1973-02-19

PRIVILEGE

[Stage Direction]
MRS. MacINNIS-STATEMENTS BY PRIME MINISTER RESPECTING POSSIBILITY OF CONTROLS ON FOOD PRICES
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, according to media reports the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated over the weekend that suggestions that controls be put on food are crazy. He added that this could not be done without rationing. He stated further that countries that have imposed controls have all excluded controls on food.
My point of privilege is that the statements of the Prime Minister prejudge a decision which the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices has the power to make and his statements are therefore in contempt of the committee, which means they are in contempt of parliament. If the Prime Minister feels he has to make statements of this kind, and since he cannot make them on the floor of parliament while this matter is in the hands of the committee, the place for him to make such comments is before the committee itself, either as a witness or by becoming a member of it. If you find, Mr. Speaker, that I have a prima facie case of privilege, my motion would include a recommendation that the Prime Minister appear before the committee at an early date.
When the Prime Minister appears before the committee I trust he will be prepared to substantiate his statement that countries that have imposed controls have all excluded controls on food. The fact is that what he is saying is not true. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter of debate, but my point of privilege is that the place for this debate is in the committee. Mr. Speaker, if you find that I have a question of privilege I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the statements made outside the House by the Prime Minister concerning controls on food prices be referred to the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices and that the Prime Minister be requested to appear before the said committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether the right hon. Prime Minister wishes to reply to the point made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. In any event, there should be no debate. But the Chair, by long-established practice, has allowed a member who has been referred to in a proposed or alleged question of privilege to reply if he wishes to do so. If this is not to be done in this case, I should have to remind the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway that it has long been established that statements made outside the House by a member of the House cannot form the basis of a question of privilege. On this basis the motion proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway cannot be put. I rule that there is not a prima facie case of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent from the House to move a very important motion concerning the Local Initiative Program and its administration.
In view of the very high flexibility of the criteria used in approving those projects which have been submitted and in view of the very large number of disappointed applicants, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the administration of the Local Initiative Program be immediately reviewed by the appropriate standing committee of this House; and that this same committee call as witnesses the minister responsible for this program as well as all officials directly involved in approving projects, in order to throw light on the real criteria used for approving local initiative projects.


Mr. Speaker:: Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires unanimous consent from the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Does the government intend to proceed with the Pickering Airport?

February 19, 1973
Order Paper Questions
2.	As of this date, how many acres of land have been secured by or on behalf of the Department of Transport by agreements with the owners?
3.	What is the total expenditure to date that has been made on planning, development or for any other purpose connected with the establishment of said Airport?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Transport and Public Works as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	None.
3.	The total expenditures to date, December 31, 1972 for the planning and development of Toronto area airports is $4,028,000. This amount covers all of the investigatory work which has been undertaken in connection with the planning of the Toronto area airports system. In the course of these investigations, many sites were examined, and it would have been impracticable to maintain separate accounting systems for each site. Expenditures in connection with the Pickering site are therefore in the figure of four million. No money has as yet been spent on the development of the Pickering airport.


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


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1. $47,817, $110,569, $102,771, $253,200.
2.	One contract only in the years 1969-70, 1970-71 for the amount of $51,242 to Dubisson Publicite et Conseil Inc., 210 est, rue Sainte-Catherine, Suite 310, Montreal, P.Q., for Auto Road Safety-Breathylizer Campaign.
3.	Nil.


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


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows:
1. 1968-69	1969-70	1970-71	1971-72$216,000	$275,100	$261,000	$299,000
These figures include direct advertising (i.e., purchase of space in periodicals, radio, TV Times, etc.) production of films and TV clips, exhibits and printing of publicity material.
2.	Publicity and information work was done by the department in-house and through federal government agencies with the exception of the following contracts:
Names and Addresses	Amounts Paid	PurposePacesetters Presentations Limited, 135 Railside Road, Don Mills, Ontario.	$ 4,500	To prepare articles on work and organization of Canada Centre for Inland Waters.Hopkins, Hedlind Limited, 95 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto, Ontario.	12,689	To produce a slide-sound presentation and display materials for the public on the work and organization of Canada Centre for Inland Waters.Corpus Publishing Service Limited, 6 Crescent Road, Toronto, Ontario.	1,100	To prepare articles on aspects of water managements, pollution control, resource legislation and related subjects.Canadian High News, 62 Shaftsbury Avenue, Toronto, Ontario.	33,300	To provide for the publication and distribution of 300,000 teaching kits including articles on the Canada Water Act and other information material for Canadian teachers and students.A. Edmonds, 66 Wells Hill Avenue, Toronto, Ontario.	15,000	To prepare a book-length manuscript relating to the chronicle of the circumnavigation of the Americas by C.S.S. Hudson.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Since January 1, 1972 how many industries located or to be located in New Brunswick received grants or loans from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?
2.	In each case (a) what was the amount of the grant to each industry (b) what was or will be the location?

3.	In each case (a) what was the amount of the loan to each industry (b) what was or will be the location?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1 and 2. January 1, 1972 to December 31, 1972, 59 facilities have accepted offers of development incentives from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. No loan guarantees were authorized during the calendar year.
February 19, 1973

2. (a) Amount (b) Location		Name
$ 33,000	Caraquet	Produits Belle Baie Limit6e16,499	Caraquet	Imprimerie du Nord Limit6e105,885	Campbellton	Northern Meat Packers Ltd.28,500	Campbellton	Laiterie Intercity Compagnie Ltee9,150	Perth Andover	Hayward Bakery Limited55,525	Perth	Tobique Enterprises Ltd.101,250	Moncton	Ojibwa Chemical Company Limited42,420	Moncton	Synthetic Foam Products Limited121,400	Moncton	Eastern Reinforcing Ltd.70,000	Moncton	Serta Maritimes Lt6e162,181	Moncton	Brunswick Glass Ltd.39,750	Moncton	Rus-tique Brik Manufacturing Co. Ltd.10,500	Moncton	Hub Meat Packers Limited33,190	Moncton	Serta Maritimes Lt6e35,770	Moncton	Pizza Delight Take Out Ltd.95,250	Moncton	L. E. Shaw Limited23,135	Moncton	Maritime Co-operative Services Limited7,502	Moncton	Acadia Printing (1972) Limited72,370	Moncton	Mr. Antonio Corrazza16,000	St-Anselme	L. Melanson Concrete Products Ltd.33,780	Saint John	Poly-Cello Limited21,875	Saint John	Kon-Krete Limited230,250	Saint John	Novastran Limited13,625	Saint John	G. R. Patstone Ltd.24,383	Sussex	Frameco " Maritimes" Limited687,000	Sussex	Federal Products Ltd.44,650	Sussex	New York Boiler Co. Ltd.77,000	Minto	Carolina Tire (N.B.) Ltd.26,760	Minto	Eastland Industries Limited693,750	Fredericton	A. B. Brantorps110,125	Fredericton	Thermofoam Manufacturing (1972) Limited352,500	Fredericton	Chestunut Canoe Company Ltd.15,150	Fredericton	Centennial Print & Litho Ltd.59,390	Fredericton	York Structural Steel Ltd.36,475	Shippegan	Connors Bros. Limited80,000	Shippegan	Connors Bros. Limited39,000	Shippegan	Gully Fish and Food Products Limited171,085	Marysville	Cosmos Imperial Mills Limited120,765	St. Stephen	Ganong Bros. Limited24,510	St. Sauveur	Gilbert Basque & Fils Ltee30,864	St. Arthur	Oscar Belanger Lumber Co. Ltd.10,950	Nashwaaksis	Central Auto Parts Ltd.24,000	Nashwaaksis	S. M. White (Woodworking) Limited19,200	Centreville	Bernie's Welding Shop Ltd.698,750	Bathurst	SMI Industries Ltd./Les Industries SMI Lt6e44,752	Bathurst	Montreal Armature Works Limited508,500	Milltown	Flakeboard Co. Ltd.75,663	Cherryvale	J. Blois Corey Limited242,000	Veneer Siding	J. D. Irving Limited227,200	Grand Falls	Enflo Canada Ltd.49,098	Clair	Mr. Patrick Levesque200,650	Woodstock	Woodstock Wood Industries Limited150,279	Woodstock	Cygnet Canada Ltd.9,120	Woodwards Cove	Blair Robinson Limited149,300	Naikaioie	Southampton Contractors Ltd.16,800	Sackville	Enamel & Heating Products Limited500,800	Edmundston	Square D Company Ltd.18,276	Edmundston	Cremerie Belzile Limit6e21,300	Shediac	Lasalle Confections Limited
3. (a) Nil; (b) N/A.


Mr. Allard: Following the loss of more than $25,000 sustained by fishermen on the coast of Labrador as a result of the bankruptcy of a fish plant, what action does the government intend to take in this respect?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: The government dqes not con-
Order Paper Questions
template action on behalf of private individuals who sustain losses as a result of the bankruptcy of an independent commercial enterprise.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Was authority given by the government to Mr. Bernard Pinard, Quebec Minister of Transport to discuss commercial relations between the Soviet Union and (a) the province of Quebec (b) Canada, during his visit to Moscow at the latter part of 1972?
2.	What (a) special (b) general authorizations are given to negotiate in the case of (i) Mr. Pinard's visit (ii) any future international such visits by provincial ministers?
3.	What reciprocal arrangements have been made for visits by members of governments of other countries to discuss commercial relations with individual specific provinces in each case?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The government of Quebec informed the federal authorities of Mr. Pinard's visit to Moscow in the company of a number of Quebec business men. Authority to discuss Canada's commercial relations with the U.S.S.R. was neither sought nor granted, since the Quebec minister was, of course, free to promote the interests of the Quebec businessmen's mission of which he was a part.
2.	No special or general authorization was given to Mr. Pinard; nor is such normally given to provincial ministers to negotiate in these cases. Canadian commercial relations with the U.S.S.R. and other countries, in so far as they concern intergovernmental matters, are carried out by the federal government, in most cases through the duly accredited missions of both sides. This does not of course preclude the possibility that a provincial minister might be asked to carry out some function on behalf of the federal government in a specific case.
3.	There are no reciprocal arrangements with other countries regarding discussion of commercial relations with Canadian provinces on a government to government basis. This remains a federal responsibility under the Trade and Commerce Power of the British North America Act. Provincial ministers and officials are, of course, free to discuss commercial matters with visitors from other countries.


Mr. Masniuk: For what reason are decals of the Coat of Arms of Canada being used on postal boxes in the Confederation building instead of the metal plates normally used and (a) how many of these postal boxes have been changed in this fashion (b) on what date were they changed (c) for what reason were they changed?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: The metal Coat of Arms on this type of box cost $3.75 plus installation, the cost of which is hidden in the cost of manufacturing the box. The cost of the decal Coat of Arms is 19 cents and the installation cost is minimal. All postal boxes ordered by the Post Office since May 1971 carry the decal Coat of Arms. The metal Coat of Arms is no longer used since that date: (a) None of the existing boxes were changed; (b) Not applicable; (c) Not applicable.

February 19, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	How much did International Nickel Company of Canada Ltd. receive in manpower retraining grants from the government for each year 1970,1971 and 1972?
2.In each year 1970, 1971 and 1972, how many persons (a) started (b) completed the job retraining program at International Nickel Company of Canada Ltd.?
3.	From among those individuals who started the job retraining program in 1970 at International Nickel Company of Canada Ltd., how many are still (a) with the (b) in the mining industry?


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister of Manpower and Immigration: 1. International Nickel Company of Canada Ltd. received training cost reimbursements as follows: 1970, nil; 1971, $7,896.14; 1972, training in progress, no payments made yet.
2.	The following numbers of persons started and completed training: 1970, nil; 1971, 38 persons started and completed training; 1972, training still in progress.
3.	No individuals started training in 1970 at International Nickel Company of Canada Ltd.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	What is the extent of Canadian development assistance in Afghanistan?
2.	Is Canada sponsoring any major, long-term development projects in that country?
3.	Is Canada sending any food supplies to that country as relief assistance?
4.1s any additional aid now being considered by the Canadian government for that country?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Since 1965 when Canadian Development Assistance to Afghanistan was begun Canada has provided: (a) Programs for twenty-six Afghanistan trainees under the auspices of the Colombo Plan; (b) $2,700,000 in bilateral food aid (wheat) and approximately $1,370,000 in food aid through the world food program, and; (c) a $1,275,000 development loan for the purchase of STOL (Twin Otter) aircraft.
2.	Canada is not sponsoring any major, long-term development projects in Afghanistan.
3.	As noted in Section 1(b) above, Canada has provided a considerable amount of food aid. Although Afghanistan does not have an annual bilateral aid allocation, food aid has been provided in each of the last three years in reaction to the hardships and food shortages which have arisen from an extended period of drought.
4.	Canada is presently discussing two areas of additional assistance: Firstly, a technical assistance program to provide meaningful training for personnel in key ministries of the government of Afghanistan; secondly, further assistance to support Bakhta Afghan Airlines, the government owned domestic airline which received the Twin Otters under the loan mentioned above.


Mr. Lawrence: What expenditures, if any, were made by the government for harbour dredging or improvements for the Lake Ontario Port of Cobourg for each year 1962 to 1972 inclusive?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: 196162, $48,474; 1962-63, $25,460; 1963-64, $19,584; 1964-65, $93,458; 1965-66, $149,669; 1966-67, $373,773; 1967-68, $189,520; 1968-69, $9,618; 1969-70, $47,587; 1970-61, nil; 1971-72, $27,714; 1972-73, $27,770; total: $1,012,627.


Mr. Lawrence: What expenditures, if any, were made by the government for harbour dredging or improvements for the Lake Ontario Port of Port Hope, for each year 1962 to 1972 inclusive?
Hon. ]ean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works): 196162, $47,625; 1962-63, $29,655; 1963-64, $25,827; 1964-65, $17,139; 1965-66, $44,446; 1966-67, $23,196; 1967-68, $45,341; 1968-69, nil; 1969-70, $13,703; 1970-71, nil; 1971-72, nil; 197273, nil. Total: $246,932.


Mr. Lawrence: What expenditures, if any, were made by the government for harbour dredging or improvements for the Lake Ontario Port of Port Darlington, for each year 1962 to 1972 inclusive?
Hon. ]ean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works): None.


Mr. Lawrence: What expenditures, if any, were made by the government for harbour dredging or improvements for the Lake Ontario Port of Port Granby, for each year 1962 to 1972 inclusive?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: None.


Mr. Lawrence: What expenditures, if any, were made by the government for harbour dredging or improvements for the Lake Ontario Port of Bondhead, south of Newcastle, for each year 1962 to 1972 inclusive?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: None.


Mr. Woolliams: 1.	When will the construction of Calgary's new federal air depot at the International Airport commence, and when will it be completed?
2.	How many people used the Calgary International Airport depot for the year 1972, for the purpose of leaving or coming (a) into Calgary (b) into Edmonton (c) into Winnipeg?
3.	In 1972, what was the number of commercial airplanes that landed and took off from the (a) Calgary International Airport (b) Edmonton International Airport (c) Winnipeg International Airport?

February 19, 1973


Jean Marchand: 1. Initial preparatory work on the new Calgary Air Terminal Complex is scheduled to begin in the summer of 1973 and for completion in 1976.
2. Passenger Origin and Destination: Calgary International Airport, 1971*. 1972 data will not be available until August.
Origin	Destination	TotalDomestic	395,790	401,075	796,865Transborder	74,745	73,865	148,610Other International	19,300	20,600	39,900Edmonton International Airport	1971*. 1972	985,375 data willnot be available until August. Origin	Destination	TotalDomestic	386,520	394,365	780,885Transborder	26,945	27,010	53,955Other International	14,900	16,600	31,500Winnipeg International Airport,	1971*	866,340Origin	Destination	TotalDomestic	349,950	352,425	702,375Transborder	52,590	53,360	105,950Other International	22,700	25,000	47,700Calgary International	856,025 Airport, 1971*. Passengers to or	from	Origin	Destination	TotalEdmonton	126,220	128,580	254,800Winnipeg	28,510	28,575	57,085
*1972 information presently not available.
Passenger Origin: The point where the passenger first boards an airline at the beginning of his itinerary.
Passenger Destination: The last point in an itinerary in the case of one-way trips. Usually it is the furthest point from origin in round trips.
Source of Information: Air passenger origin and destination reports 1971, Statistics Canada.
3. Scheduled Services, 1971*
Arriving Departing
Flights Flights	Total
Calgary International	14,376	14,376	28,752Edmonton International	7,706	7,706	15,412Winnipeg International	14,503	14,503	29,006
*1972 information presently not available.
Source of Information: Airport Activity Statistics, 1971. Aviation Statistics Centre.


Mr. O'Connor: 1.	By category (a) how many Local Incentives Programme applications were received from persons or groups of persons in
Order Paper Questions
the constituency of Halton (b) what was the total amount of moneys involved in these applications (c) how many were approved (d) what was the total amount of money approved?
2.	What are the total figures for the same categories for the whole of Canada?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. As at January 18, 1973: (a) 12; (b) $322,780; (c) 3; (d) $90,090.
2. As at January 18, 1973: (a) 14,763; (b) $473,627,362; (c) 4,195; (d) $128,000,000.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Is the numbering of LIP projects made at the regional level or at Ottawa for the whole of Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: At the regional level.
(English]


Mr. Schellenberger: Has the government purchased land in Ponoka, Alberta for the purpose of erecting a new post office and, if so, on what date will construction begin and what value has the new facility?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Yes. Construction tentatively to commence in May, 1973. It is not customary to give estimated costs until a contract has been awarded.


Mr. Gillies: 1.	What are the minimum amounts of United States exchange held by Canada (a) according to International Monetary Fund agreements (b) according to United States interest equalization agreements?
2.	What, at last report, is the current balance of U.S. dollars in the Canadian foreign exchange?
3.	Does the government have any plans for the use of these excess reserves held by the Bank of Canada?
4.	What is the percentage of the Canadian federal debt held by the United States Government and U.S. residents?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows: 1. Zero.
2.	As of December 29, 1972, holdings of United States dollars in the official international reserves of Canada were $4,355 millions.
3.	The United States dollars held by the Exchange Fund Account are invested in assets permitted under section 14(2) of the Currency and Exchange Act. It is intended that they should be continued to be used for purposes specified in the act.
4.	As of December, 1972, approximately 1.6 per cent of the outstanding securities issued by the Government of Canada were held by residents of the United States. No

February 19, 1973
Order Paper Questions
securities were registered in the name of the United States government.


Mr. Stackhouse: Will the Minister of Public Works halt expropriations while the government is reviewing its proposal to erect an airport in the Pickering area?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: In
view of the significance of the new Toronto airport project, the Minister of Public Works did not make a decision to proceed either to confirm or abandon the intended expropriation until he and his Cabinet colleagues had given careful consideration to all relevant factors. However, a decision has now been made and announced in the House January 30, 1973.


Mr. Latulippe: Since the top floors of the Confederation building are unoccupied, has the government considered the possibility of converting the space to sleeping quarters for Members of Parliament who would wish to use same?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: No.


Mr. Wagner: 1.	How many farmers in the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe have applied for the $400 compensation under the Rain Damage Program?
2.	How many applications were rejected, and for what reasons?


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: 1. 1,094 as of January 24, 1973.
2. 204 as of January 24, 1973; Reasons: Applicants certifying they earned more income from off farm sources in 1971 than from farming operations. Lack of or invalid certifications on applications.


Mr. Muir: 1.	Is the National Capital Commission considering taking some form of regulatory charge of the cab industry, as is being attempted by the Quebec National Assembly?
2.	Is the National Capital Commission considering issuing licences to cab drivers and/or companies for use of cabs on the driveways and parkways in the National Capital Region?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: In so far as the National Capital Commission in concerned: 1. No, the National Capital Commission has no jurisdiction over the cab industry except as concerns its use of NCC driveways and parkways.
2. No. National Capital Commission traffic and property regulations were amended December 12, 1972 to allow all taxicabs to travel on NCC driveways and parkways.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	What are the terms of the lease of Port Credit Harbour facilities to Canada Steamship Lines?
2.	Does Canada Steamship Lines intend to renew the existing lease on maturity?
3.	In the event that Canada Steamship Lines should not continue as the prime tenant in Port Credit, has the government any other tenant for the facilities?


Jean Marchand: 1. The Port Credit Harbour facilities are not leased.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	No.


Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to equipping Parliament Hill parking areas with "plug-in" heating facilities?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: No.


Mr. McKenzie: What is the total cost of the Post Office Department current advertising campaign to publicize and familiarize the public with the new postal code?


André Ouellet: The current budget for advertising the postal code is $545,000.


Mr. Laprise: 1.	Has the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce or any other department contributed financially to the research or construction of turbo-trains for use in passenger service between Montreal and Toronto and, if so, in what amount?
2.	Is it intended to contribute further to such research and, if so, in what amount?


John Mercer Reid: 1. No.
2. No.


Mr. Howard: Since January 1, 1971, has the Canada Council received any applications for assistance relating to the writing of a history of any part of the Province of British Columbia north of the 52nd parallel of north latitude and, if so, with respect to each such applicant (a) what was the name and address (b) what was the outline of the work proposed to be written (c) what was the name and address of anyone else who was consulted with respect to the proposed work (d) what was the response given by each such consultant and the disposition of the application by the Council?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canada Council as follows: It is against Canada Council policy to divulge the names of unsuccess-
February 19, 1973

ful applicants. With respect to successful applications, council records do not permit a reliable breakdown of historical writings on the basis described. The following list includes those grant recipients whose work may have some bearing on the history of the areas mentioned.
Research grants: 1. (a) William Rodney, Department of History, Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C. (b) "Klondike Boyle: His Life and Times", (c) and (d) Assessors are consulted on a confidential basis and their names or comments cannot be made public.
2. (a) Reginald H. Roy, Department of History, University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C. (b) "A bibliography of British Columbia, Vol. Ill, 1900-1950".
Canadian Horizons Program: 1. (a) Horst E. von Wittgenstein, 15805 Pacific Avenue, White Rock, B.C. (b) "The Mennonites in British Columbia, a History".
2. (a) Moira Farrow, 4183 West 11th Ave., Vancouver, B.C. (b) "Life story of B.C.'s most interesting pioneers".


Mr. Matte: 1.	Does the government have any well defined criteria for the construction of retaining walls along the shores of the St. Lawrence and, if so (a) who establishes such criteria (b) what are the criteria (c) on what are they based (d) how are such criteria studied?
2.	Is there a criterion of government responsibility if the river channel is less than 3,000 feet from the shore and, if so, on what scientific basis?
Hon. ]ean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works): 1.
Yes. (a) Department of Public Works in accordance with the cabinet policy on shore erosion and protection; (b) A. For distances from the waterway bank equal to, or less than, 2,000 feet from the centre line of the navigation channel, 50 per cent or more of the erosion is considered attributable to navigation; B. For distances from the bank, greater than 2,000 feet and less than 3,000 feet, less than 50 per cent of the erosion is attributable to navigation; C. For distances from the bank greater than 3,000 feet from the centre line of the navigation channel, erosion is essentially attributable to natural phenomena; (c) The criteria are based on engineering studies of the relative energies of ship and wind-generated waves approaching a shoreline; (d) Each case of serious erosion is studied and the criteria applied to determine the extent of federal responsibility and the appropriate course of action.
2. Yes, as mentioned above.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many employees work for the government Translation Bureau in Ottawa?
2.	During the past three years how many persons hired by the Translation Bureau were natives of Europe and the Middle East?
3.	Of this total number hired during the past three years, how many have resigned?
4.	How many people are working for the Translation Bureau as editors?
Order Paper Questions
5.	How many people have been hired during the past three years as editors?
6.	What is the salary of an editor?
7.	What is the salary of a translator?
8.	During the years 1968-69-70-71-72, has the government of Canada granted scholarships for improvement, either directly or indirectly, to subsidize students and to assist certain universities in offering courses in translation and, if so (a) what is the amount of such grants to students (b) what universities received grants and in what amounts?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. On
January 1, 1973, the personnel of the Translation Bureau totalled 1,094, of whom 195 were grant-aided students.
2.	In the past three years, the Translation Bureau has hired 69 persons who were born in Europe and the Middle East.
3.	147 employees of the Translation Bureau have left the bureau during the past three years.
4.	There are 121 revisers (editors) with the Translation Bureau.
5.	In the past three years, 14 persons have been hired as revisers (editors).
6.	Salary range of a reviser: $14,701-$18,376.
7.	Salary range of translators: Translator (TR-1), $6,140-$12,500; Translator (TR-2), $11,727-$15,429.
8(a). Amount of grants awarded to students in translation: 1968-1969, 20 students at $2,400* each, $48,000; 19691970, 60 students at $2,550** each, $153,000; 1970-1971, 126 students at $2,550 each, $321,300; 1971-1972, 150 students at $2,550 each, $382,500; 1972-1973, 195 students at $2,550 each, $497,250.
*Tuition fees $500 plus subsistence allowance $1,900.
**Tuition fees $500 plus subsistence allowance $2,050.
(b). Universities receiving grants (amount of grant: $500 per student per year)
University	1968-69	1969-70	1970-71	1971-72	1972-73$	S	$	$	$Lauren tian	
-	-	1,000	2,000	3,000Laval	
-	-	6,000	15,500	25,500Montreal	
10,000	15,500	17,000	41,500	45,000Ottawa	
-	4,500	10,000	17,000	24,000


Mr. Rynard: 1.	How many tenders were received by the Department of Public Works in connection with Contract No. W-81001, plumbing and drainage work at the Gateway Postal Plant in Mississauga, Ontario?
2.	Was the contract awarded to. the lowest bidder, Simcoe Mechanical Contracting Ltd., Orillia, Ontario and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Had Simcoe Mechanical Contracting Ltd., been awarded previous contracts from the Department of Public Works and, if so, had these contracts been carried out in a satisfactory manner?
4.	Had Simcoe Mechanical Contracting Ltd. carried out larger contracts for the Department of Public Works in a satisfactory manner?

February 19, 1973
Order Paper Questions
5.	If the tender was not going to be accepted, for what reason was Simcoe Mechanical Contracting Ltd. not advised before proceeding to tender for the contract?
6.	Has Simcoe Mechanical Contracting Ltd., been given a complete and factual explanation from the Department of Public Works as to the reason its tender was not accepted?
Hon. )ean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works): 1.
(11).
2. (a) No. (b) The contract was awarded to the second low bidder on the basis of his capacity to perform a complex operation within a tight time schedule.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) Yes.
4.	No.
5.	This was a public tender call. The Department of Public Works does not prequalify bidders on public tender calls.
6.	Yes.


Mr. Godin: Did Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation make any surveys as a result of complaints from purchasers in the residential project known as Place de la promenade in the region of Quebec and, if not (a) for what reason (b) on what date will surveyors be on site?


Stanley Ronald Basford: This residential project was reinspected on January 22 in response to complaints. The manager of the Quebec city branch of CMHC met with the builder on January 30 to discuss a program of remedial action.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot): By province, what was the amount of money collected in Unemployment Insurance Premiums in the years 1970,1971 and 1972?


Robert Knight Andras: The moneys collected for unemployment insurance premiums are not segregated on a provincial basis. This is due to the fact that many national firms do not necessarily remit premiums from the location in which the employment occurs, but through a central pay office. For this reason any such figures would only represent moneys remitted provincially by employers and would not indicate premiums paid provincially by insured persons.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has the Post Office Department initiated a policy of issuing first day covers and, if so, for what reasons?
2.	Is this program in direct competition with private enterprise already providing this service?
3.	What is the charge for (a) Post Office first day cover service (b) private enterprise first day cover service?


André Ouellet: 1. The Post Office has provided special first day cover cancellation

service to collectors and private enterprise since 1949. Since April 1971, the Post Office has also made the official first day covers available to collectors and private enterprise. The practice of issuing official first day covers has been common among postal administrations for many years and was introduced in Canada in response to repeated requests from collectors around the world.
2.	Not in the opinion of the Post Office.
3.	(a) The charge for an Official Post Office first day cover is 20 cents, plus the face value of the stamps affixed; (b) The Post Office fee to affix a stamp and cancel a private cover for a collector or a dealer is 5 cents. If the collector or dealer affixes the stamp himself, or if the face value of the stamp exceeds 15 cents, the special cancellation is applied without charge.


Mr. Reynolds: Is it the intention of the government to begin dredging in Ladner Harbour and, if so (a) on what date (b) on what date will the rest of the harbour expansion be started?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Yes, (a) April 1973, (b) the proposed harbour expansion project is still in the discussion stage.


Mr. Godin: Has the Department of Public Works signed a lease for a building that would be made available to the Post Office at Ancienne-Lorette, in the constituency of Portneuf and, if so (a) were tenders called (b) how many tenders were received (c) what was the amount in each case (d) what was the name of the tenderers (e) on what date does the Department intend to move into the premises?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Yes; (a) Tenders were called; (b) 1; (c) $21,000 per annum; (d) Tremblay and Beausejour under the name of Botran Inc.; (e) Feb. 23,1973.


Mr. Lawrence: 1.	When was the government dock at Bewdley, Ontario, on Rice Lake, first built and what was the original cost thereof?
2.	What expenditures, if any, were made by the government for maintaining, repairing, renovating or improving the said dock for each of the years 1952 to 1972 inclusive?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 1.
1911; $2,437.37.
2. 1952-1953, nil; 1953-1954, $2,325 dredging; 1954-1963, nil; 1963-1964, $12 minor repairs to approach; 1964-1965, nil; 1965-1966, $10 minor repair to approach; 1966-1970, nil; 1970-1971, $1,155 wharf repairs; 1971-1972, nil.


Mr. Godin: 1. Is snow removal at CFB Valcartier paid on an hourly or on a contract basis?
February 19, 1973

2. If on a contract basis are tenders called and, if so (a) how many were received in the 1971-72 winter (b) how many tenderers were there?
3.	For the 1972-73 winter (a) were tenders called (b) how many were received (c) what was the amount of each (d) what are the names of the tenderers?___________________________________
Clifford
(c)	McKinley
1.	Snow Blower-Sicard
2.	Grader
3.	Front end loader, 2 cu. ft.
4.	Front end loader, 3 cu. ft.
5.	Snow Plow on 7 ton truck
6.	10 ton dump trucks
$24. per hr.
13.	per hr.
12. per hr.
12. per hr.
14.	per hr. 3.60 per trip
(d)	Clifford McKinley, Valcartier Village, Quebec; Les Entreprises Raymond Bedard, Loretteville, Quebec; Marcel Legare Incorporated, Loretteville, Quebec.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What was the total amount spent by the government in the constituency of Bellechasse for the October 30 election?
2.	Of this amount, how much was spent for salaries of deputy returning officers and poll clerks?
3.	What was the amount spent for office rental?
Mr. ]ohn M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): The following amounts were spent by the Chief Electoral Officer pursuant to the Canada Elections Act: 1. $53,301.60.
2.	$10,936.
3.	$375. (Total amount spent for the rental of offices for the returning officer and revising officer).


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): To date, what was the total amount paid by the government to Ontario and Quebec farmers as compensation for crop losses that occurred in 1972?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: As of February 6, 1973, $10,492,391.


Mr. Allard: 1.	What was the total amount spent by the government in the constituency of Rimouski for the October 30 election?
2.	Of this amount, how much was spent for salaries of deputy returning officers and poll clerks?
3.	What was the amount spent for office rental?
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. On an hourly rate basis by contract.
2.	Yes. (a) Two. (b) Six firms were invited.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) 3.
Marcel	Les Entreprises
Legare Inc.	Raymond Bedard
$23. per hr. 14. per hr.
12.50	per hr.
12.50	per hr. 20.00 per hr.
5.40 per trip
$25. per hr. 20. per hr.
15.	per hr. 15. per hr. 15. per hr. 4. per trip


John Mercer Reid: The following amounts were spent by the Chief Electoral Officer pursuant to the Canada Elections Act: 1. $59,328.34.
2.	$10,332.
3.	$525. (Total amount spent for the rental of offices for the returning officer and revising officers).


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent for all purposes on the St. Lawrence Islands National Park during the last fiscal year?
2.	Are there any national parks where (a) more (b) less money was spent during the last fiscal year and, if so (i) where are they located (ii) how much was spent in each case?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Total amount of money spent at St. Lawrence Islands National Park during the last fiscal year was, $467,076.
2. The following is a list of total expenditures at all National Parks where either (a) more or (b) less money was spent during the last fiscal year:
National Parks	More Money	Less Money(by Province)	Spent	SpentNewfoundland	Terra Nova	$ 946,806	Gros Morne	813,445	New Brunswick	Kouchibouguac	494,895	Fundy	848,559	Nova Scotia	Cape Breton Highlands	1,619,022	Kejimkujik	599,268	Prince Edward Island	Prince Edward Island	1,246,460	Quebec	Forillon	1,633,514	La Mauricie	1,792,520	
Orders for Return
National Parks	More Money	Less Mone(by Province)	Spent	SpentOntario	Georgian Bay Islands	$387,838Point Pelee	1,121,032	Pukaskwa	187,039Manitoba	Riding Mountain	1,674,070	Saskatchewan	Prince Albert Alberta	1,242,823	Banff	4,130,128	Elk Island	542,300	Jasper	4,027,980	Waterton Lakes	1,039,349	Wood Buffalo	2,938,357	British Columbia	Pacific Rim	1,507,732	Kootenay	1,141,656	Revelstoke-Glacier	1,908,872	Yoho	1,778,235	Northwest Territories	Nahanni	12,000



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN


Mr. Coates: Between September 1 and October 30, 1972, were government aircraft used by individuals other than the Prime Minister and Menbers of the Cabinet and, if so, in each instance (a) under whose authority was the aircraft in question released (b) what was the purpose of the flight (c) what was the destination of the flight (d) what were the names of the individuals on the flight (e) were all employees of the Government of Canada and, if not, what was the reason for their being on the flight in question?
Return tabled.



FOOD IMPORTS 1970-71

Mr. Wise: What food products, both raw or processed, were imported into Canada in the years 1970 and 1971 and what was the volume of each?
Return tabled.



PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION-EXPENDITURES FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND CONSULTING SERVICES

Mr. Nystrom: 1. What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal year 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Public Service Commission on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?

2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of asking questions is to get information, and it seems impossible to get any information concerning Wheat Board operations. Question No. 51, dated January 4, is as follows:
As of (a) July 31, 1972 (b) December 31, 1972, what were the estimates by the Wheat Board of the number of bushels of wheat of grades available for export under the several agreements with Mainland China and the U.S.S.R. in storage (i) on farms (ii) in elevators of all kinds?
The answer to that question is available to the minister and has been available for the last four weeks. There is also question No. 55 which concerns farmers all over western Canada. It is dated January 4, and reads as follows:
1.	What was the total amount paid for demurrage by the Wheat Board in 1972 for ships which were held up in Vancouver Harbour awaiting wheat cargoes?
2.	Is the Wheat Board to receive payment of said amount from the government of Canada or, if not, is it to be considered as a marketing expense which will come out of the farmer producers?
Both of those questions should have been answered long ago. The minister has the information and simply is not placing it before the House because it will be embarrassing. I ask that he give the answers to these questions at the next opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that the answers, embarrassing or not, will be available on Wednesday.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I asked for the minister to give his assurance, not some subaltern.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister rises on a question of privilege.


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has indicated that these answers are likely to be presented on Wednesday; in fact, I dealt with them in my office a few days ago. My question of privilege relates to two things. First, the right hon. gentleman is suggesting that some of the information with regard to these questions was available to me for a certain period of time. The first time I saw that information was when I signed the answers to the questions in my office on Thursday or Friday. Second, I must also say that I object to the right hon. gentleman's suggestion that there is some reason for embarrassment or other purpose or motive in connection with the failure to bring the questions forward. I think that is a breach of
February 19, 1973

the privileges and traditions of parliament and not to be permitted, even from the right hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to withdraw; my statement stands. There is concealment from the farmers because the minister is afraid of revealing the information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council to three questions I placed on the order paper on January 11 which have not been answered, namely, Nos. 257, 273 and 274. Because the answers should be fairly straightforward I think they should have been forthcoming before now. Like the right hon. member for Prince Albert, I realize that two of the questions may be an embarrassment to the government, but I do not see any reason why the answers should be held up. I wonder whether we could have some idea of when the answers might be forthcoming.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I shall be delighted to look into it.


Mr. Hees:: As the Prime Minister says, "in due course", which means eight months from Wednesday.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I express the hope that the answer to starred question No. 811 will be given by the Minister of Finance on Wednesday?


Mr. Nielsen:: It could be available tomorrow.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Now that the elevator constructors' strike has entered its 178th day, with some 2,300 workers idled in every province, with building projects worth tens of millions of dollars being delayed in urban areas, creating more unemployment, would the Minister of Labour now accept some responsibility and attempt, working in conjunction with provincial authorities, if necessary, to conciliate this dispute which is the first such national strike in Canada's history?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Hon. ]ohn C. Munro (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member feels so strongly, would he be good enough to advise the premier of the province of Ontario-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: -whether he is prepared to turn over to me what, constitutionally, is his responsibility? Then I will consider an answer to the hon. member's question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member. Is the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Del-ta rising on a point of order?


Mr. Reynolds:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Being new in the House I am not sure what the Minister of Labour meant by his answer, but do I take it that it is now government policy for opposition members to deal with provincial premiers?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member who had the floor wishes to ask a supplementary.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is again directed to the Minister of Labour. I can assure him that I have gone a little farther than he has suggested and have actually contacted the company representatives and the union representatives. Would the minister inform the House whether he will take action this afternoon to help reconcile the strike of elevator constructors, bearing in mind that this morning Mr. Leo Moore, Canadian Vicepresident of the union involved, and Mr. E. M. Tuff, chief negotiator for the companies involved, told me that they would welcome any federal assistance that might be forthcoming? I can give the minister their telephone numbers, if he likes, but let us have some action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, neither the federal government nor the federal Minister of Labour has any responsibility in the matter. We have no legitimate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Carr Munro: -basis from which to operate, and the parties know that. However, if the provinces, including the province of Ontario, invite me to intervene and be helpful, then I will have a basis upon which to make a contribution toward the settlement of this dispute. Until that happens this government and I are powerless.


Erik Nielsen: Why don't you offer to help?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have offered.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance, in view of the doubletalk I have been getting from the Minister of Labour.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask his question. This is not a debate. The question period, as much as possible, should be devoted to straightforward questions and answers. It seems to me that all hon. members ought to bear this in mind. Perhaps the hon. member should ask his supplementary.

February 19, 1973
Oral Questions


George Harris Hees: The hon. member accused the minister of indulging in doubletalk. I think he was being very kind.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance inform the House whether he is aware that the proposed wage settlement in the elevator constructors' strike would result, possibly, in a 97 per cent wage and fringe benefit increase in that industry within the next five years, or about three times as large an increase as was awarded in the comparable settlement in the United States where the same parties in that country were bound by the Nixon guidelines?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I know the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a speech. He is not asking a question. The hon. member for St. John's East on a supplementary.


ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS' STRIKE-SUGGESTED FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN INDUSTRIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. As the Liberal government of Nova Scotia proposes, with the other provinces, to set up a provincial industrial disputes commission to get around the niceties of the constitution, is the minister prepared to use his good offices and the facilities at his disposal, to assist in the setting up of the commission and to work closely with the provinces in order to bring about the settlement of this costly dispute?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, aside from the question of whether the setting up of a commission would rapidly settle the dispute, which is a very open question in itself, I have already said that, because of the serious economic implications of this strike, I and the government would be prepared to assist in any possible way but that we must have a basis upon which to act and that must come from the provinces.


OIL-EASTERN CANADA SUPPLY-FEASIBILITY STUDY ON PIPELINE EXTENSION-ASSURANCE OF SUPPLY BY UNITED STATES
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of the announcement that there is to be a substantial increase in the price of Venezuelan crude oil. As the area east of the Ottawa River is largely dependent on this source of supply, I want to ask the minister whether his department or the National Energy Board have completed the feasibility study on extension of the interprovincial pipeline, which his predecessor announced was under way, and whether the findings of that study will be made available to members of the House?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker. I remind the hon. member that the price differential between Montreal and western oil is between 90 cents and $1. Even if the Venezuela price goes up, it will still be substantially below the Canadian supplier.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I asked whether the study is under way or is completed. In view of the discussions that have been going on between the minister and his counterpart in the United States government regarding contingency plans to ensure security of supply for eastern Canada in the event of a crisis, can the minister tell the House whether he has received any assurance from the United States government regarding security of supplies for eastern Canada apart from the promise they would put forth their best endeavours to see that oil would be made available to eastern Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I have told the House several times, there is no agreement between the two governments at the moment. Officials will be meeting to negotiate further possible terms, but at the moment there is no formal arrangement between the two governments.


POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AUTO PACT TERMS AND SUPPLYING OF LARGE QUANTITIES OF OIL AND GAS TO UNITED STATES
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of reports that the United States Senate interior committee, chaired by Senator Jackson, secured information from White House officials to the effect that favourable terms for the Canada-U.S. auto pact would be dependent upon Canada agreeing to supply large quantities of oil and gas to the United States, I ask the minister whether, in the trade discussions that have been carried on with the Americans, the supply of large quantities of oil and gas to the United States is the price Canadians will have to pay to get favourable terms in the auto pact?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the fact that the government of the province of Quebec has granted substantial increases for certain categories of pensions under the Quebec Pension Plan, does the minister intend to inform the House whether
(Mr. Speaker.]
February 19, 1973

there will be a readjustment of the Canada Pension Plan payments at a rate at least equal to those paid by Quebec?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister oi National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this proposal was put forward as early as 1970 by the federal government. New proposals were also made recently. However, any amendment to the Canada Pension Plan must be agreed to by two thirds of the provinces having two thirds of the population. It has been impossible to date to reach an agreement with the provinces.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the recent unemployment figures which indicate that the rate of unemployment in British Columbia has increased to 9.9 per cent and is now one of the highest in the country, is the minister prepared to designate any areas as depressed areas west of Revelstoke, which is now the most westerly designated area?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to consider new areas or changes in existing areas. The initiative in such cases generally comes from the provinces. We will be having further discussions with the government of British Columbia on this question, hopefully within the next two or three weeks.


CANADA-UNITED STATES-ACTION TO REOPEN NEGOTIATIONS-CANADIAN PROPOSALS FOR REVAMPING INTERNATIONAL MONETARY SYSTEM
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the trade relationship between Canada and the United States is taken much more seriously in Washington than here, has the minister now decided to take the initiative in reopening negotiations in order to seek an early reconciliation?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the question at all. We regard our trading relationship with the United States as most important. Probably the greatest trading relationship in the world is that between our two countries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would be most obliged to the minister if he would answer my question. Does he not agree that it would be in Canada's best interests to recommence
Oral Questions
negotiations at once before the United States trade bill has been finalized and presented to Congress?


Alastair William Gillespie: As I have told the House on previous occasions, discussions have taken place between United States and Canadian officials. Discussions are going forward now, and further discussions will take place. The very nature of the relationship between our two trading countries is such that irritants are bound to arise from time to time and there will be continuing discussions. It is very much an ongoing process, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have one more supplementary, directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the widely held belief that there can be no rational solution to world trading problems until the international monetary system has been thoroughly revamped, can the minister advise us whether Canada has presented the committee of 20 with any specific proposals for reform?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Last May I spoke to the international bankers' conference in Montreal. I followed that up with a proposal to the international monetary conference in September. We further refined our proposal two or three weeks ago in Washington during the meeting of deputies of the committee of 20 and I shall be in Washington on March 26 and 27 to explain it even more fully.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will you tell us tonight what that proposal is?


POSSIBLE EFFECT OF CANADIAN OIL EXPORT CONTROLS ON UNITED STATES ATTITUDE TOWARD NEGOTIATIONS ON OTHER MATTERS
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: have a supplementary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce arising out of suggestion in the press that some of his counterparts in the United States regard the controls placed upon the export of Canadian oil as perhaps a political move. What steps has the minister taken to assure his counterparts in the United States that the controls placed upon the export of Canadian oil to the United States are really necessary, in view of the effect these restrictions might have on the attitude of the United States toward negotiations on other matters?


Alastair William Gillespie: In this matter, as in other matters of importance between our two countries, consultations have taken place. United States officials were made aware of our intended action before the announcement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is that all you did? Sounds pretty careless.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I should like to ask the minister a question in the light of his answer to my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition. If there was consultation, did the United States officials agree to these controls? Did they acquiesce in them? Did they say they were necessary?


Mitchell William Sharp: Do you want them to make our policy?

February 19, 1973
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I might respond. The United States was advised in advance. Canada did not feel it necessary to seek approval or disapproval of any American officials in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State of which I gave notice on Friday. Will the minister advise what assurance he has received from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that it will not be a party to an illiberal proposal which would give the police a measure of control over news during crises-a proposal which has been quite rightly criticized by the police association?


James Hugh Faulkner: I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. I am informed by the CBC that the CBC is in no way a party to any possible control of information by the police or others.


Mr. Fairweather:: Can the minister tell us whether the Canadian Radio-Television Commission is taking any action to study this plan which could result, if implemented, in a serious limitation of press freedom? I suppose I ought to direct that question to the Minister of Communications.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as it became evident, after a letter was sent to both broadcasting associations by the chairman of the CRTC, this agency was not aware at all of those agreements and an explanation by the broadcasters was requested.


PROPOSED POLICE CONTROL OF NEWS DURING CRISES- POSITION OF ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Erik Nielsen: I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. May I ask whether any policy is being evolved within the police security planning and research group to step into this field should they assess a situation as one which affects national security?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: There has been no plan, no agreement whatsoever, by the RCMP or the police security planning group with respect to this matter. There had been a meeting between the former Solicitor General and the radio broadcasters, but it was merely with respect to the forcible occupancy of radio stations during crises such as the general strike last year.

It had nothing to do with respect to direction of news or control of news.


DISCUSSIONS TO EXPEDITE DELIVERY OF QUOTAS BY SASKATCHEWAN FARMERS
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Further to the questions that have been directed to the minister in the past several weeks in regard to plugged grain elevators in Saskatchewan, can the minister inform the House whether he has held discussions with the transportation committee and/or the Canadian Wheat Board and received any assurance that farmers who have been unable to deliver their quotas will be able to do so?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have been having regular discussions, both at the official level and between myself and the Canadian Wheat Board, about the expeditious movement of grain. Certainly the basic position of the Wheat Board is that there will be an adequate opportunity for delivery of grain during the course of the current crop year. In addition, special consideration will be given to granting additional time for deliveries at any elevator point that is congested at the termination date for a delivery quota.


Mr. Beaudoin:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Richmond-

The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has a supplementary so perhaps he should be allowed to ask his supplementary and then I will recognize the hon. member for Richmond.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, since this situation has existed for some time, may I ask the minister whether he has had conversations with the elevator companies and the Canadian Wheat Board regarding the congestion that exists at these delivery points, and will he report to the House in the very near future on what action he is going to take in the near future, not next August?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there have been such conversations and the action that is being taken has already been indicated to the House.


POST OFFICE
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. Postmaster General.
February 19, 1973

Since the authorities of Windsor in my riding have made representations to the hon. minister to obtain home delivery within the city boundaries, would the hon. minister tell us if his department intends to respond favourably to this request? If so, when will this be done?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, following the request made by the Windsor authorities, I have asked my senior officers to conduct a new inquiry which will determine if this municipality can indeed be advantaged by a postman service which would distribute the mail. If this inquiry establishes that the locality now has 2,000 delivery points, I can assure the hon. member that we will provide such a service as quickly as possible.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the throne speech promise to meet with the provincial governments to discuss and examine the impact of freight rates on economic development and consumer prices, and in view of the statement emanating from the recent Halifax meeting that the initiative rests with the federal government and the railways, will the Prime Minister tell the House what action has been taken to implement this throne speech promise?
Oral Questions


STUDY OF PROBLEMS AFFECTING WESTERN CANADA
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Transport which also arises out of the throne speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope that the question is a supplementary, though I would doubt that, simply because a question also refers to the throne speech, it really would be a supplementary. I think an effort is being made this afternoon by hon. members, certainly by the Chair, to recognize as many members as possible by permitting as few supplementaries as possible. However, I recognize the hon. member for Vegreville.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but with all due respect I believe I have a right to be heard. My question has to do with the study due to take place in co-operation with the western provinces respecting transportation needs. In light of the fact the minister indicated that a meeting was going to be held with the maritime provinces, can the minister outline to the House when this study of transportation problems affecting the west is going to take place?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning it had been almost agreed that CNR and CPR officials would meet the premiers or, at least, representatives of the prairie provinces. If the latter want to consult each other prior to meeting the railway officials before the end of March, I think we will be able to meet them after this meeting and have an exhaustive discussion on the freight rates.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has announced in the House a few times that such meetings either had gone on or were contemplated. In my letters to the premiers of the provinces regarding a federal-provincial conference of first ministers, I indicated that at this level we would be looking at the result of meetings between the ministers of transport of the various provinces and the federal government.


Charles Humbert Thomas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I will direct to the Minister of Transport. Since the railways have reportedly told the maritime premiers that freight rates should be determined by market forces without consideration of the national interest, is the minister now prepared to meet immediately with the premiers and the railways and to make some decision regarding the responsibilities of our national carriers and what type of assistance should be provided in lieu of freight rate increases?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we intend to meet the maritime premiers as soon as possible so as to have an exhaustive discussion on freight rates and I think I will be able to do it within the next few weeks.


NATIONAL PARKS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development having to do with requests that have been made for ski facilities in various national parks across Canada. Would the minister let the House and the country know whether any decision has been made by the government with respect to the requests for such physical facilities for skiing to be provided in these various parks either by the government or by private industry?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, until now in all national parks the government did not create any ski trails at Jasper or Banff; they have been created by private industry in compliance with government regulations. We have not developed any specific program relating to ski facilities in national parks, but I understand that the right hon. member would like to know the situation in the Prince Albert park. We are currently studying this situation and no decision has been taken as yet.

February 19, 1973
Oral Questions
lEnglish]


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the minister for giving an explanation of this matter. Can he give the House any idea when a decision will be made, since we have no ski facilities in the park in northern Saskatchewan?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I quite understand the problem of the right hon. member for Prince Albert. It seems, however, that to date private industry has not been interested in creating a ski centre in the Prince Albert park. As for the government, it has never created any ski centre in any national park.


VETERANS AFFAIRS	.


POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE IN WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES AND DISABILITY PENSIONS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the welcome assurance he gave on Friday to the effect that there will soon be an announcement of government policy respecting the ceiling on permissible income under the War Veterans Allowance Act, can the minister say whether that announcement of government policy will also include proposals to increase the amount of the war veterans allowance and the amount of the basic disability pension under the Pension Act?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in a reply to the hon. member may I say that the government is giving this matter consideration and that an announcement will be made shortly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Might it be tonight?


ELIGIBILITY OF PEACE RIVER FARMERS FOR SPECIAL ASSISTANCE IN LIGHT OF ADVANCE PAYMENTS BY WHEAT BOARD-FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. In view of the government's policy of assisting Canadian farmers in adverse positions with advance payments for their products under the policy of the Wheat Board, is the minister aware that the Wheat Board is informing the recipients of such advances in the Peace River country that as a result of such loans they do not qualify for any assistance announced by the Minister of Agriculture a couple of weeks ago?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, I certainly was not aware of that. I would be happy if the

hon. member would let me have the evidence of such a report and I will take it up from there.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that the Wheat Board is threatening or starting foreclosure proceedings against some farmers in the Peace River country?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the exact words used by the hon. member may be inaccurate. The Wheat Board is taking civil action to collect moneys which have been owing on cash advances sometimes for as long a period as four or five years. This action is necessary in order to give the Wheat Board appropriate priority in respect of the claims against the farmer who was indebted and did promise to deliver grain but has not done so. Needless to say, the question of what action will be taken after the actual issuance of a writ is a matter for further consideration by the Wheat Board, but the issuance of a writ is frequently necessary to protect the claim.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is he now in a position to tell us what, if any, have been the results of the consultations he promised to have with his officials with a view to bringing into line the pay and allowances of soldiers serving in Viet Nam with the salaries paid to employees of the Department of External Affairs?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It will be in the budget.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we are still in the 60-day period as I indicated when answering this question before, but consultations are continuing.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of the Environment.
Has the minister, like his colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, financially assisted James Bay Indians in order that they may adequately discuss effects of the hydroelectric development on the ecology of the region?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no financial assistance given to the native people through my department. We have, how-

ever, made available to them all of the environmental studies which have been done separately by our department or jointly with the provincial Crown corporation involved.


LABOUR RELATIONS
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. When the government forcibly settled the longshoremen's strike in Vancouver last year, full-time and casual help received increases retroactive to August. Why did the foremen only get a one-month retroactive increase?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question should be placed on the order paper.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In light of comments by Secretary of the Treasury Shultz regarding the action of the Canadian government in evening out movement of exchange rates over the past fortnight, can the minister indicate whether he has received any direct representations from the United States government in respect of the action by the Bank of Canada during the recent currency crisis?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker, we have received no communication from the United States authorities, nor have I received any comment directly from the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. In looking over the reports of his statement this morning, there seemed to be some contradiction in the various reports and I should like to check to see what he really said. I want to reassert to the House that exchange fund intervention is only to maintain an orderly market, and I want to assure both the Canadian people and Secretary Shultz that we have a clean float.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, will the minister advise whether he or any of the officials of the Bank of Canada received any direct intimation that the United States would like the Canadian dollar to float at an appreciable premium over the United States dollar?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, what the United States wants and what Canada feels would be in the best interest of Canada may be different on that particular score, but whatever it is we are allowing the market forces to fix the value of the Canadian dollar.
Oral Questions MANPOWER



SUGGESTED ALTERATION OF ON-THE-JOB TRAINING PROGRAM TO PERMIT MUNICIPAL PARTICIPATION

Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether the terms of the on-the-job training program could be altered to permit municipal participation, and whether the January 31 deadline could be extended to permit municipalities to submit applications?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question involves a matter to which I would give consideration, but the second part is more pertinent since all the funds have now been committed.



SUGGESTED USE OF RETRAINING AND OTHER PROGRAMS TO ASSIST WORKERS LAID OFF BECAUSE OF CLOSING OF NEWFOUNDLAND STEEL MILL

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the announced shutdown of the Newfoundland Steel Mill in St. John's, putting over 200 men out of work, and in view of the fact that many of these people are unskilled, I would ask the minister whether he has had discussions with the province with a view to bringing into force some of the provisions of the manpower retraining and other programs to assist in the already chronically high unemployment situation there?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we will do everything in our power to accommodate the hon. member's suggestion. Discussions are now under way.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs in connection with the elevator constructors' strike. I direct this question to him in his capacity as the minister in charge of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which is the corporation most affected by this strike. What initiative has the minister or his department or CMHC taken to influence a settlement of this strike which is affecting so disastrously the completion of 100,000 dwelling units?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there is no basis for intervention by CMHC in this situation. Occasionally, when complaints have been made to it, it has referred them to provincial authorities.

February 19, 1973
Oral Questions TRANSPORT



PROVISION OF RAILWAY CARS TO MOVE BRITISH COLUMBIA APPLES

Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that British Columbia fruit growers are daily losing export business to the United States because of the lack of rail cars, and in view of the fact they have had to haul apples and load 79 cars in the United States on U.S. carriers, will the minister tell the House why Canadian National Railways is not making cars available to ship these apples?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will make an inquiry into the situation and report to the hon. gentleman shortly.



POSSIBLE DUMPING OF TORONTO GARBAGE BY CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY IN HOPE TOWNSHIP, COUNTY OF DURHAM

Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-DuTham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. Can he inform us whether Canadian Pacific Railway intends to or is even giving consideration to dumping a large portion of metro Toronto's garbage in Hope township in the county of Durham?


An hon. Member:: Where is the urgency of that?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Garbage is a provincial responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, can the minister inform us whether there will be a representative of his department at the press conference being called this afternoon in Port Hope by Canadian Pacific Railway?


Jean Marchand: I am not
aware of that, Mr. Speaker. I can inquire, but that is all I can say.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT


Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Since recommendations of the Gendron report have effectively been published and are being widely discussed, particularly in the province of Quebec, may we, in this House, expect a statement from the Prime Minister or his government concerning the section of the report deal-

ing specifically with the possibility of amending the British North America Act Section 133?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the Quebec government has not released the Gendron report as yet. I personally have not examined it. I will take the hon. member's question as notice and immediately upon release of the report we shall certainly want to study the aspect mentioned by the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Humb-er-St. George's-St. Barbe, but the hon. member for Scarborough West has a supplementary question. The hon. member will be recognized immediately following that.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Considering that the report has not yet been published officially but that the people of the province of Quebec have a very good knowledge of what is in it since it was published in the newspaper Le Devoir and the editor of that newspaper commented upon it quite seriously this morning, would the Prime Minister be prepared to comment on that subject?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the hon. member and the House that on the linguistic question and its relationships to the constitution the government has actually held rather firm positions. We submitted the issue at the Victoria conference two years ago and, at the time, the government of the province of Quebec indicated that it would prefer to wait until the report of the Gendron Commission had been published before taking a final position on the subject. So, the first comments will have to come from the government of the province of Quebec. The federal government indicated once again its desire to guarantee both official languages in the constitution and we came within a hair's breadth of doing it in Victoria two years ago.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Jack Marshall(Humber-Sl. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad you let me sit down for a couple of minutes so I could get over the shock. I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the hardship being caused to citizens and communities by the establishment of national parks, would the minister indicate to the House whether he is considering changing the policy so that people will not be moved against their will?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the question of relocating people when we set up a national park is always of
February 19, 1973

the highest concern for the government but I wish to inform the hon. member that this relocation of people is done by provincial authorities and I would be very happy to discuss the issue with Newfoundland authorities. I discussed the matter with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion a few days ago and I would be very happy to discuss it with the government of the province of Newfoundland.


Jack Marshall: In view of the fact that the Bill of Rights gives Canadians the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof, would the minister renegotiate with the province of Newfoundland that portion of the memorandum of agreement establishing boundaries which will force citizens to be relocated against their will?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the government's intervention in the establishment of a service for the whole population often implies the relocation of people. We proceed through expropriations and I must say that in the present case, the expropriation and relocation procedures are under provincial jurisdiction. However, if they want to discuss the boundaries again with me, I would be willing to consider any request.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs just prior to the October 30 election that the federal government would finance an $80 million waterfront park in Toronto, what steps has the minister taken to implement that election promise?
[Trans lation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in that case it is not a national park but only a park within the city of Toronto and I think that the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Urban Affairs.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the matter of Ronald Patrick Lippert, a Canadian citizen from Kitchener, Ontario, imprisoned in Cuba for the past ten years. Last night on the CBC program "Weekend" it was stated that the minister had announced that the Canadian government has made representations to the Cuban government for the release of Mr. Lippert on
Oral Questions
humanitarian grounds. In view of the fact the minister did not give such a forthright answer in the House when I previously asked him, as recently as last Wednesday, to take such action, would the minister advise the House whether he was misquoted by the CBC or whether at long last the government has decided that it should make such representations to the Cuban government for the release of Mr. Lippert?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman will look at my answer in the House he will find that it is quite consistent with the statement I made outside. The question I was asked outside the House was a little more specific than the one he put to me. If he had asked me the same question, I would have given him exactly the same answer.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a supplementary question. Last Thursday Mr. Rene Anillo of the foreign affairs department of the Republic of Cuba was in Ottawa for the signing of the hijacking treaty with Canada. Did the minister take that opportunity, as I did myself, to discuss the case of Ronald Patrick Lippert with Mr. Anillo? If the minister did discuss this matter with him, is he in a position to give a report on the matter? If he did not discuss it with Mr. Anillo, can he tell the House why he did not?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all hon. members welcomed the reason for which the Cuban vice-minister was here, namely, to sign an anti-hijacking agreement with Canada. That was a very good reason to be here. I have great confidence in our ambassador to Cuba who has been making representations at the right level, which is even above that of the vice-minister. I thank the hon. member for making his personal representations and I hope they will help.



FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORTS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that, according to section 13 of the Fitness and Amateur Sports Act, the minister is eight months late in submitting the annual report of the department to parliament for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972, and thus is in direct violation of the provisions of the said act, can the minister tell the House why this report has not been submitted to date and when we can expect it to be submitted?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if the facts are indeed as the hon. member has reported them, then I regret it infinitely; I shall look into the matter to find out exactly what the situation is in that regard.
1408

February 19, 1973
Supply


Otto John Jelinek: I should like to assure the minister that those are the facts. I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that the government is suggesting a $14.5 million grant for fitness and amateur sports for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1973, and in view of the fact that many sports bodies are patiently trying to prepare athletes from across Canada for the 1976 Olympic games, can the minister tell the House whether he is planning to use the $14.5 million toward aid to Montreal or for assistance in developing a respectable team to represent Canada in 1976, and if in fact we can expect a budget on this matter and when?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, above all I should like the supplementary estimates for 1972-73 to be passed as soon as possible to help with the development of our athletes.
With regard to the budget for next year, just as it happens every year, part of the money will be spent on training Canadian athletes, on developing their physical excellence, not only in preparation for the 1976 Olympic Games but also for the winter games and all other amateur sports manifestations in Canada and abroad.


Mr. Speaker:: There are a number of hon. members seeking to ask supplementary questions. Perhaps they might be asked tomorrow because we have gone beyond the question period. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, February 16, consideration in committee of Bill C-141, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1973-Mr. MacEae-hen (for Mr. Drury)-Mr. McCleave in the chair.
On clause 2-Schedule.
The Chairman:: Order, please. When the committee rose on Friday, February 16, Votes 5a, 10a and 15a in the schedule relating to the Department of Manpower and Immigration were under consideration and the hon. member for Timiskaming had the floor.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, when I spoke on this estimate on Friday afternoon I ran into some flack and was surprised to find the violent objection that was expressed by some of the hon. members to one of the statements I had made. I said that the Department of Manpower and Immigration was developed mainly for a specific minister who had considerable experience in the trade movement in Quebec, and had considerable expertise in the field of labour relations.
I am sure that at the time the department was established it was thought that this would give him an opportunity to develop the kind of training that would allow people to cope with technological change, that is, people displaced because of technological change, and it would also enable him to establish the kind of relationship that would encourage all employers and employees to deal with the government employment agency. As most hon. members are aware, under the previous system the Unemployment Insurance Service handled both employment and unemployment. For many years it was a simple operation. A person went into an unemployment insurance office or national employment agency and made application for a job. If he was unemployed, he went across the office to another counter where he also made application for unemployment insurance benefits, and benefits were paid if the proper contributions had beem made.
When we established the Department of Manpower and Immigration we retained the fundamental concept that a person obtaining unemployment insurance must first register with Manpower, and benefits could not be drawn unless notification was received from Manpower of his registration. Save for this exception, Manpower was totally divorced from the unemployment insurance agency. It was divorced to the extent that Manpower officials were instructed not to help, in any way, shape or form, those who were illiterate and who wished to fill out application forms to receive unemployment insurance benefits. In my opinion, and in the opinion of most people, we made a bad mistake at that time.
There were several reasons for making that mistake. When the then minister of manpower came into office, he brought with him the view that the responsibility for education in all stages was a provincial responsibility. It is a view that I do not share. The old National Employment Service had established what was known as Program V. It was a retraining program. The service had hired instructors and established schools across Canada. In effect, it was training people for technical jobs, jobs for which they could apply in any province. The new minister of manpower violently disagreed with that program. He was of the opinion that educational services had to be obtained through the provinces. As a result, this meant that the qualifications for a plumber in one province were no longer applicable in another province. We had varying provincial standards rather than national standards.
Employers found Manpower totally unsatisfactory for another reason. They discovered that Manpower never really established employment qualifications. When a man comes into Manpower and says, "I drive a truck," he is listed as a truck driver. Those who talk about people getting unemployment insurance and beating the system often point out that there are trucking jobs available for truck drivers. Mr. Chairman, for the first time in my area we recently had three major projects that required the use of 30 ton and 40 ton trucks, able to handle immense loads. Driving one of those trucks is a totally different proposition for the man who comes into Manpower and is registered as a truck driver simply because he was raised on a farm and could drive a half-ton truck.
On occasion the local Manpower office would send out such a person to drive a Euclid, or to drive a truck in the

February 19, 1973

iron pits, or a truck at the very large hydro project in my area. And in many cases those men hurt themselves, and totally destroyed the trucks because they were unable to handle them. Manpower has never been able to establish the qualifications of people registering with it. As a result management reserves the right to do that. Further, Manpower has found that many employers will not accept its referrals. They demand that a referral come to their offices and go through their own employment services.
I see that the minister who was previously in charge of unemployment insurance has arrived in the chamber. He was well aware of that problem, and under the provisions of the new act he established an employee adviser committee. In fact, such a committee in many areas became an employment agency because it was in a position to decide on the qualifications of the individuals making application.
In my opinion, the Manpower officials in my area have done a very good job. They have solicited all employers in the area. They have made every effort to get a job for every unemployed person registering with them. But this is not the case in all areas. I can think of another office not too far away which has ten or 12 employees, and it would be safe to say that they do not place as many people as that in employment in a month. The only employment being provided is in fact in that office. I suggest that we must re-unite these two departments. The Department of Manpower is not serving the role for which it was intended. It is not serving it either in the educational field, in the retraining field, or in the placement field.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, many unions have gone into the employment field. They have done so on a simple basis. They use a hiring hall. They have the ability to assess and guarantee the type of training of the person sent to do a particular job. Here I think particularly of the SIU who will send out a person to a ship knowing full well that he can do the job. They know his experience, and it is almost impossible for them to make a poor referral, unless on moral or character grounds. As I say, they know the qualifications of the individuals concerned. The Department of Manpower is not in that position. With Manpower obtaining education through the provinces, the result has been the development of provincial standards rather than national standards. If you want a national employment agency that works, you must establish national standards, and we are not yet capable of doing that. Mr. Chairman, we should bring this matter to a head and decide what we are going to do with the Department of Manpower and Immigration. I do not think that the functions of that department can be satisfactorily divorced from the functions of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I believe that if a person is unemployed he should be able to draw his benefits in the same place that he seeks employment; the two agencies must be united.
I am surprised that the unemployment insurance offices have drawn up what they call a job search statement. Apparently, they are hiring a large number of policemen around the country to take people off the unemployment insurance rolls, not to provide them with jobs nor make any effort to find jobs for them, but just to take them off
Supply
the unemployment insurance rolls so that they can then apply for welfare. This means that in Ontario, and perhaps Quebec, a job search statement has to be completed by the applicant indicating that he has sought employment in a number of places. I suggest that this means then, that the manpower office is not really a national employment agency.
For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I consulted the main estimates to find out what the Department of Manpower and Immigration is supposed to do and on page 14-10 is the following statement;
Objective-To further the economic growth of Canada by endeavouring to ensure that the supply of manpower matches the demand qualitatively, quantitatively and geographically.
Then, follows a statement of the secondary objectives as follows:
-To help individuals select and obtain productive and personally satisfactory employment through efficient counselling in Canada Manpower Centres.
-To increase the level of skill of the labour force through adult occupational training, thereby providing needed skills for industry and raising productivity.
-To facilitate the adjustment of labour market demand and supply by helping workers relocate to the nearest areas where suitable, more productive employment exists.
-To help members of the labour force and employers adapt to technological and other changes.
-To help reduce fluctuations in employment and shorten the period of unemployment.
Mr. Chairman, in my area those objectives are not being pursued and I suggest they are not being pursued in most areas. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I move that Vote 5a be reduced by $11,689,860 since the department has failed to provide for the needs of unemployed Canadian workers.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. The hon. member for Timiskam-ing has moved that Vote 5a be reduced by $11,689,860 since the department has failed to provide for the needs of unemployed Canadian workers. The Chairman has doubts about the rider that is attached after the figures, and would have to ask hon. members to address themselves to a point of order to show the Chair that the latter part of the amendment is in order. Otherwise, I would have to say that the amendment is not in order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, is the amendment available so that members may look at it?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I would be very pleased to withdraw the rider. I agree that there is probably some question whether there should be a rider.


Robert Jardine McCleave: If hon. members will refer to page 7 of the schedule they will understand the motion. The Chair has only one copy, and I presume no other exists. It is the first vote under Manpower and Immigration, Vote 5a and the motion of the hon. member for Timiskaming is:
That Vote 5a be reduced by $11,689,860.
Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
1410

Supply


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I think it should be readily apparent to members of the committee that the effect of this motion would be to reduce the amount of money in that particular item in the schedule to the sum of one dollar, and I am sure hon. members are well aware of the import of such a motion. It should be pointed out that we are dealing with a supplementary estimate, one which increases the amount originally proposed by the government for expenditure in this particular area.
This motion is very timely because the government's spending program for the Department of Manpower and Immigration needs a thorough examination with a view to the possible elimination of the expenditure of millions of dollars which have been provided for one of its programs. As the hon. member for Timiskaming pointed out, in the main estimates a secondary objective is stated as being:
-To help individuals select and obtain productive and personally satisfactory employment through efficient counselling in Canada Manpower Centres.
I merely read that to lend weight to the point the hon. member for Timiskaming was trying to make through his amendment. Doubtless some of the programs for retraining and upgrading are useful, but some of my constituents tell me of their frustrations in trying to collect unemployment insurance benefits and trying to "obtain productive and personally satisfactory employment through efficient counselling in Canada Manpower Centres". In the last three or four years, hundreds of individuals have complained to me about getting the run around at the manpower centres and their complete frustration at going back again and again for nothing. I know of some people who have been denied benefits on the ground that they are not seeking actively enough to get a job. They have become so frustrated about the lack of help from the manpower centres that they have finally thrown up their hands in despair.
People spend months looking for jobs, going to manpower offices and getting the old "don't call us, we'll call you" routine. Some of my constituents are so frustrated that they have told me they consider the government's chief contribution to solving the problem of unemployment has been giving jobs to people who sit in Canada manpower offices and do nothing-to use the language of some of them-but sit around and pick their noses. When loyal Canadian citizens reach the point at which they are so frustrated by the activities of a department of government that, bluntly and publicly, they use the kind of language about the people in that department, then I suggest there is something seriously wrong with that operation, something which well justifies the kind of motion which the hon. member for Timiskaming has brought forward. Hon. members of the committee ought to think about it. For what purpose are we voting these billions of dollars in this appropriation bill? I imagine several million Canadians are wondering exactly that at this moment, and I think it is time this committee took a darned good look at the proposal to grant supplementary funds for the kind of purpose to which I have been alluding.
If there are not jobs available, and if the people in the Canada Manpower offices cannot serve any useful func-
[The Chairman.]
tion in guiding people to useful and productive work, why keep those offices open? Why not cut down that operation and assist some of those programs involving retraining that may be useful in helping people obtain work. I am not critical of the individuals in my constituency who work in the Manpower offices. Some of them have been doing a conscientious job, and they have become very frustrated indeed. All the same, in my constituency there are four Canada Manpower Centres, three of which until recently have been staffed with several people. In one small office one person was employed for a while; I think there are two so employed now. At the same time, until recently, in my constituency there was not one man employed by the federal government who could answer a single question on how to go about filling out an unemployment insurance claim.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, there are four Canada Manpower offices in my constituency and, until recently, not one single person employed in those offices was qualified to advise a person on how to become qualified for unemployment insurance benefits or tell a person whether or not he was eligible.
I remember some years ago there was some discussion in the House when we had reason to feel that our immigration department and the national employment service, then incorporated with the Unemployment Insurance Commission, were going their separate ways. Some members may recall how the then minister of immigration went to Italy to secure immigrants for Canada, at a time when employment in this country was on the increase. The discussion in the House revealed that the kinds of immigrant workers the then minister of immigration was seeking were actually in surplus supply in Canada, according to statistics available from the national employment service. We thought it sensible to correlate the activities of those two separate arms of government. I suppose many consented tacitly to what was taking place; as far as I can recall, I did. Certainly, not one of us at that time ever thought there would be created across this country manpower offices, each employing several people who were to sit around and have nothing to do. Of course, when I talk about their not having anything to do, I do not suggest that those people find nothing to do. I merely mean that they have nothing to do with regard to those objectives set forth in the program, as set out in the estimates.
The more verbose the language of the estimates becomes, the more I am inclined to believe that the estimates are simply propaganda put out by the government for its own purposes. The estimates at one time simply set out amounts of money to be spent and we were to judge the purposes and merits of appropriations for ourselves, or we could gather information by questioning the minister in committee of supply. Now, there are these elaborate objectives and secondary objectives. For example, under "Objective", with respect to the Department of Manpower and Immigration, we find:
To further the economic growth of Canada by endeavouring to ensure that the supply of manpower matches the demand qualitatively, quantitatively and geographically.
February 19, 1973

Under each of the three headings mentioned, I suggest this program has been a failure. I suggest, furthermore, that putting that sort of language in the estimates serves no purpose, or serves an illusory purpose. We know that the people sitting in manpower offices have no authority. They cannot give direction, nor can they create the kind of economic climate that will make it possible for people to find productive and personally satisfactory employment. Therefore, these grandiose objectives set out in the book of estimates on which the present appropriation bill is based are, to say the least, misleading. For that reason, I urge the committee to give serious consideration to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Timiskaming.
It is up to the minister to indicate why it is necessary to introduce a supplementary estimate for the spending of additional millions of dollars in a manner which many Canadians have concluded is a most unproductive way of using our tax money. Although I have not checked any statistics and do not know how many people are employed in Canada Manpower offices, I do not expect the minister to justify the expenditure of this money by saying that if we close some of these offices, a good many more Canadians will be unemployed. I do not think he would suggest that is the way to cope with the situation. I know unemployment figures have gone up. The point I am trying to make and the point with which the minister should deal is this: why is it that one hardly ever comes across anybody who has found a useful, productive and personally satisfying job through a Canada Manpower office? I do not know the answer. I have not conducted a poll on this question; however, in the last year I cannot remember a single person coming to me and say, "Tom, I have found a pretty good job through the Canada Manpower office."


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Not one said that. At the same time, dozens and dozens have told me, "You know, I have gone to the Canada Manpower office in the constituency and they have told me not to bother coming back, because there is nothing there for me."


An hon. Member:: Right again.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If this is true in my constituency, and I suspect it must be true in other constituencies because the hon. member for Timiskaming made it clear that this holds true for his, I think we should take a good, hard look at this matter before we lightly agree to an increase of this magnitude for this kind of government expenditure. I hope the minister will indicate where he thinks we ought to be going with respect to this whole matter.
I know the employees in Manpower offices could do useful work if they were given the necessary training and authority which would enable them to give guidance and direction to people coming to the offices and asking questions about unemployment insurance applications. This guidance and direction has been sadly lacking, certainly in my constituency. May I say that, ever since I have been a member of this House, I have supported the concept of the unemployment insurance program. Nevertheless, the whole concept of unemployment insurance is falling into disrepute because of frustrations people are experiencing, (a) in dealing with their claims and, (b) in obtaining satis-
Supply
factory employment and help in unemployment insurance matters through Canada Manpower offices.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Chairman, I rise to comment on the remarks of the two previous speakers, particularly in connection with the amendment before us. As is often the case in this House, I find myself in agreement with some of their criticisms and suggestions. I start off on that note with particular reference to the possibility of closer cooperation and co-ordination between the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Unemployment Insurance Commission, an initial reaction that I indicated I shared when I appeared before the committee approximately two or three weeks ago. I hasten to say that I want a little more opportunity and time to examine the reasons that several years ago, led to a considered and deliberate policy to separate what was then the National Employment Service from the operations of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I caution hon. members as, indeed, I caution myself, that before I make any final decision, I wish to examine the thinking that went into that decision.
My initial reaction, however, was to ask the same question, particularly in light of current levels of unemployment and some of the difficulties we have had in the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, the question as to whether it would be better to put these two operations much closer together. The opportunity for that is certainly there now. Whether we should go into a formal amalgamation or merger or a de facto one between these two large agencies, the opportunity is there as they both report to one minister. This has been the practice since my predecessor took over this portfolio about a year ago. I think hon. members were probably a little heavy in their criticisms by going from the statement that there could be improvements in the operation of both unemployment insurance and Manpower, a statement with which I fully agree, to the other extreme of saying that Manpower is totally inadequate, useless and not performing.
In the brief time that I have had this responsibility, I have had some opportunity to examine the performance trends over the past few years. I noted, and I can say this quite candidly that job placements through Manpower centres seemed to take a slight downward dip until the middle of 1970. By an objective examination, I am able to say that since then the department has come up with a better performance in terms of placement, about which the last hon. member spoke. It is improving and, in fact, improving at a rapid rate. For example, in the calendar year 1972, a total of 1,343,000 job vacancies were referred by employers to Canada Manpower Centres across this country. That represents an increase of about 25 per cent over 1971. Those are references by employers to Canada Manpower Centres. It indicates a growing confidences on the part of employers who use the services of Canada Manpower Centres, and refutes the idea suggested by the hon. member for Timiskaming or the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that we consider the unemployment insurance reference to Canada Manpower Centre is not enough because it is not a significant placement agency. I suggest these figures are not indicative of that deficiency, since over 1,300,000 job vacancies were referred by

February 19, 1973
Supply
Canada Manpower Centres by employers. Those references resulted in placements by Canada Manpower Centres on behalf of employers of just under 1 million people; 998,593 to be fairly exact. That represents a 25 per cent increase over the previous year. That does not include short-term placements where jobs are of a duration of one week or less, casual employment, which amount to another 300,000 annually.
I do not suggest that this represents any degree of perfection or in fact a performance with which Manpower officials, the minister or a succession of ministers should be satisfied. However, I think it refutes the argument that we should severely handicap the Manpower department by reducing this vote to $1. This would be a serious reaction to what is obviously an improving performance. This department is on the way up. In almost every area I have been able to examine, it is showing an increasingly efficient operation. There is no doubt about it. The figures I have given indicate that employers are beginning to have greater confidence in Manpower offices across the country. This is reflected in the number of referrals which has increased so dramatically.
With regard to co-operation between the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Canada Manpower Centres, there should be a very deep study and analysis before we can seriously consider a formal merger. There is an examination that is now taking place. In the meantime, there is a very definite program of co-operation between existing Manpower Centres and unemployment insurance offices across the country. In some 144 Manpower offices where there is no Unemployment Insurance Commission office located in the same community, they are taking on the responsibility of providing accommodation to unemployment insurance people. Therefore, there is an extension of the unemployment insurance operation. At the same time, there is full co-operation between the two agencies.
The unemployment insurance benefit control officers were referred to, in a context of the Manpower area, so I think I am entitled to respond that they are not operating as the hon. member said. I would hate to think of them being given the designation, connotation or image of a police system. They have a difficult job to perform. I am concerned that they perform it with understanding of human frailties and with compassion. They are instructed to always give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant with whom they are dealing. Nevertheless, to protect that whole scheme, to keep confidence in it and give it credibility, we have to prove to Canadians generally that people who are getting unemployment insurance are in fact entitled to it.
The benefit control operation is not designed to take people off the rolls and not get them a job. In the ordinary process, people receiving unemployment insurance have to indicate that they are registered with the Canada Manpower Centre. If they have been referred to some kind of job vacancy by Manpower which they have refused to accept, there is an assessment of the situation. If the job vacancy was anywhere decent, in close relationship to the primary or secondary skills of the individual and the conditions of work were reasonably acceptable, we think the claimant should have given consideration to accepting
that job. That is the role of the benefit control officer working in conjunction with the Canada Manpower people. I think it is totally reasonable to say to a claimant who is agreeing to the conditions of the Unemployment Insurance Act to actively search for work while he is enjoying the benefits, that if he is referred by the Canada Manpower Centre to a reasonable job he will seriously consider taking it. It is also reasonable that he give us an indication that he is not totally dependent on the Canada Manpower Centre.
Although the Canada Manpower Centre is fast becoming the primary reference of employers, to wit the number of vacancies I referred to a moment ago, we do not claim nor do we think it ever will contain all the references under its wing of all job vacancies existing in Canada. As an aside, I might say that we recognize the existence of private placement agencies, and the requirement, indeed the desire and the right of individuals to seek jobs on their own. We think this should be maintained, otherwise we would have to go to a totally controlled state where the government tells each individual what he can think, should think, can do or cannot do. But, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask the claimant who is getting the benefit of unemployment insurance payments to also search beyond the Manpower offices. In fact, the indications are that it is performing.
This particular vote refers to administration of training. It is an interesting coincidence that tomorrow, at the request of the Council of Education Ministers from the provinces across the country-including the western provinces, I might point out-I, along with the Secretary of State and one or two other ministers will be meeting with provincial ministers of education, and the thrust of one of their recommendations is that the funds available for adult retraining be increased. This is the very vote which is being attacked by hon. members across the way. The gist of provincial speeches is that they would like more money, not less, yet the effect of the hon. member's motion would be to wipe out the $11 million we need altogether with the exception, of course, of one dollar which would not even pay the postage to enable us to tell the provinces the news of the great disappointment they would suffer if that took place.
What we are dealing with now, this particular training, is the institutional side of the program. On-the-job training is very important as well, of course. We are in the process of comparing the value and the effectiveness of industrial training as opposed to institutional training. Many of the provinces are expressing some concern; they feel that industrial training, which is only in its second year, may signal the beginning of a reduction in the funds available to institutions. We think there is room for both. We believe there is a necessity for both.
The hon. member for Timiskaming drew attention a few minutes ago to the impracticality of aspects of our training of a few years ago in terms of instructing students in the use of heavy equipment for instance. Well, I do not think they could learn to drive a 40-ton truck or a big crane or a big mechanical shovel in a community college. And God forbid that the community colleges would start buying those trucks and that kind of equipment simply to

February 19, 1973

justify their existence; their buildings would probably be knocked down if they did! We have, in fact, recognized this difficulty and that is one of the very purposes of our project to permit direct support to industry through on-the-job training allowances, one which has shown up very well in the preliminary experiments carried out last year.
Incidentally, I can give hon. members some characteristics of the people who were hired. Sixty-two per cent of them were single and 24 years of age or less. This is an area of unemployment which is bothering all of us- young people seeking their first jobs. Just over 11 per cent of those trained under this program had received less than a grade eight education and 81 per cent had been educated up to grade 13. Fifty-eight per cent of the trainees hired did complete their training. Unfortunately, 34 per cent quit voluntarily and about 8 per cent were discharged for one reason or another. Of those who completed their training-and I think this is an indication we are on the right path-93 per cent are employed, 90 per cent of them in the very occupations in which they were trained under this scheme, and 89 per cent stayed with the employer who undertook to train them in the first place. A further interesting fact is this: of all the trainees who were hired, only 7 per cent are known at this point to be unemployed. I think this is an indication that though we may be far from perfection, and while much more must be done to make this project more productive, the whole operation is beginning to take on a good flavour and produce results. I think those engaged in it should be allowed to carry on and that we should not entertain the idea embodied in this motion that the vote before us should be reduced to one dollar, thereby severely handicapping the operations of the Manpower department.
A word about the concern the hon. member for Timis-kaming expressed about the operations of the office in his own constituency. He claims there are more employees in that office than have been placed through it. I certainly do not like to dispute the hon. member's interpretation of the situation but I should be glad of an opportunity to check into it and, if necessary, we might be able to do something about it in a very direct manner. But I hope he is wrong, and was using this particular situation as an example, with poetic licence-I know he is a poet. In any case, I would ask him to reconsider his amendment because the effect of it would be one which I do not think he or his hon. friends or, indeed, any hon. member in any other section of the House would, on sober reflection, desire to bring about. I think their consciences would bother them thereafter if this somewhat mischievous suggestion were carried to the conclusion he seeks.


William Arnold Peters: May I ask the minister a question? I gather he is as confused as I am as to which vote applies to training. I notice that in the main estimates it is vote 10 which refers to the training program, not vote 5. Vote 5 relates to operations. I may be wrong in this assumption, but I did check the main estimates and I believe not.
I will agree with the minister that I did use poetic licence when referring to the number for whom employment has been found. I did, however, make a survey, and 82 per cent of the people who replied stated they had never succeeded in securing a job through the efforts of the manpower offices. In view of this, the talk on the
Supply
streets and the rest of it, I should like to ask whether the manpower operation is conducted differently in the various provinces. In other words, does the record differ considerably as between one province and another in terms of success?


Robert Knight Andras: I frankly admit I should like an opportunity to get a provincial breakdown.


Erik Nielsen: And the territories.


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, indeed. I am always in trouble with the hon. member for Yukon for failing to mention the Yukon and the Northwest Territories explicitly. I know he will never accept-as indeed, I would not, were I in his place- the explanation that these figures were included in the British Columbia figures. But I will get a breakdown for the hon. member. I will give them to him later, if he is disposed to carry on this debate, or if not, I will get them to him privately. I have no doubt in the world that there will be a variation in the statistical performance of various regions owing to the obvious difficulty of placing people in a region of high unemployment as opposed to a region of low unemployment. Without having the figures before me, I am unable to confirm it, but I suspect that in Ontario there will be a higher success ratio since more jobs are available, because unemployment in that province is not as widespread, as in the province of Quebec. However, I should say no more on that subject until I have the facts available.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Chairman, may I make a few remarks with respect to the motion moved by the hon. member for Timiskaming. I listened at considerable length to what the hon. member said, but I can agree with only a very small part of the philosophy he is trying to project at this time. The part of the philosophy I do agree with is that the members on this side of the House have frequently and consistently indicated that the roles of manpower and unemployment insurance should be as one. Both can be effective only if this comes about.
I must give the minister some credit. When he was apprised of this view, he indicated to us during discussion of the miscellaneous estimates that he would like an opportunity to look at the matter and to ascertain why in 1966 it was felt necessary to separate the two. Notwithstanding that the minister has said some 1,300,000 unemployed have been placed by employers and that something like just one million jobs were reported as having been accepted, there still seems to be a heck of a lot wrong with manpower vis-a-vis unemployment insurance. Certainly, I do not hear too many of the people who are looking for assistance and guidance on manpower matters praising the role of the manpower office, so I suggest there must be a breakdown somewhere. Although there are pilot projects which give the individual more choice and may assist him, there must be something wrong with the whole system.
I think I speak on behalf of most hon. members when I say without hesitation that it is not too often we receive letters praising the efficacy of manpower operations. This is why I say there must be something drastically wrong. As far as statistics are concerned, we can appreciate what

February 19, 1973
Supply
they mean but it seems to me there must be greater correlation between the federal government and the provinces in terms of our manpower needs for the future.
On the other hand, the government has created a very high level of unemployment. Although I do not want to get partisan at this time, the whole system has been frustrated by the fiscal and monetary policies of the government which have created unemployment of unprecedented levels. In 1966, there was a scheme whereby the Department of Manpower and Immigration was to concern itself with labour shortages, with the need for national training, mobility programs and improvement of job placement services. However, owing to the high level of unemployment the staff of the department has been unable to handle the workload, and those who have been trying to seek some alleviation of problems that are very real to them have simply been frustrated.
I submit that the minister should seriously consider wedding manpower with unemployment insurance. Indeed, the whole field of labour should be as one. I cannot see how the department can be at all meaningful until that is the case. Having said that, I am also very much aware that unemployed people must register with manpower and with the Unemployment Insurance Commission in order to show there is some inclination on their part to take a job. I should like to ask what happens after they have done so. Is it the fact, as I believe it is, that they sign their name on the register and then that is all? It seems to me no effort is made to assist such persons in terms of finding them a job.
Having once registered, surely to goodness what the manpower officials must do in order to take them off the roll is to find them a job. I venture to say that the vast majority of unemployed Canadians want to work, and that having registered with a manpower office it is then up to that office, as the national employment agency, to find them a job. That, Mr. Chairman, is where they are failing in their task and it is why some people are unemployed for three or four months in the year. If manpower is doing such a great job, why is it so many people remain unemployed for so long a time?
As I say, I am surprised that the hon. member for Timiskaming should move such a motion because he seems to me to have missed the point of the vote, even though his initial suggestion regarding a blending of manpower ans unemployment insurance is a good one. Let me once again put on the record vote 5a, which can be found in the schedule to Bill C-141:
5a Development and Utilization of Manpower program
Development and utilization of manpower- operating expenditures-To extend the purposes of manpower and immigration vote 5, Appropriation Act No. 3, 1972 to authorize payments to a province in respect of any necessary administrative support and inspection services supplied by the province in connection with training provided to adult employees under section 6 of the Adult Occupational Training Act and to provide a further amount of $11,689,861.
Now, what surprises me is that the New Democratic Party, whose members are always talking about standing up for the unemployed and giving them equality of opportunity to become part of the mainstream of our economy,

is attacking the type of policies that give people affected by technological change and technological advancement the opportunity of receiving on-the-job training, which is a very significant aspect of our manpower retraining program, or instruction at an institution.
Despite what the hon. member for Timiskaming says, his motion would have the effect of wiping out assistance given to the province of Quebec, a province where I understand there are 12 to 14 per cent of Canada's unemployed. The situation is even worse in Newfoundland. The situation is so bad there that members from that province raise the problem at every opportunity they get. Ontario is in the same boat since it has masses of people who have been brought to this country and rightly so, to take advantage of what can be a great future for them. But they need this kind of training in order to compete.
As far as corporations are concerned, I know my hon. friends would call them corporate welfare bums. But at the same time, have they ever considered that industry must be put in a position where it is competitive, which means that individuals who work in that industry must keep abreast with technological advances? The New Democratic Party, the champion of the worker, the champion of the disillusioned, now says to them, "Thou shalt not be educated". I take a dim view of that kind of approach, although in some respects I have every sympathy for the hon. member's motion.


Erik Nielsen: Would you ask the minister to confirm that the money for on-the-job training is in that vote?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I believe he has confirmed that. I think there are something like $10 million involved. How could anyone possibly take a stand to reduce that amount to $1?
I am very pleased to hear that the minister is going to meet with the provinces on this whole system in respect of job training. I hope that manpower programs will be looked into and reassessed in terms of needs in various regions and cities, because while I think on-the-job training programs are good there is something wrong with a system under which less than half of those who are graduated are able to acquire the jobs for which they were trained. In view of that, we must be very careful about these job training programs in times of high unemployment. We must reassess our priorities in terms of training because there is no point in having highly trained people who cannot find employment and just add to the unemployment rolls.
With all due respect to the minister, who I know always looks kindly upon advice, when he gets together with the provinces he will have to determine where we are going in the next five years and what type of skills will be required. There is no sense training people if, when they are trained, they cannot get work. The minister will have to give the provinces some guarantee as to an accepted rate of full employment, whatever that may be. The Minister of Finance says it will probably be around 6 per cent. I think that is very encouraging. Whether or not he realized just what he said, I do not know, but I hope that when the budget comes out tonight it will be a panacea for all regions of this country. I am sure that is what the people
February 19, 1973

expect. If it is not a panacea, the government will not get much support from my friends to the left. They apparently want to cut out this type of training so you can see how vicious they can be when they want.


Erik Nielsen: The so-called party of the working man.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The key to this whole thing is the provision of high employment opportunities. We cannot continue to do what we have been doing in the last couple of years when our fiscal and monetary policies have created massive unemployment which ruins and frustrates all manpower programs. These programs are geared to normal circumstances, and "normal" in this sense means a minimum of unemployment, not high unemployment.
I hope when the minister speaks with his colleagues he will pass on the message that these programs are good but we should not continue education in terms of those skills which are not needed or become obsolete. These programs seem to absorb people and make things look good, but at the end of the program period these people are again out on the streets without employment and are perhaps tapping the Unemployment Insurance fund.
I do not think I have to continue talking about this matter.


Mr. Railton:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Samuel Victor Railton: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think there has been an incorrect statement. In our area 70 per cent of the people who received on-the-job training were working within three months of the time they completed their courses.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. The hon. member for Welland has made a statement rather than a question of privilege. He apparently takes issue with the statement of the hon. member.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I accept that statement, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to know that is the situation in the hon. member's area. What I was stating was that the minister's own figures in respect to manpower on-the-job training would indicate that less than half of those trained received jobs for which they were trained.


Robert Knight Andras: Oh, no, no.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If I am wrong I know the minister will correct me, but my understanding is that less than half of those who graduated from the on-the-job training program were able to acquire the jobs for which they were trained. If I am wrong, I will sit down and let the minister correct me.
In any event, we might have been happy had the NDP come up with a sensible motion which intended to accomplish that which the keynote speaker of that party indicated in terms of manpower needs. Perhaps hon. members of that party have an excellent point, but when they try to tamper with and trample upon training programs which are really needed, speaking on behalf of this party we
Supply
cannot go along with them. We will vote against the motion.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. The Chair must make a confession to the committee. Under the provisions of Standing Order 58(13), during the proceedings in respect of any item of business under the provisions of this standing order no member may speak more than once or for longer than 20 minutes. I am afraid we have departed from this practice in the last few days, particularly in respect of some members of the ministry.
I just draw this to the attention of hon. members, although I realize it would be an injustice if we now invoked this rule against ministers who have been asked to reply to certain arguments or allegations. I think it should be applied in respect of subsequent items in this schedule. This has been an omission on the part of the Chair which will be corrected at a future time. I will not invoke the rule in respect of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who has been invited to make certain responses to the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed I wonder if you would be so kind as to cite the order again so that I might look at it?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes it is Standing Order 58(13).


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Chairman, I will be as brief as possible. I would like to confirm for the hon. member for Hamilton West the terrible damage that this motion might have done. I was pleased to hear the hon. member's stated intention not to support the amendment. Any hon. member who votes for the amendment now before us should come with me tomorrow to face those ministers of education from the provinces and tell them they cannot get any more administrative money for a co-operative manpower training program across this country. I would hate to face them and have to tell those fine gentlemen from Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia the source of this damage to the programs, particularly when they are coming here to plead with me for more assistance rather than less.
Perhaps I might take one more brief moment to give the provincial breakdown requested by the hon. member for Timiskaming. In the Atlantic provinces, there were 119,985 vacancies notified to manpower centres and 96,267 placements. These figures are related to regional breakdowns, but they could be given on a provincial basis if the hon. member so wishes. Unless he indicates otherwise, I will proceed on a regional basis.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Go ahead and give them on a provincial breakdown.


Robert Knight Andras: In the province of Quebec there were 278,853 vacancies, with 209,793 placements. In Ontario, as one might have expected and I indicated this earlier, there were 466,548 vacancies reported by employers to manpower centres, and of these, 348,810 were filled as a result of CMC references to these employers. We will have to take provincial breakdowns in order to avoid offending the hon. member for Yukon. In Manitoba there were 52,000 vacancies referred and 35,970 jobs filled. In Sas-
1416

February 19, 1973
Supply
katchewan, there were 30,169 vacancies notified by employers and 21,146 placements. In Alberta there were 97,112 references by employers and 65;505 placements. In the Northwest Territories there were 3,211 references and 2,362 placements. In British Columbia, there were 150,998 and 120,436 placements. In the Yukon, there were 2,352 vacancies, and 2,140 placements as a result of those references by employers to the Canada Manpower Centres.
This is the information for which the hon. member asked me a few minutes ago and I am pleased to be able to place it on the record.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, what are the breakdowns for the Atlantic provinces?


Robert Knight Andras: In Newfoundland, there were 27,046 vacancies notified by employers to CMC, and 21,525 placements.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe it.


Robert Knight Andras: In Prince Edward Island, there were 8,478 references and 7,841 placements. In Nova Scotia, there were 48,572 vacancies notified and 38,211 placements. In New Brunswick, there were 35,889 references of vacancies and 28,690 placements.
I might indicate for clarification that these placements to which I am referring do not include casual placements of a week or less and that across Canada those totalled an additional 300,000 short-term jobs for casual employees.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. Perhaps the only way that I and my colleagues from the Northwest Territories can see this done is to rise each time on a question of privilege. These figures are the kind of figures we would like to see recorded in all returns. The minister has given them to us, but where the failure arises is that they are not included in statistical releases, such as, for instance, the report on the operations under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The minister has them and all that the printers have to do is to publish them in separate statistics. I hope that his officials will ensure that that is done in the cases of the two northern territories in the future.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Chairman, I rise on the question of privilege. I agree entirely with the hon. member. I thought that he would rise to thank me, at least to recognize that we did have the statistics and put them in separately, having missed doing so a few other times. So long as the performance is as good as this one, I would be delighted to have those figures included in the future reports of the Unemployment Insurance Commission or of this agency and other agencies with which I am related.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply for a moment to my friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West. This party has always been interested in the working man and woman. We have always held that unemployment insurance was no substitute for a salary well earned. But it seems to me rather strange that, since unemployment was created in an attempt to slow down inflation, we are now blaming people for the mess in which they find themselves. As we all know, it is a requirement that an

unemployed person register with a manpower centre when applying for unemployment insurance. Yet, on the other side of the coin, it is not required that every available job in Canada be registered with manpower. To give you an idea of the situation in the Sudbury district, at the moment there are 7,600 people registered with manpower looking for work, and yet that office only has a turnover of 400 jobs a month. I suggest that the manpower office in that area is not performing the service which it should perform in terms of placing these people in jobs.
I have also noticed that the unemployment insurance office has now established what is called the claimant's assistance program. It seems to me that this program on which they are embarking falls within the realm of manpower centres in that it offers counselling to those who are unemployed in an attempt to help them make up a resume in applying for a job. I have also noticed that the manpower centre is now turning people over to the unemployment insurance office in cases where people are not interested in a part time job or where the job offered to them by the manpower centre is located too far from the place where they live. It seems to me that on the one hand we want to assist people and, on the other hand, we establish a gestapo-kind of operation.
I want to say a few words on some of the practices in manpower offices in terms of discriminating against those people who want retraining for other kinds of jobs. For example, it is not unknown for a counsellor to say to a person: "we do not have an opening in the retraining program as yet, and there will not be one for three weeks or three months". When I contacted the Manpower office personally to find out why Miss Brown was not accepted for the retraining program, I was told by the counsellor that she was not suitable for office work. When I asked what he meant, I was told: "she is not attractive enough". I think that this practice of evaluating individuals who come to manpower offices for help contradicts the very spirit in which the office has been established. The Sudbury area, for example-and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration was there this past weekend-is a far-flung area with small communities. Yet people as far away as 60 miles are expected to come in and report to the Manpower office because there is no office in their particular area to serve them. It seems to me that if we are really interested in helping the unemployed find jobs, we should establish offices close to them where we can give them advice on the spur of the moment and help them in finding jobs.
I have also come across the practice in some Manpower offices of sending applicants or people registered with the Manpower centre to non-existent jobs. I have had a couple of cases in the Sudbury area which have occurred in the last couple of months of persons being sent to jobs which had been filled four weeks previously. It seems to me that, because of the high number of unemployed in the particular area, the manpower centre cannot keep abreast of the number of vacant jobs. The problem in the Sudbury area is far too many unemployed and far too little help in terms of trying to place these unemployed people in jobs. I would much prefer to see the two departments brought together, unemployment insurance and manpower centres. The aims and objectives of these two bodies are very close and related. People have the impression that these

two offices are in a real mess. They do not want to go near them at all and they are becoming leery of the whole operation.
I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Timiskaming. The money provided in this estimate would be better spent if the government were to use it directly in trying to create jobs, rather than using it for all these rather questionable ways of retraining people for non-existent jobs. By the time they are retrained the jobs have disappeared, and we have to start retraining them for something else. We are trying to stick our finger in the dike, but the pressure on the other side of the dike is far too great.
I suggest that we attack the problem directly by using these funds to establish secondary industry, for example, in the Sudbury area. There is no reason in the world why all the raw materials should be shipped away from Sudbury to Sweden, Norway, Japan and the United States, where the finished products are made, and this at a time when our own people remain unemployed. Jobs in secondary manufacturing should be provided in a mining area like Sudbury. In the last two years, we have seen many mining towns become ghost towns. There was the example of Coniston, and now Cobalt is closing down.
It seems to me that the whole approach taken by the government has been designed to deal with symptoms rather than with the problem. The only way to solve unemployment is by directing public funds into the establishment of factories, if private enterprise will not establish them. And private enterprise will not establish factories as long as the same multinational corporations that own the mines in Canada own and operate factories somewhere else. I repeat that government funds should be used to establish industry and provide job opportunities for our people. With the present system we will end up with one plaster on top of another, all covering the body cancerous, until the whole becomes an immense patchwork quilt. In such a situation even the bureaucracy begins to lose control of itself.
For this reason, I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Timiskaming that the estimate be cut to $1 until some study is undertaken to show that spending money this way is effective in solving unemployment.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is the House ready for the question?


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman-


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Portneuf.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, will you look this way a little later on to be fair about it.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. The hon. member for Portneuf. [Translation]


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Chairman, I did not ask for the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Supply


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is the House ready for the question?


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman-


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate.


John Howard Lundrigan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The musical intonations from the recognition of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate bring me no end of pleasure.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order.


John Howard Lundrigan: I have often wondered if the weather has any effect on the attitudes of Members of Parliament and on the proceedings in this chamber. It has an effect on the bird population. Some fly south to escape the winter cold. Today, it seems that some of the NDP have taken leave of their traditional senses in moving a motion which is the most inexplicable thing that I have seen the NDP do since I came to the House of Commons five years ago. In fact, I had to reread Vote 5a in order to be sure we were talking about the same thing. It deals with "training provided to adult employees under section 6 of the Adult Occupational Training Act." Today, the minister confirmed that over $10 million is for on-the-job training, and I have just heard the hon. member for Nickel Belt say this item should be reduced to $1.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member has referred to the particular details of the vote, does he recognize that the motion which has been proposed does not do away with the vote? It leaves what is sometimes referred to as a dollar item, which gives the government authority to operate a program. Doesn't he realize that the motion does not cut off the authority of the government to carry through with that program?


Erik Nielsen: Rubbish.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Since the hon. member is suggesting that what we have proposed is inexplicable, would he not agree that we often vote $1 items which provide the government with authority to carry out programs? The purpose of the motion is to shift the onus to the government fo find the $11 million out of the more than $200 million already voted.


John Howard Lundrigan: I agree with the embarrassment
expressed by the hon. member. That is the only way I can describe his intervention. His question is rhetorical. If you take away the funds, the program does not really exist. Really what he is saying is that he is very embarrassed about it, even though he just spoke in support of the motion.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt has told us that the people in his area are all well educated, that there is no need for involvement with little people, and that the unions are against this kind of program. When he was speaking one of my colleagues said that the NDP has gone into debt with the unions and not only with the Liberals. I would ask the hon. member if the steel workers in his riding all agree with his stand?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman-
1418

Supply


Robert Jardine McCleave: The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate, unless he is prepared to accept questions which I gather he is not prepared to do.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member does not want to ask a question. He wants to make an apology for the speech he made. He can get the floor afterwards. Three members of the NDP spoke on this subject. The hon. member from British Columbia seemed to be saying that if there was something wrong with a man's head, the best thing to do would be to cut it off altogether. If a man has an infected arm, you should cut it off rather than recommend any medication; just eliminate the thing completely.
That hon. member is saying that if there is something wrong with the Adult Occupational Training Program it should be cut out altogether. I doubt whether those hon. members realize the kind of people that they are coming down on when they support this kind of recommendation. The Adult Occupational Training Program was designed to help people who are almost completely unable to enter into our economic system because of lack of education. They are the little guys, the smallest people in our society in terms of capability.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John Howard Lundrigan: Many of them are people who grew up during the depression years, who had to be taken out of school by their parents and put into jobs in order to help eke out a living in a difficult economic environment. Many of them are now 45, 50 and 55 years old. They have no basic education and no basic training. Somebody decided that we should help them to develop marketable skills, but today the NDP members have taken leave of their senses. They are opposed to this. They are flying north in the winter instead of south. Somebody made a mistake.
The hon. member for York South presents himself as the protector of the rights of the Canadian people. He says he holds the balance of power. He says that he is going to go along with anything that is good for the country. In effect, he becomes King David in our Canadian system, but today he and his party introduce a motion that will disadvantageously affect the lives of about 2,000 people in my province where we have an unemployment rate of 18 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


John Howard Lundrigan: We have had ample manifestation of the feelings of the people in the Cape Breton area of Nova Scotia. The two gentlemen from Cape Breton in my party would not, I am sure, welcome this kind of support.
The NDP today appear to have inadvertently made a very serious mistake. When I finish my remarks, I think the hon. member for Timiskaming is going to stand in his place and withdraw his motion. My colleague from British Columbia and the hon. member from the Nickel Belt represent disadvantaged areas, as I am sure we all do. I am sure they are going to say that they were mistaken in their comments and that they overdid it in order to manifest muscle. If they do not, then the Procrusteans-wasn't

that the mythological person who used to stretch people when they were too short-will be in agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Greenwood.


William Arnold Peters: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Timiskaming, on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: You gave your speech; you blew it.


William Arnold Peters: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If hon members will look at the estimates that are being amended they will find that Vote 5a is "Development and Utilization of Manpower-Operating expenditures". I presume this modifies and supplements Vote 5 in the main estimates. Included within the operating expenditures is the appropriation which is the dollar item, Mr. Chairman. If I was wrong in believing the appropriation was a separate item-


Erik Nielsen: That is not a point of order.


William Arnold Peters: -I would ask leave, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I submit that the remarks of the hon. member for Timiskaming by no means come within the ambit of a point of order and as far as I am concerned, after hearing the NDP filibustering, I for one want to stand them up and see them vote against their own amendment. I take that position and my consent is not forthcoming.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: On the point of order-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. The Chair does not feel that a point of order has been raised. I think that the understanding during the debate was that it concerned the effectiveness of a certain program that is at least identifiable to the members of the committee who have taken part in the debate. In that sense, I think there is a very clear issue, although a number of remarks have been made on whether or not the proper vote is being amended. As far as the Chair can determine, the motion does what the hon. member for Timiskaming has intended it to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: If the committee is ready, I will now put the question.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Greenwood.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, I am only going to say a few words-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 19, 1973


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have heard the motion made by the hon. member for Timiskaming and I think it will serve a useful purpose, that is to enable this committee to give consideration to the deficiencies in the manpower training program.


An hon. Member:: You don't need an amendment for that.


Francis Andrew Brewin: However, Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with the hon. member for Timiskaming that the vote be cut to one dollar and I would propose, if I am in the House, to vote against the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is the committee ready for the question?


An hon. Member:: What are they going to do on the budget?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The Chair will now put the question, and so that it will be intelligible to members who have not taken part in all stages of the debate I would point out that on page 7 of the schedule under Manpower and Immigration the first item is Vote 5a, Development and Utilization of Manpower. The hon. member for Timiskaming has moved that Vote 5a be reduced by $11,689,860.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Where are David and Stanley?


Mr. Bell:: Knowles and Lewis are paired with each other.
Amendment (Mr. Peters) negatived: Yeas, 5; nays, 122.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Does this terminate discussion on the three votes under Manpower and Immigration?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: If this is agreed, we will move to the next items under National Health and Welfare, namely, Votes 5a, 35a, 40a and 45a.
Before I recognize the first participant in the debate, may I repeat that I think we should revert to the more normal practice that no member may speak more than once or longer than 20 minutes, except that both the mover of a debatable motion and the member speaking in reply thereto may speak for 30 minutes. In other words, the suggestion is that instead of replying immediately, the responsible minister should allow the spokesmen for the various parties to speak and then reply. I think this will bring us back within Standing Order 58(13).
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I find myself a bit puzzled by the ruling I understood you to make.


James Aloysius McGrath: Not nearly as puzzled as your
constituents.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Does that ruling mean that Standing Order 58(13) takes precedence over Standing Order 55 which
Supply
relates to the House sitting in Committee of the Whole. Standing Order 55 reads:
(1) The standing orders of the House shall be observed in committees of the whole House so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders as to the seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.
And, later:
(3) No member, except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, shall speak for more than 20 minutes at a time in any committee of the whole House.
I always understood, Mr. Chairman, with deference, that that rule has general application when the House is in committee of the whole, notwithstanding what may be in any standing order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, may I briefly speak on the point of order. I find myself in agreement with the Chair. With respect to the point raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, he referred to the chapter under which Standing Order 55 falls. Chapter VIII deals with committees of the whole House generally, whereas the order under which the committee of the whole is now sitting falls under chapter IX entitled, "Business of Supply and Ways and Means". Standing Order 58 (18) relates to a unique procedure. The committee of the whole is now governed by that standing order. While the order cited by Your Honour leaves something to be desired in terms of draftmanship, it none the less is clear, in my view, that it applies to all proceedings under Standing Order 58. It could have been drafted in terms which would make the meaning abundantly clear by saying, "Notwithstanding anything else contained in these standing orders," and then go on to spell out the order. In my view it is clear that Standing Order 58(13) applies to proceedings under Standing Order 58(18).


Robert Jardine McCleave: I thank the hon. member for Comox-Alberni for raising the question and the hon. member for Yukon for his contribution. I would call the attention of the committee to the decision of Mr. Speaker with regard to the uniqueness of the procedure in which we now find ourselves involved, and the course chosen with regard to these particular estimates. The fact is that the Standing Order, as noted by the hon. member for Yukon, does apply only when we are dealing with supply procedures. For that reason, the Chair has invoked that particular subparagraph of Standing Order 58.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I shall keep in mind your admonishment about the length of speeches. Actually, for the last little while I have been so busy that I have not had time to speak. This is my first opportunity to speak on the estimates.
I shall not deal at length with the old age security pension, except to say that, as far as my party is concerned, the increase in the basic old age security pension which we fervently believe will be introduced tonight is urgent and essential. People over 65 are anxiously awaiting the announcement which, in the face of rapidly increasing living costs, they hope will be a worth-while one. They are anxious to find out what the minister means in practical terms when he proposes a substantial

February 19, 1973
Supply
increase. We have been impressed with the fact that the minister seems to realize that the elderly of this country cannot everlastingly get along on promises. The government must bring in some practical assistance.
The members of my party have suggested that the basic old age security pension should be increased to $150. That represents a considerable increase and, in our view, a necessary and essential increase in view of today's rapidly rising living costs. We have not been able to pin down the official opposition on what it thinks should the pension increase. Apparently, those members are not concerned about increasing the basic old age security pension. They think that the supplementary pension ought to be increased by about $10. That is what we have found out so far, and we have not been too successful in pinning them down. We are awaiting tonight's budget anxiously. Then, we shall find out what is to happen.
For a few moments I want to talk about the needs of another group of citizens. I want to ask the minister what can be done for them. I am talking about those who are left out, about people who are not covered by any form of social security legislation or pension. These people are horribly insecure and depend on charity or on friends. Their only other recourse is, officially, to go on social assistance. I am talking about a large group of men and women, and for the most part they are women, who have no pensions or allowances of any kind and who must choose between depending on private charity, on social assistance, and on the assistance of friends. They face a pretty bleak outlook. That group is made up of people in their early sixties, in their fifties and, yes, in their forties. Most of them, the women particularly, for various reasons cannot find work that pays. In this group there is a large number of widows, women who married early without any particular training for work. They are now left without resources of any kind. Many were widowed before the Canada Pension Plan came into operation. There is nothing in the pension plan for them.
An hon. member, our whip, has just spoken to me, Mr. Chairman. I have been brought into line and asked to bear in mind Your Honour's injunction. I was referring to widows, to women who married early without first acquiring any particular training and who have a long, long way to go before they reach 65. May I read part of a letter. This is the latest one of this kind to be sent to me. I have received many such letters from my constituents. It reads in part as follows:
I'm a widow since April 24/72, and there's no such thing as a widow's pension. My age is 57; at this age you're not able to get work, and I'm not able to do heavy work.
I'm a diabetic and high blood pressure. When young people can't get work how can I; and another thing, my husband was not working at the time the Canada pension came in, so I don't even have that. I had unemployment insurance until a month before Xmas and that was that. The money in the bank, about $400.00, isn't much when the taxes come up. I've got to pay $300.00 and what does that leave me? ...
I'm in need of medications, which are very expensive for diabetes and high blood pressure. I had a few dollars but it soon goes when nothing is coming in.
We need a government that will do something for us widows and soon. I do hope something can be done.
I have been sent dozens of letters like that, as have other hon. members.

May I mention another group, women who worked but cannot do so now. I have in mind a very personable woman who is young, or relatively young when one considers that 65 is the age at which one becomes entitled to the old age pension. She is in her forties. At one time she was a public servant and, deciding that she wanted to better herself, left her job and attended university with a view to upgrading her education. What was the result? About five years ago, when she came out of university she went to look for work and could not find anything at all. Since that time that woman has gone to every single university and college faculty in British Columbia or on the lower mainland, and has not found anything. At her request I visited her, in the homes of two or three friends. She has had to stay with them for a little while and then move to other friends. Then, when her welcome is worn out, she has had to move to other friends. She doesn't want to go on relief. She was raised as a self-respecting, hard working woman and does not want to go on social assistance. Yet, there is nothing else for her. What is she to do?
In addition, I want to talk about the many women who are in poor health and trying to carry on as best they can. One woman who came to see me had been trying to find work. She had a serious skin complaint. The only job she could get was one involving the use of soap and water in cleaning up around a rest home or working in the kitchen, doing dishwashing and that sort of thing. She has already had to go to a specialist for her skin condition. She has other health problems as well. However, the only kind of help available for that woman is social assistance. I also had a man call on me. For years he has been trying to do part time work. It is imperative that he give this up due to his health. He does not receive Canada assistance either. He has been carrying on as a self-employed person.
There are also the wives of the old age pensioners, people somewhat younger than their husbands, who are proving daily that two people cannot live on one income and two people cannot live as cheaply as one or anywhere near as cheaply as one. Members of the Creditiste party have made this one of their particular cases to champion. I agree with them completely. These people are in great need.
In addition to pensions for these elderly people, we also need better pensions for the blind and the disabled. There is still a $75 ceiling on these pensions. In my province of British Columbia, such people are now included under Mincome. Those people who now receive the provincial supplement have the assurance that they will not receive less than $200 a month on which to live. The blind and disabled are also included in Mincome and receive $200 a month. However, everyone cannot live in British Columbia, even though it sometimes seems to those of us who come from that province that most people are trying to do so. If our government continues to carry on as they are doing now, people will increasingly try to do so. But there is not room for them all.
We have been heartened by some of the minister's remarks. He at least knows that this crazy quilt of social security which has been built up patch by patch is no longer able to do the job of covering everyone who needs
February 19, 1973

social security. The old fashioned crazy quilt, picturesque and interesting though it may look to a spectator from Mars, is very uncomfortable when it comes to providing warmth and shelter. The minister knows we need to take a new look at the social security fabric.
My whip has just advised me that I have only a few more minutes. If the minister will allow me, I want to share one of them with him. Will the minister tell me what he has in mind for those people for whom there is no pension? Some of the sick and disabled have a small pension, but for the army of self respecting people who would take work if they could, there is nothing but social assistance. Does the minister have something in mind for those people?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, we do not intend to speak on any of these items under this department in order to facilitate the passage of the items and the supply bill. There are a good number of things we could be saying at this point, particularly on the non-medical use of drugs program, but we will reserve that privilege for another time and place, perhaps when the main estimates are being discussed in committee.
1Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity to say, like the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), that we have some very important representations to make concerning the old age security pension, income security and social assistance, as covered by vote 35a. We are going to express our feelings, since it is late, at the next debate on this subject.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I feel I must say a few words to the hon. member of the New Democratic Party who has raised a certain number of questions. First, I would say, concerning old age pensions, that I hope that it is a matter of hours rather than days now, as for knowing what the exact intentions of the government are on this subject.
Secondly, as regards the broader problem which was raised, we have it very much in mind. It has already been dealt with in the speech from the throne, when it was said that our objective was to come to a fair minimum garan-teed annual income for all those who are unable to work, either because of illness, of age or any other disabilities. I hope to be in a position, by the end of April, to table in the House a bill explaining the government's intentions in this regard. The problem that was raised does exist. My provincial colleagues as well as myself are very much aware of that fact; we have already initiated consultations; early in April, we shall visit all the provinces for further consultations. I hope that by the middle of April, we shall be able to let the House know the general intentions of the government about the problems raised.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take advantage of this opportunity, if I may, to ask the minister of National Health and Welfare whether he intends to grant the old age security pension at 60, to increase it to $200 per month for those who are 60 years old and to $150 for the spouse, whatever his or her age may be, so that both of them may enjoy their retirement together with income security?
Supply


Marc Lalonde: The intentions of the government in this regard will be announced very soon. I hope to have the opportunity of speaking about the whole matter when amendments relating to the old age security pension are introduced in the House shortly.


André-Gilles Fortin: In the bill to be tabled by the end of April, according to the minister's statement, will the matter I have brought up, namely eligibility to the old age security pension at 60, be dealt with?


Marc Lalonde: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, as perhaps I gave the hon. member the wrong impression. I did not mean to say that a bill would be introduced before the end of April, but rather a statement or a white paper. The bills will come after consultations with the ministers, at the federal-provincial conference, at the end of April. Only after consulting with my provincial colleagues do I intend to introduce legislation on this subject. However, the government's intentions which should be made public before the middle of April will answer the hon. member's questions, I hope.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, surely the minister is not telling us that we will not have any bill before the House until after the provincial conference in April. Surely, there will be an increase in pensions before then.


Marc Lalonde: I certainly hope so, Mr. Chairman. There was probably a misinterpretation of the French into English. I hope there will be legislation on OAS and GIS this week.


Erik Nielsen: Next week?


Marc Lalonde: This week.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Chairman, I wish to address a brief question to the minister. A while ago he spoke about a guaranteed annual income for those persons unable to work. Does he include in that category single parents, women, or men for that matter, who are forced by circumstances to raise a family without the support of a partner?


Marc Lalonde: This is a matter which is under study at the present time. I would suggest to the hon. member to wait for the government's general statement of policy. This matter is now under review.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Does this complete the discussion on the items under the Department of National Health and Welfare?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The next item is-


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I understood this matter was going to stand until we discuss it again in the next debate, as it is getting late.

February 19, 1973
Supply


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, there has been no general agreement with respect to private members' hour. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris is one of the most patient gentlemen in the House. If hon. members to my left do not agree to pass all remaining items and remaining stages of the bill, now, as I would hope they would do, we will have to ask the government House leader for some guarantee as to the standing of the order in the name of my hon. friend from Brandon-Souris so that it does not lose its place in the next private members' hour. But, surely, we can agree to pass this item now, so that my hon. friend can present his motion.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I think there has been some confusion, as we were consulted on the procedure for private members' hour. I could not answer, as the decision is not mine to make, but if the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), who is the sponsor of motion No. 21, agrees that we should continue the debate during the hour set aside for private members' business, we are ready to go along with that.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The Chair, then, has to admit the greatest confusion of all. Perhaps the hon. member for Lot-biniere can assist. I asked whether discussion of the four items under the Department of National Health and Welfare had been completed. I would not like to do an injustice to the hon. member or to other members of his party. I thought members of the other parties had agreed that this did, in fact, conclude the discussion. I am, therefore, in the hands of the hon. member for Lotbiniere on this question. Has the discussion concluded on the items under the Department of Health and Welfare?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André-Gilles Fortin: No, Mr. Chairman. I spoke a moment ago. I would have liked to make a very brief speech. I would have had some remarks to make. I simply asked a question in the hope that this could-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, I understand. The item is still open. The four items are still open.
Progress reported.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, if it is agreeable, we could make provision for the pride of place of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) if we could agree to devote the Private Members' Hour to the completion of the appropriation bill. If this were agreeable to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris we would do what we could to see that his primacy is protected.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I would be quite happy to co-operate in order to expedite the passing of the measure before us. However, I am wondering whether it would be possible to proceed tomorrow with my motion. As I understand it, it would mean substituting "motion" for "private members'

bills". On those terms, I would be quite happy to co-operate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is agreeable to this side.


Erik Nielsen: There is one further point here. This is the second occasion on which my hon. friend, who is one of the most patient and co-operative members in the House, has been asked to stand this order. I think we on this side would be agreeable, provided the House is in general agreement that we would finish all stages of the supply bill by six o'clock. If we can have that agreement, we would go ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Speaker. Just go ahead with the business. I have no axe to grind one way or the other, but I do not think there is any reason to make that condition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is very difficult for the Chair to see how far we have come toward agreement. Hon. members have heard the proposal that we forgo the private members' hour, at the same time leaving priority on the order paper to the motion in the name of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris with the understanding that this motion be taken as the first order of business tomorrow during the private members' hour. I am not sure, though, whether there is agreement as to the work of the committee and the completion of the estimates which are before the committee by six o'clock.


Erik Nielsen: If we cannot get that kind of co-operation from members to my left, as we have been endeavouring to do for the last three days, I can see no reason for again putting off the motion in the name of my hon. friend from Brandon-Souris.


William Arnold Peters: That is our business.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, if you would call item 21 you would find there is agreement to allow all the others to stand with the consent of the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: As there does not seem to be complete agreement, it is my duty to call it five o'clock. The House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed we stand all the motions up to 21 exclusive?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
February 19, 1973



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give urgent consideration to initiating, in co-operation with the provincial governments, and voluntary groups, specific programmes for chronically sick and severely disabled Canadians including (a) building standards designed to provide easy access to public buildings, schools and universities (b) adequate educational and vocational and employment guidance service (c) making available technical and electronic equipment so that handicapped persons might be able to control their immediate environment (heat, light, radio, T.V., typewriter, tape recorder, etc.), enabling many to live at home in the bosom of the family rather than "existing" in expensive hospitals for the handicapped and chronically ill (d) separate provision for younger and older patients who must be hospitalized (e) the general coordination of policies designed to aid this group so that "if years cannot be added to the lives of the very sick, at least life can be added to their years".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a non-controversial motion. Indeed, it is the kind of motion which should receive full support from all hon. members in the chamber. It relates to the subject which was under discussion before the hour of five, namely, the operations of the Department of National Health and Welfare. The atmosphere at that time was somewhat contentious, and I hope it will not spill over into the atmosphere which I anticipate will surround consideration of the motion I am presenting. If I were to put a caption on the subject matter I wish to discuss, I would describe it in the following terms-the urgent necessity for new goals for rehabilitation.
The approach of dealing with the problems of handicapped people in Canadian society from the basis of a pension plus a bed I am sure all hon. members will agree is no longer adequate. Yet it is a subject that I found, as I pursued it and did the necessary research to present the motion, many people are reluctant to talk about. There is a sense of embarrassment that almost reflects the attitude that prevailed up until comparatively recent times with respect to the mentally ill and the mentally retarded. This applies particularly to the chronically ill, those who are disabled as a result of chronic illness, and also those who are severely physically disabled.
I trust I shall present a viewpoint this afternoon which will demonstrate that people with physical handicaps, or for that matter with any disability, actually have a special quality that places them in a position to make a particularly effective contribution to the society in which they live. One of the by-products of disability, I have found from having met with these people and had extended discussions with them, is that they have developed a patience plus a perseverance that enables them to make a particularly effective contribution to their day and to their generation.
When we are reminded that approximately 7i per cent of the population of Canada requires rehabilitation services of some kind, we immediately become aware of the nature of the problem. If we express it in population terms, it amounts to almost 1.5 million people. The tradi-
Rehabilitation of Handicapped
tional approach that has been exercised, and which prevailed up until the so-called present period of enlightenment, is that of providing minimum facilities that make it possible for these people to maintain a minimum standard of life which completely ignores their special emotional, psychological and spiritual needs.
Even in the profession of the social worker, you will find that the approach has been to help the families who find this affliction in their midst adjust to the inevitable and they agree to place the afflicted person in question away in an institution which is more appropriately described as a human warehouse than as a centre for effective rehabilitation. Not only is this a monstrous waste of the human potential that lies at hand in the physically handicapped, it is also a costly solution. I do not have the figures at hand, but to have one of these persons permanently hospitalized or set aside in an institution for the chronically ill is much more costly in monetary terms than would be any co-ordinated effort directed toward the comprehensive rehabilitation of Canadians who are disabled in some respect.
We should also be reminded that disability is far more frequently the result of social, emotional or economic dependency than physical impairment. We believe it is a fundamental precept of our way of life to regard the body merely as the receptacle for the spirit of man. Yet when that receptacle is cracked, more often than not we throw the receptacle, contents and all, out of the general social process.
I want briefly to view the problem this afternoon through the eyes of the disabled. I find that they want to become involved in the whole ongoing process of life. They want to be able to control their environment; they want to have opportunities for social and mental development. They want adequate housing with specific facilities provided-and I shall enumerate one or two of these in a moment-so they can manage their own affairs and with minimum support be able to live a full life. This applies even to the 42,000 Canadians who at this time are confined to wheelchairs. They need special facilities to give them mobility, and they need recreational opportunities. They want to be accepted as persons and become involved in the total life process. In particular, this requires economic security and jobs, for in many respects poverty is just another word for disability. As a result, unemployment among them is chronic.
To sum it all up, perhaps we can say that we must seek a society where there is a genuine respect for the handicapped; where understanding is unostentatious and sincere; where if years cannot be added to the lives of the very sick, at least life can be added to their years; where needs come before means; where the mobility of disabled people is restricted only by the bounds of technical progress and discovery; where the handicapped have a fundamental right to participate in industry and in society according to their abilities; where socially preventable distress is unknown; and where no man has cause to feel ill at ease because of disability. That was a quotation from a debate that took place when the United Kingdom parliament was debating a special act which has now found its way into the statute books and is known as the chronically sick and disabled persons act of 1970.

February 19, 1973
Rehabilitation of Handicapped
Voluntary groups in Canada have done an amazing job of coping with the problem, to a large extent with a minimum of public support. In 1952, the first comprehensive rehabilitation institute was established in the city of Vancouver, the G. F. Strong Institute, and this indicates just how recent are these developments. Today there are some 16 centres in operation across Canada and in all provinces. Universities have become involved and several of the major hospitals are fully equipped to handle the disabled.
I should like to pay tribute to a few outstanding names. This is risky because so many people have been involved, but I am sure hon. members will understand if I mention the name of Colonel Eddie Baker who did so much to come to grips with the handicap of blindness. Then, there is the Lyndhurst hospital in Toronto under Dr. Jousse. Dr. Gustave Gingras has made a great contribution both in the province of Quebec and throughout the world. He has become an eminent world authority on the problems of rehabilitation through his work at the Montreal Rehabilitation Centre. In addition there are many associations, such as the Paraplegic Association, the associations for crippled children and adults, for multiple sceloris, muscular dystrophy and so on. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, and name the whole group that today is encompassed within a fairly recent organization, the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled, better known as the CRCD. This body is under the direction of Dr. Keith Armstrong who has worked to bring about co-ordination in the voluntary and, more recently, in the public sector through the instrumentality of CRCD.
Obviously, the government is aware of the problems in this field, because I was reading a statement made by the minister as recently as February 5, 1973 when he addressed the Montreal Chamber of Commerce. It is a speech in respect of Canada's social security policy and at page 4 we find this interesting observation:
In the first place, the Social Security Plan shall ensure to persons unable to work, the elderly, the blind and the disabled, an annual guaranteed income that is fair and compassionate.
This principle is already embodied in a whole series of measures which go back as far as 1927.
These programs, drawn up to meet special needs, have never been fully integrated; on the one hand, because they were adopted at different times for different purposes, and on the other hand, because it happened that the same program came under different jurisdictions.
That sums up the situation in a nutshell in respect of problems which confront us in the public sector of responsibility at the present time.
In passing I would just like to refer to the outstanding work that has been done by the Department of Veterans Affairs in this respect. They have the know-how and all the information, and what is needed now is co-ordination. The National Defence Hospitalization and Medical Centre is another outstanding institution which has the experience to act as an excellent resource centre in dealing with this problem.
The categories of my resolution are before members of the House. Let me refer to them briefly as follows; building standards and the necessity of the state to take some

responsibility for giving leadership in this respect to provide for greater mobility including such things as special homes along the lines of Cheshire Homes. Group Captain Cheshire of dambuster fame has become a worldwide leader in this field. He was in Canada a few months ago opening some of these Cheshire Homes which meet the particular needs of the severely disabled from the standpoint of architectural standards.
There is another problem to which I refer in passing. Very often because there is not adequate housing we find young people accommodated with geriatrics cases, and this is obviously unsatisfactory so far as young people are concerned.
My motion also refers to educational and vocational opportunities and the need for an educational counselling and retraining opportunities. It is interesting to note one aspect of the problem that really affects the physically disabled and makes them feel they are discriminated against; the fact that many applications for jobs specifically ask whether a person is disabled or has a physical defect, the implication being that he is not eligible for these positions if that is the case.
Let me refer briefly to the technical aid aspect of my motion. There is to be a meeting in Toronto on Wednesday sponsored by the CRCD where, for the first time in Canada, there will be a report on the technical aids which are available in meeting the special needs of the physically handicapped in Canada. Later on in March there will be a meeting in Ottawa to bring together people who are skilled in the area of biological engineering to discuss how modern breakthroughs in technology might be applied to the special needs of the physically handicapped.
Development in the United Kingdom is far ahead of our development in Canada. I would refer to Possum which is a Latin stylization of "Posm", Patient Operated Selector Mechanisms. With poetic licence, this has been changed by the disabled users to Possum, the Latin for I am able or I can do. It makes it possible for a totally handicapped person, through technology, to control his immediate environment and return to the bosom of the family rather than living an existence which is less than human in these human warehouses to which I have already referred. An outstanding case is that of Miss Hilary Pole, a victim of myasthenia gravis, who is totally immobilized except for the movement of her big toe. Through posm technical aids, she is able to type out the most beautiful poetry on a typewriter, and was able to return to her home.
In Canada, we have similar developments that are almost ready to go into production. TOSC, developed independently along parallel lines to Possum, meaning Touch Operated Selector Control, was developed by a Canada quadraplegic, Mr. Bud Cairns, of the city of Toronto. We have these breakthroughs and what is needed now is a coordinating effort on the part of the federal government to bring to bear the delivery of what is available to a large number of handicapped people in Canada so that, as my motion suggests, if they cannot have years added to their lives, they might have life added to their years.
This will require the complete co-ordination of medical, educational, social and technical aspects of the problem. I trust that when the government spokesman replies to the

observations I have made this afternoon he will deal specifically with some of these recommendations. Ottawa must provide leadership. We do have the difficulty of jurisdictional dispute, but, as the minister mentioned in his speech on February 5 last, while a part of the responsibility lies with provincial governments, Ottawa must provide the co-ordination necessary to make it possible for provincial governments to deal adequately and comprehensibly with some of these problems I have outlined.
We have the Canada Assistance Plan, but there is no uniformity under that plan as it is permissive and standards vary in each province. As I look at the situation across Canada, it seems to me that the two provinces most advanced in this respect are the province of Manitoba, which happens to be my own, and the province of Ontario. If these provinces can do this, so can other provincial authorities.
Perhaps this motion could be referred to an appropriate committee for further discussion with the hearing of briefs, because the deeper I delve into this matter the more I am astonished at the lack of information. Once the motion became a matter of public interest and concern I began to receive letters from handicapped people across the country who have developed aids and programs on their own to assist themselves. Unfortunately, they are living in complete isolation without any comprehensive knowledge of the facilities and services available to help them.
A discussion in the appropriate committee would allow some of these viewpoints to be made known, and this would be extremely helpful. I hope too, the government will consider appointing a national rehabilitation council. The Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled has worked as a private agency in this field for the past number of years with limited resources, with some assistance from Ottawa and provincial governments as well as volunteer agencies. The time has come for Ottawa to accept its obligations in this respect, and I trust that the government will let this motion pass.


Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafontaine: Mr. Speaker, we seldom have the opportunity in the House to discuss a problem with such a lack of partisanship. I am pleased to note the interest shown by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) in the rehabilitation of the handicapped and I congratulate him for having moved a notice of motion which reads in part as follows:
-the government should give urgent consideration to initiating, in co-operation with provincial governments and voluntary groups, specific programs for chronically sick and severely disabled individuals-
Mr. Speaker, I feel that we should seriously consider that problem. Some action has been taken in that field, but I think that we have not done the utmost to assist the handicapped.
Particularly during the last election campaign, Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity-previously also, but this is fresher in my mind-to talk with handicapped people, since there is a home in my riding with a number of handicapped people. The ones that I met do not obvi-
Rehabilitation of Handicapped
ously complain about their housing conditions; quite the contrary, first, one would be led to believe that these are people who live better than other Canadians since they live in a modern building. These in particular live in a modern building which was built precisely to help the handicapped. But how many do live in this home? One hundred and twenty or fifty-
It is hard to find out exactly how many handicapped there are in Canada, all the more because some are seriously handicapped, and others are less so; therefore, there is a question of percentage of invalidity which must be reckoned with. Several questions were put to me by these young men and women who are not very old and live in this home; it was brought to my attention that employment possibilities were very complex, but they were not complaining about housing conditions.
But it is not only that; those disabled of course want to be useful, to earn their living, to be kept busy and encouraged in their work. It is not that easy to get a 50 or 40 per cent job when you are 50 per cent handicapped; it might seem easy to find a 50 per cent job, but it is quite complex.
During the election campaign, I promised myself that after the election, I would try to look into this problem, and I got in touch with the research department of the parliamentary library whose help is always forthcoming. This department enabled me to find certain documents; my file is not yet complete but I take this opportunity to inform the House of the results of my research, unfortunately very briefly.
First, it must be acknowledged that in America, we have not done until now everything that could have been done for the handicapped. A few pieces of legislation were passed, but it is mainly in certain countries such as Sweden, Great Britain and Holland that more comprehensive and practical laws can be found for handicapped people.
I have here some documents precisely about the assistance given to the disabled in Sweden and Great Britain. It is always the same problem: means must be found to help the handicapped. It is true that since 1961, there is legislation on the vocational rehabilitation of the disabled, which is administered by the federal government but in co-operation with the provincial governments to help handicapped people. It is under this legislation that assistance is given to the handicapped.
But this legislation does not go far enough and it seems that it was not followed up in order to obtain beneficial results. We hear about research, medical care, vocational training, employment agencies, employment assistance, but as yet no one has taken the bull by the horns.
I do not know if the laws which apply in the United Kingdom and in Sweden can be applied in Canada, but I wonder whether a list of the disabled should not be drawn up, which does not seem to have been done as it was in the United Kingdom where a registry is provided for the handicapped to register. They are strongly urged to register but, of course, all of them do not. Besides, all the disabled cannot necessarily find a job. However, this registry provides at least an inventory-provided people agree to register-of those who really want to find a job.

February 19, 1973
Rehabilitation of Handicapped
This method might be implemented. Of course, certain people do not approve of such a register, all the more as some seem to have the funny idea that the handicapped do not want to be helped.
Today, that seems rather difficult. Dr. Meilleur, of the Manpower and Immigration Department, stated not so long ago that the department did not have the accurate statistics it needed to help the handicapped as it should. He also stated that it was difficult to get the necessary information through questionnaires. He said, and I quote:
[DOT] <1740)

Our forms are more and more neutral. Pretty soon we won't be able to ask which sex.

Still, there should be a campaign to explain to the people that it is extremely important for the handicapped to tell us of their wants, their needs; then, we could help them better.
Mr. Speaker, my time is almost over. Several of my colleagues want to discuss this problem. They could obtain information on the matter from the parliamentary library, especially on the way rehabilitation programs were studied and adapted in Great Britain and Sweden.
I have here a photostat of a brochure entitled "Rehabilitation and Care of Disabled People in Britain", that can be obtained from the library as well as that entitled "Services for the Handicapped", by Richard Turner. The latter is a study on the Swedish system.
Mr. Speaker, one can also obtain the document which was prepared for me by the research service of the library. It is dated February 12th 1973 and is entitled "Legislation Designed to Encourage the Employment of the Handicapped".
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I do not claim to have carried out an exhaustive study of the problem, but I am doing so. I have a special interest in it. In fact, during the election campaign I had the opportunity to meet young people of working age who are experiencing great difficulty in achieving a normal life.
They have skills-some fewer than others-and they are very anxious to work; some are interested in social work, work of all kinds.
I believe that it is only by a careful census and thorough of handicapped people and the appropriate action to enable them to find employment that they can be helped to lead normal lives.
As I said a few moments ago, should we adopt the formula developed in Great Britain? Legislation has been enacted, namely the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts of 1944 and 1958, which deal with that system of records for the handicapped; the Secretary of State is given the opportunity to say that there are designated, sheltered jobs which even allow the incorporation on nonprofit organizations designed to help the handicapped to obtain incorporation and to work. In general, these corporations, called Remploy Ltd., are granted governmental subsidies but some succeed in making quite interesting profits.

So I urge strongly hon. members to obtain those papers which have been prepared for me by the Library of Parliament and we will undoubtedly be in a position to discuss that matter in greater detail shortly.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, in this parliament of minorities, where we often have difficulty in reaching agreement, I think it is rather significant that on a matter of this importance all parties are in agreement on the desirability of trying to get a better and fuller life for handicapped and chronically ill people. We are all grateful to the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) for bringing forward a matter which is so dear to his heart, one on which he has done a great deal of research. The hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance) has told us a great deal about what is being done in other places.
The sponsor of the motion said the matter should be dealt with under the heading of "new goals for rehabilitation." I think it should also be called "new goals for living." From experience I know that the handicapped and chronically ill, when given a chance, are people who do get a whole new inspiration for living. The severely handicapped and the chronically ill have perfectly normal instincts. What they want to do, above all, is to lead as normal a life as possible in spite of their condition. They want to care for themselves at home as much as possible. They want to go places like other people do. Within their own capacities they want to get satisfactory work. They want to enjoy recreation with other people to the extent that is possible. We in this country have been doing a few things to assist them. Voluntary groups have undertaken many projects. However, governments have done very little in comparison with what needs to be done.
Every time I go past the National Archives on Wellington Street in Ottawa I am greatly heartened to see the stone ramp which makes it easier for handicapped people to get into the National Library. I remember being told in our centennial year that many of the structures being built then were designed to provide easy access for handicapped people. But this is far from becoming universal. We should be undertaking much more of this type of thing. We should find ways and means of helping handicapped people to get transportation to go places. Here I think of a muscular dystrophy case in my riding. Fortunately, this man has friends who help him into a car which has a specially wide seat and once a week they drive him to a centre where he can engage in recreation. But many handicapped people cannot get to such places. We have no means of transportation for them, so they are condemned to sit in solitude.
One of the brightest spots in the matter of housing for these people concerns a man in my constituency. He has been severely handicapped from his early years, when he had a bad accident, and has to spend most of his life in a wheelchair. He was able to get work during his earlier life but now is retired and draws the old age pension. About a year ago he convinced Central Mortgage and Housing that they should allow him to conduct research into the needs of handicapped people in their homes, and what should be
February 19, 1973

done for them in the way of public and other kinds of housing. He did a great deal of research in this country, in the United States, and even in Sweden, and has made a valuable contribution to the outlining of some of the things that should be done by this government.
There is also the matter of sheltered workshops. Our government could do a lot more than is being done to provide activities for handicapped people so that they can lead a satisfying life. An adequate guaranteed income is essential, but satisfying social and useful activity must also be provided if these people are to lead satisfying and constructive lives.
I know that our time this afternoon is short. I am very tempted to take more of it, but I shall not because I know that one or two other members would like to say a few words. But I want to underline what the hon. member for Brandon-Souris said in his concluding remarks. I believe that we as a House should show that we are in earnest about this and are not just giving lip service to a "motherhood" resolution. If we really want to do something, we will listen to the plea of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and send this resolution to the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare for thorough study by handicapped people and those who work with them who could be called as witnesses. Perhaps in that way we can find the gaps in what is being done to help them.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that instead of talking out this resolution we agree to send it to committee. The Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare is not occupied at the moment, as far as I am aware. This would be something for it to get its teeth into, and would probably be much more useful than some of its other work. Let us help the handicapped to help themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I shall say a few words on that motion, in my opinion, a very important motion, and the more so since it reminds me that in 1970 I had the opportunity, with the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker), of travelling to Australia. In the beautiful city of Melbourne, we visited Australia's National Museum. We were surprised not only by the modern and extraordinary architecture of that magnificent building, but also by the sight of handicapped people who, having to move around in wheel-chairs, could have access to all the floors of that building.
I am convinced that perhaps the government has not done enough along that line. However, one should nevertheless remember that it has made some efforts; six years ago, the Post Office Department for its buildings adopted a policy requiring that in future such buildings should provide entrance at street level, allowing the handicapped to benefit from them as well as the other citizens.
Moreover, in those buildings, some of which were old, the department had some hand-rails eracted. In Calgary, a building was constructed in such a way that the handicapped could not only enter it, but also work in it and benefit from promotion opportunities as well as all the other public servants.
Rehabilitation of Handicapped
Mr. Speaker, of course, I should not like, as they say, to kill that motion, but may I be permitted to recall that sooner or later we shall all, inevitably, become handicapped, or at least less and less alert in the discharge of the most usual tasks.
But what about the Montreal Air Terminal, for instance? I do not mean that the architect who designed this awful piece of architecture is an imbecile, but why tell old people, Do travel, we shall grant you fare reductions, and then we have them walk about two miles, which is enough to kill them before they get to the plane. Perhaps we should follow the example set at the Paris Air Terminal, where moving sidewalks enable people and even handicapped persons to reach their plane with practically no effort. Perhaps we should stop building air terminals which not only penalize handicapped people but also people who normally become handicapped with age.
We should stop building such horrible things for our older people, for handicapped people who, for a reason or another, certainly took part in active life in Canada and certainly deserve some reward.
Mr. Speaker, there are many other things I would like to say. I think congratulations are in order for my friend Dr. Gustave Gingras who was, I believe, the first Canadian to promote rehabilitation. My hon. friend from Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) spoke about Colonel Baker, but I think Dr. Gingras was one of the instigators of rehabilitation in Canada and should be praised for it.
Mr. Speaker, if the present motion is referred to a committee, I do not think this will produce any results. In my opinion, an effort should be made to tell the provinces they have something to do in this field. Health problems are shared and "shareable" to such an extent, especially on a world basis, that it is up to the provinces to deal with, them. They are faced with so many problems, Mr. Speaker, that they do not think about these highly important matters.
In my opinion, health is the most important asset. In the case of those who have to get around and work with some disability, they should be treated as first class citizens by all governments. If provincial governments could take advantage of the Canada Assistance Act in such way as suggested by my friend for Brandon-Souris, I think that what he proposes to do in his motion could also be realized. Therefore, normally, all provinces should assume neither more nor less than their own responsibilities in this field, and I completely agree that this must be done by the provinces.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member but the hour allotted for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
February 19, 1973
The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner


John Napier Turner: That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this budget is- first and foremost-to bring about a substantial reduction in unemployment. Unemployment is much more than an economic problem. It is a grave social problem, a serious human problem, and I am deeply conscious of the fact that for those who really want and need work, who are looking for work and cannot find it, unemployment can be bitter and frustrating.
This budget is aimed at the faster growth of our economy and the strengthening of its basic structure in order to achieve the greatest possible increase in the number of permanent, satisfying jobs for our rapidly growing labour force.
This budget is aimed at reducing inflationary pressures in Canada and at offsetting the effects of past inflation. This is essential to protect our country's international competitive position so as to ensure continued strong growth of production and employment. It is equally essential to reduce the squeeze of rising prices on family budgets and the erosion of the hard-earned savings of Canadians.
This budget is aimed at increasing the real income and improving the standard of living of Canadians.
It is aimed at ensuring that older Canadians share more fairly and more fully in the growing national prosperity- which their efforts during their working years helped to make possible-so they may better enjoy living in well-earned retirement.
It is aimed at balanced economic expansion so that all regions share equitably in our growing wealth, because national unity demands fair shares in national prosperity.

This budget reinforces and builds upon the budget which I put before the House last May. Taken together, the measures proposed last May and those I will propose tonight are strongly expansionary, while at the same time acting to curb the forces of inflation. They will stimulate the growth of production and employment, while helping business to moderate price increases. They will put more income, more purchasing power into the hands of Canadian consumers without increasing costs.
Hon. members may recall that the budget of last May, in addition to providing immediate stimulus to the economy, was designed to serve two basic purposes.
It was designed to achieve a greater measure of social justice by easing the financial burden borne by pensioners, by the blind and the disabled, by veterans and their dependents, by students and their families and by those who face heavy costs for medical care and treatment.
And it was designed to reinforce the structure of our economy over the medium and longer term by strengthening the competitive position at home and abroad of our
[The Acting Speaker, (Mr. LanielJJ
vitally important manufacturing and processing industries.
Parliament last session approved the proposals to raise the guaranteed income supplement for pensioners and escalate that supplement, old age security benefits, and veterans' pensions and allowances to offset fully increases in the cost of living.
It is urgent that Parliament give early approval to the other proposals put foward in the May budget involving the income tax, sales tax and the customs tariff, most of which are effective in 1972.
The measures to reduce the tax burden of manufacturers and processors represent a first major step in the development of a coherent set of new industrial policies. They are needed to strengthen the foundation of our economy and its capacity to create jobs for our working men and women-who belong to the fastest growing labour force in the industrial world.
The manufacturing and processing sector is the largest single source of employment in this country. It provides jobs directly for nearly two million Canadians-nearly a quarter of the whole labour force. It provides jobs indirectly for as many again in the service sector, which depends for its growth on the underpinning of viable primary, processing and manufacturing industries.
The manufacturing sector, however, is highly vulnerable to the new forces of competition that are now developing around the world.
The reductions in the tax burden borne by these industries will help them to overcome the competitive handicap caused by the appreciation of the Canadian dollar since May, 1970.
These reductions will enable them to offset the serious competitive threat posed by the substantial tax subsidies for exports made available in the past year to U.S. corporations. The real danger of such subsidy programs is not the immediate impact they may have on our exports or our imports. That, too, can be serious and takes time to show up. The real danger lies in their possible effect on new investment in this country. This is more difficult to measure. Often there is no visible decline of business. Unless it is as profitable to invest in Canada as in the U.S. or other countries offering special incentives, new plants don't get built, expansions don't take place, jobs don't get created.
The easing of the tax burden of manufacturers will also help them to meet the increasingly intense competition from the new industrial giants that are emerging on the world stage-Japan and the expanded European Economic Community.
The very recent international monetary crisis underscores the significance of what I have been saying about our position in the world. No one can predict the outcome of the changes now underway in the world's trading and financial system or what their impact may be on Canada's trading position. It should be clear to all of us, however, that we will be better able to face whatever challenges
February 19, 1973

may confront us if we keep our industries strong, resilient and competitive.
What is at stake is not the welfare of corporations and their shareholders. At stake is the welfare of every Canadian. At stake are hundreds of thousands of jobs that today depend on our manufacturers staying in business and retaining their workers. At stake also are hundreds of thousands of good steady jobs in the manufacturing sector and supporting industries that will be required in future across Canada for our new workers. It is critical that we should all have a clear understanding of what is at issue. That is why I am committed and the government is committed to these measures.
It is sometimes argued that, far from creating new employment, these measures will only serve to reduce the number of available jobs by encouraging the displacement of workers by machines. That sort of concern has been raised periodically ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution. But the experience of many decades has shown that advancing technology brings with it continued expansion in productivity and output, continued expansion in the real income that workers are able to earn, and continued expansion in the number of productive jobs available. It is no coincidence that for some time now the most labour-intensive manufacturing industries in Canada have generally provided few-if any-new job opportunities, that they usually pay the lowest wages, and that they face the greatest difficulty from foreign competition.
It has also been contended that these measures should not be adopted because a significant portion of the benefit would go to foreign-controlled companies. Let me remind honourable members of a hard reality: these corporations, which are today a major source of employment in this country-providing jobs directly and indirectly for a million or more Canadian workers, face much the same handicaps as those that are Canadian-controlled. We have to move toward greater control of our economy in a way and at a pace that does not jeopardize jobs. I am sure these workers would not thank this parliament if it failed to take steps to counter the threat to their own jobs because of some misguided sense of extreme nationalism.
In its most recent Annual Review, the Economic Council of Canada warned that a failure to maintain the rate of productivity growth throughout the manufacturing sector would lead to higher costs, lower sales and fewer jobs for Canadian workers. The Council emphasized that new policies were required to deal with this threat. The Council concluded that, in its words, "the fiscal measures announced on May 8, 1972, concerning the manufacturing sector may be considered an important step in this direction".
Members of the House will recall that last May I said I was confident that Canadian businessmen would use the increased cash flow to improve and expand their operations and to engage in vigorous price competition at home and abroad. I said I expected business to hustle, to grow, to compete and to build jobs for Canadians. The recent pickup in production, investment and employment in the manufacturing sector leads me to believe that they are, in fact, already stepping up their performance.
The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner
I would like to advise the House tonight that the government has decided to make a modification to the rapid write-off and to introduce a new procedure to monitor the results of the incentives to manufacturing and processing industries. We propose that the two-year capital cost allowance provision be put in place for an initial period ending December 31, 1974. Moreover, the government will establish a reporting and review procedure in order to assess the effect of these corporate measures on prices and jobs.
It is our intention that a report be submitted to the House before the end of 1974. This report will be based on detailed information provided by a large number of individual companies and in-depth study of some 200 of the largest corporations. I believe that such an assessment will prove how constructive these measures will have turned out to be in creating new jobs and moderating prices. It will also be helpful to the government in reviewing the capital cost allowance provision to decide whether and in what form to extend it.
In order to better evaluate not just the new fast writeoff, but all aspects of present capital cost allowances, I propose to initiate a thorough examination of the entire system. We intend to complete this review by the end of 1974 so that parliament will be in a position to modernize our whole approach to capital cost allowances. I am vitally concerned that our system for business depreciation be fair and reasonable and not a hidden method for avoiding taxation.

I would like now to review briefly the economic and financial situation.
Hon. members may recall that last year we published an annual Economic Review in April and we intend to follow that practice again this year. Because the budget is so early this year, it is not possible to issue the usual budget White Paper on government accounts at this time. This will be made available to the House as soon as possible after the end of the fiscal year.
In 1972 the industrial world enjoyed a strong economic expansion. When confidence returned after the international economic crisis of August, 1971, faster rates of growth set in everywhere-in Europe, in Japan and in North America. Output in the industrial countries went up at almost double the rate of the previous year. I would like now to give a brief account of how Canada fared during this period.
In 1972, Canada's gross national product rose 101 to 11 per cent. Personal income per head was up close to 101 per cent, and the standard of living of Canadians as shown by consumer expenditures per capita-after deducting the effects of price increases-was up by nearly 5j per cent. We started 7 per cent more houses than we did in the previous record year. A total of 250,000 new jobs were created, as compared with 200,000 in 1971, an increase of 25 per cent. Farm income rose strongly and the return on business investment was restored to more normal levels.
Although the current account of our balance of payments moved back into deficit, we were relatively free of disturbance from the international economy. It is obvious

February 19, 1973
The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner
from recent events that foreign exchange markets have been prone to crisis. But our own experience with a floating rate has been favourable. The Canadian dollar, having been above parity in terms of the U.S. dollar through the middle part of the year, has fluctuated around parity in recent months. This held true even last week. The operations of the Exchange Fund Account have been limited to maintaining orderly conditions in the exchange market and have not complicated the task of managing the government's financial position.
In the first half of the year, competition among the banks drove up interest rates and led to an excessive rate of monetary expansion. But the agreement reached among the banks with my approval in June to lower interest rates on large deposits eliminated these distortions and the financial markets have been reasonably stable since that time. A generally expansionary monetary policy fostered economic expansion and encouraged Canadians to borrow in domestic rather than in foreign markets.
The final record of the government's financial position for the current financial year will not, of course, be known with certainty until well after March 31. In fact, a somewhat more than normal amount of uncertainty should be attached to this year's forecasts. In particular, because this is the first year of experience under the tax reform, the timing and size of tax refunds and final tax payments may depart significantly from historical patterns. On the basis of information available at this date, we expect something close to a balance on budgetary accounts and non-budgetary cash requirements of approximately $2 billion, giving total cash requirements (excluding foreign exchange) of about $2 billion. This total is the same as that anticipated in the May 8 budget. As compared with that budget, the non-budgetary cash requirements are higher largely because of the higher than forecast unemployment insurance benefits; the budgetary position is stronger because revenues have been buoyant. The fiscal stance of the government is best expressed by the government's total cash requirement, budgetary and non-budgetary. For several years now, we have followed the practice of determining our fiscal policy on the basis of total cash requirements and, indeed, this is the practice of most modern states in presenting their over-all financial position.
The economic expansion in Canada was interrupted in the third quarter of 1972 by events beyond the ability of anyone to predict or control. The weather was most unfavourable last summer in much of Quebec and Ontario. This adversely affected farm output and all the many industries and services which depend upon agriculture. In addition, a series of strikes shut down important parts of the mining industry, tied up the forest industry in British Columbia, closed down Canadian and other ports, and disrupted the movement of wheat, lumber, iron ore and other export commodities.
Since September we have seen a sharp rebound of economic activity. The fourth quarter, I am confident, will turn out to have been quite extraordinary. In the early

weeks of 1973, all the signs-including our own revenues- are pointing sharply upward.
This year we are expecting the expansion to be driven mainly by business capital investment, inventory build-up and exports. Consumer spending and house building, which contributed so much to the earlier stages of the expansion, will continue at high levels but could rise less rapidly. It is evident that business investment is now accelerating in response to the growth in the economy and in anticipation of the enactment of the May budget measures. When these measures become law, the growth in business investment will become even stronger. So far we have seen little growth of inventories in this expansion. I expect that businesses will be adding to their stocks in 1973 in order to maintain higher levels of sales and shipments. Thus, we have the basis for a very good economic performance in 1973.

Two major problems confront us. The first is unemployment. The second is the rise in prices and costs. These are the key problems to which my budget measures are directed.
The most unsatisfactory feature of our economic performance has been the continuing high level of unemployment, even after two full years of economic expansion. We would have done better, it is true, had it not been for the weather and the effect of strikes last year in slowing down employment, production and exports. But other factors have been at work as well. The labour force is growing rapidly both because of the age structure of our population and because a growing proportion of young people and of women have joined the labour force.
It is a fact that while unemployment has remained high, employers are reporting difficulty in filling the growing number of vacancies. Certainly more generous provisions for the unemployed and the availability of support for many unemployed persons from spouses or parents permit people to take more time in finding the jobs that suit them best. We need more information in appraising the unemployment situation and I trust the study being undertaken by the Economic Council of Canada will be helpful.
The hard truth remains, however, that unemployment is too high. I attach the highest priority to the creation of jobs. My May budget was directed toward creating jobs. In September, a major program to create winter employment was announced. One of the very first steps which this government took after the recent election was also directed to this same goal. I refer to the Winter Job Expansion Plan, which for some time now has been putting people to work. This program was directed at alleviating seasonal unemployment, particularly in the slower-growth regions. Further action is needed to deal with the more general problem. We need to stimulate a higher rate of economic growth. We must achieve a growth of real output of goods and services in Canada appreciably in excess of our long-term average if new job creation is to keep up with our rapidly growing labour force and cut into unemployment.



The second major problem is that of rising prices and costs. We are by no means the only country with this problem. Inflation has now reached epidemic proportions in many parts of the world. Our own experience was less favourable in 1972 than it was in 1971. The acceleration in consumer prices was concentrated in foods, which rose sharply last year. In part this was due to local conditions, but in large measure it reflected the world-wide market forces pushing up the prices of grains, meat, sugar and other basic foods. A committee of this House is now investigating these matters. Non-food prices have not shown nearly as much acceleration at the retail level, but there have been sharp increases in the prices of a number of primary commodities in world markets.
All Canadians are concerned about the rise in the cost of living and the decline in the value of money which that entails. If nothing is done, there is a prospect that inflationary expectations will rise. This could disrupt financial markets, drive up interest rates, disturb the exchange market and impose a brake on the economy-in short, frustrate our efforts to increase employment.
Many have argued that the best way to deal with this problem is to set up direct controls over prices, wages and other incomes. As members are aware, Mr. Speaker, the government has given extensive study to the matter of controls and has prepared a contingency plan to be used if necessary. But the government does not believe that the present circumstances-hurtful as they are to many Canadian families-warrant the imposition of controls. Controls would demand a far wider public consensus and more evidence of an emergency situation than is now the case. Our approach is to increase the supply of goods and services, to increase personal disposable income, to relieve the pressure on those hurt, to restrict the government's own demands upon the economy and, above all, to trust Canadians, in their own self-interest-businessmen, working men and women, professionals, farmers-to exercise restraint in their demands for higher income. If that self-interest is not reflected in good judgment, then there will be a self-defeating escalation of costs and prices.
We are, then, faced with the twin problems of unemployment and inflation. An expansion of output will contribute to the solution of both. The government, therefore, believes that in its own fiscal policy it should continue to impart stimulus to the expansion of employment and to the supply of goods and services. It is essential to provide this stimulus in ways which will offer maximum resistance to the forces of inflation.
In seeking to stimulate the economy, while at the same time resisting inflation, I have taken into account the actions which were included in my last budget. Their effects have not yet fully been felt because of time lags. They will continue to have a substantial impact for some years to come. The measures I shall recommend tonight involve action on several fronts. I shall lean heavily, however, on the side of cutting taxes, as opposed to increasing expenditures. This reflects the government's determination to impose restraint on its own spending in order to
The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner
avoid aggravating inflation. It also reflects the government's determination to do everything reasonably possible to encourage business, labour and the professions to exercise price and income restraint in the national interest and in their own interest.

I turn now to the budget measures themselves. Let me begin with a proposal to help our older people. This is a follow-up to the important measures we put in place last year to raise the guaranteed income supplement for old age pensioners and to increase both the basic pension and the supplemental allowance automatically in step with any annual rise in the cost of living.
We are very much aware of the position of elderly people in our country and over the years successive governments have attempted to improve their situation as rapidly as our resources would permit. We can be proud of what we have been able to achieve for the most needy among our elder citizens by provision of the guaranteed income supplement. That unique system of allowances was introduced in 1966 by the government of the late Rt. Hon. Lester Pearson. It provides old age pensioners in Canada with the highest guaranteed income in the world.
At the same time we recognize fully that there are many individuals and couples, 65 years and over, who-through hard work and careful saving-have made provision for retirement income out of their lifetime earnings. As a result, they do not qualify for any part of the guaranteed income supplement. In the great majority of cases, the incomes of these elderly citizens are still small, particularly in comparison to the rising incomes of other Canadians. Despite their hard work and careful planning for retirement, inflation has eroded the real value of their incomes and savings. Those on fixed pensions have been unable to share in the benefits of the rapidly rising productivity of our country.

The government has, therefore, decided that a further portion of the nation's strongly growing total production should now be allocated to increasing the basic rate of the old age security pension.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Effective on April 1, 1973, this pension will be raised to $100 per month. This represents an increase of more than 15 per cent over the pension level which would otherwise have come into effect on April 1 of this year. The cost of this additional increase is estimated to be $290 million for a full twelvemonth period. The basic pension will continue at this rate until April 1, 1974. On that date, it will be escalated in accordance with the cost of living increase as provided for in my May budget and now prescribed in the Old Age Security Act.
Those entitled to the guaranteed income supplement will be able to add this benefit to the enlarged basic old age pension. The GIS, adjusted by the cost of living, will bring the combined OAS/GIS monthly payment for a single person to $170. For a married couple, the guaranteed income level will be close to $325 monthly. Over the past two years, therefore, the guaranteed income for all

February 19, 1973
The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner
elderly Canadians 65 years and over will have been increased by 26 per cent. Canada will thus maintain its worldwide lead in the care and support for ederly citizens.
Further, in line with the increase in the OAS pension, war veterans' allowances and civilian war allowances will be increased by similar amounts to a minimum of $151 per month for single people and to $257 a month for married couples. For recipients of the allowances over 65 years of age, the guaranteed income will rise to $206 and $357 per month for single and married people respectively. This increase preserves the relationship between veterans' allowances and old age pensions and is estimated to cost $9 million in 1973-74.
My colleagues, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), will bring in legislation to have these increased pensions and allowances enacted and paid as rapidly as possible. With respect to disability pensions for veterans, a report containing proposals for increases in basic rates of pension is being referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and the government will await the recommendations of that committee.
I would like to deal next with several measures in the fields of tariffs, sales taxes and excise taxes designed to stimulate the economy and to strike directly against the upward thrust in the cost of living.
First, proposals concerning the customs tariff.
The government is now recommending to parliament temporary cuts in the tariffs on a wide range of consumer products. I am tabling a notice of ways and means motion setting out the details.
In choosing the products that would be subject to these tariff reductions, and in deciding how large the reductions should be, every effort has been made to avoid any adverse impact on production and employment in our factories and farms across Canada. At the same time, we wished to ensure that the tariff reductions would be sufficiently broad in scope, and of sufficient magnitude to have a significant effect in dampening the upward pressure on consumer prices.
Particular attention was given to foods and other consumer goods for which tariff rates are higher than average, especially to those that are dutiable at a rate of more than 15 per cent. This rate is now pretty generally the basic protective rate in the Canadian tariff. The measure also covers a number of products in short supply, such as meats and out of season fruits and vegetables, for which there is not now a good case for a protective tariff.
Among the non-food consumer products covered by the measure are drugs and pharmaceuticals, kitchen and din-nerware, furniture, electrical appliances, house trailers, photographic equipment, sporting goods and toys.
Substantial cuts are also proposed for a number of most-favoured-nation tariff rates on goods that are not produced in Canada. These rates had been maintained to provide a sheltered market for Commonwealth suppliers, whose goods enter free of duty or at relatively low preferential rates. For such food products as bananas-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: If that does not get support for this budget, Mr. Speaker, nothing will. For such food products as bananas and citrus fruit juices, these preferences no longer serve the purpose for which they were intended.
The reduced rates proposed for raw and refined sugar and related products are broadly consistent with the recommendations of the Tariff Board, adjusted to take account of our obligations to Australia and the Commonwealth Caribbean.
To the extent possible, we are not cutting tariffs where to do so would have an adverse impact on job opportunities in Canada, where it would have little effect on prices, or where a tariff cut would run counter to other government policies. It is not proposed, for example, to cut tariffs on footwear, garments and textiles, on dairy products or eggs, or on fruits and vegetables in the season when Canadian-grown products are being marketed.
The total value of the imports that will be affected by these tariff cuts is about $1.3 billion. The economic impact must be judged not just by the reduction of charges on imports, but by the effect of such reductions in moderating prices charged by Canadian producers and distributors.
Hon. members will note that I am proposing that these tariff cuts remain in force for an initial period of one year. The reduction will be reviewed thoroughly before the measure expires. Furthermore, we are seeking parliamentary authority to delete items from this special list at any time during the course of the year should circumstances warrant such action.
There are several other tariff reductions which do not form part of this broad proposal the details will be found in the ways and means motion.

Next I would like to refer to several measures affecting excise and sales taxes.
First, I propose to remove the sales tax on confectioneries, chocolate bars, soft drinks, fruit drinks and other similar near-food products. The effect of this measure will be to exempt from sales tax all food and drink except alcoholic beverages.
Second, I propose to abolish the sales tax on all kinds of children's clothing, including shoes and other footwear. This tax reduction will provide welcome relief to young families with growing children, who face a constant need to replace outworn and outgrown clothes and shoes.
I have chosen to remove the sales tax on these particular items, namely the near-foods and children's clothing, because these products are consumed by virtually every Canadian family. Moreover, food and clothing account for a proportionately larger percentage of the budget of lower-income families, so that the tax on these products bears most heavily on those who are least able to afford it. This action should help to moderate prices for these basic necessities.
Next, I propose that the special 10 per cent excise tax on toilet articles and cosmetics be eliminated. I propose also
February 19, 1973

that the excise tax on clocks and watches be removed, except to the extent that a manufacturer's price exceeds $50. It seems to me that these are now articles of mass consumption and should not be treated as luxuries.
The purpose of these commodity tax reductions is to benefit Canadian consumers. I appeal to Canadian producers and distributors to so price their products that their customers will benefit in the form of lower prices and more value for their money. Parliament will be watching for results and I expect that Canadian consumers will, as well. These measures come into force immediately and, taken together, reduce federal revenues in the next fiscal year by about $190 million.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to discuss income taxes. To begin with, I want to speak about tax reform. 'When I presented my budget last May, I told this House that one of my priorities would be to smooth out the rough edges of tax reform. Last May I introduced a number of important amendments to the Income Tax Act arising out of tax reform, and those matters will be debated by this House shortly. Tonight I want to propose a number of further improvements.
First I want to mention a matter of concern to the small corporation and small business. As indicated in the throne speech, this government is deeply concerned about the problems facing small business today. Later in this session of parliament, the government will announce its specific proposals for assistance to this category of enterprise. However, there is one aspect of the Income Tax Act which is of vital importance to these businessmen, namely, the small business deduction. This is the measure which permits the active business income of small corporations to enjoy a lower rate of corporate tax.
Under Part V of the Income Tax Act, the benefit of the small business deduction was withdrawn to the extent that a corporation used its retained earnings for the purpose of making long-term investments unrelated to its business activities. I believe that the policy which gave rise to the ineligible investment test was correct, but I have come to the conclusion that it is too complicated. I believe that these small corporations which enjoy the benefit of the lower rate of tax will, in fact, use these tax savings to expand their businesses, to improve their technology and to create more jobs for Canadians. For this reason, the ineligible investment test is not necessary. Accordingly, I propose that, effective January 1, 1972, the ineligible investment test be withdrawn.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to draw your attention to another matter which is of great importance, namely the preservation of the family farm. Under the present rules, when a farmer dies and leaves his farm to his children he is treated as if he has sold his farm at its fair market value. In the result, there may be a capital gains tax liability. For many of our farmers this poses a serious problem. First, the value of a farmer's land is often subject to fluctuations which have little bearing on the real value of that land as a farm. Second, most small farmers have little available cash and have already exhausted their credit. Therefore, a tax liability at a time when there has been no real sale may leave the family of the deceased farmer with no alternative but to sell out.
The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner
To remedy this problem, I propose that, effective January 1, 1972, when a farmer dies and leaves his farm to his children there will be no deemed sale of his farm land. In the result, capital gains tax will apply only if the farm is sold, if the land is not being used as a farm at the time of death, or if it is not left to the family.
In my last budget speech, I mentioned that I was examining a number of matters relating to the taxation of retirement income. Tonight I am proposing a number of improvements which I am sure will be welcomed by taxpayers. In addition, I would also mention that I am continuing to examine a number of other problems in the area of pension and other retirement income plans, with a view to proposing further improvements as soon as possible.
In my remarks tonight, I have mentioned only two measures of particular importance arising out of tax reform- and then only in summary. There are many other important improvements dealing with such matters as registered retirement savings plans, deferred profit sharing plans, sale of milk quotas and other governmental licences and a number of other amendments affecting individuals, small corporations and farmers.
The ways and means motion I am tabling will describe all of the proposed amendments and I urge every member to review that document carefully. Every one of these amendments is an improvement to our tax system.
I now wish to propose major reductions in the personal income tax. I do this for three reasons:
First, to stimulate the economy by leaving more income in the hands of those who have earned it, who will be stepping up their purchases and in this way providing more jobs.
Second, to encourage restraint in wage demands which, in combination with the restraint I am asking of business and of my colleagues in government, is required to meet the inflation threat. These income tax reductions will contribute to growth in a way that does not threaten excessive cost increases.
Third, to offset the damaging effects of inflation on our taxpaying citizens. Inflation is, after all, a kind of tax which satisfies none of the canons of equitable taxation. It is simple justice to offer some tax relief to those who have been hurt.
Before referring to the new measures, may I remind this House that there is already a tax decrease built into the system as a result of tax reform. The rate of tax on the first $500 of taxable income decreased from 17 per cent to 15 per cent effective this year as a result of measures enacted in December, 1971. This process will continue year by year to 1976, when the rate on the first $500 will be reduced to 6 per cent.
In recent years we have experienced an unwelcome and unacceptable rate of inflation. I want to relieve the Canadian taxpayer of as much of this burden of rising prices as I can. And, in particular, I want to provide relief to that group of our citizens who are least equipped to fight rising prices-our lowest income earners. The tax reform introduced some 18 months ago removed from the tax rolls a million Canadians. Some of these people now

The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner find themselves back on the tax rolls. I want to exempt from income taxes all these people who in 1973 would otherwise reappear on the tax rolls not because their real incomes have grown, but simply because of inflation. Moreover, I want these people taken off not only the federal tax rolls, but also provincial income tax rolls in provinces with which we have tax collection agreements.
Therefore, commencing in 1973, I propose to increase the basic exemption for all taxpayers from $1,500 to $1,600 and to increase the marital exemption from $2,850 to $3,000. This means that there will be no income tax whatever for a single taxpayer earning less than $1,700 and no tax on a married couple earning less than $3,100. The benefit of these increased exemptions will, of course, be enjoyed by taxpayers in all income brackets.
The combination of these proposed increases in exemptions, together with the other measures I will announce in a moment, will more than relieve every low and middle income earner of any increase in his taxes due to the inflation which has occurred during the period since the introduction of tax reform.
But this is not all that I have to say on this matter of personal taxation. Starting January 1, 1973 I propose a 5 per cent reduction in the basic federal income tax up to a maximum of $500 for every individual taxpayer.
However, there is one fundamental problem with a straight percentage reduction in taxes, particularly when it is to be a continuing part of the system. For that large body of our taxpayers below the middle income levels, their tax liability is not large in absolute terms. For these taxpayers, a percentage reduction in their tax does not provide enough relief. For example, in 1973 the basic federal income tax for a married man with an $8,000 income would be $954, after taking into account the increase in exemptions. For him, a 5 per cent reduction is worth only $47.70
To deal with this problem, I propose that the tax reduction be not just 5 per cent, but that there should also be a minimum reduction of $100.
Mr. Speaker, may I illustrate how some typical Canadian families will be affected this year by the combination of all these new income tax measures which I have just announced. For a married couple with two children and the breadwinner earning $5,000, the total tax will be reduced by $137. This represents a 47 per cent reduction from what the tax otherwise would have been this year. For that wage earner, this reduction in tax is the same as if he had received a wage increase of 3.6 per cent. If the same family had an income of $8,000, the total tax reduction will be $141, or 13 per cent-the equivalent of a 2.4 per cent annual wage increase. Another way of looking at the impact of these taxation cuts is to note that a married wage earner with two young children living in any one of the provinces will pay no federal income tax until his income goes above $4,473. These computations have been made for residents of provinces having the lowest provincial rate of tax. For taxpayers in other provinces, there would be minor differences in the calculations.
For the 1973-74 fiscal year, these measures will leave in the hands of Canadians an additional one billion, three hundred million dollars by way of reduction of personal

income tax. And of this amount, 70 per cent, or about $900 billion, will be concentrated in the hands of people with incomes of less than $10,000.
The value of these tax reductions is four times greater than the value of last year's 3 per cent reduction. And, furthermore, the principal benefits go to the most needy and the most deserving.
The full value of these 1973 reductions will be reflected in payroll deductions at source commencing early in April. This will mean that there will be a very early improvement in the take-home pay of workers and, as a result, a quicker stimulus to the growth of the economy.
Mr. Speaker, let me sum up these income tax proposals for 1973:
(1)	-an increase of basic exemption from $1500 to $1,600,
(2)	-an increase of exemption for a married couple from $2,850 to $3,000,
(3)	-a reduction of basic federal tax by 5 per cent, with a maximum of $500,
(4)	-a reduction of basic federal tax of at least $100,
(5)	-these measures have no termination date,
(6)	-these measures give maximum relief to those whose need is greatest,
(7>-three-quarters of a million people are dropped from federal tax rolls.
Mr. Speaker, I come now to an income tax measure of fundamental importance. I am deeply concerned about inflation and the effect that inflation has on a tax system which is based on a progressive rate schedule. I therefore propose to take steps now to provide a lasting solution to this problem should inflation continue.
First let me explain more clearly how the problem arises.
Our tax system is based on a progressive rate schedule. This means that as a person's income increases, he pays a greater percentage of his income in taxes. For example, under our present system, in 1973 a person pays 15 per cent on his first $500 of taxable income, but 18 per cent on the next $500. In other words, as his income increases from one bracket to the next, the rate of tax on this additional income increases. Basically, this is a sound and fair approach and most advanced countries have adopted this progressive tax system.
But an increase in a person's income may be real or simply the result of inflation. Put another way, if a man gets a 5 per cent raise in salary, but the cost of living has also increased 5 per cent, he has the same real purchasing power he had before, and nothing more. Yet, the progressive tax system can leave him worse off than he was before because he has entered a higher tax bracket. What I want to do is eliminate that unfair and unintended result from our tax system.
Beginning in 1974, I propose to introduce the following system. First, in each year an inflation factor would be determined based upon the increase in the Consumer Price Index in an immediately preceding period. Second,

in each year the principal exemptions would be increased by this inflation factor. This would include the basic exemption, the marital exemption, the two exemptions for dependents, and the exemptions for the aged and the blind and the disabled. Third, every year each of the brackets of taxable income would be adjusted upwards by the inflation factor.
For example, if in a particular year, the inflation factor was determined to be 4 per cent, then the principal exemptions would each be increased by 4 per cent. Similarly, each bracket of taxable income would be adjusted upwards by the same percentage. Thus, the first bracket of taxable income, which is taxed this year at 15 per cent, would be raised from $500 to $520. The next bracket, which would be subject to an 18 per cent rate, would commence at $520 and would extend to $1,040, and so on right through the tax schedule.
The indexing of rates and exemptions will produce a tax liability which will no longer erode a person's purchasing power as a result of inflation interacting with the progressive tax system. A person will no longer pay tax at a higher marginal rate simply because inflation swept him up into a higher tax bracket. For a person on a fixed income-


Some hon. Members:: Author!


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. It is extremely difficult for the Chair to hear the minister.


John Napier Turner: For a person on a fixed income, the result of indexing would be to reduce his taxes each year if prices rise.
Members may ask why delay implementation of this indexing proposal until next year? There are two reasons. First, the income tax reductions and increased exemptions I have already announced for this year are far larger in magnitude than would be the effect of this indexing system if applied in 1973. Second, and more important, this proposal is a major innovation in tax philosophy and practice. It is not complex, but it will take some time for people and governments to adjust to it. For these reasons, I have concluded that it should come into effect only next year.
Mr. Speaker, a final comment on income taxes. I believe that this proposal for indexing the personal income tax puts Canada in the vanguard of countries with advanced tax systems. 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.

As I emphasized earlier, the budget of last May and the budget I am proposing to the House tonight are complementary and mutually reinforcing.
In proposing the reduction in the tax burden borne by Canadian manufacturing and processing companies in
The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner
my first budget, I said I expected that, among other things, they would make use of this benefit to hold down the prices of their products.
The wide-ranging measures that I have just outlined in this budget will be of very direct and substantial financial benefit to every Canadian. The reduction in income tax rates and the increase in personal exemptions will increase the take-home pay of the average Canadian worker. The proposal to offset automatically the impact of inflation by the personal income tax indexing system will further moderate the weight of taxes next year and in the future. The reduction in sales taxes and excise taxes and customs duties I have proposed will help to moderate prices of many foods and household goods.
I want to see workers in this country receive a fair return for their labour. I want to see them receive a fair share of the real growth of our national income. But I expect them to be reasonable in their demands. I expect union members and their leaders to take full account of the increase in disposable income that will flow from these tax reductions when they enter wage negotiations. Indeed, I appeal to all income earners-and I include members of the professions-to be reasonable and moderate in their income expectations and demands. If we are to moderate the rise in the cost of living, then we must also moderate the rise in the cost of producing the goods and services that consumers buy.

I should like to turn now to the question of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. Under the tax collection agreements, all provinces except Quebec relate their personal income taxes to the basic federal tax. The increase in the basic exemption for federal tax will cause some reduction in revenues for these provinces. However, they are protected by the floor we have already provided under the revenue guarantee provisions of the Fiscal Arrangements Act. I have previously assured the provinces of our readiness to make advance payments under that guarantee, in connection with our tax cuts of last May. I re-affirm that assurance as regards the personal income tax reductions which become effective in 1973. I also propose to consult fully with all provinces about the implications for them of the indexing system for personal income taxes.
There is, moreover, a very important point which must be emphasized. This is the obvious need for co-ordination in fiscal policy between the federal and provincial levels of government. Honourable members will be aware that over the past two decades a very substantial shift in responsibility for taxing and spending has been taking place-a shift away from the federal government to the provincial-municipal level. This shift reflects both the constitutional division of responsibility and the emerging social priorities of our country. It reflects, as well, the evident wish among Canadians for as much decentralization of power and authority as is consistent with a vigorous national unity.
But such a division of power also means that provincial governments-and those of the largest provinces in particular-must be prepared to carry an appropriate share of responsibility in policies for stability and growth in the national economy. This naturally means that substantial

February 19, 1973
The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner
provincial deficits, as well as federal deficits, may well be appropriate when there is a need to accelerate growth in the economy.
I make this point having in mind particularly the unanimous view of the provinces, expressed at last month's meeting of finance ministers, as to the need for continuing economic stimulus. This I have clearly proposed in the budget tonight. However, at our recent meeting, the provinces pressed hard for federal action to help them to obtain additional revenues. I feel sure they will acknowledge that the faster growth in employment and income which will flow from this budget should bring an early and substantial boost in their revenues. We estimate that this increase in provincial revenues could be of the order of at least $400 million, building up fairly rapidly over a period of two years. I expect-and in fact I have had some assurance-that the provinces recognize that immediate tax increases on their part could stifle the expansionary thrust of the federal budget at this critical time.
I hope, therefore, for full co-operation from the provinces in not taking any action to counter the forward thrust of this budget. Of course, each of the provincial governments must decide for itself what it must do in the light of its own circumstances. I stress, however, that the tax cuts announced tonight have no termination date. The revenue growth resulting from the accelerated economic upswing will mean that our tax reductions can form part of the basic federal tax structure. As the economy moves closer to full employment, and if provincial expenditure requirements outrun their revenue growth, the provinces may then decide that their longer-run fiscal situation requires them to raise their taxes. If they do so, it will be as responsible governments, accountable to their electors for decisions to tax, as well as to spend.
In the present circumstances I have also considered carefully whether some further financial help to the provinces might be possible and appropriate. One problem is clear. The largest part of the increase in provincial tax revenues flowing from the stimulating effects of the federal tax cuts will benefit those provinces where tax capacity is above the national average. These are also the provinces which are best able-at the appropriate time- to raise taxes. Their rates of personal income or sales taxes are low in comparison to other provinces. Similarly, their strong economic growth contributes to their credit standing and their ability to finance deficits.
The position of the seven lower-income provinces is more difficult. They are handicapped by more limited tax capacity, generally higher unemployment and slower growth. Consequently, it is here where the strongest stimulus is needed. These provinces will, of course, obtain some additional equalization payments arising from the increased revenues which all provinces will derive from the faster economic growth generated by this expansionary budget. Given the need for balanced expansion across the country, however, it is apparent that a further special effort is required to assist the slower-growth regions.
The government, therefore, proposes that beginning in the next fiscal year the general equalization system

should be substantially broadened to include new grants on account of municipal taxes imposed for local school purposes. At our recent finance ministers' conference, a widespread consensus in support of this proposal was evident among the "have" and so-called "have-not" provinces alike. This is a major advance. It adds a new dimension to a revenue equalization system already far superior to that of any other federal country. One of its main advantages is obvious. It will enable the lower-income provinces to come to the relief of hard pressed property owners and tenants, who have had to carry an increasing burden of local school taxes. Indeed, the increase in equalization grants involved in this measure-about $190 million in the next fiscal year-amounts to as much as 28 per cent of the local school taxes collected in these provinces. I would hope, therefore, to see significant benefits passed on to their local ratepayers.
This proposal will increase total equalization paid in 1973-74 to the four Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan to about $1.4 billion. Equalization can thus be seen not only as one of our most powerful weapons in combatting regional disparity, but also as a major step at this time in the application of regionally balanced fiscal policy.

Finally, I should say a word about a further matter of great interest to the provinces. This is the so-called "opting out" issue. "Opting out" is a concept which has been actively discussed over the past several years. Under this approach, the federal government would terminate its present shared-cost payments to the provinces in support of the well-established programs in health, social assistance and education, and instead vacate some part of the tax field.
This basic approach was first put to the provinces by the federal government in 1966. It would now appear that the early concerns about this concept on the part of most of the provinces have been substantially dispelled. However, we have all come to realize that any such arrangement has to be carefully designed to preserve the basic objectives of the programs which have been legislated by Parliament. It will have to take account of the projected costs of the programs and recognize the wide variations in tax capacity among the provinces. It must be fair and equitable, both among the provinces and between the provinces and the federal government.
Above all, if the federal government is to carry the main burden of economic stabilization, maintain harmony in an over-all national tax system-while fulfilling its responsibilities for income redistribution among Canadians and among the regions of Canada-it must clearly retain a strong and commanding position in the personal income tax field.
Obviously there are important problems and issues in the "opting out" system. We intend to consult closely with the provinces about them. Our hope will be to work out better arrangements, which will assure improved services to all our citizens and fully respect the rights and responsibilities of both levels of government.

Mr. Speaker, I come now to a summary of the financial implications of the budget. The measures which I have
February 19, 1973

The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner
proposed tonight will have the gross effect of increasing the government's cash requirements by approximately $2 billion. The more rapid expansion of the economy which this budget generates will, however, bring in some revenues and permit some saving in expenditures. The total of these offsets will be of the order of $500 million. The net financial requirement imposed by these measures I calculate to be $1.5 billion in round numbers. Our cash requirements for 1973-74 will reflect this net figure. The most important impact will, of course, be on our budgetary revenues. I now calculate that our budgetary deficit will be some $975 million and our non-budgetary requirements some $1,025 billion. Taken together, our total requirement will, therefore, be $2 billion-as in the current fiscal year.
The treatment of the unemployment insurance account deserves special mention. The act requires that the government's share of the cost of unemployment insurance in 1972 be recorded, when incurred, as a loan in the nonbudgetary accounts. When the actual costs have been established in 1973-74, they are charged in that year as a budgetary expenditure and the proceeds used by the Unemployment Insurance Commission to repay the loan, thus reducing non-budgetary requirements in 1973-74. This is a very good example of the point I made earlier in the House that the distinction between budgetary and non-budgetary outlays is artificial and that the significant figure is the over-all cash requirement.
I should like to remind honourable members that these figures are estimates, as were the figures I used earlier concerning the outcome in the current fiscal year. The actual outcome of the financial accounts will be determined in no small measure by the decisions of this House with respect to bills currently before it and legislation which will be proposed in the course of the session.
With the permission of the House, I should like now to include in today's Hansard supplementary tables showing estimates of Government of Canada cash requirements, federal government revenues and expenditures on a national accounts basis and reconciliations of these figures with those compiled on a public accounts basis, and details of the budgetary revenues. The information in these tables applies to the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74.
I have already tabled several notices of ways and means motions describing the changes I am proposing tonight and I would ask that they be printed in the notice paper appended to Votes and Proceedings.
1972-73	1973-74
Forecast*11 Forecast*1'
(millions of dollars)
Net Non-Budgetary Transactions Excluding
Foreign Exchange Transactions	 -	2,000
Total Government of Canada Financial Requirements Excluding Foreign Exchange
Transactions	 -	2,000
Foreign Exchange Transactions: Net Source
(+), Net Requirements (-)	
+	83**'Total Government of Canada Financial Requirements Including Foreign Exchange Transactions	
-	1,917
- 1,025
- 2,000
<'>
Numbers in these columns should be interpreted as mid-points of ranges of estimates.
("This net amount arises from foreign exchange transactions in the fiscal year up to January 31, 1973.


GOVERNMENT OF CANADA REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ON A NATIONAL ACCOUNTS BASIS
[Stage Direction]
1972-73	1973-74
Forecast*1' Forecast*1'
(millions of dollars)
A-Revenue
Direct Taxes, Persons	
Direct Taxes, Corporations	
Direct Taxes, Non-Residents	
Indirect Taxes	
Other Current Transfers from Persons
Investment Income	
Capital Consumption Allowances....
Total Revenue	
B-Expenditure
Current Goods and Services	
(Non-Defence)	
(Defence)	
Transfer Payments to Persons	
Subsidies	
Capital Assistance	_	
Current Transfers to Non-Residents...
Interest on the Public Debt	
Transfers to Provinces	
Transfers to Local Governments....
Gross Capital Formation	
Total Expenditure	
9,765	11,075
2,725	2,925
305	330
5,280	5,885
5	5
1,640	1,775
255	275
19,975	22,270
5,640	6,350
(3,670)	(2,100)
0,970)	(4,250)
6,550	6,800
620	700
230	275
270	305
2,290	2,515
4,625	5,110
205	205
620	650
21,050	22,910
C-Surplus (+) or Deficit (-)	 - 1,075	-	640
Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For notices of ways and means motions, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[The tables referred to above are as follows:]


GOVERNMENT OF CANADA FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
[Stage Direction]
("Numbers in these columns should be interpreted as mid-points of ranges of estimates.
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA REVENUE Public Accounts and National Accounts Reconciliation
1972-73	1973-74
Forecast*1' Forecast*1'
(millions of dollars)
Budgetary Revenue	 16,300	18,000
Deduct
Budgetary Return on Investment	
-1,275	-1,425Post Office Revenue	
-	475	-	510Other Non-Tax Budgetary Revenues	-	120	-	145(-1,870)	(-2,080)
Corporate Income Tax, Excess of Accruals
(+) over Collections (-)	 -	70	+	80
Forecast*1'
Forecast*1'
(millions of dollars)
Budgetary Transactions
Revenues	
16,300	18,000Expenditures	
-16,300	-18,975Surplus (+) or Deficit (-)	
-	-	975
The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner
1972-73	1973-74
Forecast® Forecast®
(millions of dollars)
Add
Government Pensions and Social Security
Receipts	
3,615	4,115Government Investment Income	
(1,640)	(1,775)Interest on Loans, Advances and Investments	
525	600
Interest Receipts on Social Insurance and
Government Pension Funds	 710	755
Profits Before Taxes (Net of Losses) of
Government Business Enterprises....	405	420Capital Consumption Allowances	
255	275Miscellaneous ®	
105	105Total Revenue, National Accounts Basis...	19,975	22,270
®Numbers in these columns should be interpreted as mid-points of ranges of estimates.
®These miscellaneous adjustments represent special tax revenues from insurance companies, miscellaneous indirect taxes, miscellaneous transfers from persons and adjustment for the supplementary period (i.e., the period between the close of the fiscal year and the closings of the books for that year). In the national accounts, revenue in the supplementary period is shifted into the following fiscal year.
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA EXPENDITURE Public Accounts and National Accounts Reconciliation
1972-73	1973-74
Forecast® Forecast®
(millions of dollars)
Budgetary Expenditure	 16,300	18,975
Deduct
Budgetary Transfers to Funds and Agencies®	
-	600	-1,550Post Office Expenditure	
-	460	-	585Deficit of Government Business Enterprises -	100	-	125Other Deductions	
-	120	-	120(-1,280)	(-2,380)
Add
Government Pensions and Social Security
Benefits	 4,885	5,090
Expenditure of Government Funds and
Agencies®	
670	735Capital Consumption Allowances	
255	275Miscellaneous®	
220	215Total Expenditure, National Accounts Basis 21,050	22,910Surplus (+) or Deficit (-), National Accounts Basis	
-1,075	-	640Surplus (+) or Deficit (-), Budgetary Basis	
-	- 975
® Numbers in these columns should be interpreted as mid-points of ranges of estimates.
®In the National Accounts, budgetary appropriations to various funds and agencies are replaced by the expenditure actually made by these funds and agencies.
®This item includes the supplementary period adjustment. In the National Accounts, expenditures on goods and services in the supplementary period (i.e., the period between the close of the fiscal year and the closings of the books for that year) are divided between adjacent fiscal years; most other expenditures are shifted entirely to the next fiscal year.

[Stage Direction]
1972-73 Forecast*1*	1973-74 Forecast®
(millions of dollars)		
Personal Income Tax	
Corporation Income Tax	
Non-Resident Tax	
Estate Tax	
Customs Duties	
Sales Tax	
Other Duties and Taxes	7,050 2,515 290 60 1,200 2,270 1,045	7,975 2,585 325 15 1,360 2,580 1,080Total Taxes	
Non-Tax Revenues	14,430 1,870	15,920 2,080Total Budgetary Revenues	16,300	18,000
® Numbers in these columns should be interpreted as mid-points of ranges of estimates.
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the budget I have presented tonight is both responsive and responsible. It is responsive to the two problems challenging fiscal management at this time-the problems of unemployment and inflation. The budget measures I have proposed attack these two problems by adding a further strong thrust to the present pace of expansion. With average good fortune-fair crops, labour peace and international stability-the economy should grow in 1973 at a real rate in the order of 7 per cent.
This rate of expansion will not only provide more jobs, it should provide them fast enough to bring about a significant reduction in unemployment. Indeed, I expect that at this time next year there will be some 300,000 more Canadians holding down well-paying, steady jobs. The faster expansion will also supply the additional goods and services needed to meet the increase in total demand and maintain strongly competitive markets. Moreover, the form of the budgetary stimulus will help to contain inflation, because the personal tax reductions should diminish the pressure Canadians now feel to demand higher pay and thereby relieve the upward thrust on costs and prices. Other tax cuts attack the rise in prices even more directly and immediately.
The indexing of the personal tax system removes an unjust and unintended consequence of inflation. It will effectively eliminate the tax penalty imposed upon our people by the application of a progressive tax to an inflationary rise in income.
The budget is also responsible. It is responsible in the built-in restraint it places upon the growth of government expenditure, and in the consideration it has given to the requirements of provinces and their municipalities. It is responsible in the dimensions of the thrust it seeks to impart to the economy. I am confident that our cash requirements can be accommodated without bringing pressure upon financial markets.
I have made clear our objectives and the framework of measures designed to achieve them. I cannot claim that we will be fully successful in what we are trying to do. Economics is still an imperfect art, not a science. Its subject is people and their behaviour, not merely past facts and statistics. Even if it could be reduced to simplistic measurement, the fact is that the data are incomplete,

imperfect, and often seriously contradictory. I do not want to labour this point, but all of us, inside and outside government, use the same basic information.
If we could stand back only briefly from partisan politics, I think we would all be ready to acknowledge that there is much about the economy we do not know-and cannot forecast. This, of course, does not absolve us from the responsibility of doing the best we can with the information we have, and of trying to improve it over time.
Mr. Speaker, I have sought the views and advice of knowledgeable people from all sectors of Canadian society-the provinces, the academic community, businessmen, labour leaders-


Erik Nielsen: And the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis).


John Napier Turner: -and ordinary Canadians in many walks of life. The hard practical views I obtained in this way have been applied rigorously to the advice submitted by my professional staff inside the government.


George Harris Hees: That includes men like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).


John Napier Turner: In the end, of course, I have had to make my own judgments, and reach my own conclusions, and carry the government with me.
That there will be criticism, I have no doubt. We shall be attacked in some quarters for still not doing enough to stimulate the economy. Others will say that we are doing too much and that by overshooting the target we will aggravate inflation. We recognize that we are running a risk, and that the risk is on the side of overshooting. That is a risk worth taking at this time in the interests of dealing more effectively with unemployment.
This budget is now in the hands of the House. Whether the program I have outlined meets the challenge currently facing the country is something members here will have to decide. I have confidence that Canadians will make it work: that business will provide the jobs and moderate prices; that labour will take into account the additional income now in the pockets and purses of working Canadians when assessing their claims for a fair and just wage.
I commend this budget to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this House of Commons. I am confident that parliament and the people will judge it to be responsive and responsible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the demonstration the House has just witnessed does not indicate approval of some of my colleagues for the budget. We saw tonight an example of a Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) who was delivering his second budget speech-


An hon. Member:: And very well, too.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -and it was obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance had looked at
The Budget-Hon. Marcel Lambert
his last budget speech, because other than changing a few words the first paragraph of this speech was much the same as the first paragraph of his speech of May last. In May last the minister said:
-my first words to this House as Minister of Finance last February were that my most urgent priority was jobs. This remains my first priority. No economy is working as well as it should if there are men and women in this country seeking work who cannot find it.
Then come the following memorable words, spoken time and again by ministers of finance:
The search for jobs is a human problem.
What did we hear tonight? The minister said: "The purpose of this budget is-first and foremost-to bring about a substantial reduction in unemployment. Unemployment is much more than an economic problem. It is a grave social problem, a serious human problem." Almost the same words are used. And what has happened since the previous budget was delivered, Mr. Speaker? We were told then that it was a responsive and responsible budget. If we look at the speech the minister made tonight, the first paragraph of his conclusion, we see the same philosophy, the same hope. What we now see is a confession of abysmal failure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Some of our new members were not present when the previous budget speech was made. We then heard statements almost similar to those made today. I will put some of the minister's previous statements on record. In the previous budget speech he said:
I expect that unemployment will fall on the average in the course of this year, though the extraordinary month to month fluctuations in the size of the labour force will likely continue and be reflected in an uneven movement in the unemployment rate.
There are mixed tendencies in the price picture. The growth of demand and rather lower productivity will make for price increases. The cost of imports may well rise less than last year.
Then we have these memorable words:
We do not expect that food prices will rise as fast this year as last and their current tendency encourages us in this expectation. In summary, I expect that progress will be made this year in reducing unemployment.
Last month there were 688,000 unemployed. That is progress.
The growth in jobs should be considerably larger than last year. . .
In short, I am expecting a year of considerable progress.
I should hope that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) would hide his head in shame if he associates himself with these words because, as the minister said, "It is hard to forecast. It is dangerous to forecast." What have we had? The budget speech of May 8 contained nothing but a lot of empty forecasts. Coming from the same source, I suggest that this document which the minister read for an hour and 25 minutes tonight is also full of empty forecasts.
1440

February 19, 1973
The Budget-Hon. Marcel Lambert


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: October 30, 1972, was certainly a memorable day. It was the watershed, the time when this administration discovered there was a country called Canada. Tonight they announced more changes in policies, and more reversals. As a matter of fact, tonight we heard the minister adopting a constant dollar philosophy. He calls it personal indexing, but it is the same sort of thing. What did the minister say in Truro, Nova Scotia? He said the idea was totally wrong and that it was too costly. Suddenly, after October 30, what do we get: an adoption of this philosophy. We have seen a complete reversal in agricultural policy. At least, announcements have been made that are a complete rejection of former programs. In unemployment insurance, we have seen a minister eaten up, thrown to the wolves and changes being made. We have seen this in a great number of sectors. What have we seen with regard to inflation? We have seen its continuing recognition. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is mere lip service.
Last year this administration decided against tax cuts. What do we see now? Tax cuts are welcome. But who are the people who insisted on them? Not this administration. This administration rejected them out of hand, time after time last year and all through the election campaign. Is this the discovery of Canada, or is it following the tradition of the magpie which robs the nests of other birds, taking this and that? One of my colleagues asks, what kind of a bird takes the nests of other birds but the cuckoo? What are we doing here, emulating a cuckoo or a magpie in taking this and that for others?
This government has suddenly discovered the family farm. Less than 18 months ago it voted against exempting family farms from capital gains. October 30 was a great day. We have figures in the May 8 budget with regard to unemployment. It is a major problem at this time. In May last year the minister said 330,000 new jobs had been created since the previous year. Today he says there were 250,000 in that same period. He has revised his figure downward to 250,000.
The minister has said that his budget is strongly expansionary. He says it is going to remove from the taxpayers' backs $1,300 million. But in his own tables on budgetary revenues it is shown that the government is going to take in an extra $1,700 million. The minister shakes his head. I suggest he consult the table of budgetary revenues, 197374 forecast. He will see that the total government budgetary revenues are estimated to be $18,000 million. That is precisely $1,700 million more than in 1972-73. The net result is $300 million pumped into the economy that does not belong to it. There is $300 million in addition to the money that was taken from it because it was taxed through additional government revenues. The minister says he is going to leave $1,300 million in the hands of the taxpayers as a result of tax reductions. But he did not say that according to his own tables. With the personal income tax cuts, he is going to take $925 million more. That means-


An hon. Member:: What does it mean?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Be my guest. After all, the minister worked with a text. There were $2,200 million in excess of requirements through a tax system that we were told was the most just and most equitable when it was being rammed through this House in 1971 by a government majority. I ask the minister and his colleagues who were here at that time if they remember the brief put forward by the government of Ontario on Bill C-259, and the statement by the then minister of finance of Ontario, Mr. McNaughton, to the effect that the personal income tax rates in Bill C-259 would overtax the people and yield even far greater revenues than the government thought. The fact is, that was right. We have had tax cuts; this is the first. In response to that, the then minister of finance said he would lower the tax rate over a period of five years. That is provided for in section 117 of the act. But now there are to be increased exemptions and a tax cut of 5 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It all demonstrates that the people over there were backing a tax system which was gouging the Canadian public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, they smile, those boys at the back. They were not here when that bill was being taken through the House, when we heard ministers and others making statements and assertions which have proved to be falsehoods, which amounted to misrepresentation, which were put forward in ignorance of the facts and which were certainly based on wrong forecasts. The Minister of Finance may purse his lips, but he was not responsible in those days. He was only minister of justice and he was not then putting forward responsible and responsive budgets.
We could go on to direct further criticism at this budget. I know those people over there think everything now is fine and rosy. Did the Minister of Finance tell you that the $20 increase in old age security benefit includes the cost of living increase for last year and the one which was due on April 1? Also, instead of $20, the increase amounts to $13; that is all. That is the net increase. We are going to hear the claim that it is $20. Let us get it right. It is only two-thirds of what will be claimed by government supporters. Look at it and see.
Of course, we are going to import bagatelle games, cricket bats and all sorts of things at 21 per cent, or 5 per cent less. And those who favour mascara and eyeshadow-


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Don't you?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -will be pleased. But the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) and the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier), for instance, will take little pleasure in hearing that hair-sprays and other hair fixatives are to be cheaper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I believe the study and presentation of this budget would have been much more intelligent if the government had decided to table its main estimates before the budget was brought down. After all, we have this evening been presented with an outline of the way in which the government intends to raise revenue. But think of the expenditures. The estimates have not been tabled. We are told they will come before us tomorrow. Well, tomorrow is tomorrow is tomorrow.
The Budget-Hon. Marcel Lambert


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, we have not seen the House in such a joyful mood on budget night for many years. On this note, may I adjourn the debate until the day after tomorrow?
On motion of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. MacEachen the House adjourned at 9.46 p.m.
25789-19a

Tuesday. February 20. 1973