1974-05-08

MR. BREWIN-FAILURE OF PRESIDENT OF CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO PRODUCE TO COMMITTEE REPORT ON ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects all members of the House. The Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence had before it a witness, Mr. Paul Gerin-Lajoie, who is the president of CIDA. During the hearings of the committee he was requested, by a motion moved by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), to produce a report of Price Waterhouse, an accounting firm, dealing with the administration of CIDA which is a government agency supported by parliament. It was unanimously resolved by the committee on an amended motion that he should produce to the steering committee of that standing committee a copy of this report so that the steering committee could examine it to see whether it was relevant and important to the committee in advising the House about the affairs of CIDA. The president said he would comply with the wishes of the committee.
Subsequently, a letter was received by the chairman, the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance), from which I should like to quote just one paragraph:
I thought it advisable to bring this matter to the attention of the Honourable Mitchell Sharp, Secretary of State for External Affairs, through whom CIDA reports to Parliament. The minister informed me it would be preferable if the request for this document was made directly in the House of Commons.
Later the committee met and by a vote determined to ask that the report be produced by one o'clock today. The chairman, the hon. member for Lafontaine, has informed me that the report has not been produced.
I think this raises a very grave question of the privileges of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, you will be entirely familiar with the provisions of section 8 of Standing Order 65 which provides as follows:
Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, and, to report from time to time and-
I ask the House to note these words:
-except when the House otherwise orders, to send for persons, papers and records-
This clearly gives committees of the House the right to have documents before them. The particular document does not touch on security. No question of privilege was
raised. There has simply been an edict by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the committee is not to see this document pertaining to this important public agency.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Francis Andrew Brewin: The basic principle involved in my question of privilege is whether or not committees of the House are to function without a veto from a minister of the government. That is the basic principle. It is highly important to the functioning of the committees of the House that we should not have this sort of ministerial intervention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: This intervention by the Secretary of State for External Affairs is a challenge to the privileges of the House. I ask you to rule, Mr. Speaker, that there is a prima facie case of privilege. If you do so rule, I shall move that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Greenwood has raised a question of privilege in relation to the non-production of a certain document in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. He has indicated that if the Chair were to find that there is a prima facie case of privilege he would move a motion suggesting that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
The Chair has in the past, on many occasions and based on many precedents, suggested that it might be very unwise for the House to decide that proceedings in one committee be investigated by another committee. I am sure that the hon. member would want to bear that in mind. The hon. member also suggested that there is a motion which should be put. I wonder whether it would be the wish of hon. members that we spend the afternoon debating this motion which, as a debate on a motion of privilege, might go on for some days.
I have had a few moments to look into the situation, and in a preliminary way there would appear to be at least three questions involved in the matter raised by the hon. member for Greenwood. The first is whether it is procedurally acceptable to raise in the House under the heading of privilege a proceeding in a standing committee. I suggest that this can be done only when such proceeding is presented to the House by means of a report accompanied, if necessary, by the relevant evidence. In my view, it is not possible to initiate a debate in the House on the evidence alone of a committee unless there is before the House a formal report. I mean by this that the report must state the specific question and be brought to the House by means of a specific motion to concur.
Second, there is at least implied in the question of privilege the matter of the conduct of a witness before a

May 8, 1974
Report of Committees
committee. Again it seems to me, and I believe that precedent will support my view, that the conduct of a witness can be considered by the House only on receiving a report thereon from a committee and the consideration, as I said a moment ago, of a motion to concur in the report with the required 48 hours notice.
Finally, there is the question of the extent of the power of a committee to send for papers. Hon. members are aware, of course, of the Standing Order to which the hon. member has referred and of the practice of the House. Hon. members know that a committee has the power to send for persons, papers and records. The fundamental question is whether a committee, without reference and submission to the House, has the authority to exercise that power in every case.

The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), in his question of privilege, suggests that the House should study immediately the problem posed by the refusal of CIDA's president to produce a certain document to the committee.
Can the committee, on its own, without reporting officially to the House, take any coercive steps against the witness? Can the committee, on its own authority, conclude in judgment: Down with Gerin-Lajoie? The Chair will have to think about it seriously.

For the moment, I think it would be the sense of the House that, rather than embark on an extended debate on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Greenwood, the Chair should be given an opportunity to reflect on the matter, taking into account the representations of the hon. member and the precedents, and then give a ruling later, perhaps tomorrow.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report, in both official languages, of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.- Mr. Lachance.
Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
_ Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine on a point of order.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, we did not hear the chairman of the committee as our electronic device was not working.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lafontaine may want to repeat the motion he made a moment ago when no one heard him.


Mr. Lachance:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, provided the green light of the microphone lights up.

First report, in both official languages, of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence- Mr. Lachance.


HEALTH, WELFARE AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Fourth report, in both official languages, of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Isabelle.
[Editor's Note: For texts of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. It is based on the fact that some 29,000 people, about 60 per cent of the claimants in the Metro Toronto area, as well as some 1,500 claimants in the Ottawa area and 472 in Hamilton, did not pick up their cheques which were available at emergency offices set up during the postal strike, all of which seriously questions the effectiveness and intent of the Unemployment Insurance Act as presently drafted to deal with possible abuse and misuse.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House instruct the Minister of Manpower and Immigration forthwith to give reasons in detail why he has not instituted a full inquiry under the Inquiries Act calling for an attendance at all the said emergency offices in order to investigate all circumstances surrounding the non-acquisition of benefit cheques by claimants, with specific instructions to report back outlining conclusions and recommendations, and further to give reason why no inquiry under the said act has been instituted in order to determine:
(a)	whether fears about abuse and misuse under the Unemployment Insurance Act are justified;
(b)	whether there are disincentives to work built into the present Unemployment Insurance Act and, if so, what can be done to remove or reduce them;
(c)	whether the Unemployment Insurance Act is an insurance plan in reality, a welfare plan, or a combination of both to which contributions are simply a new kind of tax;
(d)	the relationship between high unemployment insurance benefits, high job vacancy rates and high unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair takes the liberty, for the future guidance of hon. members, to suggest that it takes exception to the form of the hon. member's motion. That having been said, the House is invited to determine whether there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I gather there is disagreement.
May 8, 1974


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity I move, seconded by the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Foster):
That this House expresses its desire that the proposed increases to war veterans allowances be approved at the earliest opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion moved by the hon. member under Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: With the noise I am not sure whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I will ascertain again whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe there is unanimous consent, so the motion will be put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek permission of the House under Standing Order 43 to move a motion arising out of a recent international conference held in the city of Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: If hon. members opposite will be patient I will read the proposed motion.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. There is noise coming from both sides of the House. In fairness, I think we should give an opportunity to the hon. member for Leeds to put his motion.
National Conference Centre


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I ask permission of the House to move, seconded by the hon. member for Frontenac-Len-nox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack):
That the Prime Minister advise the House who gave Dermission for use of the national conference centre for the recent international gathering of Liberals, whether or not the public treasury will be reimbursed for such use by the Liberal Party of Canada and whether or not it is now government policy to allow use of the national conference centre to international political movements at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. Prime Minister rises on a point of order.


Mr. Trudeau:: It is a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The House might be interested in knowing the answer to this, if it wants me to give the answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. Prime Minister has risen on a point of order. I am not sure whether the House would wish to hear him but, if so, he has the floor.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I rise to assuage the worries of the hon. member and to indicate that the Liberal Party of Canada is paying the expenses involved in the use of the centre. If the Tories ever want to do the same, I am sure they will be very welcome.


Mr. Bell:: How about the second part of the question?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the Prime Minister clarifying the situation, would it not be in order for the Prime Minister to clarify whether the taxpayers of Canada have been reimbursed for his political flights all over the world on holidays and all over Canada to Liberal Party gatherings?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Sick!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member please resume his seat. I ask hon. members for their co-operation. If hon. members want to spend the whole afternoon on alleged points of order and questions of privilege, I think that will not be conducive to any kind of constructive business. I appeal to hon. members to allow the Chair to call the next item of business. The hon. member rises on a question of privilege.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I will take about five seconds to say this.


An hon. Member:: Sick, sick!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I think I have a legitimate question of privilege when members like the Solicitor General and the

May 8, 1974
National Conference Centre
Minister of Supply and Services yell across the floor, "sick, sick", and point their fingers to their heads, like this. It is they who will be sick after this election is over, good and sick.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think I might have a question of privilege, too. I do not want to go into the longstanding practice of the Prime Minister of the country being conveyed by transportation belonging to the government, whether it be by rail, by aircraft or by boat. I will stand by the accepted practice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I say, I will stand by the accepted practice, but I think I must add that I sometimes use commercial airlines when I find it is not inconvenient to the public, in the same way as I use my own private car. This being said, I want to point out once again that all members of the House, including Tories, use public transportation, use Department of National Defence aircraft and use Department of Transport aircraft, and not only to get to their ridings. I have seen several Tory frontbenchers on DND planes going overseas on several occasions, and I can name them if you want.


Thomas Miller Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is electioneering by army helicopter that we object to.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I appeal to hon. members. It seems to me that this exchange cannot be constructive, and I wonder whether there is any point in pursuing the matter.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a point of order and of course I have to recognize him, but I appeal to hon. members to try to get on with the business of the House. It is my impression that there is important business to be transacted this afternoon.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is not a controversial one and has nothing to do with the motion that was turned down on which the Prime Minister spoke. I wish to lend my support to the previous motion moved under Standing Order 43 by a backbencher on the other side. In addition to increases in war veterans allowances, will he also press that the war veterans of this country be permitted to wear their decorations on formal occasions where the Queen or the Governor General of this country is involved?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order and with regard to the desire of the House to deal with the amendments improving the War Veterans Allowance Act, I would advise hon. members that the government is quite ready to put this legislation before the House tomorrow and in succeeding days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Now that the House has disposed of the item, points of order, we will return to the item, motions.


PROSPECTIVE REMOVAL OF FEED GRAINS FROM CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to request the consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity in connection with the apparent decision of the government to undermine, if not emasculate, the Canadian Wheat Board in its equivocally worded and announced prospective policy regarding domestic feed grains. The motion I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), is:
That this House views with alarm the prospective removal of feed grains from the Canadian Wheat Board, and directs the government not to permit this to be done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. member's motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Member:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I gather there is not unanimous consent. The motion therefore cannot be put. Is the right hon. gentleman rising on a point of order?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I could not hear what you said, having regard to the trumpet call of defeat that is apparent on the government side of the House today.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Assiniboia rises on the same point of order.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact we have had no legislation on this matter and in view of the fact the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) represents a grain area, as do many other members, particularly members from Saskatchewan, I wonder whether the government would reconsider its decision on the motion as the right hon. member for Prince Albert has stated a position contrary to the position taken by the official Conservative party? He is in agreement with the position of the NDP in the province of Saskatchewan.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that is debate and not a point of order.
May 8, 1974


SUGGESTED HOLDING OF ELECTIONS ON FIXED DATES- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to consider an urgent and important parliamentary matter.
Since the Canadian people wish to see the legislative action of an elected Parliament and since a majority of members have been elected to govern, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That the government introduce legislation which would enable Parliament to be elected on a set date for a determined period to ensure a satisfactory democratic operation of an elected Parliament.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House in order that in this spirit of unanimity and co-operation of the members, this House can hold a special debate on the impact of the new dairy policy, especially in Quebec, which is very much lacking and unsatisfactory for our Quebec producers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that there is no unanimity in support of the motion of the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


André-Gilles Fortin: I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Under the terms of Standing Order 43, the Chair asks if there is unanimous consent. I have the feeling on this side of the House that it would be important to know where the opposition is coming from. I have heard that it comes from the Progressive Conservatives, but I would like to be sure, Mr. Speaker.
Feed Grains


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may have heard so, but I have heard "no".


FISHERIES
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I seek the consent of the House to move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43. The case of urgent and pressing necessity is the concern that secret negotiations may now be going on between the government and the owners of the Cassiar Cannery on the coast of British Columbia in an attempt to bring the cannery further under the control of Japanese interests. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That the government disclose forthwith the relationship it has with respect to the Cassiar Cannery near Prince Rupert, B.C., especially with reference to any current negotiations to purchase the said cannery.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Skeena?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


MARKETING OF FEED GRAINS BY CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the well worded motion of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the principle contained therein were turned down, I would like to move a similar motion. In view of the fact the official position of the Conservative party is to have feed grains on the open market, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly):
That this House support orderly marketing of feed grains under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the hon. member has the motion in writing. I see him writing now. Perhaps the hon. member will have the motion for tomorrow. The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the twice-repeated statement on the part of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) concerning Conservative policy. I simply want to say this: While the spirit of unity moves, we have not yet come to a point where the NDP will make any announcements as to what is Conservative policy. They have been doing that for the Liberal party for some time.
2138

May 8, 1974
Order Paper Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


IDENTIFICATION OF CRIMINALS ACT
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-285, to amend the Identification of Criminals Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Identification of Criminals Act to provide that the results of the identification process, that is, mug-shots, fingerprints, may not be published unless and until the person in question has been convicted of the offence for which he was charged and subjected to the identification process. Similarly, provision is made for prohibiting the publication and for destroying the results of the identification process when the person has been acquitted.


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

Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill S-2 (from the Senate), to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Fortin: What notaries in the constituency of Lotbiniere were authorized to draw up documents for signature when a contract is concluded between a purchaser and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or a builder, pursuant to the National Housing Act of 1954 (a) to January 1, 1961 (b) from January 1, 1968 to date?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: (a) Information on notaries retained by CMHC to process mortgage documentation for

loans approved in the Municipal Counties of Arthabaska, Lotbiniere and Nicolet prior to January 1, 1961, is not available, (b) Notaries retained by CMHC to process mortgage documentation for loans approved in the Municipal Counties of Arthabaska, Lotbiniere and Nicolet since January 1, 1968, have been: Horace Bergeron, Vic-toriaville; Jacques Blondin, St-Gregoire; Gilles Boucher, Victoriaville; Michel Boulanger, Victoriaville; Jacques Cote, Arthabaska; Nicolas Larochelle, Victoriaville; Pierre Martel, Nicolet; Laval Simard, St-Leonard d'Aston; Michel Simard, St-Wenceslas; Andre Villeneuve, Gentilly; Charles-Edouard Villeneuve, Becancour; Jean Villeneuve, Gentilly.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all advertising agencies used by the Department of National Revenue since the present Minister assumed his portfolio?
2.	(a) What are the amounts of all advertising contracts given such agencies during this period of time, what are the dates such contracts were awarded and in each case, were tenders or competitive presentations of any kind requested and, if not, who authorized in each case the expenditure of public funds without such tenders or competitive presentations (b) in each case, what was the general subject matter of the advertising contract?
3.	What are the names and addresses of all advertising agencies used by the Department of National Revenue during the term of the Minister's immediate predecessor and if any of these agencies has not been used since then, for what reason and on whose decision were changes made?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: In so far as the Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise, is concerned: 1 and 2. (a):
Name and Address
Amount	Date

Inter-Canada Quebec Advertising Agency Limited,	4,843.50 March 5, 1973
1350 Sherbrooke Street West,
Montreal, Quebec,


[Stage Direction]
John Doherty & Co., Ltd.,	4,433.21 April 15, 1973
46 Elgin Street,
Ottawa, Ontario,
[Stage Direction]
Because the individual expenditures were less than $10,000, there were no formal contracts between the agencies and Customs and Excise and, therefore, these payments were made on the basis of ordinary departmental purchase orders. This is in accordance with Treasury Board regulations, (b) The subject matter of these contracts relates to the publicizing of information folders with respect to Customs regulations which concern the travelling public and the provision of information to the public generally concerning personnel changes in the department at the senior management level.
May 8, 1974
[Stage Direction]
3.	Inter-Canada Quebec Advertising Agency Limited, 1350 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Quebec, H3H 1E4.
In so far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, is concerned:
1 and 2. (a) Name and address	Amount	Date
[Stage Direction]
Inter-Canada Quebec	1,200,000
Advertising Agency Limited 1350 Sherbrooke Street West Montreal, Quebec H3H 1E4
June 29, 1972 (T.B. Minute No. 712598)
Vickers and Benson Limited 2055 Peel Street Montreal, Quebec H3A 1V4
1,060,629 July 13, 1973 (T.B. Minute No. 719880)
Formal tenders were not requested. Expenditure of funds was authorized by Treasury Board.
(b) In each case, the general subject matter centered on providing information and advising taxpayers of assistance available from the department during the tax filing season.
3.	Inter-Canada Quebec Advertising Agency Limited, 1350 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Quebec, H3H 1E4; Ronalds-Reynolds & Company Limited, 154 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 3B1. Changes in advertising agencies are recommended by the department from time to time on the basis of changing conditions and requirements. The recommendations are annually approved by the Treasury Board.
Mr. Gleave: 1* Bas the Minister of Agriculture received representations from the Creditors Committee of Creditors of Diversified Crops Limited, Rycroft, Alberta?
2.	Has the government given a guarantee to these farmers that they will receive payments in full for the grain they delivered to Diversified Crops Limited?
3.	What responsibilities, in respect of assuming liability, do (a) the Canadian Grain Commission (b) the Bonding Company assume?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Yes.
2.	No.
3.	(a) None, (b) According to the terms of the bond, i.e., in default of the company to fulfill the specific conditions of its licence under the Canada Grain Act, the Surety assumes liability not exceeding the face value of the bond.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	How much did Falconbridge Mines Ltd. receive in Manpower retraining grants from the government in each year 1972 and 1973?
2.	In each such year how many persons (a) started (b) completed the job retraining program at Falconbridge Mines Ltd.?
Order Paper Questions
3.	From among those individuals who started the job retraining program in 1972 and 1973 at Falconbridge Mines Ltd., how many are still (a) with the Company (b) in the mining industry?
4.	How much did International Nickel Company Ltd. receive in Manpower retraining grants from the government in each year 1972 and 1973?
5.	In each such year how many persons (a) started (b) completed the job retraining program at INCO?
6.	From among those individuals who started the job retraining program in 1972 and 1973 at INCO, how many are still (a) with the Company (b) in the mining industry?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Falconbridge Mines Ltd., received assistance under the Training-in-Industry and Training on-the-job elements of the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program as follows: (i) under the Training-in-Industry element, the department paid $1,429.86 for contracts signed in the fiscal year 1972-73; (ii) under the Training-on-the-job element, the company received $49,165.16 for training contracts approved in the fiscal year 1972-73 and $27,964.69 for those approved between April 1, 1973 and February 28, 1974.
2. Number of persons who started and completed training: (i) under the Training-in-Industry element: (a) 10 persons started, (b) 10 persons completed; (ii) under the Training on-the-job element: (a) 39 persons started training under the 1972-73 contracts and 30 under the 1973-74 contracts, (b) 27 persons completed training under the 1972-73 contracts and 10 under the 1973-74 contracts (the remainder are still in training)
3.	Number of persons still employed: (i) under the Training-in-Industry element: (a) two persons are still with the company (b) three persons are working in the mining industry, two trainees returned to school and the status is unknown for the remaining three trainees; (ii) under the Training on-the-Job element: (a) 16 persons hired for the 1972-73 contracts are still with Falconbridge and 10 for the 1973-74 contracts, (b) in the mining industry, the number and status of the remaining trainees is not known.
4.	The International Nickel Co. Ltd., received assistance only under the Training-in-Industry element of the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program. Under this element the Department reimbursed the employer $68,920.28 for training contracts signed in the fiscal year 1972-73.
5.	Number of persons who started and completed training are as follows: (a) 155 persons started training under the above-noted contracts, (b) to date, 138 persons have completed training under these contracts.
6.	The number of persons still employed: (a) 131 persons are still with this company, (b) six persons are with other employers in the mining industry.


Mr. Dick: 1.	How many weigh scales have federal inspectors inspected in each of the past three years?
27451-72',

May 8, 1974
Order Paper Questions
2.	How many federal inspectors does the government have for the purpose of inspecting weigh scales?
3.	How much money was spent by the government for the inspecting of weigh scales in each of the past three years?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. The number of weights and measures devices inspected by Consumer and Corporate Affairs inspectors during the past three years is as follows: 1971, 324,726; 1972, 301,503; 1973, 291,606*.
2.	The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has 168 weights and measures inspectors.
3.	Expenditures for the weights and measures subactivity over the last three fiscal years has been as follows: 1970-1971,	$2,155,303;	1971-1972,	$2,359,578;	1972-1973,


[Stage Direction]
*The yearly reductions in the number of weights and measures inspections reflects a thrust of the department in providing a more concentrated inspection coverage to those devices most commonly used or having high commercial importance in trade, with a view to reducing the potential economic inequity to the greatest degree possible. The design of commonly used devices is subject to frequent technological changes. These technological changes have brought into use electronic load cells, printout facility, etc. which greatly increases the average time required for inspection with a consequent reduction in the number of devices inspected by the same work force.
Mr. Howie: On what date will the Land Force Policy Review Study be completed by the Department of National Defence (a) who is involved in the study (b) what are its terms of reference (c) has any person outside of the Department of National Defence had any input into the study and, if so, what is his name?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: The Land Force Policy Review Study, currently being conducted within the Department of National Defence, will be completed in the near future, (a) This study is being conducted by both military and civilian officers of the Department of National Defence. Advice and assistance have been sought as required from officials of the Department of External Affairs and the Treasury Board, during the course of the study, (b) Although the terms of reference of this study are classified, its general purpose is to identify, within the context of the broad defence objectives contained in the White Paper "Defence in the 70s", the specific objectives for the future development of the land and associated tactical air forces, and to examine choices as to the means by which these objectives might be attained, (c) There has been no participation from outside of the government Service.


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	Has the Department of Agriculture conducted a study into the availability of supplies of fertilizers using nitrogen during the current year?
(Mr. Dick.)
2.	Are such fertilizers in short supply for farmers in Ontario, and in particular for those in Southern Ontario?
3.	Is the Department aware as to whether such fertilizers are still being exported from Canada?
4.	Has the Department of Agriculture conducted any studies into the numbers of fertilizers using nitrogen and, if so, what are the results of said studies?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Yes.
2.	Demand for fertilizers, including those containing nitrogen, is greater than in previous years. Production and transport are being pressed to meet the demand, a reversal of the situation during the preceding many years. The adequacy of supply to fill actual need will not be known until after planting time.
3.	Fertilizer is being exported at a reduced rate to traditional markets while imports are also being made.
4.	The supply and distribution of fertilizers is being monitored on a continuing basis, as to source and type of formulation, for example. In recent years there has been a trend to high nitrogen fertilizers such as anhydrous ammonia and nitrogen solutions.


Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands): 1.	What is the monthly allowance at the post-secondary level for Indian students who receive funding from the (a) Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (b) Department of Manpower and Immigration?
2.	How much is allotted by each Department for dependents of these students?
3.	Are these allowances equal to those given to Metis and non-status Indians by provincial governments?
4.	On what date will the federal allowances to treaty and status Indians be increased to equal that provided by provincial governments?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: In so far as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned the answer is: 1. (a) Without dependents-all of Canada, $238.00 per month; With 1 dependent (except Maritime Region), $294.61 per month; Maritime Region, $277.33 per month; With 2 dependents (except Maritime Region), $342.33 per month; Maritime Region, $312.00 per month; With 3 dependents (except Maritime Region), $381.33 per month; Maritime Region, $342.33 per month; With 4 or more dependents (except Maritime Region), $411.66 per month; Maritime Region, $381.33 per month.
2.	See reply to 1 (a).
3.	There is a great variation in allowances paid by provinces and, generally speaking, provincial allowances are lower. In one province a wage replacement for new careerists is paid and this is higher than the rates paid by the department.
4.	Occupational Training for Adults rates are revised each July.
In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned, the reply is as follows:
1. (b) Nil.
May 8, 1974

2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.


Mr. Rynard: 1.	How many cattle were graded for slaughter in the Toronto stockyards in the weeks of March 11, 1974 and March 18, 1974?
2.	How many of these cattle were graded Al, A2, A3 and A4?


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the answer for this question is: 1. Slaughter cattle are not graded at public stockyards in Canada. Sorting of cattle as done at public stockyards, is referred to as "live grading", and is only an estimate of what cattle will grade when they are later slaughtered and graded at packing plants. March 11-16- 5133 cattle sold; March 18-23-6587 cattle sold.
2. Sorting to estimated grades Al, A2, A3 and A4:
	March	March
	11-16	18-23
Al, A2	2,724	3,930A3	426	631A4	27	41Others	1,956	1,985


Mr. Reid: Is the government giving consideration to increasing the amount of the CBC grant to meet its budgetary needs as a result of the restrictions on advertising imposed on CBC television and radio licences by CRTC and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: The
report of the CRTC includes proposed conditions of licence only for the CBC. It is not yet certain that the proposed conditions will pertain. Should reduced involvement in advertising be attached as a condition of licence and should the CBC agree that this would not impede unreasonably the provision of national broadcasting service, it would appear that increased appropriations would be required to maintain the amount of and high quality of current CBC programming.


Mr. Baker: 1.	What were the expenditures of the Department of Supply and Services in each of the years 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 on the following types of office furniture and equipment (a) government modular desks (b) metal storage and filing cabinets (c) chairs?
2.	In the year 1972, what was the total value of contracts awarded to each of the following companies (a) Office Specialties Ltd. (b) Steel Case (c) Interroyal (d) Standard Desk (e) E.K. Johl?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Order Paper Questions			
1969	1970	1971	1972$	$	$	$(a) government modular furniture*	281,852	1,283,135	2,224,019	3,256,090(b) metal storage and filing cabinets	202,707	423,095	1,283,985	1,214,700(c) chairs	566,761	914,513	1,979,481	2,098,159
Includes desks, credenzas, run-offs etc., that form part ofthegovern-ment modular line.
2. (a) Office Specialties Ltd., $574,000; (b) Steel Case, $343,000; (c) Interroyal, $1,921,000; (d) Standard Desk, $1,922,000; (e) E.K. Johl, $180,000.


Mr. Saltsman: 1.	(a) Is the sale of food and beverages in the National Arts Centre leased to a private company and (i) if not, is it intended that this concession should be leased to a private company and will tenders be called (ii) if so, were tenders called for the concession and how many companies submitted tenders (b) which company, if any, now holds this concession and until what date (c) who are the president and directors of the company holding the concession?
2.	(a) Is the parking garage in the National Arts Centre leased to a private company and (i) if not, is it intended that a parking concession should be leased to a private company and will tenders be called (ii) if so, were tenders called for the concession and how many companies submitted tenders (b) which company, if any, now holds this concession and until what date (c) who are the president and directors of this company?
3.	What was the total amount of money spent by (a) the Director General (b) other officers and members of the staff of the National Arts Centre on entertainment, including food and beverages, during the fiscal year 1973-74?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the National Arts Centre as follows: 1. The sale of food and beverages in the National Arts Centre is undertaken directly by National Arts Centre management.
2.	The parking garage in the National Arts Centre is operated by the National Arts Centre.
3.	Subject to fiscal year-end closing entries and subsequent audit, our records presently indicate that the following amounts have been expended during 1973/74 for entertainment, including food and beverage: (a) Director General, $4,450.80; (b) Other officers and staff, $12,888.97; $17,339.77.


Mr. Firth: Has the government concluded that the seismic operations planned by Panarctic Oils Ltd. on the southern part of Bathurst Island will not

May 8, 1974
Order Paper Questions
affect wildlife migration patterns and, if so, on the basis of what studies?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes. The conclusion was based on information provided by the representative on the Land Use Advisory Committee from the Canadian Wildlife Service and his information was founded on the research and cumulative expertise of several researchers in the Canadian Wildlife Service who have many years of field experience studying caribou and muskoxen.


Mr. Howie: How much revenue has the government received from the sale of alcoholic products for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 and to date?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: According to our records, the gross revenue derived from excise duties and excise taxes on the sale of alcoholic beverages for the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 was as follows: 1972-73: $426,152,652.30; 1973-74: $452,477,328.41. The above amounts do not include revenue from the consumption or sales tax imposed by the Excise Tax Act, as such revenue is recorded in one account without any distinction as to source.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Will Canada accept an invitation extended by the Mayor and Council and be represented at Saint-Georges-des-Groseillers, France for the recognition of the wartime tragedy that was suffered by Canadian troops there on June 11, 1944 and the commemoration of Canada's wartime contribution by the renaming of one of that Town's streets "Rue des Canadiens"?
2.	Will Canada send a delegation to the ceremonies and, if so, will consideration be given to including survivors of the wartime incident in the delegation?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1 and 2. As announced in the House on March 29, a Canadian delegation will participate, with other allied countries, in the ceremonies marking the thirtieth Anniversary of the landings in Normandy on June 6, 1944. These events will conclude on June 7 and the delegation will return to Canada the next day. The Department of Veterans Affairs has communicated with the Mayor of Saint-Georges-des-Groseillers, and has offered to assist the survivors of the Canadian units concerned to visit his community while they are in Normandy.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Mazankowski: By department, what were the expenditures for taxis by messengers and other staff, in the Ottawa-Hull area, for the months of July, 
August, September, October, November and December 1973 and January, 1974?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date by the Department of Agriculture 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?
Return tabled.



CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date by the Canadian International Development Agency 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?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date by the Department of National Revenue 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?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF SOLICITOR GENERAL RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date by the Department of the Solicitor General 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?
Return tabled.
May 8, 1974



STATISTICS CANADA RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date by Statistics Canada 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?
Return tabled.



PROSECUTIONS FOR MISLEADING ADVERTISING

Mr. Fleming: What are the latest statistics available on prosecutions for misleading advertising (a) the names of these companies (b) the number of times these companies have been charged and the number of convictions placed upon them?
Return tabled.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with reference to question No. 107. This question has been on the order paper since February 27. It is a very simple one. It seeks statistical information regarding the strength of federal government departments and agencies in Newfoundland, and I fail to see why I cannot get an answer.


Mr. Foster:: I will be pleased to look into the matter and report to the hon. member soon.


Mr. Paproski:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on three different occasions, April 16, April 17 and May 6, I have called attention to the statement the parliamentary secretary made with respect to question No. 319. On April 15 the hon. member stated that it cost the taxpayers of this country $1.5 million to reply to this question which shows the inquiries of this government toward the women of Canada. I rose on a question of privilege on April 16 and 17 to protest the statement made by the parliamentary secretary on the ground that it interferes with the right of members to seek information from the government.
I deny that the statement he made is true. On April 17, the government House leader promised that the parliamentary secretary would furnish the House with an explanation of his extraordinary statement. I have now learned, in relation to my repeated requests for an answer to question No. 319, that answers had been prepared by departments and forwarded to the minister in March. It has since been discovered that personnel officers in the departments have been asked to inform parliamentary return officers how long it actually took to prepare the answers, the dates when they were completed, and when the answers went to the minister's office. It was also learned that there is an unwritten procedure by which, if an officer feels a question on the order paper would cost more than $200 to answer, he must inform the parliamentary returns officer who would then determine whether the preparation of an answer should be undertaken.
In the case of question No. 319 relating to salaries paid to women, no indication was in fact given that the cost of preparing the answer would exceed $200, and the answer
Motions for Papers
was prepared without further consideration as a matter of routine procedure. The fact that questions were later asked with a view to finding out the date on which the answers were, in fact, ready, together with the fact that those responsible for preparing the answers did not inform the minister's assistant that the cost would exceed $200, makes it clear that the statement by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is false and misleading. If he does not withdraw, I ask the minister to apologize to the House for him, and if the minister does not have enough guts to withdraw that false statement, the Prime Minister might lower himself and withdraw on behalf of the chicken-hearted minister and his parliamentary secretary.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in regard to question No. 50. I have asked on several occasions in the House recently why this question has not been answered, what reason there was for the delay. The question has been on the order paper since away back in the last session. I had not intend to bring the matter up again today, but since the question concerns trips made by the Prime Minister to Liberal gatherings at public expense, and in light of the Prime Minister's obvious change of heart a few minutes ago in becoming price conscious on the eve of an election, I thought he might be prepared to let us know, this afternoon, when this question might be answered.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has asked many questions about the expense of maintaining the Sussex Drive and Harrington Lake properties and all those questions have been answered except one, I believe, which concerns work that has only been completed recently. I can give the member a guarantee that, as the other questions have been answered, this one will be answered later this session.


Mr. Forrestall:: Also on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I remind the parliamentary secretary that on a previous occasion I expressed concern that a series of questions on the order paper dated February 28 have not been answered, in particular, question No. 220 which asks why there is no audit of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in the report of the Auditor General. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could take note of this question, which is not starred but perhaps should be, and respond if we are here tomorrow.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I will be pleased to look into the matter the hon. member has raised. I would note that 54 per cent of all the questions placed on the order paper have been answered to date this session.


An hon. Member:: Is that all?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers stand.

May 8, 1974
Oral Questions Mr. Speaker: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the Minister of Finance refused five times yesterday to indicate the projected growth in the gross national product in current dollars, and in view of the vital importance of this information to labour, industry and consumers in formulating their plans, will the Prime Minister, as head of the government, provide the House with this information to which it is entitled?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the answers given yesterday by the Minister of Finance.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the Prime Minister advise the House if there has been any other Minister of Finance in recent Canadian history who has denied the House of Commons this information, which is usually provided in the budget address and is automatically included in budget papers in other countries, including the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will permit me to take notice of that question, I will get some historians to track down the answer.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is it a fact that the Department of Finance has prepared a secret report on which the budget figures are based, indicating an inflation figure so outrageously high that its publication would affect public expectations, labour settlements and the political prospects of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. The only thing that is outrageously high is the smell of the questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Trinity will be recognized on a further supplementary, but if hon. members want to ask further supplementaries they will have to wait until we have completed the first round of questioning. The hon. member for Trinity is recognized for a supplementary.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it is not a supplementary; it is a question of privilege. It does occur to me that the Prime Minister might practice being a little more gracious and reasonable if he intends to appeal to the more moderate members of the electorate.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to practice that advice for one more day, but I should like to indicate that many, many allegations are made in the form of questions such as the hon. member just raised-


Mr. Nielsen:: They are made in answers, too.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and I would suggest that these allegations, almost all unfounded, are a way of spreading rumours that is deleterious to the democratic process.


OIL-ACTION TO COLLECT EXPORT CHARGE IF PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION BILL NOT PASSED
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and arises from his answer yesterday to the effect that if the petroleum administration bill is not passed there will be no authority for the collection of the export charge. In view of the fact there are a great many precedents for taxes having been collected after dissolution because of a notice of ways and means motion having been filed, or even simply by announcing that legislation is to be passed and the tax collected in the meantime, I want to ask the minister what action he proposes to take to ensure that the export charge can be collected by the government?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the opinion I have is to the opposite effect, namely, that if there is a ways and means motion it will die, along with all other measures before parliament, if the government is defeated, and there will not even be a constitutional basis for collecting such taxes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will get an opinion from the Department of Justice because this opinion flies in the face of all the precedents. As a matter of fact, the bill has not been defeated; it is before a committee of the House. I now ask the minister directly whether he is prepared to file notice of a ways and means motion today to extend the present notice of ways and means from June 1 to September 1 or October 1?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. gentleman that we are talking about a notice of ways and means which, like all other proceedings in this parliament, will die if parliament is dissolved.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether any one of the oil companies operating in Canada has told the minister that it is not prepared to pay the export charge?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think they are waiting to see whether or not hon. gentlemen are going to carry out their threat of plunging the country into an election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
May 8, 1974


FINANCE
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the House whether the legislative proposals will forbid the financial institutions from making higher profits, as we are experiencing now due to the practice that consists in causing prices to rise and therefore, increasing the cost of living and inflation; in the affirmative, will new conditions be included to this effect in the bill in respect of combines investigation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would refer to the bill on profiteering practices now before the House, he would find that, indeed it contains provisions to prevent excess profits when, in certain conditions, they are being derived from the broadening of the margin between costs and prices.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Would the right hon. Prime Minister tell us also whether current financial business practices are questionable, or whether they are considered acceptable and harmless as regards the causes of inflation and rise in the cost of living?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, certain practices are no doubt unacceptable and this is why we have before the House two bills, one on profiteering and the other on competition, which would give the government authority to act and prevent such practices, and this is still another reason-and I am grateful to the hon. member for the opportunity-why we feel this legislation should be enacted before dissolution.


INCREASES IN GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES-THE BUDGET AND INFLATION
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance that is supplementary to the question asked by my hon. friend from Trinity. It is in response to the urging of the Prime Minister that members of the opposition provide correct information. Since 1968 the increase in government spending has been 136.9 per cent, and the minister's latest budget indicates that expenditures are up by 22 per cent and revenues on a national accounts basis are up by 26 per cent. I ask the minister whether he will have one of his colleagues who is to speak this afternoon in the limited time left to the government give some reasons, other than the flimsy ones advanced by the minister, why his budget is not in fact a very inflationary budget?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, will be addressing himself to that subject, and in analysing the forecast of expenditures for 1974-75 will indicate on a factual basis that the increase for goods and services projected by the federal government is 12 per
Oral Questions
cent. When he goes through the accounting for the benefit of the House and the country, I think the hon. member will have some homework done for him that he might have done before putting his question.


AVAILABILITY OF LOANS TO FARMERS-RESULT OF MINISTER'S DISCUSSIONS WITH BANKS
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Some time ago the minister stated he would hold discussions with officials of the banks of Canada to ensure that under the Farm Improvement Loans Act money would be available for farmers, in view of the fact that some banks seem to be unwilling to lend money by way of farm improvement loans. Has the minister had these discussions and, if so, what was the outcome?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I shall be giving that information to the hon. member's colleague, the hon. member for Lisgar, and I will send him a copy of the letter.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Because the government has based so much of its struggle against inflated food prices on encouraging in every way increased Canadian food production, does the minister meekly accept, or is he prepared to publicly challenge, allegations by the government's Food Prices Review Board that through marketing boards and other means Canadian producers are receiving exorbitant profits, especially on eggs and other poultry products?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, it would take too long in the House to correct the erroneous and inflammatory suggestions that the Globe and Mail had in its paper today. But I will be issuing a news release later today.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which has to do with food production. As food production is also greatly affected by the price and availability of fertilizer, can the minister indicate what percentage of fertilizer supplies is being exported by Canada to help developing nations, as indicated by the Minister of Finance in his budget address?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this has been a long-standing practice by the government of Canada and a lot of plants were purposely developed to produce fertilizer for the developing countries. This is one way we can aid them in a better form than we ever did before. Exports have continued to these countries which are in need. I am sure no hon. member would want to see those countries placed in a
2146

May 8, 1974
Oral Questions
worse situation than they are at present with starvation a reality, something we do not have in this country. The production of some of our plants this year has increased by a quarter of a million tons. Plants, to my knowledge, have been operating seven days a week, 24 hours a day to produce the products needed here and in other parts of the world. I will be making a complete statement on this matter shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I should bring to the attention of hon. members that a large number of members are rising on both sides of the House to ask questions and supplementaries. There will be a limited time for questions and there will be other important business later this afternoon, so some hon. members will have to be disappointed. I do not think we should have too many supplementaries. For the moment, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Lisgar.


EGGS-IMPOSITION OF IMPORT CONTROLS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Now that Bill C-4, the Export and Import Permits Act amendment, has been passed, I should like to ask whether the bill is to be used, in what manner it will be used, whether there will be controls, and what kind of controls will be imposed for the situation immediately at hand, which is the egg problem.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, there should be a release in every member's mailbox at this time indicating that permits will be required for imports of turkeys and eggs as of midnight tonight, May 8, 1974.


FINANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact the Deputy Minister of Finance said on Monday that he would try to inform us by the next day, yesterday, of the estimated loss of revenue because of the corporate tax cut for manufacturers and processors and the fast write-offs, has the minister now checked with his deputy minister and, if so, is he in a position to supply us with that information today?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I gave that answer rather fully yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition and to the hon. gentleman.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Can the Minister of Finance assure the House that he will be giving us that figure within the next few days and, preferably, before the end of this month?


John Napier Turner: If there is a House then, I can give that assurance.


INQUIRY WHETHER BILL C-22 WILL BE AMENDED
Miss Monique Begin (Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare to clarify the strategy with respect to Canadian football or opposition football. Would the minister explain to the House the circumstances of his statement when he suggested he was prepared to amend Bill C-22 and say what those circumstances were?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister may answer briefly the question put by the hon. member for Saint-Michel. Normally, if the minister has substantive information to give to the House that should be done on motions but the minister will be recognized briefly.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the policy of this government on that was quite clear throughout the debate. The committee of the House passed the bill yesterday and I want to state categorically that I do not consider the possibility of any amendments to the bill as approved by the committee yesterday.


FINANCE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The night before last the minister stated that an opportunity is at hand to improve the standard of living of every Canadian. Is the minister satisfied that the personal tax cut, which is equivalent to a reduction of 98 cents a week for the ordinary Canadian, will fight inflation and improve his standard of living when his real wages are down by nearly $3 a week?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


INCLUSION OF RUGBY FOOTBALL IN LEGISLATION BANNING OPERATION IN CANADA OF WORLD FOOTBALL LEAGUE
Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which is supplementary to a previous question asked on football. I direct my supplementary to the Prime Minister in respect of the fumbled football bill. I ask the Prime Minister, as a patron of rugby football in this country, why the government allowed a bill to be introduced into this House denying rugby football its rightful place, while he himself acts as a patron of that sport?
May 8, 1974


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention to prevent the many sports in which I participate in Canada from being played in Canada. The purpose of this bill, if the hon. member wants to read the 18 speeches made by the opposition, is completely different from the one he suggests.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, apparently the Prime Minister completely misunderstood my question. In that the Prime Minister is a patron of rugby football in Canada, will he look at the definition provided in the bill which excludes that particular sport; and why is he acting as a patron of rugby football while he allows one of his ministers to deny it what is its rightful place? I point out that the Grey Cup is inscribed "for amateur rugby football" in Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I may have misunderstood the question, but I suggest that the hon. member misunderstands the bill. It is not intended to prevent any sport flourishing in Canada. On the contrary, it is to help the flourishing of sport in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Donald MacInnis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. I remind hon. members that we will be running short of time very soon. The hon. member has the floor.


Donald MacInnis: When I get order, I will speak, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has indicated that probably I do not understand the bill. If he would refer to the definitions in the bill he would find out that rugby and soccer have been excluded, thereby denying to amateur sports in this country what is rightfully theirs. I am not the one who misunderstands the bill; it is the Prime Minister who does not know what it is all about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, I doubt whether this kind of debate or discussion is helpful in relation to the work of the House.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and is supplementary to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour concerning the George Derby Hospital lands. The minister indicated yesterday he could not give an assurance that those lands would be returned to the municipality of Burnaby. Would he assure the House today, in view of the fact that the
Oral Questions
lands were obtained for a nominal sum by the federal government, that he will enter into negotiations with the municipality of Burnaby for the balance of these Derby lands?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this question with the Burnaby authorities and they are well aware that I have this responsibility. I spoke to them recently and they know what the process will be.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: My supplementary question is exactly the same as my first question, because I did not get an answer to my first question. Would the minister indicate whether he will now enter into negotiations with the municipality of Burnaby? Will he give that assurance to the House?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Negotiations will be
entered into at the appropriate time.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development based on the many representations, including my own, which I know he has received concerning the very serious shipping strike at White Pass, constituting, as it does, the sea lifeline to the Yukon from Vancouver. Has he consulted his colleague, the Minister of Labour, with respect to bringing his good offices to bear and bringing the parties back together again so they will start speaking and, if so, what is happening in that regard and what is the likelihood of the parties getting together again?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to say to the hon. member that I have contacted the Minister of Labour, who is always very diligent, and I can say that the parties will be meeting on Friday, at which time I hope the difficulty will be resolved. I thank the Minister of Labour for his good work.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I was pleased to learn of the increase in war veterans allowances, but I am anxious to know what is the retroactive increase for both single and married veterans.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the increase which will become effective retroactively will be $56 for single veterans and $96 for married veterans.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
27451-73',
Oral Questions FINANCE

May 8, 1974


COST TO TAXPAYERS OF MAINTAINING PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICIAL RESIDENCES IN LIGHT OF RENOVATIONS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the question which was asked earlier by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka and it relates to improving the standard of living of Canadians. I should like to direct it to the Minister of Finance. In light of the fact that almost $300,000 of the taxpayers' money has been spent since 1968, at the rate of $50,000 a year, on renovating and, presumably, modernizing the Prime Minister's official residence, why is it still costing the taxpayer more than $10,000 a year to maintain that residence, not counting the one at Harrington Lake?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.


Donald W. Munro: Can the minister indicate whether the 26 per cent increase in government expenditures forecast in the budget was to have been relfected in government expenditures on renovating and maintaining the residence at 24 Sussex Drive, in the estimates that they might have been planning?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. gentleman adopts that tack in the election campaign.


CEILING ON INTEREST RATES ON STUDENT LOANS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Since chartered banks are reluctant to make loans to students because of the rate ceiling of 7(4 p. 100 under the current legislation applying in their case instead of the generally recognized rate of 13 lA p. 100 in business in general is the minister considering taking the necessary steps to remedy that situation?


John Napier Turner: I will give that matter very serious consideration, Mr. Speaker.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 3, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he could indicate if the 14-nation International Whaling Commission's ruling that quotas must be cut by 25 per cent has been adhered to by Russia and Japan, or whether these two nations are still indiscriminately overfishing endangered species such as Atlantic sperm whales and mink whales. Can he tell the House if these two nations have been overfishing, and what objections have been raised by Canada with the two countries concerned regarding this practice? He stated he would give me an answer on Monday. Today is Wednesday. Is the minister now in a position to reply to that question?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada has requested that the Soviet Union and Japan reconsider their refusals to accept the International Whaling Commission's quotas, pointing out the inconsistency of these refusals with the general objectives pursued by Canada and the majority of the members of the International Whaling Commission.


SUGGESTED INCONSISTENCY IN GOVERNMENT POSITION RESPECTING FOOTBALL LEGISLATION
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare this question. In light of his statement in committee yesterday and his reply today, would he undertake to let us know if he changes his mind again on the football bill-although two trips to Damascus are rather rare!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to refer the hon. member to the record of the committee yesterday, where I said I did not believe that the proposal of the opposition was workable. I still do not believe it today. It is not workable, and it will remain unworkable; so far as I am concerned, the bill will remain as it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBILITY OF EARLY DISSOLUTION-CERTAIN WORDS OF PRIME MINISTER DURING LAST ELECTION-PRESENT POSITION
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact there has been some speculation in the papers that there might be an election in the next little while, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if those memorable words of his uttered on October 30 at the time of the last election will be repeated by him at seven minutes after six tonight, or whenever the vote is taken, to support the philosophical bent for which he has become so well known to Canadians as expressed in his words that the universe is unfolding as it should?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think that if the universe were unfolding as it should members of the opposition would be asking more questions than they are about the expenses at Stornoway as opposed to those at 24 Sussex Drive.


An hon. Member:: Our leader is preparing it for you, Pierre.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
May 8, 1974


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact it is a month or so since I complied with the minister's request for a copy of our background paper on multicul-turalism, could the minister indicate whether today, prior to the vote or somewhere near that time, he intends to announce a meaningful policy on multiculturalism?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I found no inspiration at all in the document that was sent to me.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In light of growing fears that the airport inquiry commission looking into the Pickering airport question is unable to make recommendations to the government respecting the need for and location of such an airport, would the minister assure the House that the terms of reference tabled in this House on June 21, 1973, by himself will not be restricted by a subsequent document, P.C. 1973-3026, and that any such restriction will be eliminated?


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Norman Augustine Cafik: There is a lot of order over here, but not much over there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rose to ask a question.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Will the minister ensure that any such restriction will be eliminated, through appropriate amendments in the latter document, to ensure a full inquiry in keeping with the commitment made to the House?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we must remember that we had to establish the commission under the Inquiries Act because certain powers were needed by the commissioners. I think the intent was to have the location and need inquired into by this commission. I will be happy to look into the order in council to see if it really reflects the resolution which was tabled in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must seek the co-operation of hon. members because soon we will be running short of time. I would hope we could eliminate a number of supple-mentaries. However, with the co-operation of hon. members, the hon. member for Ontario will be recognized for a supplementary, after which I will see the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, then the hon. member for Timis-kaming, and try to move on as quickly as we can.
Oral Questions


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, this is a terribly important question to the people involved, and I think it is a matter of interpretation by the commissioners as to how they interpret the original document. In response to a written request for information from them, I am led to believe that they interpret it in a restrictive way-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course, this is argument; it is hardly a supplementary.


Mr. Atkey:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am reluctant to do so but exactly the same question as was asked by the hon. member for Ontario was put to the Minister of Transport by the opposition some months ago, and the unequivocal answer of the minister at that time was no. He should have the courage to say no on this occasion.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is a fair representation. A few months ago I was asked if I was ready to change the terms of reference, and I answered no. Now I am asked if the document filed with the House is the same as the terms reflected in the order in council. My answer is that I am going to look into it and I hope it reflects this document.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. It relates to the lay-off of 2,700 employees in the Department of National Defence under the federal labour-intensive winter employment program. Can the minister or any of his colleagues give the House some indication of the level of co-operation between his department and other departments which engaged temporary help under FLIP during the winter months to ensure that the labour market will not have 30,000 or 40,000 people thrust upon it who sought and gained employment under that program during the past winter? What is the level of co-operation, and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would allow the minister to reply to the question.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I explained to the House yesterday that the program was temporary but that we are attempting to retain as many employees as possible of those who were employed under the winter works program under our regular budget, and for National Defence that amounts to some 330 people.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member is rising on a point of order, I would bring it to his attention that we have just a few minutes left before the end of the question period.

May 8, 1974
Oral Questions


J. Michael Forrestall: It is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the minister whether there is any deliberate attempt to work into this program the beginning of the summer employment programs with respect to hirings by his department and by other departments.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot reply for the other departments, but in my own case we are developing a student employment program for the summer and it is not directly related to the winter program. It would not be fair to the students to have some of their jobs taken away by others who were employed in the winter.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture related to the subsidy on beef. Since the DES restriction has been put on beef imports the subsidy has been reduced. When does the minister intend to remove the subsidy totally, a subsidy that has been causing a great deal of unfavourable disruption in northern Ontario? Secondly, is he undertaking an investigation to ascertain whether or not unfair advantage has been taken by the Toronto packing plants with respect to those involved in community sales?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say that the price of beef has gone up only about 4 cents a pound since we initiated the subsidy program, and even with the subsidy the beef producers are barely meeting their costs of production at the present time, no matter what anyone says. The subsidy program may be causing some problems in some parts of Canada, but the response I get from most people is that they want the subsidy left on until they get their costs of production out of their product. What was the other question?


William Arnold Peters: It was about monitoring the packing plants to ascertain whether or not advantage has been taken of prices at community sales that do not reflect the subsidy.


Eugene Whelan: I apologize for not answering that question earlier. A complete audit of the books will be taking place later. Some auditing is taking place at the present time.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board, notice of which I have already given him. It concerns the discrepancies that exist between program administrators of the Economic Security Employees National Association and other civil servants in that these

people did not receive the $500 increase that was recently awarded to other members of the Public Service. Can the minister tell the House if he is aware of these discrepancies, and what action does he intend to take to correct them?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think the House will recall that the $500 compensation is to be paid to those who were signatories to long-term contracts which had not yet expired. For those that had expired and in respect of which new negotiations, in light of current conditions, were taking place, the $500 was not awarded. The group in question falls into that area. The question in my mind is whether the arbitrator took current conditions adequately into account in making his award, and perhaps we should ascertain this.


Walter C. Carter: Can the minister explain the discrepancies that exist with respect to the recent settlement awarded to fire-fighters at airports in that in one province, British Columbia, the settlement was 38.5 per cent for a 26-month period and in Saskatchewan and the Atlantic provinces it was 22.22 per cent over the same period?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think a settlement has been reached; it is proceeding to arbitration.


HOUSING
Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that the minister received last September the long-awaited report of CMHC respecting alleged irregularities in the financing of student co-operative housing in Toronto and other Ontario cities, which is close to seven months ago, is the minister now willing to make that report public so that appropriate action can be taken against wrongdoers, and so those persons who are innocent and have been dragged into the mess through a public whispering campaign can be exonerated?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, my answer was that it would not be made public but it would be submitted to the law officers of the Crown, which has been done.


Ronald George Atkey: In view of the fact the report has been submitted to the law officers of the Crown, would the minister be willing to indicate what charges, against what persons, are going to be levelled or what other disciplinary action may be taken against any body, federal or provincial, of which he has knowledge?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have knowledge that the association of architects in Ontario is taking action. The rest of the question should properly be addressed to my
May 8, 1974

colleagues, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would draw to the attention of hon. members that we have come to the end of the question period. The hon. member is seeking a supplementary and will be recognized for that purpose. With the consent of the House, I will recognize rather quickly the hon. member for Verdun and the hon. member for Fraser Valley East.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I take it the question has been referred to the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice. I wonder if either of those hon. gentlemen could indicate to the House and to the public the charges and the names of the individuals charged with irregularities in the financing of student co-operative housing, and perhaps the disposition of the charges that have been laid at their instance or the instance of any of the provincial Attorneys General.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I know the investigation is well under way but I am not sure now whether charges have yet been laid.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the concern expressed earlier in a motion under Standing Order 43, and in light of the fact that in Ontario a person who is married, with two children, can draw considerably more income on welfare than on unemployment insurance, and the inference that unemployment insurance is a disincentive to the Canadian worker, can the minister tell me whether he has come to the conclusion that this is an insult to the integrity of the Canadian worker?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very definite exploitation by the actions of the few people who might on occasion have attempted to take advantage of the situation. The evidence certainly is that by far the vast majority of people are not taking illegitimate advantage of unemployment insurance and in fact wish to see it administered firmly and fairly. We think that the commission is doing a fine job in that way.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to appeal to hon. members as we have reached the end of the question period. I thought we might have a quick question from the hon. member for Verdun and the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. I know that hon. members realize we are operating on short time, but there is to be a ringing of the bells later this afternoon and if we take too much time now we are denying hon. members a chance to participate in the important debate later this afternoon. I wonder if it
The Budget-Mr. Sharp
might not be better if we called orders of the day now. The hon. member is asking for a supplementary, and the hon. member for Fraser Valley East has been waiting for a few days to ask a question. The hon. member for Hamilton West has a question of privilege. If all will agree to wait until tomorrow, I will call orders of the day.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker-


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: No, Mr. Speaker; I just want to relate to you that I have forgone my question of privilege seeing that they are playing hanky-panky on the other side.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, May 7, consideration of the motion of Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government; the amendment of Mr. Lambert, Edmonton West (p. 2105) and the amendment of Mr. Lewis (p. 2110).
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, at ten o'clock last evening when I called the hour for the adjournment of the debate I was dealing with the speech made by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). I should like to elaborate on the general point I was making at the time.
I listened with the greatest interest, along with my colleagues, waiting to find out what it was the Tory Party was putting up by way of alternatives to the policies proposed by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). I waited in vain, Mr. Speaker. May I say that on this particular occasion the burden of proof is quite different from that of an ordinary debate in this chamber. Under ordinary circumstances, when the government is in office the function of the opposition is to try to get government to defend its policies and to explain them. On this occasion, the purpose of the motions put forward by both opposition parties is to defeat the government, to go to the country and seek a mandate from the people. Under these circumstances, the opposition on both sides has an obligation to make it very clear to the public not only where the government has failed but what they would put in place by way of alternative policies.
Yesterday I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and particularly to that of the hon. member for Don Valley who represents the constituency next to mine and part of which I at one time represented. The hon. member for Don Valley is a very distinguished academic, a former professor. At one time I think he was chairman of the Economic Council of Ontario. With this background, I think we

May 8, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Sharp
could have expected something better than we heard yesterday, which was a philosophical dissertation on the evils of inflation and how there must be a better way. I sympathized with him as I listened. It is tough to move from being an academic into the realities of public office. I hope that some day my hon. friend will make the transition, because he did not get very far yesterday. All I learned yesterday is that the hon. member is worried and concerned about inflation.
I am sure he is concerned. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is concerned. The Minister of Finance is concerned. I am concerned. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is concerned. We are all concerned. We do not need to be told, in this House of Commons, to be concerned about the problems of inflation. What we want to know is what the answers are. The hon. gentleman, in the tradition of the opposition, said, "I am not going to expose my ideas and be torn apart, the way I am tearing the ideas of the Minister of Finance apart. Not for me. I am going to reserve my position." I say to the House through you, Mr. Speaker, that that is not good enough under these circumstances.
Let me give the hon. gentleman a word of advice. I agree with him that inflation is going to be an important issue in the forthcoming election, if one is called soon. The people of Canada will want to know what his party would do about it. They are not going to be satisfied that he is concerned and worried, and they are not going to be satisfied that the Leader of the Opposition is concerned and worried. They want to know.
These are some of the questions they would like to have answered. Would the Tory Party freeze wages or would they control wages and, if so, how? Would they freeze prices? Would they control prices and, if so, how? It is not good enough, I suggest to my hon. friend from Don Valley, to talk vaguely about an incomes policy. He and I both know an incomes policy can mean anything or nothing. Let me therefore go into the position of the Tory Party as it has been revealed in the past, to see if we can get any clue as to what that party would do given the responsibility of office.
At about the time the Leader of the Opposition took over the leadership of the Conservative Party he seemed to press for the acceptance of price and incomes guidelines for all sectors of the economy, on a voluntary basis. Then on January 31, 1971, speaking at the Agudath Israel's Men's Club, he said that there is-
-a lot of loose talk about wage and price controls-even cabinet ministers are mentioning it these days-as the answer to price stability for Canada.
That was the position of the Leader of the Opposition back on January 31, 1971. Then he said this about such controls:
They would cause untold resentment among groups and individuals who felt unfairly done by, and they would result in a climate of constant confrontation. In addition, of course, they would inevitably lead to a highly centralized, and therefore inefficient, form of economic planning.
That was the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, but the inflation rate then was 2 per cent.


Mitchell William Sharp: Let us turn to the position taken by the hon. member for Don Valley at that time. He wrote an article which was printed in the Toronto Telegram in April, 1971, in which he said he did not believe that wage and price controls were "effective anti-inflation measures". He warned that they "would create far more problems than they might solve", were extremely difficult to administer, could only possibly be effective if they were applied over all segments of the economy and were widely accepted. Furthermore, he asserted that controls "inevitably bring rationing".
Now we go to the summer and fall of 1972. The Leader of the Opposition switched his position. I do not think the hon. member for Don Valley would deny that he, personally, sold his leader and his party on a switch in policy, on a switch involving abandoning the position advocated earlier in favour of price and wage controls. So the Leader of the Opposition asserted in the federal election campaign of 1972 that a Tory government would have the courage to impose price and income controls for a temporary period if circumstances made such a course necessary.
On February 8, 1973, 11 days before the introduction of the budget, the hon. member for Don Valley acknowledged, in replying to a question, that controls could only be adopted on the basis of a national emergency and he did not think that one existed. Two weeks after that, after asserting that a national emergency required the imposition of controls but that an emergency did not exist, the hon. member for Don Valley rose in the budget debate to say on behalf of his party that a 90-day freeze should be imposed, and under a Tory government would have been imposed, on "wages, prices, dividends and incomes". During that 90-day freeze, a Conservative government would have consulted with the provinces, labour leaders and business and consumer groups "to work out an economic stabilization program that would achieve controlling the price rises in this nation".
In the same budget debate, the Leader of the Opposition suggested that his party was proposing only a temporary program of controls. But the hon. member for Don Valley did not take that position. In debating the motion on May 10, the hon. member indicated that he was proposing more than a temporary measure. He said it had become evident within the past two or three years that there was a series of power groups in Canada who did not respond as they should in a properly competitive market. He said his party believed that "an incomes policy has to be an integral part of our monetary and fiscal policy if this country is going to operate with full employment and reasonably stable prices".


Mr. Gillies:: That is true.


Mitchell William Sharp: So, what is the position of the Tory Party on the crucial issue of controls?


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: It is wishy-washy.


Mitchell William Sharp: The conclusion I have come to is this: the establishment wing of the Tory Party-I do not know which part of the country it exists in; I know it does not
May 8, 1974

exist in western Canada and I doubt if it exists in the maritime provinces-believes in over-all price and wage controls. They intend to apply them if they come to power. However, they are faced with such unalterable opposition within their own party that they suspect what is true, that if they were to reveal the intention of the Conservative government to impose over-all price and wage controls, to freeze prices for 90 days and wages for 90 days, the country would reject them; they would not elect a single member from here, east and west.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: The public would accept the analysis the Prime Minister made yesterday, that wages would be frozen at low levels and prices at high levels. At the recent Tory convention, all of us observed the problem of price and wage controls coming up, when it was decided to sweep the subject under the carpet in order not to make it too obvious and to keep the appearance of unity even though the party is deeply divided on this issue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: I would draw the attention of the House not only to the divisions within the federal part of the party, but let me read what the Premier of Alberta said on this issue. He said that the federal party's demands for wage and price controls to combat inflation would hurt pensioners and people on fixed incomes. The implication is that Mr. Lougheed would prefer the party to campaign on some other basis. So now they retreat to that vague generality, an incomes policy. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition in the speech he will be making, I am sure, after I sit down to define his position in terms which can be understood provided, of course, that he understands the advice he has received from the hon. member for Don Valley.
Now let me state the position of the government on this issue so there is no reason for any doubt as to where we stand. We are opposed to the application of over-all price and wage controls to combat the kind of inflation from which the world and this country are now suffering. In our view, the system would not work. It would produce serious social unrest since it could not be applied fairly, across the board. There would be shortages and it would soon be abandoned, leaving the situation worse than it was before the program was introduced.


James McPhail Gillies: Where else in the world is there 11 per cent inflation?


Mitchell William Sharp: I come to the other aspect of the criticism of the Tory Party on the budget, its position on fiscal and monetary policy. Let me review briefly the stand of the Tory Party on this issue since this parliament was elected 18 months ago. I go back to November 20, 1972, when the hon. member for Don Valley was speaking to the Empire Club of Toronto. He maintained that both fiscal and monetary policy should be highly expansionary. During the budget debate on February 23, 1973, the Leader of the Opposition declared:
This budget is not an expansionary budget, much less a visionary one ... It is a fiction for the Minister of Finance to say that this is an expansionary budget that will generate the jobs needed to substantially cut into unemployment.
The Budget-Mr. Sharp
The hon. member for Don Valley contended that the deficit projected in the budget "has little likelihood of moving the country forward in the way in which it ought to go." He was particularly skeptical of the budgetary forecast of an employment increase of 300,000 in 1973. The actual figure, as the House knows is 430,000.


John George Diefenbaker: You can squirm all you like, but you are in deep trouble.


Mitchell William Sharp: However, he went on to say that a Conservative government would have brought down a budget providing for a deficit on a national accounts basis somewhat over 2Vi times as much as the deficit which the Minister of Finance suggested.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No wonder he did not think much of our budgetary deficit.


Mitchell William Sharp: This is the same member who just yesterday in the course of his remarks said:
I find it incredible that in Canada, in the year in which we have inflation rates at 10 per cent, the government has increased spending by the dimensions we have witnessed.
I come to the question that was raised earlier in the question period, to which the Minister of Finance replied and said I would discuss this increase in expenditures this year over last. The hon. member for Don Valley, like so many of his colleagues who are trying to misrepresent the situation, said this:
According to the budget this year, the government is to increase the tax take by 25 per cent.
Let us look at the expenditure figures and the taxes he is talking about. If we look at the content of the expenditures that have been put forward by the government this year, we find that a very high proportion of them are related to measures to combat inflation by offsetting increases in prices. A great deal more is involved in expenditures which do not come from the general taxpayer, having to do with the equalization of oil prices across this country. I have had some calculations made on this question. Let us look, for example, on the basis of national accounts, at how much increased expenditure is related to the oil export tax and related expenditures in eastern Canada to equalize the price. The total amount involved there is $1,240 million. There are more expenditures that will be involved in equalization payments to the provinces arising out of the efforts of the government to equalize the cost of petroleum throughout this country and to keep down the price of oil in eastern Canada.
If you look at the other related expenditures dealing with inflation and the efforts of the government to combat inflation, and take such expenditures out of the totals- which any fair-minded critic of this government would do-the total increase in expenditures this year over last year is 10.9 per cent. It is not 26 per cent, but 10.9 per cent-just about in line with the increase in the gross national product of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: May I return to the sudden switch in position of fiscal and monetary policies. The hon. member for

May 8, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Sharp
Edmonton West, speaking in the budget debate last year, was less conservative than the hon. member for Don Valley. He wanted to increase government expenditures up to a deficit of $21/2 billion to $3 billion. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) said his colleagues were much too conservative, and he wanted a budget deficit of $4 billion. In a press release issued by the hon. member for Don Valley, commenting on the last annual report of the Bank of Canada he said this on behalf of his party:
There is a growing evidence that the finance department and the Bank of Canada are not seriously committed to creating full employment and are going to shift both fiscal and monetary policy to fight inflation by constraining demand and stalling maximum job creation.
He further said:
-it is nonsense to head towards restraint in fear of excess demand later this year-
This is the hon. member who is now saying that this government is making too much money. I now come to the reversal, the startling about-face on September 10, 1973, in the debate on inflation. The hon. member cryptically asserted this:
We apparently had the incredible situation last year of operating with a deficit in the middle of a high inflationary situation because the forecasts were apparently not correct; we did not know where we stood.
That one I can underline: they did not know where they stood. They still do not know.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: It is important that the people of this country know exactly what the party opposite has been proposing. They are going to make a serious bid for the support of the people of Canada, and this is the record they are going to put before the people and demand a vote of confidence. Surely not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Maybe they can go through another rationalization and say the circumstances were different; they can change their minds in a few days or a few weeks and say that there has been a fundamental change in the position. What nonsense.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: As far as I can see, Mr. Speaker, the policies proposed by the members of the party opposite have been pure expediency. They have been thought up on the spur of the moment. They sway backward and forward from a restrictive policy to an expansionary policy, backward and forward in accordance with what they think are the winds of popular opinion.
As a former minister of finance, may I say that the task before any minister of finance is very, very difficult. May I add that the task before any minister of finance of any country, Canada or any other, in these troubled times of worldwide inflation and political and economic instability is a task of overwhelming difficulty. I want to say to my colleague that he has performed this task with great skill and courage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: If one were to listen to the colleagues of the hon. member for Don Valley who have not tried to make this transition into public life, what are the comments which the economists, who take an impartial and not a partisan view, have made? What do they say about the budget? "Sensible." "Responsible." They may have made some slight changes. There are some things which might have improved it. No economist agrees with any other economist, but a lot are agreeing with the Minister of Finance because he has produced the kind of budget that is appropriate to the circumstances facing this country at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: The opposition parties can afford to be irresponsible under most circumstances. I suggest they cannot afford to be irresponsible now, however irresponsible they have been in the past. They can talk vaguely about an incomes policy, wage and price controls, fiscal and monetary policies, restraining government expenditures, and then propose big increases in expenditures, tax cuts and balanced budgets. They can talk irresponsibly. That is part of their privilege. However, the Minister of Finance cannot do that. He has to face the country and this House, however irrational some of the discussions may be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: What he has to do at all costs is maintain confidence both at home and abroad in the Canadian economy. He does not claim, nor does this government, that every decision has been exactly right. That would obviously be a very foolish claim to make. What he can claim is that the Canadian economy has survived the shock of world turmoil with great resilience and is today recognized by impartial and well-informed observers at home and abroad as the number one economy in the world, the best managed country in the western world.
We are fortunate in having a Finance minister like the present one who has steered the country through these difficult shoals, because the way ahead for the world is very uncertain. I say now, as Secretary of State for External Affairs, that seldom has there been so much turmoil in the world; seldom have there been such great strains on the fabric of society, no matter where one looks. The worst possible approach to Canadian policy in these circumstances is to take a rigid doctrinaire position such as is being put forward now-though this has not always been the case-by members of the New Democratic Party. On the other hand, it is even worse to have no policy at all-


John George Diefenbaker: You speak with authority on that.


Mitchell William Sharp: -or one which bends to every passing wind of popular notions, as in the case of the official opposition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired. If the House agrees, he might be given a few more minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 8, 1974


Mitchell William Sharp: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know how long the minister intends to take. After all, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke for three hours last night. I have lots of time, but there are others in the House who wish to speak.


Mitchell William Sharp: I was about to close my remarks. I will take half a minute.
If an election comes now, as seems fairly likely, the public will have an opportunity to judge for themselves. The Liberal Party will ask the Canadian people to reject simplistic solutions put forward by the other parties in the House and will ask the Canadian people to continue the policies which have been so successful in bringing Canada through a period of unexampled difficulty.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) will not take it personally if I refer to his expectations of hearing something better from the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). Having participated in previous debates when the hon. gentleman was minister of finance, may I say I did not expect anything better from him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not want to spend much time on the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs because if he did have any credibility left, he lost it by supporting that crazy anti-profiteering bill the other day. Anyway, he has not enjoyed any credibility since he was minister of finance. The only thing he knew how to do in fighting inflation when he was minister of finance was to raise taxes. We tried to persuade him that this only added to the problem, but he would not pay any attention.
It is true I suggested voluntary guidelines. I do not know whether it is coincidental, but shortly after the hon. gentleman ceased to be minister of finance, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) found it necessary to declare what almost amounted to an emergency war against inflation. One of the first things the government did, after they had got rid of the hon. gentleman as minister of finance, was to try guidelines-the very thing he had resisted.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Tell us what you are going to do.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is true I advocated voluntary guidelines. I did what I could to open up the mind of the minister of finance of that day, although without much success. It is true I was opposed then, as I am now, to permanent price controls. I have not changed one iota in that respect, because I think permanent controls would lead to a high degree of centralization in our economy-far too much power in the hands of incompetent people of the type of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, for example. It is true, also, that during the campaign of 1972 when it was apparent inflation was developing in certain aspects of the economy, I said, quite properly, that if I became prime minister and sensed that an inflationary psychology was spreading through the economy, I would not hesitate to resort to temporary controls. And I have
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
not changed; I have not backed away from that position. I said I would resort to temporary controls to meet an emergency, and in my judgment there is an emergency facing this country when the level of inflation can be measured in two figures. I will return to this subject in a minute or so.
Today, the House and the country are witnessing a very significant event. We have a complacent and callous government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Far too many Canadians have had to pay far too high a price for the delay in reaching this day of reckoning. They, and many others, will continue to pay until a responsible, Progressive Conservative government takes action to restore some sense of order, stability and purpose.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: We can take a joke.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is one thing this government has behind it, and that is a very loud voice.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Empty vessels make the most sound.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This government has. The state of inflationary expectations in this country must be dealt with as I said they should be when I was campaigning in 1972. They should have been dealt with long since, yet this House is presented with a budget that just barely acknowledges that the problem exists, and offers nothing in the way of solution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I was hoping the minister would wait to hear what I had to say, but I suppose he has other things to do.


Mr. Hees:: He is running away.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This is the same government that maintains still that it has a contingency plan that will be implemented in an emergency. Evidently inflation at a two-figure rate is not enough of an emergency for this government. I just want to say to the members of the government that this House has a contingency plan, too, for getting rid of governments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I believe that enough members of this House now think there is sufficient emergency to put the House's contingency plan into operation. For every minute that this two-figure inflation runs unchecked in Canada, the disparity between the have and the have-not Canadians grows greater and the dissatisfaction with our own institution grows deeper. The budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) does nothing to stop that widening disparity. It does nothing to restore confidence in the competence of the institution of parliament, as it has demonstrated itself to the people of Canada during this session. And the Prime Minister does nothing to enhance the public's perception of this chamber when

May 8, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
he chooses it as a forum for wounded cries of desperation for almost two hours. Surely the Prime Minister could muster a little more grace in accepting that the universe is unfolding as it should in so far as his government's continuation in office is concerned.
There sits a government, Mr. Speaker, whose essential message is that inflation is an international problem which somehow domestically falls under provincial and municipal jurisdiction. The message, of course, sir, is absurd. But, worse than that, it is a message of despair. It is a message which in itself only serves to heighten inflationary expectations in our country. If the government says that really nothing very much can be done, then those Canadians who have the muscle and resources to protect and to look after themselves will look after themselves, in the expectation that if they do not look after themselves nobody else will.
I have been speaking about the danger of this mounting inflationary psychology, these rising inflationary expectations and this vigilante attitude that has developed for more than a year. As far as this government is concerned, my warnings have fallen on very, very deaf ears. This situation which I warned about is clearly with us today, and each day it continues the problem will grow worse in magnitude and it will grow stronger roots.
Consider what has happened in the field of housing. Social priorities and human needs have gone out of the window as housing has become a more attractive market to deal in than the stock market for those with capital to invest. This is a sickening thing, sir, to have happen in our country and the responsibility for this sickness, which is growing to epidemic proportions, rests clearly with members of the government opposite.
Yesterday the Prime Minister, in his typically unassuming manner, outlined a number of measures that have been passed by parliament. He tried to create the impression that these measures were originated and bestowed upon the people by the Grits. This parliament did deal with that Grit innovation, indexing of personal income. You will recall, sir, that this proposal was first mentioned in the budget debate of May 1972, and it was condemned and rejected out of hand by the Minister of Finance-Supergrit himself!
The conversion followed the 1972 election results. We dealt in this parliament with those long-standing Grit proposals to cut personal income taxes and to increase old age pensions. In the 1972 election campaign the Minister of Finance, Supergrit, and the Prime Minister, Truegrit, both said that this was the prescription for bankruptcy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am glad to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs has returned to the House. There sits the minister, Mr. Speaker, who a few minutes ago was talking about my inconsistencies. The only thing you can say about the Grit behaviour during the 1972 campaign and afterwards is that it was consistently inconsistent. These cuts in income tax and the increase in old age pensions that we were asking for, as were the members of the New Democratic Party, were described by the Prime minister and the Minister of Finance as a prescription for bankruptcy. But, of course, their demonstration of political

bankruptcy followed the 1972 election. These examples of conversion and the emergence of wonderful, new Grit policies after October 31, 1972, truly impressed them, Mr. Speaker. They are almost as impressive as they are cynical and incredible.
Surely it is a cynical and incredible stance that is taken by the government on inflation, as exhibited again in the budget. The Minister of Finance says it is an international phenomenon. Then, of course, he says we have to attack it by increasing domestic production in Canada. Surely if we can ease inflation in Canada by increasing production in Canada, the assumption is that we can fight inflation by increasing domestic supply. This assumes, therefore, that the problem is not simply one of uncontrollable international origin.
If the minister makes any sense at all in talking about the importance of increasing domestic production-and I agree it is important-there must be a significant domestic component in inflation in Canada which we are experiencing today. But the minister will not concede that. He wants to have both sides of this contradiction. Then he stresses the urgency of increasing domestic supply. He even stresses this in his budget. However, he proposes no measures to increase supply but, rather, produces measures which in their isolated effect might well have a harmful effect on supply and also drive prices and inflationary expectations even higher.
The minister did not produce a balanced budget. I thought that might have had some effect, psychologically, on the country, indicating that the government meant business. I was surprised, particularly after all the fun the government had about the size of the deficit we requested a year ago in terms of expansion, to see how far the minister was able to go in creating a budgetary deficit particularly as recently as the first quarter of this year, the last quarter of the fiscal year, of about $1 billion. Not bad for a man who is trying to show restraint, Mr. Speaker.
Then, of course, he produced a budget which has very substantial increases in expenditures, again despite the manipulation of figures by the former minister of finance, so in effect what the Minister of Finance tells the provinces, the municipalities, the people in business and the working people in this country is simply, "Do what I say, but for God's sake don't do what I do."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I had hoped we might see another Grit policy in the indexing of Canada Savings Bonds, but instead the minister chose something rather different, a bonusing plan. The main purpose of that bonusing plan is to try to persuade people who now own Canada Savings Bonds to continue to hold onto them rather than turn them in. The main purpose behind this policy is to help the government, rather than the Canadian people. The minister is simply trying to make a virtue of necessity.
The program will be of some assistance, 1 think, although it will be limited by the fact that the bonus will be treated as a capital gain, but it really does not provide an effective means of saving for the ordinary, small saver
May 8, 1974

in Canada. It does not provide him with any means at all to protect himself against the erosion of the purchasing power of his savings as a result of the horrendous inflation we are experiencing under this government. It comes nowhere near being as effective as the indexing of bonds which I proposed and which, sir, will be implemented by a Progressive Conservative government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And, of course, a Progressive Conservative government will also implement the elimination of the sales tax on all clothing, another new Grit policy which we have been advocating for quite some time. We will also proceed to take steps to remove the sales tax on building materials, in spite of the protest of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) that this would only increase supply. Apparently there is something wrong, in his mind-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That is not what he said.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Minister of State for Urban Affairs takes a very different view of things than the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance wants to increase production, but the Minister of State for Urban Affairs for over a year now has taken the position that an increase in production would only have inflationary results.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, that is not what he said.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I heard him, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: You are using subterfuge.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not need subterfuge. I read some of the remarks of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs with a lot more attention than they deserve. I want to say that a Progressive Conservative government will ensure that every outstanding penny of export charge is collected, retroactively if need be. So I am quite confident the oil companies will not be getting any of that export tax, Mr. Speaker. I do not know how the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) are telling the oil companies that if a Liberal government were to be returned, the oil companies would be able to keep all that money; but that is exactly what they are saying.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: They are not.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I know that is exactly what they are saying, and I know that that position will get the treatment it deserves from the Canadian people. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources know full well that the collection, the compensation, the intentions and other features of the oil administration bill can be dealt with. They know full well that the province of Alberta is pledged to hold to the agreement established at the conference. They know full well, also, that last fall and winter the oil companies held to a freeze for months with no legislation in existence to force them to do so. They know full well that the companies held export tax money aside for collection later on the basis that the government said it was going to collect it. They said so time and time again in this House. I say this government is playing a
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
very dangerous game in saying it will be powerless to collect the export charge and that a future Liberal government would be equally powerless to collect it retroactively.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I repeat our position, that the oil export charge can be collected. I repeat our pledge, that if it is not collected by the present government it will be collected retroactively by an incoming Progressive Conservative government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the export oil tax will be collected, barring the remote prospect that Canadians do not want it collected and overwhelmingly support Liberal candidates who are running on the platform-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Foolish chatter.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -laid down by the Prime Minister last night that the charge cannot and will not be collected by the present or any future Liberal government.


Mitchell William Sharp: Why did you stop our legislation?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I know whereof I speak because I was the only one to stay awake throughout the Prime Minister's entire speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: These petulant gentlemen opposite like to call other people bigots, rednecks, nobodies.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Nonentities.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They like to say, "If you won't play it our way, you won't play it at all." These desperate, temporary occupants of the treasury benches have demanded their last ransom and have uttered their last threat. Any shred of credibility or integrity that remains has surely been consumed in the fire of their own disgusting scorched-earth policy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -as illustrated by their approach to the oil export charge.


George Harris Hees: The campaign is on.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Of course, we all know what the Prime Minister was up to yesterday afternoon and last evening. He was test-flying his campaign rhetoric. That is fine, although I am sure that a number of his own members wondered why he had to read through his whole campaign speech portfolio in the course of his evening's work. I was interested in the number of times that he quoted at length from newspapers which, I understand, he started to read after the last election campaign. I think perhaps he may

May 8, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
have been auditioning for freelance work after the next election.


An hon. Member:: Or for "Laugh In."


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, this is serious. After the next election campaign he will contribute to "Capital Report" as somebody who does the job "peeping through the newspapers".
Then we have the old song, again sung by the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, about the glowing state of the Canadian economy. I will quote one item from the Financial Times of April 29 under the heading "Curi-ouser and Curiouser". It reads:
Mr. Trudeau's conduct was curious in more than one way last week.


An hon. Member:: What week?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is the week preceding April 29. I do not blame the hon. member asking, "What week?". The article continues:
At a Hamilton rally, he is reported to have said that Canada's main problem was inflation but "the opposition doesn't want to wait the few weeks or months that will make it evident that we have solved this problem."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The article goes on:
The last time Mr. Trudeau declared he had "licked" inflation was December, 1970. In the three years since then, Canada has had a 23 per cent jump in consumer prices. No wonder we get the cold shivers every time the Prime Minister declares that the fight is won.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Virtually every responsible commentator in the country heaps scorn upon the government's alleged anti-profiteering bill. The Prime Minister says he is proud of that bill, that he is prepared to stand on it, to put it before the country. Well, I look forward to that, sir, I really look forward to it-because surely no other piece of legislation more adequately demonstrates the arrogance, the incompetence, the hypocrisy and the sheer dishonesty of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: During the 1972 election campaign the Minister of Finance steered well away from the election slogan "The land is strong". He confessed that it broke him up. It will be interesting to see just how he can keep himself clear from association with his Prime Minister's favourite bill in the coming campaign. If the Minister of Finance was broken up by the slogan in the last campaign, he should really be demolished by the bill.
The budget brought in by the minister was what he called a responsible budget. How can anyone believe that this government has any real sense of responsibility when its economic policy and its budget are associated with one of the most irresponsible pieces of puffery that has ever insulted the intelligence of the members of this House? How can anybody believe that the Minister of Finance is behaving responsibly when he refuses to tell this House how much revenue his government is dropping in the current year as a result of the tax concessions granted to the manufacturing and processing industries? That is

what he has done; he has refused to give that information. His deputy minister gave us a figure last year, not in the House but to those of us who met him. The deputy minister promised us that if we did not get an answer to that question Monday evening, we would get it Tuesday morning at the latest, without fail.


John Napier Turner: That is not what he said.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I was there; I heard him. I want to ask the minister through you, sir, what he is up to with this ill-advised cover-up approach, refusing to give information of the sort that was given quite freely last year. Does he not realize the seriousness of the suspicion and distrust that will follow in the wake of his refusal to divulge this information?
We already have the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) indicating a figure as high as $1 billion. The minister shakes his head. Until the minister gives us the information he is doing a very grave disservice to the manufacturing and processing industries, because suspicions will be rife. I do not know how anybody can tell the hon. member for York South he is wrong in what he is saying if the minister is not prepared to say anything. Is this an example of responsibility on the part of the Minister of Finance?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In his oration yesterday the Prime Minister suggested-in fact he said it, I don't know how many times-that it would be irresponsible to throw this government out. I say it would be the height of irresponsibility to leave this government in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But I suppose we have to make some allowances for the peculiar logic of anybody who has nothing to offer the country and so must build an election strategy on attacking the opposition and promising half a billion dollars to the oil companies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was so anxious to tell the oil companies how much they could expect to get, and how they could expect to split it up, that he gave them some figures to indicate what they could expect from the present Grit government or a future Grit government. So the Prime Minister has revealed his election platform on these two main themes-attack the opposition, and give half a billion dollars to the oil companies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would say that his attack on the official opposition has all the staying power of a wet match. And, of course, it isn't hard to know how the match got wet in the first place: it was obviously dampened by that
May 8, 1974

renowned and honourable gentleman from the other place known generally as the Rainmaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The trademark is unmistakable. You rant and you roar, and you hope in the course of saying enough, yelling enough and saying outlandish things, that something will turn up. Under the guidance of his recycled strategist, the Prime Minister launches off attacking other parties on their divisions, as he calls them, and he tries to create the impression that his own party is just one complete blissful unit.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it is all right for the Minister of Finance to dissociate himself from the so-called anti-profiteering bill; it is all right for the Prime Minister's entire loyal band of colleagues to leave the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) more alone in this House than anybody has ever been in Trois-Rivieres.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not as alone as you.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Those are just differences of opinion. The pristine unity of the cabinet is obvious. Any fool can see that. Then there is the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson). If he wants to keep up his long-standing discussions about a new political party, a party which would involve a couple of former Liberal members who have sat for hours with him talking about this scheme, that is not division, Mr. Speaker; that is just the minister exercising his prerogative to examine all the options that might be available to him. And, of course, when the same minister threatens to resign over a politically sensitive matter, that is just good, old-fashioned spunk.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Programmed with this rather rose-coloured strategy, the Prime Minister sees unity all around him in his own party. I would not presume to question the wisdom of the honourable senator in the other place. His record speaks for itself. But it strikes me that such an exhibition of self-delusion by the Prime Minister might just strike the electorate as ample reason in itself to extend him a merciful medical discharge.
Sir, there is one matter relating to my party that I do want to speak to, and I think this is the proper place for me to do it. I am referring to the very regrettable reference made to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) by Senator Gratton O'Leary on television last Sunday. I not only dissociate myself and my party from that kind of remark, but I take this occasion to restate our debt to the right hon. gentleman for the great service he has rendered to the country, to parliament and to our party.
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the House leader seems to be upset this afternoon, and I am sorry. I want to say that when I was in provincial politics, and again in federal politics, I always received a lot of help from the government House leader and I do not want to seem unappreciative. I do want to pay tribute to the continuing contributions of the right hon. gentleman to the country, to parliament and to our party. I want to thank him for it and say long may he be active in this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My reference to a medical discharge was in relation to the Prime Minister, and certainly not in relation to the right hon. gentleman. Canadians can look at the Prime Minister's remarks last night and see very clear signs of a failing memory. He moaned about all the latest legislation that would die on the order paper with dissolution.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think it is only an act of common decency to plug one significant gap in the right hon. gentleman's memory-the Prime Minister's-in an effort to assure him that the country really will survive. When the Prime Minister sought dissolution of the twenty-eighth parliament, an act which only he could undertake and which he did undertake, the order paper was filled to overflowing-and filled notably, though the Prime Minister and all his advisers evidently forgot about it-with government legislation required to implement a budget which had been presented over four months earlier. To say that the Prime Minister forgot that is the kindest way I can put it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: Selective amnesia.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: A better knowledge of the rules, that's all.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: How much better to do what we are doing now. Rather than wait for four months, how much better to do it now and spare the country another experience of an additional four months of uncertainty in government. Now that I have checked the Prime Minister's memory a little about all the financial measures he left on the order paper at the time he dissolved parliament the last time, I hope he will feel a little less disconsolate about what parliament is going to do later this afternoon.
I want to believe that the Prime Minister really meant what he said last night. I have worked at this. I really want to believe that the Prime Minister was making last night, as he said he was, a sincere and non-partisan analysis. But he simply forgot what he did himself in 1972. With his well known respect for parliament and the democratic process it is surely unthinkable that he was chastising parliament about election expenses legislation, foreign investment legislation and competition legislation.

May 8, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You refused to pass it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, poor fellow! Surely he has not forgotten all about that. They dissolved parliament. They left on the order paper the most prized objectives of the Minister of Finance in 1972. Surely the Prime Minister has not forgotten that. I can also appreciate that the Prime Minister might feel some distress at the prospect of entering the record book as the leader of the only government in the country's history to have been defeated on a budget. As much as I resist most temptations to be partisan myself, Mr. Speaker, I can only say that no administration more richly deserves that honour.

The Prime Minister gave us yesterday evening a new example of the electoralism that he does not hesitate to use to get more votes at the expense of national unity, like during the campaign of 1968 for instance. Before the beginning of the campaign, I wish to tell him immediately, Mr. Speaker, that we will see to it that people from Quebec, like all other Canadians, not be taken in by his little game that consists in passing off Progressive Conservatives as francophobes.
The Prime Minister usually makes peculiar kinds of speeches but last evening he broke with tradition and delivered a rather funny one. He has proven only one thing, but it is a certainty, he is more expert in sarcasm than in economic matters.
I shall only tell him and his colleagues that if I exert myself to speak the second language, it is because I have the honour to be the Leader of a party which, a long time ago and even before the present Liberal government, took many measures to promote equal status for both official languages in Canada. I wish only to remind the Prime Minister of the situation of the French language and the status of French-speaking civil servants in this country prior to 1957 and after 22 years of Liberal administration.
My party committed itself officially to the respect and promotion of bilingualism. The people from Quebec know that and I am sure that they appreciate what I do to understand them and be understood by them. So, I shall not let the Liberal party wave the spectre of racism for electoral purposes and thwart our common efforts towards unity.
Here is another tactic I consider petty, which the Prime Minister used last night and against which I should like to warn Canadians. The Prime Minister would have us believe that whoever is not a Liberal in Quebec is a mercenary in the pay of the other parties. That is a lie! A monumental lie, and an insult to the intelligence of Quebecers. And the government members, for a few weeks still, will be surprised to see, when the next election comes, that there are many Quebecers of good will, among whom even some Liberals, who will join force with us to put an end, once and for all to the federal Liberal hegemony in Quebec.
Let the government put an end to its partisan foolishness, let it seek to justify its administrative carelessness and economic clumsiness, rather than exploit prejudices and stir Canadians one against the other. The mountebank

pronouncements of the Prime Minister cannot make the Canadian forget, and Quebecers no more than the others, the problems and hardships his government brought upon them.
The Minister of Finance referred to the budget as a responsible budget. I think I know what he was trying to say. He means that as a thing unto itself, as an illustration in a textbook, it could be viewed as an academically responsible illustration of how country "X" represents its sums. The addition and substraction are of adequate quality, and many of the ways and means motions relating to ongoing tax reform remain consistently as unintelligible as their predecessors. A country with no great inflation problem, no chronic distress among its working people, particularly its working poor, and a population that delighted in seeing personal tax revenue jump by $1.5 billion in a single year-any such country in these circumstances might want to consider it as a model for a budget.
It is interesting to note that the Minister of Finance referred to his last budget of one year ago as responsive and to his present one as responsible. There is a difference, as the minister well knows, and in the reality of conditions existing in Canada today the minister's change in terms constitutes an admission of his failure to produce anything that is truly responsive to this country's economic needs. Canada wants leadership to join in the attack on inflation. Nothing less than that would be responsive to the need. The Progressive Conservative Party has committed itself to offering that leadership, and in government we will implement a program which will do just that.
I want to make it abundantly clear that I will not accept, either in opposition or in power, if power is conferred upon me, the continuance of what has been done to the people of Canada by the rate of inflation which has taken place in this country. Of course there is no simple solution, but I defy the Minister of Finance, I defy the Prime Minister and I defy the Secretary of State for External Affairs to show any inconsistency in the position I have taken or in anything I have said.
We need a short-term period of controls for one main purpose. We are not going to solve the problem of inflation-


An hon. Member:: That will not solve anything.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -but the program can destroy or can certainly be very effective in reducing inflationary expectations in this country. There is no ambiguity in what I say. I have not departed from the principle of a very short-term freeze and, after the freeze has ended, of flexible regulations or flexible controls for between 18 months and 2 years.
From its dungeon of bankruptcy, the government party wails, "It will not work." If it will not work, why is it in the government's contingency plan? Why do all political parties in Britain, including the British Liberal Party, support a policy of controls and an incomes policy?


John Napier Turner: They have a great economic record.
May 8, 1974


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I know it is a poor record, but it is better than the one the minister has shown in the past year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why does the OECD recommend to its member countries that they should do something like this in order to contain their domestic inflation?
In the coming election, sir, Grits, Supergrits, Truegrits and all the other Grits will invent every conceivable misrepresentation as to what we intend to do. The Prime Minister gave us an example of that last night. Let me repeat my assurance that nobody in this country will be mistreated by the program we intend to implement. I have stated that the freeze phase of our program would apply for a maximum of 90 days. The flexible controls which would follow for IV2 years to two years-and these would assure special consideration to low income earners, as I have said many times-would also ensure that no one would be held to anything less than the cost of living increase.


An hon. Member:: What about farmers?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And to productivity increases as well.


An hon. Member:: How about farmers?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I can only make things so simple; apparently I cannot make them simple enough for some people on the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The price side of the program would deal properly and firmly with profiteering, not in the absurd and ineffective way put forward by the government. I say that to work, this program has to be fair and seem to be fair. I say it will work because it is a fair and equitable program. I believe that inflation is serious enough in this country today that Canadians will welcome and rally behind this meaningful program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We need to get on with the task of reducing inflationary expectations and the rate of inflation as soon as possible. Part of that process involves a defeat of this government, dissolution of this parliament and an election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister views this a regrettable interruption in some undefined, great process which he thinks is under way. I do not see any point in prolonging a process which features the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) throwing up his hands and saying, "It's a mess." I do not see any point in prolonging a process featuring the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) denying the country an inquiry into unemployment insurance. I certainly do not see any benefit to Canadians in prolonging the life of a government that
The Budget-Mr. Douglas
looks at two-figure inflation and says that nothing can really be done about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we hope in a few hours time to see an end to a tired and crumbling government.


An hon. Member:: A few hours?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I say a few hours because we have to give the man time to get to Government House and all that sort of thing. It will be an end which I am confident will lead this country to a new and better beginning. Without any presumption as to what the vote will be, Mr. Speaker, I want to take this occasion to thank you and the other officers of the House for the dedicated service you have given to this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House for this widespread acclaim. I am not sure where the applause for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) ended and mine began.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The House is in good humour. Yesterday and today we listened to speeches by leaders of each of the four political parties in this House. I think it will make interesting reading for the future because they characterize both the men who made them and the parties for which they spoke. I was very much interested in following the speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who seemed to spend a large part of his time trying to determine who was responsible for the fact that the spectre of an imminent election haunted this House. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the person who is most responsible for the fact that we^ face a general election is the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I noticed that the Prime Minister was trying to be a bit of an amateur psychiatrist. He does not do a very good job of being Prime Minister. He ought to stay out of the psychiatry business, although I must say he has excellent clientele with whom to work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When the Prime Minister says the reason we are having an election is that the leader and members of this party cannot stand the strain of holding the balance of power, I want to point out that he has a very poor memory. With the exception of the years 1968-72 we have had a minority parliament in Canada since 1962. The only time we did not have a minority parliament was the four-year period after the present Prime Minister became leader of his party. By the way, they were the four most unproductive and arrogant years the parliament of this country has ever seen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 8, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Douglas


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: For the rest of the period from 1962 to the present time we have had a minority parliament, and it has worked a good bit of the time. It worked from 1963 to 1965 and from 1965 to 1968 because someone was sitting in the prime minister's seat who had a certain degree of sensitivity and flexibility. He was able to work out a consensus. He had some human compassion. During that period we produced such things as the health services act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Assistance Plan and a great many other programs that will be monuments to the memory of that parliament and the prime minister at that time, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That same type of minority government could have worked in this twenty-ninth parliament. When the election of October, 1972 was over, the members of the New Democratic Party indicated that whichever of the two old-line parties had a plurality they were prepared to give it an opportunity to show what it could do.

As I pointed out last week in another debate, we had a two-pronged attack on the major problems of inflation and unemployment. One had to do with the social area and the other had to do with the economic area. In the social area we were pressing for legislative measures which would cushion the effects of rising living costs on people with fixed and low incomes and others most vulnerable to the inflationary pressures which were besetting this country and, indeed, the world. And the government did many things which needed to be done.
The Prime Minister said yesterday that the NDP was taking credit for things which they asked for but which the Liberal Party was doing. Well, Mr. Speaker, they could not do it alone-not in a minority parliament. Unless we had been prepared to support them through repeated nonconfidence motions, they would not have been here to do the things which needed to be done, such as raising old age pensions, family allowances, veterans pensions, and so on. It is significant that in spite of the assertions of the Prime Minister that a Liberal government would have done these things anyway, in the preceding years from 1968 to 1972 none of these things had been accomplished.
My experience of the Liberal Party goes back nearly 40 years, and I have never seen them move unless they were prodded in the posterior or faced the prospect of defeat. Nevertheless, I want to say that the things which have been accomplished in the social area in the last 16 months were things we could support and, in my view, they made a contribution to easing the burden upon large sections of our people. At the same time, though, it should be remembered that since those measures were passed a year ago the rising cost of living has taken away most of those increases, and we had the right to expect there would be something in the budget to help these people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The second area in which we were pressing for action was the economic area. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) stood up today and said the opposition parties had not put forward alternative

policies. Well, we have certainly put forward alternative economic measures we wanted to see introduced to cope with inflation. But nothing has happened. The Prime Minister, in a speech at the opening of the session, said the NDP were like seagulls which, because they were squawking and making a lot of noise, thought they were running the ship. Mr. Speaker, we never claimed to be running the ship, but a smart captain will listen to the seagulls warning him that he is running the ship on the rocks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We have been signalling to the Prime Minister for the last several months.


An hon. Member:: Seagulls aren't so smart.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will tell the hon. member something else about seagulls. They are not stupid enough to stay with the ship when it starts to sink. What were the alternative proposals we placed before the government? We asked for selective price controls. The government said no, and did so repeatedly. We asked the government for a two-price system which would enable us to keep the prices of Canadian products and raw materials at levels lower than world levels, thus protecting Canadians against artificially high world prices. But the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) repeatedly declined to follow such a proposal, and in his budget speech the other night he said it would not work. And this in spite of the fact-as was ably pointed out by the leader of this party-that he has already done this very thing in the case of oil, copper and wheat.
We asked the government for legislation to curb excess profits. What did we get? We got a bill which was an absolute farce. As a matter of fact, it was so bad that when the minister produced it in the House he was like the boy on the burning deck-he stood all alone. It is significant that the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse-the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who represent the corporate elite-were silent about this legislation.
The truth is, the government was not taken by surprise in the last few days. It has known for months there were things the NDP wanted done and must insist on having done. We wanted something done for the old age pensioners. We wanted tax adjustments in favour of people in lower and middle income groups. We wanted the government to do something about the criminal profiteering which is going on in this country.
What happened? The Minister of Finance said he was not going to indulge in any gimmickry. Mr. Speaker, one of the most extraordinary gimmicks any minister of finance has ever adopted was when on one hand he imposed a 10 per cent surcharge on certain corporations while with the other he gave them a 1 per cent reduction in taxation. The surcharge would cost $175 million, but they are to be relieved by cuts in taxation amounting to $262 million. This means they will profit from a net gain of $87 million.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.
May 8, 1974


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is how we are bringing the corporations into line. Moreover, the surcharge will not apply to the manufacturing and processing industries which in addition will enjoy the benefits of the tax cuts they were allowed last year and the fast write-offs. It is significant we cannot get the minister to tell us how much reduction in revenue will follow from the concession made to the manufacturing and processing corporations by virtue of the tax benefits they were given last year. It is also significant that in return for the support of the official opposition of that legislation last year the minister introduced the provision that the legislation could be opened up for reconsideration after April 1, 1974. Yet we cannot even get the figures, although April 1 is long since past. What is the figure, Mr. Speaker? The minister does not say.
Professor Hyndman, in one of the publications put out by the Tax Foundation, said that for this fiscal year, 1974-75, those tax concessions will be worth over $1,000 million. Will the minister tell the House whether or not that is correct? Will he tell us what the figure was for the past fiscal year? Of course he will not, Mr. Speaker, because he knows he dare not tell the public about the kind of hand-outs that he gave to these corporations. Who are these processors, Mr. Speaker? They are the meat processors, food processors, fish processors. Look at the profits they have made. These are the people who have gouged the public and they are the people who are getting the major tax concessions.
Having signalled the government repeatedly for months on end about the disparity and inequity in our tax system and demanding some adjustments in it, we are presented with this budget. It is a budget that will perpetuate a situation in which the real income of the wage earner and salary earner is going down $5.50 a week, according to latest figures, in which the share of the national income going to corporations in profits is going up and the share of the national income going to the working people in the form of wages and salaries is going down. I ask, did the Prime Minister think that the New Democratic Party would swallow a budget like that?
There are two possible explanations for the Prime Minister's miscalculation. The first is that he may have thought the New Democratic Party were bluffing, that they really would not vote against the government, that having been close to the government for some months, supporting them in the social area, we had come to love and to cherish them. The Prime Minister himself put forth that idea in a speech he made in Sudbury, as reported in the press on April 29. According to the Globe and Mail for April 29, 1974-
-Mr. Trudeau said he thought NDP members of parliament were also reluctant to see an early election "because they are not particularly keen on losing their seats".
The Prime Minister heads a government in a minority situation. Here is a man who is trying to stay in office to do what he thinks is best for this country. A few weeks before the budget comes down, he says, "If the New Democrats vote for our budget, it is not because they think it is a good budget; it is because they are afraid to go to the
The Budget-Mr. Douglas
country and have an election". Now, that is statesmanship of a high order!
This budget represents nothing more nor less than the Minister of Finance throwing down the gauntlet to the New Democratic Party. Everything we have asked for and everything we have advocated and pressed for has been rejected in this budget; and the budget has been even more inequitable, so far as the great mass of the Canadian people is concerned, than any budget we have had for many years. The other possibility is, not that the Prime Minister thought that the New Democratic Party were bluffing but that he had decided that sooner or later they were going to have to go to the country, and therefore it might be better to bring in a conservative budget that would please the business community, that would put them in good standing on Bay Street and St. James Street. And that is the kind of budget we got.
The Prime Minister intimated yesterday that we had suddenly made up our minds on this a week or two ago because of the strain that he talked about. The position we took throughout the whole period was that we would measure each piece of legislation on its merit, and the budget on its merit. The fact that last week we announced that we would not support the so-called anti-profiteering bill did not pledge us in any way to vote against the budget. If this budget had been a good budget, we would have supported it. We would still have voted against the anti-profiteering bill because it is a hoax and a farce, and hon. members know it. If this budget had made any provision at all that was designed to rectify the social injustices being perpetrated upon the Canadian people and taxpayers by this government, then we would have supported it. But there is no such provision.
The man who made the decision to put forth this budget, in the final analysis, is the Prime Minister. He is the man who must accept the fact that we are likely to go into a general election, because it is he and he alone who gave his approval to the budget and to the so-called anti-profiteering legislation, legislation he ought to have known we in this party could not and will not support.
The Prime Minister, in a sort of desperate attempt to stave off what appears to be the inevitable, tried to frighten parliament by saying there is a lot of legislation lying around which is not going to be passed if the government is defeated in this vote. There is no time that a government can be defeated when there is not some legislation lying around or pending. If every parliament were to make up its mind it would not be dissolved until the government dissolved it because it might end before certain legislation were passed, then, of course, there would never be a defeat of a government.
The legislation that is on the order paper is mainly peripheral legislation, and we are not prepared to vote for an unacceptable budget in order to get some peripheral legislation passed. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) have been trying (a) to frighten the House, and (b) to scare the country by saying that if this budget is not passed, or if the government is defeated, then, of course, the government cannot collect the surcharge on exports of oil. Anyone who seriously makes that statement is either being dishonest or stupid.

May 8, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Douglas


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Canadian political history is replete with precedents of taxes which have been collected, even after parliament has been dissolved, on the basis of a notice of ways and means, on the basis of an order in council or even on the basis of a mere announcement by the government. In 1947, Hon. Douglas Abbott, minister of finance in a Liberal government, announced over the radio a series of new taxes which went into effect that evening, and they were collected. There was no legislation, no order in council and no notice of ways and means motions.
In 1962-63, an order in council by the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) gave it the power to collect taxes. That was validated later by legislation passed by the Pearson government when it came into office. What this government is trying to do is draw a red herring across the trail. It is trying to confuse the public, because members of the government consistently have told us that the import compensation will cost $1,400 million and now it transpires that unless cost participation is levied by the oil producing countries it will cost $925 million, and this represents $475 million in extra revenue that they do not want to give to the producing provinces. That is the real reason.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that this government has had its chance. We gave it our support as long as it was following programs we thought would help this country. They have run out of steam, they have run out of ideas and they have run out of the courage which is necessary to restructure our society. I shall close with words which are well known in British parliamentary history-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: "Go. In the name of God, go".


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 5.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty pursuant to section 6 of Standing Order 60 to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on the subamendment now before the House.
All those in favour of the subamendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of constitutional order. I would ask a question of the Prime Minister. I had the same experience in 1963 as he has had, and I ask him to give the assurance to the country that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I ask him to give the assurance to the country-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remind hon. members that after six o'clock the Chair has no authority except to rise. I think that is the long-established tradition. I do not think I have the right to stand and listen to debate, points of order or questions of privilege: perhaps that might be the order of the day for tomorrow.


An hon. Member:: There is no tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will appreciate that it is difficult for the Chair to hear what is being said. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) seeks the floor on a question of privilege. I have serious doubt whether the question of privilege can be heard. I know the precedent to which the right hon. gentleman refers, but my interpretation of the precedent and what happened before is that really the Chair must abide by the rules. I call on the right hon. gentleman to agree with the Chair and to appreciate my position.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rose to say that I always follow the orders of the Chair, but these people are afraid and they want to change the constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I declare the motion carried.

As the curtain falls, let me remind hon. members that, true to this happy tradition, they are invited to the Speak er's room.

Hon. members should know that according to traditional custom they are invited to attend in room 16.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As it is after six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At 6.27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
The twenty-ninth parliament was dissolved on Thursday, May 9, 1974, by proclamation of His Excellency the Governor General.


END OF SESSION