1974-05-06

PRIVILEGE

[Stage Direction]
MR. MacINNIS (CAPE BRETON-EAST RICHMOND)-POSITION OF CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ON BENEFITS FOR FORMER EMPLOYEES
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the rights and prerogatives of parliamentary committees and one which reflects on the word of two ministers of the Crown.
First, the Cape Breton Development Corporation has constantly suggested, as in a release dated May 29, 1973, that the matter of the benefits for former Devco employees is "a matter of negotiation between the corporation and the union". There is no one union involved. The present Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) arranged for a delegation of five former Devco employees to appear before the regional development committee at public expense, representing former Devco employees but not constituting or representing any one union. The former minister stated in the House on January 29, 1970 that the group involved was "a small group of superannuated employees", and that they had no connection with the United Mine Workers of America who had made no request in the name of those pensioners.
Devco has attempted to contradict both the present and the former minister, and has put forward the illusion that they have things well in hand. In addition to this distortion of the situation perpetuated by Devco, the corporation has insinuated that the committee is interfering in the legitimate bargaining process by investigating the inadequacy and illegality of the pre-retirement benefits paid by Devco. As the chairman of the committee stated in a letter to Mr. Kent, the committees "are not answerable to government departments or agencies".
This question of the supremacy of parliament and its committees over government bureaucracies, and the obligation of agencies accurately to describe the situation, must be settled once and for all, Mr. Speaker. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir):
That the matter of the affront of the Cape Breton Development Corporation and its president to the Standing Committee on Regional Development, and to two ministers of the Crown, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I have sent a copy of this to the chairman of the committee and to the two ministers involved.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has provided the Chair with the required notice of his intention to raise this matter today by way of a question of privilege. The hon.
member appreciates that what he is proposing now is that this motion be given priority over all other business now before the House of Commons and that a debate ensue on the suggested question of privilege.
I would hesitate very much to suggest to the hon. member that the grievance he has should be debated by the House at this time by way of a question of privilege. Perhaps he would allow the Chair to look at the matter within the next few hours and to study the notes the hon. member has submitted to the Chair for consideration before reaching a decision whether there is a prima facie case of privilege that would justify the putting of the motion proposed by the hon. member and a debate based on the hon. member's motion. Again I ask that he give the Chair an opportunity to look into the matter on his behalf and on behalf of all other members of the House.
[DOT] (UlO)



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the unprecedented interest of the Canadian public in following the budget presentation and debate and as a matter of importance to this House and to all Canadians, as a matter or urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand):
That this House permit Canadian radio and television networks to broadcast the budget presentation by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the responses by the first spokesman for each of the opposition parties;
And that the law and the rules and traditions of this House regarding the use of printed reports and the proceedings of the House shall apply to such broadcasts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!

May 6, 1974
Order Paper Questions


SUPREME COURT ACT AND FEDERAL COURT ACT
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-36, to amend the Supreme Court Act and to make related amendments to the Federal Court Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Question answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.) [Text]
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	For the period April 1, 1973 to January 31, 1974, what amount of money was expended on the operation and maintenance of the Prime Minister's residence at (a) 24 Sussex Drive, Ottawa (b) Harrington Lake, Quebec?
2.	For the same period, what was the expenditure for entertainment?
3.	How many people are on staff at 24 Sussex Drive and what is their individual remuneration per annum?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned: 1. (a) $12,093; (b) $2,133.
In so far as the National Capital Commission is concerned: 1. (a) $18,144.92; (b) $23,096.92.
In so far as the Prime Minister's Office is concerned: 1. (a) and (b) $59,857; 2. $4,556.31 (included in 1 above); 3. Seven: one at $4.89 per hour; one at $3.37 per hour; four at $2.98 per hour; one at $3.40 per hour.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask for clarification by the parliamentary secretary. Perhaps I did not hear him correctly, but I understood that starred question No. 63 was to be answered. I see the minister is in the House. The question has been outstanding since some time in the last session. It concerns a lawyer in Nova Scotia who was listed as getting government business from the Liberal Party's slush fund and did not receive any. I think the minister should clarify for the House why he used this man's name.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, if we might return to starred questions, I now have the answer and will give it to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the parliamentary secretary unanimous consent of the House to return to this item of business for the purpose of allowing him to reply to the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	For what reason did the Minister of Justice list Mr. A. D. Mclnnis of Antigonish, Nova Scotia in answer to Question No. 2,279 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament as one of the lawyers doing legal work for the government between April 17, 1972 and March 31, 1973?
2.	Is the Minister of Justice and his Department aware that Mr. Mclnnis did not do any legal work for the Department during the period of time mentioned and, if so, for what reason did the Minister state otherwise in answer to Question No. 2,279?
3.	Are there any other names in addition to that of Mr. Mclnnis in the answer to Question No. 2,279 who in reality also did not do legal work for the government as stated?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Mclnnis had performed legal services in 1968 in respect of a particular property in the province of Nova Scotia. That work was completed and Mr. Mclnnis' account was paid. Subsequently, however, further and different legal work was required in respect of the same property and Mr. J. D. MacLennan was appointed to do that work. As Mr. Mclnnis' name was inadvertently left on the file the mistake in names was made.
The answer to part two is yes.
The answer to part three is as follows: Yes. The names of Mr. Edmund R. Saunders and Mr. James G. Hackett should also be deleted. Please see the answer to question No. 61.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all architects, designers, interior decorators or consultants who have had anything to do with renovations or contents changes at the Prime Minister's official Ottawa residence since April 20, 1968?
2.	In each case, what was the amount in dollars of the fee, commission or salary received and what is a full and detailed description of the work performed?
3.	What is the name and position of person or persons who engaged these people and what are the name or names of those who recommended the use of such services?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: 1.
Mr. E. Wilson, Designer; 7 Second Street, Ward's Island, Toronto. Hebert-Lalonde, Designers; 430 Bonsecours Avenue, Montreal. Professor E. Arthur, Designer; 41 Wey-burn Crescent, Toronto. Francisco Limited, Interior Decorators; 550 Sherbrooke Street, Montreal. Mrs. Louise B. Beveridge, Interior Decorator; 4 Mont Clair Avenue, Toronto.
2.	See Appendix "A", below.
3.	Mr. W. N. Thomas, Regional Manager Design and Construction, Department of Public Works, recommended and engaged Mr. E. Wilson. The remainder of the architects, designers, interior decorators or consultants were not selected by DPW.

Appendix "A"
Architect, Designer, Interior Decorator or Consultant	Detailed Description of Work Performed	Commission or SalaryMr. E. Wilson	Production of interior design perspective drawings to show a complete plan for renovations to the dining and living rooms.	$ 1,400Hebert-Lalonde	Production of designs, including colour schemes, for rooms included in the staff's quarters. Provision of a total design service for renovations to the kitchen, pantry and adjacent storage areas, including advice on new kitchen equipment, food storage and preparation facilities.	4,447.50Professor E. Arthur	Assistance to Mrs. Louise B. Beveridge by providing a design pattern for the marble floor in the main entranceway, and for the oak flooring in the front foyer and library.	nil*Francisco Limited	Production of design for the second floor sittingroom, including reconstruction and refinishing of the patio, and patio entrance doors, renovation and re-equipment of kitchen, replacement of windows, removal of fireplace and refinishing entrance area.	11,816.92'Mrs. Louise B. Beveridge	Production of designs for refinishing and redecorating main entrance way, hallway, library, lounge and dining room.	nil*
Amount of fee, commission or salary paid to February 28, 1974.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,601 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament what is the exact purpose of the construction work listed as being carried out in the year 1973-74 at the Prime Minister's official Ottawa residence and for what reasons is such construction deemed necessary?
2.	Who made the decision that such construction is necessary and what individual or individuals will make use of or occupy any of the rooms being constructed or renovated?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1. The
answer to question No. 2,601 of the First Session of the twenty-ninth Parliament did not list construction work
Order Paper Questions
carried out in the year 1973-74 at the Prime Minister's Ottawa residence. The information on construction work is given in reply to question 87 including information on work or service performed.
2.	A review of the work or service performed, as listed in reply to question 87, at the Prime Minister's residence, will reveal in detail the items of maintenance and refurbishing. The occupants of the residence, Canadian and international guests of the government of Canada as well as personal guests may from time to time make use of various areas of the residence.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	For each of the past five years, what has been (a) the number of train accidents involving Canadian track (b) the number of such accidents that involved fatal injuries (c) the number of fatalities?
2.	What is the source of this information?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. (a) Number of train accidents involving Canadian track: 1969, 289; 1970, 374; 1971, 367; 1972, 439; 1973, 411. (b) The number of such accidents that involved fatal injuries is 36. (c) The number of fatalities is 50
2.	Source of the above information is accidents reported to the Railway Transport Committee by the Railways.


Mr. Forrestall: Is it the intention of the government to give consideration to permit constituents to call the Ottawa office of their Member of Parliament toll-free?


John Mercer Reid: The regulations governing the use of telephone communications are established by the House of Commons and administered by the Speaker on the advice of the Commissioner of Internal Economy. The question, therefore, is not one to which the government can respond.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): On the last business day of each month from September, 1972 to September, 1973 inclusive (a) how many keypunch operators were employed in Ottawa by the Department of National Revenue, Taxation Division (b) how many keypunch operators, formerly employed in Ottawa by the Department of National Revenue, Taxation Division, were receiving unemployment insurance benefits?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, and the Unemployment Insurance Commission as follows: (a) The number of keypunch operators employed in Ottawa at the last business day of each month for the period September 1972 to September 1973 inclusive was: September 1972, 135; October 1972, 136; November 1972, 398; December 1972, 127;

May 6, 1974
Order Paper Questions
January 1973, 487, February 1973, 1101; March 1973, 1417; April 1973, 1395; May 1973, 1227; June 1973, 952; July 1973, 203; August 1973, 195; September 1973, 134. (b) Since the reply requires the identification of keypunch operators back to September 1972, extraction from the computer files is not feasible. Occupation coding was introduced only in December 1972, and became fully operational during the course of 1973. Therefore, the information requested is not readily available.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How much revenue was collected over the past three years, 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 in landing fees on private and general aviation aircraft under 5,000 pounds?
2.	Under the new proposals presently being considered by the Department of Transport, which provide for a $100 annual landing fee, plus a $5 minimum landing fee at the international airports of Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver, how much revenue is anticipated on an annual basis?
3.	What is the anticipated cost of administering and collecting fees under the new proposal?
4.	On what date is the implementation of the new proposed regulations to be effective?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Landing fees for private aircraft under 5,000 pounds apply only at the Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver international airports. Statistical information on aircraft is compiled by weight categories of 4,000 pounds and under, and 4,001 pounds to 9,000 pounds, but is not segregated between private and general aviation aircraft. The revenue from all aircraft of 4,000 pounds and less at these three airports was as follows: 1970-71, $74,500;
1971-72, $73,500; 1972-73, $87,500.
2 and 4. Under the proposal, the anticipated annual revenue from all aircraft under 25,000 pounds for all ministry airports would have been $775,000. The proposal will not now be implemented. A study is to be made of landing fees for aircraft of all types and sizes on domestic, transborder and international flights.
3.	The ministry is developing a centralized computer system for the invoicing and collection of air services fees. The allocated cost for the administration and collection of the landing fees of aircraft under 25,000 pounds would have been $35,000.


Mr. O'Sullivan: Has the Department of Transport begun a review of its plans for expansion at Mount Hope Airport and, if so (a) on what date did such a review begin (b) on what date and how was it announced (c) what are the names and duties of those conducting such a review (d) has the review been completed and, if not, on what date will it be completed (e) will the full findings and report of the review be made public and, if so, on what date?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The Ministry of Transport has not begun a review of its plans for expansion at Mount Hope airport, however a proposed study program and public dialogue program are being developed.


Mr. Cossitt: Have any members of the Public Service taken English or French language training courses that have been paid for directly or indirectly by the government at the Berlitz School of Languages in Ottawa during the past three years and, if so (a) how many have taken or are taking (i) French (ii) English (b) what is the total expenditure in this regard from public funds?


John Mercer Reid: (a) (i) 526; (ii) 21. (b) $793,994.


Mr. Latulippe: 1.	(a) How many permanent employees were working in all branches of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in 1973 and, of these, how many were part-time or supplementary help (b) what was the cost in salaries for both categories?
2.	Was the supplementary help recruited through UIC and, if not, where and how were they recruited?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. (a) 10,642 at 31 December, 1973 Regular employees: 6,454; Casual employees: 4,188; (b) Regular: $59,346,502; Casual: $29,299,617; Total, $88,646,119. This expenditure includes overtime.
2. All supplementary help was recruited through the Department of Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Dick: 1.	In 1968, how many (a) Deputy Ministers (b) Assistant Deputy Ministers were in the various departments (i) what was the salary range for each (ii) what was the average salary?
2.	During 1973, how many (a) Deputy Ministers (b) Assistant Deputy Ministers were in the various department (i) what was the salary range for each (ii) what was the average salary?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Prime Minister's Office and the Treasury Board Secretariat as follows: 1. (a) twenty six; (i) there were no salary ranges for Deputy Ministers in 1968. Salaries were paid at three rates; $26,500, $28,750, $31,000; (ii) $23,080. (b) In 1968, there were 45 Assistant Deputy Ministers and 41 other similar positions (e.g. Assistant Dominion Statistician) for a total of 86 positions; (i) the overall salary range was $19,000 to $27,500; (ii) The average salaray was approximately $24,125.
2. (a) thirty; (i) DM 1 $35,750, $43,750; DM 2 $42,000, $49,500; DM3 $47,500, $55,000; (ii) $44,716. (b) In 1973, there were 100 Assistant Deputy Ministers and 68 other similar positions (e.g. Assistant Chief Statistician) for a total of 168 positions; (i) the over-all salary range was $26,750 to $43,750; (ii) the average salary was approximately $33,600.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	In the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74, how much money was contracted to each of the five regions of Canada by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
2.	What was this in per capita terms for each region?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development):		
1. Region	Amount	2. Per Capita1972-73	$	$Atlantic	3,285,304	1,578Quebec	7,208,199	1,191Ontario	9,575,766	1,223Prairies	7,542,938	2,117British Columbia	8,235,201	3,664Northwest Territories and Yukon	1,231,660	22,3931973-74	Atlantic	3,594,397	1,701Quebec	7,644,449	1,257Ontario	10,738,770	1,352Prairies	6,951,889	1,937British Columbia	6,245,090	2,697Northwest Territories and Yukon	1,434,394	24,730
This includes only contracts let by the department and not contracts let by other government departments for work on behalf of this department.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	In the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74, how much money was contracted to each of the five regions of Canada by the Defence Industry Productivity Program?
2.	What was this in per capita terms for each region?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1.	Defence Industry Productivity Program
Expenditures by Region ($000's)
1972/73
British
Atlantic Quebec Ontario Prairie Columbia Total * 2
191,034	25,612,290 21,911,666	483,448	126,354 48,324,792
1973/74 to February 28
431,243	16,323,087 24,844,594	439,942	92,658 42,131,524
2.	Per Capita Terms for Each Region ($)
1972/73
.09	4.23	2.80	.14	.06
'	1973/74
.20	2.68	3.13	.12	.04
Order Paper Questions


Mr. McKinnon: Has a distillery known as Central Canadian Distillers Ltd. of Wey-burn, Saskatchewan (a) recently been sold to American interests (b) been the recipient of Department of Regional Economic Expansion grants or loans and, if so (i) how much (ii) is the government taking any steps to recover the DREE loans or grants?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: (a) The majority of shares in Central Canadian Distillers Corporation were sold January 1, 1974, to an American controlled company, (b) (i) Central Canadian Distillers Corporation Ltd. accepted an offer of a development incentive in March 1970. The incentive was based on 22 per cent of the authorized capital costs of $2,387,000 for a total incentive of approximately $525,000. The facility was brought into commercial production on May 31, 1971. (ii) The sale of the shares of Central Canadian Distillers Corporation occurred after the expiry of the control period for the development incentive. This transaction has no effect on the incentive and no action is required regarding recovery of the incentive.


Mr. Boisvert: 1.	What multinational corporations have their head office in (a) Canada (b) the Province of Quebec?
2.	What multinational corporations have one or more branches in (a) Canada (b) the Province of Quebec?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. In 1971 there were 5,553 foreign controlled non-financial corporations with head offices in Canada, of which 1,362 were located in the Province of Quebec.
2. There were also 330 branches of non-Canadian nonfinancial corporations operating in Canada and of this total 39 were located in the Province of Quebec.


Mr. Cossitt: Has Mr. M. Dubuc of the Department of Public Works met with or communicated with in any manner whatsoever since January 1, 1972 with Mr. J. S. Hackett, Postmaster at Kingston, Ontario and, if so, what was the exact purpose in each case and what matters were discussed?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Yes. Mr. M. Dubuc met with Mr. J. S. Hackett on possibly three or four occasions prior to the negotiation of the lease and during the renovations of the postal accommodation. The purpose in each case was to discuss the layout proposed by the Post Office Department which was modified to be more specific and to correct numerous deficiencies prior to the acceptance of the premises.
2042

May 6, 1974
Order Paper Questions ASSISTANCE TO FLOODED AREAS


Mr. Howie: Where some areas in Canada appear subject to repeated damage by flooding and have received federal rehabilitation assistance, would the government consider assisting financially in relocating persons and facilities in these frequently flooded sections to more favourable areas?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: In some flood prone areas, land acquisition, including relocation of people and facilities may be the most viable flood plain management alternative. In such cases, where it is considered to be in the national interest to do so, cost sharing arrangements could be negotiated between the federal, provincial and local governments at the request of the province, which has primary responsibility. Each case would have to be considered individually as to its practicability, and priority relative to other federal programs.


Mr. Cossitt: What is a full and detailed description of all circumstances surrounding the manner in which the Department of Public Works became aware that a building owned by Mrs. Deborah Lawlor in Lyndhurst, Ontario was available for rental as a post office and, specifically, from whom was such information received, on what date and what was the name and the position of the individual receiving it?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: The Post Office Department informed the Department of Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Question, No. 551-Mr. Cossitt:
With reference to the answer to Part 5(a) of Question No. 48, what is the detailed history of the Public Service employment of Mr. M. Dubuc, Property Officer, Property Services Branch, Capital Region, Department of Public Works and specifically what are all positions he has held along with the dates and location involved?
Jean-Eudes Dubé: Positions Held	Dates	LocationRCAF	1939-1945	Canada and OverseasTradesman, Department of National Defence	1946-1947	*Tradesman, Department of National Defence	1951-1954	*Carpenter, Department of Public Works	1955	OttawaBuilding Manager, Ottawa District Department of Public Works Technical Officer (3)	1957	OttawaBuilding Manager, Ottawa	1961	Ottawa
District Department of Public Works Technical Officer (4) 
Positions Held	Dates	LocationArea Manager	1965	Ottawa
Department of Public Works (Ottawa District Operations Property Management)
Technical Officer (5)
Area Manager	1966	Ottawa
Department of Public Works (Ottawa District Operations Property Management)
Administrative Services Level (4)
Property Officer	1972	Ottawa
Department of Public Works Property Services Division Administrative Services Level (4)
'Mostly at Esquimalt, B.C.	,


Mr. Cossitt: Have any materials removed from the Kingston Federal Building during the past five years been used or installed on premises of any post office rented by the government in the same postal region as Kingston?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: During the past five years, several projects have been carried out in the Kingston Federal Building, including air-conditioning, relighting and tenant alterations and improvements which involved the removal of materials such as lighting fixtures and partitions. However, any salvaged materials ceased to be government property and became the property of the contractors who were obliged to remove such materials from the site, in keeping with the terms of the contract. The department, therefore, has no knowledge of any subsequent use made of these materials.


Mr. Cossitt: Have any fixtures or building fittings of any kind whatsoever been disposed of or removed in any way whatsoever from the Federal Building in Kingston, Ontario in the past five years and, if so, to whom was any disposition made and on what dates?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: During the past five years, several projects have been carried out in the Kingston Federal Building, including air-conditioning, relighting and tenant alterations and improvements which involved the removal of materials such as lighting fixtures and partitions. However, any salvaged materials ceased to be government property and became the property of the contractors who were obliged to remove such materials from the site, in keeping with the terms of the contract. The department, therefore, has no knowledge of any subsequent use made of these materials.
May 6, 1974


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Were any contracts let to the Hudson Institute by the Canadian International Development Agency in the fiscal years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and, if so, for what amount?
2.	What was the nature of the work performed under these contracts?
3.	Other than a contract, does the Agency have any other working relationship with the Hudson Institute?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Nil.
2.	Nil.
3.	Nil.


Mr. Blouin: To date, what has been the financial contribution of the government to the project set up under the terms of an agreement between the Federal and Quebec Governments to the effect that the latter is having a Ferry-boat built by Sorel Industries which will be in operation on the St. Lawrence River between Matane-Godbout and Baie Comeau in the fall of 1974?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of Privy Council):: Insofar as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned: A contribution of $3 million was made available by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to the provincial government on March 31, 1972, under the terms of an agreement between the Governments of Canada and of Quebec signed on November 30, 1971. The responsibility for the construction of the ferry boat is that of the province. Insofar as Ministry of Transport is concerned: $3 million.


Mr. Blouin: Since the Regional Development Incentives Act has come into effect (a) how much money has the government spent to date for the Sept-lles-Port Cartier designated area (b) what was the amount of subsidies and loans each year (c) what was the amount for each town?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: The Regional Development Incentives Act came into effect in July of 1969. The Sept-lles Port Cartier Special Area was designated on April 8, 1970, and the following schedule provides a' breakdown of expenditures by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in this Special Area for industrial development and infrastructure assistance purposes under the Regional Development Incentives Act and under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion Act:
(b) and (c)
Fiscal Year
Order Paper Questions
Sept-tles	Port Cartier
Contri-	Contributions Loans butions Loans
T otals


[Stage Direction]
1971-	1972	2,696,597	677,994	2,133,9882,482,376	7,990,9551972-	1973	2,601,774	398,174	8,037,761 3,412,457	14,450,1661973-	29/3/74	2,358,813	193,901	2,087,502	840,219	5,480,435
(a) Totals 10,426,173 4,810,621 12,259,251 6,735,052 34,231,097
Mr. Blouin: Is the government helping to finance the construction of Highway 138 east of Sept-lles and, if so, on what date was this agreement with the Quebec Government signed and what are the details of the agreement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am informed by several departments as follows: There is no agreement between the federal and Quebec governments concerning assistance for construction of Highway 138, east of Sept-lles, Quebec.


Mr. Howie: 1.	What was the total amount of money allocated to CFB Gagetown for the current fiscal year under the Federal Labour Intensive Allocation?
2.	Were proposals for this programme requested or received from the Base and, if so, what was the estimated cost of the proposal?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. The total amount of money allocated to CFB Gagetown under the Federal Labour Intensive Program for 1973/74 was $592,169.
2. Proposals for this program were requested from and received from CFB Gagetown. The estimated cost of their proposals was $2,028,469.


Mr. Godin: Since February 1, 1973, what is the name of any appointee to the Economic Council of Canada to fill vacancies brought about by resignation or expiration of term of office.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Dr. Irving Brecher, Mr. Robert Annable, Miss Huguette Plamondon, Mr. Raymond Primeau, Mr. Louis-Phillipe Poulin, Mr. Robert Finn, Mr. Donald H. Taylor, Mr. W.C.Y. McGregor, Mr. Charles Perrault, Mr. Marcel Belanger, Mr. John Kos-tuik, Dr. Helen K. Mussallem.
(b) and (c) Sept-lles	Port Cartier		
Contri- Fiscal Year butions Loans	Contri- butions	Loans	Totals$ $	$	$	$1970-1971 2,768,989 3,540,552	-	-	6,309,541


Mr. Fortin: 1.	Has the Cape Breton Development Corporation completed its nationalization operations and, if not, on what date will it complete them?
2044

Order Paper Questions
2.	Have the shares or properties of nationalized companies been purchased?
3.	What was the book value of each such company at the time of purchase?
4.	What were the criteria used to evaluate such properties?
5.	Were the former owners paid in cash or interest bearing bonds?
6.	What was the price paid by CBDC for the purchase of each company?
7.	Did CBDC use Section 10(a) of its Act and, if so, how far advanced are the proceedings?
8.	When was the evaluation of the properties of the companies completed after March 30, 1968 (date of expropriation)?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The answer for the Cape Breton Development Corporations is as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	No. The acquisition was effected by expropriation as provided in the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act, Sections 9 (e) and 10.
3.	Not determined because the assets were acquired by expropriation.
4.	The criteria set forth in Section 12 of the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act.
5.	In cash from the Consolidated Revenue Fund as provided in Section 19(1) of the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act.
6.	In accordance with the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act, the companies were not acquired. Compensation for the expropriated assets was settled for the overall sum of $11,775,000.00 not including interest or costs but, including $7,651,726.60 for coal stocks valued at the cost thereof to the companies as provided in Section 12(2) of the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act.
7.	Yes. The proceedings were completed when the settlement was judicially approved in December 1972.
8.	As at December 18, 1972.
6.	(a) What other methods were used in these investigations (b) what were the findings?
7.	Will the findings be discussed with the individuals concerned?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1 to 7. It is
not the policy of the RCMP to publicly divulge the names and/or details of investigations conducted in the pursuit of its responsibilities. Such a policy is aimed at not only protecting the rights of the persons concerned, but also ensuring that any inquiries or investigations are not jeopardized through unnecessary public release. However, the RCMP responsibilities in the spheres of security screening, counter-subversion, counter-espionage, and the protection of VIPs necessitates contact with various elements of Canadian society, including the mass media. Such contact can take the form of either a thorough and detailed investigation, or, it may involve the clarification of a lead arising out of another investigation. In the latter instance, the Security Service is obligated to follow up such leads to determine if they have any substances. Sometimes this can only be resolved through an inquiry with a responsible person, such as the individual's supervisor, a fellow employee or some other person who may have knowledge of the individual concerned. When such an inquiry is made, the individual contacted is under no obligation to render assistance. Furthermore, for the reasons mentioned previously, it is hoped that the person contacted will respect the confidentiality of the inquiry. If such an inquiry shows that there is substance to the lead, then further investigation is undertaken to acquire all the relevant details necessary to take whatever action may be required as dictated by the circumstances. Should the opposite be the case, then no further action is taken. Such procedure is standard whether the inquiry is of a criminal or a security nature and, as such varies little from the procedures utilized by members of the media itself when pursuing a potential news story. The undertaking of any inquiry is not an indication that the Security Service is singling out for investigation any specific individual or group.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	Did the RCMP investigate Alberta journalists Bob Bragg, with the Calgary Herald, Warren Caragatta with the Lethbridge Herald, Bob Parkins and Bob Boei with the Calgary weekly paper Sunday?
2.	Did the RCMP investigate in the past two years any other Alberta journalists, radio announcers, editors, etc.?
3.	Who authorized or ordered any investigation that was carried out?
4.	(a) What was the purpose of the investigation (b) to whom was the information to be given?
5.	(a) How was the investigation carried out (b) was it by way of interrogating other journalists?


Mr. Rynard: 1.	How many cases of malaria were reported in Canada, by province, for the years 1963 to 1973 inclusive?
2.	How many cases were (a) native born Canadians (b) from outside the country?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. The following table provides the number of cases of malaria reported in Canada, by province, for the years 1963 to 1973 inclusive.
Canada
Year
Prince N ew-	Edward
Canada foundland Island
Report Cases of Selected Notifiable Diseases 1963-1973
Nova New	Saskatch-
Scotia Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba ewan
North-
British	west
Alberta Columbia Yukon Territories
Malaria
1963	1	-	-	-1964	2	-	-	-1965	3	-	-	-


2
Hi

Year
Prince New- Edward Canada foundland Island
Order Paper Questions
North-
Nova New	Saskatch-	British	west
Scotia Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba ewan Alberta Columbia Yukon Territories
1966	7	-	.1967	9	1	1968	1	-	1969	2	-	1970	5	-	1971	7	-	1972	7	1	1973	25	-	-	
2
Malaria
-	3	1	2	1	-	-	--	4	2	1	1	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	--	-	-	1	1	-	-	--	1	1	1	2	-	-	--	-	3	1	3	-	-	-1	-	3	1	-	-	-	13	11	5	1	2	-	-	1
2. The information requested is not available from Statistic Canada
2. How many of these cases were (a) Canadian born (b) previously innoculated?


Mr. Rynard: 1.	How many cases of diphtheria were reported in Canada, by province, for the years 1963 to 1973 inclusive?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. The following table provides the number of cases of diphtheria reported in Canada, by province, for the years 1963 to 1973 inclusive.
Canada
Statistics
Reported Cases of Selected Notifiable Diseases 1963-1973
Prince
Year	Canada	New- foundland	Edward Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick Quebec	1963	75	61964	23	3	-	-	i	51965	51	-	-	-	11966	38	-	-	1967	41	-	-	11968	61	-	-	1969	48	-	-	-	11970	47	-	-	-	1971	75	-	-	11972	68	-	-	1973	169	1	-	-	-	
2. The imformation requested is not available from Statistic Canada.
Northwest
Ontario	Manitoba	Saskatch- ewan	Alberta	British Columbia	Yukon	Terri- tories
Diphtheria						
-	23	9	29	83	2	8	1	-	-	-15	26	4	3	-	-	222	12	2	2	-	-	-15	10	4	9	i	-	19	23	5	15	8	-	15	4	-	22	14	2	-6	4	5	23	9	-	-2	3	8	48	11	2	-3	5	-	48	11	-	118	4	-	89	51	-	62.	How many cases were (a) native born Canadians (b) from outside the country?


Mr. Rynard: 1.	How many cases of typhoid fever were reported in Canada, by province, for the years 1963 to 1973 inclusive?
Statistics


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. The following table provides the number of cases of typhoid and paratyphoid fever.
Canada
Reported Cases of Selected Notifiable Diseases 1963-1973
Year
1964
1966
1968
1970
Prince New- Edward Canada foundland Island
North-
Nova New	Saskatch-	British	West
Scotia Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba ewan Alberta Columbia Yukon Territories
Typhoid and Paratyphoid Fever*
147	11	-	4	3	57195	3	1	20	12	85158	2	-	1	6	61128	5	-	9	8	44121	2	2	-	6	4593	1	-	1	12	49119	16	-	11	1	6274	4	-	1	6	32123	3	-	1	8	5740	6	13	7	6	-	32	7	15	8	11	-	138	13	10	16	11	-	40	2	12	4	4	-	-28	-	10	13	14	-	18	12	3	-	5	1	112	7	5	-	5	-	-10	7	3	6	5	-	43	3	1	1	5	-	1
May 6, 1974
Order Paper Questions
Year	Canada	New- foundland	Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba	Saskatchewan Alberta	British Columbia	N orth-West Yukon Territories1972	155	1	1	Typhoid and Paratyphoid Fever* 6 43 69 14	- 2	13	- 61973	144	3	2	2	17 48 60 3	4 3	3	1
Information cannot be provided for typhoid only for most of the years requested.
2.	The information requested is not available from Statistic Canada.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): With reference to the answer to Question No. 224 (Sessional Paper No. 292-2/224) which of the companies figuring in the list of consultants provided, were awarded consulting contracts during the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73, whether for capital projects or by way of technical assistance contracts?


Mitchell William Sharp: The information requested in the above question can be found in the reply to question No. 224, part 3.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the Prime Minister's answer to Question No. 2,311 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament on July 25, 1973, that Mr. Martin O'Connell intends at some future date to seek nomination as a condidate in the next federal election, would the Prime Minister indicate (a) whether Mr. O'Connell has yet declared his candidacy for a nomination (b) on what date Mr. O'Connell intends to resign his present position in the Prime Minister's Office for this purpose (c) the total amount of salary and expense moneys actually paid to him to date in his capacity with the Prime Minister's Office?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: (a) No; (b) not applicable; (c) Mr. Martin O'Connell received salary from November 27, 1972 to date based on an annual salary of $30,000 to $35,000 and was reimbursed travelling expenses of $2,389.19 and hospitality expenses of $941.57 during the same period.


Mr. Nesdoly: How much aid did the government give in food supplies to Ethiopia, expressed in dollars, for the period (a) January 1 to December 31, 1972 (b) January 1 to December 31, 1973?


Mitchell William Sharp: The government gave no food supplies to Ethiopia for the period January 1 to December 31, 1972. For the period January 1 to December 31, 1973 $1.5 million was allocated for emergency food assistance, but delivery will not be made until May 1974.


Mr. Dick: Will the government enlarge their publication entitled Weekly Bulletin of Business Opportunities, issued through the Department of Supply and Services, to include (a) information as to whether or not the contract was a directed contract (b) if invitations to tender were issued (c) date of the invitation to tender (d) date the tender closed (e) names of companies and persons filing the tenders which were not accepted (f) amount of tender?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: The purpose of the publication is to get information sent in a timely manner particularly to allow potential subcontractors to contact the successful tenderer. Considering the volume of contracts awarded by DSS and the cost involved in gathering and publishing the information requested the department does not anticipate enlarging the publication Weekly Bulletin of Business Opportunities to include (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). However, this information is available on request for individual contracts through the Office of the Secretary of the Supply Administration.


Mr. Laprise: Did the government grant a loan under the Farm Credit Act or the Farm Syndicates Credit Act to the Leopold Roy farm of Clerval, Abitibi-West, Quebec, a farm which is now the property of the Quebec Development Board and, if so, were there any losses and what were the amounts?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: The Farm Credit Corporation advises: The Corporation considers that individual farmers have the right to negotiate loans from it in confidence and that to indicate if specific farmers obtained loans from the corporation would breach that confidence.


Mr. Wise: How many applications for Opportunities for Youth projects were submitted to the government in each year 1972 and 1973 and, of these, how many were approved?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1972: Applications submitted, 20,679; applications approved, 3,041. 1973: Applications submitted, 11,467; applications approved, 4,329.


Mr. Wise: What was the total amount of money spent by the government for Opportunities for Youth projects in each constituency in each year 1972 and 1973?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This information is not available. Opportunities for Youth funds are


distributed by region and subregion: accordingly, statistics by constituency are not maintained.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): What is the amount being repaid monthly by the Foyer Lac Etche-min to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on the loan which was granted in October 1968 and does this amount cover capital and interest?


Hon. Ron Bastord (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I have been advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: The loan to assist in financing the construction of Foyer Lac Etchemin, Province of Quebec, was made through Quebec Housing Corporation under the terms of an agreement between that Corporation and CMHC. Monthly repayments are made by the borrower to Quebec Housing Corporation, and hence the terms under which they are made are not known to CMHC.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): 1.	What were the titles and number of copies of scientific books produced by, or for, Information Canada for government agencies during the period December 31, 1963 to December 31, 1973 and, of these, what are the titles and number of copies that are now held in storage?
2.	How many titles of scientific books produced by, or for, Information Canada during the period December 31, 1963 to December 31, 1973 are presently being carried on a regular basis by major scientific book dealers in North America and Europe?
3.	What steps are being taken by Information Canada to reduce the supply of scientific book titles from the current stored stock?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: In so far as
Information Canada is concerned, the answers are as follows: 1. None.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. G. L. Bennett, Deputy Minister of Customs and Excise meet with representatives of the Footwear Committee of the Canadian Importers Association on or about April 2,1974 in Toronto?
2.	Did Mr. Bennett advise those present that the Department of External Affairs would not permit Customs and Excise to request information from anyone in Taiwan on regular Department letterhead and, if so, what is the exact identity of the individual who gave such information or instructions to Mr. Bennett?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: In so far as National Revenue is concerned: 1. Yes, at their request.
2.	No. What the Deputy Minister was referring to was the general internationally accepted practice that official correspondence is not exchanged between governments which do not accord each other diplomatic recognition.
Order Paper Questions BEEF SUBSIDY PROGRAM


Mr. Stewart (Marquette): Before the Department of Agriculture implemented the present Beef Subsidy Program, were consultations on this Program held with (a) national farm organizations (b) provincial governments and, if so (i) what farm organizations (ii) what provincial governments approved of the Program?


Eugene Whelan: (a) Yes; (b) no; (b) (i) the Canadian Cattlemen's Association was consulted; however, formal approval was not sought; (b) (ii) Not applicable.


Mr. Howie: Of the $2.6 million (Vote 30) in the Main Estimates 1974-75 of the Department of the Environment to meet costs for the federal share of funding forest pest control operations in Canada (a) how much of the $2.6 million, if any, is to be spent in connection with these 1974-75 operations in New Brunswick (b) how much, if any, has been requested by New Brunswick for this same time period (c) what assistance was requested by New Brunswick and what reply was given?


Bill Rompkey: (a) Not determined; presently under consideration, (b) New Brunswick has requested federal financial assistance for a spray program covering approximately six million acres, (c) Two provinces have applied for federal financial assistance in pest control operations. New Brunswick has been advised that federal assistance will be forthcoming to the extent that funds are available.


Mr. Howie: What is the estimated projected cost of the Mirabel Airport?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The estimated cost of Mirabel based on the Blue Book estimates to March 31, 1975 shows: Major Capital Projects, $242,182,000; Peripheral Land Management, 106,500,000; Air Navigational Service 10,936,000; Ex Gratia Payments to Landowners, 25,000,000; Operation Airport Land Proper, 16,500,000.


Mr. Ellis: In the past three years, what amount did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development spend in the Kenora Agency for (a) education (b) salaries (c) housing (d) welfare?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (a)	Education
Operating
Capital
(b)	Salaries (excluding teachers contained in (a))
i
1,770,204
197,262
103,948

1,622,463
1,153,122
179,260
(provisional)

1,643,771
313,985
182,471

May 6, 1974
Order Paper Questions
(c)	Housing (construction and major renovations)
(d)	Welfare
1971-72	1972-73
$	S
317,862	291,479
246,957	173,624
1973-74	2. How many of the above charges resulted in (a) convictions (b)
(pro-	dismissal of the charges (c) withdrawal of the charges?
visional)
*	Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to
486 956 Minister of the Environment): 1. None.
206', 976
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Harding: 1.	How many water quality management areas have been established since the passage of the Canada Water Act in June, 1970?
2.	Where and in which province is each water quality management area located?
3.	What area does each water quality management area cover?


Bill Rompkey: 1. No water quality management areas have been established under the terms of the Canada Water Act. Since the passage of the act, all provinces have opted for provincial implementation of water quality programs using joint federal/provincial advisory instruments.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Harding: 1.	What is the government's project for Expo '74 in Spokane, State of Washington?
2.	Has it been completed?
3.	What is its total estimated cost?
4.	How many persons will be employed at the project during Expo '74?
5.	What is the planned disposition of it when Expo '74 is over?
6.	Which provinces have indicated they will participate in Expo '74 by means of exhibits, etc.?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The Canadian national project for Expo '74 consists primarily of a man-made landscape on Cannon Island.
2.	It will be completed by May, 3, 1974.
3.	$500,000.
4.	Five persons will be employed full-time at the project during Expo '74.
5.	The landscape will remain as a permanent park. Cannon Island is being renamed Canada Island by the City Council of Spokane.
6.	British Columbia and Alberta.


Mr. Harding: 1. For each year 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973, how many charges were laid against individuals or companies by persons in the department responsible for the enforcement of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act and Regulations regarding violations of the Act and Regulations dealing with pollution of waters?


Mr. McKinnon: Has the Department of Veterans Affairs cut the budget of the veterans hospital in Victoria to preclude the hiring of university students for summer employment related to their future profession and, if not, for what reason is that hospital not hiring students this summer?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs);: In view of the impending transfer of the Veterans Hospital, Victoria, to provincial jurisdiction, no action for the hiring of summer students was instituted.


Mr. Harding: 1.	For each year 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973, how many charges were laid against individuals or companies by persons in the department responsible for the enforcement of the National Parks Act and Regulations regarding violations of the Act and Regulations dealing with pollution of waters?
2.	How many of the above charges resulted in (a) convictions (b) dismissal of the charges (c) withdrawal of the charges?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. No charges have been laid for the years 1970 to 1973 inclusive.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Harding: 1.	For each year 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973, how many charges were laid against individuals or companies by persons in the department responsible for the enforcement of the International River Improvements Act and Regulations regarding violations of the Act and Regulations dealing with pollution of waters?
2.	How many of the above charges resulted in (a) convictions (b) dismissal of the charges (c) withdrawal of the charges?


Bill Rompkey: 1. None.
2. Not applicable.
May 6, 1974



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all contractors, firms, companies or individuals engaged by the government to do renovations or construction work of any kind at the Prime Minister's official summer residence at Harrington Lake since April 20, 1968 and what were the amounts of money involved in each individual case?
2.	In what instances were tenders called and what were the names of all those tendering along with the amounts of the tenders?
3.	In any cases, where tenders were not called, for what reason was this not done?
4.	In all cases what was the exact work or service performed?
Return tabled.



SUM OF MONEY PAID TO LAWYERS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA FOR LEGAL WORK

Mr. Cossitt: What was the total sum of money paid between April 1, 1972 and March 31, 1973 to each of the lawyers in the Province of British Columbia listed in the answer to Question No. 2,272 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament?
Return tabled.



SUM OF MONEY PAID TO LAWYERS IN QUEBEC FOR LEGAL WORK

Mr. Cossitt: What was the total sum of money paid between April 1, 1972 and March 31, 1973 to each of the lawyers in the Province of Quebec listed in the answer to Question No. 2,276 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament?
Return tabled.



SUM OF MONEY PAID TO LAWYERS IN NOVA SCOTIA FOR LEGAL WORK

Mr. Cossitt: What was the total sum of money paid between April 1, 1972 and March 31, 1973 to each of the lawyers in the Province of Nova Scotia listed in the answer to Question No. 2,279 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament?
Return tabled.



SUM OF MONEY PAID TO LAWYERS IN ONTARIO FOR LEGAL WORK

Mr. Cossitt: What was the total sum of money paid between April 1, 1972 and March 31, 1973 to each of the lawyers in the Province of Ontario listed in the answer to Question No. 2,280 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament?
Order Paper Questions
Return tabled.



TOTAL COST OF ALL ASPECTS OF THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICIAL RESIDENCE

Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,601 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament, what are the specific items and their cost in each case which make the totals shown on page IV as being spent in certain years by the Department of Public Works at the Prime Minister's official Ottawa residence?
Return tabled.



NAMES OF ALL FIRMS ENGAGED TO DO RENOVATIONS TO PRIME MINISTER'S RESIDENCE SINCE APRIL 20, 1968

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all contractors, firms, companies or individuals engaged by the government to do renovations or construction work of any kind at the Prime Minister's official Ottawa residence since April 20, 1968 and what were the amounts of money involved in each individual case?
2.	In what instances were tenders called and what were the names of all those tendering along with the amounts of the tenders?
3.	In any cases, where tenders were not called, for what reason was this not done?
4.	In all cases what was the exact work or service performed?
Return tabled.



MOVEMENT OF WESTERN CANADIAN OIL TO ATLANTIC PROVINCES AND QUEBEC

Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many contracts have been entered into by the government or to the knowledge of the government, to move Western Canadian oil to the Atlantic Provinces and Quebec through the Panama Canal?
2.	What firms have been involved?
3.	What is the nature of the contracts, in terms of length, cost per barrel and other broad parameters (a) at the Montreal end of the Portland to Montreal pipeline (b) at the dockside in British Columbia?
4.	In each instance, what is the vessel name of ships involved, the country of registry for each ship and the owner of each vessel so used?
5.	Are all the vessels so engaged manned by Canadian officers and Canadian crews and, if not, in what specific instances are foreign crews or men being used and for what reasons?
6.	(a) On what date were these contracts entered into (b) are any more anticipated (c) what departments or agencies of government have been involved in this operation in light of the statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on November 26, 1973, page 8,138 of Hansard that "we are organizing the movement in excess of 50,000 barrels a day of western crude via the Trans Mountain Pipe Line to Vancouver and via ship through the Panama Canal"?
7.	What is the anticipated amount of oil that can be moved with existing contracts?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE 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 Health and Welfare on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?

May 6, 1971
Order Paper Questions
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.
CMHC-FUNDS SUPPLIED TO SOCIEtE D'HABITATION DU QUEBEC

Question No. 675-Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):
Did the government, through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, supply money to the Societe d'habitation du Quebec during each year 1968 to 1974 inclusive and, if so (a) are loans involved (b) what are the interest rates (c) what is the amount for each year (d) what are the terms of repayment?
Return tabled.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On two different occasions, April 16 and April 17,1 brought up the statement the parliamentary secretary made in respect of question No. 319. On April 15 he stated that the reply to my question No. 319, which shows the inequities of this government toward the women of this country, cost the Canadian taxpayers $1.5 million. I rose on questions of privilege on April 16 and April 17 to protest that statement which represents interference with the right of members to seek information from the government. I deny that that statement 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 which was an attempt to intimidate me in carrying out my duties as a member of this chamber.
I ask that an explanation be forthcoming today. Failing that, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. If the statement of the parliamentary secretary cannot be substantiated, this is a serious breach of the privileges of all members of this chamber. I dislike being intimidated with impunity by this cornball from Kenora-Rainy River.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether we should have a debate on this matter at this time. The hon. member may have a grievance, but if he has a question of privilege he has not given notice in the ordinary way. I do not think a debate should arise on the question at this time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, the only reason I have not brought up this matter before is that the parliamentary secretary was not in the House the last three or four times when order paper questions were called.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-2, an act to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, now that we are approaching another budget and may get some more forecasts, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question about his forecasting apparatus. In view of the forecast relating to inflation for 1973 having been about the same as for 1972 or, the words of the minister, about 4.8 per cent, and the actual result turning out to be more than 50 per cent above that, according to the minister's own figure, 7.6 per cent, how is it that the minister's forecasting unit, about which he has boasted many times in the House, was so far wrong, and has the minister taken any precautions since then to improve the efficiency of the forecasters?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the inflationary rate in 1973, no one around the world was able to forecast it in the extreme terms of world commodity prices, nor did anyone forecast the political and economic results of the Middle East war which resulted in the quasi-monopolistic practices of the Persian Gulf countries, all of which reasons in human terms influenced inflation a great deal. When it comes to the forecasting of the real growth of this country, the only institute or organization that was close to the forecast of the real growth in Canada in 1973 was the federal Department of Finance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I watched the debate last night, and with extrasensory perception anybody is bound to be right once in a while.


An hon. Member:: Even you, Bob?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he will give us this afternoon or tonight a forecast of the rate of inflation in this country for the year 1974?


John Napier Turner: There are so many international factors involving the price of food-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: And the weather?


John Napier Turner: -and non-agricultural commodities and the way in which the prices of petroleum have to work their way through the world economy that anyone in any government would be rash to put a precise figure of the rate of inflation in 1974.


INFLATION-EFFECT OF INCREASE IN WHOLESALE PRICE INDEX ON CONSUMER PRICES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: As the Minister of Finance is well aware, the wholesale price index rose 1.5 per cent in the month of March or 25.7 per cent above the level a year earlier. This is a known factor; there is nothing unknown about it. Can the minister tell us to what extent he anticipates that this will work itself into higher consumer prices in Canada during the coming year?


John Napier Turner: Those wholesale prices will have to work their way in some ratio through the economy, not duplicating those figures, but obviously figures at that rate at the wholesale level will find their ultimate result in the retail figures. As I say, there will be a general ratio but not the same extravagant figures as we have in the wholesale index.


DECISION BY BOARD TO INCREASE OIL EXPORTS FOR MAY- INCREASE IN PRODUCTION-POSITION OF GOVERNMENT
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of our declining oil reserves may I ask the minister why the government has authorized an increase in our oil exports for the month of May by approximately 200,000 barrels a day making a total of some 6 million barrels for the month of May? Since this has been a decision of the National Energy Board, was that decision approved by the government and, if so, why?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this is a decision of the board on its own motivation under its responsibility to make a judgment each month on whether or not exports are surplus to Canadian requirements. I might also mention at the same time that the board has been conducting hearings as to the long-range reserve position of Canada and Canadian oil, and naturally its future conclusions in this regard will be guided by the result of these hearings.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the long-term projections of the board have not been too accurate in the past. That surely does not deal with the matter of increasing exports for the month of May by 200,000 barrels per day. In view of the fact that half of this amount is because of the inventory that has been built up and which cannot be shipped to eastern Canada, why was it necessary to allow field production to increase by a similar amount in order to reach this 200,000 barrels a day?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member opposite remarks, of course the actual field production is a matter of judgment for the appropriate authorities in the producing provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a last supplementary and will then attempt to complete the first round of questioning by seeing the hon. member for Temiscamingue.
Oral Questions


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister if the right of the Alberta government, which undoubtedly it has, to set the production figures is going to determine how much our exports will be? The estimated production of crude oil for the month of May is 44.9 million barrels, and of byproducts 4.3 million barrels, which is 500,000 barrels more than in May, 1973, a record year. Does the minister consider that this is justified, or is this merely pressure from the oil industry which wants to ship out oil irrespective of Canada's future needs?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman may recall, May is not the best month with which to make a comparison because in 1973 the records were established in the later months. Basically the board's hearing are a prelude to a judgment on whether the present requirements of the law set out by parliament that exports will be allowable when surplus to Canadian requirements should be changed. As I already indicated to the hon. gentleman, this is a matter on which there has already been very extensive public testimony and on which the board is now re-examining its conclusions.


HISTORIC SITES
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In May of 1969, I asked him whether the government intended to rebuild the old fort in Ville-Marie, in the Temiscamingue region. Since five years of study have been spent on this matter, could the minister advise the House whether or not the government intends to rebuild this historic fort which is from 125 to 150 years old?


Mr. Speaker:: I will allow the hon. minister to answer the question of the hon. member, but I doubt the urgency of his question. However, since the hon. member has asked it, I recognize the hon. minister.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, archeological studies have been made of this matter over the past few years. As for definite plans to rebuild this fort, we have not yet reached a final decision as to what is to be done in the immediate future. I shall inquire and advise the hon. member accordingly.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition and I would like to direct it to the Prime Minister. As the figures just produced by

May 6, 1974
Oral Questions
Statistics Canada show that the wholesale price index has gone up by more than 25 per cent in the last 12 months, does the Prime Minister not now consider that it is time to bring in the government's contingency plan for fighting inflation, which he described very clearly on Friday in the House, as recorded on page 2004 of Hansard, as "price and wage controls"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to look at the same set of statistics, on pages 3 to 5 he will see borne out there what the Minister of Finance and myself have been saying all along, that without price and wage controls we have done enormously better than the United States with price and wage controls. Therefore the hon. member should listen to the advice of some of his own colleagues in his party and be a little less certain that wage and price controls in those circumstances will produce a better effect.


George Harris Hees: In view of the Prime Minister's answer, with which I agree not at all, I would ask him this question. If he is so convinced that wage and price controls will not work, why did he specify wage and price controls as the government's contingency plan when he spoke in the House on Friday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it has been well known for at least a year that the government has set up a contingency plan which would involve-


George Harris Hees: Price and wage controls.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, price and wage controls. The government has always taken the line, which I repeated on Friday, that we would not resort to this except in extreme cases where the remedy itself would not be worse than the disease.


EFFECT OF LAST BUDGET ON FINANCIAL MARKETS
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Finance. The minister was confident that his last budget would not bring pressure on the financial markets. Is he still of the same opinion, that there was no pressure on the financial markets when we have a federal interest rate of 9 per cent, a failure of the Canada savings bond issue and government Crown corporations paying as high as 11 Vs per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Dauphin and most hon. members will agree, I am sure, that such a question is argument and debate rather than a question.


DATE OF BY-ELECTION IN BATTLE RIVER
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.

Would the Prime Minister advise the House when he plans to set a date for the federal by-election in Battle River? Would it be July 8 and, if not, why not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as is known by the House, there are two seats in which there are vacancies, but the Tories are in the strange position of not having stood up and notified the Speaker that one of those seats was vacant. I guess they were afraid to have a by-election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance. Noting the minister's statement on February 19, 1973, that inflation in 1973 would be between 4.7 per cent and 4.9 per cent while in fact inflation was substantially above his forecast, is the minister still satisfied that the average wage earner is staying ahead of inflation as expressed by him on February 19, 1973?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the minister to reply to the hon. member's question but it seems to me it is more debate than a question. I have no objection to the minister replying briefly.


RATE OF EXPANSION IN 1974
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. On June 6, 1973, the minister said that the current expansion of the economy over the past six months had been 11.6 per cent in real terms, as found on page 4491 of Hansard, and according to the Economic Council Review, page 13, the rate was in fact 9.4 per cent for the first half and 4.75 per cent for the second half. Can the minister tell the House if this trend toward a lower gross national product will continue in 1974?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is anticipating what I might say tonight. In real terms the economy grew at a rate of 7.1 per cent for the whole year 1973, which was the strongest growth in 17 years. For the first quarter of 1974 it is growing at an annual rate of about 9 per cent.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture in respect of hog support prices. In view of the fact the four western provinces and the province of Quebec have found it necessary to support or subsidize hog prices, Saskatchewan to

the extent of almost $23 per hog, what is the policy of the federal government? Is it going to leave the provinces to carry this load or has the minister any policy on this matter?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar question in the House last week. The province of Prince Edward Island-I might say that the premier is sitting in the gallery-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: -also has a program. As I said last week, we are trying to work out a plan with the provinces, and we hope to be able to do that in the very near future, that will be satisfactory to all hog producers across the nation.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat regrettable that the Premier of Prince Edward Island had to win an election and come to Ottawa to get the minister's attention!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The Agricultural Stabilization Act lays on the government and the Minister of Agriculture certain responsibilities in respect of supporting agricultural prices in Canada. What I want to know is when the minister is going to discharge the government's responsibility in this regard?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to note that the reason the gentleman is sitting in the gallery as Premier of Prince Edward Island-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. I think hon. members know it is irregular to refer to the presence of distinguished visitors in the gallery. The hon. member for Lisgar.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked the minister a question and he referred to the presence of someone in the gallery. My point of order is that if the minister is going to rise to his feet I am entitled to an answer to my question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, official representation was made to the Minister of Agriculture by the hog producers council a little over three weeks ago when the whole national group made a presentation to the Minister of Agriculture, his officials, officials of the Department of the Minister of Finance and officials of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. We are trying to work out that program at the present time, and all the provinces are well aware of what we are trying to do.


POSITION OF GOVERNMENT ON ASSISTANCE TO TURKEY PRODUCERS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Since it seems that almost all forms of animal agriculture in Canada are in serious difficulties at the present time at
Oral Questions
the producer level, what is the government going to do or considering doing at the present time in regard to the plight of turkey producers across Canada who find themselves producing turkeys at below the cost of production?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is not quite supplementary but the minister may reply briefly after which I will recognize the hon. member for Champlain.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked a question about poultry in Canada. I suggest it would be much easier for us if we had the amendments to the Export and Import Permits Act. We are prepared to move as quickly as we can. We met with these people last week, and when the Export and Import Permits Act amendments are passed we can move much more efficiently and quickly.


REQUEST FOR TELEVISING OF JUNIOR HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Major junior hockey is the only sport in Canada where Canadian cities are solely represented and where only Canadian amateur athletes play. In view of the present Canadian amateur championship tournament, would the minister direct the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to televise this tournament which is of interest to all regions throughout Canada?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has asked the question in the House, the CBC will surely be made aware of his representations.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House if the government has reached any decision on Air Canada establishing a second overhaul and maintenance base at Winnipeg to service the new Boeing 727's and the military 707's?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question is in the process of being discussed by the cabinet.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Will the government overrule Air Canada's decision not to establish a second overhaul and maintenance base in Winnipeg in light of the public statement

May 6, 1974
Oral Questions
by the Minister of National Defence that he will not contest the next election unless there is a favourable decision on establishing a second base in Winnipeg?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is not true that the minister said any such thing.


MATAPEDIA-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO PERSONS WHO HAVE SUFFERED DAMAGES
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister.
Did the province of Quebec ask for government assistance after the considerable damage caused to the population of Matapedia and of the localities down stream from the Restigouche by the unprecedented flooding of the waters of the Matapedia and Restigouche Rivers last week, and which drove many families out of their homes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I see no indication of such a request in my notes but I shall inquire with great pleasure. The hon. member does know that the federal government is always prepared to participate, according to a well known formula, if there is really such a request from the provincial government.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration as a result of the very startling revelation that some 29,000 people in the metro Toronto area, being about 60 per cent of claimants, did not attend the emergency centres in order to acquire their unemployment insurance cheques, which certainly raises a lot of questions. Can the minister assure the House that the results of the inquiry that has been instituted will be made known to the public? Further, is the minister going to investigate the other emergency centres which were set up because of the postal strike in order that claimants could acquire their cheques? Is he going to undertake the same sort of procedure in order to obtain statistics in that regard?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think the figures referred to by the hon. member are simply like a snapshot in time at that particular moment. I would want much more information before coming to the conclusion he has reached, but I am most certainly looking into it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer certainly begs another question. Can the minister confirm or deny the inquiry? In particular, can he advise the House

whether, pursuant to instructions or to the release issued by his officials in Toronto, there is or is not an inquiry going on at this time?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the very process of matching claimants to available jobs, asking them to go for interviews at Manpower Centres and placing them in jobs is the main focus of our efforts. The inquiry that follows from that can only be described in this way: if they do not conform to that or if they refuse suitable jobs then, of course, they will subject themselves to disentitlement.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one last supplementary. I think the minister is either evading the question or he does not know what I am talking about. Let me put the question to him in this way: the former Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Verdun, has been going about the country indicating that the UIC is not an issue. I would ask the minister at this time whether it is his opinion that unemployment insurance is not an issue and, accordingly, there is no need for amendments to the act as envisaged by the Speech from the Throne?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we are proposing to place amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act before this session of parliament.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact many people including, I think, the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself, have predicted widespread famine in various parts of the world this year, and in view of the fact there is a world conference on food scheduled in Rome in November, will the minister see if it is possible to get those responsible to advance the date so that the emergency in food can be looked into as quickly as possible?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the concern the hon. gentleman has expressed. It is difficult to advance the dates of international conferences. As far as Canada is concerned, the situation is extremely grave. Not only do we have some questions about the date, but we also have some questions about the agenda. We are making efforts concentrated on meeting the emergency situation rather than on some future situation for which we are not now equipped.


FAMINE IN WEST AFRICA-CANADIAN ASSISTANCE
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the Canadian government preparing to provide any form of assistance to the starving populations in West Africa?

May 6, 1974


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, we have a very substantial program of aid to the people of the Sahaelian area which has been suffering from unprecedented drought. This aid is in the form of food, transport and for a number of other purposes.


SAVING TO CONSUMERS PER LOAF OF BREAD RESULTING FROM SUBSIDY ON WHEAT USED DOMESTICALLY
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact a bushel of wheat produces between 50 and 60 loaves of bread and the government subsidy is $1.75 per bushel, would the minister explain to the House his statement that the subsidy is currently saving consumers eight cents per loaf?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether a question asked in those terms is in order or should be asked. That is clearly debate. The hon. member is inviting the minister to explain a statement. It seems to me that the question can be asked in other ways.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I should like the minister to tell the producers exactly how he arrived at that figure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the minister to reply, but I respectfully and humbly suggest that any member could ask dozens of such questions which are really debate and not questions that ought to be asked during the question period.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to keep the answer extremely simple for the hon. member and explain that the mathematics relate to the total difference between the world price and the $3.25 to the miller and not just to the subsidy. This is the over-all government program that is saving the consumer that amount of money on the price of bread.


MEASURES TO PREVENT FLOODING IN PRINCE GEORGE AND SURROUNDING AREA
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Are any discussions going on with the province of British Columbia in an attempt to prevent the very serious flood which threatens the city of Prince George and surrounding area, particularly in light of the flood prevention program now in effect on the lower Fraser River? Could that program be extended to the upper Fraser?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. The engineers of Environment Canada in British Columbia are working closely with the
Oral Questions
provincial department of lands and forests. We have a joint program under way for protection. We are prepared to help in any flood situation which may occur.


Frank Oberle: Is there any program that can be of assistance in the immediate future as the flood is just a week or so away?


John (Jack) Davis: I doubt it very much, Mr. Speaker, other than our longer-term program. We are endeavouring to convince the province that dikes should be built upstream on the Fraser as well as in the lower mainland area.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Noting a recent decision by the Department of Justice authorizing the release of Mr. Kenneth Leishman some two years ahead of the normal t'ine, may I ask the minister whether it is now government policy that certain additional prison terms should be served concurrently rather than consecutively, as was done in Mr. Leishman's case, and is a review of parole procedures taking place at the present time?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me as though this question should be directed to the Solicitor General rather than to myself. I am not aware of this case but I shall be glad to look into the matter if the hon. member will supply me with details.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I should like to redirect the question to the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Leishman was released because he had appealed to the Department of Justice to recalculate the time of his sentence, and when this calculation was made it was found that the sentence should have come to an end and he was therefore released. He was not released on parole. I might say the Criminal Code provides that a man may be given concurrent or consecutive sentences, but this is in the hands of the judge and the Crown prosecutor who presses the case. We have no plans at the present time to change that system.


MANPOWER
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Since the Department of Manpower and Immigration at one time authorized a LIP grant to Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
May 6, 1974
Oral Questions
Kenneth Leishman, will the minister tell us whether Mr. Leishman is now eligible for that grant of $93,000?


Robert Knight Andras: With respect, I am quite sure that is a distortion of the situation, though possibly accidental. The program was for the rehabilitation of people leaving prison. Personally, I believe it is a darned sight better to rehabilitate them rather than have them come out into an environment likely to result in their return to jail. Mr. Leishman was simply one of the possible candidates for such a program.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Solicitor General. It deals with temporary release, periods of temporary absence and parole. On Friday I asked a question with reference to data supplied by the minister to the effect that on February 28, 1974, 79 inmates who had been released on temporary absence or parole were still at large, and that three of these had been found guilty of non-capital murder. I asked the minister whether he would give us the name of those three people, and advise the House and the community whether they are dangerous to the security of the community.


William Warren Allmand: Immediately after the hon. member put his question last week I asked my departmental staff to provide me with more information in order that I might answer it. However, I have not yet received this information. I will give it to the House as soon as I get it. I shall try to pass it on as soon as possible.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board or to any other appropriate minister. It concerns the announcement last week awarding a $500 salary increase to public servants in recognition of the government's capitulation in the anti-inflation fight. Has the minister reconsidered his position with a view to awarding this $500 equally to retired public servants and Armed Forces and RCMP personnel who are also faced with the problem of inflation?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: am sure the hon. member will recognize that the salaries and wages of public servants are not indexed whereas the pensions of those who are retired are indexed under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act.


Mark Willson Rose: In spite of the swarm of gnats in the minister's words, I wonder whether the minister's answer is a flat "no".


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The answer is not a flat "no". It is that this is already being done.


POSSIBLE DEFECTIVE PIPELINE AT AGASSIZ BRIDGE ON FRASER RIVER
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister heard anything from the National Energy Board about a possible defective pipeline in British Columbia about which I asked him some 11 days ago?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I did inquire and the board indicated there has been some concern about a pipe weld at Agassiz Crossing. I understand there has been no substantial loss, but an examination is being made of the pipe in question which is now about 15 years old.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In view of the fact that three doctors of metallurgy at the University of British Columbia have confirmed that at least two welds are defective, would the minister ask the National Energy Board to make a public statement as to the condition of these two welds in order to relieve the anxiety of the people in the area?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will pass the question on to the board, Mr. Speaker.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Are there any provincial or large regional police forces which do not contribute regular intelligence reports to the central police intelligence computer and, if there are, who are they and why do they not contribute?


William Warren Allmand: I would have to check on that, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of
May 6, 1974

the fact the Minister of Agriculture, along with the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, is now in a position to appraise the results of the decision-making which has taken place with regard to agriculture since September, 1973, and in view of the fact decisions made during this period have literally bankrupted a large percentage of cattle feeders in Canada, would the minister now inform the House whether he will in future capitalize on the free advice of members who have had practical experience in this field to assure cattle feeders that this will never happen again?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, without agreeing with the premise of the question, may I say we always listen to advice given by the hon. member. He knows that.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Defence.
As a result of the telegram sent to him by Mr. Powers, the chairman of the Union of National Defence Employees, can he tell us whether it is true that sometime this month some 2,400 employees will be laid off, of which 1,025 are in Quebec, and specifically 600 at the Valcartier base?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a federal labour-intensive program, a temporary program established for a five-month period and due to end at the end of May. The Department of National Defence received $7.5 million under that program in the same way that other departments received grants. We were successful in employing some 2,400 people on a temporary basis over the winter. We shall be able to continue the employment of some 330 under our own budget.


Claude Wagner: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister tell the House what steps the government has taken to see that those employees will not swell the ranks to the already excessive number of unemployed in Quebec?


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary has to do with the position the government took two or three years ago with respect to cutbacks involving approximately 5,000 personnel who were continuing but not necessarily permanent civilian employees of the government within the Department of National Defence. Can the minister assure these people that this program is in no way included within the parameters of the lay-offs that have been announced but, rather, that the policy of allowing natural attrition to lower the number will be continued as in the past?
Oral Questions


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The program to which I have just referred, the federal labour-intensive program, is a temporary program not related to the permanent number of civilian employees in the Department of National Defence.


DOW-DOME PROJECT-RESPONSE BY ALBERTA GOVERNMENT-DECISION BY CABINET
Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact the decision of the National Energy Board on the Dow-Dome application has been public for some weeks now, and since the minister has told us the government is awaiting a response from the government of Alberta, may I ask him whether this response has been received, is it in the affirmative or not, and can the minister tell us the time frame within which he expects the cabinet to reach a decision on this project?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have received no further response from the Alberta government. They indicated one would be forthcoming. Of course, if there is much further delay the government will naturally be obliged to proceed to consider the Dow-Dome decision of the board because of the financial implications of the decision.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to get your eye in regard to the question posed by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacin-the. I should like to direct a supplementary to the Minister of National Defence, having listened to his reply. May I ask the minister whether any consideration will be given, in areas where there is a tremendously high unemployment rate, to retaining employees? For example, in the Sydney area we have over 15, and possibly 20 per cent unemployment. Is there anything the minister can do to retain these workers in that area? Thirty employees there are affected.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that the funds for this program came through Treasury Board; they were not part of the budget of the Department of National Defence. However, within our own budget we are able to carry on approximately 330 jobs out of this winter program.


Robert Muir: In view of the fact that 300-odd jobs will be retained, would the minister do his utmost to make sure the 30 in the Sydney area are included?

May 6, 1974
Oral Questions


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, we will be looking at all areas and trying to maximize the use of the funds in the areas of greatest need.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Selkirk on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Victoria.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: On the same subject, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether there is any intention on the part of the Department of National Defence to hire students or other people during the summer months to carry out duties in the Department of National Defence. If so, perhaps the minister would re-examine his decision. If work is to be done, then why not use the people who are already employed?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, we do have a student employment program but it is not related directly to the labour intensive program for the winter months.


INTENTION OF UNITED STATES TO REDUCE STOCKS OF ATOMIC WEAPONS-CONSULTATION WITH NATO ALLIES- POSSIBLE REDUCTION OF WARHEADS IN CANADA
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Mr. Schlesinger, United States Secretary of Defence, has announced the United States' intention to reduce its stocks of atomic weapons in Europe. Could the minister advise the House if the United States has consulted with its NATO allies, and specifically Canada, in this regard? Further, would the minister inform the House whether he has had any consultations with the U.S. Secretary of Defence concerning the possible reduction or elimination of the stocks of atomic warheads on Canadian soil?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not discussed that with the Secretary of Defence.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the minister's statement arising from my question of last Friday that a tougher stand will be taken against illegal strikers, would the minister now be more specific and advise the House what exact steps the government intends to take regarding the alarming and continuous growth of wildcat strikes in Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, apart from the forthcoming consideration of the recommendations of Dr. Finkelman which deal in part with this and other problems, I am glad to report that at the moment there are no illegal strikes.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board. Since the minister is inclined to apply discipline now, will he take a good, sharp look at section 107 of the Criminal Code and take some action with respect to the Cape Breton Development Corporation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to consult the Criminal Code.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period but I will try to see one or two other members, without supplementaries, before calling orders of the day. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


CANADIAN CULTURE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. I should like to ask the minister whether he has made a decision with respect to the request by the Native Council of Canada for a grant to have the award winning educational film "Mocassin Flats" dubbed in French for the benefit of the many French-speaking Canadians of native ancestry?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am looking into this. I might also take advantage of the question that has been put to apologize to the hon. member and to the House for the consequent delay.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary before calling orders of the day.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact this application was submitted over a year ago and was lost twice in the department and the Native Council had to resubmit it twice, would the minister take every possible step to see that this bureaucratic mess is brought to an end quickly?


James Hugh Faulkner: That is why I apologized, Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of the supplementary.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact the asking price of the Canadian Wheat Board on the international market is running somewhere around $5.60, in view of the fact that the international
May 6, 1974

price on the commodity market in Chicago has been running in the neighbourhood of $3.90, and in view of the problems in our transportation system, would the minister inform the House whether the Canadian Wheat Board is at the present time negotiating contracts and is in a position to sign contracts for the movement and sale of grain for the rest of the crop year and into the next crop year in the fall?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board has made substantial sales of grain for the forward shipping period in the summer as well as into the fall and, indeed, immediately beyond. It is not customary to comment on specific additional negotiations. There is a very wide price differential between the Wheat Board quoted price and the market price being offered in the United States. This kind of wide differential existed previously but the Wheat Board held its price, and subsequent events justified it in doing so.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the House leader about the business for this afternoon. May I say that we are prepared to show our usual responsible co-operation in expediting the business.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from taking up my hon. friend's comment. This afternoon we will begin with Bill C-4, the export-import bill, Bill C-20, the Federal Business Development Bank, and then Bill C-25, prairie grain advance payments.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions about the three items for this afternoon, but it seems to me that on one point we should be clear before we begin. We are prepared today, as we were on Friday, to have completion of Bill C-4, the export-import bill, undertaken without further debate. We are also prepared for there to be very limited debate on Bill C-20, the Federal Business Development Bank bill. We are concerned, however, about the time that would be left for Bill C-25, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
May I say quite frankly that we feel it would be unfair if we were to arrive at a point where only the minister had made a statement on the bill and the other parties had not had a chance to pronounce on it. If that situation were to arise, Mr. Speaker, we would like to see the surrendering of the private members' hour at five o'clock so that at least one spokesman from each party would be sure to be heard today on Bill C-25.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the government House leader would enlighten the House as to what will follow the budget presentation tonight. I think the minister realizes that he is completely out of step with the usual practice in this regard. Will it be tomorrow or Wednesday that the House will continue the budget debate?
Export and Import Permits Act


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to call the budget debate tomorrow. That is because I interpreted the request of the Leader of the Opposition, when he asked for the debate to commence practically immediately, to mean the next day. That is why I have planned it in that way. I propose to have further consultations this afternoon, and if the situation changes I will let my hon. friend know as quickly as possible. I understand that it is his wish that we delay the debate until Wednesday.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is no question of delay, Mr. Speaker. The minister is putting words into the mouths of people. If the minister will consult the records, he will see that his administration in the past has delayed budget debates or the resumption of budget debates for up to two weeks on occasion. We are asking for a restoration of the normal practice which was enjoyed by all parties, and are wondering whether he would consider this. Perhaps the budget is not worth adopting that course.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Alastair William Gillespie: that Bill C-4, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Alastair William Gillespie: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed. [English]
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a disposition to proceed with the bill forthwith.


Thomas Miller Bell: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
Federal Business Dex'elopment Bank FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK ACT
May 6, 1974

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, April 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray (for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) that Bill C-20, to incorporate the Federal Business Development Bank, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, it is some while ago, April 26, that we were speaking on this bill and when I called it four o'clock the House moved to the private members' hour. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, if I may I should like to review for a moment the main points I was making that afternoon.
I expressed concern that the share of the national income attributed to small business has declined 3 per cent over the period 1962 to 1973. I made the point that it was a gradual decline, or an erosion of income of the small business sector of our economy over the span of 11 years. I made the point also that it was an extremely serious matter because the small businesses of this country contribute more than 50 per cent of the gross national product, pay more than 50 per cent of the taxes to the government treasury, and employ over 60 per cent of the labour force. I went on to say that any erosion of that base will have a far-reaching and long-lasting effect on our economy and our employment pattern.
I suggested as well that I would like to see the minister have Statistics Canada bring samples of all forms they send to small businesses to the Standing Committee on Industry, Trade and Commerce, and justify both the forms and the need to send them to these business people. I further requested that any new forms be cleared by the standing committee before they are sent out to small businessmen because the paper mountain they have to climb is getting beyond all reason.
I touched as well on the heavy handed approach to collateral being taken by the Industrial Development Bank, and expressed the hope that the new Federal Business Development Bank will, in fact, take a different approach and not leave this millstone around the neck of the small entrepreneur.
Then, finally, I made the point that we need a comprehensive approach to the problems facing the small businessman, that the new Federal Business Development Bank was a splint to the small business community and that the amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act could be called a sling. What we really must do is go beyond Bill C-20 and Bill C-14, then look back to Bill C-259, and bring in the amendments promised by the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Benson, when this bill was passed through the House in 1971.
I feel the clauses of this bill dealing with the small business community must be simplified and written in a language that will be understood by the average businessman and his accountant. Small business people just do not have the resources to employ tax experts, and they are frustrated in their efforts to expand and improve their businesses because of this cloud over their heads. Of

course, to parallel any changes in Bill C-259 we should have a new and simplified tax form for small businessmen from the Department of National Revenue.
I suggest to you that the long-term success of the Federal Business Development Bank depends on whether the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) is able to convince his colleagues in the finance and national revenue portfolios that these changes must be made. Those were the main points, I believe, I made on the afternoon of April 26 when we suspended the debate on this bill and went into the private members' hour. It is difficult when we have these delays to pick up the thread of thought, but I will press on.
The Federal Business Development Bank can really breathe life back into this vital part cf our economy, the small business sector. We should really recognize the contribution that small businesses make to the economy of Canada. Small businesses provide a productive outlet for the energies of that large group of enterprising and independent people who attach great value to economic independence, many of whom may be less suited to employment in a large organization, but who have much to contribute to the vitality of our economy because of their independent, enterprising and individual thinking.
In industries where the optimum size of the production unit or the sales outlet is small, often the most efficient form of business organization is a small business. For this reason many important trades and industries consist mainly of small businesses. Many small businesses act as specialist suppliers to large companies of parts or subassemblies or components produced at lower costs than the larger companies could achieve. I think it is rather significant to note here that General Motors, in its North American operations, uses something of the order of 26,000 small businesses as suppliers that in fact employ less than 50 people in their operations.
Small businesses add greatly to the variety of products and services offered to the consumer because they can flourish in a limited or specialized market which would not in fact be worthwhile or economic for a large business to enter. In an economy in which ever larger multiproduct businesses are emerging, small businesses provide competition, both actual and potential, and provide some check on monopoly profits and on the inefficiency which monopoly breeds. In other words, they contribute to the efficient working of the economic system as a whole.
Small businesses, in spite of relatively low expenditure on research and development by that group as a whole, are an important source of innovation in products, techniques and services. The small business sector is the traditional breeding ground for new industry, and I think it is here that this new Federal Business Development Bank can do a great service through the service they are prepared to provide to the small businesses in counselling and the training of personnel to help them carry on.
I welcome this feature in the bill. I commend the minister for inserting it and expanding what I believe is the key program which I think is working quite well. I would caution the minister though to endeavour to bring into this organization small businessmen who have been sue-
May 6, 1974

cessful rather than retired vice-presidents of large corporations and expect them to advise the small businessmen. There are many cases, as I am sure the minister is aware, in which they do not speak the same language. Perhaps what is most important is that small business provides a means of entry into small business for new entrepreneurial talent, and is a seedbed from which new large companies will grow to challenge and stimulate the established leaders in much of our industry.
I should like to see this government adopt a Canada-first policy even at the expense of paying a premium for Canadian goods and services. I should like to see a loan policy adopted that the percentage of the loan would depend upon the percentage of Canadian ownership. That may be difficult to define, but I put forward the idea that this Federal Business Development Bank should, in fact, develop Canadian business for Canadians.
I sometimes find it difficult to reconcile the policies of this government as they pertain to DREE grants when I hear the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) say that there is no consultation with industry groups before establishing a new industry which, in fact, competes with existing Canadian enterprises. Would it not be more sane and sensible to consult with industry to determine if there is a desire to expand into an area that is lacking industry. On the one hand, we give a grant to a United States firm-this is an actual case-in the die-casting business to open a new venture in New Brunswick, where we know industry is needed, and find it is competing in the same United States export market with a wholly-owned Canadian company in another part of Canada. What is the rationale behind this? The minister says it is not departmental policy to cause this to happen, but it does happen.
So, I wonder where the Federal Business Development Bank fits into the DREE picture. Will we be able to stack loans from the Federal Business Development Bank, commercial sources and provincial agencies to provide the larger amounts of money required for some ventures? I think it is highly important that there be more liaison and co-operation, particularly between the provincial agencies and the Federal Business Development Bank. I know from personal experience that there is an attitude of competition between the two agencies. When one speaks to officials of either the federal IDB or the provincial agency, neither have very much that is good to say about the other. So, 1 would hope we would have a more comprehensive approach to this, and that we might look to the stacking of loans from various financial sources, some from the commercial side, some from provincial agencies and some from federal agencies.
I am sure, for example, that a Canadian automobile could be designed and marketed in Canada, but who would venture into such a field against the existing manufacturers. It just happens to be coincidental, but I noticed recently in the trade papers that there is a Japanese purchasing group in Canada endeavouring to purchase about 1,000 used trucks and spare parts for sale to mainland China in order to help that country mobilize a portion of its armed forces. These industry people tell me this will create a tremendous shortage of motor trucks in Canada. From looking at the production and consumption
Federal Business Development Bank figures in respect of new motor vehicles in Canada, I am confident that we could spawn an independent trucking industry in this country to the advantage of industry in general. We look ahead to projects such as the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, and if that project should get the go-ahead, the feeling among the people in the truck transport industry is that there will be a tremendous shortage of heavy duty vehicles in Canada.
I am sure there are people who are ready and willing to go into this field but you can appreciate I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the stacking of loans to provide the necessary capital must be considered. I certainly hope the minister will look seriously at this proposal. I want to see the Federal Business Development Bank succeed. I want to see it become a vibrant agency removed from the rigidity of the bureaucracy of government. I want to see it inject into the small business community a new sense of direction and purpose. I want to see it revitalize the spirit of free enterprise which built this country. I want to see it respond to the talents we have in the communities. I believe in the person who has the courage to venture forth and accomplish his dreams, who takes his load of responsibility for the community and the nation squarely on his shoulders. I want to see the country shake off the socialist lethargy that is gradually creeping over us. I want to see direction given to the new people entering the business field by the removal of the iniquitous, complex and onerous tax system.
The complexities in respect of the tax system should be removed so that these people will be able to carry on their business in a more straightforward manner without being concerned about government regulations. I want to see a government in this country that will reaffirm its belief in the free enterprise system and say that it is not wrong to acquire and accumulate assets of value. I want to see a government that has the guts to stand up to the bureaucracy it has created, and which has the courage and wisdom to change it. This cannot happen if we merely put a band-aid here and a splint there. It must all be put together so that those people in our society who are carrying the greatest tax load, who are carrying the largest risk and who are employing the largest percentage of the work force will be stimulated to venture forth and seize the great opportunities there are before us. When this bill goes to the committee-when I put these thoughts together I did not anticipate that we would be looking at events as we are today with the possibility of an election-we will put some pretty hard questions to the minister. We will want to ask the minister about a Canada-first policy in respect of loans and purchasing. We will ask that he amend this bill so that the directors of the bank will be prohibited from borrowing from the new bank. I think that is a practice that should be eliminated.
I think we will want to press the minister to lay down guidelines regarding fees required when the small businessman desires a loan from the Federal Business Development Bank. Businessmen as a rule have their own lawyers. In the past, the IDB had a legal officer and, for some reason, required a third legal counsel-let us call him a patronage lawyer-to take part in the negotiations. In any case, the total legal fees on many loans from the

May 6, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank
IDB went as high as 10 per cent or more of the loan. I suggest to the minister that we will press him in committee to lay down some guidelines because I believe that one or more of these steps can be eliminated, thus reducing the cost to small businessmen.
In conclusion, we will ask that those who head this new organization be people who are not bankers per se, but people who are venturesome and innovative so that they may give through their counsel a new sense of hope and direction to this vital part of our society. Those are the remarks that I had planned on making on April 26, so at this point I will conclude, then whoever else is next on the list may continue the debate.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-20, the bill that will create the Federal Business Development Bank. I feel that it will be welcomed in British Columbia, especially in the fast growing areas such as the one in my riding of Okanagan Boundary where there are many small businesses which look after the needs of the people in the area as well as service the industries established with the aid of incentive grants which were provided a few years ago.
There are two apparent reasons for the need for this legislation in British Columbia. One is that British Columbia is one of the few provinces with no provincial plan to aid small businesses. The other is that there is a very limited area designated for DREE grants. The B.C. government is too busy buying into or establishing industrial enterprises to worry about small businesses. It is significant to note that one third of the business carried out by the Industrial Development Bank in the fiscal year 1973 was in British Columbia, involving 2,835 loans total-lying some $125 million. The reason for this is mainly that B.C. is one of the few provinces in Canada that does not have a provincial agency financing the activities of small businesses. The IDB has done a good job of assisting businessmen who cannot get help from chartered banks, but unfortunately they are restricted by the guidelines laid down in the act.
There are many areas of concern to small businesses. Small businesses play an important role in the economy, creating over 50 per cent of Canada's gross national product and paying 50 per cent of the taxes collected by the government. This is an important consideration to bear in mind if the government is to continue spending more and more money and employing more than 50 per cent of the people working in Canada. The small business is the breeding ground for new industries. What may be a small business today may well be a large industry tomorrow. Small businesses provide the means for entry into business of new entrepreneurial talent, and they are always striving to grow and to challenge large business. They provide a productive outlet for the energies of the large group of enterprising and independent people who attach great value to economic independence. They are often the most efficient form of business organization and are the reason many important trades and industries are made up mainly of small business. They add greatly to the variety of products and services offered to the consumers. The reason is that they can flourish in a limited or specialized

market, an activity which is not worthwhile for a larger business.
Many small businesses act as specialized suppliers to large companies for parts or components which can be produced at a lower cost than that of a larger company. The small businesses provide competition and checks and balances on the large corporations which are often inefficient, and so these small businesses contribute to the efficiency of the economic system as a whole.
Their major difficulty is their inability to obtain funds. Sometimes, for the want of a mere $5,000 to $10,000 they are forced to go under. The banks will not take the additional risk because they do not have the staff or are not willing to take the time to help the small business; neither do they have the expertise to understand the problems which small businessmen encounter. Often banks find that they can make more money on the large and safer account. Thus, they place their efforts in that direction and let the small business go under.
The Federal Business Development Bank can certainly do much to help these businessmen, provided it has the proper orientation to do so. Nowhere in this bill is preferential treatment given to Canadian-owned firms as opposed to those that may be controlled in a foreign land. What we are seeing is a shifting of the IDB from the Department of Finance to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. We have had some experience of the way in which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) has run similar corporations in this country. I am referring to the Export Development Corporation. The minister has been quite willing to make loans to foreign governments for the benefit of the relatively large corporations in Canada, most of them more than 50 per cent foreign-owned. He has been willing to make those loans on a long-term basis at interest rates of approximately 7 per cent in contrast with the current interest rate at the IDB of 11 per cent, and for larger loans, of 12 per cent.
This brings to mind the time when the government found an excuse not to help the fruit industry in British Columbia under the export market development program. The fruit industry had a good program to put forward which would have given a great advantage to these Canadian producers. But when the chips were down and the industry asked for financial assistance, they could not obtain it. Therefore, they had to put up all the money themselves.
Another instance comes to mind of a small business in Summerland in my riding which had taken insurance against losses under the provisions of the Export Development Corporation. When this small business, which was doing as much as possible to employ people in Canada and use the product of the orchards of British Columbia, encountered a loss in its export trade, the corporation found a clause under which they denied this company's claim for losses. I believe that had this been a large company, probably 50 per cent foreign-owned, they would have been able to convince the Export Development Corporation that this claim should have been paid. However, because this was a small business, they did not have the resources to do this and thus had to take their losses. This
May 6, 1974

is an example of the attitude that the government takes toward the small businessman in this country.
The needs of Canadian businessmen are very simple, Canadian businessmen need relatively cheap money, and they would like less interference from government. They do not appreciate having to fill out the many forms they receive from all levels of government. They would certainly like to fill out fewer forms. They would like the amount of collateral required to obtain a loan reduced. They do not mind putting up collateral, but they do not want to be harassed by having to put up so much collateral that in the end the loan they get is almost meaningless.
I do not think they would mind getting advice on management from the new corporation, but it is important to realize that the small businessman already knows his needs. In most cases, there is no point in high priced executives telling him how to run his business. His real needs are relatively cheap funds, less government interference in forms to be filled out, and a competitive atmosphere in which he can continue to grow.
This bill appears to do no more than reconstitute the Industrial Development Bank and give certain other powers to the new corporation. Let us hope that the guidelines laid down by this bill will not be so restrictive. Let us hope that when the legislation is passed the organization set up under the Federal Business Development Bank is oriented to the needs of the businessman, and that he will get the help that he has been denied for many years. A strong business community will certainly do much to help Canada in its development and growth.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to say a few words about that quite important bill since it contains provisions which would enable the small businesses of my area to take advantage of some financial incentives as well as the assistance of technicians and experts for the organization and the improvement of their businesses.
I understand that under this bill, a Federal Business Development Bank will be created. This legislation should be ratified and enforced as soon as possible so not to delay the development of rural areas where few benefits were granted in the past for such undertakings.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion is already existing. Through various measures, businesses can obtain financial benefits, but considerable capital is too often required thus preventing promoters to take advantage of it precisely due to the lack of capital.
The Industrial Development Bank grants loans, but very carefully, and representations have often been made by business owners that they were experiencing great difficulty in having their applications accepted for loans which could help them expand, create jobs and be truly competitive.
In my area two community chests work in a quite extraordinary way. Local funds were raised. People investing in those community chests would like borrowers putting those funds to use to succeed in their undertaking.
Prairie Grain Payments Act
Now I see that a Federal Business Development Bank will complete the picture provided those institutions work together and supplement one another rather than tell applicants, go to the Industrial Development Bank, the community chest, the Caisse Populaire, the Provincial Bank or any other bank. I would like to see set up under this act regional advisory councils made up of responsible men, men very carefully chosen, in order to help those who still have enough initiative and courage left to set up new industries.
I often said in this House, and I repeat it again today, that whenever any government introduces legislation likely to help industrial development and small businesses in rural areas, I will support it immediately so that legislation can come into force. So for that reason I will limit my remarks to saying that I support the principle of this bill and I welcome this legislation. I hope that later we can improve it by amending it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-25, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-25 is another important step in the over-all program and policies of the government in trying to assure that prairie agriculture, that grain agriculture in Canada, is in a first rate position from the point of view of its operations, from the point of view of the business itself, and particularly from the point of view of the welfare and well being of the individuals involved in it.
Our over-all package of proposals, those either directly related to the Canadian Wheat Board or to the grain industry generally, and those being developed by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), are designed to assure that farmers do have a fair and adequate return on their work, for their families and for themselves. This has not always been the case. Indeed, farmers have gone through long periods of time when, instead of receiving a fair and adequate return per hour of work, they received far less than their fair share of the returns to all Canadians generated from the tremendous progress made in the economy throughout the country. It was only in fairly recent times that the producers of grain, particularly those who produce for export, experienced a change in their returns so that they have shared to some extent in the productivity increases which are common throughout many sectors of the economy, but which are especially noted in the field of agriculture.
In times past farmers saw year after year go by with very little improvement in their returns on any basis, and

May 6, 1974
Prairie Grain Payments Act
indeed struggled hard to see any improvement at all in the returns for their labour. They managed to exist where they could, partly by their own ingenuity and productivity, because they were willing to undertake whatever steps were necessary to produce more agricultural production during their hours of work, by seizing on technological change and putting it to work for the good of Canada and the good of the world.
In recent times an adjustment has taken place and we see grain prices giving farmers levels of returns which, in effect, do give them fairer treatment. I think it is important, as we look at this over-all situation, that we try to make the case as clearly as we can to all Canadians that a good deal of the change in price throughout the economy was due, and long overdue, to the farmers. In other words, to the extent that food price changes which result from a better return to farmers, have caused changes in price levels across the country, it should not be seen as part of the inflation which the negotiator, whether he be a doctor, lawyer or blue collar worker, tries to make up. A great deal of the adjustment which has taken place in favour of the grain producer is something which all of us ought to see as having been inevitable and necessary, and not something which we should get back.
The bill before us proposes two simple changes in the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. In the first place, a change is made increasing the $6,000 limit to $15,000; in the second place, the change allows multiple granting of advances where more than one person engaged in the business of farming is joined in the same permit book and where it would be unfair for all of them to be treated as one farm.
If we look at the history of the legislation we can see how far we have come in a number of ways. The first grain advance payment was part of the program of the Conservatives when they came to power in 1957 under the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). It showed that they had some feeling for the needs of western Canada, in contrast with the attitude and approach of that party today which does not appreciate or see the needs of western Canada. Indeed, in contrast to the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, the opposition leader does not have any appreciation of the nature of western farmers' problems.
In the 1957 bill certain cash advances were provided to farmers on their farm-stored grain for the first time. The maximum level prescribed in the bill was $3,000. We introduced legislation several years ago which changed that to the present limit of $6,000, and we are now proposing that it be increased to $15,000. This is a tremendous increase from the level of 1957.
In 1957, the per bushel advance possible was a mere 50 cents per bushel of wheat, 20 cents per bushel of oats and 35 cents per bushel of barley. Two years ago, we changed that to $1 per bushel of wheat, 40 cents per bushel of oats and 70 cents per bushel of barley. At the present time, in the elevators across the prairies, farmers with the $6,000 limit are entitled to advances of $1.50 per bushel of wheat, 70 cents per bushel of oats and 90 cents per bushel of barley. The increase from 50 cents to $1.50 for wheat

reflects the changed economic circumstances, but also reflects our efforts to try to make the cash advance legislation fit the special circumstances of farmers.
We now have a system by which the farmer can receive his cash in advance of delivery in relation to the kind of delivery opportunity he is going to be given for his grain during the year. It is not, therefore, an interference in the encouragement of production or market forces working upon them, but it is an advance to him of money which he would receive otherwise when he delivers his grain. Because grain is such an easily stored commodity and the farmers involved in the program are so reliable, the program has worked extremely well. There are few programs involving as many hundreds of millions of dollars in advances and involving up to 200,000 producers which have the proud record of this one in terms of minimum of default and minimum of abuse. The producers can be trusted, the security of grain is there, and therefore money can be advanced to them ahead of actual delivery opportunity.
The key in this is that farmers are relieved of some of the distress which can on occasion occur. Although they have the grain and appear to have wealth to sustain them, they do not have delivery opportunities so have to find some other means, either borrowing money or selling grain at a low price in a local market, in order to obtain cash. It is this last point which is important in our discussion today. We do not want to see any unnecessary pressure on the producer to dispose of grain in one market because he cannot wait for quotas. It is in this connection that this particular change is introduced. We foresee a market in feed grains for domestic purposes which is less restrictive than at the present time because of the over-all need to have feed grains prices which are equitable across the country. Producers of animal products who have to buy feed grains as part of their cost of operation will be on an equal footing, separated only by what naturally separates them, geographical facts and the cost of moving products from one place to another.
In that connection the great bulk of grains delivered by farmers for commercial purposes in western Canada will continue to be delivered to the Canadian Wheat Board with delivery opportunity arranged as equitably as possible among producers. The great bulk of farmers will therefore have exactly the same choice that they have now to deliver to the Canadian Wheat Board on quotas as those quotas become available. There will be some who may choose, as they do now, to deliver to their own animals, to neighbours feeding animals or to neighbours slightly further away.
What we would like to assure is that those who want to hold their grain in order to deliver it on quotas are not forced to deliver in another manner because of any desperate need for cash in advance of their delivery opportunity. The cash advance legislation provides this kind of assurance. By its existence the farmer who has grain and who will have quotas throughout the year to deliver his wheat, oats or barley, can receive from the Canadian Wheat Board the greater proportion of his cash at the time he needs it in advance of that delivery opportunity being made available.
May 6, 1974

We see this bill as continuing the tremendous advantage of obtaining cash in advance of delivery opportunity, as having specific application to the feed grains proposal, and assuring that there will be equitable pricing of grain across the country. I commend it to hon. members in this House. Just as in 1957 it demonstrated the kind of understanding and interest in western agriculture which the right hon. member for Prince Albert has always shown, so today it carries the commitment of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) toward understanding and improving conditions in western Canada. The present Prime Minister committed this government to bringing in tremendous changes in western Canada. He committed the government to end discrimination in freight rates and to bring about diversified economic growth in western Canada. He committed the government to a new national policy which will take into account the aspirations of western Canada.
When the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert was prime minister, it was easy for him to be aware of the problems of prairie farmers and attempt to do something about them. He was a Saskatchewan man. He had lived for a long time in that part of the country; he had heard the problems of the area discussed in the press and elsewhere, and obviously wanted to do something about the problems of the area. It is that much more impressive that the present Prime Minister, in determining to come to grips with the problems of western Canada, made sure he understood the problems of the west, although he comes from an area of the country different from that from which the right hon. member for Prince Albert comes.
This prairie grain advance payments legislation, which is but one forward step being taken, is a further demonstration of the determination of this government, as expressed in the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, to leave no section of this country unattended, and to leave no section of the country feeling that its aspirations are being neglected. This legislation, therefore, is part of our commitment to meet the aspirations of western Canada. We are trying to change the national concept laid down by Sir John A. Macdonald under which the country was supposed to consist of hewers of wood and drawers of water. We are trying to decentralize the operations of government in the way witnessed in recent months by establishing, for instance, key offices of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in Saskatoon, in Moncton and in other areas.
This bill is a small but important step on the course about which the Prime Minister has spoken, a course which is strongly espoused within the Liberal party, a course, namely, which suggests that the government of this country must understand each area of this country, and each one of us, no matter from which part of the country he comes-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Liberal concern stops at the Saskatchewan border.


Otto Emil Lang: -or which party he supports, must make sure he understands the problems of the other regions.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What does the Liberal party know about the-west?
Prairie Grain Payments Act


Otto Emil Lang: It is tragic that there are not other parties in the House which take the same approach to national problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: It is tragic that, instead, there is a tendency for some parties in this House to fight against the interests of other regions. That tendency is shown by the regional party which calls itself the New Democratic Party and is not a national party and by the official opposition.


Steve Eugene Paproski: And where is the main strength of the Liberal party? Is it a national party?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Instead of being hostile to the desires and aspirations of any part of the country, including western Canada, they should determine the true nature of the problems of other parts of the country.


An hon. Member:: What about the government? Does it do that?


Otto Emil Lang: When the official opposition is not represented in any particular part of the country, it acts in a divisive and regional way.


An hon. Member:: What about the government?


Otto Emil Lang: An hon. member says, what about the government? Let me spell out exactly what I mean. When the Liberal party, in government in this country, saw from the clearest evidence available from the electorate that its policies were not meeting the aspirations of western Canada, it did not, in 1972 do what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) had advised the Conservative party five or six years ago to do, ignore a great part of the country. That would have not been in keeping with Liberal tradition. Instead, the government determined to spend more time and effort studying western problems. It spent more time studying them than any government had in the history of this country.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Who will believe you?


Otto Emil Lang: And we determined that we would not act superficially but that we would see what was wrong with our western Canadian policy, understand the fundamental nature of the difficulty and, as a result, bring in not policies which had the appearance of solutions but policies which would meet the aspirations of western Canada to the satisfaction of western Canadians. That is what we shall be doing this year and in the years to come.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are too late, Otto. You will have to wait until you become leader of the Liberal party.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for the Wheat Board treated the House to another of his lectures. Everything seemed to go quite well until he tried to inject humour at the end of his speech. He tried to tell us what the government has done to meet the problems of western Canada. If he wants to retain credi-
2066

May 6, 1974
Prairie Grain Payments Act
bility, he should examine carefully what he said in the closing minutes of his speech.
The minister said that grain farmers are now getting fair and adequate returns, that western grain producers at last are receiving the sorts of returns they have not received for the last few years. That situation is reflected throughout the whole of the economy of Canada, and not just in the economy of western Canada.
When considering what this bill does, we must look beyond the aspect of cash advances to prairie farmers and others and consider the agriculture industry in total. Grain farming is one of the foundations on which our agriculture industry is built. It is my impression that the agriculture industry is in a state of confusion it has not known for many years. This is borne out by the legitimate and well intentioned questions asked every day in this House on the subjects of hogs, livestock, poultry and government policy in these areas.
Bill C-25 is only a small step forward, granted, but it should be welcome. It provides for an increase in cash advances. The bill has nothing new or different to say about agriculture; actually, it is long overdue. It should have been introduced much earlier. Basically, the legislation proposes an increase in the cash advance with respect to farm-stored grain from $6,000 to $15,000 where one person is concerned, to $30,000 where two people or a partnership are involved, and to a maximum of $45,000 where a company or three people are concerned.
These increases are certainly justified in the light of farmers' needs. Indeed, they are long overdue. We have seen the cost of seed, fertilizer, barbed wire, bailer twine, chemicals, machinery and a host of other articles or commodities used on the farm go up by amounts which range from 20 per cent to as high as 200 per cent. The new ceilings governing cash advances are welcome, since they are based on realistic considerations.
At the present time we enjoy a relatively high price for grain and it appears as though prices will continue to be relatively high for the next few years, though possibly not as high as they are today. Thank God this is the case, because otherwise with this government's track record, we might be seeing another operation LIFT. As we move into the summer and toward the prospect of a general election, there is still no sign from the government as to what farmers may expect by way of a comprehensive agricultural policy. There is still no indication of the direction in which agriculture is expected to move. We hear muttering and hints, but that is all.
About a month ago, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was going around the country saying that if he had his way he would take over the job of the minister responsible for the Wheat Board because he felt he could operate more effectively if both portfolios were combined. The results of this uncertainty are being felt by agriculture producers all across Canada. For too long the government has reminded us of a ship lurching first in one direction and then in another, with no one in command, no one with a sense of leadership. There have been indications for some time that a move is to be made toward stabilization, but this has not gone beyond occasional

references in speeches by the minister and some of his colleagues. To what extent does the government propose to intervene, if at all? What does the government have in mind by stabilization? Would any scheme which it might produce be a necessary one at the present time? These are questions which should be dealt with in the context of any bill dealing with cash advances or assistance to agriculture generally.
The minister responsible for the Wheat Board has taken his usual arrogant approach to these issues. He still gives the impression he has all the answers. He likes to tell the farmers, members of the opposition and any others who will listen what will be done. I say to him that he may be able to write intellectually stimulating notes to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) but that he leaves most of the farmers in western Canada cold.
As I say, it is a good thing that grain prices are relatively high. Nevertheless, the situation should be viewed in the light of the total agriculture picture, and the industry as a whole has nothing on which to plan its operations for the next few years. I have here a report of a statement made by Mr. Bill Stewart, the minister of agriculture in Ontario. It says:
Agriculture Minister William Stewart said Ontario has urged the federal government to immediately increase the producer prices of butter and skim milk powder by two cents a pound. He told the Legislature on April 25 the current federal dairy policy doesn't go far enough in providing the incentive to maintain and increase industrial milk production.
This illustrates what I have been saying about the lack of leadership on the part of the government, or its agriculture spokesmen. The beef subsidy was implemented hastily without regard for its effect on the marketplace. For a while, it caused chaos, and now it appears the beef industry is in full retreat as a result of actions which compounded earlier damage done by this administration.
I turn, now, to the government's feed grain policy. The Minister of Agriculture and the minister responsible for the Wheat Board said it was the fairest policy they could devise. That is a lot of rubbish and they must know it is not the case. The policy -vas devised as a political half-way measure. Because of the difficulty which arises in relation to the monitoring aspect, the system of payments has not worked since the program was introduced. One of the indications of the government's lack of vision is the quantity of corn imported into Canada from the United States as a result of the unrealistic pricing of domestic feed grain.
The damage done by the federal government in the application of this interim policy, compounded by antics on the part of certain provincial governments, has led to nothing short of economic stagnation for the section of the industry engaged in animal production. Grain prices have risen so rapidly that the economics of producing milk and meat have completely changed in the matter of a few months. In addition to the confusion and uncertainty caused by the feed grain policy, the price maintenance effect must be taken into consideration. Domestic feed grain costs are being deliberately held up at a time when the last thing that is needed is a maintained minimum price.
May 6, 1974

I see that the minister responsible for the Wheat Board has left the chamber. I hope he will come back to listen to some of the remainder of the debate. If he decides not to do so, it will reinforce my comments about the arrogance displayed by the hon. gentleman from Saskatchewan.
What we need is the only kind of workable policy, a policy based on true supply and demand requirements. As I mentioned before, a political halfway measure will not work, is not working, and I think is a true demonstration to all parties of the House that it cannot work. Political halfway measures only complicate the issue, and if introduced into this House in another form I believe will not receive the support necessary for their passage.
Another area of concern in the question of feed grain is the seeming inability of the government to make up its mind on bringing forward a new policy in plenty of time for the political parties in this House, producer groups across the country and for provincial governments, particularly in Western Canada, to have a good look at the legislation to see whether or not it is acceptable. The debate on the feed grain issue has been going on for far too long. The government should act, and should act as soon as possible, to bring the matter before the public so it can be discussed in concrete terms.
So far as a grain policy is concerned, I think it is safe to say that Canada has almost reached the crossroads at this particular point in time. In my opinion we can opt for one of two policies. We can either opt for a policy that directs us toward a complete grain economy, which seems to be the policy we are adopting now; or we can direct our energies toward devising agricultural policies that provide for a grain-livestock economy, in which for the most part we feed and process our livestock in Canada and, if at all possible, ship the processed product to other parts of the world.
I know it is safe to say that it is the opinion of the Conservative party that the latter direction is the only acceptable one to follow so far as agricultural policy in Canada is concerned. I think we view with a certain amount of alarm the kind of situation that has developed in the production of hogs, livestock, eggs, turkeys, broilers. We seem to be driving ourselves into a strict grain economy and letting the United States produce the poultry products. I suggest that is a policy that is certainly unacceptable.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, it must be remembered by consumers that the only basic method that we have in Canada of reducing relatively high food costs is to increase domestic agricultural production. The public generally must realize that the farmers are entitled to, and indeed must be able to receive, a reasonable return on their time, effort and investment. The alternative to production at a profit is reduced production and increased imports, which ultimately will result in higher food costs for consumers. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because I believe it ties all our thoughts and goals together and points us in the direction we want to follow. While welcoming the amendment the government has brought forward to the cash advances legislation, I have no faith

this has been demonstrated over the period of years I have spent in the
Prairie Grain Payments Act
House of Commons-that the government will give any meaningful, long-term direction to agriculture today.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, the minister gave us some advance warning that finally he was going to bring some legislation into this House, for on Friday last he issued a whole clutch of news releases. I did not know which was going to come first in his plans, an election or some legislation. This House has been in session during this 29th parliament for close to two years, during which time the minister has changed the direction of the marketing practices of the Canadian Wheat Board for domestic grain, practically without the benefit of legislation. Now that the government stands on the edge of defeat because of its mismanagement of Canadian affairs, its unwillingness to meet the problems of Canadians resulting from the cost of living, and its high-handed action in regard to grain marketing, the government finally brings in some legislation to double the amount of cash advance to farmers in the event that they cannot sell their grain.
Are we being given a preview of the minister's thinking? Is the minister concerned for our future grain sales to the extent that at this point in time he doubles cash advances? Let us remember that this was a measure introduced by a Conservative government, as the minister himself has mentioned, and introduced at a time when grain sales were at a very low ebb. The measure was designed to give some cash flow relief to farmers who at that time were unable to sell enough grain to keep themselves in business.
I wondered why the minister put emphasis on this measure at this time, so I looked at the report in the "Grain Statistics Weekly" put out by the Canadian Grain Commission. In terms of commercial disappearance of domestic and export grain at this point in time, our wheat sales are something over 117 million bushels less than the same time last year. And this, Mr. Speaker, in a crop year that has seen one of the highest world demands and market opportunities for wheat for many a year. The least the minister could have done when he introduced this bill was to explain why, with market conditions as they are at this point in time and with less than three months to the end of the crop year, we are over 117 million bushels short of the sales performance of the Canadian Wheat Board one year ago. That is the result of the minister monkeying around with what was a perfectly good marketing system. He armed himself with a monkey-wrench, a pair of plyers and a bale of haywire and started to work on the marketing machinery. That is the situation we are dealing with now, and primary marketings from farmers are almost in tune with the drop in export sales.
It was in these circumstances that the minister put out a bunch of press releases on Friday in respect of grain stabilization, a farm income package, cash advances, two-price wheat legislation and methods to bring certainty into the timing of final payments and so on. If he gets that all before the House at least maybe there will be some legislative base to work on.
In dealing with this bill I should like to point out one or two things to the House and perhaps to the minister. The
27451-67!

May 6, 1974
Prairie Grain Payments Act
original bill was put in at a time when there was some difficulty with marketing. This kind of legislation depends on two or three basic assumptions, or two or three basic things being in place in the grain marketing industry, without which it will not work. It depends on a quota system that works, and this is pretty important because it is on the basis of a working quota system that a farmer is able to deliver his grain in an orderly fashion, and that the Canadian Wheat Board is sure that repayments can be made. This depends on a price system that works and one that is predictable so the farmer and the Canadian Wheat Board can have confidence in it.
What is the quota system to be in the coming crop year? We just do not know what it is to be. The other day I asked Mr. Jarvis, a witness who appeared before the committee, this question about pricing and the quota system, and he said we would have to wait for another month or two. He is one of the members of the minister's grains group, and that was his answer. How does the minister expect us to be happy with what he is proposing in terms of cash advances when he does not tell us what other packages of goodies he has in his pockets? We do not know what the pricing system is to be. I think the minister has in reality said that the system of pricing on August 1 is to be the Winnipeg commodity exchange. That is what he has been saying to this House, but he has not been able to come out and tell the farmers exactly what he intends to do. Can he not bear to contemplate the results of his handiwork? Are the results going to be so horrible that he will no t be able to contemplate them? Why does he not say what he is going to do? Does he not have the nerve to do so?


An hon. Member:: Before Wednesday night.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: He better do so soon. When the cash advance legislation was passed, it was predicated and dependent upon a stable pricing system. Whatever benefits can be claimed for commodity marketing systems such as the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, stability is not one of them. Some people claim they can make more money this way, but you cannot claim stability. How can we have a cash advance system operating when we do not have a stable pricing and quota system? What will be the effect of the present suggested pricing system? How is the cash advance system going to work when it is dependent upon a monitoring system which is now being used to establish prices of feed grains on the prairies? If the farmers borrow these large amounts of money as envisaged by these amendments, and then either through the commodity exchange system or, by the present monitoring system the minister is using, prices drop disastrously, how are the farmers going to repay those cash advances proposed under this legislation?
I think the minister should explain these things instead of giving us a eulogy in his best classroom manner at the end of his speech, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta). I think the hon. member's point was well taken. It is nice to have a euphoric dream, and it is nice to have fine words, but what we must know is what the legislation is going to do. Will the Canadian Wheat Board be able to demand payments when the quota and pricing systems of the Canadian Wheat Board are no longer working and are no longer in place? How is one

going to demand payment from the farmer when quotas are not orderly or properly established? How is this all going to operate? How can you demand payment from the farmer when the bloc system, which was developed and working well, is practically destroyed? In view of the various experiments the minister is carrying out around the country, how can payment be fairly demanded from the farmer who is left in the position that he either cannot deliver the grain or the price has dropped so far down it is virtually impossible for him to repay his loans? Those are the questions that should be answered by the minister.
Perhaps the minister does not know the answers to these questions. Let me remind him that in 1971 and 1972 farmers were badgered for payments. They were suffering the miseries of persecution and dunning for payments. They could not deliver their grain and therefore could not get the money to pay the amounts they owed on their loans at that time. It is fine for the minister to stand in his place and blandly refer to the good record of payments on the part of the farmers, and that the farmers can be trusted, but I have some serious doubts as to whether we can trust the minister.


Otto Emil Lang: Don't criticize the Wheat Board.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I am not criticizing the Wheat Board, I am telling the minister about his shortcomings. I suggest that the minister should be telling this House how this legislation can work. In the press release he put out he is warning farmers that export markets are not now any more stable than they ever were, and we should be prepared for drastic swings both as to price and quantity. We have already witnessed the slump in quantity. A drop of 117 million bushels in the first three-quarters of the crop year is a pretty drastic drop in the export performance.
My colleague, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight), today asked the minister why it was that the Canadian Wheat Board's selling prices were rising so high above the Chicago prices. The minister did not answer that. He skirted the question. He may have a couple of things up his sleeve. If the minister has anything up his sleeve he should bring it out and place it on the table so that we will know what his policies are. He has been operating the grain policy of the country either through Orders in Council or by making statements such as he did in Estevan where he announced that the branch lines would be closed until July 15th. When that announcement had been made the farmers, of course, wanted to know whether or not it was so. Then, it was necessary to go to the management of the CNR in Saskatchewan to find out whether or not they intented to close the branch lines until July. They said that was not their intention.


Otto Emil Lang: That is why I did not say that.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: If the minister did not say that perhaps it was said by one of his handy men, one of the smart boys who run around on his behalf.
What right has a minister of the Crown or any of these other people to go to Saskatchewan and announce that the branch lines of the railway system will be closed down until July. They have no right to tell the people this. It is
May 6, 1974

just the mouthings of a dictator, a guy who operates out of his hip pocket. The farmers of western Canada deserve a better deal. They deserve better consideration than this.


An hon. Member:: They deserve a better government.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Yes, they deserve a better government. The real story in respect of the minister's domestic grain marketing policy was revealed not in this House but over the CBC by a commentator, Mr. Jim Rae, from Winnipeg. This is a government of leaks. You know, somebody gets an idea from a secret conference behind the scenes and peddles it to the press. In that way we find out what is in store for the western farmer in respect of marketing. The real story is that the Canadian Wheat Board's work will be cut severely while the work of other marketing organizations will increase. One has to listen to the public media in order to find out what the minister has in store for the farmer. The minister intends to turn much of the power of the Canadian Wheat Board over to the Canadian Livestock Feed Board.


An hon. Member:: That will help the people in Quebec.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Yes. The other day we heard demands in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Commission that the board of referees be bilingual. I told them that the language ought to be Russian or some other ethnic language because that would be a lot better in Saskatchewan. However, these are some of the policies the minister trots out. The Livestock Feed Board may even ask the Wheat Board to sell feed grains in the domestic market and cut off their export sales which have already been made. One reason we have this very poor export performance is this type of approach. Then the experts go on to say that in the next crop year if the Canadian Wheat Board does sell grain in the domestic market the only way they can establish a price is through the Winnipeg commodity exchange. This is the story that is told by newsmen on the CBC. This is the type of policy that is being worked out. Western feed grain will be bought and sold freely and not restricted to any quantity.
I got a kick out of hearing the minister say that they will be selling it to their neighbours but that their neighbours may be a fair piece away. I thought that was pretty good. This is the sort of program that is being proposed. It is the type of program we must consider in respect of this legislation. I think there are two responsibilities here with regard to this legislation. One is to see that it will operate in such a way that if the producer borrows the money he will have full expectation of being able to repay it by the only method he has, which is the delivery of grain. I think the other responsibility we have is to the taxpayer of Canada who is making the money available on an interest-free basis. These are the two responsibilities members of this House have. Perhaps a third responsibility is to see that the farmer can function in good times and in bad times without too much duress.
The point I should like to make is that if the minister intends to change the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board to the extent they have already been changed and to the extent they are apparently to be changed, then the farmer will not be in a position in which he can be sure he will be able to repay the money and the Canadian Wheat
Prairie Grain Payments Act
Board will not be in a position in which it can be sure that it can recover these payments due. My real fear is that this program which has been excellent, and which has served the people of Canada and the farmers very well, will come into disrepute. That is the real danger. When the minister stood up he made no attempt to tell the House how this legislation could work well under the new pricing and selling methods which will be used in respect of feed grain sales. We must not forget that feed wheat is an integral part of the industry.
This is not only a concern of mine. Other people share this concern, including the government of Manitoba. The minister of agriculture of that province even went to the extent of polling the farmers of Manitoba in order to find out their attitude concerning feed grain marketing. The federal Minister of Agriculture undoubtedly has received opinions from such organizations as the Federation of Agriculture, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the National Farmer's Union. I am sure they told him the same things they told me. They are very concerned about the path he is taking particularly with regard to domestic grain. I am sure they expressed that concern to him as it has been expressed in this House. The minister has chosen to ignore entirely these expressions of concern.
The minister goes on his merry way and winds up making a peroration about what a nice thing it will be when all Canadians lives together in a happy community where momma loves poppa, poppa loves momma and the kids love everybody. That is the sort of dreamland in which the minister is living, but the ordinary producer and farmer must live in the real world where he has not only to borrow money but to repay it. We have not had the answers this afternoon, so I suppose we will not get them. I hope the minister will tell the railroads that branch lines will be in operation soon. It is our hope that he will get them going by June 1.


Otto Emil Lang: I did it at Lloydminster.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: That was good of the minister to unload it on Albertans as well as on Saskatchewanians at the same time. A load of so and so like that should be spread around. It is too much for one province to bear. It is the sort of thing that the minister unloads from time to time.
I am very concerned about the slump in which I find our grain deliveries. I do not believe farmers can borrow themselves into prosperity. If we are to have prosperous agriculture, we will have it because of good production, good marketing and an efficient industry all around. The minister said in his speech that the survival of farmers has been largely due to their efficiency and productivity. I agree, but I suggest that their efficiency and productivity can stand only so much badgering from the poor policies which are poorly planned from the top.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a word about Bill C-25 this afternoon.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are presently in the first round of the debate, and to be fair we should hear from the agriculture critics of all

May 6, 1974
Prairie Grain Payments Act
parties. I say that not because I want to cut off my friend the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) but because it seems to me that we should hear the spokesmen of all the parties on this subject. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) was prepared to speak on behalf of his party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I am glad the hon. member reminded the Chair that this is the first round. I apologize. I should have recognized the hon. member for Bellechasse.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order. In line with a suggestion I made earlier this afternoon, I may say that there have been discussions and I believe you will find there is agreement in the House for us to give up the private members hour for today so that the discussion on the second reading of this bill can continue. In that way perhaps two or three more speakers might have time to speak before six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Do I gather that we have the unanimous consent of the House to continue the debate on Bill C-25?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, although the government is a minority one, I suggest that one realises that matters can be handled very quickly, and I welcome this. I would like to see this bill carried as quickly as possible, and for this reason I shall be brief.
I would nonetheless refer to a table published in page 21 of the agenda to the Canadian Wheat Board Annual Report:
Total Number of Canadian Wheat Board Delivery Permits Issued to Producers:
For the year 1958-59 the number was 229,844, while for 1972-73, the reported figure is 171,612. So there was a decrease of 58,232. Would the minister explain to the House in this debate the reason of that decrease in the number of permits? Did their prices go up in terms of bushels per acre or did the acreage actually remain the same despite the drop in the number of permits?
Those are questions about which we are greatly concerned, and I would hope that some light could be cast on that.
Coming back to the bill itself, I agree that with the devaluation of the dollar and with inflation this amount should be increased from $6,000 to $15,000. I think that would be quite reasonable. Consideration must also be given to organizations and operations and those amounts should be increased to $30,000 in the case of a two-member partnership, or $45,000 in the case of a three-member partnership.
I think those are improvements and I would like to see those contained in the bill implemented so that western farmers will benefit from them in order to ensure the survival of the important farm industry which is currently experiencing excessively difficult times, especially Quebec, Ontario and in the Maritime provinces.
It will be remembered that in recent days, particularly here in this House during the question period, the problem
May 6, 1974

of beef, hog, milk and poultry producers has often been raised. That means that there are problems across Canada, and I would like to draw the attention of the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang), who is also responsible for the distribution of feed grains across Canada, to the fact that the feed grain problem in my province is extremely serious. One has only to come to our ridings to hear hundreds of complaints in that respect and eastern farmers hope that the new policy referred to by the minister not too long ago will be announced soon and will bring improvements to Quebec and Maritime farmers so as to allow them to bring their production costs down without for that matter having to beg for charity from western farmers.
Mr. Speaker, we do not ask western farmers to give us their crops as a present, or to let us have their production at sacrifice prices, but we want the government to ask in such a way as to ensure eastern and western Canada equal opportunities in the areas of beef, pork, poultry and milk production.
The central government must take the necessary measures, otherwise we shall get even closer to reduced production, specially of milk, and we shall have to import more in the coming year. But who will be our suppliers? New Zealand is experiencing the same phenomenon; according to our information, milk production has decreased considerably. The same is happening in Australia. If we do not take the necessary steps for the survival of the industry, I do not know in what country we shall get the dairy products we shall need in the next few years.
The bill deals with agriculture as a whole. In my mind, when we speak of agriculture, it simply means all productions related to agriculture.
Therefore, I support the bill now before us. I endorse its provisions and its principles. I want to assure my colleagues and farmers from western Canada that even though we represent eastern parts of the country, we want to promote their prosperity and support the efforts of those who seek greater and more stable income, so that all together we can work for the survival of the Canadian agricultural industry.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-25 which is to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. Over the years the so-called cash advance legislation has been very helpful to western grain producers. As the minister indicated, it was introduced by the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).
The bill proposes to raise the ceilings from $6,000 to $15,000 for an individual, and where there are two shareholders or partners over 18 years of age to $30,000. Where there are three or more shareholders involved, and they are principally occupied in farming, the ceiling will be $45,000. These are large sums of money. They indicate just how far rising costs of production and inflation have cut into western agriculture and added to the costs of our operations out there. The minister made a great point about how far he has gone. He went to a lot of trouble to tell us of his concern and to indicate the actions he has
Prairie Grain Payments Act
taken to help western agriculture. I can tell him that my constituents are completely confused by this lawyer's advice. What they want is common sense advice.
To indicate the concern which we have in the west, I would like to quote as follows from a bulletin of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool issued on April 22:
The pool directors said members are concerned that government doesn't seem to understand or listen to their views. "Right now they have the feeling they're not being heard clearly and they're talking about drastic action to make sure the government knows they are highly concerned."
Reports from member meetings indicate that farmers are suggesting that their organization get more militant in dealing with Ottawa. Ideas suggested include a march on Ottawa, mass meetings in Saskatchewan to demonstrate concern, circulation of petitions requesting specific policies, a letter writing campaign to M.P.'s, enlistment of stronger prairie government support for agricultural causes.
"Our members are asking us to be more forceful in our presentations," said the Pool directors. "They're saying we should fight openly if necessary to gain the things that are right for farmers."
I point out that this is from the largest farm organization we have in western Canada. I think it gives the lie to the minister's case. My experience over the years is that the minister has proven just one thing to the grain industry of western Canada, and that is that we are able to give our feed grain away at fire sale prices. Everyone well remembers when we were trying to get a four bushel quota and $1.25 a few years ago, and the best this minister and his experts could come up with was operation LIFT. The money that is being talked about in this bill is a cash advance on the produce that the western grain farmer must store until it can be marketed; it is not a grant from the government in any sense of the word.
There are a good number of reasons why western farmers cannot market their grain, and transportation is the first one. We have just come through a wasted five year freeze on transportation. Our people are desperate for some leadership, Mr. Speaker. The particular subdivision to which I deliver grain has not had a train for over four months. There are absolutely no delivery opportunities there at all, and at the end of the crop year the country elevators were filled. This indicates just how necessary the cash advances are.
I should like to read from a letter which I just received from a constituent of mine who points out that even though the rest of the country seems to think that farmers are receiving $6 per bushel for spring wheat, this is not the case. Farmers received $2.25 initial price and another $1.75 but they will be fortunate if when they receive their final payment it brings them net $4.50 for No. I.C.W., the top grade of spring wheat. My constituent writes as follows:
Last fall, I harvested my crop but no room was available in the town where I haul my wheat for months-Estuary. As you know, the trouble was due to a lack of boxcars and then later, the rail strike.
Now, the government knew there was a rail workers' strike coming before it ever took place. Then even during the strike, they dragged their feet and were not in a hurry to settle it. I knew what the outcome would be, so did the government. Yet they refused to hurry, even though our wheat was badly needed and winter was coming on.
Finally, I was able to haul my first wheat for the new crop year on October 12, 1973. Then in November I was able to haul two more loads. From then on, the elevators were blocked for a considerable time and finally my farm was snowed in and still is.

May 6, 1974
Prairie Grain Payments Act
This letter was written on April 1, Mr. Speaker. He continues:
There have been times when I could not haul wheat for three or four months, due to no quotas, etc. If the grocer had not extended credit to me, it would have gone very hard with us in those past years. Yet, these things are never realized or cross the minds of many well fed and well paid government officials. If they would receive a cheque once in three months, maybe their thinking would change a bit also.
Later, the letter continues:
I say the Trudeau government has had the poorest management and price controls we have seen in many a decade. I hope a change will come for the better, soon. I have grown up in the "dirty thirties" and I know what hard times are. I know how to save, but I have never been able as yet to even keep a life insurance policy paid up let alone have a bank account. Surely things could be managed a lot better in a country that is blessed with all the resources we have in Canada. I was born here and I am grateful for our freedom, but there are some things as I mentioned, that I say is a shame for our country.
There are many, many people who could write similar letters, Mr. Speaker.
As I said at the outset, over the years this cash advance legislation has been very helpful. From its inception in 1957-58 to the crop year, 1972-73, there has been a total cash advance to western producers of $1,042,166,054. Of that, there was owing to the Canadian Wheat Board on July 31, 1973, some $7 million-this is less than three-quarters of 1 per cent. I should like to make the case that most of this has been through loose administration by government employees and not because farmers have not repaid.
While I am on the subject of loose administrative procedures, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that we resent the harassment of producers by bureaucrats. Particularly we resent what I could call the sinister grains group that has been set up and that has ridden roughshod over some of the respected organizations administering our grain policies in western Canada. I can think of the person who set up the grains group, Mr. Rod Bryden, who is now a consultant for the government and is paid from public money to look into the question of elevators in western Canada. I was shaken the other day when a member of the grains group took it upon himself to announce that there will be a system of flexible tariffs applied to the grain industry in western Canada. We have a very respected Canadian grain commission which has the responsibility for setting tariffs. I was even further surprised when the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board volunteered the information at a transportation meeting in Ottawa that they would spend some $130 million of farmers' money to purchase 4,000 hopper cars. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this sort of announcement should not come from government boards and commissions.
This afternoon, in reply to a question about whether the government's two price wheat program actually saved consumers eight cents on a loaf of bread, the minister in his typical roundabout way indicated that the government's program did in fact save consumers eight cents per loaf. This is utter rubbish, Mr. Speaker. Any one even slightly familiar with the industry knows that you can get about 60 one pound loaves of bread from a bushel of wheat. A table of subsidies put out by Agriculture Canada shows the posted price of wheat as $6 per bushel but our wheat is selling for about $4.50 per bushel, and the subsidy paid by the federal government is $1.25 which I calculate to be about two cents per loaf.

Some things about the cash advance legislation have caused problems, Mr. Speaker. One is the business of terminating quotas. The Canadian Wheat Board has authority to terminate quotas and force the grain in. This works a hardship in a situation where an old couple may have left the farm for the winter and moved into the city or down south. I hope that the government will give more consideration to such people, and I realize that last year the Wheat Board were very responsive, realizing that the roads were snowed in. I would also urge that the government consider allowing a tenant to apply for his share of the cash advance without having the landlord sign.
Finally, I should like everyone to understand that if a farmer takes this cash advance it is only an advance on unsold produce and that he pays income tax on it.


Mr. Norval Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, the minister traced the history of cash advances to western producers. In the 1950's, when farmers could not find markets for their crops and asked for cash advances, they were told that such a program would be impossible to administer. Strangely, the Conservative government in 1957 introduced the maximum cash advance of $3,000, an amount the minister treated lightly. Three thousand dollars in those days would go farther to meeting costs than a like amount would today. The advance was intended to help small producers. Over the years it has helped smaller producers. Operators of larger farms have always had access to money at low rates of interest. Although I support the increase to $15,000, I think the larger sum will help operators of larger farms.
The idea behind cash advances was not the same in previous years. Cash advance legislation was introduced to meet the needs of farmers who had no markets for their wheat. Not having markets, they could not deliver their grain to elevators and get a cash ticket. Today the difficulty lies in getting grain to export position. Once more the minister has come to the aid of the railroads. If you provide the farmer with a cash advance, he will not be so worried if he does not see the train. The pressure is taken off the railroad. Of course, the cash advance will not help the farmer who has tough or damp grain, or whose grain starts to heat when the weather gets warm.
The minister operates with a method entirely his own. The Western Producer of April 25, 1974, carried an article under the headline, "Grains Council gets warning from Lang". The Council did well to heed the minister's warning, as he allows organizations and boards only so long before they are forced to agree with his conclusions. In this connection, may I refer to an article in the Star Phoenix of October 15, 1972, in which the minister is quoted as saying:
One of the significant things about LIFT was that it was the one measure which we had to do a little harshly. We couldn't wait around and give everybody lots of choice and understanding.
Freedom of choice and understanding are what democracy is all about. In his dealings concerning the Wheat Board and western transportation, the minister has told organizations to present briefs and ideas, and then has said that those ideas are wrong and his are right. In the
May 6, 1974

speech which Mr. Jarvis delivered for him, the minister said, as recorded in The Western Producer of April 25:
In the very near future, the federal government will be making known its final policy decisions for a new domestic feed grains policy for Canada.
Apparently the minister does not listen to anybody. He does not act on the basis of compromise.
The minister referred to two-price wheat and how great that was for the western farmer. When two-price wheat was introduced in January, 1972, the asking price in Vancouver for prairie grain with 13 Vi per cent protein content was $1.71; that represented an additional payment to the farmer of $1.28. The asking price for grain increased, until in May, 1973, it was $3.05 in Vancouver. After that the western farmer started to lose money on the grain consumed domestically in Canada. Let us assume we use about 60 million bushels a year in Canada; we use about 5 million bushels per month. If you apply the asking price to that amount of wheat, you will see that, under two-price wheat, the farmer was about 5 million dollars ahead of the game up to the end of April, 1974. Taking it in round figures, we can say the program has been operating for 2 Vi jears and the farmer has benefitted overall to the extent of about 5 million bushels. Unless we can continue to sell wheat in excess of $5 and get it to export position, the farmer will soon run up a net loss under the two-price system. I hope the government does not try to kid anyone.
The minister, in his speech in Estevan, said how great two-price wheat was. He also said the government intended to buy 4,000 new hopper cars. That is interesting. He still has to announce the order. There are no hopper cars on order. Even if they are ordered now, delivery cannot take place until 1976 at the earliest.
The minister mentioned feed grains policy. The industry could not come up with a satisfactory pricing method for feed grains, but the minister did. He introduced a system of monitoring off board prices. There are monuments to the minister's policy which will stand for many years, and I am referring to the empty feed lots in many municipalities of Saskatchewan. You will find bankrupt feed lots in practically every municipality. They are monuments to the minister's pricing policy and methods with regard to feed grain.
A previous speaker linked cash advances with the quota system. Certainly, the minister's policy has ridden roughshod over the quota system. A quota system will not work if some deliveries come under the quota and others do not. The government's feed grain policy has created havoc in feeding operations. According to The Western Producer, you can buy an entire basic herd in just about every municipality in Saskatchewan. I looked at some herds over the weekend and talked to some of the people who are getting out of the business. The government had better take a serious look at the sorts of policies it has introduced in the past as they have practically eliminated incentives for the production of food which is needed in the world and in Canada.
The minister said that we are behind with grain deliveries, as compared with last year. Do you remember the slogan of 1972, "The land is strong"? There was talk of delivering a billion bushels. That slogan is hardly opportune today, in view of recent strikes. Consider the govern-
Prairie Grain Payments Act
ment's response to the rail strike last fall, and compare its attitude last fall with the attitude as shown in the slogans "The land is strong" and "grain handling strikes are a barbaric weapon which costs us sales." It is strange that on the one hand the government considers strikes barbaric and that on the other it condones strikes, legal or illegal, wildcat or otherwise. The government's position here is different from its position on the prairies. The government members here chant that it is the liberal way to allow strikes wildcat or legal.
As I said at the beginning, I welcome this increase. It may help some farmers, especially those who cannot sell their grain because their farms are on rail lines which the companies, for one reason or another, fail to serve.


Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-25 is a simple bill. It provides for increases in cash advance payments to individual farmers on farm-stored prairie grain from $6,000 to $15,000. The ceiling has been raised to $45,000 for partnerships and corporations in which three or more farmers are involved. I welcome this legislation and think it heads in the right direction. Administered properly, this legislation has helped farmers in the past when they have found themselves in dire financial straits.
I should like to examine this bill in relation to the government's total farm package. Then, perhaps, we could discuss it with a little more wisdom. I should certainly like to know what the government's feed grains policy is to be. I think there is a deliberate policy on the part of the government to dismantle the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board, a Board which has been a good friend of the farmer for the last 35 years. Many powerful allies are helping the government to follow this train of thought. As long as a feed grains policy is not fully defined, there will be problems concerning cash advance payments.
What is to happen to the quota system? As I understand it, there is to be an open quota on feed grains but a restricted quota covering grains which come under the Wheat Board. I believe the whole quota system is likely to be a total loss, along with the transportation system which will also be affected. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) said domestic feed grain prices have been deliberately held up in price. In my opinion, it is about time they were. Present prices will at least cover cost of production as well as help farmers to repay some of the debts they accumulated during the years they were selling grain at below cost; for instance, for 30 cents a bushel to farm implement companies who were feeding it to cattle and realizing a good profit on the enterprise. I hope the price of feed grain stays up for the foreseeable future because, as I say, it is about time farmers received a fair price for their products.
I should like to point out that growing grain is one of the most efficient ways of producing protein. The feed grains industry is important, of course; and the livestock industry is important. But there is something we shall have to realize in this country within the next five or ten years, that converting the protein in grain to protein in pork, poultry and beef cattle is an extremely inefficient process. Protein in the form of beef and pork is an expen-
2074

May 6, 1974
Prairie Grain Payments Act
sive form of protein, and as the world becomes hungrier, protein from grain will be an important factor in saving from starvation people in many parts of the world, that is, if we are concerned about people in other parts of the world. I was reading an article recently which pointed out that, weight for weight, soybean contains twice as much protein as animal products.
In conclusion, let me say we should be strengthening the Wheat Board rather than weakening it through a feed grains policy which in my opinion is to the detriment of the western farmer. At least 90 per cent of the western farmers to whom I have spoken feel that barley and oats should remain under control and that the pricing mechanism should come under the board. They are also concerned about the future of the quota system. Many farmers have asked me, "Why is the government buying hopper cars for the railway companies, when it should be the responsibility of the CN and the CP rather than an expense borne by the Canadian taxpayers?"
With regard to rail line abandonment, last summer, when the federal government held the prairies conference in Calgary and met with the western premiers, they said they would postpone railway line abandonment for 18 months. Today, the minister and other spokesmen for the government are saying the lines will be closed down until July 15. There has not been a train to Meadow Lake for about a month: there has not been a train down the Glaslyn-Turtleford line for about six weeks. The rail roads are open; there are no lines washed out there. There may be in the Lumsden area, but not in the northwest. It seems to me a deliberate attempt is being made to abandon lines via the back door, which is something the western Canadian farmer will not forget should an election come, whenever that may be.
I am prepared to see this bill pass second reading. We are in favour of it. However, I am hoping that our railroad system will be so efficient that farmers will be able to sell their grain when they need to, rather than being obliged to make use of this legislative machinery.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I find that the opportunity afforded me to take part in the debate on this bill is opportune since only today I tried to put a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board but was unable to pursue it because Your Honour, in your wisdom, did not see fit to allow me to do so. I posed that question believing it was straightforward, forthright and one which producers in western Canada could expect to be answered. I would never question Your Honour's authority or wisdom, but there are occasions when not only members of the House of Commons but people across Canada deserve an answer to questions they have raised.
I believe that the producers of grain deserve an answer on matters as important to them as, not only this bill, but what is happening to their product after it is produced. I have before me a report in the Globe and Mail. I trust that the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board is not like his counterpart, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who has stated that the Globe and Mail does not always print the truth, because the minister is quoted by the Globe and Mail. The article begins by saying this:

Parliament took a major step yesterday toward writing into law the government's two-price wheat program-
This is a program of the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, which the Globe and Mail article says is "currently saving consumers eights cents a loaf on bread prices". The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) referred in his speech to a question I asked today, and I think fairly well explained the situation. It is not a question of who is paying for what. I am sure that the consumer is prepared to pay for his products, and I know that the producer is prepared to place his grain on the market on an equitable basis. But I believe he has the right to know what is happening to his grain.
The government is paying a subsidy of $1.25 a bushel, which amounts to approximately two cents a loaf. That is a matter of mathematics and I do not think it should present a problem to the minister. Today I was hoping the minister would rise to state unequivocally exactly how this $1.25, to a maximum of $1.75, that the government is prepared to pay as a subsidy to bread manufacturers is going to be applied. The minister may skate around this question and throw in some figures, but I believe the producer has a right to know what is happening to his grain.
The producers are also asking other questions. For example, how is the subsidy payment going to be made? Is the government making this payment as purchases are made, or is it made to the Canadian Wheat Board on a quarterly basis or at the end of the year? Then, again, how is the subsidy, after it is paid to the Wheat Board, paid to the producer? Is it going to be on a acreage basis, as it has been over the past years, or is it going to be placed in the pool and paid out on a bushel basis? On what grades will the payment be made? These are all questions that the producers are asking, and I believe the minister would be doing a service to Canadian producers if he would rise in his place and unequivocally tell the House exactly how these payments are going to be made in the days and months that lie ahead.


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member should read the bill.


Thomas Gordon Towers: There is nothing about that in the bill. All the bill refers to is advance payment on grain. The question being asked today is how these payments will be made. The minister rose in his place and stated that a Conservative government years ago established, in their wisdom, a base of $3,000 for permit holders. Then in very gracious words he pointed out how much more the government today is giving the producers, namely, $15,000. I would impress upon you, Mr. Speaker, that that original $3,000 bought in those days as much as $15,000 will buy today. The Minister of Agriculture has said that some agricultural input costs have gone up 200 per cent to 300 per cent in the last year. So if you look back over the many years since a Conservative government first had the idea of instituting this type of policy, you will see the producer is just holding his own.
This bill places salve on a sore wound. The government insists on continuing its policy, or rather lack of policy, of failing to come to grips with the real problem facing the agricultural industry today. The real and long-standing difficulty confronting the farmer is the cost-price squeeze
May 6, 1974

in which he continually finds himself in the present-day economy, one in which inflation is destroying the stability of the industry. Populationwise, the farmer is in the minority. It is a generally accepted fact that 7 per cent of the population is engaged in agriculture and the production of food. Yet the farmer has to compete with the other industries on the labour market, and this includes the government, attempting to hire the workers he needs. The government is causing a great drain on the labour market today. In the agriculture committee we were told there were 662 Ph.D's working in the Department of Agriculture research branch alone. Certainly there is a great demand for efficiency in the industries of the world.
No doubt this bill will be proclaimed by the government as of great advantage to the grain producer, but it certainly falls short of what the farmer could and does expect from the government. This legislation will not give the farmer any extra money for his product. I want to impress upon every urban dweller-and I include in this group the minister responsible for the Wheat Board-that this advance payment has to be repaid, every cent of it. Actually, what it does is to get the government off the hook once more, at a time when it should be going out to sell grain to the maximum potential. If the farmer were assured that there would be an opportunity for him to market his grain on a steady basis throughout the year, knowing full well that at the end of the year he would not be left holding the bag-a bag that does not contain money but only the sweat, labour and tears of his efforts of the previous year-he would not need any other inducement to grow grain.
During the past several years the Liberal government has mishandled farmers' products. First of all, there was the supposedly famous Lift program, which the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Horner) made reference to and for which the farmers of western Canada have not yet forgiven the government; nor should any consumer of this country forgive a government for establishing any plan that is detrimental to the production of food. For example, I refer to the program of a former minister of agriculture to kill thousands of chickens and hens so the producers could receive a benefit. The people of western Canada referred to this program, and still refer to it, as "henocide". It is immoral and illogical to try to justify a program of this nature, and now we are getting into a similar situation.
The Canadian Wheat Board is sending out letters urging farmers to deliver their grain. Elevators are plugged in many areas, so cannot accept delivery. There are ships on the west coast waiting to be loaded. The Canadian grain producer is paying demurrage charges. There are hungry people at the other end of the line waiting for this grain, waiting for food. Added to this confused muddle we have a Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) who admits that our transportation system is in a mess and that he does not have control.
I should like to refer to a letter that appeared in the Western Producer of April 25, 1974. A portion of this letter reads as follows:
A survey in early March of elevators at Indian Head, Qu'Appelle and McLean reveals the following:
McLean elevator is filled to capacity.
Prairie Grain Payments Act
Indian Head elevators with approximately 633,000-bushel carry-capacity have now in storage 503,000 bushels of grain.
At McLean and Qu'Appelle loaded boxcars waited for ten days before being shipped.
In Indian Head ten loaded cars were stationary from February 11 to 25 before being picked up. Serial numbers of these cars are available.
These points are on the main line of the CPR which would therefore emphasize the fact that there is grain available at centrally located elevators waiting to be shipped to the terminals. It would appear that the responsibility for failure to meet our obligation to overseas grain markets should be accepted by the railroads as they have failed in their obligations to move the grain which the farmers have already supplied to their local elevators.
That is why I suggest we have to go along with this type of program as this government procrastinates to the point where farmers are not able to deliver their product, and they do need money with which to operate. The opposition has tried and tried to get the government to take some definite action. The government has turned transportation over to the Canadian Transport Commission, placing at its head a former member of the Liberal cabinet who certainly did not do anything to enhance his image in the eyes of the Canadian public when he was in parliament. How can he be expected to do other than create the type of situation we have within our transportation system, which the Minister of Transport has defined as a mess?
The chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board said earlier this month that even if the targets set by the railways for grain movement are met starting immediately, the west coast backlog will not be cleared until the end of July. Vessel demurrage will continue to cost producers hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars until the situation is rectified. The circumstances at the lakehead are serious also, but will not be realized until the middle of May when stocks disappear and vessels might be waiting in the St. Lawrence. If the railways do not meet their targets, insufficient grain will move to the lakehead for lake vessels to meet Wheat Board commitments. Once lake freight is lost, it cannot be recovered, and the same costs and charges of contractual default will be faced as are now being experienced on the west coast.
The railways said their targets would be met by July 31, but the chief commissioner said that is not satisfactory to our customers who expect to lift their grain between February and July. They are not satisfied to have their supplies by the end of July, especially when there are people hungry and starving in May. He also stated that with the over-all shortage of cars, grain has not been getting its fair share. Regardless of the fact that one minister is urging farmers to plant more grain, another telling them to deliver their crops to the market, and the Minister of Transport announcing the repair and purchase of additional boxcars, with contracts signed for the sale of grain, not one of these requests, pleas or statements is worth anything to the producer when his grain cannot be delivered.
Why should this government or any reasonable, thinking person expect farmers to plant one more field at the request of the minister when they are faced with the pressures and frustrations of not being able to get their grain into the elevators? Why should the farmer continue year after year to sweat it out, knowing that with luck he might break even and without luck he will be met with a loss in his operations? Granted, the farmer is the backbone
27451-68.1

May 6, 1974
Prairie Grain Payments Act
of the nation and we cannot get along without him. Why, then, does this government insist upon introducing piecemeal legislation which is only a stopgap, just to make the picture look rosy in the eyes of those who do not understand the difficulties of agriculture, particularly when this serious situation is not going to disappear on its own? Until ministers responsible for agriculture, transport and the Wheat Board work together toward a sound, long-range program not just for today, this week, next month but for the future, this situation will not disappear.
At a time when the price of grain is right and it should be moved, there is a bottleneck; yet farmers are urged to plant one more field, not having any guarantee that the price will last unless this government takes some effective action. We, as Canadians and as parliamentarians, should take the initiative in setting up a world food reserve to purchase surplus grain for emergencies. Neither Canada nor any single country should have to finance such a project; all countries should support it. There should be grain on hand during years of plenty to make up the lack in times of poor harvests. Last year there was a shortfall of 5 per cent, and here we are with grain which cannot be moved but which should be moved now when the price is right.
It has been estimated that 5 per cent of the United States wheat production has already been lost due to the drought in Texas. Although at the moment the over-all picture looks promising for increased supplies of grain, that grain is a long way from the bin. Our hopes are high, and we expect the government to get busy to see that the grain is sold through the Wheat Board for export, to ensure that delivery will not be delayed and to arrange to have a sufficient supply for domestic use.
Farmers are being urged by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board to plant additional acreage in grain, but they cannot deliver the grain they now have and they have no guarantee that good prices will last, unless this government takes some effective steps. The Minister of Agriculture has said that much of the cost of production of feed grain is up, as I said earlier, 200 per cent to 300 per cent. He goes around the country telling people that farmers must have more and more money for their products if they are to remain in operation. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board that with these programs of the Minister of Agriculture there is no end to what farmers will have to pay for the production of food and to try to keep ahead of the increasing costs of production.
On motion of Mr. Towers the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

John Napier Turner: That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we Canadians today have reached a threshold of great challenge and great opportunity.
We are thriving as seldom before in our history. Our growth of output, employment and real income surpasses that of virtually every other industrial country.
But we are confronted by the scourge of inflation, worldwide in its origins and impact. No other issue more deeply disturbs our country, this government or me, as Minister of Finance. While we have suffered less from inflation than most other nations, we can and must do better to overcome it and alleviate its burdens.
The challenge facing the country is to break the inflationary spiral. But we must do this in ways that will not erode our prosperity nor damage our growth. Let no one think that this can be done easily or quickly. It will take time and effort. And until we have brought inflation under control, it is imperative that the burdens it inflicts be equitably shared and that those people who are most vulnerable be decently protected.
An opportunity is at hand to strengthen the Canadian economy and to improve the standard of living of every Canadian. This will require the wise development of our unique storehouse of resources-both material and human. In doing this, we must not allow ourselves to be diverted by ill-considered and illusory policies that would prejudice our long-term interests as a nation.
This budget has three main purposes. The first is to reinforce our attack on inflation through encouraging increased supplies of goods and services. This we will do by maintaining the strong expansion of the economy and by increasing the productive capacity of our farms, fisheries and industries. The second is to act directly against high prices where that is practical. The third is further to alleviate the adverse impact of rising prices on all Canadians, particularly those with lower incomes.

International Developments
The problem of inflation is clearly world-wide in origin. The Economic Review that I tabled last week deals with this at some length, and documents the leading role which accelerating international prices have played in our domestic price experience. Indeed, world inflation can be traced to the enormous buildup in international liquidity associated with the massive deficits in the U.S. balance of payments which ultimately resulted in the breakdown of the Bretton Woods exchange rate system. More recently, the concurrence of economic expansion in most industrial countries, coupled with major crop failures, led to an explosion of commodity and food prices. Last December, the world was hit further by a cutback in the supply of oil and staggering increases in its price. With so many nations facing massive shocks to their international balances, the world community is threatened by fragmentation and protectionism.
May 6, 1974

These developments constitute a menace to all countries, and not least to Canada, given our dependence on international trade and investment. No country can long prosper in a world of unsettled international financial and trade arrangements. This is clearly a time for renewed co-operation and strenuous efforts by all countries to rebuild a viable international trade and payments system. Let me stress that Canada has been playing a full role in the broad international effort to achieve this objective.
This government came early to the conclusion that under the conditions of great uncertainty emerging in the world, floating exchange rates were appropriate. Indeed, Canada adopted this policy four years ago. This approach has now been widely adopted and seems in these troubled times to be serving us all well.
In the pursuit of international monetary reform, Canada has persistently urged that the discussions should concentrate on matters of immediate importance where progress is possible. Last January, this approach of making progress where we could was endorsed by world finance ministers at their meetings in Rome.
Canada has also urged, and will continue to urge, that the International Monetary Fund, the key international financial institution, be strengthened in order to play an increasing role in maintaining world monetary order. We support the proposal for a new council of the IMF, composed of ministers, to meet frequently to tackle directly the major international financial issues, especially world inflation.
On the trade side, we have been concerned, as the energy crisis emerged, that countries might individually take restrictive action to relieve their balance of payments deficits. I have stressed this danger at many international meetings. I therefore welcome and support the efforts being made in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, and in the work begun at the Washington Energy Conference, to ensure that countries avoid beggar-thy-neighbour policies. Recent actions in Europe make it all the more urgent that we proceed with this initiative without delay. God and this House willing, I will be in Paris in two weeks' time to offer Canada's full co-operation in an appropriate pledge to avoid such destructive policies.
Looking further ahead, it is important that the Tokyo Round of trade negotiations proceed on schedule. We will need to address ourselves to removing unjustifiable trade barriers, improving the GATT rules governing international trade, and dealing effectively with problems of security of supply for key international commodities. If timely progress is to be made, it is critical that the United States take the required legislative action that will enable it to play its essential role in these negotiations.
All of these international efforts are especially vital to the poorer countries of the world. Many developing countries are in desperate straits because of the sudden escalation of oil prices. They need help, and they need it quickly. Canada supports the efforts of the IMF to establish a new lending facility to help countries, particularly the developing ones, to meet this major crisis. We have informed the Fund that Canada is prepared to lend to the Fund for this purpose under the authority of the Currency and Exchange Fund Act.
The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner
We are also revising and improving our own aid program to meet these new circumstances and new requirements. You will recall that in addition to our $549 million already allocated to foreign aid for this year, the government has recently announced that an additional $100 million will be made available this year in fast-disbursing forms of aid, mainly food and fertilizers.
In addition, the government, through the Estimates, is seeking parliamentary authority for the advance commitment of Canada's contribution to the Fourth Replenishment of the International Development Association. This Association is a subsidiary of the World Bank, specializing in the provision of low-interest and interest-free loans to the most needy countries.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
The shadows of international events have fallen less darkly on us than on others. The outlook for the Canadian economy is bright. Output, employment and income are all continuing to increase. I don't underestimate for one moment the plague of rising prices but even here we have been less afflicted than have other countries.
Ours is a diversified economy, capable of producing a wide range of primary products as well as manufactured goods. In particular, unlike other industrial countries, we are not on balance dependent on foreign supplies of energy, especially oil. In fact, we are a microcosm of the world as a whole in comprising both oil-producing and oil-consuming regions. But the strength of our federation has enabled us to avoid massive increases in oil prices. Such increases would have had disruptive effects on the level of output and employment as well as accelerating the rate of inflation. The agreement negotiated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with the provincial premiers on March 29 with regard to the price of oil, the export tax and the subsidy to eastern consumers struck a reasonable compromise and strengthened our national unity and purpose. We kept within bounds the increase in the price of oil to Canadian consumers. At the same time, substantial benefits are flowing to the oil-producing companies and the provinces in which they operate to encourage the development of new sources of supply.
In my last budget, I predicted that in 1973 the real growth of the economy would amount to 7 per cent. This was derided by the opposition as wildly optimistic. In fact, we achieved 7.1 per cent, the largest increase in 17 years and, Japan aside, the highest in the industrial world. My first priority has been the creation of permanent satisfying jobs for our rapidly growing labour force, to ensure that those who want work and need work can find it. In 1973, there were 430,000 more Canadians at work than a year earlier. The expansion in employment was 5.2 per cent, a record achievement for Canada by a substantial margin, and the fastest rate of increase among the industrial nations.
Mr. Speaker, I take particular satisfaction from the fact that over one-third of this increase occurred in manufacturing and construction. Manufacturing employment alone rose by 111,000 or 6 per cent, after many years during which it had been almost static. Some of this achievement
[Stage Direction]
May 6, 1974
The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner
comes from good fortune. Much of it comes from the enterprise of Canadian business and the efforts of working men and women in this country. But a good deal is due to the sound economic management and budgetary policies of this government.
It is also a source of satisfaction to me that employment in the Atlantic provinces and in Quebec increased more rapidly in 1973 than in the country as a whole. The reduction of regional disparities-or better put, the growing equality of economic opportunity-has been a high priority of this government. The policies pursued by my colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) are bearing fruit. But we have always recognized that an essential condition for satisfactory growth in the less prosperous parts of this federation is sustained growth in the economy as a whole.
The growth of Canadian output and employment in the early months of 1974 has contrasted sharply with the experience of the United States. In that country, unfortunately, real output dropped at an annual rate of almost 6 per cent in the first quarter. On the other hand, in Canada the production of goods and services rose strongly in the first quarter by at least 8 per cent in annual terms over the fourth quarter of last year. This was accompanied by new job creation in the same period at 7 per cent. We are now at the limits of our physical capacity in many industries. Many products, including such critical industrial items as steel, construction materials, agricultural implements, machinery and chemicals, are in short supply.
Despite the record growth of our labour force, the rate of unemployment has been brought down to 5V4 per cent. I know that this is higher than at times in the past when the economy was operating at peak levels. It is certainly at a higher level than I would like to see. The fact remains, however, that the labour market is generally tight across the country, with many jobs remaining unfilled for lack of qualified workers.
Looking to the future, Mr. Speaker, I forecast that real output in 1974 will be 5 per cent higher than in 1973, assuming always that we are not plagued by serious strikes and adverse weather at home, or crises abroad. Given the fact that there is no significant amount of slack to take up, this is about as much as we are physically able to do this year. The most dynamic element of demand is now business investment. The recent survey of investment intentions indicated that business is planning to raise capital investment this year by 19 per cent, manufacturing investment by 28 per cent. These increases are on top of the substantial gains of last year. New capacity is already coming on stream to relieve shortages and to create new jobs, and this will gain momentum as the year goes on.
Consumers will be stepping up the volume of their buying as fast as the economy expands. Net farm income, which rose by 89 per cent last year, is headed for another buoyant year. Exports will grow less rapidly this year because of the international oil crisis and the slowdown in world growth. Housing starts reached a record level of
269,000	last year, well in excess of the rate of family formation. So far this year, starts are running at still higher levels but this rate may prove unsustainable in the

face of the shortage of supply of labour, materials and especially of serviced land.
I expect that on top of the massive increase of 430,000 jobs in 1973, we will have a further increase in 1974 in excess of 300,000.
[Stage Direction]
The Issue of Inflation
I turn now to the issue of inflation. We all know the harsh facts. The consumer price index rose by 7.6 per cent in 1973 and by 10.4 per cent in the 12 months ending March, 1974.
I have stressed that the inflation is world-wide in origin with the major source of upward pressure being the explosive upsurge of prices of agricultural and industrial commodities in international markets, as a result of rising demands and limited supplies. Since mid-1972, international commodity prices have doubled. The increase in the price of oil, which quadrupled, is only the most spectacular example of the general problem. Other commodities which have more than doubled in price during the past two years include wheat, barley, corn, soybeans, coffee, cocoa, sugar, hogs, rubber, tin, copper, zinc and lead. Only recently have they shown any tendency to peak or turn down. All countries have been affected, most to a greater extent than Canada because they have been less able to protect themselves against the rise in oil prices. According to the latest figures available to me, in the 12-month period ending February, the cost of living rose by 12 per cent in the OECD countries as a whole. It was up by 26 per cent in Japan, 13 per cent in Australia, Italy and the United Kingdom, 11 Vi per cent in France and 10 per cent in the United States. For Canada the comparable figure was 9.6 per cent.
In our fight against inflation. I have rejected two possible approaches. One is the deflation of demand by severe measures of fiscal and monetary restraint. The effect of this would be stagnation and rising unemployment. In my judgment, such a cure would be worse than the disease. [English]
The second approach, urged upon us by the official Opposition, is to impose a general system of price and wage controls. This would be totally ineffective in overcoming the kind of inflationary problem we have been and are still facing. What we need, still, is not controls but an increase in supply. The United States, Britain and other countries have found to their frustration that controls disrupt supply. In these countries the enthusiasm of even the strongest supporters of controls has been cooled by the hard realities of their recent experience. I am not saying that general controls over prices and incomes would be a cure worse than the disease. I am saying that in the present circumstances where the prime causes of inflation are shortages of supply, controls are no cure at all.
A variant of the general controls advocated by opposition members is selective controls reinforced by a two-price system for those internationally-traded commodities of which Canada is an important producer. This approach would have us control the prices for these commodities in Canada while leaving their export prices free to rise to world levels. Quite clearly, such a system would lead quickly to the drying up of supplies in Canada unless
May 6, 1974
[Stage Direction]
backed up by a battery of export controls. This would not only jeopardize markets we have built up at great effort over many years but it would invite retaliation through imposition of controls on imported goods we require. For Canada, so dependent on trade, to lead the world into this kind of protectionism would be the height of folly.
Mr. Speaker, this government has not reached for the bludgeon of deflation or for the illusory magic of controls. We have not played either draconian or cosmetic politics with the Canadian people.
In my view, what we have to do is this. First, we have to keep this economy rolling ahead and pouring out the goods and services our people need. Second, we have to reduce the strains reflected in particular market prices where this can be done in a practical way without harmful side effects. Third, we must help those Canadians least able to protect themselves from the hardships of inflation. My purpose tonight is to propose policies and measures which will round out and reinforce all three facets of this strategy.
Fiscal and Monetary Policy
The development of this strategy must be carried out within the framework of an over-all monetary and fiscal policy. Let me therefore explain here my views of the kind of framework we need.
The forecast I have given earlier tonight anticipates that demand in the economy will expand in line with our capacity to produce. In terms of the total demand required to keep the supply of goods flowing at capacity rates, we are on the right course now. We do not require additional stimulus. Neither do we need any severe contraction of demand. I agree with the Governor of the Bank of Canada that the rate of monetary expansion should now be moderated to the pace just sufficient to sustain continuing growth at the levels of our physical capacity. Rates of interest are painfully high, but the way to bring them down is to slow the rate of inflation. This will take time. Meanwhile, I expect the banks to continue to give preference in their lending to small businesses, mortgage finance for housing, and borrowers in the less favoured regions of the country.
On the fiscal side, what is required is that we hold our cash requirements, excluding foreign exchange, to much the same effective level as last year. Given our programs of government lending, this implies a reduction in the budgetary deficit and in the deficit computed on the national accounts basis. In the absence of new policy initiatives, my fiscal forecast indicates broadly this result. In choosing tonight's measures to extend our specific policy thrusts against inflation, I have therefore had to find additional revenues to pay for the costs of new initiatives.

[Stage Direction]
I propose to find those revenues in ways that hurt least, and I propose to apply them to help people most in need. This must be done without damaging the over-all thrust of the government's budgetary policy. Clearly, additional revenues cannot be obtained without imposing a burden somewhere. I have selected measures which will give us the revenue required, but which will not in my judgment
The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner contribute to price increases on essential goods or impede the expansion of supply.
Petroleum and Mining Corporations
The major revenue-raising measures are in the field of corporation taxes. The most important of these relates to the taxation of the petroleum and mining industries.
In the tax reform of 1971 a new regime was established for the taxation of these industries. Since then there have been dramatic changes in the world and in Canada affecting the fortunes of these industries. For one, with respect to oil, I do not have to recall the phenomenal price increases and their potential for profit during the past year. The response of governments around the world has been to review their taxation policies and to strike a new balance appropriate to these changed circumstances. In mining, less dramatic but major price increases have occurred due to shortages and inflationary expectations. Here too, a re-examination of tax regimes is called for.
In Canada our provinces have adjusted royalties, mining taxes and other arrangements to derive what they perceive to be a fair share for the benefit of their people. However, a provincial resource is also a national resource, and the federal government has a responsibility to see that a reasonable portion of this gain is shared by all Canadians. In these circumstances, the federal government has had to reassess its over-all taxation policy with respect to this key sector of the economy. In doing so, we have had the following objectives in mind.
First, it is essential that this sector bears a burden of tax on profits that is reasonable relative to the share borne by other sectors of the economy. Second, it is essential to ensure that all the people of Canada derive a fair share of the substantially increased revenues that flow from the higher value placed by the world on these resources. Third, the federal government should recognize the special position of the provinces with respect to the taxation and charges on resources within their boundaries. Fourth, the federal government must ensure that provincial royalties, provincial mining taxes and other arrangements having similar effects do not unreasonably erode the corporate income tax base. Finally, over-all Canadian tax policy must have regard for the position of these industries in terms of international competition and in terms of the financial resources they require to bring forward the supplies needed in the years ahead.
Taking all these considerations into account, I have the following proposals to make for a revised regime of taxation for these industries.
First, I am proposing that the basic rate of corporation tax applicable to production profits from minerals, oil, and gas be increased to 50 per cent. Because of the gradual reduction in the corporate rate under the tax reform schedule this will mean an increase of 2 percentage points of tax for the balance of 1974, 3 points in 1975 and 4 points in 1976 and thereafter. I believe that a 50 per cent rate of corporation tax for this type of income is appropriate to the new circumstances, rather than the 46 per cent rate which otherwise would have applied by 1976.
[Stage Direction]
May 6, 1974
The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner
Second, I am proposing that revenues derived by provincial governments in respect of production from a petroleum or mineral resource should no longer be deductible in computing the income of the operator of the resource. At the same time, in recognition of the special position of the provinces in relation to natural resources, I am proposing that, effective immediately, there be an extra abatement from federal income tax in respect of taxable production income derived in Canada. The extra abatement will be 15 points in the case of mineral profits and 10 points in the case of petroleum profits. For mineral profits, the combination of the new abatement, together with the standard provincial abatement of 10 points, will reduce the effective statutory federal rate from 50 to 25 per cent. In the case of petroleum, the result will be to reduce the federal rate to 30 per cent.
The question of the provincial abatement with respect to mining income requires some elaboration. In August, 1970, at a time when the basic corporate tax rate was 50 per cent, the then minister of finance announced that commencing in 1977 the federal government would abate 15 points of corporate tax in respect of mineral production income. At the same time he indicated that commencing in 1977, provincial mineral taxes and similar payments would not be deductible for corporate tax purposes. Provincial mining royalties were not mentioned because provinces traditionally relied at that time on mining taxes to derive revenues from the industry.
Subsequently, many important changes have occurred in provincial tax policies. In particular, provinces have begun to make use of royalties of many different kinds to increase their revenues. I am not opposing this. But I am saying these developments are making it almost impossible to arrive at a meaningful distinction between mining taxes and the varying types of royalties or arrangements which have similar effects in terms of what is or is not allowed as deductions for corporate income tax purposes.
Hence, I propose that with regard to the taxation of mineral resource profits, none of these payments to provinces be recognized as deductible in determining corporate tax. I point out, moreover, that this bears not only on the federal corporation tax but also on the provincial corporation tax for those provinces for whom we collect this tax.
In respect of petroleum, the additional provincial abatement is an entirely new feature.
It is also apparent that the petroleum and mineral resource industries in Canada have reached sufficient maturity that the existing tax incentives are more generous than is needed to encourage continuing development. Accordingly, I am also proposing to cut back immediately on some of the existing incentives. Henceforth, depletion can be claimed only if it is earned and only up to an annual maximum rate of 25 per cent of production income rather than 33 Vz per cent. Canadian exploration and development expenditures have in the past been deductible immediately. If incurred in the future, they will be amortized at a rate of 30 per cent calculated on the diminishing balance basis.
Earned depletion which can presently be accumulated at the rate of $1 for every $3 of eligible exploration and development expenditure will continue. With rising resource profits, and the discontinuance of automatic

depletion, this earning of depletion will be very effective incentive for encouraging exploration. Similarly, I propose to retain the immediate deductibility of the cost of capital assets invested in a new mine or a major expansion of a mine because of the incentive it provides to new development.
I believe these proposals accomplish the objectives we have set for ourselves. Given the circumstances of the day, they establish an improved and not unreasonable position for the federal government on behalf of all the people with respect to the taxation of this sector of the economy.
I estimate that these measures will increase the federal tax liability in 1974 of the mining industry by $40 million, and that of the oil and gas sector by $410 million. For the eight provinces with whom we have collection agreements, the comparable amounts are $5 million in respect of mining and $115 million in respect of oil and gas. Ontario and Quebec, of course, collect their own corporation tax, and therefore I have not attempted to estimate any revenue increase with regard to these two provinces. [Translation]
Financial Institutions
Mr. Speaker, another major sector of the business community which has been very profitable in recent years is the financial area. This has been particularly true of the larger institutions. I have had the occasion to examine their position and I have reached several conclusions. First, the volume of business of financial institutions, and consequently their profit-ability, has increased substantially. Second, during the last decade the loss experience of these institutions generally has been less than 1 per cent and with regard to the larger institutions, the loss experience has been less than 4/10ths of 1 per cent.
In October of 1968, the then Minister of Finance changed the tax treatment of these institutions by reducing their tax-free reserves from 3 per cent to 1 Vi per cent of eligible assets. Tonight, I am proposing to reduce the level of tax-free reserves from 1 Vi per cent to 1 per cent of eligible assets for all financial institutions such as banks, trust companies, insurance companies and any others who are required to compute their reserves on this formula basis. This measure will be applicable for taxation years ending after tonight.
At the same time, I recognize that the loss experience of the smaller institutions is greater than that of the larger ones. Therefore, I am proposing that the present reserve of 1 Vi per cent be retained in respect of the first $2 billion of eligible assets and that the 1-per-cent rate apply to the excess. This new regime will yield the federal government $40 million in fiscal 1974-75. It will ensure that the large financial institutions bear their fair share of the tax burden, and yet avoid an adverse effect on the smaller institutions and a ay new institutions.
[Stage Direction]
Other Corporate Measures
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to turn to corporate tax measures of a more general nature.
Corporate profits have risen sharply in the last year or two. In part, this has been a recovery from earlier depressed levels, but companies have benefitted from the strong economy and from inventory gains enjoyed during
May 6, 1974
[Stage Direction]
a period of sharply rising prices. I have said before, and I reiterate tonight, that I welcome the improvement in the position of Canadian corporations so essential to their continued expansion and the creation of new job opportunities. At the same time, I have pointed out on several occasions, both inside and outside the House, that there is a proper balance to be struck.
Given the level of profits Canadian corporations are enjoying, it is appropriate that as a temporary measure some additional tax revenue should be obtained from such corporations. Subject to certain important exceptions which I will outline in a moment, I am therefore proposing a temporary 10 per cent surtax on federal corporate income tax for the period from May 1, 1974, to April 30, 1975. The obligation of corporations to pay monthly instalments in respect of their tax liability will be adjusted to reflect the imposition of this surtax and the other measures introduced tonight.
This surtax will not apply to small business corporations. I am attempting to do all I can to encourage the growth of small business corporations which are largely owned and controlled by Canadians.
Because of the major changes I am proposing for the taxation of mining and petroleum corporations they also would be exempt from this temporary, one-year measure in respect of their production profits.
In addition, the surtax will not apply to the profits from manufacturing and processing in Canada. I believe it is essential to maintain the reduction in the tax burden on that vitally important sector to enable it to strengthen its international competitive position. Canadian manufacturers and processors continue to be vulnerable to foreign competition as a result of the extensive use being made of the U.S. DISC tax provisions, the favourable tax treatment provided to manufacturers in other countries, and the intensified pressures they have faced from abroad more recently following the increase in our exchange rate.
The manufacturing and processing industries are not only a major source of employment directly, but they also provide a strong underpinning to the burgeoning service sector of our economy. The importance of bolstering manufacturing and processing is by no means confined to the central provinces where the greater proportion of those industries is now located. It is of equal or even greater importance to the Western and Atlantic Provinces, all of which are giving top priority to broadening the base of their economies through the large-scale development of secondary manufacturing and processing operations.
The measures which we introduced are doing exactly what they were intended to do. After years of slow growth, Canada's manufacturing and processing industries are rapidly expanding. Profits of manufacturers and processors have improved substantially, but they are being plowed back into heavy new capital investment to increase productive capacity, the supply of goods required by our expanding economy, and employment for our rapidly growing labour force. As I recalled earlier, manufacturing employment last year rose by 111,000, which was
8,000	more than the total increase in the previous six years combined. Manufacturing output rose by 8 per cent in
The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner 1973, the largest increase since 1965. Manu- facturing investment in new productive facilities rose by 19 per cent last year and this year is expected to grow by an extraordinary 28 per cent, the greatest increase in more than a decade.
Under these circumstances, and in view of the vulnerability of this sector to competition from abroad, I am convinced that it is in the national interest to maintain the reduced tax rate on manufacturing and processing profits which parliament adopted last year. Members will recall that in my last budget I indicated the companion measure implemented by order-in-council providing for a rapid two-year write-off of machinery and equipment acquired by this sector would be put in place for an initial period ending December 31, 1974. It is my intention to reassess this provision toward the end of this year when I have the benefit of the review now under way of the capital cost allowance structure and the further report on the impact of the tax measures on the manufacturing and processing companies.
Let me add a word, Mr. Speaker, about why I rejected proposals for an excess profits tax put forward by some members of the opposition. Hard, practical experience with such a system in the past has made it clear that it has major defects. In the first place, it is extremely difficult to define excess profits-as distinct from blatant profiteering-in a way that is equitable and workable. Any excess profits scheme is full of loopholes, with the result that some companies escape taxes otherwise payable. Secondly, imposition of a heavy tax on profits above some level that is defined as normal or reasonable, removes substantially the incentive of business to hold down costs and maintain or improve efficiency. The result is that instead of reducing inflationary pressures, as it is intended to do, an excess profits tax tends to increase those pressures. It is for these reasons that I rejected the idea of erecting a complex excess profits tax system and chose instead to propose a temporary, one-year surtax that is reasonable and administratively simple, but which still maintains the incentive for business to operate as efficiently as possible. [Translation]
A further measure that I am proposing tonight will ensure that corporations not only pay their fair share of taxes, but also pay it promptly. I am advancing the timing of the final payment of a corporation's tax to the end of the second month rather than the third month after the end of the corporation's fiscal period. This change in tax payment date will not apply to a small business corporation.
The effect of all these measures in the corporate income tax field is to provide a significant increase in federal tax collections in 1974-75. In the absence of the changes affecting the petroleum and mining industries, the advancing of the final payment date would have yielded $200 million. The measures affecting the resource industries would have yielded very little in 1974-75 unless the final payment date had been advanced, because in their case the payments would not have been received until the next fiscal year. But in combination with the advancing of the final payment date, I estimate that these measures will yield $400 million. The proposals regarding financial institutions are estimated to yield $40 million. The temporary
[Stage Direction]
May 6, 1974
The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner
10-per-cent surtax is estimated to yield $150 million. The combined effect of all these measures on federal corporate income tax collections this fiscal year amounts to an increase of $790 million.
Excise Taxes
Mr. Speaker, I now turn to other sources of revenue. I have already made considerable reference to the energy crisis with which we struggled this past year. All of us have become more conscious that we need to economize in our use of energy, particularly petroleum. I propose a measure which will make some contribution to this end.
Effective tonight, a special excise tax is to be introduced on high-energy consuming passenger cars and other types of energy-consuming vehicles. This will include large, heavy cars, high-powered motorcycles, privately-owned aircraft and large power boats. The tax will yield the federal government an additional $10 million of revenue in 1974-75.
I have stressed that one of my requirements in this budget is to raise in revenues an amount at least equivalent to the tax reductions I will propose shortly. It seems to me that an increase in the tax levied on liquor and tobacco is an appropriate source to look to for some increase in revenues. Specifically, the proposed changes, which come into effect tonight, will raise federal levies on cigarettes, cigars, tobacco, spirits other than beer, and wine other than cider, by approximately 15 per cent. This measure will yield the federal government an additional $100 million of revenues in fiscal 1974-75.
These increases would be implemented by a number of measures, details of which will be found in the Ways and Means Motion.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker, I have explained that the fiscal framework needed for this period is one that maintains about the same level of cash requirements as last year. I have described how I propose to raise additional revenues. I now wish to outline how these revenues might be applied within such a framework to finance measures which best round out and reinforce our policies to deal with inflation. Measures to Increase Supply
The first element in our strategy against inflation has been and continues to be the expansion of supply. The central features of that policy have been in place for some time. Our fiscal and monetary policies have been designed to bring the economy up to full capacity growth. We have taken measures to increase the capability of the economy to produce efficiently the goods and services which are needed. This not only increases our production capacity, but it also creates remunerative and satisfying jobs, relieves shortages and reduces costs. The reduction of taxes on manufacturing and processing is clearly bringing about just such a massive increase in capacity.
Further, as part of the agreements reached with respect to oil, the governments of the producing provinces will channel substantial funds into the encouragement of exploration and development. The National Petroleum Corporation will serve the same objectives. In facing the growing need for electrical energy, we have announced a

major program of federal aid for inter-regional transmission lines. We are also well-launched on a nation-wide policy of support for nuclear power plants, utilizing the highly successful Candu reactor, developed by Canadian science and technology under the aegis of the federal government.
Wide-ranging measures have already been taken to assist and encourage farmers and fishermen, with assurances that they will be able to market their increased production at fair prices. In this regard the government will undertake further major financial commitments under new farm stabilization measures to be introduced shortly and, of course, the House has just recently approved important measures to increase the effectiveness of the Farm and Fisheries Improvement Acts.
My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), will also be introducing extensions to the Farm Credit Act to enlarge the flow of capital investment in food production. One amendment will increase the total amount of federal loans available for expansion and improvement of agricultural output to well over $2 billion. Moreover, special provisions will be proposed to make it easier for young farmers to purchase farms and get into the business on their own. Last year total lending activity by the Farm Credit Corporation more than doubled to some $400 million in loan approvals. For this fiscal year, the corporation's capital budget will jump again to well over $500 million.
Later, when I deal with tax reform, I shall be proposing an important measure of relief for small businesses to encourage them to contribute further to the increase in supply.
The over-all fiscal and monetary policy proposed in this budget, by providing for adequate over-all demand, will ensure that new output of goods and services will flow on to the market in as abundant a volume as the economy is capable of producing.
Measures to Hold Down Particular Prices
The second element in the strategy against inflation is to dampen down the prices of particular products where this is feasible. Here, the government has already adopted a number of measures. The most important of these has been the holding down of domestic oil prices to about 55 per cent of the international monopoly price. Subsidies have also been provided on bread and milk to help all Canadian consumers. The Food Prices Review Board has been focusing public attention on pricing and marketing practices in problem areas. Powers are being sought to enable the government to deal with particular cases of profiteering. In my last budget, I eliminated the sales tax on children's clothing, all remaining food items and nonalcoholic beverages, and certain other products. Tariffs were also reduced on a wide range of consumer goods.
Tonight I propose to remove the sales tax on all clothing and footwear. Clothing and footwear account for a significant proportion of the budgets of most families and this action should significantly reduce the prices of these products. This measure will affect about $5 billion in family
May 6, 1974
[Stage Direction]
expenditures annually. It will save consumers directly $280 million in taxes this year, and on top of this the substantial markups on these taxes which result from the normal business practice of calculating percentage markups on tax-paid costs.
Let me say to the business community-and to wholesalers and retailers particularly-that the purpose of this measure is to help the people of this country by reducing prices. I am confident that in most cases these benefits will be passed on to the consumer. However, I intend to ask my colleague, the Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) to monitor prices of clothing and footwear and to report his findings to me. If these tax cuts do not get reflected in prices, then I undertake to recommend that the government take action, in one way or another, to ensure that the consumer does gain and that others are not allowed to appropriate the benefits.
Complementing the tax increases I announced earlier on high-energy consuming vehicles, I propose to remove the sales tax on buses and other public passenger transportation equipment purchased by local governments. This will provide important assistance to municipalities in supplying more effective transit systems to reduce reliance on the private car, reduce total energy consumption and abate pollution.
Further in the sales tax field, I propose to abolish the tax on bicycles. The advantage of this will be self-evident to Canadians in large numbers who are adopting this popular and healthful form of recreation.
Tariff Changes
In last year's budget there was a reduction in customs duties for a one-year period on a broad range of consumer goods. These reductions affected trade valued at about $1.6 billion in 1973. There is before the House Bill C-21 which, if implemented, would continue most of these temporary reductions until June 30, 1974. Given the delay in proceeding with the GATT negotiations, I am now proposing that except for one item only, these reductions should be extended until December 31, 1974.
Exchange Rate
Some further relief on our price structure is resulting from the rise of the exchange rate on the Canadian dollar, which stems from the good over-all performance of the Canadian economy and world confidence in our future. The government has not sought to bring this appreciation about; it has resulted from the underlying forces at work in the exchange market and we have intervened in this market only to maintain orderly conditions. We will continue to be concerned that the competitive position of our industry is not impaired. However, there can be no question that the appreciation that has taken place is providing some relief in moderating the increase in the cost of living. Housing
An important aspect of the recent inflationary experience in Canada has been its impact on the cost of housing and the ability of the average Canadian, particularly young people and people of modest income, to meet their housing needs. The government has put in place a number of important programs and measures to ease both supply and cost aspects of the problem. These measures are reflected in the expansion of the budget of Central Mortgage
The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner and Housing Corporation to $1.2 billion per year. Special assistance to low-income families has reduced the net cost of their mortgage financing. Indeed, in cases of demonstrated need, the amount of the assisted home ownership grant is such as to reduce the effective rate of interest paid to almost 6 per cent. The programs to assist municipalities with land development and servicing have also been extended and improved to speed up the whole process of bringing additional serviced land onto the market.
Tonight I wish to announce several further measures to improve the housing situation. Before doing so I should refer to certain popular suggestions in this regard, specifically the cancellation of the sales tax on building materials, subsidized interest rates, and the deductibility of mortgage interest for tax purposes. Apart from problems of cost and inequity in these suggestions, in the present environment of a sellers' market they all suffer from the fatal defect of overstimulating demand, raising prices, and providing benefits which are almost certain to be captured by builders and sellers. In contrast, my objective is to help home buyers by the following proposals.
First, one tax factor which may be holding back the flow of land for housing is that a taxpayer, personal or corporate, may claim against other income the carrying charges on land which is being held for future development. This sheltering of other income has lowered the financial cost of carrying undeveloped land and, therefore, reduced the pressure for early use.
I am proposing that the carrying costs on land awaiting development may not be charged against other income but be taken into account only as the land is sold. This new rule for carrying charges would not apply to land which is being held primarily to earn rental income in the year, or to land which is used in the course of carrying on a business other than a real estate business. This measure, which is estimated to yield the federal government about $10 million this year, will assist in bringing land for housing onto the market more quickly.
Second, I propose to remove the sales tax on a range of construction equipment including excavation and earth-moving equipment, tower and climbing cranes, air compressors and pumps, equipment for preparing and spreading concrete and asphlat, and several other categories of goods used in the construction industry. The effect of this measure will be to exempt from sales tax all major classes of construction equipment purchased by contractors and local governments.
Third, to provide assistance to municipalities which are also struggling with the housing problem, I propose to abolish the federal sales tax on articles and materials purchased by local governments for use in the construction of water distribution systems.
The foregoing two measures will reduce costs by $50 million directly in a full year, and by a further considerable amount through indirect effects.
Fourth, together with my colleague, the Minister of State for Housing and Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) I propose to take steps to assure the fullest possible allocation of mortgage funds to lower-cost housing. In addition to the use of the mortgage insurance provisions of the
[Stage Direction]
May 6, 1974
The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner
National Housing Act, we propose to enlist the support of the principal lenders and the private mortgage insurance corporations to adjust down payment requirements in such a way as to confine high-ratio loans to middle and lower-priced housing.
My last and most important measure in this field will greatly ease the formidable difficulties facing our young people in accumulating the savings required for a down payment on a home and its initial furnishing.
All taxpayers over the age of 18 who do not own a home will be able to contribute up to $1,000 a year, to a maximum lifetime amount of $10,000, to a registered home ownership savings plan, and these contributions will be deductible for income tax purposes. The income earned by the plan will bear no tax and the proceeds of the plan will be exempt from income tax if they are applied as a down payment for the purchase of a house and furnishing it at the time of first occupancy. This measure applies not only to urban homes but to purchases of farm homes. The mechanics of this new plan are detailed in the ways and means motion, but in large measure it will operate in much the same manner as the existing registered retirement savings plan.
I am sure that the introduction of this innovative program will encourage savings and make it easier for Canadians to acquire homes. Together with the steps to be taken in respect of down payments, this proposal should help to reduce current speculative pressures on housing prices. It is difficult to measure the cost of this new measure. But no doubt as it develops and Canadians become aware of its real value, the registered home ownership savings plan will become a source of significant tax savings to many Canadians and particularly young people. [Translation]
Easing the Burdens of Inflation
The third element of the government's strategy against inflation is to ease the burdens on those Canadians who are most vulnerable. We have fully indexed old age security pensions, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada Pension Plan. We have indexed government pensions and facilitated the indexing of private pensions. As for family allowances, not only have they been very substantially increased, but we have ensured that their real value will be maintained. The federal minimum wage has also been progressively increased. My last budget included a very substantial cut in personal income taxes of particular benefit to the lower income groups, and provided for the indexing of the personal income tax system.
Tonight, I shall be proposing a wide range of measures which will further alleviate the impact of inflation on all Canadians, particularly those of more modest incomes.
First, under the personal income tax, members will recall that just last year I introduced a measure to give all taxpayers a tax reduction in the form of a 5 per cent credit against federal tax payable, with a minimum credit of $100 and a maximum credit of $500. I intend not only to maintain this substantial tax reduction but to augment it for the lower income groups. This will be accomplished by increasing the minimum credit from $100 to $150, effective January 1, 1974.

This change means lower taxes for everyone up to the $13,000 to $14,000 income range, and its benefits are concentrated among income-earners receiving less than $10,000. For example, a married taxpayer with two children and earning $6,000 will have his total tax reduced to $269 from $329 or 15 per cent. This tax cut removes at least
300,000	Canadians from the federal tax rolls.
The tax reduction tables will be adjusted as of July 1, 1974, so as to give the full benefit of this measure in the second half of this year, it will reduce personal taxes in fiscal year 1974-75 by some $440 million.
Members will be aware, of course, that as a result of the tax reform the rate of tax under the first $500 of taxable income will also be reduced this year from 15 per cent to 12 per cent. Even more important is the continuing benefit which all taxpayers are now enjoying as a result of the indexation of the personal income tax. The effect of this new system was to increase exemptions and raise tax brackets by 6.6 per cent for this year-and to remove a further 175,000 citizens from federal tax rolls. Under this automatic plan to relieve the burden of inflation on all taxpayers there will be a further adjustment next year to fully reflect the increase in the consumer price index currently taking place.
[Stage Direction]
In our overriding concern with the fight against inflation we must not overlook the needs of those less fortunate Canadians handicapped by illness and other disabilities. In this regard we will, by regulation, broaden considerably the list of expenditures that qualify as medical expenses for tax purposes. This broader list will now include the cost of such items as heart monitoring devices, orthopaedic shoes and boots, a hospital bed required in a home, and walking aids required by crippled persons.
Moreover, I propose a change which will aid those Canadians who are confined for extensive periods of the day to beds and wheelchairs or who are so confined for periods longer than 12 months. This will permit these people to qualify for the additional $1,000 deduction now available to permanently disabled and blind persons. At present, in order to get the deduction of $1,000 per year, a person must have been confined to a bed or wheelchair throughout the taxation year. This provision will be amended in two ways. The time period will be changed to cover situations where a person has been confined for any 12-month period which ended in the year. The second change will ensure that even if a person is up and about for periods during the day, he will not be deprived of the deduction. This amendment recognizes that it is often in the best interest of the patient, whenever he can, to get out of bed or wheelchair.
I would also like to announce that my colleague, the Minister of Veterans' Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) will introduce legislation to provide further help for needy veterans, their survivors and their dependents in meeting increased costs. Effective from last October, the income ceilings applied to the war veterans' allowances and civilian war allowances will be increased by 5.3 per cent and escalated quarterly thereafter, in line with increases in the consumer price index. The pensions will be raised by the same dollar amount as the increase in the ceiling. These changes preserve the relationship between veterans'
May 6, 1974
[Stage Direction]
allowances and old age pensions. From April 1, 1974, the rate paid for orphans' allowances will be raised to $125 per month for each orphan, and escalated annually in line with the formula for family allowances. A new allowance for dependent children of needy veterans will be provided and the qualifying age for the allowances now paid on behalf of a child or to an orphan, as long as that child or orphan continues his education, will be extended to 25 years. These changes will cost an additional $10 million in 1974-75.

[Stage Direction]
One of the most pervasive aspects of inflation is its eroding effect on the real value of people's savings. This budget includes two major measures to relieve this effect. The first measure recognizes that the increases in interest rates which have taken place, although substantial, do not offset the decline in the real value of people's savings when they are invested in interest-earning securities, particularly after tax. I therefore propose that, effective from January 1, 1974, the first $1,000 interest income from securities such as bank and trust company deposits, mortgages, Canada Savings Bonds and other bonds be deductible in computing the taxable income of individuals. The precise details will be found in the ways and means motion.
I am proposing a limit of $1,000 per year because I want to help the average person; I have no intention of allowing the wealthy members of our society to avoid paying their fair share of the tax burden. I believe that this proposal will be a very considerable incentive for average Canadians to save. This measure will reduce personal taxes by about $270 million in 1974.
The second measure concerns a particular debt obligation of the federal government which is the instrument through which nearly two million Canadians accumulate savings. I refer to Canada Savings Bonds. Nearly $10.5 billion of these bonds are outstanding and the interest yield does not now reflect current interest rates. In order to raise the average effective yield to maturity to 9 per cent, I propose to provide cash bonuses to the holders of these bonds. More specifically, bonds maturing before November 1, 1979, will receive one bonus, at their maturity. Bonds maturing after November 1, 1979, will receive two cash bonuses; an interim bonus on November 1, 1979, and a final bonus at the date of their maturity.
For example, the holder of a $1,000 Canada Savings Bond of the 1967-68 series will receive a first cash bonus of $220 in 1979 and a second cash bonus of $30 at maturity in 1980.
In all cases these bonuses, which will have the effect of raising the yield to maturity to 9 per cent, will be taxed at the lower effective rates applicable to capital gains. All other features of the Canada Savings Bonds, including their encashability on demand and the compounding of interest, will remain unchanged. The current issue of Canada Savings Bonds, which is still on sale, will of course carry the two bonus payments. Savers who may wish to acquire this bond will know that the return to maturity on it will be 9 per cent. Action is under way to
The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner inform holders of Canada Savings Bonds of the steps to be taken in order to obtain these benefits.
Among the many Canadians who save through interest-earning investments and who will benefit from these two measures, a large proportion are older, retired people who depend upon interest earnings from lifetime savings for a substantial portion of their income. These people who have saved for themselves should be given every encouragement.
As a final proposal affecting the savings of Canadians, I wish to broaden an important existing incentive for retirement saving. As members of this House are aware, registered retirement savings plans provide for postponing of tax, up to limits, in the savings accumulated for retirement. They have become a major vehicle by which Canadians anticipate their needs for income in the years after they stop working. I have felt that we should be more accommodating in allowing a taxpayer to make provision for his or her spouse through such retirement plans. I therefore propose to allow a taxpayer to contribute to a registered retirement savings plan for the benefit of his or her spouse to the extent that the taxpayer does not use the available deductions for his own plan. This measure will allow, for instance, a husband to forego contributing to his own registered retirement savings plan and to contribute instead to a plan for his wife who carries the burden of household and family duties. It will provide the same opportunity for a wife who is the income earner for the family and who is entitled to contribute to a registered retirement savings plan.
[Stage Direction]
Tax Reform
I would like to take a few moments to speak about the continuing process of tax reform. One of my first priorities has been to see that the income tax legislation is improved as experience is gained in its application. As will be shown by the length of the Ways and Means Motions which I will be tabling tonight, this has not proven to be a small task. Nevertheless, it is a task we must face if the tax system is to work well, and fairly, in today's society. The amendments being proposed reflect experience gained in the application of the new tax provisions and many useful suggestions from the public.
One of my main concerns has been with the application of tax laws to corporate reorganizations. If we are to have vital and efficient corporations, it is important that the tax system not discourage reorganization intended to help our corporations to become more efficient and to adapt to the changing needs of a competitive society. During the past year, I have conducted an indepth review of the relevant provisions and have concluded that some changes are required. I am proposing that where it is evident that corporate changes are taking place for legitimate business purposes and not to avoid tax, the existing rules should be relaxed.
With the advent of tax reform in 1972, several new rules were introduced to permit certain types of pre-1972 corporate surpluses to be distributed tax-free to shareholders. A number of corporations are still having difficulty complying with the technical details of these rules. I am therefore introducing amendments tonight further to simplify these
[Stage Direction]
May 6, 1974
The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner
rules and remove hardships which might otherwise have been caused by a misunderstanding of the law.
It has also come to my attention that the tax system does not apply fairly where property has been expropriated, lost or destroyed. Quite often a taxpayer may be faced with a significant tax liability long before a settlement has been agreed upon and funds are available. This seems quite unfair, and I am introducing a relieving amendment which will ensure that under such circumstances no tax is payable until the compensation has been finally determined.
I am proposing several amendments, essentially of a relieving nature, relating to the taxation of partnerships. These new rules will make it easier for partners to withdraw from partnerships, either for purposes of retirement or to accept employment outside the partnership.
Another area of tax reform which has been the subject matter of considerable controversy has been the taxation of foreign-source income. I have important changes to announce tonight with respect to the passive income rules. These rules were introduced as part of tax reform in 1971 to protect against the diversion of income that would otherwise be taxable in Canada.
The law in this area was new and inevitably complex. Its application was postponed to 1975 to enable the government to re-examine the law in light of representations. The proposed changes improve our protection against the improper use of tax havens to avoid Canadian tax on passive investment income and on income diverted from Canada. At the same time, the changes remove from the scope of these rules the income Canadians derive from their active business operations abroad. In addition, the rules will apply only to those offshore corporations and trusts that are controlled by Canadian taxpayers, and not, as at present, where there may simply be some equity interest. Canada's fiscal climate must remain hospitable to the Canadian company that competes internationally with the large multinational companies of other countries. The changes proposed in this area of the law are designed to ensure that this principle is not compromised.
Another matter which I wish to mention concerns the protection of Canada's cultural heritage. Earlier this year, my colleague, the Secretary of State, announced measures to control the export from this country of objects which are significant to Canada as cultural, artistic, historical or scientific treasures. As part of the bill which the Secretary of State will, in due course, introduce to this House, certain amendments will be made to the Income Tax Act which will create an incentive to the owners of such treasures to keep them in Canada.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce a most important change related to the existing tax system. All of us realize that the strength of our economy rests to a large measure on the efforts of our smaller independent businessmen. They provide a constant source of innovative and dynamic enterprise in our country, and play a crucial role in maintaining domestic ownership.
Members will recall that at the time of tax reform, special provision was made whereby the first $50,000 per year of business income of a Canadian controlled private corporation would be taxed at a special low rate until the

corporation has earned $400,000. In order to provide further stimulus for this vital sector of our economy, I am proposing that effective immediately, the cumulative limit of earnings be raised from $400,000 to $500,000 and furthermore that the annual amount of business income that can qualify for the low rate of tax be increased from $50,000 to $100,000.
[Stage Direction]
Further Tariff Changes * [DOT]
In view of the forthcoming multilateral trade negotiations-the Tokyo Round-I am proposing only a few amendments to the Customs Tariff at this time. Many of the requests we have received for tariff changes will have to be considered in the course of the negotiations.
One amendment worth special mention involves removal of the duty on handicraft products imported from developing countries. Selected handicrafts produced in countries entitled to the benefits of the General Preferential Tariff will be allowed duty-free entry under this new provision.
One other measure is of considerable importance. I refer to the so-called tourist allowance. I propose to liberalize the provisions in the Customs Tariff under which goods brought back by Canadian residents on their return from trips abroad are exempt from duties and taxes. The quarterly exemption available after an absence of 48 hours will be doubled to $50 from $25. The annual exemption, now available after an absence from Canada of 12 days or more, will be increased to $150 from $100. Moreover, the minimum period of absence required to qualify for the annual exemption will be reduced from 12 days to 7 days. And I should mention that the Minister of National Revenue has recently directed that the administrative requirements at the border for those claiming the quarterly exemption should be materially eased.
These changes will be of considerable benefit to the large and rapidly increasing number of Canadians who travel outside Canada.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker, may I now briefly sum up the financial position of the government, taking tonight's proposals into account. I estimate that the cash requirements of the government in 1974-75 will be of the order of $2 billion, excluding foreign exchange requirements. Having in mind that certain substantial payments, such as the loans to the CNR and Air Canada under the Financing and Guarantee Act and other expenditure items, were scheduled to be disbursed in the last fiscal year, but were not actually made until this year, this figure of $2 billion is for practical purposes not different from that for 1973-74. The budgetary deficit for 1974-75 will be somewhat lower than in the previous fiscal year. On a national accounts basis, the deficit of $500 million which we experienced in 1973-74 will be reduced by more than half in the current year.
I must remind hon. members that these figures are estimates. The actual outcome of the financial accounts will reflect the decisions of this House respecting legisla-
May 6, 1974
[Stage Direction]
tion now before it and which will come before it in the course of the fiscal year.
With the permission of the House I should like now to include in today's Hansard supplementary tables showing estimates of Government of Canada cash requirements, details of the budgetary revenues, federal government revenues and expenditures on a national accounts basis and reconciliations of these figures with those compiled on a public accounts basis. The information in these tables applies to the fiscal years 1973-74 and 1974-75.
I should also like to table, with the consent of the House, several notices of ways and means motions setting out the changes I have proposed tonight and I would ask that they be printed in the notice paper appended to Votes and Proceedings.
Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


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


GOVERNMENT OF CANADA FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
[Stage Direction]
1973-74 Preliminary Actual*1'	1974-75 Forecast1**>
(Millions of dollars)		
Budgetary Transactions- Revenues	
Expenditures	
Surplus (+) or Deficit (-)	19,000 -20,000 - 1,000	23,950 -24,400 - 450Net Non-Budgetary Transactions- Excluding Foreign Exchange Transactions	- 675	- 1,550Total Financial Requirements- Excluding Foreign Exchange Transactions	- 1,675	- 2,000Foreign Exchange Transactions(3)	297	- 368Total Financial Requirements- Including Foreign Exchange Transactions.	- 1,378	- 2,368
"'Numbers in this column are subject to revision pending closing the accounts for the fiscal year. However, the numbers for total financial requirements whether including or excluding foreign exchange transactions are subject to only minor adjustments.
*-!Number- in this column should be interpreted as mid-points of ranges of estimates.
<s)The amount which is shown for financial requirements arising from foreign exchange transactions in fiscal year 1974-75 reflects the transactions which occurred in April.
The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner

[Stage Direction]
1973-74	1974-75
Preliminary Actual*1'	Forecast*7'
(Millions of dollars)
Personal Income Tax	
7,915	9,500Corporation Income Tax	
3,185	4,610Non-Resident Tax	
325	340Estate Tax	
15	-Customs Duties	
1,375	1,520Sales Tax	
2,625	2,640Oil Export Tax	
300	1,740Other Duties and Taxes	
1,080	1,250Total Tax Revenues	
16,820	21,600Non-Tax Revenues	
2,180	2,350Total Budgetary Revenues	
19,000	23,950
O'Numbers in this column are subject to revisions pending closing the accounts for the fiscal year.
(2>Numbers in this column should be interpreted as mid-points of ranges of estimates.

[Stage Direction]
1973-74	1974-75
Forecast*1' Forecast*1'
(Millions of dollars)
Revenues-
Direct Taxes, Persons	
10,950	13,405Direct Taxes, Corporations	
3,520	4,860Direct Taxes, Non-Residents	
325	350Indirect Taxes	
6,475	8,095Other Current Transfers from Persons...	5	5Investment Income	
1,850	2,095Capital Consumption Allowances	
300	330Total Revenues	
23,425	29,140
Expenditures-
Current Goods and Services	
6,250	7,025(Non-Defence)	
(3,950)	(4,575)(Defence)	
(2,300)	(2,450)Transfer Payments to Persons	
7,540	9,215Subsidies	
1,025	2,335Capital Assistance	
235	210Current Transfers to Non-Residents	
305	410Interest on the Public Debt	
2,600	2,960Transfers to Provinces	
5,080	6,150Transfers to Local Governments	
110	120Gross Capital Formation	
780	875Total Expenditures	
23,925	29,300Surplus (+) or Deficit (-)	
-500	- 160
'"Numbers in these columns should be interpreted as mid-points of ranges of estimates.
[Stage Direction]
May 6, 1974
The Budget-Hon. John N. Turner

[Stage Direction]
1973-74	1974-75
Forecast*11 Forecast*11
(Millions of dollars)
Budgetary Revenues	  19,000	23,950
Deduct
Post Office Revenues and Deficit	
-590	-690Deficit of Government Business Enterprises*21	
-120	-120
Excess of Accruals (4-) over Collections (-)
Corporate Income Tax	
115	-35Oil Export Tax	
225	-60
Add
Government Pensions and Social Security
Receipts*31	
4,850	5,880Capital Consumption Allowance	
300	330Miscellaneous Adjustments*11	
-355	-115Total Revenues, National Accounts Basis, ,..	23,425	29,140
(11 Numbers in these columns should be interpreted as mid-points of ranges of estimates.
*2)In the Public Accounts, deficits of government business enterprises are a charge to budgetary expenditures whereas in the National Accounts, these deficits are deducted from remitted profits of other government business enterprises.
*3>In the Public Accounts, the government pensions and social security receipts and benefits are treated as non-budgetary transactions whereas in the National Accounts, these transactions are reflected in the determination of government revenue and expenditure.
(,1These miscellaneous adjustments arise as a result of conceptual differences between the two forms of presentation. These items represent, for example, the proceeds from the sales of existing capital assets; budgetary revenue items offset against budgetary expenditures; imputed items; and, an adjustment for the treatment pf revenue in the supplementary period.

[Stage Direction]
1973-74	1974-75
Forecast*11 Forecast*11
(Millions of dollars)
Budgetary Expenditures	 20,000	24,400
Deduct
Transfers to Funds and Agencies*21	
-1,860	-1,880Post Office Expenditures	
- 590	- 690Deficit of Government Business Enterprises*31	
- 120	- 120
Add
Expenditures of Funds and Agencies*21...	785	1,030
Government Pensions and Social Security
Benefits*11	
5,545	6,375Capital Consumption Allowance	
300	3301973-74	1974-75Forecast^	Forecast(l)(Millions of dollars)	Miscellaneous Adjustments(6)	- 135	- 145Total Expenditures, National Accounts Basis.	23,925	29,300
*0 Numbers in these columns should be interpreted as mid-points of ranges of estimates.
*21In the National Accounts, budgetary appropriations to various funds and agencies are replaced by the expenditure actually made by these funds and agencies.
*31In the Public Accounts, deficits of government business enterprises are a charge to budgetary expenditures whereas in the National Accounts, these deficits are deducted from remitted profits of other government business enterprises.
(11In the Public Accounts, the government pensions and social security receipts and benefits are treated as non-budgetary transactions whereas in the National Accounts, these transactions are reflected in the determination of government revenue and expenditure.
161 As in the case of revenues, the miscellaneous adjustments arise as a result of conceptual differences between the two forms of presentation. These items represent, for example, reserves and write-offs; purchase of existing capital assets; budgetary revenue items offset against budgetary expenditure; expenditures of reserve accounts and revolving funds; imputed items; and, an adjustment for the treatment of expenditures in the supplementary period.
John Napier Turner: In conclusion Mr. Speaker, the budget I have brought down tonight is a fiscally responsible budget. It is an equitable budget, aimed at raising revenue where it hurts least, distributing it where it helps most. It is an economically sound budget which attacks the scourge of inflation at its source-the shortage of supply. It recognizes that the fundamental cure to both inflation and unemployment is to overcome the physical limits on our capacity to produce by expanding the agricultural and industrial base of the country. And this budget further extends our policies of protecting those least able to protect themselves from the ravages of inflation and of moderating price increases of a number of goods that play an important part in daily living.
I have always tried to be frank with parliament and the people. In this budget I have rejected cosmetic policies- the easy, popular course at the sacrifice of realism and of the best long-term interests of the Canadian people. I am gambling that Canadians are too smart to be taken in by gimmicks, slogans or slick jargon-that they want to know the facts, whether they are pleasant or unpleasant, and they ask only for a man's best judgment in meeting them.
This budget reflects my determination to deal with inflation. It presents a responsible fiscal and monetary policy. It recognizes the need for all governments, including this one responsible to parliament, to restrain spending. It focuses upon the pivotal issue in the economy-the physical constraints on capacity. It proposes solutions within the context of Canada's place in the markets of the world, where we are not helpless, but neither are we immune to universal price trends.
[Mr. Speaker.J
May 6, 1974

When I first faced the House as Minister of Finance, I said that no economy is working as well as it should if there are men and women earnestly seeking work who cannot find it. The scene has improved but I am still not satisfied with the results. Now that our cost of living absorbs our attention, I say that I won't be satisfied if this country merely does better than our major competitors. I do not believe that is good enough. My goals are not relative but absolute ones: to moderate our rate of inflation, to relieve the pressure of prices on incomes, on savings and on the peace of mind of Canadians.
It can be done. It will take time to do. But it will happen-partly because international commodity prices will yield, partly because this government's policies will be proven right.
I am confident that most Canadians will accept what I have been saying tonight and will support the thrust and tone of this budget. The people of this country are gifted with good common sense and an open mind. If this House can bring itself to judge my budget with the same common sense and open mind, then I am sure that the measures I have proposed will commend themselves to enough members to ensure its passage.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, if that was to be the swan song of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), it certainly was a long one. I think we must commend him for his physical endurance, and commiserate with the physical plight of the people who have had to listen to this rather long review.
The minister proposes to remove the sales tax on bicycles, but this budget demonstrates in him and his advisers the mentality of the bicycle age in dealing with modern day inflation. The minister and the government have finally come to admit that inflation is the number one problem facing this country. Last year, in February, the matter that the minister was after was unemployment. I casually looked over the motions that have been tabled by the opposition in all the budgets since 1968-the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) was then minister of finance-and they all warned of inflation.
The government, outside of that halting and bungling step taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1969, did nothing to contend with inflation, and now the savings of Canadians are being eroded to the point that they must be bribed to buy Canada Savings Bonds which are supposed to be the yardstick and as good as cash. There is a cash bonus which, incidentally, when you read the fine print is a lot more complicated than the Minister of Finance indicated, that is, it is not available until maturity. Is it not a crying shame that what the public really buys must be subject to premiums during the currency of the bond and at the end, much in the way that we have seen financial institutions operate, the government is trying to bribe investors with a turkey-or a bicycle-for the opening of the new account? This is what the minister is trying to do in order to keep Canadians buying Canada Savings Bonds.
One question the minister did not answer tonight refers to whether the minister has reserved the right to close off
The Budget-Hon. Marcel Lambert the present series of Canada Savings Bonds. When will that happen? We know that this year an investment in Canada Savings Bonds, because of inflation and the government's lack of concern for inflation, has meant a loss to individuals. Smallholders, estates, educational funds and all who depend on Canada Savings Bonds will find that because of inflation their savings have been eroded. Is it not a reflection that the past week's Bank of Canada weekly report indicated that the average rate on government long-term obligations has gone up to 8.91 per cent, in effect 9 per cent? That is what this government must pay for its money, all because it has neglected inflation shamefully.
The budget that the Minister of Finance has presented tonight contains some cosmetic proposals that sound very nice and will appeal to people superficially. Some of them have some merit-I will concede this; I think there are some good measures in this budget. But basically the minister reminded me-I have said this before-of a man who is trying to save a patient from bleeding to death simply by putting on bandaids. The minister will run out of bandaids. He is putting on a plaster here and a plaster there without going to the root source of inflation in any way.
It was very instructive to learn that the minister has rejected the idea of a comprehensive incomes policy to turn the corner of the inflationary anticipation that exists in Canada. He is prepared to do nothing, and he has ridiculed the policies put forward by this party.


An hon. Member:: What policies?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yet last Friday, when I asked the Prime Minister what was the contingency plan to deal with inflation, he said: a wages and incomes policy. Yes, there it is, when everything comes down in ruins and everything is a shambles, when this administration fails to recognize the problem of inflation, it decides that we shall have a wages and incomes policy. At the moment we are getting selective price controls; we are getting palliatives. The Minister of Finance has frankly told the Canadian people, "I am hoping that we will be able to outrun inflation. We will give you fuel and we will try to help you outrun inflation." Well, they cannot do it. In effect, the attitude of the administration is that they hope inflation will go away somehow, somewhere; that there will be an event, that someone will discover some magical formula which will relieve them of the difficult decisions that must be made with regard to inflation.
This House has been in session for over an hour and a half, and I think hon. members want to study this budget. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, there is one point that I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Finance on behalf of all members of the House. It came to my attention tonight that while members of the House were denied the contents of the budget, all that was required was for anyone to listen to radio or watch television at about 8.15 or 8.20 p.m. However, that would not have helped that brilliant member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin), because what I am saying is that a colleague of mine brought in the total of the minister's proposals by 8.20 tonight. They went out through the media-the total proposals that the minister made.

May 6, 1974
The Budget-Hon. Marcel Lambert
If it is to be the case-and this is not just idle carping- that members are denied copies of the minister's proposals, but all you have to do is listen to the radio and by 8.20 you have the total budget, while members here had to wait until 9.30 to get the minister's speech in total, then there is something wrong and I would suggest that the matter be looked into so there is no repetition. This would apply also to whoever may be minister of finance next year.
In the event that the government House leader has quit having fun and games with the continuation of this debate, and if he can indicate to us when the budget debate will resume, bearing in mind the traditions of the House and all that goes with the serious consideration of a budget, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for
Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell), the adjournment of this debate.
On motion of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) the debate was adjourned.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind what the government House leader said the other day regarding debate on the budget to be announced as late as Monday, is it late enough now for him to tell us when this debate will be resumed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In accordance with the request of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), the budget debate will commence practically immediately, which in my understanding will be tomorrow.
On motion of Mr. MacEachen the House adjourned at 9.43 p.m.

Tuesday, May 7, 1974