmer, who at death leaves his farm to his children, not be deemed to have sold his farm. Consequently, the capital gains tax will be applicable only if the farm is sold, that it is not being developed at time of death and that it is not bequeathed to the family.
A third amendment to be introduced has to do with the taxing of retirement pensions.
February 26, 1973

Furthermore, it is recommended by the Minister of Finance that temporary custom reductions be granted immediately on a five percentage points average on imported consumer goods evaluated at $1.3 billion. Such decreases are intended to counterbalance the inflationary trend on prices. Besides, those reductions are not likely to produce unfavourable results on production or employment. They involve mostly consumer goods which are relatively more heavily taxed than the average products and they will apply to products which are not grown or manufactured in Canada.
In so far as sales taxes are concerned, some will be abolished, namely in the case of children's clothing, shoes, near-food products such as candies, chocolate bars, soft drinks and fruit drinks. The special 10 per cent excise duty on toilet articles, cosmetics, clocks and watches, except if the manufacturing price of the latter is more than $50, will be abolished.
It is said that retailers across Canada are already offering some of those products at reduced prices.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to comment on the prices and distribution of cattle feed. The situation of cattle feed prices is detrimental to eastern Canada farmers, especially those of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. I agree that the present situation is not as discriminatory as it was in 1969, 1970 and 1971, but the problem remains nevertheless and solutions must be found as soon as possible. The representatives of the Union des producteurs agricoles of the province of Quebec recently walked out of the annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. For some of us, the struggle has been going on for a number of years, but there exist great possibilities towards a solution.
The Speech of the Throne deals with the matter as follows:
The government supports the principle of an equitable relationship of prices of feed grain to livestock feeders in various areas of Canada.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, this includes eastern Canada.
On many occasions, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) as well as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) have also made statements in this House and elsewhere about this. They undertook to introduce a fair and equitable solution for all regions of this country about such an important matter, before next crops.
Mr. Speaker, when I read through the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974, which was introduced in the House of Commons by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) on Tuesday, February 20, 1973, I am pleased to note that the Department of Public Works and the National Capital Commission are asking from parliament important amounts to build up new federal buildings and the infrastructure within the boundary of the national capital on the other side of the Ottawa River. We remember that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) as well as the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), then minister responsible for the National Capital Commission, announced together a wide spread program of about $250 million, over a period of 25 years, designed to build federal public buildings as well as infrastructure works on the Quebec side.
The Budget-Mr. Clermont
Following this statement, construction of the Portage bridge began by the end of 1970, at an approximate cost of $13 million which are entirely paid out by the federal government.
In 1971, phase 1 of the construction of federal public buildings began. This is for Place du Portage, a building whose first two floors should soon be occupied by business firms and the rest by the federal government. Phases II and III are underway and the votes required in fiscal year 1973-74 for its continuation are of about $15,450,000. Votes of $8,535,000 are required for other projects in the same area for the same fiscal year.
Additional votes of roughly $830,000 are required for the construction of two federal buildings, one in Buckingham where work has already started and the other in Gatineau where I strongly hope that work will begin during the next fiscal year of 1973-74.
Mr. Speaker, some will ask why does the member for Gatineau mention work which is or will be carried out for a large part in the riding of Hull. I find it easy to explain. The economic effects resulting from the transfer of federal departments to the city of Hull will benefit not only the people of that city but the whole population of western Quebec.
Furthermore, in the future, the authorities of the Department of Public Works of Canada will have to consider erecting such buildings east of the Gatineau river, as I have already mentioned to former minister of public works as well as to the present minister. With an improved public transport system on both sides of the river and a rapid transit system on the Quebec side it will be as easy to move from communities east of the Gatineau river as it is from certain parts of the cities of Ottawa and Hull.
In January 1972, an agreement in principle of about $130 million was signed on a cost sharing basis between the province of Quebec and the National Capital Commission and included the construction of 45 miles of highway on the Quebec side of the Ottawa area as well as the development of a rapid transit system and urban arteries in Hull and the surrounding municipalities. This vast road-building program should be undertaken on a six-year schedule that could be extended if necessary. Credits of about $4 million has already been approved by parliament under the terms of this agreement, and the 1973-74 budget forecasts contain further credit of around $8 million. Work has been done or started as a result of this agreement.
Highway 8 has been widened between Maloney Boulevard in Gatineau and Archambault Boulevard in Pointe-Gatineau. Work has begun on the bridge over the Gatineau River, near Leamy Lake, to be called the "Pont des Draveurs". Work is in progress on the interchange between Highway 8 and the new "Pont des Draveurs", and also on Highway 11.
There can be no doubt that the agreement reached between the National Capital Commission and the government of the province of Quebec will speed up the construction of expressways 5 and 50 in the part of the national capital area that is in Quebec.

February 26, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Joe Clark
I have only a minute or two left, but I wanted also to speak about small businesses and ways of financing them. I have discussed this several times in the past, both in the House and in committee. It is a complex subject, but a solution must be found as soon as possible. The following is a direct quotation from the Speech from the Throne:
-aid to small businesses through new initiatives to strengthen management and consulting services and to improve access to financing facilities.
I believe this is what small and medium-sized businesses mainly need, although I do not mean to minimize the importance of new measures to improve management and consulting services, which would be new sources of working and investment capital which these businesses badly need in order to broaden their operations.


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise in this House. This is virtually my first chance to speak in the House of Commons, although I have had the opportunity to ask one or two questions even though I am not a parliamentary secretary. I have also had the opportunity once to speak briefly in the late show at a time when the House was slightly less full than it is now, if that could be imagined.
When one takes his place in this chamber it is with some feeling of trepidation. One cannot help but be aware of the traditions of this chamber, and one cannot help either but be aware that this is one of the few institutions in the country that is capable of drawing together citizens from across a wide and varied land. I just wanted to note in passing how appropriate it seemed to me the other day to hear the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) talking about dinosaurs. That is obviously a subject of natural interest to his party. Indeed, it is difficult to think of any other group in this House which has a greater philosophic affinity to that era, or a better prospect of becoming extinct.
It is a remarkable coincidence that whenever the leadership of the NDP encounters a crisis of conscience at home, they suddenly perceive some greater evil at another hand. Faced with the challenge of principle embodied in the Waffle, their leadership conjured up the corporate bum, whom they have now embraced. And now, caught in an alliance which they consider a lesser treachery than electoral defeat, their leadership has decided that we are dinosaurs. They remind me of the itinerant evangelists we used to get, from time to time, in the towns on the Prairies. They would come in the night, usually having just created their own theology, and proceed to bilk the wealthy widows of the town with promises either of a new cathedral or a new Jerusalem, and when suspicion grew about their purposes, they would suddenly be seized of the great dangers of fluoridation, or Argentina, or some other scare. They usually lasted about five months, these prophets of phony fear, and then were never heard of again. So, in every particular, they remind one of the NDP.
On February 15, I asked the Prime Minister what plans his government had to find jobs for young Canadians. He replied with characteristic boldness and foresight and said his plan was to wait for the budget. Now, we have the

budget and presumably the government's answer-which is that it intends to do nothing at all to break the pattern which has made Canadians under 24 the chief victims of unemployment in Canada throughout the life of the Trudeau government.
The most recent figures for January this year, indicate that a total of 688,000 Canadians were unemployed. Fully
300.000	of those were under the age of 24-almost half of the total number of unemployed in the country and one in nine of the people in that age group who wanted to work. That figure is appalling enough on its own. What is worse is that it is part of a clear and evident pattern that even the government has recognized. The proportion of unemployed in that age group has been rising gradually for several years. But in recent years it has been nearly 45 per cent of the total, despite the fact that many people of that age who might have been looking for work have been drained off into technical schools or CEGEPS, or colleges and universities. There is some indication now that this safety valve is closing, because young people who go into training for better jobs are finding too often that they graduate into unemployment. The result of their diversion is just that they have better skills to waste.
That pattern has been clear throughout the life of this ministry. They were warned by the Economic Council of Canada. They were warned by the Canadian Council on Social Development, by the Committee on Youth of their own Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), and frequently by editorialists and by spokesmen of this party. Their only answer has been to fake a response. They claim that Opportunities for Youth was created to meet this problem. But Opportunities for Youth last year employed about 3,000 non-students for the summer. If applied today to the January figures, that would amount to the stirring figure of one per cent-a one per cent response-except that OFY does not work in the winter. That is about the only thing that program has in common with the young people it is supposed to help.
The government's only other response to unemployment in Canada, the LIP program, works less well among the young than among other age groups of the unemployed. In 1971-72, 41 per cent of LIP workers were under age 24 but 46 per cent to 47 per cent of the unemployed were under that age. In hard figures, LIP that year created only
37.000	temporary jobs for Canadians under 24 and there are 300,000 out of work today.
The more serious fault of the LIP and OFY programs in relation to youth employment is that they provide the government with an excuse for doing nothing effective about the problem. LIP and OFY embody a potential for innovation and involvement which is as important now as it was when that principle was introduced into Canadian legislation in the ARDA program. They are important programs. But they are not youth employment programs. Yet every time the statistics are cited in this House which prove that this government's economic programs are victimizing the young, the government answers by pointing to LIP and OFY. The most innovative aspect of these programs is the use the government makes of them to avoid meeting their responsibility to young Canadians who want to work. In so far as youth employment is concerned, LIP and OFY have been used principally not
February 26, 1973

to innovate action but to avoid it. It is very easy when discussing unemployment statistics to lose sight of the human consequence involved, and forget that each one of these 300,000 young Canadians is a single case of need.
One way to gain perspective on the youth employment problem is to realize there are about twice as many young Canadians out of work today as there were in the great depression. Now, if you treat people as statistics, you can say that is not significant, because the work force has grown but if you regard people as people, you might remember the record of personal hardship and bitterness spawned in that period when so many people started what should have been their working lives without work to do. What is particularly cruel about unemployment among the young is that so many young people have no other resources to fall back on and no real preparation for being unwanted as workers. And what is particularly dangerous about unemployment among the young is that the experience and attitudes which young Canadians develop now will last their lifetime. If they are herded into welfare or if they are taught that their energies are unwanted, that will shape their lives and could deprive our nation and themselves of their creative participation.
There is another aspect of this question. It is a myth that has grown up, the myth that kids in Canada are lazy. I think that the existence of that myth protects the government against its clear responsibility to take action to end the high and unacceptable rates of unemployment among the young. One of the tragic aspects of this is that the Prime Minister himself has contributed, perhaps not deliberately, to the view that kids in Canada do not want to work when he made his offhand remarks that anyone who wanted work in Canada should go to Thompson, Manitoba or some other distant spot. The people who suffer most from this misleading suggestion are the young people in the country.
Prior to those comments, there was some substantial sympathy for the problems of the unemployed young, but that sympathy evaporated when the Prime Minister casually entered the fray. In fact, Mr. Speaker, while the work ethic may not recommend itself to a barefoot boy from Outremont, a study by the Canadian Council on Social Development of young Canadians who applied for social assistance in November, 1971 indicated:
The young social assistance applicants who were interviewed have by no means rejected the concept of work and its central importance to their development and self-fulfillment.
They do not reject work, they just cannot find any. So long as the government caters or contributes to the opinion that they do not want work, their problems will continue to be ignored.
We are dealing here with a budget which will do much less than it pretends. It is the budget of a parlour magician, relying on illusion, trying to trick the people who are watching. The minister held out the illusion of using tax cuts to put more purchasing power into the economy, yet in reality the total revenues of the government will be $1.7 billion higher this year than last. He talks buoyantly of creating 300,000 new jobs as he has talked before and failed, yet in reality is accepting unnecessarily high levels of unemployment. He talks about expansion, yet understimulates. He worries about inflation, yet has no
The Budget-Mr. Joe Clark
response except a so-called contingency plan which he proposes to produce like a rabbit from a hat.
What is wrong with this budget is its purpose. At a time when the government should be preoccupied with providing jobs and growth and some stability, it is instead preoccupied with its own political survival. So, instead of introducing measures which are bold enough to work, the government relies instead on measures which seem safe enough to serve. Other speakers in this debate have indicated how far short the minister will fall of his stated goals. My particular concern today is to underline the urgency of a goal he did not state, the goal of helping young Canadians put their energies to work and to review some of the steps which the government's own advisers have urged as a means to break the shackling pattern of high unemployment among the young.
The Hunter Committee on Youth published its report 19 months ago, and it was heralded with that special enthusiasm this government reserves for reports it proposes to ignore. One simple, but highly valuable, recommendation of that report was that the government at least recognize that youth unemployment constitutes a special problem in Canada. At the moment, we have virtually no hard information about the special causes of high youth unemployment, about its relation to the education system, about the effectiveness of counselling or manpower, about the need and scope for new kinds and definitions of work. The Hunter Committee recommended establishing a Canadian youth employment directorate, and generally we in this party approve of that initiative, at least as an interim measure. The government has done nothing about the directorate.
The report of the Canadian Council on Social Development, entitled "A Right to Opportunity" reveals a chaos in the counselling and social assistance services available to young Canadians out of work. They recommend an early federal-provincial conference, to bring some order and equity to that field. The government has done nothing. This party has suggested that LIP and OFY be given statutory authority, so that their purposes can be debated and understood in parliament and so that they can assume some permanent place in the program structure of various government and voluntary agencies, instead of being expensive itinerants whose present status prohibits integrated national programming. The government declines that commitment as, indeed, it declines any commitment to do anything at all about the continuing crisis of youth unemployment. The government has been running away from the problem and the running has to stop. We cannot afford the enormous human cost of training hundreds of thousands of young people to be out of work and on welfare. We are wasting lives and wasting potential.
The problem of youth employment would be less acute in an economy performing nearer its potential. So, the approach of this party, outlined Thursday by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), will help the young to find jobs and will help other Canadians. Even so, it will be necessary to take special measures to arrest or reverse the trends towards higher and higher levels of unemployment among Canadians age 24.

February 26, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Allard
Speaking Friday, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) underlined the most dangerous consequence of this budget, that the country will continue to mark time, because we are governed by a party more intent upon its own survival than upon the growth or progress of the nation. That is harmful to many parts and people of Canada; but no group suffers more from this government or this budget than the hundreds of thousands of young Canadians who are looking for work in this rich country and finding only frustration. If we continue to deny them the chance to contribute their best to Canada, they will quickly become accustomed to contributing their least. That is a tragedy we have in our power to avoid if this government would only put the nation's priorities ahead of its own.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, one of the
admitted concerns of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) when he read his budget speech last Monday evening was to reduce the unemployment rate and stimulate economic development.
A well known fact is that Canada has almost 700,000 registered and catalogued unemployed people. It is also true that thousands of workers who have now no job because they cannot find any are not included in the official statistics on the number of unemployed. It can therefore be said that the unemployment rate is higher than it actually looks and that measures far more drastic and important than those proposed by the Minister of Finance should be put in application if unemployment is to disappear.
The Minister of Finance also expects that 300,000 new jobs should be created thanks to the measures proposed in the budget. These new jobs would be available for the new comers to the labour market in 1973.
But if the measures announced by the Minister of Finance have no other result than to provide jobs to the newcomers to the labour market, nothing effective will be left to give a strong stimulus to the economy so that it will provide work for the 700,000 or so unemployed at present.
The Minister of Finance recognizes also that the way to create employment is to increase demand. Products are plentiful to such a point that we despair of exporting them.
Here is what was said at the 32nd annual conference on agricultural outlook held in Ottawa November 20 and 21 last. I quote:
On the whole, the outlook seems more favourable for western farmers than for farmers in eastern Canada.
Actually, Canada is already assured of record wheat sales as a result of agreements signed this year with Russia and China.
Conversely, sales of cheese will be down again this year in eastern Canada, again we shall have to import small quantities of butter to maintain reasonable prices, and the price of hogs will be approximately the same as in 1972.
In this field, prices will often be identical with those in the United States.
According to a participant in the conference, the only way to control these price variations would be to set up a national hog products marketing board, just like the one it is intended to establish for eggs.

However, three provinces do not even have a hog Marketing Board, namely Quebec, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
As far as exports are concerned, it was clearly determined during the conference that Canada should continue prospecting international markets so that its agriculture may progress.
According to Mr. Neufeld, of the Department of Economics of the University of Toronto, the matter is so important that unless new markets are discovered Canadian agriculture is hound to decline.
Mr. Speaker, if new markets cannot be found for eggs, pork, beef, wheat and all our other agricultural products, agriculture is going to decline, because farmers are going to be stuck with their crops. This will bring about a decrease or a stagnation in farm incomes. This is also being forecast by the Canadian Agricultural Outlook Conference. It is also noted that the yearly income of Eastern farmers averages a poor $2,500.
This was stated at the Conference by officials of the Department of Agriculture. A Canadian Press release published in the newspaper Le Droit, on November 22, 1972, was not very encouraging for Canadian farmers. This is how it reads:
Farm incomes in 1973 should reach just about the same level as in 1972, according to Mr. W. L. Porteous, of the Canadian Department of Agriculture.
Speaking before the 33rd Canadian Agricultural OUtlook Conference which ended yesterday in Ottawa, Mr. Porteous said he expected the total farm income to net $1.9 billion.
The record year for agriculture was 1966, when farm incomes totalled $2 billion.
As compared with 1972, however, farm expenses will increase in all areas except building repairs, the end result being a decrease of approximately 4.4 per cent in the income.
Prairie farmers and those of Prince Edward Island can expect a decrease in income, however.
Even if the income of western farmers on the whole should increase as a result of record sales of wheat to Russia, more especially, the speaker stressed the fact that a decline should be expected for 1974. He does not believe, however, that Canada will experience conditions like those of the 1960's.
A participant stated that, in his opinion, every farmer must incur annual expenses of $10,000 or so.
In order to have a net income of approximately $5,000 per year, according to him, every farmer must have a gross income of almost $15,000.
Following that intervention, a discussion was held on the definition of an economic farm.
As one can see, we are heading for disaster. Instead of suggesting that Canadian consumers do with a little, thighten their belts and get used to the poor's menu, at $28 a week, the government should see to it that Canadians have the necessary purchasing power to do justice to Canadian production, which would have the effect of stimulating demand, encourage agricultural production and secure at the same time supplementary income to Canadian farmers.
Government members voted several times against the proposals aiming at the implementation of a guaranteed minimum income which would make it possible for each Canadian to live decently, according to the possibilities of Canadian production.
A Creditist government would not hesitate to implement such measures; one of the first measures would be to abolish all income tax on an income of less than $3,000 for
February 26, 1973

single people and $5,000 for a married person and to fill the gap between personal income and guaranteed annual income by means of corresponding allowances.
Another measure which is easily applicable would consist in bringing old age security pension payments up to $200 a month for all citizens who are 60, while giving $150 a month to the spouse of a retired person. It would increase the purchasing power of consumers, stimulate production and put up a barrier against unemployment.
Finally, according to Creditist proposals, one should secure a decent family income. This measure could take the form of higher family allowances which are geared to prices.
"Every tax reform which does not take the price problem into consideration will end up in failure" Major Douglas tells us. That is easy to understand. Our friends of the other parties of the opposition often speak of inflation. We recognize that it may constitute a real danger, under our present system, but we deny that it would really be dangerous under a Creditiste system, applied in its integrity, as we suggest it.
Indeed, why should the monetary units in the hands of the consumers be increased if, at the same time, the price of goods keeps going up at the same rate?
That is why, under our present economic system, any increase in the personal income which is included in the cost of the goods that are manufactured and sold can only be reflected in higher prices.
Whether it be an increase in the profits of the contractor, the rates of interest, salaries, or taxes, they all lead to higher total costs and higher consumer prices.
That is why the Creditistes suggest a way to adjust prices which would leave the producers free to set their prices at a reasonable level. We say that the producers must continue to produce goods and riches on his own terms for the other members of the community. However, it is not up to him to set the conditions under which the consumers will obtain the products. In other words, the producer must be paid according to his sales price, but he does not care whether the money he claims or he receives comes from the buyers of his products or whether part of his sales money comes under the form of new credits issued by an agency certified for that purpose.
This price adjustment could be made, every year, every six months or every three months. It would be similar to what is called a discount, which would be the opposite of a sales tax.
This compensated discount would be paid to the retailer through an issue of credit equivalent to the total of bills showing that a similar discount was granted to the consumers. That is how producers would be paid according to their own sales price, whereas consumers could obtain the whole production while paying only a fraction of the prices appearing on the tags.
How would this discount rate be calculated? It would be calculated according to the lack of purchasing power, taken as a whole, after deduction of the amounts paid in social allowances that would not result from taxes, as well as the amounts paid as social dividends.
The Budget-Mr. Orlikow
Let us suppose, for example, that the total price of the goods offered amount to $80 billion and that during a given period, Canadians have only bought $60 million worth of products; then, the National Credit Office would decide for the next production period a discount of 25 per cent.
That price adjustment technique would work automatically, according to the calculations of the accountants of Statistics Canada and of the National Credit Office, somewhat like a thermostat in a heating system. Therefore, we would automatically avoid inflation and deflation.
No doubt these measures would have some negative effects, such as cutting out financial dictatorship, wording off infringement on the producers' rights to private property, eliminating the dangers of social upheaval and quelling feelings of revolt among people.
However, the positive sides would be much more important: applying the Social Credit measures would cause goods to meet the citizens' needs and to pass from the producers' firms to the consumers' households. This would allow the economy to achieve its goal, which is to meet the needs of the human beings. This would be something new and unprecedented in this world.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) made his first speech as Minister of Finance in February, 1972, he said:
Our most urgent and pressing task is to bring about a substantial reduction in the level of unemployment. Our objective must be the provision of a job to every Canadian who is seeking work.
When the Minister of Finance made that speech in February he had before him the unemployment figures for the month of January, 1972, which showed that the rate of unemployment was 6.2 per cent, seasonally adjusted. In May the minister presented a budget which he called an expansionary budget, a budget which he predicted, because of the concessions he was proposing to industry by way of lower corporation taxes, fast write-offs in respect of the purchase of machinery, and so on, would produce a large number of jobs and reduce the number of unemployed.
For more than three years unemployment had hovered at 6 per cent or more of the labour force, on a seasonally adjusted basis. I said then that the minister was a bad predictor, that the advice he was getting from senior officials of the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada was the wrong kind of advice, and that he would not succeed in his stated objective of reducing the number of unemployed.
The record is clear, Mr. Speaker. For the month of January, 1973, the rate of unemployment was precisely what it was for January, 1972-6.2 per cent of the labour force, on a seasonally adjusted basis. In the Atlantic provinces the number of unemployed was higher in January of this year than in January of last year. There were more people unemployed in Quebec this year than last year; there were more people unemployed on the Prairies and in British Columbia. The only province which showed a decrease was Ontario.

February 26, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Orlikow
We said last year's budget was not expansionary enough. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Minister of Finance that this year's budget is not an expansionary budget. The Financial Times dated February 26, 1973, which arrived in my office today, contains an article dealing with the economy under the heading, "A less stimulating budget". The article reads:
Last week's budget, billed as a strong stimulus for the economy, may turn out to be less stimulating than the government says it is. On a national accounts basis the budget is less expansionary than last year's was.
When the federal government's revenue and expenditure is converted to a national accounts basis, the deficit for the coming fiscal year turns out to be $640 million, compared with $1,075 million this year. On this basis, Finance Minister Turner does not seem to be running the risk of overheating the economy.
The minister is not really thinking of an expansionary budget because, as has been the case with Liberal finance ministers for the last four years, he is still worried about his belief that inflation is a more serious problem than unemployment. We in this party have been opposing that kind of belief since it was first proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in December 1969. We said then, and we say today, that the cost of dealing with inflation has been put on the backs of those least able to bear it, namely, the unemployed. We said then, and we say now, that this country has 2 or 3 per cent more unemployed than it should have because governments have refused to introduce programs that are expansionary.
If the Minister of Finance wanted to do something about unemployment, his budget should have proposed a deficit in the neighbourhood of $500 million or $1 billion more than is the case. He ought to have proposed expenditures, in co-operation with provinces and municipalities, of large sums of money to put people to work on projects that the provinces and municipalities know require to be done and for which they need assistance from the federal government.
The budget should also have provided for larger cuts in income tax. We have said for years that we are opposed to flat percentage cuts in income tax. That is the kind of income tax cut that has been proposed by members of the official opposition. We oppose that kind of cut because a flat cut of 5 per cent, 7 per cent or 9 per cent-the kind proposed by my hon. friend from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies)-would benefit, in the main, people in the upper income bracket. One need only look at the income tax table to see what a 5 per cent income tax cut means to people in the $50,000 a year class if no maximum is placed on the size of the reduction.
We have also said that a flat 5 per cent or 7 per cent cut in income tax for people in the lower income bracket would mean very little. While we do not think that the cut in income tax proposed in the minister's budget is enough and we would like it to be more, we nevertheless welcome the fact that for the first time the government has adopted a basic principle that we have been proposing for four or five years at least, namely, that income tax cuts should be of a selective nature.
The 5 per cent income tax cut proposed by the minister, when coupled with the minimum reduction in income tax of $100, means, for a married man with two dependent children earning $8,000 a year or less, a cut of 13 per cent. For someone with an income of $5,000, it is a tax cut of almost 50 per cent. That is the kind of tax cut we welcome and which is included in the proposal for a 5 per cent income tax cut means that people in the upper income bracket will receive, not 5 per cent but an income tax reduction of probably not more than 2 or 3 per cent. To the extent that this reduction in income tax goes mainly to people in the low income bracket, we in the New Democratic Party welcome it.
Similarly, we welcome the proposed increase in the basic old age pension to $100 from the former $82.88, and the increase to $170 from $150 in supplementary benefits paid to old age pensioners who qualify. We are still of the opinion that this is insufficient and that the old age pension should be $150 a month for everyone 65 years of age. We are still of the opinion that the old age pension should be extended to people below age 65. There are too many people in their sixties who are getting along with very little since they do not qualify for the old age pension and are unable to work.
Nevertheless, we greet with a good deal of satisfaction the increases proposed by the Minister of Finance. We greet them with some enthusiasm because those of us who were here before the election of 1968 remember the speeches of the former minister of national health and welfare when he rejected our suggestion that the basic pension should be increased and insisted that the only increase should be by way of supplementary benefit.
We also welcome this increase because we know that the official opposition have consistently refused, and still refuse, to indicate precisely what they would do for the old age pensioners should they form the government. On one occasion during the election campaign the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was asked whether he would support the proposal made by our party that pensions be increased to $150 a month, and he indicated that he would not. He was asked what increases he would agree to, and very grudgingly he agreed to an increase to take care of the increase in the cost of living, which would have meant an increase to $90 a month.
The members of this party who have always insisted, inside parliament and outside, that the old age pensioners need to have their pension increased, are now told by members of the official opposition that we are betraying the interests of the elderly. I do not know when I have heard such gall in the years I have been in politics. A party that has consistently refused to indicate what it will do for the old age pensioners now says that if we support an increase to $100 a month, we are supporting an increase that is a good deal less than we should support. Where were these members, Mr. Speaker, when we were calling for substantial increases in old age pensions? Where have they been until today? They have been playing both ends of the political game, telling people that taxes are too high, that we cannot afford to do more for people in need, while at the same time trying to create the impression that they are on the side of the old age pensioner.

February 26, 1973

Having said that the budget is not expansionary enough and that we think a good deal more needs to be done, may I say it is still the best budget we have seen in the last half-dozen years. I do not think that is an accident. I think the government is reacting to the fact that it has lost its majority-and so it should. I believe the government is reacting to the fact that it is in a minority position, so it is willing, as it should be, to listen to what the people of Canada are saying to us both inside and outside parliament. It is prepared to do something minimal to meet some of the needs of the Canadian people. It will do something in order to hang on to power and continue in government.
Let me say that this budget is not an NDP budget. It does not begin to meet the needs of the people of Canada in terms of dealing with unemployment, a problem with which Canada has: been plagued for many years under Liberal and Conservative governments.
The hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) talked about this party being a party of dinosaurs. I suggest the hon. member should look at what is happening in the world, particularly in western Europe. We find a socialist democratic government in Germany, Sweden and Denmark, a labour party in Norway which has been in power for most of the past 30 years, and very likely a socialist party in power in France after the next election, with a labour opposition in Great Britain that will probably come back into office after the next election. These are parties with which we are associated on the international scene. If the hon. member for Rocky Mountain wants to talk about dinosaurs, he should look at his own party because that is the party going out of style. Before I finish, let me say one more thing.


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


Mr. loseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words in respect of the budget presented to the House by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). In my opinion it is the best budget we have had because it contains so many things of benefit to the citizens of this country, particularly those with lower incomes. It will also help in solving problems associated with unemployment.
I was very pleased to see included in the budget increases in old age security benefits and the basic supplementary pension. I am also pleased to note that there is an increase in the appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs to cover the costs arising from the committee's study of the recommendations of Canadian veterans' associations. These associations unanimously recommended adoption of the report of the committee, which would mean an increase in veterans pensions which they so rightfully deserve. I hope members of this House will adopt the same attitude as members of the committee and will accept the recommendations so that veterans or their widows will receive these benefits as soon as possible.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Tell the government to bring in the bill.
The Budget-Mr. J.-P. Guay


An hon. Member:: It is coming.


Mr. Foster:: Wait until Friday, Stanley.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has always played an important role in the field of pensions, and I wholeheartedly support his request to the government to present this bill as soon as possible.
I was also pleased by the recommendation of the veterans affairs committee in respect of pensions based on the recommendations of the joint committee regarding standard of living. It was my hope that there would be in the budget an announcement in respect of railroad pensioners, particularly in view of the recommendations of many members of this side of the House and the fact that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) had a chance to speak to the presidents of both railways regarding parity of railroad pensions with those of Air Canada. I await with anticipation such an announcement. The national president of the Railway Pension Association, Mr. Jack Pickett, in one of his recent letters urged Members of Parliament to support changes in the CNR pension plan. He said:
I would urge all MPs to support changes in the CNR pension plan-now. We want the same as those employed by other Crown corporations. We are prepared to pay the same, no more, no less, and it must be on a retroactive basis.
I should like to raise another important matter which has no reference to the budget. Members on the government side, including parliamentary secretaries, are not given the same opportunity as opposition Members of Parliament to ask questions during the question period. It is true that members on this side can ask questions of ministers outside this House and receive appropriate answers. It is also true that members of the opposition, regardless of party affiliation, can ask questions of ministers outside the House and receive satisfactory answers: they can do so verbally or in writing.
I was told this afternoon by two ministers that in some instances their departments provided written answers to written questions by opposition members, yet very often the questions are also asked orally during the question period. In this way, opposition members can have their questions and answers recorded in Hansard and use Hansard to supply information to their constituents. Surely backbenchers on the government side, and parliamentary secretaries, should have equal rights because they are also Members of Parliament.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


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.
Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, to continue my speech from before the dinner hour, I should like to read

February 26, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Holmes
a question I put to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) which I believe is very important not only to members of this House but to all taxpayers of Canada. Even though I am a parliamentary secretary, I believe, as I said earlier, that in this regard I should be on an equal basis with all other elected hon. members. It is because I believe my question is of importance that I should like to have it incorporated in Hansard, just as questions of hon. members opposite are incorporated in Hansard. It is directed to the Minister of National Revenue and reads as follows:
Bearing in mind the deadline for income tax returns, which is coming up shortly, and with reference to my question of February 8, reported in Hansard at page 1076, with regard to the possibility of extending the office hours of income tax offices throughout the country in order to assist taxpayers seeking information in connection with income tax returns, may I ask whether the minister has now had time in which to consider this matter?
The answer is:
For the benefit of people unable to use the inquiry service during the day because they are at work, we are extending both the local and long-distance toll-free telephone inquiry service until 8 p.m. every Monday and Tuesday until April 30.


An hon. Member:: What does the minister have to do with that?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: If hon. members wish to ask questions when I have finished, I shall be glad to be of assistance on any matters in respect of which they are in doubt or do not know anything.
This information no doubt will be repeated by the minister at a later date so that the people of Canada will be aware of the additional service available to them. I do not believe any parliamentary secretary should have to remain silent. I do not believe, also, as some hon. members on the other side have suggested, that members on this side should be muzzled merely because they happen to hold office. I think all of us have a responsibility to our constituents. There is no reason why a parliamentary secretary should not ask a question, have it placed on the record in Hansard and thus be able to represent his constituents on a basis equal to that of hon. members opposite, provided the question is not directed to the department or to the minister he represents as parliamentary secretary.
As elected members of the common people-and this is what parliament is all about-notwithstanding the party to which we happen to belong, surely Members of Parliament on the government side have a right to be heard, whether backbenchers or parliamentary secretaries, and a right to have their remarks reported in the official record of this House on a basis equal to that of other Members of Parliament.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have followed the proceedings during this session in the hopeful anticipation that the government would come forward with new proposals to deal with the problem of the nonmedical use of drugs, a problem which I feel is national in scope and certainly deserving of immediate attention.
I listened to the debate on the supplementary estimates. I heard the presentation of the budget, and I have reviewed the estimates for the fiscal year ending March

31, 1974. I have found nothing to suggest that there are any new proposals. What bothers me even more is that I am confident this government has in its possession authoritative information indicating that we are indeed dealing with a national problem of epidemic proportions.
I am certain this government is aware of the economic implications not only in terms of loss of productivity but in terms of actual dollars spent in respect of costly hospital admissions related to the effects of these drugs or their complications. I am also certain this government is aware of the social implications and the growing evidence of self-destruction which too frequently involves the youth of our society. I cannot understand the position of this government and its lack of initiative to accept leadership.
I cannot accept answers such as, "This is a matter which is the responsibility of the provincial governments" or, "We must await the report of the LeDain commission." I interpret such responses as clearly indicating that this government has not developed a policy to deal with this national crisis. Time does not permit me to review in detail the statistical data which indicates the magnitude of the problem. I am sure hon. members have read many articles in this regard. However, in order to place the problem in proper perspective I should like to refer hon. members to two articles. The first appeared in Canadian Magazine February 10, 1973. I shall quote from pages 2 and 3. The article is entitled "The Poppy's Evil Harvest" and reads in part:
"Five years ago," the briefing book said, "the RCMP estimated the number of heroin addicts at 500. Today their modest estimate is 10,000 addicts and 100,000 users." The book also advised the Prime Minister, somewhat ominously that "many young users of heroin do not even realize how dangerous this drug is."
It goes on to indicate that in Edmonton there are 900 users, in Calgary 500, in Vancouver 5,000, in Winnipeg 350, in Montreal 1,000, in Halifax 100, in Toronto 3,000. If I may make one additional reference, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the publication Addictions, the summer edition of 1972, by the Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario. At page 47 of the publication the following is written:
Figures for the city, province and country are as elusive as dandelion seeds in the wind. Those available are usually subject to some kind of qualification. James Moore of the Le Dain commission puts the national figure at 10,000-published in Treatment: A Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1972). p. 30-and calls it a conservative figure. According to the narcotic control division of the Department of National Health and Welfare, heroin addicts in 1971 numbered 6,696. This figure is computed by counting those who come to the attention of the police-therefore it's inevitably a low one. (American figures indicate that over 2,000,000 in the U.S.A. have tried heroin; 1,500,000 of high school age-6 per cent of all young people between 12 and 17).
Let me repeat, Sir, that 6 per cent of all young people between 12 and 17 in the United States have tried heroin. There is one point which I should like to make in passing. I am impressed by the fact-I think this is a reflection on the federal government, in terms of educational programs-that when the problem is being discussed, the discussion invariably comes around to addiction; rarely do we hear about the complications as a result of the
February 26, 1973

abuse ol drugs, and specifically in this instance, the abuse of heroin.
I can assure you, Sir, that many of the reportable cases of death are due either to respiratory failure or overwhelming infections such as septicaemia, endocarditis, etc. This is but one example which reflects the inadequate educational program which is actually undertaken by the federal government. I do not intend to discuss the penal aspects of the non-medical use of drugs but, rather, I would like to develop the concept in terms of research, treatment and rehabilitation.
Let me say at the outset that I was concerned by statements made in the House on February 13 when a question was asked concerning the development of a national institute for alcoholism and drug abuse. On that day the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) indicated that his department must await the final report of the LeDain commission before action could be taken. I believe that such an institute should receive top priority and that this government has a responsibility to provide leadership in dealing with this problem which is national is scope.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Robert Holmes: If I may, Sir, I would like to review briefly some of the background material that forms the framework for the development of a national institute for alcoholism and drug abuse. We know that following the interim report of the LeDain commission the Department of National Health and Welfare established the non-medical use of drugs directorate. Since 1968, the problem of drug abuse has accelerated, and continues to do so. I can assure you that this is the consensus of those at the federal level and those at the provincial level.
During this time we have seen the utilization of various drugs including marijuana, the hallucinogens, amphetamines, heroin and cocaine. More recently there has been greater experimentation, particularly by large numbers of young people, with alcohol, notably cheaper wines and beer. At present in Canada there exists a lack of organized information with two notable exceptions-the one I referred to earlier, namely, the Alcohol and Drug Addiction Foundation of Ontario, and the Narcotic Addiction Foundation of British Columbia.
We are all aware of the increasing cost of medical services and it therefore becomes imperative that we avoid costly duplication and fragmentation of our efforts. Instead, co-ordination of activities is desirable. It is in the context of this background that the concept of a national institute was born and I believe that enthusiasm, acceptance and co-operation can be found among the provinces and indeed among all those who are dealing with the problem of drug abuse.
In addition, there is a pressing need for an expert centre of scientific knowledge, technical information and professional advice to deal with this special health problem. This need is not likely to be met in the foreseeable future by the often isolated and fragmented approach of official provincial agencies, universities or the Department of National Health and Welfare. I believe that such an institute presupposes a union between the federal and provin-
The Budget-Mr. Holmes
cial governments, official professional agencies, voluntary agencies, private enterprise and university expertise.
It is obvious that direct attempts in the past to develop problem solving programs at the federal level have not been successful. The difficulties appear to have been, and continue to be due to conflicts and confusion which arise when staffs and programs which ought to be primarily professional and scientific in their aims and methods come under misguided political direction and cumbersome bureaucratic control. Therefore, I believe that such an agency, which would be operationally independent and national in scope may be the only certain and satisfactory way of attracting and holding highly competent medical and social scientists and other critical professional disciplines that are needed to develop an effective long-term program.
It is clear to experts working in this field across the country that drug and alcohol abuse knows no conventional and no provincial boundaries, and it is therefore truly a national health problem. Because of lack of coordinated, well planned federal leadership the programs in some provinces, particularly the smaller provinces, are poorly financed and therefore fragmented in their approach and certainly cannot cope with the problem.
The need for centres of expert knowledge and advice in particular and specialized health problem areas has not been well met by the divisions or directorates that are harboured within the Department of National Health and Welfare. Such an institute would be a body or association of bodies authorized and financed under government legislation to be a national agency for research, development, education, training and information in this particular health science.
I believe it should be an agency independent of the government, free from bureaucratic controls but with its professional and scientific operation consistent with the public responsibilities and functions of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Many of the responsibilities of the present non-medical use of drugs directorate and of other agencies of the Department of National Health and Welfare could be undertaken by this new institute.
This does not imply that the directorate would not be involved, and indeed it would play a responsible role in the development of the program. In general, the directorate would be the federal government's bureau for underwriting in part the policies and operations of the national institute, and in addition would discharge those larger responsibilities in the fields of education, public information, mental health and social science research to bear upon the social, economic and cultural causes of all forms of social alienation as well as self-destructive behaviour.
The directorate, in the interests of speed and economy, should direct its activities in such a way as to avoid the unnecessary duplication of staff and facilities by utilizing the existing facilities, agencies, persons and resources to the fullest extent. The directorate would ensure the cooperation and involvement of directors of related programs at the federal and provincial levels, as well as professional and voluntary agencies, by active representation. In general terms, the institute would be responsible for research, development, education, training and accumulation synthesis, extraction and dissemination of

February 26, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Yanakis
information relative to drug and alcohol abuse on a national and international basis. The highest priority should be given to development of programs of prevention, with task-oriented research in this area.
Programs of behavioural science research would be undertaken which would focus upon Canadian cultural implications as well as psychological identification of personality abnormalities. In effect, we should seek answers to questions such as: What is the impact inherent in the rapid movement of young people across the country? What role does peer group pressure play in drug abuse? I could go on to outline additional questions that should be asked.
In addition, research would be directed to evaluate programs of treatment and rehabilitation already available in some areas of the country leading to identification and implementation of specific treatment facilities, including crisis centres, street clinics, therapeutic communities and industrial rehabilitation programs where required at the provincial level.
Research in the pharmaceutical and biochemical areas should expand simply beyond marijuana to include longer-acting new products or polymers to replace methadone; discovery of new and safer, longer-acting narcotic, alcohol, amphetamine, blocking agents to combat the euphoric effects of these drugs. We should also study the effects of drugs on locomotor, sensory and reflex systems as they apply to operating motor vehicles, and the effects of drug use on industrial productivity, etc.
Such an institute should be involved with the identification of innovative programs in the field of drug abuse, with consequent evaluation and implementation. An information centre would be an important component which would receive information from the World Health Organization, from American experience and from actual operating Canadian sources which would then be synthesized, evaluated and distributed to specific target audiences including elementary and high school students, teachers, law enforcement agencies, physicians, hospitals, parents, treatment and rehabilitation professionals including pyschologists, public health personnel, voluntary agencies, organized community action groups, etc.
I feel that an important component of such an institute would be a national training centre to develop meaningful programs to train manpower to deal with the treatment and rehabilitation of drug abusers in crisis centres, hospital location departments, medical practices and other professional locations, halfway houses, therapeutic communities, etc. Finally, such an institute would be charged with identifying, describing and implementing, wherever required, programs relative to development of alternatives to drug and alcohol abuse by the young people of Canada.


Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Berthier):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the privilege of taking part in the debate on the budget that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) so brilliantly presented, and to be able, on behalf of my constituents, to express my approval of the positive steps the

government has put forward so as to fight unemployment and reduce taxation in the interests of those who have been hit the hardest by successive rises in the cost of living.
The substantial increase in the basic old age security pension is undoubtedly one of the most welcome measures, for it benefits the group of people in the third age of life, one might say the golden age, who were the most affected by the loss of purchasing power of the dollar due to inflation.
The removal of tax from children's clothing, confectionery, soft drinks and cosmetics, and the lowering of customs tarifs, etc., have no doubt come at the right time, and I hope that the manufacturers will pass these benefits on to consumers.
In his speech, the Minister of Finance described it as a positive budget, aimed at holding back inflation and fighting unemployment, and he predicted that it would create
300,000	new jobs. This certainly augurs well, and should bring renewed confidence to industrialists and businessmen on whom we largely depend, since their investments are needed to bring about these new jobs.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I can say that the industrial expansion of the Berthier constituency has greatly benefited from subsidies from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion; in the last few years, several millions of dollars have been invested, and more than 2,000 jobs created. I hope that when these programs are reviewed soon, even more generous benefits will be granted to industrialists, to get them more interested in investing in areas that are suffering from the regional disparities that we all deplore.
On this subject, Mr. Speaker, I think it was stupid on the part of hon. members opposite to run a disparaging election campaign, the last time, charging the government with granting too much money to Quebec and giving this province more favours which were at the expense of the rest of Canada. That was untrue and the now Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) who was then Minister of Regional Economic Expansion did not fail to state the facts with the actual figures.
Mr. Speaker, there will soon be a statement made, on the government's new dairy policy. We know how hard it has been over the years for the dairy producers to operate without any hope of ever drawing decent profits from this industry. For the past couple of years, under the leadership of this liberal government, the situation has improved, but not enough to allow the dairy producers to keep up with increasing production costs and their own cost of living.
For some time, people have been complaining about consumer food prices. But, is it not the middle men who, most of the time, are pocketing these increases whereas farmers are left to fend for themselves?
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, farmers do not receive their fair share of those increases and that is sheer inequity. We must once again make sure that farmers obtain a just and decent income.
I am pleased to note that the Throne Speech included a provision to the effect that the feed grain problem would be settled during this session, thus bringing to an end a
February 26, 1973

discriminating situation which has lasted too long and which compels our farmers to pay more for their feed grain than the Western farmers.
I also hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Quebec government will accept, as several provinces have already done, the federal-provincial arrangement which enables the farmer who wishes to sell his farm for health reasons or due to his advanced age, or because he can no longer make a decent living there, to take advantage of the special legislation passed to that effect. Thus he can sell his farm, thanks to the guarantee of a farm loan and the subsidy provided up to $3,500, payable to the owner, so that he may settle elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that I am most upset about the injustice made to the farmers of the Maskinon-ge and Saint-Maurice constituencies, which are part of the federal constituency of Bethier, concerning the $400 subsidy made available to them by the federal Department of Agriculture.
It is known that the provincial Department of Agriculture has already designated a certain number of constituencies where the damage caused to harvests by the heavy rains of last summer has been most disastrous. However, the constituency of Bethier has been included since it is part of zone No. 10. That leads one to believe that when it rains in Bethier, it does not rain in the neighbouring constituency, particularly over a period of three or four months. I have seen myself harvests damaged to the extent of 50 or 60 per cent, and a good part of them burnt in the fields in those two constituencies.
That discrimination between constituencies has been most unfortunate, and I only hope that the provincial Department of Agriculture will reconsider its decision, for the federal Department of Agriculture informed me that that decision must come from Quebec City and that the federal government would be ready to compensate those who suffered losses.
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, although winter makes some people happy, nevertheless it causes problems to several others because of the increased unemployment it brings. I think the government has found a good solution with its Local Initiatives Program to create temporary jobs. My riding of Berthier received a great deal of encouragement because more than 50 projects were recently accepted in an equal number of parishes for an amount of $1,500,000 which created 805 jobs this winter. It is an efficient program which will have beneficial socioeconomic effects in the whole riding.
Now, what about the Opportunities for Youth Program presently being carried out, under which a good number of students will find jobs to pay for their education next year, the New Horizons Program for older people which provides occupations for them, student exchanges to allow them to know their country better or learn a second language and youth hostels providing holidays at a low cost for the young?
Is that not a positive record liable to improve the social climate in a country, or area or riding? Judging from the opinions of the members of the opposition, one would
The Budget-Mr. Epp
have the impression of living in the most tyrannized country in the world when it is exactly the opposite!
In the past few weeks I was called upon to participate in the work of the Special Committee of the House of Commons on Food Prices. There is discomfort among the public because of the unjustified increase in food prices, and I think that Parliament was right in setting up that committee.
In his analysis of the budget, the financial critic of the Progressive Conservative Party reaches the conclusion that we should immediately freeze all salaries, prices, interests and dividends for a 90-day period and then impose general controls. How can he reach such a sudden conclusion when the committee has not even submitted its preliminary report to the House, as it was asked to after 60 days?
On the same occasion, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (Mr. Stanfield) was never categorical in his speech; he was content to say that he would not hesitate to apply this control "if necessary".
Where does that conclusion come from then, that the situation is now critical, and that the government should control salaries and prices for both workers and producers?
We must bear in mind that price and wage control would create many more problems that it would solve. Already, the United States and Great Britain who had implemented them are hastening to repeal them.
This government has other means of bringing to reason manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers who abuse the consumers.
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the deadline for those who want to appear before the Electoral Boundaries Commission and state their case and that of their constituents concerning the changes proposed by the commissioners.
I am convinced that not only my riding, but all rural ridings should have almost no change.
The rural characteristics and the homogeneity of the Berthier riding which I represent must remain as they are if we want the member to represent it efficiently.
Mr. Speaker, the time put at my disposal will soon end and I want to conclude by expressing to my constituents the pride which I feel representing them and all the optimism and trust which I feel toward the economic and social future of the riding of Berthier. Under the direction of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), under whom I have the honour to serve, I hope for still better days.


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in the budget debate one is faced not so much with the question of what has gone before but, principally, what will the budget do for us in the future? Despite that, Canadians are asked by this government to put their trust in the government and its economic planning. It still insists on wistfully looking into the cracked crystal-ball of the Liberal party and coming to the conclusion that it muddled through before, and if it hangs on it may just muddle through again.
1672

February 26, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Epp
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we need a lot more courage, a lot more foresight and close scrutiny of the government's economic policies rather than simply a "wait and see" attitude. Across the country this government had a reputation for not listening, a reputation of being arrogant. Suddenly it is listening, and what it is hearing is the voice of discontent, specifically on its handling of the Canadian economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is hearing this discontent from farmers, from small business people, from over half a million unemployed. But it is hearing another voice, that is, the small voice of its socialist colleagues saying, "Let's stay together; let's hang together, and we might muddle through". This being the case, Mr. Speaker, it is simply a continuation of arrogance for the government now to ask this House and the Canadian people to once again put their trust in it and in the economic policies it has espoused.
The party to my extreme left has generally been known as a party of principles-misplaced principles very often. Yet they have that reputation. For the moment they are willing to give up those principles. In order not to have to face an election, they are willing to follow a policy which their leader has said they cannot trust, a policy which they simply cannot accept. Yet they say they will endorse it unequivocally. I say, Mr. Speaker, that they have endorsed this government's economic policies for a mess of pottage, and nothing more.
In this budget speech on Monday last, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said there were two principal aims in his budget: first, to reduce unemployment and, second, to curb inflation. This government is asking Canadians to trust it to reduce unemployment, yet as a result of its policies for the last three or four years the unemployment figure has been hovering around 6 per cent or 7 per cent. How can it ask us to support that kind of record? It simply staggers the imagination, Mr. Speaker.
Our unemployment rate is amongst the highest in the western world, and along with that we have to contend with inflation. This inflationary rate cuts into the savings of our old people, many of whom saved during hard times, and it cuts into the incomes of those who live on modest or low incomes. These groups are hit hardest by inflation. This is an inflationary cycle, Mr. Speaker, which the Canadian worker feels he can only combat by asking for higher wages and salaries in order to stay ahead. It often happens that the people who cannot defend themselves against inflation are the weak and the old, those who cannot organize themselves. I suggest that the government has to look again at this segment of our population. An increase in the old age pension is not completely the answer.
The Canadian farmer, who must sell on an open market economy and must face competition, is hit hard by inflation. Why is this, Mr. Speaker? The farmer must buy manufactured goods. The labour costs connected with these goods are high, often following inflationary trends. He must recover the high prices he pays through returns for products which he sells. Farmers are surviving only

because of the increased efficiency they have brought to their industry.
Despite these conditions, what has the Minister of Finance done except adopt a "wait and see" attitude. That there were some acceptable measures in the budget, I admit openly. I nevertheless suggest that, considering his record of forecasting, the minister should not rely on divine providence to any great degree.
You might describe the minister's approach to economics in this country in this way: he considers the economy much as a doctor might consider a sick patient who is in need of drastic and immediate medical help. Instead of being decisive and taking appropriate action, the minister quickly runs to the medical chest for a whole fistful of patent medicines which he offers to the patient. In this case, instead of "aspirin" read "tax cuts" and "higher exemptions," and instead of "sedatives" read "higher old age pensions." Having administered these medicines, the minister sits back and says, "I have done my job. Hopefully, the patient will be cured. If not, at least I tried." I suggest that is not enough.
Further, the Minister of Finance has asked for restraints on the part of the wage earner, on the part of businessmen and on the part of provinces. He has asked them to restrain their spending, hoping that this will cure inflation. At the same time, despite tax cuts, or whatever you may call them, this government will spend $2.76 billion more this next fiscal year then it did the year before.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) has acquired the reputation in western Canada of being one of the spokesmen in cabinet for western Canada. If he will examine the estimates he will find that more is to be spent on public services in the capital region of Canada than in the four western provinces, the Yukon and Northwest Territories combined. Is that recognition of the west? If so, I suggest it is on a very small scale indeed.
I suggest, also, that the government is the single largest inflationary agent in the economy. If there is to be economic restraint and, hopefully, a reduction in our inflation rate, and if we are to ask the Canadian taxpayer to bear that burden, I suggest that the government first and foremost should follow its own advice and show leadership to the Canadian people.
On the CBC program "Encounter" aired last Sunday, the Minister of Finance talked about the indexed tax plan and mentioned that certain western European countries are adopting it. I suggest that we in the opposition have brought forward constructive ideas, which I am happy to say the Minister of Finance-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Stole.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -incorporated or stole when presenting his budget. I therefore ask, why was there ridicule and arrogance last fall when we were debating this idea? Why did the minister not have the foresight to adopt it at an earlier date?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 26, 1973


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In the time remaining to me I will not be able to delve deeply into economic policy. However, there are a lew points I wish to make. The government has embarked upon a program for relieving regional economic disparities. Perhaps some time in the future we will see the results of those economic policies. Our problem in western Canada is one of geography. For instance, why must western Canadians pay more for freight? Why does it cost more to ship goods from west to east than from east to west?
If we are to do something positive about regional economic disparities, let us not only do something through DREE programs; let us do something to improve the economic base of the regions from which we come. In my area we are not asking for anything special; we are only asking for the same deal to be given to all Canadians.


Steve Eugene Paproski: How about more flights from Edmonton?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We could include those, too. The economy of western Canada has been largely agricultural. In order to expand that economy, we must introduce to the region secondary manufacturing and processing industries. I suggest we have made a good start in this direction. If that industry is to expand and be competitive, it must be placed on the same footing as the eastern manufacturing industry.
The Minister of Finance mentioned in his budget speech the removal of tariffs on specific out-of-season fruits and vegetables. I will let my friends representing areas of horticultural production discuss this matter. I only ask the minister this question: Why must Canadian farmers cross the American border and buy Canadian fertilizer from American companies at $20 per ton less than they would have to pay in Canada?


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Why must they bring it back to Canada, to their own communities, having paid less than they would have paid if they had bought it in those communities? Does that represent the type of economic policy this government endorses?
The third point I wish to make is this. It would have been much more equitable if the minister had removed the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. Because the construction industry is a seasonal industry there are high unemployment rates associated with it. I suggest that such a tax cut would have created incentives for that industry and, apart from bringing down the high cost of housing in Canada, would have affected with advantage some of the other areas to which the minister referred.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, may I mention incentives for small businesses. I might mention, parenthetically that when dealing with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion one almost needs professional guidance to cope with the red tape in assessing the status of grant applications. If we are to create jobs over the long term, we must provide incentives for the small businessmen who produce jobs. If we provide incentives for farmers to produce, they will expand production and we shall expand the economy-because it is private initiative that counts, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that as well as abolishing
The Budget-Mr. Isabelle
inheritance taxes and capital gains on farms that pass to members of a family, the government should treat small businesses in much the same way so that they may be transferred from generation to generation and enjoy the same sort of tax forgiveness so long as they remain within the family.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: So if this government wants the people to have confidence in its economic policies, I suggest it should look once again at the two basic areas of free enterprise and personal initiative instead of indulging in another band-aid approach to spending. Let the government not think that by giving hand-outs it will induce the economy to pull itself out of its current difficulties. Let the government create a climate in which individuals can produce and in which the economy can begin rolling forward again, instead of the type of climate which the government is proposing in the budget.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this evening, because I feel that it is a privilege which all members should avail themselves following the presentation of the budget.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the constituency which I represent is well-known. When I heard in this House some members say that the federal government was spending too much money in the national capital, that regionalization should be out of question, that no more funds should be allotted under this item, I felt that they could examine a map of Canada to realize that our country is a continent.
Canada has naturally multiple callings; moreover, if we compare the various provinces, we see right away that their economy is different and that some are richer than others. This is why the government has established the so-called equalization payments, in order to enable the poorer provinces to get a little more money, so that all provinces may enjoy the same standard of living.
Mr. Speaker, it has often been said that if the country must have a heart as human beings, that heart must be found in the national capital which has been Ottawa up to now. Some members came to Ottawa for the first time after their election; when Ottawa was referred to as the national capital of Canada, they did not care, because they had never been there. I would like them once again to immerse in the history of the capital of Canada. They will soon realize that the capital of Canada is not just Ottawa, although Queen Victoria did decide to choose it-because Parliament also decided that there would be a National Capital region including the cities of Ottawa and Hull and the neighbouring municipalities.
For many years, Mr. Speaker, it was always felt that the part of the National Capital including Hull and its environs was systematically overlooked by the central government and even by the Quebec government.
There is no need for me, Mr. Speaker, to prove to what extent we have been forgotten for years by the province of Quebec and by the central government, to recall that a Quebec minister even came over to Hull to see Mayor
1674

February 26, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Isabelle
D'Amour, who had just won a splendid victory; and he shook his hands congratulating him for having defeated Miss Whitton, who was then Mayor of Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, a newspaper for intellectuals, he Devoir of Montreal, reporting in 1962 or 1964 a golf tournament at the Rivermead Club, had the following title in its sports columns: "Hull, Ontario".
By all means, Mr. Speaker, I think that we have been systematically forgotten because we are far from Quebec and close to Ottawa. Since we were too far from Quebec, Quebec was forgetting us; since we were too close to Ottawa, Ottawa was snobbing us to some extent, by telling us all the time: Because you belong to a provincial jurisdiction, we cannot do anything whatever in your favour.
Mr. Speaker, 1968 was a turning point in the history of the national capital region. The present federal government, through the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the then Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) decided to remove economic disparities which existed between these two communities which make up the national capital region. And if investments from the federal government had not been announced, we would still be a hamlet in the shadow of the Peace Tower.
These clever people decided to act in order to give us what we had been claiming and which had been due to us for years.
I remember, Mr. Speaker, reading speeches made by Dr. Fontaine, who was the first member of Parliament from Hull, having been elected in 1917, and who spoke exactly to the same point as I am tonight; but instead of saying that there were now things being achieved, he urged that something be done for Hull.
Mr. Speaker, we are now going through a great economic upsurge. The results will be felt around us. We have been experiencing difficulties from all sides. We will experience others, but we are sure that we are on the right path and that the present government will go through history, simply because they wanted to have the national capital represented by its elements, that is Francophones and Anglophones.
Mr. Speaker, I have often said that a country's capital is the seat of its central gouvernement and national institutions. The capital city must reflect the soul of its people, its validity, its strength and its future aspirations. I have said it at all times and if I may say more, its importance is more of a matter of its role than its area or its importance on both the industrial and commercial levels. It is a legislative and administrative center as well as the heart of its national institutions. It is a community without definite boundaries, because every citizen is part of it and all share its activities, responsibilities, problems and aspirations.
Mr. Speaker, I have always been in favour-and maybe because of that my name shall be remembered through history in a way or another-of some sort of a federal district, and I would like to be well understood. Actually, I don't want to talk about a federal district like the one in Washington, for the administrative problems they have

there are well known. We know that the city authorities of Washington are appointed by the White House. What I would wish, for this economically identical area on both sides of the Ottawa river, is for the people of Hull and area who work in Ottawa not to be penalized.
Mr. Speaker, we are penalized by double public transportation tariffs; we are more penalized in the field of income tax than those who do the same work and live in Ontario.
We are penalized in the field of health, because we live in the Province of Quebec.
The Province of Quebec passes its own legislation concerning tax collection, and I am all for it; but for the National Capital area, one should try to amend the existing laws, so that the Hull people who work in Ottawa, are not penalized, but covered by laws identical to those in effect in Ontario, and likewise that the Ontario residents who work in Hull are not be penalized for the same reason.
Mr. Speaker, it would not be a special status, but a kind of economic arrangement, with the setting up of an identical economic region, in order that the citizens of one side of the river not be classified as first class citizens and those on the other side as second class citizens.
One could quote a good number of cases where people in the area are penalized precisely because they are civil servants.
Very soon, with the new buildings scheduled for Hull, several thousands of federal civil servants from Ottawa and the area will have to go and work in the Hull area. I would like to say here that we are faced with a crucial problem which may seem of little consequence but which is particularly important for those who will have to pay for their transportation. Here again, the Ottawa Regional Community Transit Commission will be penalized. I know that the National Capital Commission is presently trying by all means available to eliminate double fares which we have been paying for 50 years, but I hope this will not be done only to favour the people of Ottawa who will be working in Hull. This anomaly should have been corrected a long time ago. I hope it will become a priority and that this problem will be dealt with without delay.
Federal civil servants living in the area must pay between $200 and $1,200 more in income tax per year than their colleagues from Ontario who do exactly the same work. I think that in the national capital area such a thing should not exist and that governments should set up a federal district where laws would be uniform and where all citizens would have the same privileges and would be subject to the same taxes.
Although the separation of Quebec is not yet for tomorrow, an economic separation which I consider serious is slowly taking place. Again recently, car dealers were fighting so that a person from Ontario do not have to pay an 8 per cent sales tax when buying a car in Hull. That is what they tried to do, Mr. Speaker, on two occasions, by tricks that I do not want to qualify tonight. In any event, this situation was settled at the very last minute, because 30 to 35 per cent of customers of car dealers in Hull come from Ottawa.
February 26, 1973

I could quote many examples in the health area, Mr. Speaker, where no planning was made on the Quebec side. Never. It was done in a haphazard manner and today one can hear: People go and "see a doctor" in Ontario. People do not go and "see a doctor" in Ontario, Mr. Speaker. They do not have any other alternative because, as I said earlier, they have always been forgotten. The federal government pays 50 per cent, Mr. Speaker-


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


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago when I was a new member in the House of Commons one of the old timers in the House was talking to a bunch of us young fellows and said, "I want to give you a bit of advice. Don't mail your mail, if it is a nasty letter, until the morning. Think it through and wait until morning, because perhaps your initial reaction might not be the one that governs your behaviour eventually". That kind of attitude might well have been adopted by the leader of the New Democratic Party and his colleagues last Monday evening, and especially before Friday when the leader of the New Democratic Party took part in this debate.
One thing I have noticed from watching this debate in the last few days is the change in attitude, not on the part of hon. members on this side of the House but on the part of those on the other side. Consistently throughout the speeches that we have heard in the last three or four days hon. members on that side of the House have been on the defensive. We are now one week from the glamour budget of last Monday night, and many on that side of the House have voiced different ideas. I think that within the next several months this attitude will not only be felt across the way but throughout the whole country.
I want to touch on a little bit of history. My colleague from Provencher (Mr. Epp) has touched on the fact that Canada is a difficult country to govern. He said that we are a rather unique country. We are the second largest in the world, have very few people, who are dispersed across a large land, and we are situated next to the most powerful nation in the world. We are a country that depends heavily on exports, a country that is made up of many regions with regional differences and difficulties. Those who have held the reins of office in this country since 1867, when confederation was born, have come to recognize that Canada is a difficult country to govern. It is also an exciting country to govern, a country that provides a great challenge to its parliamentarians.
In 1968 even the members of the opposition came to this House of Commons with a little bit of the excitement that many Canadians felt regarding the leadership they expected to be provided by the then brand new Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who had literally swept Canadians off their feet. It was not much more than one year later that the members of this party received what I consider was a profound shock when they started to hear of the economic revelations of the Prime Minister.
I am not an economist, Mr. Speaker. I have had no connection with economics and I doubt whether I could
The Budget-Mr. Lundrigan
even spell the word. However, I know that if you want to help people who are on fixed or low incomes, people who are seasonally employed, those who are among the most disadvantaged in the nation, you do not help them by putting them out of work. Yet the Prime Minister stated that we must adopt an economic model to take care of inflation. He said that if we are to protect people who make only $2,000 a year, or those who are on fixed incomes, or those who are only employed for five or six months a year-the little people of Canada-we must control inflation. The method that he used to control that inflation was to put these people out of work. If political parties could collectively be held responsible for certain acts under the Criminal Code, then I suggest there would certainly be a place for the Prime Minister and his cabinet.
I should like to say something to the few NDP members who are present tonight. There is one difference between what the Prime Minister did and other disasters that have overtaken us. Everyone knows that a plague, a war or pestilence either destroys or disadvantageously affects the economy of a country, but such a thing is usually accepted for what it is since it is beyond our means to control. The difference between that kind of situation and the attitude of the Prime Minister is that the Prime Minister decided deliberately that this was the model which had to be accepted in order to cure inflation in the country. The evidence of this is in the fact that since 1967-I will give the statistics a little later to prove this-we have had approximately a 50 per cent increase in unemployment across the nation.
During three years, members of this party have constantly during budget debates, question periods and speeches in the House taken issue with the policies of the government-but there has been no moving this Prime Minister during these years; he has been so carried away by his own omnipotence. The Canadian people, labour unions, consumers groups, provinces, municipalities and various provincial premiers, such as the NDP premier of Manitoba, have been criticized because they suggested there was an unemployment problem. In any event, nobody could budge the Prime Minister. We all know his attitude and how it became manifested.
It is unfortunate that during the past three or four years someone has not got inside the House with a camera in order that the people of Canada might see what was happening. Had that been the case, I am sure we would have 200 seats here now. The people would then know of the Prime Minister's reaction, perhaps unwittingly, to the Lapalme workers and to members of this House on the occasion when he used the expression "fuddle-duddle". Canadians would then know the attitude adopted by this unbudging Prime Minister, and I am sure it would have had an adverse effect for him in the results of the last election. In any event, the Prime Minister cannot be budged.
Last year, instead of the inflation-unemployment tradeoff we had the Benson-Turner trade-off. Last February we had the Benson trade-off with Turner and everybody got the feeling that we were going to have someone new from the east, but it turned out to be someone new from

February 26, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Lundrigan
Ottawa. Instead of coming with gold, frankincense and myrrh, this new man came with a cosmetic kit. Basically, what we got last Monday evening was another cosmetic kit.
The new Minister of Finance would not talk about unemployment rates. We asked him to tell us what the rate of unemployment was that the government would tolerate. His reply was that he would not talk statistics but intended to talk in human terms from now on in respect of unemployment. He said the government would not be satisfied until every Canadian who was willing to work had a job. Everyone on this side of the House felt on many occasions that we had a new glamour boy who was going to do a job across Canada and that this new Minister of Finance really meant business.
Until last May 8, members of the House of Commons and the Canadian public were half convinced that the prognosis and the prediction of the new Minister of Finance might come true. He was suggesting that we were again turning a corner, to quote the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) who sits now, lonely and deserted, in the front benches. That hon. member made a significant contribution in one way to which I will refer in a few minutes. We were again turning a corner, this was the suggestion of the Minister of Finance. He indicated that we were going to control inflation and solve the unemployment problem.
The Minister of Finance predicted substantial increases in employment in the manufacturing sector. The end result was that from May to December, 1972, there was a reduction of 1.6 per cent in employment in the manufacturing sector of the enonomy. In the previous year, when we had no Turner budget, we had an increase in employment in the manufacturing sector of .53 per cent.
It was that the minister's new budget would have a dramatic, perverse effect on the economy of Canada. That is exactly what happened. In that sector of the economy which he talked about stimulating, the situation got worse. Toward the end of the year the government made predictions about employment and inflation. I do not need to refer to inflation because the statistics are obvious and need not be put on the record again.
Last Monday night everyone knew there was to be a new kind of budget to cure the ills of the Canadian nation. Everybody anticipated that the Minister of Finance had a pocketful of money. Nobody knew it better than the hon. member for Verdun. That hon. member, who was previously minister of manpower and immigration, knew that even though his unemployment insurance scheme cost $2 billion, it would not bankrupt the nation. As a matter of fact, some say it was fortunate for the Liberal party that this $2 billion got into the economy. Had it not been ingested into the economy we might very well have had another 100,000 Canadians out of work.
With that kind of contribution to the just society, we can thank the hon. member for Verdun for what happened. He was one of the few humanitarians left in the cabinet. I shall be watching that hon. member and other members on that side of the House to see how they vote tonight. I am aware of his feelings and I am confident that he will show Mr. Turner, through his vote, that he does not believe he went far enough in stimulating the economy.

Let us see what happens. We are all conscious of this feeling, so let us see how they vote.
Last Monday night we knew there would be something of benefit to Canada. We welcome the increase in pensions and the tax adjustments of a beneficial nature. As the hon. member for Provencher has said, we have a Canadian economic anatomy that is undernourished. Perhaps this is an allegorical analogy that indicates all kinds of defects. Our economy is basically undernourished and plagued by government overspending in areas such as Information Canada and others. We have an economic rupture in the Atlantic region, an economic ulcer in Quebec and a general malaise across the whole nation. On Monday the Minister of Finance presented a budget which will keep this nation's economic anatomy in the same malnourished condition in terms of regional disparity.
In case there is an hon. member in the House of Commons who is not aware of what has happened to unemployment rates since the Liberal party took office in 1968 under this Prime Minister, let me place on the record a few statistics that show the seasonally adjusted rates across Canada. In 1967 we had an unemployment rate of 4.1 per cent. In 1968 that rate increased to 4.8 per cent. In 1969 the rate was 4.7 per cent, in 1970 it was 5.9 per cent, in 1971 it was 6.4 per cent and in 1972, after last year's expansionary budget, it was 6.3 per cent. That is an increase from 4.1 per cent to 6.3 per cent in a period of six years-a 50 per cent increase in the unemployment rate in this country.
In the Atlantic region, with the new regional economic expansion project, that two-pronged effort to gain equality and eliminate regional disparity, in 1967 the unemployment rate was 6.6 per cent. The next year we had an increase to 7.3 per cent, the next year it was 7.5 per cent, the next year 7.6 per cent, the next year 8.6 per cent, and last year it went up to 9 per cent. That indicates the result of the efforts of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the Atlantic region. Even with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, this government has not been able to come up with any positive regional development policy in the last four or five years.
Lest anyone thinks my attitude is predicated on the fact that I am from the Atlantic region, let us look at the figures for the province of Quebec. In 1967 we find an unemployment rate of 5.3 per cent, in 1968 a rate of 6.5 per cent, the next year 6.9 per cent, the next year 7.9 per cent the next year 8.2 per cent, and in 1972 a rate of 8.3 per cent. This shows a steady increase in the level of unemployment since 1967. If I can add correctly, this shows an increase of 3 per cent in the rate of unemployment in the province of Quebec.
Without putting all the statistics on the record, we find for the province of Ontario an increase from 3.1 per cent in 1967 to 4.8 per cent in 1972. In the prairie region the rate of unemployment went from 2.3 per cent to 4.5 per cent, and British Columbia-a province that had not heard of unemployment for a number of years-had an increase, from 1967 to 1972, from 5.1 per cent to 7.6 per cent. These are the national averages up to 1972.
February 26, 1973

I do not like offering statistics except to prove a point. However, for the benefit of the Minister of Finance may I say that in Canada unemployment goes beyond statistics. In Canada, unemployment has a twofold effect. The first effect almost everybody understands. There is the cost of unemployment in terms of its strain on the national treasury, which does not have to be explained after the $2 billion deficit we experienced last year. Then there is the cost of unemployment in terms of loss of productivity. On the one hand we have the case of a man sitting at home drawing benefits from the system, and another fellow at the other end who is working every day.
This does not have to be explained to anybody; one does not have to be an economist or a minister to understand it. The fellow who sits at home may be a farmer or a fisherman. The fellow sitting at home is eating out of the vegetable bin, and the other fellow has to produce. Can you imagine the difference in productivity on the farm?
In material terms we have the drain of unemployment on the Canadian nation. In economic terms we lose several billion dollars because of lack of productivity due to unemployment. There is another side to this situation which every member must have observed. I wonder whether anyone can imagine the impact on a family when a man has to sit at home doing nothing. What impact does this have on the individual and on his children? The children come home from school day after day, having mingled with children whose fathers are employed, and look around at the old skipper sitting back in the corner receiving the benefits given by the state. I ask hon. member to consider the impact on a family which in this situation has to obtain the necessities of life in an environment where prices are increasing very dramatically. I happen to come from an environment where this is a common occurrence. There is insecurity involved in having a half million people sitting home not knowing what will happen. They do not know whether or not they will be working tomorrow. Then there is another group of people. There are the hundreds of thousands who are just scraping by, people who may work today and not tomorrow.
The total impact of unemployment on this nation is worse than any pestilence, war or disease. This is a matter in respect of which we think differently from the people in the party across the House. I believe the party opposite has shown that over the last four years it has not understood that unemployment is a problem in Canada. It seems to believe it is something which can be cured. I do not believe the people sitting across the House, the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance really believe unemployment can be cured. I do not believe they even think it should be cured. There is a difference between our party and the party opposite on the matter of conviction. We are convinced we cannot continue to tolerate the unemployment levels we have had.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: The Minister of Finance in his budget last Monday night told me, at least, as one Canadian that he does not believe this situation needs curing. He has painted a black picture. I am amazed that a man of the
The Budget-Mr. Lundrigan
integrity and intelligence of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), who leads the party to my left, would be willing to go along with a budget which he considers will not work.
As one who comes from one of the poorer regions of Canada, I say that unemployment and inflation problems, with the present approach, will be no better in the future than they are today. The hon. member for Verdun agrees with me. He has had the same attitude for a number of years. Since 1969, when we first heard of the inflation-employment trade-off where jobs are given away to cure inflation, people have asked what the alternative is. I heard the leader of the New Democratic Party say that if we gave them an alternative, they would support us. He said that if we could provide some way to control the problem, they would support us.
We have offered an approach. I need not reiterate what my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) or the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) have said: we have said there must be more substantial cuts and more reduction in taxation to provide real expansion. We have said that the deficit of the Minister of Finance, which is a little more than half the deficit of last year, is not enough.
The minister quoted people from the Toronto Institute of Quantitative Analysis, Messrs. Jump and Wilson. They said that sales tax reduction is the best way to provide stimulus on the one hand, employment on the other hand, cool off inflation and provide the equity of taxation that would benefit the poor people in this country. This is what the experts have concluded, not in 1962 but in 1972 and 1973, in this decade. Therefore on that basis, for the benefit of my NDP colleagues, may I say we have said we do not want only a reduction of the tax applicable to the clothing of small children but would eliminate the entire taxation on clothing. That is one approach we have recommended. Sales of clothing in Canada in the past year amounted to $3 billion. We have gone further-I take issue with the Minister of Finance on this-and said that it is absolutely essential that the 11 per cent building tax be eliminated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: Today, in response to a question from this side of the House, the minister indicated there is no need for this. He said he was completely satisfied that his budget of last Monday night would provide the necessary stimulus. We have gone further. We mention the building tax, not only because of the stimulus on its own but because of the very critical housing problem in this nation. We also believe a reduction in sales tax and building materials tax, because they are at the manufacturing level, will result in savings passed on to the consumer.
We have gone beyond this and said that in this country we as a party believe the most important part of the economic fibre is the small business community. We recommended in October, 1972, and have reiterated since, that there must be a program designed to provide incentive for the small businessman. We have talked about tax credits. We have talked about being able to invest and receive credit for one's investment on a tax basis or

February 26, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Lundrigan
through elimination or lowering of what really is taxable income.
The result of this, for the benefit of my NDP colleagues, is that there would be a further billion dollar incentive in the Canadian economy. Perhaps the leader of the NDP might ask, "What's a billion?" Unlike my colleagues across the way, we say this type of expansion with another billion dollars in the economy would have a very beneficial effect. Given the fact that we have that kind of expansion, we have agreed that it would be of little avail to have that kind of expansionary policy on the one hand and on the other hand to have some kind of system of inflation that would eat away the real value to the consumer.
We are taking a stand which I believe is dramatic in Canadian history. We have said that given that type of expansionary approach on the one hand, we would be prepared to impose a 90-day freeze on prices and wages in this country, with one or two exceptions. It was indicated that by using the 90 days as a short-term approach, with consultation which we believe to be absolutely essential with the provinces, unions, consumer groups and other groups in Canada, we could come up with guidelines that would satisfy many of the question marks people have in their minds.
We realize that there are many question marks. I have heard my colleagues in the House and people in various groups talk about the many problems that are raised when prices and wages are frozen or controlled. With this in mind, we have recommended a 90-day freeze, with proper consultation for longer term planning. With this combination I can stand here tonight before members of the House, and I will stand anywhere in Canada, and say to my friends in the NDP and to the voters for the NDP- and gain votes with this kind of approach-that this will have a beneficial effect on the Canadian nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: I spoke earlier of the time in May of 1972 when we had the man from the east coming before us with his cosmetic kit. That is what we saw last Monday evening. He presented Canadians with a beautiful makeup job, with all the rouges, eyebrow-pencils and all the stuff that some ladies put on their faces-and perhaps some gentlemen too, for all I know. He painted this beautiful face; he did a good face-lifting job. This is what he gave us. We say that a face-lifting job is inadequate. We say that now, in 1973, after five years of this type of approach, we need a body building effort and that is what we have offered the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: That is what we have offered them in the program outlined by the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Don Valley and the hon. member for Edmonton West. In conclusion, just in case there are any members to my left who did not understand what I have just said and what we have been saying in the last week and in the last four years, I should like to say something for the record. I can hardly believe that politics can get

down to this level and that this is the approach of my friends to the left who have spoken the same language that we speak on this side of the House. Here we have the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). We know where he will be, depending on the way he votes tonight.


An hon. Member:: He will be in Oshawa.


John Howard Lundrigan: It sounds as if he is getting homesick. I want to say, in conclusion, that tonight will be a real test of the position of individual members of the NDP. I predict that a good number of the members of that party-I do not know exactly how many-will realize the calling that was referred to again by my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher, and stand up for their principles. I predict that some members of that party will stand on their convictions rather than follow the lack of leadership given by the hon. member for York South.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: I want to read again the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton West and that of the Minister of Finance on which they will be voting. The motion reads:
That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
The hon. member for Edmonton West moved an amendment that all the words after "That" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
while acknowledging certain beneficial provisions in the budget proposals, this House regrets that they do not contain measures that will substantially reduce continuing high unemployment, effectively contain the spiralling cost of living or provide any incentives to Canadians to increase their participation in Canadian business enterprise and development.
That motion should provide no difficulty for members who are interested in the future development of our nation to support the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, I regret missing a few minutes-I hope it was only a few minutes- of the beginning of the address of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) who is obviously one of the better debaters in the House of Commons. He showed very early in his remarks-at least when I was in the House-a real and sincere concern for the effects of unemployment. He spoke eloquently and with conviction about the dramatic and the traumatic effects which unemployment has on family life.
He pointed out something that most of us who remember the depression years know, namely, the degradation that the father or the chief breadwinner feels when he is out of work through no fault of his own. He spoke with great feeling about the effects of unemployment. He could have gone on to describe the 1930s as I did the other day, the soup kitchens, the bread lines and my community which the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) knows so well, where people burned their cupboard doors in the winter in order to prevent the pipes from freezing and to provide some heat.

Having said this, it is hard to reconcile this eloquence with his inability to drive home to his own party in caucus that the only thing standing between the type of existence which he describes so eloquently and the same thing happening today is unemployment insurance. How does he reconcile the fact that his party did its best during the election campaign to destroy the very act which prevented the return of the hungry thirties?


An hon. Member:: That is nonsense.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I have never hidden my concern for unemployment. I have expressed support in the House, as did the former leader of the NDP, when the former minister of finance was here and a discussion took place on selected wage and price controls to endorse it as an alternative to a fiscal and monetary policy which drives 500,000 or 600,000 people out of work. We can no longer return to this type of policy in the future if we ever reduce unemployment to a decent level.
It is very hard to reconcile the position of a party which has now discovered the social implications of mass unemployment with their attitude during the election campaign when they were prepared to destroy the only plan that stood between degradation and at least a decent income while people were waiting for the economy to pick up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has shown the people how callous he is and what little concern he has for the unemployed. At least the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate, the hon. member from Cape Breton and the hon. member from Newfoundland had the courage of their convictions when they voted for the unemployment insurance amendments, because they know what unemployment is and they know that above all else, the coal miner in Cape Breton and the fisherman in Newfoundland deserve a job; and if it is not there, through no fault of his own, he is entitled to a decent unemployment insurance plan that is not reduced to the level of welfare.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If we had listened to the advice of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and raised the level of the unemployment insurance qualification to 20 weeks, we would have thrown hundreds or thousands of people in the Maritimes on the welfare rolls. And now the Tory party has suddenly discovered the social effects of unemployment! Only a few months ago, last October, they were prepared to disown the unemployed and, if possible, to rise to power on the backs of the unemployed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are less than honest.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) was the first to disown the very act which, until his speech on Bill C-124, was a monument to his own progressive thinking, to the same extent as it was to the former minister who introduced the bill in the first
The Budget-Mr. Mackasey
place. I will vote for the budget; and if there is not enough stimulus for the economy, then in a few months the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) can certainly provide more: he is a flexible individual. There is no reason why we should be stuck to one budget a year, as used to be the case. As a matter of fact, the trend now is toward introducing two or three budgets a year.
One of the hon. gentlemen opposite who made a fine speech a few days ago forgot to mention in this debate that the most effective means of reducing unemployment is an across the board reduction in sales tax, as indicated by the econometric model computer in the University of Toronto. Not coupled with personal income tax reductions, which the party opposite endorsed; nor did it include a reduction of the sales tax on building materials. There were three different, fundamental formulae fed into that model. The first was a reduction of sales tax, excluding a personal income tax reduction, the second was a reduction in the building materials tax alone and the third was a personal income tax reduction. The first, a general reduction in sales tax, proved to have the most stimulus on the manufacturing sector. But, in addition, we have reduced personal income tax because it was obvious, as a result of inflation and the growth of the wage rate pattern in the country, as indicated by the Minister of Finance yesterday, that in effect we were overtaxing people.
As a consequence we have reduced income tax and at the same time the Minister of Finance has reduced sales tax on certain commodities. As I say, if we need more stimulus for the economy in a matter of three, four or five months there will be nothing to prevent the Minister of Finance from further reducing sales tax on clothing and on other items in order to assist manufacturing. But it is very hard to reconcile the very emotional concern for the unemployed expressed by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate tonight on behalf of his party with the callous, indiscriminate and vehement way in which that party tried to destroy the unemployment insurance scheme during the election campaign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Hon. members opposite may holler, but I say to them that one of your own members tonight had the courage to tell you about unemployment. He had the courage to explain to you exactly the degradation of unemployment. He had the courage to tell you its effect on the family unit. He had the courage to remind you of the hungry thirties. And you don't want to be reminded because you know in your hearts that you voted the wrong way on unemployment insurance. You cannot turn the clock back on your action, and sooner or later when the next election comes around, in the Atlantic provinces you will have to answer for your attitude to the unemployed and the unemployment insurance scheme. You cannot have it both ways.
One hon. member who can have it both ways is the hon. gentleman from Gander-Twillingate, because he voted according to his conscience. He knew it would be embarrassing to stand and vote against his own party, but he did

February 26, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Mackasey
that the other day, as did another hon. member from Cape Breton and one from Newfoundland. They know that the unemployment insurance scheme means the difference between turning to welfare or possible starvation to the unemployed in their communities, and they at least showed their concern.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. It being 9.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section 7 of Standing Order 60, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House. The question is on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The House will now adjourn until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 10.15 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, February 27, 1973