1973-02-23

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege although I have doubts about the choice of procedure; however, I appeal to your kind understanding.

As hon. members may be aware, the Secretary of State for External Affairs departs today to participate in the international conference in Paris pursuant to the peace treaty signed by the belligerent parties in Viet Nam.
I am sure all hon. members will wish to join me in expressing to the minister our united understanding of the difficult and important task that he will face along with the other members of the international conference. While, in a partisan way, the minister may have disagreements with other members of the House, there is no question that he speaks and works for all Canadians when he joins the search for a lasting peace in Paris.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and myself wish him good luck; we can assure him we will keep an eye on him but we cannot guarantee that upon his return he will sit in the same place in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's doubts were well founded when he suggested he had some reservations as to the procedure. He will recognize, I am sure, that this is not a question of privilege. I indicated that to him when he gave me notice as required by the Standing Orders. I would hope we would not begin a practice under which statements would be made by other than by ministers as provided by the rules.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report, in both official languages, of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.-Mr. Dupras.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 14(2), I wish to table, in the two official languages, copy of my letter to the Quebec minister of communications concerning the general regulations published by the Quebec Public Service Board.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-149, to amend the Canada Pension Plan (housewives' contributions and benefits).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to enable housewives to make contributions to and collect benefits from the Canada Pension Plan. Since many housewives spend part of their careers working in industry as well as working at home, they should be permitted to continue their contributions to the Canada Pension Plan while at home to ensure them a full pension at retiring age. The bill recognizes that work performed at home is equally as important as work performed in industry and provides housewives with the same pension opportunities.


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

Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-150, respecting Discovery Day.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.

February 23, 1973
Canada Pension Plan


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to establish Canada's tenth statutory holiday which, falling on this Friday every February, will be the only holiday break in our long winter season. The holiday will afford Canadians an opportunity to pay tribute not only to our pioneers of the past 500 years but to reawaken interest in discovery both present and future. Both Newfoundland and the Yukon have such a holiday. This bill lets the rest of Canada catch up.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Yukon rising on a question of privilege?


Mr. Nielsen:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have had to put up with the larcenist conduct of Edmonton with respect to the theft of our Klondike days, and while we are flattered by the hon. member's bill I would not want to promise him support for the theft of our own provincial holiday in the Yukon.


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

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-151, to amend the Canada Pension Plan Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to remove the Scrooge-like approach of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), who has been using his right personally to appeal against favourable decisions by the review committee for applicants who have applied for a disability pension under the Canada Pension Plan and unleash the full force of his department against applicants who are disabled, who have had their disability recognized and a pension awarded by a review committee and who, as a result of the minister's personal action in his own name, must not only wait many additional months for a decision on their claims but must face top medical and legal experts from the federal bureaucracy without so much as the benefit of legal counsel. This amendment will eliminate the meanest possible action any federal politician can take against an individual Canadian.


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


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the statement made by the Australian minister in charge of development after his visit to Peking that in future wheat deals Peking would favour Australia over Canada, has the minister made any plans for a pilgrimage of penance to Peking to explain why he introduced the Lift Program in 1970 to take western farmers out of wheat production?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice on behalf of the minister and have him report back.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Agriculture also take notice of this supplementary question to the minister? Will the minister explore the possibilities of having a government to government deal between Canada and China under which we will buy rice from China instead of buying all our rice from the United States as a way of solving the difficulties that apparently are arising between Canada and China?


Eugene Whelan: I will bring that suggestion to the minister's attention, Mr. Speaker.


PUBLIC WORKS PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE DISTRIBUTION ON A PROVINCIAL BASIS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. It deals with the 1973-74 expenditures for that department as found in the estimates. In view of the per capita expenditure in the province of British Columbia of $1.56 and the per capita expenditure in the province of Ontario of $9 exclusive of expenditures on the national capital, do these expenditures vary inversely with the distance from Bay Street and Ottawa?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice with regard to the introduction last Friday, February 16, of the Automobile Insurance Act of British Columbia and the
February 23, 1973

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Act. I should like to know whether the confiscatory features of the bill are in any respect in contravention of the Canadian Bill of Rights and, further, whether or not the Automobile Insurance Act represents a restraint on interprovincial trade by requiring all vehicles operating in the province to use the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia as the sole carrier for insurance?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice had to be away today. I will take the question as notice and bring it to his attention.


Mr. Baldwin:: Is he on a slow boat to China?


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT BY MINISTER ON BRITISH COLUMBIA LEGISLATION
Gilles Caouette: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
As soon as the minister is acquainted with the act passed in British Columbia, does he propose to make a statement about the detrimental effect of that legislation on the other provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: I would point out to the hon. member that there may be some doubt about the first part of his question. For the rest, I see no procedural difficulty with regard to his supplementary question.


MANPOWER
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister responsible for manpower and the local initiatives program. My question is prompted by the fact that almost two-thirds of those who have applied have not been successful. In light of the fact LIP has been used as a stimulus to employment and as 92,000 people are now placed in a precarious position because of government indecision with regard to scrapping, revising or renewing LIP, will the minister advise the House whether the budget recently introduced by the Minister of Finance is a sufficient stimulus to the private sector to appreciably create jobs in sufficient numbers to reduce unemployment significantly this year?


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope so.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In view of the indecision of the government in reaching conclusions, in light of the answer just given by the minister, and particularly in view of the indication by the Minister of Finance that some 300,000 jobs will be created, can the minister now advise what the forecast is for unemployment this year?
Oral Questions


Mr. Stanfield:: Don't all jump up at once.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I know the ministers are not interested in the questions asked by members on this side, but perhaps I could direct the question to the Minister of Finance who I assume has had some discussion with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact he has indicated that some 300,000 jobs will be created this year and, keeping this in mind, that he must have some forecast concerning what the unemployment figure will be this year, will the minister advise the House just what the figure will be?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it depends on a lot of assumptions which I should like to go through with the hon. member when we have time to discuss them.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am driven to ask this question as a supplementary because of what has been said and because of the fact that the estimates failed to make any mention of the amount required for unemployment insurance benefits if unemployment exceeds 4 per cent. Would the Minister of Manpower and Immigration now remedy this defect and advise the House concerning the government's estimate of the amount that will be required to meet the statutory obligation of the government when unemployment exceeds 4 per cent?


Hon. Robert E. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the way the act operates, as the hon. member knows better than many others, is that the government's share will be applicable to unemployment insurance benefit costs in excess of 4 per cent, but that figure will not be known until the end of March in the following year after the calendar year in which they are incurred. That is the time when they become appropriations and appear in the main estimates.



MANPOWER


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration a question. In view of the fact that many worth-while and essential services provided by and started under LIP will be without funding as of the end of May, may I ask the minister whether he intends to consult with the provinces to see which of these essential services now carried

February 23, 1973
Oral Questions
on under the LIP program can be continued by federal-provincial participation.


Robert Knight Andras: That is the intention, Mr. Speaker.



POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION TO COMBINE LOCAL


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in view of press reports regarding the local initiatives program, instead of continuing these programs without the benefit of legislation is it the intention of the government to bring in a bill which would have the effect of combining the local initiatives, opportunities for youth, and other grant programs similar thereto?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, no such intention has been finally determined but if it is no dcubt it will be announced in due course in the House.



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-COMPLETE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS-ALLEGED REJECTION OF PROJECTS IN REMOTE AREAS

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. Have all the funds appropriated for the local initiatives program been used up? If they have not, why are letters being sent from the office indicating that projects are being rejected for that reason?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, with the exception of a very few thousand dollars which are more in the nature of administrative tidy-up, all of the $165 million has been allocated. It has not been used up in the sense that it has been expended but it has been committed to projects, some 5,800,1 believe.


Stanley James Korchinski: Was all of the appropriation used up by the middle of December, since it appears that some projects, particularly in remote areas of the country, have been rejected because of their remoteness rather than for other reasons?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I know of no projects that were rejected on that basis. If the hon. member has some facts I will be delighted to examine them and advise him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition on supplementaries and will then recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and return to the supplementaries that hon. members wish to ask on this subject.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and is supplementary to that posed by the hon. member for Peace River. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has an estimate of the cash requirements necessary to finance the unemployment insurance advances estimated to be required during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974? I ask that question, Mr. Speaker, because the minister has given us an estimate of the cash requirements and therefore must have made an estimate of the cash requirement needed to finance unemployment insurance advances.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will try to put that answer in a form that will satisfy the hon. gentleman. The difficulty is in the switch, in accounting terms, from a commitment on a non-budgetary basis to a budgetary basis over the years, which makes my answer difficult to explain in accounting terms.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: Not difficult but impossible.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Selkirk. I apologize to the hon. member. We will come to him, but at present the Leader of the Opposition rises on a supplementary question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance why, when he has given the House an estimate of the cash requirements of the government for the fiscal year of which I spoke, he is unable to give the House his estimate of the cash requirements to finance unemployment insurance advances?


John Napier Turner: In simple terms, the cash requirements of the government will include the unemployment insurance advances.


Some hon. Members:: How much?



MANITOBA PROPOSAL TO EXTEND HOSPITAL INSURANCE TO COVER PERSONAL AND NURSING HOME CARE

Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare the following question. In view of the announcement in the Manitoba Speech from the Throne that the province will extend hospital insurance to cover the personal care homes and nursing home care, has the minister arranged a formal cost-sharing program with the province of Manitoba, would such a program, if arranged, cover patients other than those requiring extended care, and is consideration being given by the federal government to amending the federal hospital insurance legislation along these lines?
February 23, 1973


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister oi National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member has misinterpreted the contents of the Speech from the Throne concerning our health program plans. We have suggested to the provinces a new system of financing that would give them complete freedom in allocating health funds; this would obviously enable the provinces to cover the aspects touched on in his question.
We have already submitted this plan to the provinces, and we are awaiting their response. If agreement is reached, there will be nothing to prevent any province, Manitoba included, from covering the expenses in question.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, the minister has misinterpreted my question. I was not addressing myself to the statements with respect to hospital insurance contained in the federal Speech from the Throne but rather to those in the Manitoba Speech from the Throne. Would he address himself to that question? What arrangements have been made for cost-sharing in the Manitoba program?


Marc Lalonde: I apologize to the hon. member if I misinterpreted his question regarding the specific proposal that is contained in the Manitoba Speech from the Throne. The policy of the federal government is to press for an agreement on the proposals that were put forward to the provinces at the end of February which would give them the necessary flexibility. There is no intention at present to amend the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Is the federal government giving consideration to providing compensation to provinces such as Manitoba that decide to provide services on a universal basis and will thus lose the cost-sharing benefits of the Canada Assistance Plan which would apply to programs which are more social assistance oriented? For example, is the federal government considering transferring funds equivalent to those which Manitoba would have received under the Canada Assistance Plan for nursing care and personal care to the amounts paid to Manitoba for hospital care?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to discuss this question with the premier of Manitoba and some of his officials; obviously, the matter is still under examination, but I must stress again that precedence is given to study of the new financing formula, which would apply in all cases the hon. member has mentioned.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
MONTREAI____VOLUNTARY WITHDRAWAL FROM WORK BY

Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and
Oral Questions
Immigration who is in charge of unemployment insurance.
Is he aware of the fact that yesterday about one hundred employees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission left their jobs voluntarily in Montreal, and if so, does he expect to pay unemployment insurance benefits to those employees?


Hon. Robert K. Andreis (Minister oi Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the incident has just been brought to my attention and I have asked for a frill report.



MANPOWER


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the previous question is also directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and concerns the local initiatives program. I would like to ask him if it is his intention to have all of these LIP programs undergo a government audit and, if so, will it be for the full amount or just for those over a certain amount?
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister oi Manpower and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, we have a monitoring system for LIP projects. I think that about 10 per cent or 15 per cent of those below $75,000 will be monitored on a prearranged basis, and those in excess of $75,000 will receive attention to a greater degree. Auditing will take place in regard to all of them to one degree or another. We will have to have reports on all of them because we have to account for the funds.


Alfred Dryden Hales: May I ask what the minister means by monitoring those under $75,000?


Robert Knight Andras: The monitoring is to see that the objectives of the particular project applications are being carried out. They will be visited by field staff from the manpower offices. The auditing process is more of an accounting procedure involving examination of the books to determine the disposition of the funds.


Gerald William Baldwin: Who audits the monitors?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Wellington again but the House has heard a large number of supplementaries on this subject and there are a number of other members who want to ask questions. I will recognize the hon. member for Wellington and the hon. member for Hastings on further supplementaries, and then see the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether or not the accounts are going to be audited from the first dollar up?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will get a precise answer for the hon. member. My understanding is that they will all be

February 23, 1973
Oral Questions
audited in the accounting sense but the monitoring will be spot monitoring.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]. R. Ellis (Hastings): Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to a much earlier question and I direct it to the Minister of Finance. Since the minister has indicated that the prime consideration in his budget is the provision of jobs, and since the removal of tariffs on concentrated juices alone will cost at least 30 jobs in my area, can the minister indicate what he intends to do to compensate for these jobs, as well as to provide new jobs?
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the tariff cuts were made after a thorough review of the repercussions on the Canadian economy and particularly on Canadian jobs. I would be interested to see the case that the hon. member has in mind.
* # *



PROPOSED WEST COAST OIL TANKER ROUTE-MEETINGS OF CANADA-UNITED STATES COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS CONTROL-SUBMISSION OF PLAN

Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the right hon. Prime Minister's statement on Friday last that a joint United States-Canada committee was established last spring to discuss joint control over the proposed west coast oil tanker route from Alaska, and in view of the right hon. Prime Minister's suggestion that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources answer questions relating to that committee, can the parliamentary secretary tell the House whether the committee has in fact met and, if so, has the committee submitted any plan for joint control to the respective governments of Canada and the United States?


Hon. Herb Gray (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the acting minister I would be happy to draw this question to the attention of the minister who is unable to be in the House today. With respect to the second part of his question, I have a feeling that this may be something of which the Minister of the Environment may want to take note.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I do not think the question is a difficult one, and in view of the minister's suggestion I will now put it to the Minister of the Environment. Can he advise the House whether that committee has in fact met and, if so, has the committee submitted any plan for joint control to the governments of Canada and the United States?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I met with Mr. Russel Train, who is the presiden-
[Mr. Andras.l
tial adviser on the environment to President Nixon, last fall, and there is to be another meeting shortly. However, it is not a meeting of a committee. It is a meeting between the Minister of the Environment for Canada and the President's adviser on the environment in the United States. I really do not think that this is the committee to which the hon. member is addressing his question.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the right hon. Prime Minister indicated that a committee had been set up to study joint control of the Alaska tanker route down the west coast of British Columbia. My question, to any minister or any parliamentary secretary who can answer it, is: has that committee met?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to get a reply for the hon. member. My answer was to the effect that I had discussed this with President Nixon and suggested that the International Joint Commission be brought into action to study and monitor that type of thing. I was then informed by somebody in the government-I must say I cannot say who exactly but I will look into that-that there was a preference on the American side not to do it through the IJC but through an ad hoc committee, and it was to that committee I was referring. I will attempt to see to what minister, if not the Minister of the Environment, it reports on its meetings.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is a phantom.



PROPOSED WEST COAST OIL TANKER ROUTE-FURTHER PROTESTS BY GOVERNMENT

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question along the same lines is directed to the Minister of the Environment. In light of the statement by the Prime Minister to the Premier of British Columbia that the federal government has already registered its disapproval of the movement of oil down the British Columbia coast, does the government plan any further protests or any actions of its own on this matter? If not, to take any further action at this time? Perhaps the Minister of the Environment or the Secretary of State for External Affairs might reply.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I personally, and the government, have registered very strong opposition to the movement of tankers through the narrow waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and related waters. We are still very strongly of this view. We continue to reiterate this view in all our contacts with the United States government.
As the Prime Minister indicated in his previous answer, we would have liked the IJC to become involved. The Americans were opposed to this, and it was on that basis that the Ministers of Environment of Canada and the United States have met and will meet again to see whether something can be done to reduce the dangers of any oil spills if the United States, notwithstanding our objections, insists on this route.


Donald W. Munro: In light of the fact that the Cherry Point tanker terminal would pose an immense
February 23, 1973

threat to the B.C. coast-I have a most personal interest in this through watching these tankers sail by my window when I am at home-with almost no threat to the United States environment, as a minimum has the government insisted that the United States government choose a terminal site farther down the U.S. coast and, if not, will the government take this position now?


Mitchell William Sharp: Our preference would be, and this is the point we have made to the United States government, that tankers should not go to Cherry Point. Whether they should go to another point farther down the United States coast is a matter for the United States itself to decide. Our interest is in preventing the pollution of those waters which, as the hon. gentleman said, would have a very deleterious effect on the beautiful environment of British Columbia.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. It bears on the disappearance of an aircraft some two weeks ago, while on a flight between Montreal and Val d'Or, with four persons on board. I have discussed this question in a preliminary fashion with the minister. In view of the fact that additional investigation has shown that 15 people have reported spotting or hearing an aircraft north of the search area, and in view of the fact that the search by search and rescue has been called off at least for the present, will the minister now, in view of this additional information which I understand he has, order the search resumed for these four people?


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, last week, when the hon. member was not in the House, I gave a full report on this search. I have said that if there are new clues, new evidence, we would resume the search in full force.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked a question and I wanted to rise on a supplementary. It seems that this privilege is accorded to everybody in this chamber; however, I was passed over-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Reilly: I do not wish to be dilatory-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can ask a supplementary but I do not think it is proper for him to make the comments he is making now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may seek the floor on a supplementary and I am quite prepared to allow him to do this without such preliminary comments. He may ask the supplementary now.
Oral Questions


Peter Reilly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I asked the Minister of National Defence whether in the light of what I believe to be new information he would now order the resumption of the search and, with great respect, I do not believe he gave an answer. I repeat the question now: Does the minister have the information to which I referred and on the basis of that information will he now order resumption of the search for these four Canadian citizens who at this moment may be starving or freezing to death in the Canadian north?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I said that if we had sufficient evidence of new clues to resume the search we would do so. I have not got information of that kind, but I am certain that if my officers do have that information the search will be already under way.



INVESTIGATION INTO LOSS OF BEECH AIRCRAFT IN NORTHWEST TERRITORIES LAST FALL

Erik Nielsen: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Last week I asked the Solicitor General and the Minister of Transport questions with respect to the loss of a twin Beech aircraft in the Northwest Territories and the completion of the investigations, in one case by Department of Transport officials and in the other case by the RCMP. I wonder if each minister has an answer now?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP investigation has been completed but the inquest has not been completed. The inquest was postponed until next Monday, February 26, and it will be continued at that time in Yellowknife. When the inquest is completed a full report will be made.


Erik Nielsen: Have the Minister of Transport's officials completed their investigation and, if so, with what results?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, officials of my department are in contact with the RCMP and officials of the Solicitor General. It is all the same inquiry.



HIGH WATER LEVEL IN LAKE HURON-SUGGESTED USE OF ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL TO INVESTIGATE SHORE EROSION AND ASSIST IN CONSTRUCTION OF PROTECTIVE DEVICES

Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of the Environment is supplementary to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore. Will the minister discuss with the Minister of National Defence the possibility of determining if Canadian forces personnel, primarily engineers, might be used to investigate shore erosion on Lake Huron, as opposed to flooding on Lakes Erie and Ontario, which is caused by the high water levels with a view to making recommendations about how the shoreline might be pre-

February 23, 1973
Oral Questions
served and also whether assistance might be given to land owners by the Department of National Defence in the form of constructing groynes and other protective devices?
Hon. ]ack Davis (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am certain that our engineers will be happy to work with officials of the Department of National Defence and the staff of the Department of Public Works in this connection.



HIGH WATER LEVELS IN GREAT LAKES-FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR MEASURES TO PREVENT DAMAGE BEFORE IT OCCURS

Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of the Environment. We all understand that there are arrangements with the provinces to look after flood damage when it has happened, but would the minister take into account any representations that may be made by the province for funds from the federal government for preventive measures to be taken before flood damage occurs, thus reducing public expenditure?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, definitely, Mr. Speaker. There are programs of that kind already in operation in a number of provinces and we would welcome discussions with the government of Ontario.


Norman Augustine Cafik: If these programs exist with other provinces, can the minister indicate what the formula is for costsharing in respect of such preventive measures?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the formulas have varied from place to place. They depend on the extent of federal responsibility in the area and the extent of provincial and local responsibility.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest, with respect, to hon. members that we should limit the number of supplementaries at this point and not allow too many subjects to become debate rather than simple questions.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and deals with flooding in a different context. On February 6 the minister told us that the government of Canada had written to the government of the United States requesting discussions regarding the proposed flooding of the Skagit Valley by Seattle City Light. Has he received an answer and, if so, what was the nature of the reply?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. We sent a message requesting

such discussions to the American authorities on January 9 but we have not yet had a reply.


Mark Willson Rose: If I may be permitted a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether the government's note to the United States requesting these discussions included an explicit statement to the United States that the government of British Columbia has decided not to allow the flooding to proceed? Would he also be kind enough to table the note to the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is not customary to reveal such notes unless with the agreement of the other government, but I would ask the hon. member whether it is true that the British Columbia government has made a definite decision that it will not permit the flooding?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope that the minister is not now suggesting that we should get into a practice whereby ministers will ask questions of members opposite.


An hon. Member:: They sure need to.


Mr. Lawrence:: They would get better answers.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the government of British Columbia has advised the minister informally that it has decided not to proceed with this agreement. May I repeat my question? Did the minister's letter to the United States government contain explicit information on this point, that the British Columbia government had decided not to proceed? We have heard from the Minister of the Environment. He said in the House that he had-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked the question. He should not now make a speech.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the note with me to enable me to answer the question directly but I shall take notice of it. However, I agree with the Minister of the Environment that the flooding of the Skagit Valley is a dead issue.



INCOME TAX


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In light of statements made on television by his honourable friend from York South last night, will the minister give an undertaking to the House that his proposals with regard to fast write-offs for corporations will be only brought in by legislation or, if by order in council, they will have attached an affirmative resolution under Section 28 of the Statutory Regulations Act so that the House can give assent before they become law?


An hon. Member:: Or otherwise.
February 23, 1973

Hon. ]ohn N. Turner (Minister oi Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the hon. member's point of view.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: David, give him permission.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. When the hon. member for York South intimated last night that it would be adequate to have discussion after the event, was he stating official coalition government policy?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture and arises out of a remark he made in his speech last night when he indicated that the temporary reduction in tariffs on agricultural products would have little significant impact on farm prices. In answer to a question from the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte on Thursday last he indicated that he was in the throes of estimating the effect on agricultural income. Would the minister undertake to table his findings on the impact on farm income of the reduction in tariffs?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I shall shortly be appearing before the agricultural committee on the estimates and at that time I will be glad to do this. Our findings are not complete, but if it is the wish of the House to have this type of information may I say I have already promised to give it to many hon. members anyway.



REPRESENTATIONS TO ARGENTINA TO LIFT BAN ON EXPORT OF HIDES

Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the government is concerned about prices in this country, can the minister tell the House if the government has been in contact with the government of Argentina concerning the possibility of lifting that country's embargo on export of hides which is having serious implications on the cost of footwear in Canada?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to make inquiries and convey the information to the hon. member.



ACTION TO CREATE NEW AND EXPAND PRESENT MARKETS FOR DAIRY PRODUCTS

Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister assure the House and the
Oral Questions
dairy farmers of Canada that he and his department are doing everything possible to create new and expand present export markets for dairy products?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we, of course, as a matter of policy are always trying to expand markets for all types of Canadian products. In this connection, I think the House will be pleased to know that, of a requirement for some 25 million pounds of milk powder, 19 million pounds were sold by Canada to the United States recently.



REPRESENTATIONS AGAINST REDUCTION OF TARIFFS ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. The minister has said that the does not want to hurt Canadian agriculture. Did he take into account the fact that the Canadian Horticultural Council and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have been requesting the government not to make any further reductions in tariffs on agricultural products?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, with a colleague like I have there is no way I would be able to hurt agriculture, not with the present Minister of Agriculture.



FINANCE


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact the budget has cut federal taxes on children's clothing and certain foodstuffs, is it the minister's intention to monitor the prices of these items to ensure that the savings are indeed passed on to the consumers?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we will be watching these items. The initial reaction has been very encouraging right across the country.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Can the minister tell the House what action the government will take with firms that do not comply by lowering prices?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if firms do not lower prices when other firms do they will just lose the business.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

February 23, 1973
Oral Questions POST OFFICE



PUBLICITY PROMOTING NEW POSTAL CODE

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. It arises from the publicity promoting the new postal code, using enlightening messages such as "Keep two pairs of plus fours". In view of this profligate expenditure of public funds, will the Postmaster General inform the House what sensible ideas he has to make the code more acceptable to the Canadian public?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the introduction of the postal code is progressing as expected, according to a timetable that was established a year ago. The comments we have received are, contrary to what the hon. member says, very favourable and I hope all Canadians who wish to benefit from a more adequate postal service can use this code to great advantage.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Can the Postmaster General assure the House that the expenditure of over half a million dollars indicated in a return that was tabled the other day will not be expanded, because I think that one of the most important responsibilities of a member is to scrutinize carefully unusual waste of public funds?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the increase in the department's expenditures is largely attributable to salary increases and to the improvement of postal services in the different post offices across the country.



NEW POSTAL CODE-PROVISION OF PRINTED STICKERS TO PUBLIC

Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Postmaster General. In view of the growing deficit in the Post Office and the reluctance of the Canadian public to use the new complex postal code, is the government planning to provide preprinted cede stickers to the public?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary the deficit has decreased over the past two years.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Richmond. I think that he wanted to ask a supplementary and I therefore recognize him.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I did not receive an answer to my question to the Postmaster General. I will address it to him again. Is the government planning to provide print-

ed code stickers to the public in order to make the operation work?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I will find out what can be done following the hon. member's representations.



AGRICULTURE


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the fact that the minister told the House, on Wednesday last, that because of the shortage of veterinarians in Canada, he felt it necessary to send a recruiting team to Europe, could he tell us whether, through his department, he offered to co-operate with the Quebec government with a view to expanding the veterinary school in St. Hyacinthe to train more veterinarians?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker this has been under consideration for some time with all the veterinary schools. A paper is being prepared. I hope to be able to submit it to the government shortly.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Can he tell us whether representations have been made last year or two years ago to enlarge the veterinary school in St. Hyacinthe with federal funds?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, representations were made by the province of Quebec concerning this veterinary college at St. Hyacinthe, the same as they have been by practically every other school in Canada that teaches thjs subject.



MEANING OF BUDGET PROVISIONS RESPECTING SALE, PURCHASE AND HOLDING OF MILK MARKETING QUOTAS

Mr. Bill larvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, some members on this side were accused by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday of not understanding his department's system. I hasten to plead guilty to this charge and I ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will give now, or undertake to do so forthwith, a clear, definitive and explanatory statement, preferably in "Whelanese" which I do understand, as to the precise meaning of the provisions in Monday's budget regarding the taxation and/or depreciation involved in the sale, purchase and holding of milk marketing quotas?
February 23, 1973

Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I can send the hon. member a complete document about this. In short, it means that under the present law proceeds from the sale of quota rights are all treated as income. The budget now proposes that any recovery of original cost will not be taxed.



EFFECT OF TARIFF REDUCTIONS ON ESTABLISHMENT OF SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY IN SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO

Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In his speech last night the minister assured us that he had received cabinet approval to use the stabilization act to give assistance to the sugar-beet growers in Canada should it be necessary because of the tariff reductions. Can the minister advise whether the tariff reductions will wipe out any chance of a sugarbeet industry in southwestern Ontario, or does he have cabinet approval for assistance to establish such an industry?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned it does not wipe out the opportunity of establishing a sugarbeet industry in southwestern Ontario.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, it looks very much like the Minister of Agriculture has been scuttled by the cabinet the same as the former minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. Because income tax forms are much more complicated this year than last, will the minister re-establish a tax office with tax counsellors in the city of Brantford, a city of 61,000 people, instead of forcing taxpayers with tax problems to go either to private tax consultants or telephone Hamilton?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I can look into the hon. member's representation. However, I read in the London Free Press a few days ago that "the new income tax form is a breeze".


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member for Brant and other hon. members that a question of this type should normally be placed on the order paper or discussed at the time of adjournment. We are coming close to calling orders of the day. I believe there are a few supplementaries being sought.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of his statement in parliament that "it is the fundamental right of Canadians, regardless of where they live, to enjoy adequate shelter at reasonable cost", may I ask whether this principle will be applied to residents in Canada's national parks?


Hon. Ron  Bastard@Minister of State for Urban Affairs: Responsibility for national parks belongs to my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and I suggest the question ought to be addressed to him. He is responsible for housing there.


Charles Joseph Clark: Inasmuch as that minister is conveniently absent today, may I direct the question to his parliamentary secretary and ask that he not only answer that question within the next week but that he also indicate within the next week when and how many residential lots will be made available in Jasper, Banff and Waterton Park townsites?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question ought to be placed on the order paper. I see that a number of hon. members are seeking the floor to ask supplementaries, but there is important business to transact and perhaps they will not mind waiting until Monday to ask their questions. Orders of the day.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, having to do with the responsibilities of the Secretary of State. On February 16 he tabled his annual report for the year ended March 31, 1972, according to Votes and Proceedings, at page 124. Since it is customary for these reports to be distributed to all Members of Parliament, I should like to bring to his attention the fact that the report has not been distributed to members or to senators.
I might add that I have checked with the distribution office and learned that the reports have not arrived there. Neither has the distribution office received the annual reports for the year 1971. I bring this to the attention not only of the Secretary of State but of all ministers because it is most essential at this point that annual reports be made available to hon. members. The estimates have now been tabled and will be referred to committees, and these reports are necessary if there is to be effective discussion of estimates in the committees.


Mr. Faulkner:: Perhaps I might respond briefly to that point of order. If the facts are as the hon. member says they are, and I have no reason to disbelieve him, his complaint is legitimate and I will take steps to correct it.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the other day the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley called attention to the delay in submitting the report on amateur sport and physical fitness. May I say on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that I regret that the hon. member was correct. The report was delayed in translation. I have given instruc-

February 23, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
tions that this work be given top priority and I expect to be able to table it in the next few days.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Government House, 23 February, 1973
1 have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Wishart F. Spence, O.B.E., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 23rd of February, 1973, at 12.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a Bill.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Andre Gameau Brigadier General
Administrative Secretary to the Governor General


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to file a caveat following what I said last session with regard to this question of Royal Assent. I bring it up now, reserving the right to speak on it later. I do not propose to take up the time of the House by dealing with it further at this point.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, February 22, consideration of the motion of 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).
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I trust the Leader of the Opposition will give me a few moments for it.
My point of order relates to the fact that almost always when the Minister of Finance makes his annual budget presentation he tables, two or three days earlier, a document known as budget papers. These budget papers are then attached to Hansard on the day of the speech, also to Votes and Proceedings on a day somewhere in that same week. But thus far, although the budget was presented on Monday, there has been no such tabling of budget papers. 1 am wondering whether at some time, soon, the Minister of Finance will table such a document so that it can be part of the record.
[Mr. Lalonde.l


John Napier Turner: Perhaps I might speak briefly to that point of order. Last year we began publication of the Economic Review on an annual basis in April prior to the budget introduced on May 8. I said at that time it would continue to be an annual review, presented separately from the budget. The Economic Review will again be presented in April this year.
As to the so-called budget papers, the difficulty this year is that the budget was brought down earlier than usual. The budget papers cannot be assembled until after the close of the fiscal year, March 31. Those papers will be assembled as quickly as possible and be presented to the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I must begin by apologizing for my voice which may not be as crystal clear as it usually is. I trust, however, that hon. members will nevertheless be able to understand me.
I want to say, too, at the outset, that I understand the somewhat unique position of the Minister of Finance with respect to the budget he presented to the House on Monday night. After all, in order to keep himself and his friends in power he did not have to satisfy the country; he did not need to meet the critical demands of the country or to attack the problems of inflation and unemployment. All he had to do was to please hon. members in the New Democratic Party-something he has obviously succeeded in doing. But I must say to him he could have done so even if he had come here last Monday and promised to increase the old age pension just by a nickel or a dime.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Now that the minister knows how easy it is to placate his allies, I wish it were possible for him to go back to the drawing board and begin again to draw up a budget designed to achieve some degree of order in the economy of Canada, to create some buoyancy and strength to remedy the brutally high rate of unemployment which exists in this country. Those who sit to my left say, as an excuse for their support of this budget, that it proves how potent their position is and how their bargaining power can be used. Well, if this budget is an example of the potency of their bargaining power, they have as much influence as a eunuch in a harem.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The leader of the New Democratic Party says the government has been humbled. Even if this were true, I would say this to him, as I would say to the Canadian people: What this country needs is not necessarily a humbled government but an effective government, an honest government, a government that can be trusted. How can you trust a government that within the short space of a few months has accepted so much of what it previously rejected, and in turn has rejected so much of what just a few months ago it so readily accepted? Confidence and trust are one of the basic questions that we have to face in considering this budget.

I do not object tor a moment to the government's borrowing ideas and suggestions from other parties, including my own; that is perfectly proper. Provided the ideas are sound and helpful to the country, this is acceptable. But what is not acceptable and what will not be accepted by the Canadian people is for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) now to seek approval in the House for policies that they condemned categorically, and in the strongest possible terms, only a few months ago.
Last May in the course of the budget debate I proposed an adjuster to the income tax system to compensate for inflation. For some reason or other best known to himself, the Minister of Finance immediately high-tailed down to my own home town of Truro and there said the following about my proposal: "It would be unique in all the world. The scheme would add immense complexities to the income tax system and the individual taxpayer would face continued uncertainty". He went on to say: "Federal-provincial fiscal arrangements would become chaotic," and that my proposal would "steadily undermine the ability of the federal government to meet the growing demands upon it to provide new and expanded services to Canadians".
On Monday, the same Minister of Finance stood up in this House and said with respect to the same suggestion, as reported at page 1435 of Hansard:
I suggest that this new system will be recognized everywhere as a bold and sensitive response to a rather fundamental tax problem. With the introduction of this change, Canada will join a very select group of countries which have eliminated the hidden revenues accruing to governments through the effect of inflation on a progressive tax system.
I would be very happy to use my good offices to arrange a return engagement in Truro for my hon. friend the minister if he wishes to go down there and explain his change of position.
What has happened in the meantime, Mr. Speaker? Did the minister believe what he said in Truro?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Did he believe what he said in the House Monday night?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the minister believe anything on this subject?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Prior to and during the election campaign I proposed tax cuts, including income tax cuts, to help reduce the effects of inflation and to stimulate the economy. I also proposed an increase in old age pensions which, with the formula I was using, would have produced substantially the same results that the minister proposed on Monday night in this House-about $100 a month. I was attacked by the Prime Minister and particularly by the Minister of Finance in the most emphatic language.
This is what the minister said on October 19 in Calgary.
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield


Mr. Woolliama:: My riding.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He said: "I suggest to you that the promise to sharply reduce taxes, while at the same time substantially increasing federal spending, is not only evidence of political bankruptcy, but it is a prescription for putting Canada in bankruptcy as well". Yet on Monday night this same discredited Minister of Finance stood up in this House and introduced tax cuts which he said are equal to a tax cut across the board of 12 to 13 per cent. He also supported increases in expenditures amounting to approximately 16 per cent.
What happened between October and February? How is it that a proposal that was a prescription for bankruptcy in October becomes highly meritorious in February? Did the minister believe what he said in Calgary in October?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Did he believe what he put forward here on Monday night?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is there anything in which the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister of this country really believe?


Some hon. Members:: Power.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They cannot even put forward in an honest way what it is they are proposing. They are incapable of putting things forward in a straightforward way, even when they are doing something that in many respects is very commendable.
In May last the Minister of Finance forgot to mention to the House that income tax rates would go up by 3 per cent on January 1. Let me tell him that I was prepared to regard that as an oversight, although I do not know that a minister of finance should overlook things like that. But on Monday night he presented as a 5 per cent tax cut what is really a 2 per cent tax cut with a floor of $100. So even when the minister puts forward something that, in itself, is quite decent, he seems to be incapable of putting it forward in a straightforward, honest manner. How can one have any confidence in this government?
In approaching the budget we must deal with it as a whole package, a package that has been loudly acclaimed by hon. members opposite and by what I think we can refer to as the rump to my left. It seems to me fundamental that this country would anticipate a budget which would have withstood the test of three crucial examinations. First, what the budget would do to reduce unemployment, which most members of this House agree has achieved a level that is a national shame and disgrace. We on this side of the House, as well as the people of Canada will wait to hear from the supporters of this budget-and I include all its supporters-the documentary evidence behind these proposals that gives the assurance that this budget will matter a tinker's damn in relieving the national scandal of unemployment.
The second test of this budget is the measure of the government's resolve to do something effective about inflation. Again, the members of this House will wait to

February 23, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
hear from those who support the budget. Perhaps they will tell us whether there really is a morsel of comfort or relief on the horizon resulting from the budget with regard to the continually rising cost of the necessities of life in Canada.
The third test of this budget concerns the future of our country and its mastery over its own affairs, its economy and the development of its own resources. In this budget there is not one morsel of new initiative or crumb of encouragement with regard to this very vital matter. I had been led to believe that this was a serious consideration with many members of this House. So this budget was not designed to remove unemployment, nor to contain inflation, nor to strengthen Canadian economic independence. This budget is not an expansionary budget, much less a visionary one. Those who support this budget, Sir, are doomed to live with it because the time will come, sooner or later, when those who support it today will have to explain tomorrow why unemployment is still a lingering curse in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They will have to explain why inflation is still devouring the savings, pensions and budgets of those who live on modest incomes. Those who support this budget will have to explain, as they proclaim their concern for Canadian economic independence, how it was they voted for this budget without a whimper of protest or even a whine of concern.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: You better get the convention on soon, John.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We have in this budget unilateral, and I emphasize that, unilateral tariff reductions concerning manufacturing in this country. Also we have a program by which any company may establish its own investment program and, provided the investments are unrelated to the company's enterprise, it may qualify for the minimum corporate tax rate.
All this, Sir, is proffered without any consideration being given to the sensible requirements that investment should be in Canadian equities and in the Canadian economy. It is astonishing that throughout this broad range of proposed policy there is not even a wink, a blink or a nod to the need to stimulate investment in Canada.
I am not condemning the minister's lack of concern in this matter, I can only pity it, but I do condemn the sorry silence of some in this House who have spent hours of rhetoric on the issue and who are now silent and satisfied with a policy which will increase the difficulties of Canadian industry and Canadian workers; a policy which provides a quid to other countries without a reciprocal quo to us; a policy which fails to seek any commensurate advantage at a time when we are presumably co-operating with the U.S. about trading relations.
One must ask what sort of policy this is for Canada. We must ask if it is the policy of the government and of its

supporters to sell more refrigerators, for example, or whether it is the policy of the government to create-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: No, underwear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, it is the policy of the government to steal my underwear, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Any more cracks, Joe?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Try another question, Joe. You are a great help, keep going.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the enthusiasm of my colleagues but I have limited time and much to say. Is it the policy of the government and its supporters to sell more refrigerators, for example, or is it the policy of the government to create more jobs in Canada? Is it the policy of the government to stimulate demand or is it the policy of the government to stimulate more demand for imports? I remember a minister saying last May that there was no use creating more consumer demand in this country because it was all being spent on imports. Now, it seems this government has turned it around again and is encouraging this process.
I had hoped the minister would have done something for Canadian business and for Canadian workers. Instead, with deliberation and determination, he has done something against Canadian business and Canadian employees. We had hoped the budget might have contained more incentive programs for small business, but there is nothing but a vague kind of promise from the minister in that regard. We know that the minister has already pronounced himself as opposed to the incentives that I had proposed, but I am comforted by the fact that he has changed his mind before and he may do so again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government must realize how vital small business is to the economy of our country. It must realize the difficulties of small business in Canada today, even if it only takes the trouble to read its own statistics on the number of business failures, particularly small business.
I cannot emphasize too strongly the fact that this budget falls far short of the nation's need for a new era of expansion and productivity. True, the government at long last has given in to the need for increased basic old age pensions. At long last the family farm has been partially rescued from confiscation by taxation, temporarily at least. At long last the government has given in to the realistic need for reduced personal income taxes, although in spite of the reductions the minister has proposed he is still going to collect 15 per cent more tax in the form of personal income tax than he collected during 1972. That shows what was really meant by tax reform when this government put it forward.
The government has even adopted our proposal to make some equitable adjustment in respect of inflation, an adjustment which for a change will favour the taxpayer.
February 23, 1973

One does not have to be in this House very long before realizing that these have been grudging government concessions to commonsense and reason as well as a confession of the government's own bankruptcy of policy. Perhaps the only proposal in the budget which originates from the front benches opposite is the move to restore the 10-cent candy bar.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What the country needed and had a right to expect was a budget that would signal an end to this long period of economic confusion and stagnation in which unemployment and inflation have been the constant preoccupation of the nation's concerns.
I can only conclude from reading the budget that the government intends to go along with present conditions in the hope that it will survive long enough and hold office long enough for something to turn up. In that spirit, or lack of it, the country will continue to mark time. A half a million or more Canadians will remain idle and the opportunities for growth and development will pass as the days pass, unrealized and unfulfilled. The government is in a posture of fixed inertia with regard to inflation. A few months ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) admitted that he was puzzled by some of the economic phenomena in the country. Then he was puzzled; now, he seems to be paralyzed.
If inflation was a matter of prime concern to the government four years ago, why is there no decisive action proposed in respect of it? The answer is plain. The answer is that the government of Canada does not choose to fight inflation, it has chosen rather to live with it. I suspect the same is true with regard to unemployment. There is nothing in this budget to summon this country to confront and overcome the lingering national disgrace of over half a million idle Canadians looking for work. All we have is a modest, round figure of 300,000 new jobs, a figure hastily summoned from the imagination of the minister and almost immediately forgotten. We are talking about a fundamental matter of credibility. This government has lost its credibility in a way that is beyond recovery. If this budget had to be categorized in a library, the only appropriate section to put it in would be fiction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is fiction for the Minister of Finance to say that this is an expansionary budget that will generate the jobs needed to substantially cut into unemployment. He talks about the amount of cash required and yet he cannot tell this House how much cash will be required to meet the responsibilities in respect of unemployment insurance. It is fiction for the minister to talk about contingency plans to deal with some level of inflation that never gets defined. It is fiction for the minister to talk about disciplining the expansion of government. He expects Canadians to believe that he intends to cut the fat. But where is the evidence of his sincerity on that matter? There is none. He has given no effective demonstration to the people of this country that would give them any more reason to trust him than they had to trust his predecessor.
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
The minister surely must recognize that he, too, now has a record of wrong forecasts, inadequate measures and unimpressive results. And he has, in his short time in that office now, also established some kind of record for incredible switching of position. I am not talking about a switch of ministerial position but rather a switch of position taken by the minister. He has made his own fine words in the budget presentation worthless in themselves. In his budget the minister perpetuates a dismal record. The only obvious and undisputed expansion he will achieve will be a further expansion of the credibility gap he has created.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since the government embarked on its disastrous slowdown policy in 1969, I have been saying that the trade-off approach to unemployment and inflation was unacceptable in today's society. It is almost beyond belief that the government would have applied this harmful policy on the basis of a wrong diagnosis of the kind of inflation that was upon us. But that is exactly what happened and that is what the people of this country are still paying for in terms of lost economic potential that can never be recovered, in terms of lost opportunity, in terms of disorder in prices, in terms of human misery, in terms of lost confidence and for so many Canadians, lost hope.
In rejecting the trade-off approach, I have consistently said that the emphasis must be put on adequately stimulating the economy to deal with unemployment. I have consistently said that inflation must be dealt with by means other than slowdown, and I have said that in the event of a serious and widespread inflation psychology developing in the country there would be no alternative but to deal with it through the introduction of a program of temporary price and income controls. The key to determining when such a point of seriousness has been reached has always, in my judgment, been a matter of assessing the state of any expectation spiral among Canadians, because it is this expectation spiral that determines the course of the wage-price spiral.
What it all boils down to is this. In assessing the appropriate time to introduce such a program as we would have brought before parliament, it is not simply the level of prices or price increases that is the fundamental consideration. What must be assessed is the level of inflationary expectations in people's minds, and a major influence on those expectations is the level of trust that people are capable of extending-trust that their government is dealing with them openly and trust that their government is going in a direction that will produce results. The budget presented by the Minister of Finance on Monday evening conveys no sense of direction. It is a politically motivated grab-bag and will be viewed as such. In assessing the state of mind in the country now with regard to inflationary expectations, it is helpful to read the views expressed by editorialists and commentators concerning how rapidly inflation will erode any benefit which may have been conferred by way of tax reduction.
Our assessment of the mood of expectation in the country leads us to the conviction that what is needed in a budget approach at this time, and what we would have

February 23, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
put before parliament, is the package that was outlined yesterday by my colleague, the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The package is comprised of two significant thrusts, and I cannot emphasize too strongly that we are talking about these two thrusts operating simultaneously as a unit. We would not have put them forward in such a way that either one of them could have been considered as optional. They are not in any way independent or separable. We would have introduced them in budget form as a package to operate simultaneously to respond to the two simultaneous problems facing Canadians at this time-persistent high levels of unemployment and price escalations that have reached serious proportions in terms of generating an over-all inflation psychology. We believe it is time, indeed long past time, for strong action against unemployment. The thrust which we would have presented to attack unemployment would have been unquestionably more effective than the ad hoc measures which were presented in the budget of the Minister of Finance. The plan to promote Canadian investment in Canadian small business-the plan which I put forward during the election campaign-would have been a fundamental part of this package.
Other expansionary measures which were outlined yesterday by the hon. member for Don Valley would have added to the job thrust so that parliament could have dealt with a budget truly expansionary in a dollar sense, and, more important, truly expansionary in terms of actions and programs specifically designed to directly stimulate creation of the number of jobs required to reduce unemployment quickly and substantially in our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No one can question the need to fight unemployment. We believe it is also time for strong action against inflation because we believe that expectation levels are seriously high and, on the other hand, the credibility and trust appraisals of this government are seriously low. We believe that such action must be effectively combined with strong action to stimulate job creation. We believe that Canadians would accept and support such a two-thrust budget package at this time. We believe that Canadians would endure the discomfort and inconvenience of a freeze and temporary controls program if they felt that dramatic results could be achieved in reducing unemployment as well as in restoring order to the price side of the economy. In the package we would have presented, the time span involved would have been in the order of 18 months to two years with goals ' pelled out in relation to unemployment and inflation. If we had received approval of our package in this House the nation would have the benefit of a well-defined game plan based upon generating opportunity and restoring order in a decisive way, a way which we still believe should be the Canadian way.
But the fact is that in this budget there is no program of national development, no new initiative or fresh inspiration, no delineation of priorities for government action in

the seventies, no objectives for the nation to strive towards, no goals to seek and no national purpose to achieve. This is a government not only bankrupt in policy but bereft of leadership. The government and this budget have this in common: both are timid, both lack the courage of conviction and the strength to persevere. There are those in the House who have obviously persuaded themselves that this budget will effect substantial improvements in the Canadian economy and in the lives of the Canadian people. We in this party are not among them. We are convinced that this budget is grossly inadequate, and because of that belief and because we think the government is completely untrustworthy and we have no confidence at all in their statements as to what they are going to do, what they are for or against-we do not know that they believe in anything-because of the gross inadequacy of the budget, we propose to vote against it and to vote against the authors of that budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: After all, we have our own judgment which has been vindicated by events in the recent past, especially with regard to the economic policy. Those who now support the government, will of course do so because they believe that within the lifetime of' the effective application of this budget the Canadian economy will respond and be immeasurably improved. We do not believe that, Sir, and as the events unfold, we should be able to see quite clearly who has been right and who has been wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in the few
minutes I have before we are called to the other place may I say, first, that I listened to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on Wednesday who spoke as one financial critic for the Conservative party. Unfortunately, I could not listen to the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) yesterday but I read his speech this morning. I find I have a difficulty, sir, which I had hoped the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) would clear up for me. My difficulty is to know which of those two gentlemen was speaking for the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Both.


David Lewis: If the suggestion of the hon. members to my right was that they were both speaking for the party, may I suggest to them that there was absolutely no relationship between the reactionary nonsense which the hon. member for Edmonton West spoke on Wednesday and the almost sensible suggestions which the hon. member for Don Valley made yesterday. I mention that at the start, Mr. Speaker, because the Leader of the Opposition was eloquent today in his condemnation of everybody concerned, and emphasized in particular the fact that the government opposite was not to be trusted. I agree with him entirely.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: I have not changed my mind about the performance of this government since 1968 one bit, and I
February 23, 1973

have not seen, in the presentation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), any indication that there are problems with which they should deal in a much larger way. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: -but I say that to ask the House and the people of Canada to have confidence in this outdated party to my right is an act of extreme presumption and arrogance that I do not intend to fall for.
If you want an indication of the kind of modern thinking of which even the hon. member for Don Valley is capable, let me remind hon. members that the great example he gave to the House, the great example which he quoted in support of acceptance of his policies, was that of the policies of the United States and of the Republican President Nixon, despite the failure of that country to deal with poverty, with racial equality or with anything else that has to do with human welfare and human decency. The hon. member for Don Valley says that if the United States could do it, then we should be able to do it in this country. This is an indication of the kind of thinking in which he indulges. If this party had had an alternative government to the one that is across the aisle, one that could be trusted to act in the interests of the Canadian people, it would not have taken us one day-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: You are not being cheered from behind, you know that. Even they don't believe you.


David Lewis: I expected these catcalls from the Conservatives because I have learned over the years that catcalls is their major weapon in the House and in the country. I emphasize that the history of the Conservative government between 1958 and 1962, the history of the party and the way in which it speaks in the House, the twins looking in opposite directions, the twins Lambert and Gillies with their backs together and looking in opposite directions-


Mr. Nowlan:: But you are going in opposite directions.


David Lewis: -indicates that no one in this country can believe that the Conservative party could do the kind of thing that the Leader of the Opposition says he would do when he is in power.


Some hon. Members:: Try us. Give us a chance.


David Lewis: Hon. members in the Conservative party say: try us. When I cut my finger with a knife, I do not keep on cutting my finger with the same knife.


An hon. Member:: It's better than cutting your throat.


David Lewis: Hon. members say: try us. This country has tried the Conservative party. It is not only the failures of the Liberal party-to which I shall come later in my remarks-that account for the present difficult position of Canada, for the high unemployment and the inflationary spiral. It is also the economy that was built at the time of the Diefenbaker government in this country-
25789-29J
The Budget-Mr. Lewis


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It was John A. Macdonald.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Lewis: -because, Mr. Speaker, these economic developments do not take place in a year, or two, or three. They are economic developments that grow over a period of time, indeed over generations. And if the Leader of the Opposition now puts on the mantle of Canadian economic independence, by gad-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: -by gad, Mr. Speaker, and he accuses the Minister of Finance of not being forthright and honest with this House, then I suggest to him that as leader of a party with 19 members from Alberta, every one of whom supports the rape of Canadian resources by foreign corporations-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: Explain!


David Lewis: -then I suggest to him that he is not honest. He is not honest with this House, Mr. Speaker. Even when the government takes a timid step, probably too late, to control the export of our resources in order to preserve them for the needs of Canada in the future, what do you find? You find the Conservative premier of Alberta objecting to that step-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


David Lewis: -and wanting his oil corporation friends to continue exporting Canada's resources and raw materials.
Conservative hon. members can howl and scream, but what they are really doing is twisting in their seats because they know that what I say is correct.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for York South but the hon. member for Rocky Mountain rises on a question of privilege.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as one of the 19 members from Alberta I simply want to take exception to the remark of the hon. member for York South, and to make it clear that I am not personally in favour of rape, even of that kind of which he is such a complacent partner.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member weren't a new member of this House I might be a little less kind, but the fact is that he did not deny, nor can anyone, that those members from Alberta are entirely in favour of contin-

February 23, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Lewis
uing to leave those resources in the control of the foreign owned corporations. They have not attempted at any time to stop the rape of those resources by these foreign controlled corporations. They simply cannot deny that the Conservative government of Alberta, even with the timid step that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has taken to control exports, is howling and screaming because that government does not want any control over the foreign owned corporations that now have the resources of Alberta in their hands.
All I am saying to this House is what I have said on behalf of my party all through since October 30. I do not have confidence in the government opposite, and its performance does not permit me to have that confidence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: You voted confidence in them.


David Lewis: But neither do my colleagues and I have the slightest confidence in the dinosaur oriented and dinosaur controlled Conservative party of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: What about Brontosaurus Rex?


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order please?


David Lewis: Hon. members tell me they prefer the brontosaurus to the dinosaur. So far as I am concerned they can have their choice. In fact, they can hyphenate the two words, and the result would still apply to their policies and theories. These hon. gentlemen, who now say we should do such and such for this country, are merely showing their anxiety to get across the aisle and take the place of the government. And the only reason that the Leader of the Opposition, who is usually so mild and kind a person, such a nice guy-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Grafftey:: A real human person.


David Lewis: -the only reason this nice guy from Halifax has become vicious in the last few days-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are not your best today, David.


David Lewis: -the only reason he has become vicious is that he is absolutely destroyed by the frustration that he feels each day sitting in this House. And I say to him that it is not head of government that he ought to become; he ought to visit a psychiatrist and get rid of the frustration. Then, he will return to the kindness and the softness which were the familiar characteristics of him.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


David Lewis: And if I am being unkind to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, it is quite deliberate. He deserves it for the way in which he has behaved throughout the opening of this session of parliament.


George Harris Hees: I hear you can't get a psychiatrist to take you on, David.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am really very flattered by the reaction of the Conservatives. Their sensitivity and thin skin are showing. They like to applaud their own outdated appellations that they throw across the floor, but when they are told some things that are true and that are necessary for the people to hear, they scream, yell and cat-call. It is rather complimentary, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted to know that whatever shafts I was throwing hit their mark. That is always a pleasure to know.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we have decided to support this budget.


David Lewis: We have decided to support this budget, not because-


Thomas Miller Bell: Someone is knocking on the door, David. They are coming to take you away.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General that this Honourable House attend him immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1973-Chapter No. 3.
Mr. Speaker:: It being after one o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At 1:13 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: There is a better word for it than "shaft".
And being returned:


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Surprise, surprise!


David Lewis: May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
February 23, 1973



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance) that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government, and the amendment of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (p. 1526).
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it is, of course, obvious and true that the budget which the Minister of Finance presented on Monday night showed that he had changed his position on a good many items, that he had accepted what he had rejected a year ago, or last May, and what he had rejected throughout the federal election campaign. It is precisely this fact which would lead responsible people, people who are willing to carry out their duty to make this parliament function, to support this budget and welcome the fact that in response to criticism the hon. gentleman had changed his views. It is obvious why he changed his views. He changed his views because he is now a member of a minority government teetering on an edge. And he changed his views because in this parliament he and the government must be responsive to the views of others; they cannot arrogantly continue to act in any way they think is right in total disregard of other opinion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: This is why those views were changed.
I would be more inclined to believe in the sincerity of the concern for the unemployed which is professed by some of the spokesmen for the Conservative party if every time they used such expressions I did not remember their vote on the amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act and their attitude toward the estimates. But in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Act, particularly, had their vote prevailed, the unemployed would not now be receiving the benefits to which they are presently, by law and in humanity, entitled.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


David Lewis: The fact is that on October 30 the people of Canada did not accept either of the traditional parties in this House to be the government of Canada in a majority sense. They rejected the way in which the Liberal government had carried on its work for the four and a half years before that date, and they rejected the Conservative party also. I say to my friends in the Conservative party what I said to a reporter during the election campaign-I think it was reported in Time Magazine: that if the Conservative party had any program and any leadership to offer, so anti-Trudeau were the people of Canada that the Conservatives could have swept the polls. This was the feeling which was evident throughout Canada. And in this situation, the people having created a dilemma for themselves.
I think it is right that this parliament should function and should get the best possible results out of the government that happens to be in power. The government had to listen. That is why it has accepted what formerly it had
The Budget-Mr. Lewis
rejected. That is why the old age pension has been increased to $100.


Mr. Gillies:: Big deal.


David Lewis: The hon. member says "Big deal". Let me tell him that based on the promises which the Conservative party made during the election campaign and the promises which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) made during the debate on the May budget last year, all the calculations I could possibly make add up to an amount less than *'100. In fact, when the Leader of the Opposition spoke to old age pensioners in Vancouver last year and they asked him whether he would agree to make the pension $150, he said: "No, I will not. The likelihood is that I think the pension ought to be $90."


James McPhail Gillies: He said, let's look at it.


David Lewis: Now, they have an old age pension of $100. My colleagues and I are not satisfied with it.


An hon. Member:: Nor are we.


David Lewis: Certainly, the Conservatives are not satisfied with it. But if they had been in power, pensioners would have had to be satisfied with $90. Members to my right now say they are dissatisfied with $100. I repeat, that we in this party believe the increase should have been greater, but I want to say this to members of this House and to the people of Canada: I have reason to know, not merely to believe, that the old age pension would not have been $100 if the NDP had not insisted that it could not be less than $100. I suggest that that is a service to the elderly people of this country, a service I am proud that my party has rendered.
There is a basic pension of $100 a month, but what is just as important is that there is a combination of pension and supplement of $170 for a single person and $325 for a married couple. These, too are not adequate to give them the kind of dignity and comfort that they ought to have, but it is a great improvement on their previous situation. Because of what happened on October 30, this has been included in the budget. These proposals will come before us in a bill, once again I say because of the attitude taken in this parliament by the New Democratic Party. This alone justifies the responsible position that the members of this party have taken.
There is also a personal income tax cut in the budget. It is true that 5 per cent is only 2 per cent more than the former 3 per cent cut, but certain members of this House demanded that an income tax cut must be made on a progressive basis. I have said consistently that there should be an income tax cut for people in the middle and lower income groups and no cut at all for those in the higher income groups. At all events, in reply to the demands that have been made we now have one of the most progressive income tax cuts this parliament has ever seen, and I am proud that my colleagues and I are partly responsible for that.
When my Conservative friends beat their breasts and say that they will do these things for us, as the hon.

February 23, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Lewis
member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) has done, I am reminded of another being, though not the kind I have in mind.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: They have more hair on their chests than I have.


David Lewis: When these Conservatives beat their breasts and say that they will do better, I recall what was said by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) when he was the only financial critic for the Conservative party-now there are two; there are twins in that capacity. When the Income Tax Act was changed a little more than it usually is, the hon. member for Edmonton West on June 22, 1971, as reported at page 7222 of Hansard' said this. This is one of the great saviours of Canada that we are supposed to bow down to. He said this:
-some people think that you can have equity between taxpayers. That is impossible in this country and anyone who suggests otherwise is not aware of our financial and economic requirements. It is absolute nonsense to talk about equity between taxpayers or within the income tax system.
That was the declaration of the hon. member for Edmonton West, the financial critic of the Conservative party. Let me tell the members of that party that I believe it is possible to have equity in the tax system, and I have no confidence in people who say that it is not possible to do so.
As a result of the October 30 election, the government has now increased basic exemptions. My colleagues and I oppose the idea of exemptions because we think it is not a good way to get equity in the tax system, as the Carter commission report snowed and as logic indicates. Whenever exemptions are increased by $100, you give more to the higher income earners then you do to people with lower incomes. A person whose effective income tax rate is only 17 to 20 per cent gets out of an increase in the exemption of $100 only $17 to $20 benefit. On the other hand, a person whose effective rate of tax is 40 or 50 per cent derives from a $100 increase in the exemption $40 or $50 benefit. Therefore, that is not a fair way of making allowance for the basic needs of families, on which the theoretical concept of an exemption is based. What is required, as we have been saying for many years, is a tax credit, rather than this kind of increase in the exemption. However, there has been a recognition that income tax on individuals must be eased for those at the bottom. Although we would have preferred a tax credit arrangement-something that we are going to argue for-I have no doubt this change was made as a result of the October 30 election.
We have also had some tariff cuts. The cuts are not very wide but they are important. They are particularly important to western Canada. I was amused today when I heard the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) opposing even these minimal tariff cuts. Every time you scratch a Conservative at a particular moment, the basic protectionism of the Conservative party spurts out. We welcome these tariff cuts, unilateral as they are, and we think that if the government plays its cards well in negotiations with the States on trade matters they will be of value.
We also welcome the reduction in sales tax. Perhaps the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) is right and there should have been a decrease or elimination of the sales tax on all clothing. However, every time that kind of suggestion is made I think of certain clothing off which I would not take sales tax. For example, many of the members of this chamber are going to wear black ties tomorrow night at the gallery dinner, and I am darned if I am particularly anxious to take sales tax off the tuxedo. In other words, to be effective and decently done, these cuts have to be selective so that those who need assistance are assisted, rather than the cuts being global, as has been suggested.
The same is true when members of the Conservative party start screaming about removing sales tax on all building materials. That sounds good and these members think that they have a political item here. But if that were done, it would be the biggest bonanza in Canada for the gouging developers of this country.


James McPhail Gillies: It would help the construction workers.


David Lewis: You can deal with this problem in a decent and progressive way, a way you cannot expect the Conservatives to suggest. It can be done by rebating to the person who buys a house costing less than a certain sum- I am talking of the middle income and lower income home purchaser-the tax on the building materials that went into the construction of his house.


James McPhail Gillies: That would be a bureaucratic nightmare.


David Lewis: That is what we would have done.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: It would be very difficult to administer.


David Lewis: The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, who has been a member of a provincial cabinet, says it would be difficult to administer, but his provincial government had no difficulty at all in administering many things. It had even less difficulty in misadministering them.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The expense would be enormous.


David Lewis: There is also in the budget a very important modification in the equalization formula which means that an additional $200 million will be spent on the seven "have-not" provinces. This is a very important step to take for the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and the prairie provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. That, too, is in the budget as a result of the October 30 election. Although some provinces had demanded it at various conferences, only now has their demand been recognized. We have all these things in the budget which make us believe it is our duty, in light of the position we took at the opening of the session, to support the budget we have before us. It is of course true, Mr. Speaker, that the advisers of the Department of Finance have not shown much imagination. It is of course true that this budget should have been the subject of more imagination than has been shown. It is true that this budget is not sufficiently expansionary, and it is true that it is easier to move mountains than to move the mandarins in the Department of Finance.

February 23, 1973


An hon. Member:: Right on.


George Harris Hees: Why don't you move an amendment?


An hon. Member:: Put your vote where your mouth is.


David Lewis: I have a suspicion that most of the colleagues of the Minister of Finance in cabinet know that is true. I cannot condemn sufficiently the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and members of his Cabinet for not having seen, since they are ready to admit the failure of their policies to date, that they should have had the gumption and imagination to take a much bolder step in the expansionary program presented to this parliament instead of placing limitations upon themselves.


An hon. Member:: Otherwise, they should have resigned.


David Lewis: I have never had any illusions about this, and I do not think this budget will reduce unemployment at as fast a pace, if it reduces it at all, as it should. It is a pity and a crime really that the government, once having decided to take some expansionary steps regarding the economy, and once having decided to pour more money into the economy, did not have sufficient guts and imagination to pour at least another billion dollars into the economy, as it could and should have done. I said that before my hon. friends to the right, who keep up these catcalls, the very night of the budget. There are areas where this course should have been followed. One such step would have been to increase the revenues of the provinces which must have more to carry out their responsibilities. They are now hobbled by a lack of revenues to carry out their constitutional functions. Another step would have been to increase the old age pensions by $10, $15 or $20 more, or at least to increase the supplement by some sizeable amount. The government should have made an even larger personal income tax cut, and set a minimum reduction of $125, $135 or $150 with an increase of 6 per cent or 7 per cent instead of 5 per cent.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the government had done that kind of thing, this budget would have had a great deal more meaning for the people of Canada, a great deal more meaning for the provinces of this country and a great deal more hope for the unemployment situation.


An hon. Member:: And we might have even voted for it.


David Lewis: I do not think the hon. member would vote for anything, no matter what it was.
I want to say one final thing, since I do not think I have many more minutes at my disposal. I share the views of my colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Salts-man), who indicated that merely having a deficit does not by itself create employment. Although it is important in this kind of situation deliberately to have a large deficit, that in itself does not accomplish this. Along with my colleagues, I believe, and we are entitled to this belief as anyone else is entitled to his, that the policies and philosophies of both the Liberal and Conservative parties, in an age of automation and cybernation, in an age when there is constant replacement of human labour by machines, in
The Budget-Mr. Lewis
an age when you can produce much more with less human labour than you could, in such an age without plan and when the Liberal and Conservative parties rely on the private enterprise sector alone to produce jobs, would make the Liberal government fail and a Conservative government fail because these policies and philosophies will not produce jobs for Canadians.
If I had anything to do with the budget, let me inform the members of the Conservative party that not only would it be much more expansionary, it would have provided a great deal more money for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion; it would have indicated a complete restructuring of regional economic development policy in this country; it would have decentralized the regional development program; it would have given the provinces and the regions more opportunity to plan their priorities and objectives. It would have emphasized a need for public investment combined with private investment for the development of industry in the disadvantaged areas of this country which, by definition, do not produce the kind of profits that attract private enterprise. The only way you can build the economy in these areas is by having a public involvement in the development of economic policy. Had we designed the budget it would have told parliament and the people that part of this regional expansion program would be to lend a great deal of assistance to co-operatives, particularly in the Atlantic provinces; fisheries co-operatives and farm co-operatives, so the people themselves could help in developing their livelihood and future.
We would have undertaken in the budget that the task force, which the Economic Council of Canada set up to deal with the question as to what constitutes unemployment in Canada, was given the job of finding new ways of employing the hardcore of unemployed in this country. We could do a tremendous job for future generations in Canada if we used social capital to get this country cleaned up from coast to coast as far as that can be done by human work and machines. An anti-pollution program of dimension in this country would have helped unemployment and would have guaranteed the quality of life for future Canadians. These are the kinds of things we would have proposed. We would have proposed direct employment programs.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear of the socialist conversion of hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees).


George Harris Hees: I would just like to hear you propose an amendment.


David Lewis: If I believed him I would, with your permission, walk over and give him an application form, but that hard-nosed Tory has not been converted.


George Harris Hees: I would just like to hear you suggest you had the guts to propose an amendment today.


David Lewis: Those are the measures we would have proposed in addition to an expansionary program. As the hon. member for Waterloo said, we cannot ask the Liber-

February 23, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Whicher
als or Conservatives to accept, adopt and implement a New Democratic Party policy because that is not what we would expect them to do.


George Harris Hees: Why don't you try an amendment?


David Lewis: I told those hon. gentlemen in Toronto the other day that I was certain they would vote for the communist manifesto if they thought they could get across the aisle and become the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Give us the chance.


David Lewis: I have no doubt they would vote for any amendment put forward, without caring what it said, as long as they thought the amendment would carry. Because I do not expect this government or any other government of another party to bring our program forward, I feel and my colleagues feel it our duty to support this budget and to be proud that our presence here has produced many more things for the people of Canada than would otherwise have been the case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, it has been a very interesting day, at least up until now. We heard the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) tell us all that is wrong in Canada. To use the words of the Leader of the Opposition, he said there is nothing but confusion and stagnation in Canada. The Leader of the New Democratic Party told us there is much wrong. If there were people from other countries of the world such as Germany, France, Russia, England or the United States sitting in the gallery today, they would think that perhaps this is the worst country in the world. I say it is high time that as Members of Parliament we started telling the world what is good about Canada, and started sticking up for Canada for a change. Much is wrong, of course, with Canada. It is not any Heaven, but it is still the best country in the whole world with one of the highest standards of living, with the best housing and where we have a policy of looking after our senior citizens better than they are looked after in any other country in the world. I could go on and on in this vein.
It was interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition this morning tell us what is wrong. It was also interesting to hear the Leader of the New Democratic Party in his most efficient manner tell us why he would support us over here instead of those horrible people to the right of him. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, why he supports us. He supports us because he is afraid to do anything else. I am the fellow who will tell him right now that he is afraid, as are the people behind him. He told us today, and on numerous other occasions, that he does not like us any more than the people to his right. So, the answer is that what all the people behind him are thinking about is their seats, particularly those from western Canada. They do not want an election in the near future. In the light of what the two leaders of the parties said this morning and

again this afternoon, it was obvious they certainly were not sticking up for each other.
May I say I listened to the lead-off speaker for the Conservative party, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and also listened attentively to his lieutenant, the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) yesterday afternoon, but I did not find any similarity in their speeches. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Edmonton West said that his amendment was being moved because this budget would not reduce either unemployment or inflation or the spiralling cost of living. I did not hear the hon. member for Don Valley speak very much about that. The main theme of his speech centred around the fact that if the conservatives had the opportunity they would place a 90-day freeze on wages, salaries, prices and so on. The hon. member for Edmonton West who led off and moved the amendment did not even mention the possibility of a wage or price freeze in Canada.


James McPhail Gillies: Yes, he did.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: As has been suggested, perhaps our Tory friends should hold a caucus meeting next Wednesday morning to decide what their position is in respect of budget, because evidently they are not all telling the same story.
Inasmuch as I do not have the same length of time as some other hon. members, may I ask that members take the time to read some of the highlights in the budget and then go home where, in the quietness of their own rooms, they can say they are really proud they are still Canadians and have the responsibility and obligation to pay taxes in this fine land. Let us look, for example, at the first item. The basic exemption for all taxpayers has been increased from $1500 to $1600. Perhaps this might seem to be of little significance, but the point is that the basic exemption was the highest in the world before last Monday night and now is even higher. This is something of which Canadians can be proud.
Not only has the basic exemption been increased to $1600 from $1500, but let us see what has been done for the senior citizens. Their exemption at age 65 will not be $1600 but rather $2600. This is the highest exemption in respect of senior citizens anywhere in the world. My hon. friends did not mention that.


An hon. Member:: It is not enough.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: That is the story we hear all the way through-too late and not enough. I say to some of the people across the way who want the responsibility to govern that you cannot give everything away without increasing taxes. For the last several weeks we, and my friends on the other side of the House, have been talking about the old age pension situation. No one appreciates more than I do the fact that our senior citizens need assistance, but what has not been said is that the old age pension scheme before last Monday night in Canada was the best in the whole world. They did not say that the basic exemption for our senior citizens is the highest in the world, or that at age 65 in most provinces senior citizens receive free hospitalization and medicare in Canada. They did not mention the other things such as
February 23, 1973

cheaper housing and rentals. One must take everything in context and not try to dwell on one point. The fact is that our senior citizens know they are not getting too much, but they do know that they are getting more than the senior citizens in the United States, in France, in England, in Russia or anywhere else in the world.
Not just the people in the Liberal party but also those in the Conservative party and New Democratic Party should be very proud of the way in which we are attempting to look after our senior citizens. I did not hear my friends mention anything about the increases which are to be given to the recipients of the war veterans allowance. I did not hear my hon. friends mention the fact that we still have over one million veterans in Canada out of a total of 22 million people. Those who are in receipt of war veterans allowance will find that the allowance for married recipients has been increased to $357 a month. Once again, I say we should be very proud of that. I could go on and on. I did not hear my hon. friend from Don Valley say anything about the fact that it will now be possible to pass family farms on from generation to generation free of a capital gains tax.


James McPhail Gillies: That is a great idea. I only had 30 minutes.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I heard hon. members opposite say that other small businesses should be allowed to pass to the next generation free of a capital gains tax, but I did not hear them give any credit for what has been done. I did not hear any credit being given for the fact that, for the first time since the war years, the agriculture industry in Canada is starting to receive a fair deal. More grain is being sold now, and at higher prices, than has been the case for many years. So far as the agriculture industry is concerned the light of day is now being seen in respect of many products for the first time, but my Tory or NDP friends did not mention this. I could carry on and mention many other things. Let us think about some of the other good things we have in Canada. Let us stand up for Canada.
We have one of the finest educational systems in the whole world, one of the finest hospitalization systems in the world. They are not perfect by any means. However, if you think we have poor housing in the city of Toronto- there is none in Don Valley-go to Harlem in New York city and take a look at really poor housing, and that is the wealthiest city in the whole world. We are not perfect in Canada, but we have the very best there is. Ask our friends who are in the Caribbean: why is it that more Canadians travel than do the people of any other country in the world?


Steve Eugene Paproski: They are on LIP grants.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The answer is, because we are more prosperous.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They are on Opportunities for Youth grants.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I would not mind interruptions from the other side, but I hope you understand I only have a few
The Budget-Mr. Whicher
minutes because I am a back-bencher. I do not, therefore have many opportunities to speak.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Oh, oh.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: It would not take too long to cut you down to size. You will be a lot smaller, my friend.
Why is it that these good things are taking place in Canada? I will say this: the reason that we have these good things is our high standard of living. This country is not perfect by any means, as I said. The reason we have these good things is that over many years we have had an excellent democratic government here in Canada, and the one that we have at present is no exception.
I heard the speech of my friend, the hon. member for Don Valley whom I appreciate very much and I think he gave a wonderful speech yesterday. Let me say, incidentally, that he comes from the riding of Bruce. However, I was amused when I heard him say that one of the things the Conservatives would do, if they had funds, would be to reduce the age at which the old age pension is granted from 65 to 64. This is a wonderful promise but I cannot help but feel that the last time my Conservative friends had the opportunity to raise old age pensions they raised them from $55 to $65, and not at the age of 65 but at the age of 70.


James McPhail Gillies: Poor comparison.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: These are facts, my friend. You should go back to your colleagues and start learning some of these things. I do not know what these fellows are, but they are confused, I will tell you that.
These are the things that we must think about here in Canada. We have many problems. There is not any one on this side of the House who is proud of the fact that we have 6 i per cent unemployment, but in remembering that fact let us face the reality that some of those people for various reasons, do not want to work. They may be semiretired or may have other reasons. But let us remember that if we have 6J per cent unemployment, it means that 93 J per cent in Canada are working. We should not forget that. When the hon. member for Don Valley suggests we should bring unemployment down to 5J per cent, as our American friends have done, let us not forget that for the past number of years they have been fighting one off the worst wars in history with three million men under arms and with armies all over the world. Perhaps if we wanted to have an army on that scale we might bring our unemployment down to 5 i per cent.


James McPhail Gillies: That is absurd.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: On the other hand, there is no doubt that the unemployment situation in Canada must be remedied. Everyone on this side of the House says so. As a matter of fact, the very first thing that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) recommended in his budget speech the other night was to lower unemployment figures in Canada and to lessen inflation. After all, we are controlled to a large extent, so far as inflation is concerned, by the outside world. We have a country to the south of us with ten times our population and 15 times our gross national product. If General Motors workers in Detroit ask for wage
1608

February 23, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Frank
increases, I suggest that General Motors workers in Oshawa or Windsor will ask for similar increases. We are tied to the U.S. rate of inflation. But my friends on the other side, of course, are not tied to anything. They are in a position of being able to criticize and they take advantage of this at every opportunity.
In conclusion I want to say to hon. members: do not sell this country of ours short. It has never been sold in that way in the past. I say, as I did when I started, that it is high time, while we recognize the fact that we have many problems in Canada, the problems were ploughed under by the good things that have been accomplished over the years and are continuing to be done even unto this day.


William Charles Frank: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great honour and privilege to have the opportunity to enter into this budget debate, particularly at the early stages, and to speak on the same day as our leader.
First of all, I wish to extend my congratulations to you, and they are just as sincere now as they were at the beginning. As a matter of fact, over these several weeks, both you and the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), have given me ample opportunity to appreciate the very impartial and objective approach which you exemplify and which has been so evident throughout the proceedings of this House. I am sure that each new member, as he attempts to adjust to this new and challenging environment, forms many different opinions of parliament and its members. Let me assure you, even though I have always had a high opinion of this institution, it has certainly been heightened further and you, Mr. Speaker, have indeed contributed to this.
Before I get into the serious part of my speech as it relates to the budget, I would like to take the opportunity provided by a maiden speech to expound on the many virtues of the riding which I am both proud and humble to represent, namely, Middlesex. Actually, considering the geographic area which this riding encompasses, it should be called London Middlesex Lambton. About one third of the electorate of my riding lives in that great city of London which is conveniently situated midway between Windsor and Toronto and which has a population of well over 200,000. The balance is made up of most of the county of Middlesex which encircles London, plus a portion of the county of Lambton. This, in itself, makes the riding unique in many ways.
I should like to deal first of all with some of the factors that make the city of London so important, not only the portion of that city in my riding but in total. The London area has long been recognized as a very important education centre, having that great University of Western Ontario in its midst. This university has been noted, not only for its many distinguished graduates, but also for its growth, never more so than in these recent years when many new buildings have been added to the university campus, such as the new D. B. Weldon library, the extended cancer research area, the new faculty of dentistry, and the new university community centre which, incidentally, was a $4.5 million project with the students paying roughly $140,000 a year over a 20 year period. In the fall of 1972, a new university hospital was opened adjacent to the campus, and more buildings will be put up. There are, of course, many affiliated colleges surrounding the campus,
[Mr. Whicher.l
such as the London Teachers College, and the Althouse Secondary Teachers College. We can also boast of the Fanshaw College of Applied Arts and Sciences, a new college with a full time enrolment of some 3,300 students.
London is proud of its many financial institutions, being the home of several head offices. These are made up of insurance companies, trust companies, and a very pleasant and necessary mixture of industry, both large and small. Although all of these important institutions and areas are not necessarily situated within the city boundaries of my riding, my constituents certainly share the responsibility and, I believe, some of the credit for their existence.
My riding has many towns and villages spotted here and there among the farms. The largest of these towns is Strathroy, with a population of close to 7,000. Middlesex riding rates second in terms of acreage of improved farmland in Ontario with some 538,013 acres. It has been long recognized as the home of many prominent breeders of Holstein dairy cattle, having the second highest production of No. 1 milk in Ontario with 142,700,000 pounds, and also of Aberdeen Angus and Hereford cattle. We certainly have our share of swine breeders and sheep breeders. We can also boast of some of the finest horses, a number of which have been recognized in many of the great horse shows in North America.
My riding is well recognized in the poultry industry, being the home of the largest turkey hatchery not only in North America but in the world. This hatchery supplies a large percentage of the Canadian market, as well as the United States, with turkey poults, and this year will ship close to one million eggs to Europe, opening up yet another vast area of exports. My riding can also be credited with the highest hen laying population in Ontario, and probably in all of Canada.
Crop production is still another area in which we need not take a back seat, although corn would be by far the greatest acreage, placing second in Ontario with 130,531 acres, and I share with my colleague from Huron the only Canadian-owned seed-corn production company in Canada, Stuarts Hybreds. We produce large quantities of beans, placing second in Ontario in white bean production, plus of course general cereal crops. And provided that the government can come up with a Canadian sugar policy, Mr. Speaker, you will also see production of sugar beets in my area for the proposed plant in southwestern Ontario.
These products I briefly mention are only the basis of a far more encompassing production pattern as the result of cross-breeding, which in turn produces volume that has only scratched the surface of what can be done, if the agricultural community has the confidence in the future that it must have for it to do any long-range planning.
All these things in my riding did not just happen. It has taken the efforts of responsible citizens at all levels of society, whether they be union or non-union employees, large or small employers, large or small businesses-both urban and rural-and large or small farms. They have all exhibited a responsibility to the steady growth of a city
February 23, 1973

and surrounding area that is the true symbol of a free enterprise system.
If these citizens of the city of London and the surrounding rural areas are going to continue to progress in the manner that they have in the past and, Mr. Speaker, they are no different from millions of other citizens throughout this great Canada of ours, they must have confidence in a federal government leadership that will give them the incentive that they so desperately need. This, Mr. Speaker, is the background for a few areas that I would like to elaborate on this afternoon. Canadians have the right to expect positive leadership, from their federal government, and not just a group of followers.
To illustrate what I mean, Mr. Speaker, I think we have had the greatest exhibition of kite flying that this country has ever known, during what will be known in history as the Trudeau years. Now, when I mention kite flying I do not mean the recent exhibition on the front lawn of parliament a few weeks ago. I am referring to the time the former Minister of Finance subjected this country to that monstrosity known as the white paper on taxation. I was not a member at that time. I was one of the hundreds of thousands of employers, owner of a small business in particular, who frantically enlisted every means possible to try and convince the then minister of the folly of such legislation as it related to small business.
Mr. Speaker, such kite flying cost this country untold hundreds of thousands of dollars in accountants' and lawyers' fees, and after many months of frustration and expensive anxiety we were informed that the 50 per cent taxation on all business, large or small, would not be implemented as proposed. There were also concessions in other areas, but the point of it all is that when this same Prime Minister and his supercircle of advisers finally realized this tax paper was not acceptable, they simply passed it off with another shrug and said, "We never intended to implement it; we just wanted to see what the people thought about it".
That was my impression of the government of the day, looking in from the outside. Now that I am here, I am sorry to say we seem to be saddled with the same idea of following. Mr. Speaker, the proof of all this was once again displayed by yet another Minister of Finance last Monday evening when he attempted to convince the taxpayers of the soundness of an original tax plan, when in fact he was capitalizing on one of the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. Stanfield) own sound proposals in the last campaign.
Small business must have more reasonable assurances of stability in the future, or Canadian small business failures will continue to rise, even at a greater rate than in 1972, which was the highest period. The free enterprise system that encourages individuals to launch their own ideas and optimism, through outlets of their own small businesses, is still alive, even after such negative federal discouragement these past few years, and more particularly from this last budget. The small business concession in this budget does nothing for the man who wants to start up, or is already in production but cannot find reasonable capital to continue. Such people are the embryo of unlimited employment potential if given a chance. But financial institutions today are not interested in taking that
The Budget-Mr. Frank
chance, so I feel it is up to the federal government to provide the necessary confidence.
I know of the frustration of small business. I had the nerve to start one in 1956, with no excess capital but with lots of enthusiasm and energy. It is an agri-business, so you know it was never lucrative to the lending institutions, government or otherwise. But today, from a one-man and my family beginning, this business now maintains over 25 employees, and distributes brand name products, two of them with my own Canadian and United States patents, to all provinces across Canada and much of the United States, and with even a shipment to Japan. I still recognize that same optimism and energy in this Canada of ours, but they need sound financial encouragement if we hope to keep on building a better and more productive society.
I would now like to discuss the budget as it relates to our senior citizens. There is no doubt that they have been given reasonable consideration, but I wonder if the increase will really do much good in the area where it is most needed. I mean the area of supplying their essential drugs. I receive numerous letters from senior citizens, and drug costs are by far the biggest problem to overcome. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that if the minister could see his way clear to let these people have their prescription drug needs compensated in full, he would be supporting the class of senior citizen that is the hardest hit. There must be some way to perform this service systematically for these people. I know many who, with total drug support, could continue to live independently for much longer, and keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that these are many of the same independent individuals who built this country. They struggled and deprived themselves of what were necessities to them at that time, trusting future generations to stand by them.
The conditions today must be a bitter pill, to be forced down the throats of our senior citizens by a government that has such apparent indifference to society. "Yes," they say, "but that is all over now, that was our other face." They seem to forget the old phrase, "It's a long lane without a turn". You cannot hoodwink the people of Canada indefinitely, and a lot more than just our senior citizens will eventually prove that statement when they come to submit their 1972 tax returns.
The tax-paying public who are recipients of Canadian dividends are virtually asked to sign a return that in effect is a falsehood. It is not only a falsehood but an underhanded way to try and hoodwink these taxpayers into helping to pay for the so-called goodies in this budget, because there is a one-third levy automatically added to their T5 dividend returns which, in effect, shows them stating an income above that which they in actual fact received, even including the 20 per cent tax credit.
I know of several people who have already confronted the local tax departments on this fact, and were virtually given the opinion that it was true. Officials tried to pass it off as too complicated to explain. This puts these civil servants in an embarrassing situation, and sometimes finds them being rude to the inquiring taxpayer because remember, they are human too, and can stand only so much needling for a situation they had no part in bringing into being. So, as it now looks, there will be thousands of
25789-30j

February 23, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Frank
returns submitted unsigned, from fear of potentially falsifying these income tax statements. This government should be thoroughly exposed for such underhanded tactics.
Another area that disturbs me as a new member is the apparent lack of sincerity of some ministers in their replies to questions asked in the House. A good example is the time the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) was asked if there would be an opportunity for the citizens near Mount Hope airport to be heard. He intimated, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, we might first have the opinions of members of parliament who contend that they have been elected by the people-
This was a convenient answer, except a bit contradictory to previous positions taken by former ministers of transport. This involved pressure brought to bear on this government to extend the runways at the London airport. There were three government members at that time representing the London area, but apparently the government would not accept their advice because the mayor and a delegation, at the city's expense, had to come to Ottawa to get final approval. If we in opposition are made to feel like nobodys by this government, what of the embarrassment of those particular members, two of them being still with us?
Mr. Speaker, you have heard of honourable mentions. Well that is about all this budget gives to the farmers by eliminating the capital gains tax on family farms. That may be very credible, but if we are going to encourage young people to take over farms, capital gains tax has to be eliminated from all bona fide transactions. Statistics tells us the average age of all farmers is too high, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) tells us that an average of 12 farmers per day are leaving the industry. Mr. Speaker, that figure will get higher if they cannot afford to sell before they die.
The Minister of Agriculture has credibly increased the potential loan to a young farmer. That is fine if the farmer has any equity, but what is really needed is for the minister to encourage the balance of the provincial governments to incorporate the once-in-a-lifetime-gift for farmers, and it should include small businesses as well, to the limit of $50,000. In this way, potential family business successors, whether they be farmers or small business people, could apply to the Farm Credit Corporation or the IDB and would have a decent equity for loans, with a reasonable chance of survival.
We have a committee investigating the high cost of food. If this committee accomplishes nothing else, the least it should do is establish in the minds of urban consumers, in particular, the true role the basic producer is playing in the food production cycle. The consumer must keep in mind that the so-called cheap food policy that seems to be on so many minds today will only lead to consistently dearer foods in the future. Tariffs, basic herd and quota rights are other areas of concern in agriculture which I strongly urge the Minister of Finance to reconsider.

There are many more areas I would like to cover as this budget relates to my riding, but apparently time will not permit.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, in the time allotted to me this afternoon I shall try to deal with two subjects. I want to deal with some proposals of the Conservative party with respect to price and wage controls, and to talk about the importance of the manufacturing industry at a time of rapidly shifting international currents. I start with the proposal put forward yesterday by the likeable member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies.)


James McPhail Gillies: The party proposal.


Alastair William Gillespie: I accept that. Your leader endorsed it today. Two weeks ago this same member, the spokesman for the economic troika of the Conservative party, stated that if the Conservatives had been elected to form a government on October 30 they would not have brought in wage and price controls. Only yesterday he said that if a Conservative government had been elected on October 30 it would have brought in wage and price controls. This is an incredible position for anyone to take and, I suggest, even more so for a Conservative. I think most would agree that the Conservatives, more than anyone, dwell in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: They are specialists in hindsight. They are the ones who are usually looking back. But when this man looks back, he finds two stories. He has not yet made up his mind. In his speech on the budget, the hon. member for Don Valley put forward the proposal to freeze immediately all wages, prices, interest and dividends in Canada for a period of 30 to 90 days-


James McPhail Gillies: Sixty to 90 days.


Alastair William Gillespie: -and thereafter put them under a comprehensive system of controls. Judging by the reaction this proposal had among his backbenchers and the comments of his leader today, that position has been endorsed by his party. We are aware that the Conservatives have been inching toward this position for some time. When questioned on this particular issue, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), as usual, stated, "Yes, we would not be afraid to introduce controls if necessary"- "if necessary" being underlined. Why has the Conservative party now come to the conclusion that the situation is so critical that the government should control wages and prices for Canadian workers and producers?


Gerald William Baldwin: We heard the budget.


Alastair William Gillespie: When he appeared on the CBC television program "Encounter," the hon. member for Don Valley said that a move toward controls could only be made on the basis of a national emergency. I think those were his words, "a national emergency." He was asked:
Do you think that five per cent inflation would justify a national emergency?
February 23, 1973

The hon. member replied:
No, I'm not suggesting that.
Was the member really criticizing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) for not introducing an emergency measure to deal with 5 per cent inflation? Was there any need for it at that moment?


Gerald William Baldwin: As long as you stay over there, there is an emergency.


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member for Don Valley assured the viewing public, "No, no". I can understand that even if there has not developed a critical national emergency to justify the sudden conversion of the hon. member for Don Valley and other members of his party, there has at least developed a critical political emergency among Conservatives recently, one that apparently drives them to desperate last resorts. The extent of their desperation may possibly best be measured by the extent to which they have reversed their positions over the past several months.
Let me remind hon. members of some of the positions taken by leading spokesmen of the Conservative party. In a column in the Telegram, a newspaper that used to exist in Toronto and to which the hon. member for Don Valley contributed-I am not saying that had anything to do with its demise-he told his readers that he did not believe that wage and price controls were effective anti-inflationary measures.


James McPhail Gillies: What date?


Alastair William Gillespie: April, 1971.


James McPhail Gillies: Two years ago.


Alastair William Gillespie: Furthermore, he warned they would create far more problems than they might solve.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: I can understand the lack of interest of members opposite in being reminded of some of these remarks. He said controls were extremely difficult to administer and could only possibly be effective if they were applied to all segments of the economy and were widely accepted. In addition, he wrote:
-price and wage controls inevitably bring rationing. Once the price for a particular product is fixed, the only way it can be distributed among all the people who want it is through some such system.
It was just over two years ago-it seems like yesterday- that the government and the public were being sternly lectured by the Leader of the Opposition. I want to recall his words at that time. He complained:
There has been a lot of loose talk about wage and price controls-even cabinet ministers are mentioning it these days-as the answer to price stability in Canada.
I put these things on the record because it is obvious the Conservative party looked at these techniques and rejected them until the desperation of their political situation and frustrations caused them to reverse their position.


Gerald William Baldwin: That was five budgets ago, Benson's three and Turner's two.
The Budget-Mr. Gillespie


Alastair William Gillespie: I wish to remind hon. members of the statements they made on this particular subject. I again quote the Leader of the Opposition.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: What date?


Alastair William Gillespie: It is roughly two years ago.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Things have changed.


Alastair William Gillespie: He was talking on a question of principle, and I do not think the principles of the Leader of the Opposition change that quickly. He said:
It is important for us to recognize the far-reaching implications of such controls, which, by their very nature, could be nothing better than a short-term solution, taken as a final resort after all other means failed.


An hon. Member:: We agree with that.


Alastair William Gillespie: What would be the consequence of controls? Let us listen to the Conservative leader. He said:
They would cause untold resentment among groups and individuals who felt unfairly done by and they would result in a climate of constant confrontation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: These are continuing controls.


Alastair William Gillespie: These are the positions, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Leader of the Opposition took.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister is not talking about control at all. He is quoting me absolutely out of context.


Alastair William Gillespie: in addition, of course, they would inevitably lead to a highly centralized and therefore inefficient, form of economic planning.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That's right.


Alastair William Gillespie: Only last September the Premier of the Conservative government of Ontario was warning the Canadian Chamber of Commerce of the difficulties of achieving consensus in support of controls. He said that once launched, controls reshape the economy to the extent that the consequences of their ultimate repeal are very difficult to forecast and indeed may be quite hazardous.
I should emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that the government has never ruled out the possibility that price and wage controls might become necessary as a last resort to curb an inflationary spiral that seriously threatened the wellbeing of the nation. Indeed, despite the criticism of the Leader of the Opposition, the government a long time ago undertook the planning of a control system as a contingency measure.


An hon. Member:: If we suggest it now, you will accept it tomorrow.


Alastair William Gillespie: We recognize that inflation is a serious problem and in the budget we propose a number of important measures to help moderate the risk of rising prices and incomes. We do not believe that all the present circumstances, taken together, are sufficiently critical to justify the state interfering so drastically in the economy

February 23, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Gillespie
of the country and lives of the people. Quite apart from the fact that there is no evidence of the kind of strong national consensus in support of controls that would be essential to make them work, there is little reason to believe that they would be effective.
I would draw the attention of the hon. member to the recent experience in the United States which he quoted, and particularly to the increase in food prices in January. The strongest inflationary pressures have been evident in the case of food, and other countries have demonstrated that food is less amenable to control. In the United States and in the United Kingdom, imported foods and basic agricultural commodities have been exempted from controls.
Food prices have been rising sharply in Canada and around the world because of shortages in production of many agricultural products in the face of continuing strong growth in world demand. The fact that food prices jumped by 2 per cent to 3 per cent in the United States last month-the sharpest increase in 20 years-suggests strongly that controls are no solution to that fundamental problem either for the producer or the consumer.
I share the concern of all Canadians for the problem of rising prices, but I believe that Canadians are also wise enough to distinguish between a national emergency, requiring the government to take over control of prices and incomes, and a political emergency generated as part of a desperate last resort by the Conservative party to take over the government.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Alastair William Gillespie: I suspect we are hitting pretty close to the mark. There is a fair amount of heat on the other side.


An hon. Member:: You didn't write that speech.


George Harris Hees: Those fellows used to write better stuff for me.


Alastair William Gillespie: This would not be the first time the Conservatives have been victims of their opportunism. It is clearly a desperation move and in my view an irresponsible one. The United States, the hon. member for Don Valley stated, had used price controls to break inflationary psychology, but he must know that his recommendation that we impose them at this time would work against the very anti-inflationary psychology which he has advocated. Mr. Speaker, he is presenting himself as a fireman who would dampen the fires of inflation, but he has turned out to be an arsonist.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: And you are turning out to be a joker.


Alastair William Gillespie: I do not believe the Canadian people will be taken in by this exercise in opportunism.


James McPhail Gillies: Let's test them.


Alastair William Gillespie: I should like now, Mr. Speaker, to turn to the other item I want to talk about this afternoon, the question of the changing trading environment and the importance of maintaining an efficient secondary manufacturing industry. Budget debates are a time for stocktaking, to assess recent events, to look at Canadian posi-

tions in a rapidly shifting trading international world, a time to examine our options and our opportunities, a time to look the future squarely in the eye, a time for realism. In my view, it is not a time for rhetoric but a time to look at the facts of international life.
What sort of facts am I talking about? I should like to refer to half a dozen. Fact one is President Nixon's measures of August, 1971. The United States' unilateral action at that time to meet a growing merchandise trade imbalance has triggered a profound change in moods among the major trading nations. These measures, Mr. Speaker, have generated a new protectionism in many important corners in the United States and resulted in such measures as DISC and the Burke-Hartke bill before Congress. The August, 1971, action has galvanized trading partners of the United States into re-examining their traditional trading relationships with that country. It has created a new awareness in Canada of the importance of our manufacturing industry and the vulnerability of some sections of it. The Nixon measures of August, 1971, have clearly underlined the need to seek multilateral solutions to trading, monetary and balance of payments problems.
Fact two is that as a nation we in Canada have an enormous stake in international trade. Over 50 per cent of the value of the goods we produce are exported. Let us look for a moment at the make-up of our imports and our exports. The major part of our exports is in crude materials and semi-fabricated products; roughly 60 per cent, or 40 per cent in end products. On the import side, two-thirds of our imports are end products and one-third in the crude or semi-fabricated classification. Those figures are for the year 1972.
Let us look now at our exports to the United States. Most of our end products go there; in fact, 85 per cent are the most sophisticated manufacturing products. If we exclude the items in the auto pact, then 70 per cent of our end products are exported to the United States.
Fact three is that we have the fastest growing labour force in the world. If we are to provide job opportunities for that labour force today, tomorrow, five years and ten years from now we must have a strong, growing and competitive secondary manufacturing base. Such a base will provide direct jobs but, even more, it will provide indirect jobs in the goods related service sector, particularly those related to the manufacturing or goods producing industries as well as creating the wealth to provide for the increase of jobs in the personal services sector.
Fact four is that the government's actions of last May were a clear response to the realities which had become apparent since August, 1971, realities to which attention had been particularly drawn by the Smithsonian agreement of December, 1971, when it became apparent that a new international trading situation had developed. I am referring specifically to the reduction in the corporate income tax rate from 50 per cent to 40 per cent and, for all private Canadian-controlled corporations, the reduction to 20 per cent on the first $50,000 of taxable income, in addition to the provision for fast write-off of equipment in the manufacturing and secondary processing industries to
February 23, 1973

facilitate the expansion and modernization and pollution abatement within these industries.
Let us look at fact five, the United States devaluation measures taken two weeks ago. The full impact of this move is not yet apparent and probably will not be so for some weeks or months, maybe even longer. But this step constitutes one of the most significant post-war economic developments affecting the trading world. It has to be seen against the background of an even more serious United States balance of payment problem than that which existed at the time of the measures taken in August, 1971. It has to be seen in the light of the forthcoming GATT negotiations, the multilateral negotiations among the trading nations of the world. It has to be seen in the context of our negotiations to gain wider access for our products in the markets of Europe, Japan, the United States and the other trading nations of the world while at the same time being prepared to give up advantages with respect to certain exports to the Canadian market.
Fact six is that account must now be taken of Britain's entry into the European Common Market, an event which gives rise to a new uncertainty among Canadian manufacturers and exporters. The British market has traditionally been our largest in Europe. The potential of the Common Market as far as Canadian exporters are concerned is considerable; that market has been expanding at a significantly greater rate than the United Kingdom market. Nevertheless, the situation at present is one of additional uncertainty for Canadian manufacturers.
Fact seven is the emergence of the Pacific rim countries and, in particular, the importance of the Japanese market to Canadian producers. In my view we are entering a crucial period for Canada as a trading nation, a time in which to make special efforts to develop foreign markets for our manufactured goods.


James McPhail Gillies: How does the budget help to do that?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest, through you, to hon. members opposite that if they have questions to ask me at the end of my speech, I shall be pleased to try to answer them. This is no time for a passive attitude toward our manufacturing industries. If we adopt such an attitude we shall fail Canadians now and we shall fail future generations from the point of view of seeking the great opportunities which can be ours.


James McPhail Gillies: Platitudes.


Alastair William Gillespie: Some people, you know, are concerned about this. I think there are some on the other side of the House who are concerned about it. But not all of them, judging by the kind of interruptions which we have heard this afternoon.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We have heard these platitudes too often from you fellows.


Alastair William Gillespie: The Canadian Labour Congress is concerned about the Burke-Hartke bill and the protectionist attitude in the United States. The Canadian manufacturing industry is also concerned about that kind of sentiment developing. I think the provinces are concerned.
The Budget-Mr. Gillespie
Certainly we are concerned, and I should like to think that all hon. members opposite are concerned.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We are concerned, with a minister like you reporting for them.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am giving hon. members the background, explaining why I think the manufacturing industry is so important at this time. I should like to make a comparison between the rates of corporate taxation in Canada and in several of the countries with which we compete. The rate of corporate tax in the United States is 48 per cent; in Japan it is 35 per cent; in the United Kingdom it is 40 per cent. We hope to make it 40 per cent, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Have you discussed this with Stanley?


Alastair William Gillespie: -and 20 per cent on the first $50,000 of taxable income earned by private Canadian-controlled corporations. If we are to be competitive in world trade, our tax rates must be competitive too.
Let me say this with respect to the employment situation. In the last five years, employment in the manufacturing industry has risen by approximately 100,000. There are presently about two million Canadians directly employed in the manufacturing industry. The output of Canadian manufacturing industry in the last five years has increased by 25 per cent, that is, an increase of 25 per cent in physical volume, amounting to a substantial increase in the productivity of the industry in terms of the number of people employed. Employment in the service sector, which is directly related to the manufacturing sector, has increased by 15 per cent. The point is that the growth of Canadian jobs is inextricably hitched to the growth of development of manufacturing industry.
Mr. Speaker, let me briefly review the recent trade performance. That performance has been excellent. In many ways it has been exceptional. Export sales were up 12 per cent last year, roughly double the rate of increase in the previous year, and there is every indication that they will be moving ahead at a rate even greater than last year. There were significant increases in exports to the Japanese market as well as the United States market. However, no significant increase was recorded in exports to the European market. This is why I say we cannot afford complacency. It is a time to assist manufacturing industry to be fully competitive in the coming decade, fully prepared to meet the tests of the new set of circumstances to be negotiated under the GATT agreements.
Let me mention very briefly various aspects of the support which the department is giving to manufacturing industry. The record is clear as to the success of a number of programs we have initiated to promote export market development. By way of example I would refer to the importance of trade fairs and especially to the Peking trade fair. A number of Canadian manufacturers went to China to meet some of their opposite numbers and it was announced a few days ago by Orenda Engines that they had obtained a substantial contract there for industrial turbines. There are many who say that the Chinese market is not a big one for Canada, but here is a tangible example of a deal that was negotiated very quickly.

February 23, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Oberle
Shortly, during the month of March, there will be a series of seminars across Canada, or let me call them missions. Over 40 trade representatives from our 80 offices around the world will be meeting in nine cities in Canada. They will be taking a sector by sector approach that is aimed at trying to identify for Canadian manufacturers and suppliers specific market opportunities in specific countries around the world.
In the minute that I have left to me, one matter I might emphasize is that this is a crucial time to move forward. It is not a time for the faint-hearted; it is a time for the confident. I am confident that the Canadian manufacturing industry, employers and employees, are equal to the task of creating a new trading environment. They are equal to the challenge of innovation and of developing new markets for Canadian products. They are equal to the task of helping us expand the markets of Canada. But let us be under no illusion: this is going to require determination. It will require a variety of measures and the support of this House for the kind of measures contained in the budget, measures aimed at making the manufacturing and the processing industries of Canada competitive on a worldwide basis.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I speak for the first time to this distinguished gathering. I feel in doing so I am more privileged than any other member of this assembly since I did not have the good fortune to inherit this land by birth. I came to Canada a little more than 20 years ago, and as far as I can determine I am the first Canadian coming from Germany following two world wars who ever acceded to such high office. My election victory was not just a personal victory; it was a victory also for all Canadians who, like myself, foster a dream of multieulturalism.
As a new member, I may at times have to call on Your Honour's indulgence as I am sure you will find that my approach to the problems presented to the House is that of a practical man, one who has learned through his involvement in business to look for simple solutions to problems which at first appear complex. There is not another country in the world where there are so many opportunities for a man, where there is such a vast horizon and a chance to fulfil one's wildest dream so long as one has the guts to dream it and to work at it.
In the deliberations of this House I have found myself taking an approach in sharp contrast to that taken by most of my colleagues who, by virtue of their professional training, are never ready or prepared to do anything that is unprecedented. I have learned through the best school, that of experience, that the worst practice is to do nothing that has not been done before.
In Canada today we are faced with problems for which there are no precedents, all of which requiring a solution that cannot be found in the great volumes in our library. Yes, some of these problems provide men of the twentieth century with a unique challenge-a challenge to try something fresh and to embark upon something new. But we must muster the courage to admit that in some areas of our endeavours we have been going in the wrong direction. We must not be discouraged by the monstrous task

of amending the laws of this country, some of which are in drastic conflict with the needs of our time.
I should like to make a few comments in connection with the remarks made by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). He compared the provincial governments and some of the activities taking place in the western regions of our land. I would have liked to rise on a point of order while he was speaking, Mr. Speaker, but since my time is short and I will shortly be catching a plane, I did not interrupt him. The hon. member referred to the province of Alberta and the disastrous oil exploration policies of that government.
May I tell him that today I met with a group of people from northern British Columbia who had just driven down the Alaska highway behind a string of trucks which were pulling out of the province of British Columbia. These were people who had been engaged in exploration and who had been making a contribution to the economy of British Columbia. This makes me wonder why the hon. member's party has such hordes of supporters in the western provinces. Maybe they are leeching off the corporate welfare bums out there. There is no New Democratic Party in the have-not provinces of this country; the party is where all the rich people live. The hon. member has been to my riding, and if the same government is still in office the next time he comes out he might not get the steak that was fed to him previously, but a peanut butter sandwich.
The hon. gentleman's indulgence in political skullduggery has made me digress, so may I now say something about the budget. I want to talk about some of the problems that are not unique to my constituency and the people I represent, but are of great concern to all Canadians. Certainly they are relevant to the debate before the House.
Since such a major part of my constituency comprises agricultural land and so many of the people I represent are affected by the outdated, unimaginative and, yes, disastrous policies of the Department of Agriculture, I should like to make known my views about the farming industry. I hope the government does not consider that the hand-down of the family farm from father to son, when the father dies, is a solution to the situation farmers are facing in Canada today.
The policies pursued by the Department of Agriculture cannot be interpreted in any other way than that they are designed to do away with an industry that has caused the Canadian consumer and, as a result, this parliament so many problems over the last generation. The budget is now solving certain problems by removing tariffs on some farm commodities so these commodities can enter Canada at a cheaper rate. Our farm credit policies, our transportation policies in relation to farm commodities and our marketing policies for farm products have been worked out by people in the department, all of which seem to be designed to destroy an industry that is so vital to our economy and to the preservation of the way of life for the greatest part of this country. Farming is an industry with which, if it were properly managed, we could make a great contribution to the rest of the world.
During the last election campaign we heard much about wage and price controls. The government pointed out the
February 23, 1973

dangers that were involved in such revolutionary policies, yet the farmers of Canada have lived for years with controls on the price of their products. Indeed, their income has been controlled by the percentage point that the Canadian consumer is prepared to pay in the supermarket. Thus it is obvious to me that we are committed to maintaining the standard of living that is now enjoyed by other Canadians who are spending only about 18 per cent of their income on food, compared with other countries whose people have to pay much, much more. This is why we must find ways of subsidizing the Canadian farmer to a much greater extent and in ways different from those proposed by the budget. Let me assure the House that the needs of Canadian farmers would be much better served if we were to allow them a place in the free enterprise system and let them charge for their product what the product is worth in relation to other commodities.
With respect to world markets and the position that Canada must take in the marketing of our farm products, we must first assure our customers of continuity of supply. In order to do that we must have storage facilities and transportation systems much different from those that we have today.
Last but not least, Mr. Speaker, we must as a total community commit ourselves to helping the farmer in times of natural disaster of the sort that has plagued farmers in the Peace River country of northern British Columbia and Alberta during the past three years. Farmers in that area have suffered three consecutive crop failures. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) offered these farmers $400 per farm in settlement. I was ashamed to relay that news to the people in my constituency because such a payment is an insult. That $400 was the only income some of them had last year.
The problems I am referring to are not unique to the farming industry. Another example of such bungling is seen in our approach to the problems facing our native citizens. Economists have proven to the Department of Indian Affairs that if we could do away with their department and its 5,606 "experts", the $386 million distributed annually, together with other funds handed out in gobs, would provide every Indian and Eskimo family with a guaranteed annual income of $7,407. Is the increase in the budget designed to engage these experts or to help Indian people? The real problem, of course, is that money is usually the last thing these people really need. Most of the people I have talked about have never learned what it means in this complex world to get along on a budget. That should, of course, be not too surprising to our friends across the aisle because there is no one in Canada today with more problems living on a budget than our federal government.
As a youngster in a foreign land, I read about the great human qualities inherent in Canada's Indian people. I read about the beautiful culture and religion they once possessed and I find that, in an attempt to integrate these people into our own way of life, our own culture and religion, we have committed cultural and religious genocide on these people. Those are harsh words, but I have no other way to describe what is happening to our natives in Canada.
The Budget-Mr. Oberle
How else would one describe the discriminating ways in which they are treated in our courts, in our schools and on the street? How else would one describe the total ignorance we display in respect of any land claims and aboriginal rights they may have? How else would one describe the way in which we play them off against each other, by segregating them into factions called full-blooded Indians, half-breeds, Metis, Eskimos? It is high time we recognized the fact that we must establish our natives with a status called "citizens plus" and also provide them with every opportunity to maintain their own culture.
There are two reasons for which we must commit ourselves to immediate action. The first is that our moral laws, such as they are, will not permit us to allow these things to continue. The second is that if we do not make a genuine effort on behalf of these people now, we will have a crisis in Canada in the not too distant future that will make the negro problem in the United States look like a Sunday school picnic.
Our ignorance toward underprivileged people is not confined to Indians or natives alone. In fact, if we have any crisis in Canada today it is not an economic crisis, it is not an environmental crisis, it is a social crisis. I ask the minister, what has the budget really done to eliminate this crisis? We have a third of our population deprived, by their social background, of participation in our free enterprise system. A third of Canada's people are snowed under with payments for goods they cannot afford, by high interest rates and by an all-out effort by our government to keep them out of work. There is just no other way I can describe all the hand-outs and gobs of money to those who can come up with the best excuse for not wanting to work.
I am not concerned about the vast amount of money we are spending. Why, we have lots of money. Let us dig out more resources. I am concerned about the loss of productivity of those people. That, Mr. Speaker, is the real crisis. It reflects itself upon our position in world markets. There are just not enough people with their shoulders behind the wheel; and the budget does not encourage them to expand their businesses and put some of these people to work. It reflects itself in the way we treat those Canadians who really need help; the old, the sick, the handicapped and the poor. There is not a country in the world which can afford that kind of luxury, and I know that the days are counted in Canada.
I maintain that our government does not have the responsibility to provide everyone with a guaranteed income, but we do have the responsibility to provide everyone with the opportunity to work. I am ashamed, as a Canadian, with all our opportunities and potentialities, not to have lived up to these responsibilities. Why, Mr. Speaker, are we willing to accept 6 per cent or 7 per cent unemployment when countries with much less potential have a zero unemployment rate? Why is it that in Canada we never strive for perfection?
Having said all that, I would now like to say a few words about the apparent discovery of the west and the northern regions of our land. I find a gap between what is said in the Speech from the Throne and what is said in this budget, because there is no mention of the discovery of the west in the budget speech. Coming from the northern

February 23, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Oberle
part of British Columbia, it is quite an experience for me to travel to the nation's capital and en route to visit some of the great cities of our country, cities into which we have plans to herd 85 per cent of our population by 1980. What an insult to the intelligence of the human race!
It is unbelievable to me that anyone in their right mind would pursue such disastrous policies when the rest of our vast land beckons to be challenged. Am I really to believe, Mr. Speaker, that the people who have been born into the concrete jungles of our nation are suddenly about to creep out of the dim and the glare, out of the smog and the smoke, and embark on the development of the north? Are they really serious about the development of one of the world's last frontiers in a way no other region has ever been developed? Are they really serious when they say that the development of the northern resources must be carried out in harmony with the protection of the environment?
Are they really considering that there is a breed of people in northern Canada now which can be compared with the early settlers and pioneers, the only difference being that they are fighting against much greater odds because so-called civilization is much closer to them? Are they considering the native people who have lived there for centuries and are still there? Mr. Speaker, they had better consider all those things. They had better have a convincing story because the people in the north will not stand for any more blunders. They had better have the answers to some vital questions. For whom are they developing and exploiting the north? What benefits will be derived by the people there? Who will pay for the social structure, the services, the transportation network?
Parts of my constituency have been subjected to an ambitious development program. The city of Prince George is one of Canada's fastest growing centres but there is no plan for any of the infrastructure to which I have referred. There are not nearly enough facilities for our young people. Our old age pensioners-people who have lived there for the major part of their lives-are shipped out to strange places 300 to 400 miles away because they have become chronically ill. A new hospital under construction will be 105 per cent occupied if and when it is ever finished. We have to fight for, beg and steal every penny we spend on post-secondary education and our facilities are hopelessly inadequate. After 20 years of struggle we finally witnessed the construction of an air terminal which would adequately serve a city half the size of Prince George. Nobody has yet determined who, and to what extent the three levels of government are responsible for urban renewal, for transportation and road networks, because everybody passes the buck.
The village of McBride, with its surrounding area of 3,500 people, does not have televison and the latest estimate holds out hope for TV three years from now. What a barbaric approach to the development of that region which we have learned to know as mid-Canada. Are we going to repeat this disaster as we embark upon the development of the north? Yet with a new and imaginative development strategy the north could well be the answer to a lot of pressing problems. But the policy would have to be worked out by human beings, not computers.

Mr. Speaker, before we commit ourselves to any more northern development we must look at all these things. We must learn from all the mistakes already made. Most of all, we must assure ourselves of a government prepared to accept the challenge, a government convinced and strong. As a government, we we must say no to foreign corporations who are blindly pursuing policies of exploitation. We must also say no to international unions which are acting irresponsibly in our country by depriving our labour force of shaping their own destiny.


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


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise as a member of this House on the first occasion and it is a particular pleasure to take part in the budget debate. I want to say to you, Sir, I am very pleased to be here at this time as the member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador. May I also take this opportunity of saying to you and to those who occupy that chair how impressed I have been with the impartiality and fairness with which you conduct yourselves.
I want to tell the House something about my riding. I will try to relate my remarks to the budget speech because certain aspects of the budget have very wide implications for my riding.
This is one of the largest ridings in Canada, encompassing an area of about 130,000 square miles including a great part of the island of Newfoundland and the territory of Labrador of some 112,000 square miles. It is a widespread riding with diverse and divergent social and economic problems ranging from the problems of the woods industry in central Newfoundland through the beautiful Green Bay area with its great tourist potential, through the area of White Bay which is primarily concerned with the fishing industry, to the whole territory of Labrador.
This area has been called the last great storehouse of natural wealth, but even in Labrador there are great contradictions. On the coast are the small isolated communities sometimes ranging from two or three families in the summer months to communities of 1,000 people. In the central part of Labrador we have the communities of Hamilton Inlet, Goose Bay-which is now undergoing a transitional stage-and in the west one of the greatest hydroelectric developments in the world at Churchill Falls. Farther west there are the great iron mines of Labrador City and Wabush.
It is a land of contrasts. There, too, we have the Indian and Eskimo communities. These people are desperately trying to adapt themselves to the twentieth century. If we think we are having cultural problems in adapting to the rapid pace of technology, these people are suffering even more so in that regard. These changes baffle all of us who are Canadians whether we live in small villages or large cities. So, in a way, this riding is a microcosm of Canada with problems of regional disparity, problems of great distances to be spanned, problems of communication
February 23, 1973

from one end to the other, and problems of economic and social development.
It is to areas such as mine that this budget is mostly aimed. I take issue with the term that our areas are have-not provinces. They have been described as such in the past. We may be have-not in economic terms, but there is a great cultural heritage there and a great historic background from which to draw. In these areas there is a sense of identity and a sense of community which my friends from Quebec may understand very well but which I believe is lacking today in many areas of North America and, indeed, in the world where the impact of technology has been felt. So there is a lot there to be thankful for.
I hope that when we plan our future in these areas we will take into account our way of life and find the kind of province we want. Like all parts of the world, we have felt the impact of rampant technology. Industry today is becoming capital-intensive rather than labour-intensive. Jobs are disappearing whether a man works in a fishing boat, in the iron mines, in the mills or wherever it happens to be. Those who have prided themselves on their independence are dismayed and frustrated now in having to accept government assistance. It is my hope and belief that this budget, reflecting as it does the policies of this government, will alleviate the economic problems from which my riding suffers.
I was extremely pleased to see the proposed increase in pensions for the elderly and the veterans. I think we have a responsibility to both these groups. Money in their pockets should represent an asset to the economy. But I believe we must do more than that. We must not simply look after our elderly people; we must create a positive role for them in our society. I am very pleased to see the New Horizons program and the extension of it this year. This should be a positive way whereby we can draw on the experience of the older people in our society so that they may play a useful role with the knowledge and experience only they possess.
We must solve the unemployment problem. We must give people in the disadvantaged areas, people who pride themselves on their independence, an opportunity to get back their self-respect. I was particularly pleased to see the tax cuts. This should be of great help to people, particularly those in the lower income group. The mothers in my riding, I believe, will be particularly pleased to see the tax taken off children's clothing and other food items. This will help combat the high cost of living in many areas.
I may say here that I look forward to the time when the government introduces the revised family income security plan. These two measures together should be of great help to the people in the lower income group. There are other pressing problems in my riding which obviously could not be dealt with in the budget speech but with which the government must deal. This will mean positive expenditure and government action.
Perhaps I might say a few words about the fishing industry in my area because it is particularly important. At the present time this industry is in a transitional stage. The time really has passed when a man could survive through the use of a small boat in the inshore fishery. Nevertheless, we have a responsibility to that man. He is
The Budget-Mr. Rompkey
the man who prosecuted the fishery for years, who survived on his own, who wanted to make a contribution to society and who is prepared to be independent. We all know there is far too little of this in the world today. So We must preserve the fishery in so far as possible. This industry has felt the impact of technology, as have other industries in the province. Yet there is an increasing demand for food, and prices are improving. We must help the inshore fishermen. I think the government is dealing with that problem and will continue to do so.
I take issue with those on the other side who criticize the department which is presently administering those policies. I want to tell them that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) is not dead. He is alive and well. He is administering a very capable department served by a very capable staff in the fisheries branch, many of whom I am very pleased to say are Newfoundlanders. I have great confidence in that branch and in the department and I am very pleased to be associated with it.
This year there is a great need for improved icebreaking services in our province. I note with satisfaction that there is provision in the estimates for at least one more icebreaker. However, I feel this will not be enough and that there will have to be more expenditures in this region if we are to help the woods industry in central Newfoundland and the fishing industry on the Newfoundland and Labrador coasts. I look forward to the time when government will provide even more funds for this very necessary service.
I was pleased to note that live television has come to Goose Bay. I am disappointed that it is not yet in Labrador West. I look forward to the time when the people on the Labrador coast will also receive live television. In fact, it may very well be that they will receive live television before they have a telephone service, because there are still communities in that area which do not have this very necessary service. Communication in northern Newfoundland and in many parts of my riding is far from acceptable either in terms of telephone or mail. It is still extremely frustrating to me to try to communicate with my constituents in that area. I urge the government, either directly or through agencies connected with it, to try to solve this problem and take steps immediately to improve these essential services which all Canadians should enjoy and to which they are entitled. These people still are not in the mainstream of Canadian life, and meanwhile the rate of change is increasing.
I was very pleased to hear my colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) speak of the decentralization of his department. This is a most important department to us both in terms of infrastructure development and industrial incentive. The idea of bringing decision-making down to the local level is something to which we have looked forward for some time. It will allow us, in that area and in all areas, to do our own thing, because I believe it is not simply enough for government to provide goods and services for people; we must ask the people at the local level to assist and take part in the decision-making process and assume responsibility for the policies and programs that will affect their lives.
I hope the government will make an effort to build a highway across Labrador which is one of the last great

February 23, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Latulippe
areas of the north to be opened up. We have seen what has been done in the Yukon territory and the Northwest Territories. We have seen that area being slowly opened up by the construction of highways. I hope the same thing will occur in northern Labrador. I hope the government will give every consideration to building the highway across Labrador to open up that great area, and to the highway up the northern peninsula from the national park which is presently under construction, as well as the road from Baie Verte to La Scie which will connect the communities in Green Bay. These are some of the problems I shall be bringing before the government during the coming months.
While there are problems, there is great potential, particularly in the Labrador area. I believe it has a great future; and having lived there for eight years and now having the honour to serve in the House, I am proud to be able to help build that future. I believe that the economic development of Labrador has great meaning, not only for that area of the province and the whole province but indeed for the whole of Canada. And when we are made aware of power shortages that exist on this continent, such as have been experienced recently, we realize how much emphasis we must give to the development of the power potential in that area.
Labrador needs a great deal of attention. To this end I believe it should have a member representing it in the House, a member wholly and solely for Labrador, as have the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I give notice now that I shall be introducing a bill in the House which I hope will be debated and will receive a great deal of consideration, a bill which will ask the House to provide a member for Labrador in its own right so that its problems and its potential are put in their proper perspective.
We in Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador want to make our own unique contribution to the Canadian mosaic. We must create the kind of province we want. But the kind of province we can have depends on the responsiveness of the government of Canada. I believe this budget is an indication that the government is listening and is prepared to respond.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity of making some comments on the budget, a quite fascinating but extremely complicated subject.
I will say at the outset that this budget presumes upon the present to provide for future needs, that is the present is used to survive and the future to exist.
The fact that we have a minority government at the present time indirectly helps the Canadian people, but does not solve the basic problems. The piling up of deficits will be detrimental to Canadians later on. This is why I stated that the present is mortgaged on the future.
According to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), the primary objective of the budget is to control unemployment, poverty and inflation by reducing taxes, increasing old age security pensions and writing off certain costs for the benefit of some industries.

In 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970, the Liberal government was saying and doing quite the contrary. At that time, the government said that to fight inflation, it was necessary to impose credit restrictions and tax increases, and at the same time it eliminated public works in the name of inflation.
And today, the budget introduced by the same government but by a different Minister of Finance advocates the contrary. We are wondering whether this is logical. Before we were told that it was necessary to balance the budget to solve the problem. Now a deficit of the order of $2 billion is acceptable and we are told that this is the only means to restore balance to our economy and to fight inflation.
We realize that to balance the government budget, the taxpayers' budget should be unbalanced and that for balancing again the taxpayers' budget, the government's budget should be unbalanced. In this manner, the economic unbalance grows worse, the cost of living goes on increasing, the dollar value keeps decreasing and inflation causes more and more damages.
Let me tell you that from now on, present and future can no longer be administered as the past. The past gave us deficit budgets and tax increases; in some budgets, it has been proposed to lower taxes and to increase the money supply in return for larger deficits.
No golden mean has been found; we cannot achieve a truly balanced economy. We can give no equilibrium to our economy. Nothing must be changed. I must say at once that there is no need to change our present economic structure. However, to rectify the system, we should modify the sharing of national production, taking into account the consumers' expenses and the capitalists' reserves.
We produce in abundance, we accumulate surpluses, but we do not have the mechanisms necessary to allow the consumers to get their fair share of the production.
In 1944, national product was worth $12 billion; in 1973, it has reached $114 billion, which represents an increase of $102 billion. Although 9 to 10 per cent of the labour force is not working, production could easily reach $125 billion. In spite of this gigantic production, we have yet to find the means to meet the needs of the people.
In fact, we can say that the economy is not balanced at all, that neither the government nor the opposition has a concrete solution to offer that we might truly live in a country where the economy is balanced to satisfy the citizens.
Mr. Speaker, members of the House voted themselves a salary increase pegged to the rise in the cost of living and old age pensions have also been hiked but not quite enough to match the cost of living. On the other hand, family allowances have remained the same since 1944, that is $6 and $8, whereas the gross national product has gone up by $102 billion since 1944. This proves the illogical thinking of the government in refusing to boost family allowances as well. Families are where the need is most urgent and they are the largest consumers. This is where the purchasing power should be.
February 23, 1973

The Minister of Finance said in his budget speech that
750,000	Canadians will no longer pay income tax beginning in 1973. Why? Because they are too poor to pay any. They were not paying any either before. The basic exemption has been raised from $1,500 to $1,600 for single people, and from $2,850 to $3,000 for married people. It should have been raised to $3,000 for single people and to $5,000 for married people. The exemptions are far from logical. The cost of living is several points above the basic raise as agreed to; there is thus nothing in this bill to increase the taxpayer's buying power. It is in fact just window dressing.
As the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has said, the removal of the 10 per cent tax on food, chocolate and soft drinks is a mere crumb from the government's economic table.
The increase in old age security pensions from $82 to $100 is not in line with the increase in the cost of living, and it must not be forgotten that every increase in pensions under the present system merely contributes to a further raise in the cost of living, and sets the economy on a suicide course. No basic remedy is being applied to stabilize the economy. All this will only destabilize the economy and make life harder for Canadians, as well as bringing with it a $2 billion deficit.
Some are saying that we should not get concerned about a deficit, but when there is a majority government they will say: We must balance the budget. There is no longer any reason to accept a deficit. Then they will raise taxes and duties and cut back on public works for two, three or four years in an attempt to "rebalance" the government's budget. But they will be "unbalancing" the budget of all Canadians, because there is no happy medium in our present economy.
Mr. Speaker, in the same proportion as production is automatic, consumption must be distributed by the same technical and automatic means, by issuing new credits in order to keep pace with new public developments, and these credits must or should be issued at administration cost and reimbursed at depreciation cost. Credits should then be issued to redeem bonds as they mature in order to lower the federal public debt which is of $48 billion, in addition to the other debts of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, in this budget, if the government really wanted to prove equal to the task, it would have cancelled at least the 11 per cent tax on building materials. The government would then have directly contributed to give purchasing power to taxpayers, to families who need houses to have a decent lodging and who cannot own one because of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials.
Moreover, when money is needed to finance the purchase of buildings, several people pay from 10 to 12 per cent interest to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Over seven years, the interest doubles the capital; over 40 years the buyer has to pay five times the price of the house and we find it is natural. We do not say a word. The budget mentions nothing about it and it is said that one of the most beautiful budgets in Canadian history has been presented.
Mr. Speaker, this is a beggar's budget, made up of bits and pieces, which yields only token benefits; it is a patch-
The Budget-Mr. Watson
work budget, because this is not the kind of budget which will help the Canadian people to pay their debts and get back on their feet and which will enable our country to grow and to develop. Far from it, Mr. Speaker.
As for Canadians-politicians, journalists, economists, accountants, administrators-may I remind them, as an observer of the economic and monetary situation in Canada, since the government founded the Bank of Canada in 1934, as a result of many Royal Commissions such as the Stevens and Turgeon Commissions, and of inquiries on textile products and on the banking and financial systems, that in 1934, national production was only $4 billion; it amounts today to $102 billion and in 1973, it will reach $114 billion, which means $5,000 per capita.
We are told that we often speak about money, and that money does not grow on trees, but still, money grows somewhere! Money grows within the government, thanks to technical and legislative processes which are controlled, planned and administered, and based on the national production of goods and services as well as on the needs of Canadian citizens.
Since 1934, our whole country has been steadily progressing and moving forward. We could feel quite satisfied in respect of our natural resources, the work of people and the talent of those who administer work and capital. All of us enjoy more or less this continuous development.
Mr. Speaker, even though in all papers and reports of public meetings one can read articles about inflation, unemployment and poverty, that is no reason for brooding and crying blue murder. All these problems of inflation, unemployment and poverty are nothing more than problems of economic unbalance in the flow and distribution of money between overly rich and overly poor institutions.
Through a simple readjustment of the economic direction of government, balance would be restored and everybody would be happier. Only the repeal of the legislation on the dollar-unit would be left.
Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof and the joy thereof. Let us be positive!
If there is an unemployment rate of 7 per cent, 93 per cent of the people have a job. If there is 25 per cent of underfeeding, there is therefore 75 per cent of overproduction. If there is 40 percent of capitalization-


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


Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister oi State for Urban Affairs):: By custom, Mr. Speaker, the budget debate allows Members of Parliament almost complete latitude in their speechmaking, and I trust you will allow me to talk about some of the particular concerns I have regarding the role of Members of Parliament as representatives of the people and, more specifically, the member of parliament's role on parliamentary committees and the role of parliamentary committees themselves.
When Canadians elect Members of Parliament to represent them here in the House of Commons, they legitimate-

February 23, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Watson
lv expect their representatives, either individually or as a body, to exercise effective scrutiny over the initiatives and spending of government departments and crown agencies. More succinctly, they expect us to be able to do something about controlling government bureaucracy.
They believe that by constructive criticism we can influence the direction of government policies and government initiatives, and that we can do all this right here in the House of Commons. This public belief is continually being reinforced by the traditionalists in this chamber, most of whom seem to be the really vocal members of the House, who keep insisting and pretending that the action on the floor of the House of Commons is all-important and that if you upgrade any other aspects of this institution, in particular the House of Commons committee system, you are somehow tampering with parliamentary democracy itself. Attach too much attention to committees, and the traditionalists hint darkly that we are moving toward congressionalism.
What are the facts, Mr. Speaker? I do not have to tell you that most of what goes on in this chamber is show business pure and simple. Most questions are not asked to obtain information. Nine times out of ten, questions are either asked to embarrass or the answer is already known. Few of the millions of words of speeches that flow across the pages of Hansard ever affect government bills or government policies. By the time these items reach the floor of the House of Commons the die has been cast and policy directions have already been decided upon. The sheer modern-day volume of legislation and programs makes it impossible to give any in-depth treatment to legislation or programs on the floor of the House of Commons. The traditionalists, by continuing to pretend, in the face of reality, that it is on the House of Commons floor that all the important action occurs, are minimizing the role of Members of Parliament as representatives of the people, and in the context of 1973 Canadian society they are doing a disservice both to parliament and to the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, if this place is ever to become as effective as the Canadian people expect it to be and want it to be, then that increased effectiveness will have to come about through better use of the House of Commons committee system.

What is the immediate future of the committee system in our parliament? In the present context, Mr. Speaker, the government does not control the committees and because the official opposition does not seem to believe in the usefulness of enhancing the role of the committees, there could well result a tendency to minimize the function of committees in the parliamentary process. This would be a grave error.

I say this advisedly, Mr. Speaker! There is a tendency throughout this House right now to downplay committees. What better evidence is there than the present situation when, for the first time, the government has indicated that it is willing to have members of the opposition as chairmen of committees? What is the reaction? None of the
opposition parties wants to name its members as chairmen. I think they are making a serious mistake. This is a golden opportunity for certain of their members to shine as committee chairmen. But the attitude toward the importance of committee chairmanships which has been demonstrated on all sides of the House downgrades the committee system.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Not in the area of chairmanship.


Ian Watson: I feel that if we had the right kind of attitude on all sides of the House, we would have a rush for the job of chairman of committees. If the opposition were serious, they would be taking the government up on its offer to have a percentage of committee chairmanships based on representation in this House.

It would be a serious mistake to minimize the role of the committees of parliament. Enhancing it, more than any other action will give hon. members the opportunity to contribute to improvement of legislation, to reveal unnecessary expenses and to suggest to the government new projects and new goals for its policies.
If, as some seem to believe, we are entering a long minority-government period in Canada, I believe this makes it all the more important to strengthen our committee system. What should be done now? The great major improvements brought about over the past years have vested in House of Commons committees, three main responsibilities: the review of the budget of government expenses, the study of bills at the very important stage of second reading, and also essential task of conducting an inquiry when a committee, under a constitutional order, is dealing with a specific subject. All this shows that actually committees play a much more significant role within the parliamentary organization. But the changes should not stop there.

I urge the government to further expand the inquiry role of our House of Commons committees. As members are aware, any inquiry role of a committee is really in the hands of the government since it, in the final analysis, has absolute control over the terms of reference given to a committee or whether they are given at all.
This government could take a giant step forward in increasing the power of House of Commons committees by establishing as an automatic practice of this House referral of annual reports of all departments to the respective standing committees. Such a practice would give committees freedom to investigate any matter mentioned in an annual report and to report to the House without control by the government. I would go even further and suggest that not only the annual reports of departments but the annual reports of every Crown corporation be automatically referred each year to the respective standing committees of the House of Commons. This, of course, would be a nightmare for civil servants and for ministers of the Crown but, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that such a change is essential if we are to give Members of Parliament control over civil servants, government bureaucracy and red tape which the Canadian public clearly wants them to have.
[Mr. Watson.l
February 23, 1973

Mr. Speaker, how do I envisage this extension of control by members of parliament taking place? The answer is the combining of a liberalized inquiry role, including automatic referral of annual reports, with a better and more effective use of the tools that are already available to our committees. The Senate really has shown the way to the House of Commons by its willingness to hire experts. We in the House of Commons have been reluctant to hire experts in the past, but nothing under our rules prevents our obtaining the expertise necessary to compensate for any expertise advantage which civil servants may have over Members of Parliament.
I am suggesting that members of parliament, whether they are opposition members or government backbenchers, will never be able to play the effective role which the public expect them to play in legislative changes, government programs and controlling government bureaucracy unless they equip themselves and their committees to overcome the expertise advantage of civil servants.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Right.


Ian Watson: Cynics may say that such a broadened committees' role is not feasible because a government would be asking for trouble by giving parliamentary committees the free rein that referral of annual reports would give to them, because governments normally do not look for trouble, and the traditionalists in the official opposition and elsewhere in the House would view this as a certain sign that we are headed toward a congressional system. This is simply not so, Mr. Speaker. I would argue that the calibre of Members of Parliament in this House and that we will find in future Canadian parliaments will not continue to accept their major role, if they are government backbenchers, as that of a vote-caster to maintain the government in power, or as a vote-caster to maintain his party's line if he is in opposition. Members will agree that if such a broadened inquiry system is to prove productive, then every side of the House will have to change its attitude toward the day to day operations of committees.
Obviously, the inquiry role of a committee will only be effective if the inquiry is approached in a fairly non-partisan way. There have been effective inquiry roles for committees in past parliaments, and they have been effective because members of all parties have conducted themselves in a non-partisan way.
Other changes of attitude will have to accompany a broader inquiry role. The government will have to learn to live with adverse and critical committee reports, and the opposition will have to restrain itself from undue partisan exploitation of adverse reports. Both government and opposition should regard these reports, which under our rules are not binding upon the government, as an additional weapon in alerting and informing public opinion. The government would have the legal right to ignore a report, but unless it was on very solid ground it would do so at its peril. It goes without saying that accompanying a broader committee role and more committee reports there must be changes in the time allotted under the rules of this House for the debate of committee reports.
The Budget-Mr. Kuntz
How do we achieve this expanded inquiry capacity? The government could do it either by a simple declaration of intention which would be followed by referral of reports to the respective committees, and which would not be necessarily binding upon any subsequent government or-and I would prefer this-to make the change more permanent the House would agree to incorporate such an automatic referral into the orders and rules of this House.
I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and this government to give serious consideration to such a broadened committee rule, not just for this parliament but for the effect it will have on future parliaments. The public expects us as members of parliament to be more influential. We can be more influential than we now are by using the tools available to us in committee. However, over the years I have found that with the government's control over orders of referrence to committees, unless an annual report is before a committee it is almost impossible for it to get going on a subject as quickly as it should. Without an automatic system, the item is passed over. It is lost in the events that develop a few days later. By the time the committee is ready to return to it, it may be too late. If we had a system where committees would automatically receive reports, there would be no problem in proceeding when an inquiry was necessary.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the traditionalists in both government and opposition that an expended committee inquiry role is not congressionalism in disguise; it is not a Trojan horse that will foist republicanism on an unsuspecting Canadian public; it will not have any of the dire consequences for the British parliamentary system and responsible government which traditionalists fear. But it will give Members of Parliament of every party in this House new opportunities, as representatives of their constituents and as representatives of the Canadian people as a whole, to contribute to improving the manner and the ways in which this country is governed. The new generation of members in this House will accept no less. The Canadian public will accept no less of their Members of Parliament.


Mr. Harry Kuntz (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, like the members who have spoken before me, I would like to add my sincere congratulations upon your re-election as presiding officer of the House of Commons. It is my understanding that in the past you have conducted this office in a very fair and wise manner, and I am confident this will hold true in the future. I would also like to extend my congratulations to the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman of Committees and all those who have been appointed ministers of the Crown or parliamentary secretaries. You have taken on heavy burdens of responsibility and should be commended for this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harry Kuntz: At the outset, I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Cliff Downey, of Castor, Alberta. Mr. Downey served my constituency throughout the twenty-eighth parliament, and he served it with sincerity and desire.

February 23, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Kuntz
Like other members before me, I have decided to speak about my constituency. I understand that this is the usual practice for a new member when giving his maiden speech. While acknowledging certain beneficial provisions in the budget proposals, I regret that they do not contain measures that will substantially reduce continuing high unemployment, effectively contain the spiralling cost of living or provide any incentive to Canadians to increase their participation in Canadian business, enterprise and development.
In support of this statement I would like to describe the existing situation in my constituency. My constituency, Battle River, is located in east central Alberta. The northwest corner is approximately 40 miles southeast of the city of Edmonton. From this point the north boundary extends due east for 132 miles to the Saskatchewan border. From this same point the boundary extends due south for 36 miles, then due west for 18 miles, south again for 24 miles, reaching the Red Deer River. It follows the Red Deer River crossing through six townships and then proceeds due east for 126 miles, reaching the Saskatchewan border. These boundaries take in approximately 9,200 square miles, with a total population of approximately 70,000 people. These people live in one of the following places: on farms, in the city of Camrose, with a population of 10,000 people and where I make my home, in the two largest towns, Wainwright and Stettler with populations between 4,000 and 5,000 each, or in one of 70 some smaller towns, villages or hamlets varying in size from 2,000 to 10 people. However, my constituency has been gradually decreasing in population with many of these centres slowly deteriorating. Even the largest ones show an increase in population per year of only 25 to 50 people.
As far as industry is concerned, we do have a few oil wells in some parts of the constituency. This has resulted in a few small gas plants and oil pumping stations. In the city of Camrose we have a pipe rolling mill which, when working to full capacity, employs about 300 people. However, since this mill was built some ten years ago it has only produced for about one half of the time. This means that for one half of the ten years this mill has employed from 200 to 300 people, the other one half of the ten years it has employed only 20 to 30 people for maintenance purposes. It is my understanding that their biggest problem, when it comes to competing in prices for contracts, is freight rates once again showing that the freight rate structure is hurting Alberta.
What all this boils down to, Mr. Speaker, is that agriculture is by far the main industry in my constituency and is, therefore, of grave concern to me. Most of our businesses are agriculture-related and what happens to the agricultural industry is directly reflected on them. I have had businessmen tell me that when the farmers are prospering, their businesses pick up and do a relatively good turnover. However, when agriculture is in a slump this automatically puts the related businesses on a downward trend.
As most members know, agriculture has not been in a very healthy position for the past several years. This, of course, is why my constituency is gradually losing population, with many towns and villages deteriorating. More
[Mr. Kuntz.l
and more farmers are becoming fed up with the odds they have to work against, and sell out. In support of this statement I would like to quote the following farms statistics. In the year 1956 there was a total of 574,993 farms in Canada. At that time, in order to qualify for these statistics, your land holding had to be three acres or more and your sale of farm produces had to be $250 worth or more. In the year 1961 the qualifications for these statistics were a land holder of one acre or more, and selling $50 worth of farm produces or more. Even with dropping the qualifications, the number of farms in Canada had decreased to 480,887. With the same statistical qualifications, in 1966 the total number of farms in Canada had dropped to 430,552. By the year 1971, with the same qualifications, this figure had dropped further, to 366,128. This means the number of farms declined 10.4 per cent between 1961 and 1966, and 17.2 per cent between 1966 and 1971.
In 1961, 12 per cent of all Canadians were farm residents; in 1966 only 10 per cent were farm residents and in 1971 the percentage had dropped to 7 per cent. Meanwhile, Canada's population increased from 20 million in 1961 to 22 million. We hit the 22 million mark yesterday, as hon. members who watched television will know. Along with this, on the basis of a five-year average from 1967 to 1971, farm cash receipts had increased only by .9 per cent while for the same period their operating expenses had increased by 3.69 per cent. With farm cash receipts and operating expense figures in mind, is it any wonder people are leaving the farm?
After selling out, the majority move to the larger cities, cities which are already plagued by overpopulation and unemployment. Surely it would be better and less costly to help them while they are still on the farm.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harry Kuntz: The most difficult problem facing farmers is the lack of a reasonable return for their produce in terms of real net income. They are continually faced with rising costs of production as the prices of farm machinery, parts and motor fuels increases substantially each year. Yet the return they receive on their products shows little or no increase. In some cases there is a decrease in the net return.
While I was campaigning in the last election, Mr. Speaker, one constituent showed me a new machine he had purchased-by way of a loan, of course. It was a self-propelled bale stacker which he found it necessary to purchase because he was unable to obtain hired help on his farm. In order to pay for the machine he said he would have to undertake all the custom work he could possibly find. The machine in question, required only for the purpose of picking up and stacking bales, bore a price tag of $18,000. After the interest payable on the loan is added, the price will be higher still.
The question I should like to have answered is why this man is unable to obtain help at a time when Canada is chronically plagued by unemployment. Why was he forced to finance and buy an expensive machine? The fact is that he does not have the cash and therefore cannot compete with other industries and unemployment insur-
February 23, 1973

ance benefits at the rate of payment per hour for the number of hours per day which is required. I further submit that with only about 365,000 farmers left in Canada, the farming industry could well employ thousands of people if it could afford to do so. I personally do not know a single farmer who would not wish to employ someone if he only knew he could afford to continually do so. I ask hon. members this: in what industry would it be better to create employment than in the industry which is the backbone of our country, agriculture?
Some of the legislation put forward by the government in the past has been designed to encourage people to leave the farms. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, they are leaving- many not needing any encouragement. Look at the average age of farmers-something like 58 years of age. This is evidence enough that young people are not remaining on the farms. People are not staying because they can make a far better living in other industries. They are entitled to a decent wage for their work as well as a reasonable return on their investment. This is not being realized on the farms, as it is in most other industries.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that to encourage people to leave farming is a serious mistake and shows a lack of long-range planning. I also believe that in the not too distant future government will be encouraging people to return to farming. I know that Canada is at or near zero population growth. However, the growth in the world population is a horse of a different colour. Examination of the figures shows that in the year 1650 the total world population was only 500 million. By the year 1850 it had increased to one billion. At the end of 1971, the population of the world stood at 3.74 billion, of which number 73 million had been added in 1970 and 1971 alone. The estimated rate of increase is one billion every 15 years. Developing countries double their population every 20 to 30 years. Advanced countries double their population every 70 to 175 years. In 1971, only 23 countries throughout the world had family planning and only another 15 countries supported birth control. By the year 2000, which is only a short period of 27 years away, the world population is estimated to be over six billion people. Mr. Speaker, I repeat: in 27 years our population will number more than six billion.
These people will have to be fed and Canada, without doubt, is one of the countries which will be expected to help provide this food. I feel it would be one of our world responsibilities as a food-producing nation. It is quite possible that if we do not consider this to be a responsibility, and refuse to help, other countries might consider obtaining our help by means of force.
What is the answer to the problem? It certainly is not to encourage people to leave the farms where the all-important food is produced. We should be encouraging farmers to stay on the farms to increase production, rather than prompting them to leave. If we are to do this, we must recognize that the farming industry needs capital-I mean cash in the pocket, not capital by way of more loans. To achieve this objective, long-range planning should begin right now. This will require the co-operation of the farmers.
The Budget-Mr. Towers
In last Monday night's budget there are a few points that will benefit the farmers, but nowhere near enough of them. In fact, there are some proposals that will be highly detrimental to the farmers, and others that don't go far enough. The decrease in personal income tax and the increase in old age security pensions will help. The removal of the capital gains tax when transferring the farm within the family, as we had suggested, is good. However, the fact that this cannot be done until after death is unacceptable. This provision means that children could be in advanced age themselves before a transfer could take place, thereby affecting their future planning and security.
The removal of tariffs on farm products in the absence of reciprocal agreements is an outrage because at certain times this will be very costly to the farmers. Failure to remove taxes from building materials is a serious drawback to all segments of our society, especially to the farmers since they are always requiring building materials when expanding their operations or trying to keep their farms in good repair. Mr. Speaker, there are many more objections to this budget as far as I am concerned, but our time limit does not permit me to go into them right now.


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


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour for me to speak in this debate on behalf of the people I represent. There may be others of their calibre in Canada, but there are none better.
This is the message I bring to you today, Mr. Speaker, as we discuss the budget. The majority of my constituents are not prepared, nor are they willing to become pawns of any government. As the representative of Red Deer constituency, I want Canada to be united from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the United States border to the Arctic Ocean. But there are those who are dividing us. Divisive statements have been made during this session which should never have been uttered. Divide and rule seems to be the motto of this government.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) during a speech delivered in this House talked about regionalism. We do not want to be regionalized. We cannot afford to be regionalized. Alberta is solidly opposed to this type of policy. One of the major problems within my constituency is transportation, because we are so far from the markets. In this great dominion we have two land-locked provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Did the Minister of Transport tell us anything definite about his transportation policies or did he suggest ideas which could be construed to be promising or positive? No, Mr. Speaker; he did not give one word of encouragement about an improved system of transportation, nor did the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in the new budget.
If this government does not stop talking about regionalism, it will balkanize our land to such an extent that Canada will never become the great nation we desire. Transportation is vital to our economic well-being because the majority of Canadians reside in an area

February 23, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Towers
almost 5,000 miles long and 300 miles wide. Transportation is a problem but not an insurmountable one. Some common sense and rationale on the part of this government could alleviate this situation. Transportation difficulties are with us here and now, and the present is not too soon to start to resolve them. The earlier the minister comes to grips with high transportation costs, stops talking regionalism but instead plans policies of expansion, the better it will be for every Canadian.
Let me quote from a speech given by the Alberta minister of agriculture, Dr. Hugh Horner, in the legislature on November 9, 1972:
We intend as a government, as we already have, to continue to press the federal Department of Transport in relation to the port of Vancouver, in relation to the provision of bulk unloading facilities at Roberts Bank and specifically to prod them, hopefully, into some action in developing the port of Prince Rupert so that we can have a substantial storage capacity in Prince Rupert, and substantial unloadability. Certainly when we are talking about our markets in the Orient, Prince Rupert is substantially closer, by a day's sail, than the port of Vancouver.
I believe that the premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba would support this statement. In view of this situation, would you not say that there is a job ready and waiting for the federal Minister of Transport in conjunction with the Minister of Finance?
I am positive that the well-being of every Canadian is affected by transportation in one way or another. The cost of groceries in Red Deer, as in every city, town, village and hamlet in our fair dominion is influenced by transportation. The Minister of Transport has an important role to play, and I only hope that he will be able to measure up to his responsibilities, but first he must stop talking and thinking about regionalism. Does the minister not realize that a healthy Canadian agricultural economy is necessary for Canadians generally and for many hungry people of the world in particular?
The jobs and livelihood of a large number of Canadians depend on agriculture, not just as a primary production industry but also because those in the industry spend over $3 billion annually on goods and services. Between 20 per cent and 25 per cent of the gross value of factory shipments from Canada's manufacturing industry is comprised of raw material which originated in agriculture. Also, 35 per cent of the freight shipped through the St. Lawrence Seaway found its base in agriculture, as well as between 20 per cent and 25 per cent of the revenue to our railroads. No other industry in this country creates as many jobs as does agriculture.
Approximately 35 per cent of Canadian agricultural production relies on exports for a market; and let me impress upon you that upwards of 75 per cent of prairie production has to be sold outside the prairie provinces. We must recognize the value of this benefit to the hungry masses all over the world. This is the role that Canada can play in solving world problems, especially when two-thirds of the population of the world go to bed hungry every night.
Let us not forget, either, the need for income from the sale of our agricultural products. At the moment agriculture is contributing $2 billion per year through exports, and certainly this must have a worthwhile effect on our balance of payments. One of the most important aspects

of this type of business is that we are not dealing with non-replaceable products such as our mineral resources. With proper assistance and improved farm management, I am convinced that the Canadian farmer could double or even triple his production if he did not have to cope with a combination of inclement weather, high production costs and, above all, a federal government which is continually jumping from crisis to crisis.
The situation now, Mr. Speaker, is that this government for some time has even forgotten to jump; and there are now so many crises that it does not know where to jump- if there is any jump left in it. After listening to the budget, I have not yet decided whether the Minister of Finance is pedalling backwards from the budget of last May 8 or has reversed direction completely and is now pedalling in the opposite direction. While this stalemate continues, the people suffer.
There obviously is confusion between federal cabinet ministers as to policy. The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, when explaining the method of distributing the money available to grain producers under the two-price system and telling the farmer to decide which method he preferred, an acreage basis or a bushel basis, stated:
The permit holders must weigh heavily the responsibility in possibly causing an overproduction of wheat by deciding upon a distribution on a per bushel basis.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), speaking in this House said:
I am purposely asking western grain producers to produce all the wheat they can produce, conscious of all this implies.
Is there any doubt why the Alberta minister of agriculture asked Alberta members of parliament to introduce these two federal ministers?
Another vital area in which I believe this government is reneging in its responsibility is that of overseas promotional sales of Canada's products. Oh yes, Mr. Speaker, we hear those who are other than Conservatives rail about the Diefenbaker years, but let me impress upon them that there has never been a trade mission more successful than that of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) when he was minister of agriculture, which resulted in the first large wheat sale to communist China. Also during that parliament the then minister of trade and commerce, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), who is still with us, used his initiative by calling our trade commissioners home from all over the world to show them what Canada had to sell, and then told them to go out to do their jobs. This is what Canadian industry is crying out for today- someone with initiative, with positive ideas to develop salesmanship, someone who will demonstrate what leadership is.
Provincial governments are becoming tired of waiting for the federal government to assume its responsibility, so they are going out to sell on their own. A delegation from Alberta moved into Japan to locate a market for Alberta's products. Manitoba recently made a sale of pork to Japan. People appreciate the fact that the leadership of these provinces accepts responsibility, in contrast to the failure of the federal government to take the initiative to go out to sell what Canada has to offer. However, there is a grave
February 23, 1973

danger in each province making its own sales as this has a tendency to further balkanize our country. Also, the buyers have an opportunity to barter between the provinces. An effective federal policy could prevent this.
Canada has witnessed the recent development of the European Common Market and its benefits to the people who make up its membership. Do we in Canada lack the intelligence, the ability or the desire to stay away from the development of a European Canada? I do not have to remind the House that the former situation in Europe created two world wars in a lifetime. Canada needs an agency to pull the provinces together, rather than to further separate them. The federal government is the only agency available to us to accomplish this end.
Could we not take a leaf from the book of Europe? Can we not understand that those people have now agreed to work together in a larger community within the European Common Market? Here we have countries which have warred against each other but now, for the common good and in the interest of strength, have overcome a great number of their differences and are willing to work together. They have faced almost insurmountable barriers, but they have succeeded in mastering them.
When we compare this achievement in Europe to what Canada is experiencing today, we find that we do not have comparable obstacles to master. Let me stress that if the present, indifferent, lackadaisical attitude of this government is allowed to continue, Canada will become separated to such an extent that we will require much more than a common market to bring us back together as a nation.
I have never been an advocate of centralized power, because I believe that the further controls stray from the so-called grassroots, the more expensive becomes the administration. There is a certain segment of our governing process which must be administered at the local level, but there are areas of development and promotion which have to be performed on a national basis. This does not necessarily mean that the provinces or provincial organizations be weakened: the opposite would result, through a firmer national economic understanding.
In 1970, Canada imported more food than she exported. Mr. Speaker, in a country as agriculturally-oriented as Canada, with such tremendous potential, with our great ability to produce, this is a national disgrace and is reprehensible to all of us. Nothing will destroy a family, a province or a nation as rapidly as circumstances which cause one's grocery bill to be higher than one's pay cheque. Who is to blame? None other than the head of the family-which in this case, Mr. Speaker, is the government of Canada.
My constituency, as is the case in most others, is experiencing an increase in urban population. If we are to
The Budget-Mr. Towers
reach our maximum growth, the value of intermediate and small towns must be recognized. Red Deer constituency is made up of a city and many towns which have a great deal to offer society if the federal government provides encouragement and opportunity. One cannot blame small businessmen if they do not establish within our area when assistance by grants is available at the other end of our province. The time has come for this policy to change, and definite action to be taken.
Talk and promises are not enough. There is no "if" or "but" about this; it is a must. Every small business and secondary industry should have the opportunity to expand and to settle within a province with assurance of equal benefits. The federal government spends such a large percentage of the tax dollar, as evidenced in this budget, that there is not enough left for municipal governments to develop as they can and as they wish. The federal government must either take less of the tax dollar, at the same time curbing its own administration costs, or it must give equal assistance to develop new areas and to re-establish those with potential in the smaller communities. Size really does not matter; there are certain parts of every community which need to be rebuilt and expanded.
The federal government would seem to be the worst offender when one looks at the cause of inflation and notes that the budget does not cut back on the cost of government itself. An example of this is the unprecedented cost of the staff of the Prime Minister's office-$1 million in one year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time of adjournment has now been reached.


Mr. Leiebvre:: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member requires only a minute or two to complete his remarks. Perhaps he might have the unanimous consent of the House to conclude.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the House agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If my constituency could have the privilege of using just half of that amount, many new industries could be established. Small businesses could expand with that $500,000. The budget is not doing anything to give assistance where it is needed, to our small businesses and to secondary industries.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.06 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday. February 26, 1973