1975-06-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Yesterday, June 24, the Food Prices Review Board issued a report on the state of the fishing industry in which it made a number of important and urgent recommendations. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That the report of the Food Prices Review Board on fish and fish products be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED CHANGE IN RULES GOVERNING MEN'S APPAREL-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. I would move:
That we give men in this House equality in matters of dress, free them of the necessity to wear tight ties and collars, and allow them to wear bermuda shorts and thus remain cool during these days of tropical temperatures in Ottawa.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn).


Some hon. Members:: Agreed, agreed.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43, with respect to the fact that a member of the Quebec National Assembly travelled to Thailand to deliver personally, landed immigrant papers to Mr. Nguyen Tan Doi, in order to facilitate his entry into Canada, even though Doi had been charged with embezzlement in South Viet Nam and had been imprisoned in that country for 18 months. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That this matter be referred to the House Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This motion can only be debated with the unanimous consent of the House, pursuant to Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: It arises from the increased price of gasoline and the necessity to cut down government expenses. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That the Prime Minister's two $80,000 luxurious six-mile to the gallon Cadillacs be removed from service and replaced by an adequate vehicle similar to those possessed by most mere mortals-


An hon. Member:: Do you agree, Bob?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: If the trained seals will behave, I might be able to finish reading my motion. The rest of it reads:
-and, to understand the problem facing Canadians, that the Prime Minister, for a period of at least one month, be extended the privilege of paying for his own gasoline.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will be aware that it is scarcely necessary to seek unanimous consent to

June 25, 1975
Saunders Aircraft
debate these subjects. They are the subject of debate this afternoon and on the following five days.


FINANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a pressing matter of extreme importance.
As the choices to be made, as a result of the budget speech of June 23 last, will be essentially of a political nature;
As the Minister of Finance is incapable, with the present policy, to fight inflation;
As the increase in the price of natural gas and heating oil, as announced by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech, will constitute too heavy a burden for the average-income taxpayers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That a compensated discount be applied to heating oil and natural gas, with a view to enabling Canadians, whose income is less than $12,000 a year, to heat their homes in spite of the increase in prices.


Mr. Speaker:: Once again I am sorry that I have to tell the hon. member that he will have the opportunity of discussing this motion during the six-day debate on the budget.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Saunders Aircraft Corporation of Gimli, Manitoba, has been forced to discontinue operations at the production level, resulting in the lay-off of 300 workers, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) has not yet reached a decision, after two years consideration, on Saunders application under the Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce immediately reconsider Saunders' application for PAIT and all other federal programs under which Saunders may qualify.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question or two for the Minister of Finance who I had hoped would be here.


An hon. Member:: Here he is now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it is quite a while since I received that much applause from the other side of the House. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question relating to the proposed ten cent tax on gasoline. The minister did not tell us the other evening how much gasoline it was estimated this would conserve. I am sure he has this information. Can he tell us his estimate as to the approximate number of gallons of gasoline this tax will conserve as far as consumption in Canada is concerned, say for the next 12 months?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the Minister of Finance replies, I might say that the question puts the Chair in some difficulty. It has been the constant and consistent position that when a subject matter has been reserved for debate on orders of the day, that questions on that particular subject ought to be deferred until the debate is held.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: That is obviously a regulation or position which, if too rigidly enforced, would restrict questions too much. However, today and on the following five days the entire budget will be the subject of debate. It is, therefore, difficult to reconcile questions during the question period on the budget if the budget is going to be debated for six days. I do not want to unduly restrict the Leader of the Opposition in laying groundwork for the budget debate. However, we ought not to occupy the question period in its entirety with questions on the budget.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that a debate is no substitute for getting information from the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think it very natural that there might very well be a number of questions arising out of the budget presentation and speech, and I suggest with great respect that members of the opposition should be free to question the minister with regard to the budget for greater
June 25, 1975

clarification and for interest. This would in no way detract from the debate on the budget which will follow later this afternoon. It does not seem to me that the debate is in any way a substitute for questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the House would find it acceptable if the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other parties were at liberty to pose questions on that subject while the remaining members would not-


Some hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Speaker:: I will see three members on the point of order, bearing in mind that the question period will end at three o'clock. The hon. member for Calgary North.


Mr. Woolliams:: I bring it to Your Honour's attention, with the greatest respect, that asking questions and securing clarification from the minister will leave us better qualified to present proper arguments later as far as the budget is concerned. Surely, again with the greatest respect, that is the very purpose of the question period. If members of the Official Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition or other members, wish to direct questions to the minister in order to ascertain information on the basis of which they might more intelligently debate the budget, that is surely within the rules of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Broadbent:: On the same point of order, I respectfully draw to Your Honour's attention the pattern which was established, if not set, last fall during the budget debate. I recall, and I think I recall accurately, that immediately following presentation of the budget last fall members on both sides of the House, not restricted to the leaders of the parties, were permitted to ask the Minister of Finance and other ministers questions on the budget. It seems to me that during the proceedings last fall there was a clear example set-questions were asked to elicit information for purposes of debate or for the general purposes for which we normally have the question period. In this party, at least, we hope this practice will be followed during the question period this year; I hope that the pattern set then is not to be changed now.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I should like to take the position of the previous speakers and say that our party is just as interested as any other in using, at least partially, the question period with a view to studying more profoundly the consequences of the new budget and obtaining pertinent and further information following its presentation. We are parliamentarians. We have to study this budget for the next six days. It is now our turn, Mr. Speaker, to comment more deeply on the subject, and I fail to see why questions regarding the budget should be limited solely to the leader of the opposition, of the New Democratic Party or of any other party. Let us allow not only these people to ask questions on the budget, but also any other member of the House who should wish to do so; then the question period may serve a useful purpose by helping us prepare our work. Too often members of the present government blame the opposition for its lack of preparation. The ques-
Oral Questions
tion period is an excellent tool for preparing us to do our work as parliamentarians. Mr. Speaker, we join forces with all other members of the House in asking that not only the front-benchers, but equally any other member who wishes to do so, be allowed to ask questions, as they may deem fit, on the budget and its effects.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There does not seem to be much opposition to that point of view. Perhaps I could allow questions on the budget today and review the practice referred to by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) in respect of the last budget. I will examine the days of the budget debate, see what took place in the question period and make a more definitive announcement tomorrow; today, I will let questions on the budget go as they arise.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Then, would the Minister of Finance answer my question?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to answer that question. One of the results of the gas tax of 10 cents a gallon by way of excise will hopefully be moderation in consumption of gas at the pump for personal use only, because the tax is only applied to personal use. The prime purpose of the tax is to pay for a national oil price of $8 per barrel, which is about $4 below the international price.
Because of falling exports and diminishing revenues from the export tax as against the subsidy paid to the people of eastern Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces to maintain a national oil price, we have to bring the account into balance by a gasoline tax which will make up the deficit and allow the people of Canada to pay for a national, single oil price in Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to make certain that I was not misled by all that talking around the mulberry bush. Might I ask the Minister of Finance whether my understanding is right when I assume from his response that the minister either does not have an estimate as to the amount of gasoline that will be conserved or that he is not prepared to give an estimate?


John Napier Turner: As I say, Mr. Speaker, the primary purpose of the tax is to pay for a single oil price in Canada. How much gas will be conserved as a result of the tax is difficult at this stage to estimate.


PROPOSED TAX ON GASOLINE-REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF COST OF COLLECTION AND MAKING REFUNDS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I am sure the Minister of Finance will be able to answer. What is his estimate of the cost of administering the collection of this tax and the refunds that are involved in a full year?


John Napier Turner: In the
ordinary course, Mr. Speaker, that question should be put to the minister who administers the tax, the Minister of

June 25, 1975
Oral Questions
National Revenue, but I will try and get some precise figures for the hon. gentleman.


GASOLINE-ALLEGED INCREASE OF TEN CENTS BY RETAILERS-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROTECT CONSUMERS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs may I put my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that there are reports that already the price of gasoline at the retail level has been raised by 10 cents, is the minister and the government making any move to stop this practice in order to protect consumers?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, the federal government has neither the power to control nor has attempted to exercise any control over the price at the retail level. The control that has been exercised in Canada for the last year and a half has been at the wholesale level. Some provinces, such as Nova Scotia, have enacted means of controlling the retail price. Other provinces, such as the province of Ontario, if there is general concern in this regard, will presumably follow Nova Scotia's example.


James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Given the fact that the government introduced just the night before last a 10 cents increase, which we all realize is at the wholesale level and is already being passed through-obviously inventories are being sold now at this higher price-did the government put out any guidelines or give any premature indication to the provinces so that they, in fact, could make recommendations for control at the retail level?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it has been a parliamentary tradition both here and in the United Kingdom that the contents of the budget not be broadcast in advance to anybody else. The obvious answer to the question is, of course, there was no broadcasting to the associations, to the individual companies or to the provincial governments on the nature of the tax, the guidelines or how it should be administered. The tax, in fact, will be levied on the particular companies on the basis of deliveries made after the effective date. Of course, inventories now in place at the retail level would not be exigible for tax. If the provincial governments have any concern about the administration at the retail level, of course, they will take their own responsibility.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I understand what the minister has said, but even though the government brought in the 10-cent increase in the price of gasoline last Monday night it made no provision, set no guidelines and did nothing to prevent the increase in the price being charged on inventory on hand, and accepted absolutely no responsibility for that situation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker, that is a false statement. I have just stated the guidelines to the hon. gentleman, that the gas tax will be exigible on the gas delivered after the effective date of the tax. What the hon. gentleman is talking about is unfair trade practices that might be engaged in by retailers at the retail level. If this practice is engaged in, then, it being primarily the responsibility of the provincial governments, we assume they will take action.


FINANCE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the budget proposals will add nearly $2 billion to energy costs in this country on the grounds that this will stimulate the exploration for and the finding of new supplies of oil and gas, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has made any estimate of how much of this added cost will go to the oil and gas companies, and whether he agrees with the figures which come from his budget that the resource tax will give the companies an additional $40 million, that the rise in the price of oil, assuming they get at least 40 cents a barrel, will amount to $240 million, and the increase in the price of natural gas will bring in another $120 million, all being low estimates, totalling some $400 million? What assurance does the minister have that this $400 million windfall to the oil and gas companies will be used to stimulate further exploration for and the finding of supplies, over and above the present levels of exploration?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the way the resource allocation allowance is cast and the way the incentives for exploration and development are designed, the companies will only benefit from the tax arrangements announced in the November budget, modified in the budget on Monday night, if they explore and develop in Canada. In other words, this tax system is now heavily levered in favour of incentives for exploration and development, and if that does not happen the companies will not receive the cash flow. Because the cash flow is tightly related to exploration and development, I am confident that the companies will react in this way.


INCREASED REVENUES FROM OIL AND NATURAL GAS-AMOUNT TO BE ALLOCATED TO PETRO-CAN
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the exploration and development applies only to the $40 million at the present level and will go up, of course, if exploration is conducted. Since the increase in the price of oil will reduce the government's deficit on its oil compensation payments to $350 million, which will be met entirely by the 10-cent excise tax on gasoline, and the government will get additional revenue from the increase in the price of oil amounting to $350 million, and $100 million from the increase in the price of gas, meaning that the government will get $450 million in additional reve-
June 25, 1975

nue, I would like to ask the minister what part of that $450 million will be going to Petro-Can or any other type of exploration program either by the federal government or in conjunction with the oil producing provinces?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that the cash flow available to the major international and Canadian independent companies will depend directly on the extent they use the tax structure to invest in exploration and development and bring in resources within Canada. The cash flow will also depend on how the provinces intend to respond to the moves made by the federal government on Monday night in terms of imposition of the super-royalty, that is the royalty level above the current price of $3.80 per barrel. The federal share of the production revenue as a result of the November budget remains virtually the same under the budget of Monday night, and in fact the 18 per cent of the production revenues is I believe a fair share for the people of the country. That 18 per cent is already dedicated in effect from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to energy development in this country whether by way of investment in Syncrude, whether by way of setting up Petro-Can, whether by way of nuclear development or the interconnected power grid. So the federal share of those resources is already committed and beyond that into energy development in this country.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister intimated in his budget speech that there were to be some reductions in the capital expenditures of Crown corporations including Petro-Can I therefore ask the minister what part of the $450 million additional federal revenue, over and above $350 million which we are getting from the excise tax to help meet the deficit in respect of oil compensation payments, does the government propose to put into Petro-Can this year so as to carry out the minister's commitment that the sole reason for adding this $2 billion to the cost of energy in this country is for the purpose of finding new sources of oil and gas.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman overlooks the fact that not only will Petro-Can have a general overriding view as to the development of those resources but that the thrust is to allow the companies already in the field to bring in the resources and the reserves we need.


MANPOWER
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the announcement made recently in the budget speech concerning the monies that may be used under the LIP, can the minister inform the House whether
Oral Questions
he intends to announce in the very near future the LIP terms and conditions for 1974-75 so as to enable municipalities and groups to prepare immediately for projects that should be submitted and carried out in early fall?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I anticipate being able to elaborate on the terms of that announcement as contained in the budget within the coming week.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As the gasoline tax announced in the budget on Monday night will ensure the re-election of Premier William Davis in the election to be held in Ontario this fall, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he is sending a letter of sorrow, regret and condolence to Robert Nixon including an offer to try to find a good job for him after the election is over.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Since he announced yesterday that from now on the government would more carefully spend the taxpayers' money, could the minister tell us today what are specifically the programs or items which will be reduced or delayed within the Department of External Affairs and especially whether the management and administration of CIDA will be included in that plan?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the particulars will be given during the debate by the ministers concerned, especially by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.
Does the plan for deferred or reduced programs in external affairs as well as in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce affect our trade missions and delegations abroad? Does the Minister expect a status quo or does he intend to put more money aside to enable our country to strengthen its economic relations with its partners?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have recalled the various policies and the comprehensive approach of the government, but questions such as those raised by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe should be directly addressed to the minister concerned.

June 25, 1975
Oral Questions
[English]	FINANCE


NATIONAL REVENUE
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. As we are now probably entering a new era of $1. per gallon for gasoline, will the consumers who are exempt from the excise tax on gasoline, those consumers who are the primary producers of the country, have to wait a whole year for their refunds in light of the fact that they are paying the banks now on producers' costs between 10 per cent and 13 per cent.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is perfectly right that the farming community in the production of food is exempt from the excise tax. The refund situation is more particularly a matter for collection and administration of the tax and lies within the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, and he undoubtedly will be impressed by the point of the question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Speaker, surely this is a very important matter in light of the fact that when the producers have to go to the bank to borrow money-and I am referring not only to the farming community but also to other producers throughout Canada-they have to pay between 10 per cent and 13 per cent. In view of the importance of this, surely the minister would find a way to make those refunds to the producers of this country which would enable them to compete with other producers, not only in Canada but throughout the world.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, if I might answer the hon. member's question, we anticipate a system by which where there are large refunds, which is the concern of the hon. member, those refunds could be made on a much shorter basis.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DEPARTMENTAL ESTIMATES ON WHICH MINISTER BASED ESTIMATE OF REDUCED EXPENDITURES
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one asked earlier of the Minister of Finance. On Monday evening the minister referred to a policy of restraint and the figure of $830 million was mentioned by him. Apparently at the press briefing prior to the presentation of the budget in the House the figure of $860 million was mentioned. Later on on Monday evening, on national television, the minister mentioned the figure of $1 billion. I hope the minister will forgive us for being skeptical, but may we now ask the minister somewhere along the line, preferably before we get into the budget debate, to prove it by tabling in this House the preliminary estimates of each of the agencies and departments of governments on which these figures were based. My question to the minister is, would he undertake to the House, preferably tomorrow, to table, especially in view of the fact that the President of the Treasury Board is not with us and will not be with us, the preliminary statements from each of the departments and agencies of their projected estimates over the next year on which these figures were based.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that the expenditure control lies with my colleague the President of the Treasury Board who will be dealing with this question.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: We are talking about a meaningful budget debate. The minister will not be here. They are his figures. If there are figures will the minister please table them for us within 24 hours, so that we may partake in the debate in a meaningful way? I am referring to those preliminary estimates which were first forwarded to him?


John Napier Turner: My colleague will be participating fully in this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs arising out of an answer made previously to a question directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Does the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs share the view just expressed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that the federal government has no place in the investigation of unfair trade practices in this country? Would he consider that position and report to the House concerning what his view is in respect of this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the government intends to abandon the fixed benchmark of 4 per cent unemployment, at which level it currently bears full responsibility for financing UIC benefits, in favour of a moving eight year average, can the minister give the House his projections of the eight year average level as it will be for 1976, 1977 and 1978?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker, but for 1975 it will be 5.3 per cent.
June 25, 1975


John Edward Broadbent: I suspected that. I also suspect that the minister's official would have the answers available if he were to ask. However, I would like to ask him a supplementary question. Considering that the change in financing the unemployment insurance scheme is in reality a disguised tax, particularly on those in Canada who earn $8,300 or less per year, can the minister give the House the estimates of his department of the likely increase to be raised by the UIC in the form of increased premiums in each of the next three years?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that will have to be dealt with more fully after consultation with my colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and it depends a good deal upon how quickly the private account deficit is to be retired.


ABANDONMENT OF FIXED LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT BEYOND WHICH GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR FINANCING PROGRAM-EFFECT ON UNEMPLOYMENT LEVEL
John Edward Broadbent: I will give the minister our estimates in the debate later on.
I would like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration if he considers the abandonment of the fixed norm of 4 per cent in favour of a fluctuating percentage level, which no doubt will reach 6 per cent as early as next year and well beyond that in the year after, to be a policy or a course of action which flatly contradicts one of the key philosophical principles underlying the existing Unemployment Insurance Act, and argued for by the previous minister of labour when he brought it in, namely, that by having a fixed norm the government would be under pressure to keep unemployment levels down?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not consider it abandonment of the principle at all. I think it is a practical adjustment to reality, and I have no doubt that the government will always consider itself under extreme pressure to alleviate unemployment to the best of its ability.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF SAVING AS RESULT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: In view of the fact that the insurance benefit payout will be running at about $1 billion more than it did last year, and in view of the fact that when proposals for amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act were made the last time it was indicated the Canadian people would save about $100 million, can the minister now advise what the savings will be with respect to the amendments proposed? Has he any figure in that regard?


Robert Knight Andras: I hope to place that kind of information before the House when the bill is placed before the House.


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Has the minister any information as to the amount of savings which will be involved as a result of taking off the unemployment insurance roles those persons who are 65 years of age? Has he considered that, and has he any figures in terms of what it will mean in long term savings?


Robert Knight Andras: As I indicated a moment ago, that will be a component part of the information I wish to place before the House in the immediate future.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. On Friday last I asked the Minister of Finance if he was satisfied that the present level of net national income going to labour of 73.3 per cent, which is still down from the 75 per cent of four years ago, was appropriate under the circumstances, and the minister said that would be made clear on the night of the budget. With respect, I do not think it was. Can the Minister of Labour now indicate to the House whether the government takes the position, in view of things the Minister of Finance said on Monday night, that labour's share of the net national income of 73.3 per cent in the first quarter of this year is as high as that share ought to go under the present circumstances? Can the minister give us an answer?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I can only add to what the Minister of Finance has indicated with respect to his budget. We feel it is a fair and equitable budget, and it will be for the benefit of workers in Canada.


George Harris Hees: John told you that was the thing to say.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: The Minister of Labour has not added much to what the Minister of Finance said. I would ask the Minister of Labour whether his answer amounts to an indication to labour in this country that its present share of the net national income is appropriate and is as high as it ought to go under the present circumstances. Surely the minister can give us the answer because that bears on policy, and it bears on the attitude toward labour in view of the budget.


John Carr Munro: Naturally it is the objective of this government that the workers of this country share in an ever increasing proportion in our national wealth. This budget has been designed to bring economic prosperity to a much greater degree in Canada, and it will achieve just that purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: In view of the answer he has just given, how does the minister square his answer with page eight of the budget speech as printed where the Minister of Finance

June 25, 1975
Oral Questions
says that the balance has since been fully restored in respect of labour income?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for South Shore.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 20 I directed a question to the Prime Minister concerning Russian trawlers seining herring by night and dragging for silver hake by day off Seal Island near the mouth of the Bay of Fundy. I now redirect that question to the Minister of State (Fisheries), and I will point out to him that the Russian fleet of nine mother ships and over 60 auxiliary fishing vessels is part of a foreign fleet of 200 ships operating off southwestern Nova Scotia. Is the Minister of State (Fisheries) aware that over 1,000 Russians are now fishing some 20 miles from the Yarmouth waterfront, and if so, is he taking any steps to protect the fishing industry in the Bay of Fundy and St. Mary's Bay, which will be completely destroyed if the present excessive foreign fleets continue to operate in that area?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the question pertains to penetration of Canadian waters within the 12 mile limit. I would have to refresh my memory, but I believe the report was not factual. As to the number of ships, I would certainly concede that there are a large number of ships. Within the herring quota allowed we believe that there is very heavy fishing. We have not yet full evidence of violation, but we are increasing surveillance.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The minister can certainly add to his information by simply flying over the fleet and taking pictures, which has been done by numerous newspapers off Atlantic Canada.
If the minister is not planning any steps to halt foreign fishing, will he revise the restrictive licensing program of the government, which is seriously handicapping the operations of Canadian fishermen inshore and offshore?


Roméo LeBlanc: Under ICNAF our regulations are agreed to, and it is difficult to ask other nations fishing in those zones to respect the regulations if we do not respect them ourselves. Obviously, the pictures which I have seen in the newspapers indicate a large concentration of fishing vessels. We are trying to ascertain violations and we have reported violations in the past. If violations are taking place, I have not had any recent report as to our estimates of violation of quotas.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Pearsall (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the minister confirm that the provincial government of British Columbia has finally given in and is now prepared to discuss the "cut-off lands" claims with representatives of our native people? If so, how much federal government participation will be involved and how much will the federal government have to pay?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Judd Buchanan: -to indicate that the government of British Columbia has agreed to deal with the limited question of cut-off lands. This is a course of action which my predecessor and I have urged upon them for several years. Now that they have taken this initial step I hope that the province of British Columbia will screw up its courage and come to grips with the much broader-


An hon. Member:: They screwed up everything else.


J. Judd Buchanan: -with the much broader question of the general land claim.


HOUSING
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. On Monday the Minister of Finance announced an increase in the subsidies to be paid out under the private AHOP and private limited dividend programs. No figure was given of the total amount to be committed for the subsidies. Can the minister give the House an estimate?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the precise figures involved. We are watching the program very carefully. We believe that these additional subsidies for the traditional ownership program and the emergency rental program will create the infusion of private funds that we looked for. We have been negotiating with the private institutions, and I am sure there will be adequate money to look after the funds that are available from the private lending institutions.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I hope I get an answer this time. When these programs were introduced this spring
June 25, 1975

the minister promised that as a result of his conversations with the banks he could attract $1 billion of private funds into housing. He failed to do this. How much private money does he now hope to attract into housing and how many starts will be financed?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, we have had further discussions with the private lending institutions. They have shown interest in the old program. Obviously, it needed a greater infusion and some changes in the rules. We are meeting with the lending institutions across the country as a result of this increase in the subsidy. It will depend on the over-all flow of mortgage funds. I have been speaking to someone in one of the major financial markets of this country and there is an indication that this will break loose, the type of fund we are hoping for, initially in the range of $1 billion. I am not setting any targets on this. I want as much as I can get out of these sources.


POSSIBILITY OF REFUNDING TAX ON HEATING OIL TO LOW INCOME FAMILIES
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Considering that corporations will be entitled to a refund of tax on fuel consumption, which the government feels is a fine measure, may I ask the minister whether he is considering something similar in respect of heating oil in favour more specifically of Canadian families in the under $12,000 annual income bracket?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I must emphasize that there will be no excise tax on fuel oil or other oil products except gasoline. I must say, however, that there will be a price increase in mid-August. This time, it will be a real price increase on fuel oil, not a 10 cents a gallon increase limited to gasoline.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has the minister conducted any cost analysis to measure the impact of the increase in fuel oil and gasoline prices on the cost of living and more particularly on the cost of food, given the fact that it has been suggested that the net result will be a 1.6 per cent increase in the consumer price index?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the minister's answer but I presume he replied in the negative. I should
Oral Questions
like to know if it is the minister's intention to consult with his colleagues in cabinet, especially the Minister of Agriculture, to determine what the impact of the increased price of gasoline and fuel oil will be on the cost of living, especially on food, bearing in mind the minister's responsibility to protect the consumers' interests.


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Solicitor General. Has the minister been requested by or on behalf of the chief coroner of Ontario and the Crown prosecutor engaged in the inquest at Brampton to send an official or observer in order to study the circumstances and background in relation to the serious problem of gun control? If that request was made did the minister refuse to send an observer?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I was asked directly but I know the coroner's office was in touch with the Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, Robin Bourne, and asked him to appear at the coroner's inquest to discuss proposals on gun control. The Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, in consultation with me and the Deputy Solicitor General took the position that, being an official of the federal government, he should not appear before a coroner's inquiry to discuss proposals relating to policy. The Assistant Deputy Solicitor General consulted with officials in the Department of Justice and they gave the same advice. I now understand that the coroner is going to issue a summons for him but we will deal with that in due course.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is appropriate that close to the end of the question period my question to the Prime Minister relates to a rather historic event, that being the seventh anniversary of the election of-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad it took someone from this side to remind hon. members opposite of the historic event. This is the seventh anniversary of the election of-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -after one of the most intellectually dishonest campaigns in Canadian history. I would therefore like to ask the Prime Minister if his untied necktie symbolizes the looseness and listlessness of leadership in government?

June 25, 1975
Reports of Committees


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Along with a number of distinguished members on both sides of the House, and as a member of the vintage class of 1968,1 have every interest in having the hon. member for Annapolis Valley pursue his line of questioning. However, the first question was not in order. It is now past three o'clock and there are other hon. members, including the hon. member for York-Simcoe who was a member of that class-


An hon. Member:: No, he was not.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Mr. Speaker:: In any case, the hon. member for York-Simcoe has to continue a very important address which we ought to get on with, it being after three o'clock.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was aware that the opening words of my questions might provoke a Pavlovian response from hon. members opposite. As I sat here listening to the cheers I did not think they would take up any time I may have had for a supplementary question, which might have been my main question. I wish to ask a supplementary which relates to the budget, to this institution of which we are members, and to the Prime Minister's relations with this country. I am absolutely shocked that time taken by the seals in their clapping and beating of tails should be taken out of time available to me. I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could raise it tomorrow.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts-Mr. Crouse.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants) presented the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments and asked for unanimous consent to move that the report be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member intend to move concurrence later this day?


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with the four House leaders and I intend, by leave, later this day to move concurrence in the report.

Mr. Speaker, if I have permission of the House, I will move, seconded by the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine (Mr. Bechard):
That the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments presented to the House this day be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my office has indicated my intention to raise a question of privilege with reference to a question I raised last Monday. I am sorry to see that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), who is responsible for the Wheat Board, has left the chamber. Last Monday I asked if farmers will be able to deliver to several alternate points. The minister, in answering on two occasions in the question period said that this has been done. I then raised a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but must draw to his attention Standing Order 17(2) which reads:
Unless notice of motion has been given under Standing Order 42, any member proposing to raise a question of privilege other than one arising out of proceedings in the chamber during the course of a sitting shall give to the Speaker a written statement of the question at least one hour prior to the opening of a sitting.
The hon. member, I am sure, well knows that he has not given the Chair written notice of his intention to resurrect the question raised on Monday. Unfortunately, in the circumstances, I feel I cannot let the hon. member go ahead.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Chair. I thought that as notice had been given by way of the telephone it was adequate for the purpose. I will give notice for the following day.
June 25, 1975


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table in English and in French the text of a note sent to the State Department in Washington on June 23, and an accompanying outline of the Canadian position of the Garrison diversion unit.


CRIMINAL CODE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-395, to amend the Criminal Code (appeals).


An hon. Member:: Explain.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I explain the reason for the proposed amendment? It arises because of the unprecedented judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Morgentaler case, unprecedented in 300 years of British experience with juries and in the entire history of our country. Because of the judgment, judges are now in a position to substitute their judgment for the verdict of a jury. In the opinion of members of the legal profession in all parts of Canada and members of the civil rights organization, unless this amendment is accepted the jury system will be emasculated, if not destroyed. Indeed, justice will be denied.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,596, 1,880, 2,095, 2,101, 2,154, 2,167, 2,324, 2,327, 2,419, 2,446, 2,548, 2,588 and 2,703.
Mr. Speaker, if question No. 706 could be made order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	In the most recent year for which statistics are available, what was the value of Canadian goods and products exported by CIDA?
Order Paper Questions
2.	What amount of such goods and products, in dollar value, was exported through (a) the Port of Montreal (b) the Port of Halifax-Dartmouth (c) other ports in Canada (d) ports in the United States?
3.	What percentage of the total commodity dollar value of Canadian goods and products does the value of such goods shipped through United States ports by CIDA represent?
4.	(a) What is the policy, if any, of CIDA with respect to the use of Canadian ports in preference to foreign ports (b) is this policy in accord with government policy with regard to the development of Canadian ports?
5.	Who determines what port is used to export Canadian CIDA-spon-sored goods abroad?
6.	Does the use of ports in the United States for shipping abroad CIDA-sponsored Canadian products and goods represent an item in foreign aid and assistance in port development to the United States?
7.	What was the dollar value of any and all charges paid directly or with CIDA-originating funds to port authorities, stevedoring agencies, handlers, etc. in the United States since 1971?
8.	Is the government contemplating any changes in the policy and, if so, in what respect?
9.	Is the government aware of the policy afforded USA aid-related cargoes for overseas in terms of use of USA ships and ports?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Statistics on the value of Canadian goods and products exported by CIDA are not maintained and the analysis to obtain this information would be prohibitive in terms of time, manpower and financial resources.
2.	The information is not available.
3.	The information is not available.
4.	(a) The Canadian Commercial Corporation-Department of Supply and Services makes all shipping arrangements for CIDA. While CIDA is not responsible for these arrangements, the policy is that all ocean shipments shall be through established Canadian shipping agents, freight forwarders (or Canadian shippers acting in this capacity) and insurance brokers; and secondly all shipments shall normally be made from Canadian ports, (b) Yes.
5.	The Canadian Commercial Corporation-Department of Supply and Services when goods are paid from grant aid funds and the developing country and/or the Canadian supplier when goods are purchased from funds loaned to developing countries.
6.	No.
7.	The information is not available.
8.	Not applicable.
9.	Yes.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What is the total revenue derived on CN Subdivisions Coronado and Bonnyville?
2.	What is the total revenue under statutory rates for each Subdivision?
3.	What is the total mileage from (a) Edmonton to Grand Centre (b) Abilene to Heinsberg?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. The total estimated revenues accruing to Canadian National from traffic originating on, or destined

June 25, 1975
to stations on the Coronado and Bonnyville subdivisions for the years 1973 and 1974 were:
('oronado	1973	1974Total des recettes reportees Total dew recettes percues	$2,082,297 371,785	$2,213,219 410,005Total dew recettes ewtinnitivew	$2,454,082	$2,023,824Bonnyville	Total dew recettes reportees Total dew recettes per?ups	135,301 562,859	130,897 381,207Total dew recettes estimativew	$ 098,220	$ 518,1041973	1974('oronado Bonnyville	$ 423,452 133,584	1 410,558 134,0473.	(a) Edmonton to Grand Centre, 176.34 miles; (b) Abilene to Heinsberg, 51.53 miles.


Mr. Laprise: 1.	Does the Unemployment Insurance Commission have daily data on the number and type of jobs available in a region and, if so, how does the Commission inform the concerned citizen?
2.	What is the total cost of the labour market advisory service (a) for Canada (b) for each province?
Regional Office-Quebec Region
Location	Owner
1441 Kl-Urbain Federal Building M ontreil
District Offices -Quebec Region
Location	Owner
I )nmimondville 150 Marchand	1 lama Inc.
Laval 3 Laval Place	I0difice G. L. Inc.
Longueuil	Veronnenu
173-185-195 St-Jean	('ie Lt ee
St-Jerome 225 ave. du Palais	J. P. Francuuir
Trois- Rivieres	Pollack
225 dew Forges	Properties Ltd.
Sherbrooke 299 Olivier	Federal Bldg.
Montreal North West 9275 Clark Montreal	F. Uapoport
Montreal North Last 7500 Vi an Mont real	Muumax Properties


Robert Knight Andras: 1. Yes but these data are maintained by district office rather than region to enable the Commission's local offices to provide a more effective service to UIC claimants as distinct from the concerned citizen at large. This information is used for adjudication purposes and to assist claimants in meeting their obligation to seek and find work. However, in the filling of specific job vacancies, claimants are sent by the Unemployment Insurance Commission to Canada Manpower Centres which with their job banks and counselling services, have the responsibility of referring individuals to specific employers.
2. (a) For Canada: $1,345,730.23. (b) For each province: Alberta, $45,902.59; Manitoba, $23,873.83; New Brunswick, $65,764.13; Newfoundland, $40,058.43; Nova Scotia, $74,191.46; Ontario, $414,976.26; British Columbia, $195,895.68; Prince Edward Island, $13,475.87; Quebec, $427,107.91; Saskatchewan, $44,484.07.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	During 1974, what was the location of each Unemployment Insurance Commission regional or district office in Quebec?
2.	Was the Commission the owner in each case and, if not, what was (a) the rent per square foot (b) the name of the owner (c) the duration of the lease?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: 1 and 2:
Cost per square feet	Term of Lease
$ 7.04	September 1, 1973 to August 31, 1978.
$ 0.37	Oetobre 15, 1972 to October 31, 1977.
$ 4.21	March 1, 1972 to February 28, 1977.
% 3.20	October 1, 1908 to September 30, 1978.
$ 0.95	February 1, 1973 to January 31, 1970.
$ 3.88	May 1, 1909 to April 30, 1979.
$ 0.89	February 15, 1974 to February 14, 1979.

June 25, 1975

Order Paper Questions
District Offices-Quebec Region
		Cost per	Term of Lease
Location	Owner	square feet	Montreal Centre	Avor Realty Oorp.	1 5.64	May 1, 1974 toNorth, 5800 St-Denis Montreal	April 30, 1979.Montreal Centre South, Centre Metro Inc.	* 8.45	January 14, 1974 to2020 University Montreal	January 13, 1979.Montreal South East 6850 Sherbrooke E. Montreal	J. Kracauer	$ 5.97	August 1, 1974 to July 31, 1979.Montreal South East	Crown Holdings	* 5.85	November 1, 1973 to2120 Sherbrooke E. Montreal	Limited	July 31, 1974.6220 Sherbrooke E.	Lacordaire and	* 4.87	August 1, 1974 toMontreal	Sherbrooke Properties	October 31, 1974.Montreal West 1035 Galt Verdun	Federal Building	Alma	Les Galeries Lac	$ 5.00	Terminated onSt-Jean Inc.	$ 5.62	February 28, 1975. From March 1, 1975 to March 14, 1980.Baie Comeau	Les Entreprises	1 6.33	From April 1, 1973 toBaie Comeau Ltee	March 31, 1978, Cancelled January 31, 1975.* 4.57	January 1, 1970 to December 31, 1979, Cancelled January 31, 1975.S 5.00	September 1, 1971 to December 31, 1979, Cancelled January 31, 1975.$ 6.33	February 1, 1975 to March 14, 1980.Chicoutimi	J. B. Theberge	$ 2.79	August 1, 1969 to December 31, 1978.Chandler	J. E. Carbonneau	$ 5.76	Terminated on September 30, 1974.L6vis	Les Placements	$ 6.65	January 1, 1974 toTanguay Inc.	December 31, 1978.Quebec Ouest	Bois Fontaine Inc.	$ 7.12	January 1, 1974 to December 31, 1978.Quebec Est	Les Immeubles	$ 5.75	March 1, 1974 toLiegeois Inc.	October 31, 1978.Rimouski	Le S6jour Inc.	$ 3.81	November 1, 1968 to October 31, 1978.Riviere du Loup	Racine, Dugas,	$ 5.40	December 15, 1973 toPellan & Assoeies	August 15,1974 and month to month after.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Can a claimant of unemployment insurance benefits be excluded indefinitely if he has not received a cheque during four consecutive weeks due to (a) the investigative delays (b) an arbitrary penalty awarded by an officer of the Commission and, if so, for what reason?


Robert Knight Andras: (a) No. If the non-payment of benefits is due to investigative delays, the claim will not be affected and benefits so withheld will be paid later if the claimant proves he is entitled to them, (b) No. Arbitrary penalties are never imposed. Decisions are always based on facts and the requirements of the Act as supported by jurisprudence.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	Does the government publish any public or informational pamphlets which inform people of occupational health hazards and, if so, what are such pamphlets and how are they distributed?
2.	How many asbestosis patients have received disability pensions from the Department of National Health and Welfare?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: 1. Yes. The handbook, "Chemical Safety in the Aerial Application of Chemical Material", is available upon request from the Department of National Health and Welfare, or through Information Canada.
7054

June 25, 1975
Order Paper Questions
2. Since February, 1970, when Canada Pension Plan disability benefits first became payable, 11 contributors whose main disabling condition was asbestosis, have received disability benefits.
In so far as Treasury Board Secretariat is concerned: 1. As part of its responsibility for developing and recommending occupational health and safety policies and programs within the Public Service of Canada, the Treasury Board Secretariat publishes and distributes to government departments Circulars, Policy Statements and Guidelines on occupational health hazards. These have been brought together in one publication: the "Occupational Health and Safety Handbook" which is sold through Information Canada ($3). In addition, the Accident Investigation Guide is distributed free to supervisors and managers of the Public Service; and the Laboratory Safety Guide is distributed free to departmental management.
2. Not applicable.
Country	Borrower
(a)


Mr. Stevens: With reference to financing agreements signed under the authority of the Export Development Corporation Board of Directors, who were the principals involved (if a trust) or who were the main shareholders (if a corporation) of each borrower (a) Bahamas, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Trust Co. (Bahamas Ltd.), October 16, 1974 (b) Bahamas, Cygnet Chartering Corporation Ltd., December 19, 1974 (c) Cayman Islands, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Trust Co. (Cayman) Ltd., October 15, 1974 (d) Liberia, Ogden Saguenay Transport Inc., March 29, 1974 (e) Liberia, Ogden Ottawa Transport Inc., March 29, 1974 (f) United Kingdom, Athelstane Tankers Co. Ltd., March 29, 1974?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Export Development Corporation states that: With regard to the financing agreements in question, the main shareholders of each borrower were respectively as set out in the attached Schedule.
Date of
Agreement	Principal Involved or Main Shareholders
Bahamas	Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Trust Co. October 16, 1974 Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,
(Bahamas) Ltd.	Toronto, Ontario
CIBC Trust Co. (Bahamas) Ltd. relends to Commerce International Trust Limited, London, U.K., who in turn onlends to McDonnell Douglas Finance Corporation, Long Beach, California, the purchaser of one DC-10 aircraft for lease to Aeronaves de Mexico, S. A., Mexico.
(b) Bahamas
(c) Cayman
Cygnet Chartering Corporation Ltd.
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Trust Co. (Cayman) Ltd.
December 19, 1974 Oil Shipping Corporation Ltd., Monrovia, Liberia, owned by Swann Oil Inc., Sassa-mansville, Penn., U.S.A.
October 15, 1974 Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Toronto, Ontario.
CIBC Trust Co. (Cayman) Ltd. relends to Caribbean Bank (Cayman) Limited, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, trustee for NAL Trust, existing under the laws of Cayman Islands, through which one DC-10 aircraft is leased to Aeronaves de Mexico, S. A., Mexico.
The principal in the NAL Trust is National Aircraft Leasing Ltd., Encino, California, who have assigned to NAL Trust their purchase contract and lease agreement for one DC-10 aircraft.
(d)	Liberia
(e)	Liberia
(f)	United Kingdom
Ogden Saguenay Transport Inc. Ogden Ottawa Transport Inc. Athelstane Tankers Co. Ltd.
March 29, 1974	Universal Bulk Carriers Inc., Monrovia,
Liberia, owned by Ogden Marine Inc., March 29, 1974	New York, USA, owned by Ogen Corporation, New York, USA.
March 29, 1974	Tate and Lyle Shipping Limited, London,
UK, owned by Tate and Lyle Limited, London, UK.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) On what date did Mr. Filippe Salvatore first enter Canada (b) what was his country of origin (c) has he subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship (d) was his application rejected and, if so, was one of the reasons for rejection that he refused to take the customary Oath of Allegiance?
2.	(a) Is the government aware that Mr. Salvatore is presently employed as a Fine Arts teacher at the University of Montreal (b) what is the nature of his current visa and its expiry date (c) will he be permitted an extension of his visa upon expiry?
3.	(a) What is the name and job designation of all persons in CBC who had any part in inviting or arranging for Mr. Salvatore's participation in the programme "Viewpoint" on March 20, 1975 (b) was he paid any fee for his participation and, if so, what was it?
4.	Was CBC aware in advance that Mr. Salvatore would severely criticize Canada's constitutional set-up and that he would conclude his remarks with these words "I want to become a Canadian, not a second class British subject. Vive la Republique du Canada"?

5.	Is it CBC and government policy to encourage the use of public broadcast facilities by persons favouring the destruction of our present structure of government?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, the Department of the Secretary of State and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. (a) October 20, 1964. (b) Italy, (c) Yes. (d) (i) Yes; (ii) No.
2.	(a) The Department of Manpower and Immigration has no knowledge of where Mr. Salvatore is employed. As Mr. Salvatore is a landed immigrant there are no restrictions on his right to take employment. Therefore the Department of Manpower and Immigration has no records pertaining to his employment, (b) Mr. Salvatore was admitted to Canada as a landed immigrant therefore his visa has no expiry date, (c) Not applicable.
3.	(a) It has not been customary to require the CBC to supply such details of its internal management and
June 25, 1975

administration, (b) Yes. As for the amount, see answer to 3(a).
4.	The CBC was aware in advance of the text of Mr. Salvatore's remarks. Their presentation is in line with the CBC's program policies which are designed to represent to the Canadian public a wide variety of opinions on controversial issues.
5.	No.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Of the available parking spaces on Parliament Hill, how many are used by employees not working on Parliament Hill?
2.	Of those not working on Parliament Hill, how many are employed other than by Parliament?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
Twenty-one parking spaces are provided for people visiting on business at the call of ministers, etc.
2. Forty-two senior officers have the use of the 16 spaces in parking areas 365. Two-hundred and thirty-five tradesmen and technicians are permitted to use the five spaces of area 1195 while performing maintenance and related work in government buildings. All other parking resources on Parliament Hill are controlled through the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	Has the government conducted, with or without assistance from the Province of British Columbia (a) a timber evaluation or similar survey (b) an evaluation study of the wildlife of the northwest portion of British Columbia, north of the Yellowhead Highway between Prince George and Prince Rupert?
2.	Have any environmental studies been completed with reference to the proposed CN line between Prince George and Groundhog and, if so, where can copies of such studies be obtained?
3.	Were any environmental studies of the proposed right-of-way between Prince Rupert and Groundhog for the CN Railway Tabled in the House of Commons?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Department of the Environment and the Management of the Canadian National Railways as follows: 1. (a) Yes, such a study was completed in 1969 by Hedlin Menzies and Associates for the Canadian Surface Transportation Administration of the Ministry of Transport. Canadian Northwest Transportation Study: Volume 2. The Forest, (b) The capability of land for wildlife, both ungulates and waterfowl was mapped for a limited part of the defined area as a part of the Canada Land Inventory program.
2.	The studies relate to construction work which is being undertaken by the British Columbia Railway; therefore, this question is not applicable to CNR.
3.	No.
Order Paper Questions CBC MAGAZINE "SELECT"


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	With reference to CBC magazine "Select" (a) for what reason (b) on what date was it (i) established (ii) discontinued?
2.	What was the cost of (a) publishing (b) circulating (c) promoting the publication in the last fiscal year?
3.	What steps are being taken to ensure that the information contained in the publication will be available without inconvenience, after its demise?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. (a) (i) As one element of replacement promotion for CBC Times, (ii) Cost-inefficient, uneconomical method of conveying limited amount of CBC program information; (b) (i) February 7, 1970, (ii) May 3-16, 1975 issue.
2.	(a) $17,390, (b) $8,319, (c) No promotion over past year.
3.	Advertisement of monthly highlights in Maclean's; program notes to 54 daily and 160 weekly newspapers and publications; billboard announcements before major newscasts (World at Eight and World at Nine); special promotional announcements on CBC Radio; monthly column on CBC Radio to all press outlets; features in magazines; special cross-promotion (television for radio).


Mr. MacLean: 1.	What action is the government taking to assure an adequate supply of modern, temperature-controlled railway cars for the transport of potatoes and other perishable products in Eastern Canada?
2.	Is the government aware of any action by the railways to fill this need?
3.	In the absence of action by the railways in this matter, is it the intention of the government to expand its hopper car programme to include temperature-controlled cars for Eastern Canada?


Jean Marchand: 1. We
have in operation, within the Ministry of Transport, a rail car monitoring system to provide a direct information channel to and from shippers and railways in order to alleviate to some degree actual or potential car shortages and to look over the railways' freight car replacement programme. Potatoes and perishable products are given due attention within the MOT monitoring programme.
2.	The railways are actively involved, directly with different shipper groups and indirectly, through the MOT monitoring system in considering which improvement can realistically be made to the transportation of potato and other perishable products by rail.
3.	Through our rail car monitoring system, we are assessing the situation in respect to the supply of railway equipment for movement of Eastern Canada perishable products to market.
29576-33Y2

June 25, 1975
Order Paper Questions POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Herbert: With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,136, of the 20% of postal volume that comes from individuals, has it been estimated what percentage is addressed to business and institutions?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 54 per cent.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Stevens: 1.	In each fiscal year ending March 31, 1972,1973 and 1974, and for the six month period ending September 30, 1974, what was the aggregate expenditure by the Department of the Secretary of State for travel abroad by (a) the Secretary of State and his immediate staff (b) departmental staff (c) the staff of boards, commissions, tribunals, Crown corporations or other similar agencies reporting to the Minister (d) others whose expenses were paid in part or in whole directly or indirectly by the government?
2.	In the case of an expenditure in excess of $200 (a) what was the purpose of the foreign trip (b) what was the furthest destination (c) what is the name of the person(s) who took the trip (d) how long was the person(s) outside the country (e) what was the nature of the expenditure (f) how many others were in the party making the trip?
Return tabled.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, for the sixth time I rise on the same point of order. I have not received any response from the government to similar points of order raised in the past. I feel that I am entitled to ask when I may expect an answer to the first five questions on the order paper. They have been on the order paper for over one year-they were included in the order paper in the previous parliament- and have not been answered. They are straightforward questions. In them I ask for information concerning trips the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has made. These could be readily answered, yet no matter how many times I raise this point of order the parliamentary secretary sits there either saying nothing or making the silly statement to the effect that the questions will be answered soon. I do not know how soon is soon. I think it is time for the government to get down to business and answer questions which opposition members put on the order paper some time ago.
Before I sit down may I draw the attention of the House to questions No. 1686 and 1687 which concern the swimming pool at Sussex Drive. They have been on the order paper for some time and seek information concerning the involvement of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in the pool cover-up. I have raised this matter three or four times with the parliamentary secretary and it is time I had some assurance as to when these questions will be answered. I do not think members of the House should have to sit here, day after day, and see the government bamboozling, covering up and hiding legitimate information from the people of Canada. The Acting Prime Minister laughs. I assure him this is no laughing matter. It is time we got answers in this House.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members will be delighted to know that, as of this afternoon, a total of 80.3 per cent of questions placed on the order paper have been answered.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, June 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the economic performance of any government, and certainly of any Minister of Finance, it is necessary to look at a period of years, not just one year. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has been in his present portfolio since January, 1972. During that period he has brought in five budgets, including the one last Monday night. This gives us an opportunity to review the success or failure of this minister's and this government's economic policies. Unfortunately, the record is a sad one.
Since this minister took office, the cost of living, measured by the consumer price index, has increased 32.6 per cent in the 40 month period. I would contrast that with the 40 months previous to the minister gaining power when the inflation rate was 14.6 per cent, which at that time was up sharply from the inflation rates of the Diefenbaker-Pearson years.
We believe there is little in this budget to reverse the dangerous inflationary trend that has accelerated under the minister. In fact the budget is inflationary in many respects with its increased deficits and its gasoline tax, but more about that later.
There was a 6.6 per cent real growth in the first quarter of 1972, which is when the minister took over, compared to the first quarter of 1971. There was a negative 2 per cent
June 25, 1975

growth in the first quarter of this year compared to last year. The minister likes to pretend that somehow we are doing better than most other industrialized nations. That is not accurate. In 1972, based on the OCED annual report of per capita gross national income, we were listed as second in the world, second only to the United States among major nations. Today we are number six, behind Switzerland, the United States, Sweden, Germany and Denmark, in that order.
In his budget Monday night the minister did not even dare to predict our real growth for this year. With inflation and no real growth, it is only natural that unemployment is rising. I would point out that in January, 1972, the seasonally adjusted unemployment level was 539,000 people. By January this year it was 660,000, and in May 715,000, almost 200,000 extra people out of work compared to when the minister gained power. The budget before us proposes that this figure rise even higher to something over 800,000 people. As the minister bobs like a cork on the economic oceans, he clearly intends to ride out his remaining months in office on the backs of the unemployed and those who will become unemployed.
In their June 24 comment on this budget, Wood-Gundy, perhaps the largest investment, house in the country, stated under the heading "labour", and I quote "Watch the strike scene, it could be bad."
Export trade for Canada is vital. A balanced trade position is essential. In 1971 we had a current trade surplus of $306 million, but by 1974 this had been reduced to a deficit of $1.9 billion. Only last April the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) projected that this year we will have a deficit of $4 billion to $5 billion.
While the Minister of Finance has mouthed many utterances concerning our falling productivity, he has done little in this budget to improve Canadian productivity and to ensure that our trade once more becomes balanced. The minister suggests a 5 per cent investment credit for business. This is to encourage certain businessmen to acquire further factory space and machinery. Two hundred million is to be devoted in this incentive, but is this the right priority for these funds? We believe steps have got to be taken, and other hon. members in this caucus will be dealing with this matter, to make Canadian industry more competitive, but we would like the minister to demonstrate his 5 per cent investment credit is the most effective way, bearing in mind there is a glut of industrial space in most of the larger urban centres at the present time.
Partly as a by-product of our unfortunate trade imbalance, we have high interest rates and in particular high mortgage interest rates. In January, 1972, mortgage interest rates were 9 per cent, and that was considered high. Today they are 11 Vt per cent. Such rates make it virtually impossible for tens of thousands of would-be home-owners to purchase a home. The Liberal government may agree with certain economists that such people should be driven into apartment buildings. We do not so believe, and to this end I will be suggesting a specific program for the lowering of effective interest rates on mortgages.
Speaking of housing, in 1971 there were 234,000 housing starts in this country. Last year the number fell to 222,000, and this year the Minister of Finance will not even predict the likely figure. Instead we witnessed Monday night one
The Budget-Mr. Stevens
of the crudest put-downs for any minister in any Cabinet in this House. I refer to the sad lot of our Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson). Faced with one of the weakest sectors in our economy, the minister has been given few tools to relieve the situation.
With our high interest policy, the government has in effect asked the homeowners and apartment dwellers to bear the brunt of an economy running adversely out of control. With this background, Mr. Speaker, of high inflation, negative real growth, high unemployment, a 4 billion dollar trade deficit, high interest rates, and low housing starts, it would be wise for each member of this House to review carefully this budget now before us. We have a Minister of Finance who does not know what he has been doing.
The minister blames international conditions-and in that category I take it he includes the weather-for his lack of perspective, for his lack of success. I challenge him on this point. I challenge him to show any industrialized nation which is an exporter of petroleum, which has the resources we have, and show me such a nation which is doing worse than we have been doing during his 40 months as Minister of Finance.
While most people agree that there has been little economic leadership in this country from the government, I think we should also be curious as to why the government has shown such lack of direction or leadership in the international field. If members of the government are so disturbed with what they call the effects of international conditions on our economy, why were they not heard speaking out in international councils asking that the forces which caused the inflation they have complained about, that the forces which in turn have caused the recession they complain about in the United States and other countries, be reversed so that we may have a healthier international monetary and fiscal position for the nations of the world? Why do they not demand and, in fact, set by example a precedent of sound money and fiscal policies for all nations?
After reading the four previous budgets the minister has brought down, I think members will agree that though he has consistently spoken of restraint, and of cutting down expenditures, he has consistently inflated our money system. Mr. Speaker, inflation is a political problem. Inflation can be solved politically.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is not being solved by the present government. How can the minister, in all sincerity, talk in terms of hopefully restraining inflation when he has allowed the monetary growth in this country to increase by 46 per cent during the 40 months in which he has been in office a 46 per cent growth in the basic money supply of the nation compared to a growth in our real product of 16 per cent? Those are the facts. Is it any wonder that during the same period we have experienced 32 per cent inflation?
I suggest there is a fundamental weakness in this budget presentation. The minister has obviously based his forecasts for government revenues and expenditures on

June 25, 1975
The Budget-Mr. Stevens
certain statistical assumptions, yet none of those statistics have been revealed. For example, we do not know what he presumes will be the rate of inflation, the rate of unemployment, or the real growth in this country. Yet this data is available as a matter of course in such jurisdictions as the United States of America. It is unfortunate that the minister should adopt such a secretive approach, because this raises uncertainty in the business community and elsewhere and it makes budget analysis extremely difficult for all concerned. It is not clear why this basic information has been withheld from the public. After all, the public paid for it and they are surely entitled to the raw data upon which the minister is basing his budget.
Sir, there are 176 economists in the Department of Finance. The government is paying $3.6 million for their services, and I say it is time the minister supplied us with more basic data.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Having said this, I would suggest that perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has been using the wrong set of economists. We find there are higher paid economists in the government service than the ones he has. We find that over in the Department of the Environment there are 163 economists who are being paid $3.8 million for their services. In short, the Department of the Environment is paying more in salaries to its economic advisers than is the Department of Finance. Perhaps the Members should switch staffs. I mention this to show there is unlikely to be any government with more high-priced help of this kind. Many economic analysis groups make their own forecasts without the benefit of the material available to the Department of Finance.
The Conference Board of Canada forecast in March that unemployment would rise continually throughout the year to an average of 8.5 per cent in the fourth quarter of 1975, and 7.8 per cent for the year as a whole compared with 5.4 per cent last year. I presume the minister agrees with this conclusion for we find at page 7027 of Hansard, in the report of the budget speech, that the Unemployment Insurance Commission pay-out this fiscal year will exceed, to use the hon. gentleman's figure, $3,750,000,000.
From earlier testimony given by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) we know that unemployment at 8 per cent would result in a pay-out of $3.7 billion from the unemployment insurance fund, so in this circuitous way we may assume the Minister of Finance believes we are headed for unemployment in excess of 8 per cent. This means between 800,000 and 900,000 people out of work in this country, and in my opinion this is totally unacceptable and a national disgrace.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In this connection the minister's plan to partially abandon UIC funding leaving more to be covered by employers and employees is a cop-out. It is the government which introduced this scheme and it is the government which should accept the responsibility, first, for lowering unemployment in this country and, second, for revamping the unemployment insurance program to make it more workable and effective. Having created a runaway

juggernaut it is unfair for the minister to turn his back on the problem he has brought into being. It is, furthermore, unfair to impose what in effect is an indirect tax upon Canadian workers by asking them to absorb more of the unemployment insurance burden. I say this because while government revenues have soared since the minister took office, they have done so particularly at the expense of individual income tax payers who are bearing an intolerable load at the present time.
The minister likes to deal in statistics and figures. He threw out a few and I will get to them later, but one figure that he did not reveal, for example, is that within the last two years alone, on a budgetary basis, income taxes at the personal level in this country have risen a frightening 41 per cent.
Let me come back to the unemployment insurance fund and the comments made with respect to that fund in the minister's budget. Let me just look at the magnitude of the funding of which he is talking. I would point out once again that he states that in the current year the pay out will be $3.75 billion. In 1971 total benefits paid by the Unemployment Insurance Commission were $891 million. That is before this plan became effective. Based on the minister's figures and using 1971 dollar comparisons-and,
I emphasize, after allowing for inflation-the pay-out in 1974 was $1.4 billion. That is up 90 per cent in real terms, yet there were 10 per cent fewer people unemployed in 1974 compared to 1971. In short, unemployment went down yet unemployment insurance fund pay-outs increased 90 per cent.
The 1975 pay-out is something approaching $3.75 billion, possibly $4 billion. The minister states that that figure is the bottom figure. I would point out that if' that is so, once again the total pay-out by the Unemployment Insurance Commission has been twice as much as the actual increase in the number of the unfortunate unemployed of this country.
Let me again try to put this $3.75 billion into perspective. This amount is greater than the payroll for the entire civil service. Everybody who is employed at the federal government level in the aggregate earns less than the government is paying in benefits to the unemployed of this country. That figure, I suggest, represents in terms of unemployment a virtual army. Surely the program must be reviewed.
The minister's faint-hearted references to changes in the program are unacceptable. His plan to shift the burden of financing the fund, involving these huge sums, on the backs of those who are working and their employers, is shameful. It is like a hidden tax on those who are working, and it permits the government to duck out from the responsibility of paying for its own mistakes. It must be made to accept the responsibility of ensuring fuller employment in this country than we have had in the past few years. Others in the official opposition will deal with this subject more fully, but let me turn to one of the cruelest things in the budget, which in short is a budget that has been devastating to the consumers of this country.
June 25, 1975

Economists are now estimating that the total impact of this budget upon consumers will approach $1.5 billion. That is the price that they are paying for the ineptitude of this minister.
In his Monday night performance, the minister announced, among other things, a 10 cents per gallon tax on gasoline. I find this most surprising. In fact, I would be very interested to know what took place in cabinet in recent days and weeks, because as we were reviewing the Petro-Can proposals in committee, we were naturally questioning the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) about why he felt Petro-Can was needed and about what alternatives he had considered. During that questioning a comment was made by one of my colleagues that the Americans had introduced a certain pricing mechanism for various reasons, and asked did the minister basically believe that that type of approach was wise and should be followed in Canada? I should like to read into the record the answer given by the minister to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works on that date. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said this:
I really do not want to speculate on the success or failure of the United States government policy. It does not happen to be our government policy ... We do not see the imposition of sales taxes on Canadian consumers as one of the means of achieving such a policy.
That was said only on May 20 last. But most surprising of all, Mr. Speaker, on June 5 the same minister before the same committee was asked what was the real reason for Petro-Can. He replied as follows:
But the most critical thing which we are concerned about... was to keep the price of oil down for Canadians.
Then he repeated, that the most critical thing was to keep the price of oil down for Canadians. Why are we being asked to incorporate the sixtieth Crown corporation of this country and to give it $1.5 billion free of charge to keep the price of oil in this country down, when within days the Minister of Finance puts a 10 cents per gallon tax on gasoline used by the general public in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: No wonder he went to Tokyo.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How inconsistent can you get, Mr. Speaker? But what I have related is typical of the inconsistency that we find in the government. Perhaps I am being overly kind when I call it inconsistency. The fact is that it is just downright deception on the part of the government.
Speaking of deception, I have referred to the so-called restraint on the part of the government and the Minister of Finance. The minister has made a mockery of the word restraint in what he did on Monday night, when he suggested that $1 billion has been cut from government spending programs but did not make it clear that this $1 billion cut had nothing to do with the estimates that he gave us last November. This is just a $1 billion cut that the minister says he has made. It is a talking cut.
The $1 billion that the minister refers to does not come out of the $28,750 million expenditure item he recited in his November budget. It is $1 billion that his colleagues presumably asked him to agree to over and above what he told us was the maximum amount the government needed
The Budget-Mr. Stevens
last November. Did the minister make that clear on Monday night, Mr. Speaker? No way. He misled this House and he has attempted to mislead the public of Canada by telling the public that he is a minister of restraint.
I have referred to that Petro-Can dream which has turned out to be a $1.5 billion nightmare. Let me be specific. In his budget address, after stating that the government's target in this fiscal year is to cut expenditures by $1 billion, the minister then ventured a few suggestions about where these cuts would take place. We find, for example, that he said about $350 million will be cut from Crown corporations and agencies, and this will affect such corporations as Petro-Can, the Federal Business Development Bank, the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation and the the Farm Credit Corporation.
When the minister made that statement on Monday he presumably did not know that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) a few weeks earlier had given us a dollar for dollar breakdown on what was included in the November budgetary figures concerning these advances to Crown corporations and other agencies. I should like to draw to the attention of members of this House that there is only one Crown corporation or agency referred to by the minister on Monday night which was referred to in the estimates as outlined by the minister in November of last year.
The fact is that when the minister says he is slashing $350 million from Petro-Can, the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation and the Federal Business Development Bank, he is wrong, because there is not one nickel included in the estimates he gave us in November, 1974, for advances to those Crown corporations and referred to by the minister.
We asked the Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources at committee meetings if any amounts had been included in the estimates for Petro-Can, and each of them said he did not know. When we pressed the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to indicate how soon he needed the $1.5 billion he wanted to put into Petro-Can, free of any charge, incidentally, he finally agreed he only needed about $1 million in the current year. Is that $1 million included in the $350 million the Minister of Finance was talking about cutting back? If it is, then I think the minister owes this House an explanation as to where the other $349 million he is talking about is to come from.
Dealing with this petroleum corporation, I would point out to hon. members of the House that it is the proposal of the government to put $1.5 billion into Petro-Can free of any charge from the treasury-no interest charge and no dividend will be required. If this amount were put out at 10 per cent interest it would yield $150 million a year in revenue. That is the extent of the subsidization the government is putting into Petro-Can if it is allowed to go ahead with that proposal.
I mention this because I feel it involves a question of prorities. Is the $1.5 billion of free money which will be utilized in Petro-Can to be as well used in that corporation as it might be in other endeavours for the Canadian

June 25, 1975
The Budget-Mr. Stevens
public? For example, if the government followed the same policy in respect of the Farm Credit Corporation, to which the minister made reference in his budget, this would mean that the farmers across this country who borrow from that corporation would get their loans virtually interest free instead of paying the 7 per cent or 8 per cent now being charged.
If the government followed the same proposal it intends in respect of Petro-Can this would mean that those who borrow from the Federal Business Development Bank, to which the minister also referred, would be able to get their loans at about half the cost they are currently paying.
If the government followed the same policy in respect of CMHC this would mean roughly a 20 per cent reduction in the amount of interest payable by those who have NHA mortgages at the present time.
The reason I have dealt with Petro-Can, and I intend to refer to it again later, is that we believe the $1.5 billion venture the government proposes is ill-advised because there are better uses for that money. Think of what that amount of money would do to relieve the traffic congestion in some of our urban areas. Think of what it would do to help the servicing of raw land for home construction in the way of sewers, waterworks, and other items of a capital nature that our municipalities are so hard pressed to finance at the present time. I will have more to say about that later.
Let me come back to the gas tax. It is a harsh tax designed to raise additional revenue from the consumers who are already over-taxed by the federal government. Unfortunately this is a tax which will fall even more heavily on the poor than it will on the relatively rich, yet I suggest it is a tax that from an administration standpoint will be an impossibility. If you read the wording the minister used on Monday night concerning the administration of this tax, then you must ask yourself how it could possibly work with any degree of equity as between those who pay and those who do not.
The minister has stated he wishes to curb spending. I suggest it would be better if he curbed more spending and forgot about this tax. I have already mentioned that government spending during the last 40 months has jumped 99.5 per cent. In order to realize why we have such a spending increase it is only necessary to point out that the administration costs of this minister's own department in the same period have jumped 120 per cent, and I stress that this is only the administrative costs which have nothing to do with debt servicing or anything else handled by the Department of Finance. This is not a minister of restraint, this minister is simply a front for the big spending ministers in the Cabinet with him.
Let me set one other matter straight. In previous budgets the minister glibly talked about cutting people from the tax rolls. Back in 1972 the minister said, "We have knocked off a million taxpayers from the rolls". I should mention that the revenue department is catching up with the Minister of Finance as we are now getting the actual tax statistics regarding the number of taxpayers in this country. It is interesting to check on the minister's statement. As I have said, in 1972 he suggested there were one million cut off the tax rolls, and in 1973 he said there were another 750,000 dropped. Let me give you the facts. In 1971

there were 7.3 million Canadians paying taxes in this country.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Personal income taxes?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes, personal income taxes. By 1972 a further 700,000 were paying taxes rather than one million being knocked off. By 1973 another 400,000 had been added to the tax rolls. So instead of this minister, or his predecessor, being responsible for eliminating 13A million people from the tax rolls this minister succeeded in the period for which we now have statistics in adding 1.1 million personal income tax payers to the tax rolls in this country. It is now estimated that nearly 10 million Canadians will be paying into the federal treasury this year compared to 7.3 million the year before the minister took office.


John Napier Turner: There are one million more workers.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In addition the minister claims he has been reducing the amount paid in income tax by the individual taxpayer, and yet we find that in each instance each and every year the amount paid by the individual taxpayer in this country has jumped, and that the number of taxpayers has increased.
From time to time the minister has spoken about recycling funds. It may be that he also has been recycling taxpayers. He takes them off the tax rolls at the beginning of the year only to add them back on at the end of the year.
I have touched on the matter of high interest rates and the fact that conventional rates are now 11V* per cent. We believe the mortgage interest rate structure is simply part of an over-all national policy of high interest rates. We ask each member of this House why should our tenants and our homeowners carry on their backs the government's high interest rate policy? If it is in the national interest to have relatively high interest rates, certainly relative to the rest of the world, why should the brunt of this cost fall so heavily on the housing industry, an industry which has been in a slump, as the Minister of State for Urban Affairs would surely agree, and industry with a high component of unemployment among its workers? The fact is it is in a slump because of the government's policy.
The government's policy, or lack of policy, which is perhaps the more accurate expression, is one which shows it has no compassion for the poor, the retired, and those on fixed incomes. This government just has a passion for power. It has a passion for power for power's sake. We have seen evidence of this throughout this parliament. Personal ambitions run rampant while millions of Canadians, especially the poor, the consumers, are required to pay the price.
I have stated that we have had an undue growth in our money supply. On Monday night the minister made the same statement. He said that he does not intend to use harsh fiscal and monetary measures in order to curb inflation. I suggest there is no need to use harsh fiscal and monetary measures. What the minister should have done, and what he will have to do, is be responsible in his fiscal and monetary stand. If this minister, so long as he is
June 25, 1975

Minister of Finance, does not come to his senses and stop debasing the currency of this country, our entire free society will be undermined. If he is bothered, as he stated, by international considerations, let me once again ask why he does not raise his voice with these international culprits who, he vaguely suggests, are causing the trouble?
I have indicated that the government has been guilty of grossly over-printing money in this country. I would suggest it is in fact a paper government. It has printed more money than any government in history. In fact it has printed more money than all previous governments in this country combined. This government of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) now has reached the point, as we are well aware, that it is not only printing money but they have taken COJO over to the Mint and said that coinage can be run off and COJO can keep the difference between the cost and the face value of the coinage. Perhaps in committee we can deal a little more fully with the COJO matter.
I have touched mainly on domestic matters. In international affairs I think it is fair to comment that the government is not even a paper tiger. It is more like a paper dove. Members of the government speak of peace while they profit from the indiscriminate sale of nuclear reactors.
In dealing with the question of inflation I would point out that consistently members of the government speak about how to relieve those who may suffer from inflation. We say that is second best. We say it is second best to relieve after you have created a problem. In fact the government acts like a person who expects one who has been knocked to the ground to thank his assailant when he picked his victim up off the street.
We have often heard this minister state that he is in favour of restraint, but yet somehow or other he always seems to be outvoted by his cabinet colleagues. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what Minister of Finance would tolerate such carrying on; what minister would tolerate his own views being outvoted consistently in the Cabinet? Any other minister would have resigned. I have referred to the fact that the government's spending is up 99.5 per cent. As one of my colleagues mentioned, the advertisements in respect of Ivory soap suggest that it is 99 41/100 per cent pure and that it floats. The Minister of Finance is better. He is 99.5 per cent pure bunkum, but unfortunately, while he may be floating the nation is sinking.
I am sorry the minister is not wearing his vest today. The fact is that our Minister of Finance is a front for the biggest bunch of spenders the country has ever had controlling it. They put him up front with his vest to pacify the businessmen, the economists, and all others who are worried about the state of the economy. They tell him to preach restraint, while they sit in the back rooms discussing with their consultants how they can spend more and give their consultant buddies more consultants' contracts. That is why we state that there are hundreds of millions of dollars in consulting fees, printing fees, advertising fees and other such expenditures, which can be slashed from government spending and which have not been slashed by the Minister of Finance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The Budget-Mr. Stevens


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Judging from the minister's own record I do not believe he is a minister of restraint. Certainly a 120 per cent increase in his own administrative costs within 40 months would not appear to be restraint. Like a good lawyer he is simply trying to present a case, appearing to be restrained, but all the while knowing that he is encouraging spending, inflation and immoderation at every level of government.
Let us end the masquerade. I appeal to those in the government caucus to bring pressure on their masters to end the irresponsibility which we have been witnessing for several years. Many of the members of that caucus- and I compliment them for it-have told me privately that they too are disturbed with the way the government has been handling the economic affairs of the country.


Mr. Lefebvre:: What a joke.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If that is so, I implore them to step up in their caucus and tell the Minister of Finance what they think of his economic program, to tell the Prime Minister what they think of the economic conditions in this country, and if they cannot get results I recommend that they stand up in this House and tell the House the way it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Better still, let them move over to this side of the House, and we will get on with governing the country in a more responsible way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On Monday night I thought it was interesting that so little was said of any concrete nature about the consensus talks. Presumably that has gone the way of all flesh, and we will hear little more about the voluntary restraint program. In the eight months in which those talks have proceeded, to what extent have they themselves heightened inflation in this country?
Can one expect to meet with people indicating that mandatory controls might be brought in, huffing and puffing about the state of the economy, and not have them respond by trying to protect their positions with respect to their wages or their prices? This has been an unfortunate exercise, and I believe it is one for which the minister and the Prime Minister owe a further explanation to this House as to their intentions with regard to controls in the future. They seem to have faint hearts. They indicate controls if voluntary, but not necessarily voluntary controls. If they are needed, the government should have the courage to impose controls, and not just talk.
Whatever happened to the minister's concept of licking inflation by increasing supply? I had forgotten how often the minister used this argument in his earlier budgets until I re-read them. The cornerstone of fighting inflation was to increase supply. But what happened? I noticed that when the minister appeared before the first ministers and lectured them as to what he thought was needed in the economy to curb inflation, he made no reference to increasing supply.
He said he was down to only three alternatives. One was what he called a very restrictive fiscal and monetary policy, which he did not like; second, voluntary controls;
7062

June 25, 1975
The Budget-Mr. Stevens
or third, mandatory controls. If one were to believe the words of the minister it would appear that he, as of today, has no supply program under way. In short he has no program to curb inflation, in spite of the fact that inflation may well be the permanent enemy with which we have to live in this country.
On that point I have no doubt that the minister followed the submission of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce very closely. I refer to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce pre-budget submission of May, 1975, because many of the recommendations of the chamber are met by the minister. I wonder if the minister noted that on page five of that brief it is pointed out that the Chamber of Commerce estimates that the deficit will be about $3.7 billion. In short, that is about $700 million higher than the deficit contemplated by the minister in November. I would remind hon. members that the deficit the minister put before us as on Monday night is $5.3 billion.
I will read into the record a portion of the pre-budget submission of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce:
From a monetary control point of view, if the federal government increases its overall cash requirement beyond the $3.7 billion presently projected for 1975-76, the following consequences should be noted:
(a)	Privately held Canadian dollar deposits would increase more sharply than our projection of 17.3 per cent.
(b)	Money supply would also increase over our present forecast of 13.9 percent as a large part of the additional financing would be done by treasury bills. This would be highly inflationary.
(c)	Instead of having a relatively small CSB campaign, the federal government may once again have to issue large amounts of debt in that form, if undue pressure on financial markets is to be avoided. This might be unfortunate in the longer term.
In sum, the implications are for higher interest rates, higher growth in the monetary aggregates and more inflation.
Surely it will be an unfortunate consequence of this budget if in fact we find that it contributes to inflation.
Let me now come to some specific proposals which we in the official opposition wish to put forward. First, we believe that government spending can be curtailed in a more significant way than the minister has indicated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Based on those spending savings we believe that there are some policies which can be instituted, there can be some tax cuts, and to that end we intend to press the minister during this debate. First, we want the $350 million tax levy, the ten cents per gallon tax levy, eliminated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is indefensible to ask motorists across this country to pay for the subsidization of energy products in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. While we-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: While we in our party have always supported the principle of a single price for oil for all Canadians, any subsidization of such a policy must be a general charge against the national treasury and not against the motorist.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Such a tax, falling as it does mainly on the working public, is intolerable, and we intend to resist it with all the power we can.
Mr. Speaker, instead of sleight of hand national spending cuts that the minister has proposed we believe that there are sufficient spending cuts that can be made that would allow a policy to ensure 250,000 housing starts a year during the period immediately ahead. The minister's provision for the housing industry is totally inadequate, and we propose to modify existing programs which are already proven to be a failure. We believe that in announcing $200 million for the current housing budget and projecting only $125 million for the current fiscal year the minister has been totally inadequate. If there is any sector of our economy that requires a significant stimulus it is the housing residential construction industry.
A more adequate supply of housing would in itself be deflationary and would give employment to the tens of thousands of people who are or will be out of work. To this end we are going to press that interest rates in excess of 8 per cent be deductible from personal income before taxes, up to a maximum of $1,000 per householder.
We also believe that the government should institute immediately a mortgage subsidization program for new housing starts to ensure that new homes and apartments may be built with mortgage funds at 8 per cent interest or less if rates fall.
In short, we are stating that if it is national government policy to have 11 per cent or 12 per cent interest rate structures for mortgages in this country, it is unfair to expect a home owner to bear the brunt of that type of charge. That is why we believe that there should be a subsidization program to ensure that the interest payable to private concerns in excess of 8 per cent be subsidized by the federal treasury. We believe that this would bring tens of thousands of would-be home owners into the market with a sufficient income in relation to the amortization required to purchase the homes that they cannot afford to purchase today.
In addition to ensuring that would-be buyers have incomes sufficient to buy their homes, we believe the flow of mortgage funds has to be encouraged. We intend to press the government to provide special investment tax credits for funds going into certificates issued by institutions guaranteeing that any money so raised would be used for mortgage financing. These tax credits would give the person buying the certificate a tax advantage with respect to income tax. We believe that this would ensure that hundreds of millions of dollars that are not going into mortgage investment would in future go into that investment.
We also believe that the government should divert-and a very handy place to start is with the $1.5 billion commitment to Petro-Can-$500 million over the next three years into a special municipal services development fund. In that respect, working in co-operation with the provinces, we believe that the $500 million would be used by the municipalities to service large amounts of raw land for house development. It would assist those municipalities in
June 25, 1975

putting in basic sewers, water works, and the other subdivision capital needs required in order to have more lots available for people to build homes to live in.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize again-and if the minister wishes us to be more specific we can-we believe that spending can be curtailed sufficiently not only to cover the gas tax reduction that I have indicated but also to finance the programs I have indicated to help the housing industry. We believe that cuts in spending can be realized not only to look after those two items but also to reduce both the cash deficit and the budgetary deficit that the minister suggested on Monday.
We believe the approach we suggest is a responsible one and that it will help with respect to inflation. It will certainly be welcomed by the Canadian people who want to see more restrained spending at government levels. Above all, it will give the consumers of this country some relief from the charges and taxation imposed by the minister on Monday night.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner):
To delete all the words following "That this House" and insert:
"deplores the failure of the government's budget to deal with inflation and provide for a healthy economy; and in particular regrets the social injustice inherent in both the ten cent gasoline tax and the lack of necessary action to encourage the provision of housing at reasonable cost for Canadians."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in my view it would be impossible to produce a worse budget than was presented to the House of Commons on Monday night of this week.
The country urgently required a budget which would cut into inflation and reduce unemployment, both of which are at record levels. The minister managed to accomplish, by what metaphysical process I know not, the opposite. His proposals will increase unemployment and lead to further inflation.
Most countries of the western world have tried to work their way out of "stagflation". Their dilemma has been how to deal with unemployment without inflating the economy, or vice versa. Only in Canada has the government seen fit to resolve the economic riddle by worsening both situations simultaneously. A mad genius has been let loose in the Department of Finance, and I am tempted to name him. However, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and his colleagues in Cabinet, not some civil servant, must bear the full responsibility for this madness which is called a budget.
In terms of unemployment and inflation, what does the budget do? Instead of holding the line on the price of oil and natural gas, the budget is to increase the price of both and add an excise tax to boot. The net effect of these steps will be, first, to increase the cost of living for every Canadian by two points on the Consumer Price Index. I am sure that the minister's officials told him that this would happen. Second, the budget will increase unemployment by .5 per cent. Third, it will reduce further, by about
The Budget-Mr. Broadbent
1 per cent, the growth of our economy in the coming year.
I am sure the minister's officials made him aware of these facts. Our growth is already at zero; it cannot go any lower.
It is estimated that the increased energy bill resulting from this budget will be around $2 billion. A great deal of the burden will fall on people who have no choice about whether or not to drive to work, or who have no alternative transportation. The effect on them will be not that of conservation, but of less money available to spend on necessities. Similarly, most people have no choice about heating their homes in the winter. They have to use heating oil or gas, no matter what the price is. Indeed, people will find that their heating bills have gone up precisely at the same time as manufacturers begin to raise their prices for consumer goods in order to make up for increased energy costs. Canadians, in short, will lose out, and seriously, on both counts. Many will be affected even more seriously.
First estimates of the effect on employment indicate that around 15,000 jobs will be lost in Ontario alone because of the increased cost of energy. The effect in the Maritimes, where unemployment it seems, is already permanently between 10 per cent and 12 per cent, can be expected to be even more severe. Premier Regan himself made this point during the past 24 hours.
If there were any chance that more jobs would result from this enforced belt-tightening affecting the most vital sectors of the economy, my party might say that it thinks a temporary readjustment might be worth while. But it is abundantly clear that our already negative growth rate will be severely set back because of these measures so I have made the point previously that we may have one million people unemployed this coming winter. These budget proposals make that unemployment a virtual certainty.
And where is all the money which the ordinary people are losing through increased prices to wind up? Well, a preliminary estimate shows that the energy companies will reap about $350 million a year from the price increases alone. The myth is that this will go toward more exploration and development for new sources of energy. There is absolutely no guarantee that this will happen. Indeed, some oil executives acknowledged this as recently as a few hours ago, on the radio.
As they have done so many times in the past, the Liberals have given millions to the oil companies and suggested, merely suggested, that they use it for the public good. Answering the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) in the House, the Minister of Finance this afternoon made it clear that the oil companies are not obligated to use this $350 million a year for further exploration. Indeed, according to reports in this morning's newspapers, one oil company executive wants gasoline prices to rise to $1 per gallon. The first reaction of the oil companies to the millions of dollars in windfall gains which this budget will give them is that the gains are not enough. They need even more money to spend, but there is to be mandatory regulation directing that this money shall be spent on further resource development.
29576" 3414

June 25, 1975
The Budget-Mr. Broadbent
In 1972 the New Democratic Party began to call these companies the corporate welfare bums. After the latest round in this game played on Monday night, the score is: "The bums, $350 million; the public, zero."
The budget seeks to deflate the economy by imposing a dishonest, disguised and disreputable tax-and I use these words advisedly-on average and lower income working Canadians; it does this under the guise of making changes in the unemployment insurance scheme. This so-called tax will take in about $350 million this year. And if the government decides under the new proposed working average that it will be responsible for unemployment above 6 per cent, instead of the present 4 per cent, then next year the new revenue figure may be in the neighbourhood of $550 million. Mr. Speaker, a more regressive form of taxation is simply impossible to imagine and impossible to apply in Canada now.
The budget places the rising costs of hospital and medical care squarely on the provinces, thus making the tax burden impossible for the poorer provinces and the people who live in them. They will not be able to maintain existing programs in these fields, and it will be next to impossible even for the richest provinces to expand innovative medicare and nursing home facilities. Such facilities have been established in Toronto in recent times. It is therefore likely that many provinces will need to resort to abhorrent deterrent fees, to cut back services, or to introduce regressive taxes. No single act could be simultaneously more damaging to a minimum national standard of medical service and to national unity.
The budget offers virtually nothing to the three million Canadians who badly need housing. Instead of doubling the current target of 210,000 housing units to over 400,000 by means of a crash program, the government, through the budget, seeks to extend current incentive programs in the private sector. These programs have demonstrably failed this year. The budget proposals will result, at best, in another 8,000 housing units. So much for the housing crisis which the Prime Minister, before the last election, said we were facing.
The minister, in the budget speech, said that current wage demands of working Canadians are the cause of our trade problems; but there is not a shred of evidence to support this view nor an economist in the country who subscribes to it. The tables the minister provided on Monday night completely failed to provide a comparison of wage rates sector by sector, a comparison which is essential if there is to be an allegation that our trade with the United States is being adversely affected by the size of Canadian wage increases. I suggest that this failure to provide sector by sector comparisons was not accidental. If the minister had provided these tables, I suggest that he would not have been able to show that increases granted to Canadian workers which may be larger than increases granted to American workers are bringing adverse effects in terms of trade.
The minister failed to produce statistics in support of the rhetoric which he and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) have been bandying about on this point in recent months.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Include the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, I include the Prime Minister. The budget's attempt to deal with the fact that we have more than 700,000 unemployed now, and will have as many one million unemployed by this winter, would be laughable if it were not so sad. It allocates $70 million to occupational training for jobs that do not yet exist. It allocates $285 million to the local initiatives program which will provide low-paid employment for about 20,000 people for two years. Another $25 million will finance employment for only another 1,200 people a year for a two-year period.
The budget's new tax incentives to the private sector are offset by reductions in at least equally effective federal department expansion programs. Millions are taken out of the public sector and given as gifts to private corporations, on the baseless assumption that the jobs lost in the former will be made up in the latter.
The recent report by the minister on the effects of his $1.8 billion corporate tax concessions during the 1973-74 period made it clear that such give-aways are a criminal waste of money. They simply do not produce the results the minister says they do. Liberals never lose, and their corporate friends never suffer, as long as they are in power.
The principal point in the context of this debate is that this budget will not stimulate employment. That is the over-riding and profoundly important conclusion that one has to reach. There could be no single more condemnatory fact that one could lay down about the budget than to say it is not going to lead to job creation.
In summary, the budget is a cruel disaster, a hodgepodge of fake or incomplete recipes, totally lacking in their moral concern or their intellectual consistency. It has been rumoured that this may be the last budget of this Minister of Finance. For the sake of the people of Canada, I hope to God it is.
I now want to deal in detail with some of the more alarming of the budget proposals. In a budget replete with errors in policy, there are two which are not only bad for this year but have a profound implication for the future of our country and all the people in it. I refer to the changing of the financing of unemployment insurance benefits and the changes in the financing of hospital and medical services.
Consider the proposed changes in the unemployment insurance scheme. I say in all seriousness that not only does this proposal really constitute an immediate, regressive and disguised tax on all those who pay into it, and that is the majority of working Canadians, but it undermines a basic principle in our Unemployment Insurance Act. By setting a fixed unemployment percentage figure above which the government would have to assume the cost of financing unemployment, a built-in regulator was established which would cause the government to take action to keep unemployment down. This point was acknowledged by the then Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), at the time this legislation was introduced and passed through this House.
June 25, 1975

On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I argued then and I repeat now that the level should have been 3 per cent and not 4 per cent as the government decided. Although the government produced no evidence for 4 per cent being seen as "the long term average", and I challenge it now to do so, the crucial point is that it is now in this budget abandoning entirely any notion of a fixed point, and thus any commitment to finance out of general revenue unemployment beyond a certain level. There is to be no norm; there is to be no concept of full employment. Most basically, there is to be no incentive to the government to keep unemployment down.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That's restraint.


John Edward Broadbent: That is right. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) says, that is the government's view of restraint. In the most literal sense, the working people of Canada are to be asked to pay through constantly increasing premiums virtually the total bill for cyclical unemployment, something for which they have no responsibility.
This is a profoundly regressive move, one which not only changes in detail the present act but radically undermines the basic philisophy. It is a revolting proposal. I hope the former Minister of Labour, currently the Postmaster General, who walked out of the House when the Minister of Finance began to speak about unemployment insurance, will take part in this debate and tell us what he thinks of a government which has abandoned any regulating commitment to keep unemployment down.
Certainly the present Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), under whose responsibility the act now falls, must justify this new regressive tax which all working people must pay to cover the cost of the scheme. He must tell the people of Canada why working men and women will have to pay more for every year in the foreseeable future, more because high unemployment in recent years will mean that the point at which the scheme will be financed out of general tax revenues will rise. He will have to explain why it is just that a scheme that currently has a ceiling of approximately $8,300 on insurable earnings, and therefore has a ceiling on levels of contribution, which means that all those who earn beyond $8,300 pay proportionately less of the tax than those whose earnings fall below that; he will have to explain why in heaven's name such a scheme should provide the financing of unemployment over which ordinary Canadians have no control. He will have to justify that for which there is no justification!
Let me now turn to health care. Like the proposed changes in the financing of unemployment insurance, those the budget makes on the federal share of medical services represent a radical change in national policy. The Minister of Finance has said that the federal-provincial sharing of hospital and medical services has as its purpose the provision of comprehensive benefits to all Canadians regardless of income. While I do not agree with his other assertion that this objective has "long since been met", I want to stress as strenuously as I can that his budget proposals will undermine whatever real progress has been made in the recent past, and will virtually cripple future improvements in all but the wealthiest provinces.
The Budget-Mr. Broadbent
Although the minister himself acknowledged that the federal share in financing hospital and medical care last year rose by 19.8 per cent over 1973, he has arbitrarily stated in the budget that during the next three years the federal government will pay no more than an annual increase of 13 per cent, 10.5 per cent and 8.5 per cent in sequence.
Where did these figures come from? Were they drawn out of a hat? Why are they being imposed on the provinces unilaterally? I do not know their rationale, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) had better explain it during the budget debate. I understand he is not particularly interested in taking part in the debate. I can well understand his reluctance to have to justify the unjustifiable. I do know what they mean for the provinces and for national health standards and national unity.
They mean simply that the poorer provinces will not be able to cope. They mean simply that some provinces will cut back on existing health services. They mean simply that innovative programs in denticare and nursing homes will be reduced or eliminated entirely. They mean simply that the provinces will have to resort to new taxes and deterrent fees. They mean simply and sadly that inequality of health treatment within Canada will increase. They mean that this Liberal government is turning the social history of our country upside down. I say that in all seriousness.


An hon. Member:: Why do you say that?


John Edward Broadbent: A Liberal backbencher asks why I say that. It should be obvious. If he did not listen to the argument he should have listened to what the provincial premiers right across the country have been saying in the past 24 hours.
The position of the majority of the provinces is that the cost of all health services should be shared equally between themselves and the federal government. The federal government is not alone in wanting to remove unwarranted cost increases. To cut back arbitrarily on its commitment to pay for inevitable cost increases in health services represents a callous disregard not only for the legitimate desires of the provinces to reach mutually agreed objectives but, more important, it means that this Liberal government is prepared, quite deliberately, to sacrifice the health of Canadians-for what purpose, God only knows.


An hon. Member:: Baloney.


John Edward Broadbent: It is not baloney. When a Liberal does not like the facts he resorts to abuse. I hope the hon. member will enter the debate later and contribute to the discussion rather than inject the kind of rhetoric in which he now indulges.
I turn now to housing. Everyone recognizes there is a national crisis in Canadian housing. The Prime Minister himself said there was a crisis in housing-in Vancouver, I think it was, just four days before the election. Mortgage rates are out of sight. Urban land is beyond reach. The supply of housing is short and the crisis appallingly high. If ever there was an area of concern that demanded gov-

June 25, 1975
The Budget-Mr. Broadbent
ernment action, housing is it. Moreover, the right kind of action, unlike action in certain other sectors, could simultaneously meet a human need, be deflationary, and create thousands of jobs.
What Canadians wanted in Monday's budget as far as housing is concerned was major action indicating both concern and imagination in dealing with the crisis to which the Prime Minister referred about a year ago. They got neither. Instead, the Minister of Finance made the announcement that CMHC would increase its spending by a paltry $200 million. This would build no more than 8,000 housing units. So much for the crisis. It will not even enable the government to meet its abysmally low target of 210,000 units for this year.
Moreover, the government plans to rely primarily on precisely the same programs as those which have got us into the present mess; more subsidies to the moneylenders and more financial incentives to the property developers- the very programs which have failed to work.
When the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) brought forward legislation in these fields earlier in the year, we in the New Democratic Party told him his plans would not work, and we opposed the legislation. He said they would induce a billion dollars of private funds into housing. We said he was wrong. It turns out that he was wrong, and he has recently acknowledged this to be the case. Business has invested, and continues to invest, where it can get the greatest return, be that shopping centres, luxury hotels, new offices, or Harvey's hamburger stands. There has been a decline of approximately 20 per cent in business investment in residential construction so far in 1975.
The addition of $200 million to the CMHC budget will bring the total for this year up to only $1.6 billion. Mr. Speaker, eight years ago, when housing cost a mere fraction of what it does today, the corporation's budget was almost the same-$1.5 billion. I ask hon. members to note the following figures carefully. If they do they will be in a position to understand the degree of priority which the government is, in fact, giving to housing.
In 1967 the government spent 14.3 per cent of its total budget on housing. Today, in the middle of a crisis described by the Prime Minister, and admitted, by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, what proportion is being directed into the housing field? It was 14.3 per cent in 1967. Has it doubled since then? Has it, at least, been increased substantially? No, Mr. Speaker. The figure today is 5.4 per cent.


Mr. Benjamin:: Shame!


John Edward Broadbent: Is there any wonder there is a housing crisis in this country? In the mind of the present government, housing is obviously not an important priority.
On behalf of my party, speaking both in the debate on the address in reply and in the budget debate last fall, I warned that unless the government took immediate, corrective action we would have a major recession on our hands. Again, in the course of special debates in February and May, I urged the minister to bring in a new budget quickly to head off recessionary trends. It is no consolation, Mr. Speaker, to look at the most recent figures for

unemployment and industrial output and to say, "We warned you."
We are now in a state of negative growth, and more than 700,000 Canadians are unemployed. The fact is we are now deep into a recession. No amount of evasive talk can disguise the fact. More Canadians are out of work today than at any time since the depression, and all Canadians are troubled by lingering inflation.
As I said at the outset of my remarks, the budget does not cope with these problems. Indeed, sadly, it will have the cruel effect of increasing both the cost of living and the level of unemployment. The new budget should have been expansionary and, wherever possible, increased expenditures should have been aimed at both job creation and the mitigation of inflation. These are not, as some would have us believe, mutually contradictory objectives.
Let me make a few specific points:
First, in housing, for example, the minister should have radically revised his target of 210,000 units upward to 400,000. To achieve this figure the government would have had to increase its own expenditures substantially. It should also have followed the example set by the B.C. government and gone directly into the development business. It should have taken immediate action by changing the Bank Act to bring down mortgage rates. By so acting, Mr. Speaker, little or no inflationary pressure would have been put on the economy. Indeed, the slack in the lumber industry in New Brunswick, in Quebec and in B.C. would have experienced a recovery and the 20 per cent unemployed in the construction industry would have found new jobs. Instead of putting new inflationary pressures on labour and resources, such action would simply have men and women off the unemployment lists.
Secondly, we should have had a reasonable tax reduction restricted to average and low income groups in order to compensate for inflation and to stimulate demand in the economy, which has ground to a halt. Instead, we got a disguised and dishonest tax increase on ordinary people coming in the form of changes in the unemployment insurance regulations.
Thirdly, there should have been a public commitment to freeze the price of oil-good for both Canadian industry and for every Canadian family. Instead, of course, we get the opposite-an increase in the price permitted by the government, and a special excise tax of 10 cents a gallon levied.
Fourthly, there should have been an increase in the federal minimum wage to $3 an hour, which is once again needed to enable those affected to cope with inflation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in the area of inflation and unemployment what Canada requires is a national development plan which takes fully into account certain short run and long run advantages that we possess as a country. Potential self-sufficiency in petroleum gives us a real edge over the industrial countries in the common market, and over Japan in the immediate situation, even though their populations are larger and their markets more extensive. Our immense natural resources give us a long advantage shared by few other nations in the world.
June 25, 1975

What is required is a decisive expansion of the role played by the federal government in planning and directing the Canadian economy. Private or corporate power is not meeting the needs or possibilities that we have as a people. It is absolutely essential that the national government assume the leading role in determining all of our economic and social priorities. In the long run the selective and strategic use of public investment, public ownership, and government expenditure must be at the core of any national development plan, the ultimate objective of which is to achieve full employment and to hold under control escalating inflation. We must get beyond the boom and bust cyclical nature of the Canadian economy, and only national economic planning can achieve this kind of objective.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, only the New Democratic Party is committed to such a policy for Canada. With this budget the Liberals have once again demonstrated that they are a party of indifference, of unemployment and of inequality, a party that is wedded to the foolish, cruel, and unjust economic ideas of the past which they still continue to apply to the present.
I want to move an amendment to the amendment, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a semi-colon, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"this House also regrets the gross injustice of the disguised and regressive tax on every working man and woman in Canada involved in higher premiums for unemployment insurance, as well as the serious injustice of the federal government's unilateral decision to renegue on its commitments to the provinces in respect of the cost of hospiral and medical services".


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) for the courage he showed in delivering his speech on a budget that is far from meeting the needs of Canadians and offers no valid solution to the major problem of price inflation and unemployment in general.
The Minister of Finance told the House that preparing this budget was no easy thing, and that is understandable, especially in view of the old tools available to him to meet the monetary needs of this country.
During the last election campaign, the Liberal government asked the people of Canada to give it a majority so it could form a strong team to meet the many problems- especially inflation and unemployment. A majority government, they said, would give this country economic stability and prosperity for all Canadians.
On May 6, 1974, the Minister of Finance had brought in a budget involving much more realistic elements of solution than the budgets of Novenber 1974 and June 23, 1975. However-and it should be noted-that was at the time under the direction of a minority government, so he had to be wiser and show competence to secure the confidence of the people in face of an eventual general election.
Too bad, Mr. Speaker, that the government is no longer in a minority position. Canada would be better off. The proof is there. Mr. Speaker, this government is the docile servant of economic dictatorship. High finance is in con-
The Budget-Mr. A. Lambert
trol, dictates the policies to be followed, and that has always been done on the basis of the profits to be made without any consideration for the small or average people who must suffer.
Economists prepared all sorts of plans and schemes that were tried out by this government and only gave poor results. One does not have to be very intelligent to succeed as well as with the formulas of our learned economists who direct our economy from periods of inflation to periods of unemployment, from periods of economic crises and hardship to periods of abundance.
It seems the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) understood because he said in his speech that the economy of our country is too important to be left in the hands of economists.
Useful political decisions are the only alternative, and I agree with that. It is then the responsibility of Parliament, that is the highest authority in our country, to legislate to regain control over our economy and bring the economic dictature to heel.
Last year, the Chairman of the Board of the Bank of Montreal said essentially the same thing as the Minister of Finance about the inflation problem. He said that it was time to take the bull by the horns and that only the elected representatives had the authority required to deal with that price inflation problem.
The minister seems to get over it too easily by saying that the situation of the economy in the United States is even worse than ours and that unemployment there is 2 per cent higher. Obviously, the economic situation is not better in the United States. They have exactly the same financial system and it gives the same results: public debts are increasing as well as debt service and it is the same for taxes.
I have here a quotation from an article published in the newspaper La Presse of Montreal in April 1972 and that is very informative. The newsman says and I quote:
Today the wealthiest country in the world is penniless. Last year the American economy passed the $1 trillion mark but the municipalities of twenty-one major cities do not have enough money to pay their policemen, their firemen, their teachers and their street sweepers.
And he says a little further:
The economic stagnation and the increase in the unemployment index did not prevent prices from rising and inflation from continuing. In order to revive the economy, the president presented three deficit budgets: $80 billion in three years. Those measures and other monetary and fiscal improvisations did not preclude the vertiginous degradation of public services.
And he concludes with the following:
Their leaders do not know what to do next.
Municipal and state administrators and the president himself are in the same situation.
Where do we find the money to close those gaps? By increasing public debt? But the annual payment of the interests already amounts to $12 billion and represents the third largest public expense after defense and social security.
That looks a lot like what we have here.
The president, the governor, the mayor who would consider it would be sure to be wiped out like a straw in the wind come next election day.

June 25, 1975
The Budget-Mr. A. Lambert
In the higher quarters of power, for the first time they lend an ear to the explanations of radical economists. The Keynesians have been wrong, the Freidman monetarists have gone astray, Mr. Nixon is clear-headed enough to realize. The rules of liberalism have been violated, one after the other.
That was happening in the United States, our neighbour. We get more or less the same effects, since the causes are much alike.
Mr. Speaker, like in the United States, the government is advising us about large cuts in public expenditures by reducing the credits of some departments such as Transport, Public Works, Environment and Secretary of State as well as those of certain Crown corporations. With respect to Crown corporations, I agree, but when it comes to the departments of Transport, Public Works and Environment, I feel there is still too much to do and we should realize that those departments have larger needs. This would also allow for creating jobs. There will be even fewer jobs in the public service. The government on the other hand wants the private sector to increase employment. This is the opposite from the public service, excepting the Auditor General's staff. The latter will be increased to do a better job in the area of the government's financial operations.
Let us hope that to a larger degree, the government will in the future implement the auditor's recommendations to prevent wasting public money. I regret that the least paid of public servants will be refused any pay raise. I therefore urge the minister to change that policy not to penalize that group, which must in certain cases hold two jobs to make both ends meet.
As for reducing expenditures in health and hospital insurance, I am in total agreement. Because since these programs became government operated, costs have been soaring the people wonder what is happening in these areas, with services no better than before. I hope the Minister of National Health will get satisfactory results from his talks with his provincial counterparts on these questions, and that he will inform the House without delay.
The Minister of Finance stated that amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act will be introduced. I hope these changes will not penalize workers that are temporarily unemployed without any fault on their part. I favour work incentives. I feel that in order to achieve that goal as soon as possible, so that the majority of people capable of working have a job and become productive, we urgently need legislation guaranteeing minimum income and allowing workers at the same time to have a productive job. I think it would be a good way of encouraging people to work. I am surprised that nearly $4 billion will be distributed in unemployment insurance benefits during 1975-76 and that the government intends to assign only $345 million over two years to Local Initiatives Program and students' employment.
Once again I suggest that greater credits be earmarked for the Local Initiatives Program to enable municipalities to carry out public works in their respective areas. With the money thus spent, jobs could be created, and the whole community would benefit from the public services thus realized. Instead of paying people for doing nothing, I think it would be wiser to pay them for producing things

useful to the population. We worry about the declining gross national product, and quite rightly so. And this will continue if the state does not take the necessary steps to get more people to work. I am sure the great majority of the population wish to work. We must therefore do the impossible to make that wish come true. I am satisfied with the measures concerning housing. Both the doubling of the grant and the reduction of the tax on insulating materials are likely to stimulate construction, provided those who want to build a house can have the initial capital. It will certainly be difficult for the unemployed or the one on social welfare to take advantage of those measures.
On the other hand, I regret that no item is provided to help people from 55 to 64 who are unemployed or unable to work and who have no income. In my opinion, these people are going through life's most difficult period and the state should help them by passing legislation especially for them.
Mr. Speaker, I disagree completely with the Minister of Finance as concerns the new tax on petroleum products and gasoline. This will contribute to inflation and cause special hardship to the small taxpayers who already have insufficient purchasing power. I also believe that the government has been overly generous towards the large oil companies which make enormous profits every year. In other words, the individual taxpayers will pay for the research carried out by these companies for the development of our natural resources from which they will eventually benefit.
I have the strong impression that this budget favours the large concerns at the expense of the small wage-earners and that inflation will continue its work of destruction. All Canadians, and especially those who are less well-off, are now suffering from what we resoundingly call inflation. For the ordinary citizen, this catastrophy is called price increases. There has never been such a dramatic situation in Canada since the big economic crisis of the 1930's. The dollar is not worth half of what it was worth only 20 years ago. Essential commodities are selling at incredible prices compared to what they cost a few years ago.
We are living in a critical period. We are on the verge of a depression which could reach catastrophic proportions and endanger the stability of our society. Faced with this imminent threat, the ministers are paralyzed, do not know what to do, do not understand the real causes of inflation and do not seem concerned about its inevitable consequences.
The Social Crediters propose specific solutions to ward off the desastrous effects of price increases. These solutions may be our only hope to avoid a spectacular bankruptcy of our society and economy. Inflation is simply a consequence of a deficient financial and economic system. Only a comprehensive reform of this system can correct the economic ills of today. If the present depression continues, everyone will feel its effects because such a situation could see the very basis our society destroyed by those who will suffer from it. The future of our country depends to a great extent on our success in this gigantic
June 25, 1975

task that consists in making all Canadians aware of the danger involved.
Our society would not be able to survive much longer to an economic situation leading towards disaster. In order to correct the situation, one must above all examine the main factors paralyzing our economy and leading thousands of people into unemployment.
In the budget submitted to us on June 23, we can consider, with regard to expenses, that the public debt amounts to roughly $3.74 billion for the next financial year, which represents the jolly sum of $10 million a day, which sum must be paid every time a working Canadian gets up in the morning to go to work. Our national debt has reached the astronomical sum of $55 billion, whereas it was only $75 million in 1867, which means that in our civilized society, the more a person works and the more a country is developed by the work of its inhabitants, the deeper the country sinks into debt and becomes, as a result, the slave of those people who control its monetary system.
I wish also to point out that provinces, municipalities and school boards are progressively running into debt. I wish to stress the increase in the national debt during the past eight years, as recorded in Hansard in reply to question No. 2238 which appeared on the order paper. We are told that the national debt in 1967 amounted to $30 billion, in 1973 to $51 billion and in 1974, to $55 billion which means a jump of $25 billion in seven years. Where are we heading?
It is not surprising that it is extremely costly to pay interest on a debt which is rising at such a rate. The growing debt is also given for each province. I invite hon. members to refer to that very telling table. It is then that we realize why municipalities are unable to discharge their responsibilities, since 60 per cent are compelled to spend 75 per cent of their revenue to servicing the debt. I think it is time to do something about that.
The abusive interest rates are a cause of inflation. However, Mr. Speaker, how can we continue to finance the public sector without running further into debt. This is the question which must be raised. We are often told: You, members of the Opposition, you criticize but you do not propose anything. Well, I hope hon. members are listening carefully to the proposals I am going to make, and also the other proposals that have already been made. We want to improve the situation, therefore I hope that altogether we will succeed.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make meaningful proposals and I ask the Minister of Finance to give them his best consideration and to take the necessary steps to have them implemented. These steps will not produce miracles, assuredly, but their results will not be any worse than those we have experienced with the formulas used up to now.
First, the government should control the whole money supply in Canada by using the real bank of Canadians, that is the Bank of Canada, which holds only 5/12 of the whole and yet, all Canadians are shareholders of this bank.
I want to quote an article published by The Spectator in July 1972, that reads as follows:
The Budget-Mr. A. Lambert
In a true democracy, the government is made up of persons who have been elected by a majority and have the freedom to serve the major interests of those they represent.
I support that idea. Obviously and in many ways, the will of the people is not respected. Thus more than 600,000 people are unemployed in Canada while, in my opinion, there is an enormous amount of useful work to be done. Canada urgently needs hundreds of thousands of new houses for families with moderate and low income.
The present trend towards high-rises woefully reminds us of people being pressed into sardine cans and destroys family life. Our policy must take another direction. Canada has sufficient manpower, materials and knowhow to achieve those objectives. The only major obstacle is the excessive cost of borrowing money to finance such projects. It is a barrier.
Several years ago, the government, for reasons that have never been very clear, gave private banks the privilege of creating from 90 to 95 per cent of the total monetary resources of the nation in the form of bank deposits. And, of course, those banks have a tendency to lend only to the borrowers who are able to pay interest. They too decide which activities will be eligible for the money they gather and lend; indeed, most of it is devoted to all sorts of speculative and luxury activities, instead of meeting the essential needs of the public.
The government itself is a customer of those private institutions, and the ones who pull the purse strings are obviously in a position to direct and monitor policies.
Mr. Mackenzie King, a former Prime Minister of Canada, declared in an article entitled:
Problems as I see them.
It was published in the Spetember 15, 1935 issue of Maclean's. He wrote:
Once a nation loses control over its currency and its credit, it does not matter much who in that nation makes laws. Once in control, money lenders will ruin any country. Until this control is regained by the government and recognized as the most evident and sacred of its responsibilities, any debate on the sovereignty of Parliament and democracy is in vain.
It is Mr. King, the former Prime Minister of Canada, who wrote that article.
Private banks should not be entrusted with creating jobs for all workers, nor seeing that the money recently put in circulation be devoted to sectors providing for the essential needs of people. It is obviously the primary responsibility of the government which is made of the elected representatives of people. To date, the government has completely failed to reach that level. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the solution to the urgent economic and social problems of Canada requires that the elected government, the present Parliament and not private banking should be at the helm of the state.
The Minister of Finance must, as his primary responsibility, ensure the government with all the funds necessary to administer the acts adopted by Parliament. To do so, he has two means available, one of them being more known than the other-personal and corporate income tax.
The other means, which is far less well known, would be to use the Bank of Canada to finance the public sector and

June 25, 1975
The Budget-Mr. A. Lambert
especially the departments of Transport and Public Works.
Let us look at the first solution: direct income tax. Is it really true that income taxes cannot be more equitable? For my part, I feel personal income tax is much too high; it should be reduced to give the family head more income to meet the needs of his family, and allow single people to marry and have a family without going into debt for the rest of their lives. We must, for the sake of the future of this country, encourage the development of the family, instead of burdening it with yokes of such a nature as to destroy that vital cell, the very basis of our society.
When we study the reports of the big companies, the chartered banks, we must recognize that they are favoured compared with individuals. There are all sorts of very subtle ways in which they can avoid income tax, even under the law as it now stands. If the Minister of Revenue were to put as much effort in trying to force corporations into abiding by the law as he does prosecuting individual offenders, I think that hundreds of millions of dollars could be recuperated and used to reduce the increase in public debts, thereby reducing the burden of interests and taxes for individuals.
Let us consider for instance the last tax on fuel. There is no way individuals can escape paying it, while a corporative administrator could register such fuel consumption as corporation expenses and thus obtain a tax reimbursement. Another example is the case of chartered banks which are entitled to intern and secret reserves which are tax exempted. Until 1967, such intern banking reserves could be accumulated outside the knowledge of the public and shareholders themselves, although the Inspector General of Banks was aware of them. This was done on the pretense that such reserves could undermine public confidence in the stability of banks, which would harm the general interest. It has been argued that the secret nature of the internal reserves prompted bank directors to take risks which they would not take if they had to reveal the possibility of increased losses which could result from such a line of conduct.
Since 1968, the ceiling on tax free reserves has been established at lVi per cent of the assets that are usable to this end, which accounts for practically all assets, except for loans and securities which are guaranteed by the Canadian government or by the provincial governments.
Under the minority government of 1974, and more particularly in his budget of May 6, the Minister of Finance proposed to lower the limit to 1 per cent because the losses incurred by the banks did not justify a higher limit. I wonder now why the minister of Finance does not follow up that idea by proposing that the reserve be brought to V2 per cent or completely abolished. A strong government ought to do that.
Therefore, I suggest that the Minister of Finance reconsider the question and authorize the officials to review all annual reports of chartered banks, and consider carefully the substantial increase in profits, when the rest of the people are beset by serious financial problems which are sometimes akin to poverty.

He will certainly find that the capital-money and all privileges granted to chartered banks to cash the nation's real credit is one of the most important causes of inflation and imbalance of our economy. The Minister of Finance will find out that we have in Canada a private monetary system parallel to the official system, and that monetary stock from private industry, from chartered banks, is much more important than the official stock. The argument of this government in 1975 strangely recalls the argument of governments from 1930 to 1940, a crisis period when governments tried to meet the legitimate demands of people in the same way as today: We have no money. But the minute the war broke out in 1939, the governments were not concerned by the presence or the absence of money but they took the necessary action to participate-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I regret very much interrupting the hon. member before he has concluded his speech, but the time allotted to him in this debate has expired. However, with unanimous consent, the hon. member may be allowed to conclude. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I am most grateful to all my colleagues in the House. They may be sure that I will not take advantage of their generosity.
So I was saying that at the outbreak of war in 1939, the necessary funds were found for this large holocaust, which served what purpose finally? We are ready to start it all over again.
Let us not forget that our governments are as poor as the people, that the municipal, provincial and federal governments have only the money paid them in taxes or obtained through loans with the banks. The government gives to banks the power to make money while it is compelled to go to these institutions and pay them a high rate of interest for credit enabling it to run the country and feed the unemployed.
So as to prove that such a situation has been existing for a long time I would like to quote three or four lines from John Adams, former President of the United States. He was then having difficulties just like those which the Minister of Finance is experiencing today. He said:
The distress, the confusion and the misery prevailing in America are not due to some failures in the constitution nor to the lack of honour and virtue but to crass ingorance about the nature of money, credit and currencies.
That is what he said. So money, currency, credit are the same thing. Are banks their masters? By what principles do they abide in the making of money? In credit distribution? What are they demanding in return and why? So many questions to which school books give no answer. Yet, the problem seems crucial at this time. Why the mystery about where the money comes from? Is it not high time that mystery should be dispelled? Is it not high time to examine closely the money problem which seems to be one of the causes of the present economic stagnation, for one can reasonably say that conditions, social and economic, are now such that for a large number of people they
June 25, 1975

spell the greatest wordly, material and even spiritual difficulties.
I still have many things to say but in closing I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance once again to Bill C-328 which the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada introduced to the House. That bill was brought in to provide emergency measures for dealing with price increases and fighting inflation. I urge all hon. members to read the bill with great care, to reflect upon its purpose; once again they will discover very specific, very modern proposals which, if they were implemented, would do much towards solving the problems we are now discussing in this House.
Mr. Speaker, there is no point in using the same recipes and the same remedies. We have been applying them for a hundred years and we always end up with the same troubles. Let us try something else. We risk nothing in trying something else. If the government, the Minister of Finance, has the courage to introduce a measure along those lines, he will go down into history as one the great Canadians who will have best served his country and helped solve a crucial problem that worries all Canadians. A monument will be built as a token of gratitude, because he will have been the one to put money at the service of mankind, of Canadians.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to concur, along with my colleagues on both sides of the House, in providing additional time to the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert). At least the hon. gentleman was consistent in the views on economic matters that we have heard from his party over the years. While we could not agree with all his theories we can all respect the sincerity with which they are advanced.
On the other hand, as a member of the government listening to the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), I found myself thinking of the two sailors who, after a very hard night out, found themselves on church parade next morning. In church they heard a scathing sermon on the Ten Commandments from a very articulate clergyman who went through each of the commandments and denounced those who had offended against them. The sailors were rather sheepish about the whole business and, as they were leaving, one turned to the other and said, "Well, at least we didn't make any graven images"!
After listening to the opposition one begins to wonder if there was anything at all to commend itself in the budget of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). I say there was a great deal and I want to repudiate totally some of the comments made about the minister this afternoon, particularly, those which seemed to suggest that he is uncaring on social issues, that he is not aware of the problems of the ordinary people of this country. As a colleague of his for many years I know that quite the contrary is true. Indeed, in shaping this particular budget he has done the very best it is possible to do under the
The Budget-Mr. Jamieson
circumstances, taking the welfare of all Canadians into account.
I found it exceedingly difficult to follow the hon. member for York-Simcoe this afternoon-


An hon. Member:: Why are you trying then?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is scarcely worth the effort to try, and I do not propose to give it more than a minute or two because that is all it deserves. If the hon. member wishes to get into a sparring match, however, we can enjoy ourselves between now and six o'clock.
We heard the third string critic of the Tory party on economic matters-we watched No. 1 disappear with scarcely a trace the other night, and No. 2 barely sat through it all, but No. 3 came in like amateur night at the "Bijou". Rarely in my decade in this House have I heard so many non sequiturs in the response of the major spokesman for the chief opposition party in this House as I heard this afternoon. The economists he was talking about, both inside and outside the public service, are going to have a marvellous time reading his remarks in Hansard and trying to get some thread of continuity in what he was trying to get at in his speech.
I am satisfied, however, that at the bitter end, and in a most unsatisfactory way, he decided that he was going to bring forward his own particular tablet of stone-the great Tory answer to everything that is wrong with the world, and certainly everything that is wrong with Canada.
He listed a series of things that I could not get my mind around as he ran them off, but I am going to look at them later. He wants to eliminate taxes on gasoline, to increase tremendously significant expenditures on a variety of things; he is proposing all manner of tax reductions. The only area I could determine where he was going to cut expenditures was to go still further after government expenditures. He made the blithe statement, without supporting documentation or without evidence of where he was going to do it; he simply said, "I am going to begin on the assumption that we can cut more out of what the government is doing. Accept that as gospel-don't ask me to defend it or where the money is coming from, just accept it because everything I say is dependent upon your believing the first thing I said."
It is a cliche to say, "To govern is to choose". Everyone who has had experience in government will be aware that it is a fairly simple matter to make a choice between things demonstrably good and things demonstrably bad. In many cases, however, the problem is not so black and white; it boils down to making a choice between alternatives which are equally attractive and which are mutually exclusive.
I loved the comment the hon. member for York-Simcoe made this afternoon. I wish I had said it. It was one of those great lines that will be enshrined in history-he said "inflation is a political problem". No qualifiers before-no qualifiers after-"a political problem". I am not sure what he meant by that, Mr. Speaker, but I will tell you what inflation is not: it is not a problem to play politics with.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 25, 1975
The Budget-Mr. Jamieson


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Coming back to the question of choice, Mr. Speaker, I made the point that many things are desirable and at the same time mutually exclusive. There is something else that we have learned in this country, as have many other countries in the post war world, and that is the importance of taking a variety of desirable options and granting them some degree of priority, because at any given moment in time it is not possible for our system to implement all of them and retain its equilibrium. If we are guilty of anything in this House since the war perhaps it is that we have too frequently ignored that fact.
As long as the economy was moving at a steady increase-as it was for a great many years-and as long as the world situation was reasonably stable we could go on enjoying the luxury of improving our standard of living and the way of life of the majority of Canadians. The problem with that system-and we are not the only country to discover this-is that when a system has built into it a continuously escalating annual cost and when there is any impact of a negative nature on the economy, something has to give. We either have to slow down and decide we are not going to implement certain new programs in this country-and this applies to provincial as well as federal governments-or certain programs in place must in some way be accommodated so that we do not go overboard on expenditures. It seems to me very important to recognize this.
If we assume that simply because parliament or the Government of Canada-or for that matter any other government-has started on a particular course of action, that it is going to continue to escalate indefinitely and without ceiling, then, of course, in future there will be an escalation. This put grave and significant restraints on what the Minister of Finance and the Government of Canada was able to do in the present circumstances, namely the fact that over 70 per cent of the total expenditures of the government are of a nature that do not lend themselves readily or easily, if at all, to any kind of significant change or adjustment. These are statutory programs in the health and welfare field, and include a whole range of programs relating to provincial payments.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Nonsense!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I hear the hon. member making a comment that this is nonsense. I think the truth of my assertions can easily be demonstrated, and perhaps we will have the opportunity during the course of this debate to do so.
Let me mention a few of the programs of which I have been speaking. Let us look at what has been happening in terms of provincial equalization payments. They have gone up steadily over the years. There is no cap on them. There is no way in which they can be capped. I could refer to many, many more programs.
Whether my figure of 70 per cent is precisely correct or not, the fact remains that the bigger portion of the revenues of the Government of Canada are committed in a manner which literally prevents their being changed unless there are changes in legislation and federal-provincial negotiations.

I return to the remaining 25 per cent or 30 per cent of the budget which can be cut. Remember, we are now dealing with a relatively small percentage of the total budget. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) says, "I could cut the figure." But he does not say where-which is what I said a moment ago. He simply says that the government could cut significant amounts from its spending. I ask, what would he cut? He has already said that he would not touch health or medicare costs. And that is one big package. Does he suggest that he would be prepared to cut some of the various programs which are designed to help the provinces, programs to which I referred?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Try cutting consulting fees.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am glad the hon. gentleman brought this subject up. I would gladly have spent a little more to provide him with a couple of consultants, because he might have been more competent this afternoon than he was. I have talked about playing politics with inflation, and the hon. member has precisely demonstrated my point.
I should like to refer to a saying I heard a long time ago which will be familiar, no doubt, to hon. members opposite, including the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. The comment surely applies to the present situation. The saying is this: the essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity. And if anybody was ever guilty of practising that kind of tyranny, it is the Tory and NDP spokesmen who took part in this debate. I repeat: the essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity.
When the hon. member for York-Simcoe talks about cutting expenditures by hundreds of millions of dollars, he talks about those things which are well known and highly publicized, like consultants' fees.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What about Petro-Can?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member says, what about Petro-Can? That is a beautiful question. The hon. member spent the first ten minutes of his speech denouncing the Minister of Finance for fooling the House-I think he used some such expression-by saying there was no money in Petro-Can and that therefore he could not cut any money out. Of course there is good reason why there is no money in the company. The hon. member would have been equally indignant if we had included money for the company in the estimates before introducing the appropriate bill in this House. The hon. member is fully aware that his party would not have supported such a procedure. So, let me answer the question the hon. member asked out of one side of his mouth: you cannot cut the money for Petro-Can, because there is no money in it. But when it comes to savings, when it comes to obtaining money for all the hon. member's fancy ideas, what does he say? He proposes to take $1.5 billion out of Petro-Can. I say to my hon. friend, there is a heck of a big hole in the bottom of the can he is talking about.
We are not talking here about what is to happen in the next four or five years in terms of government expenditures. We are talking about the current fiscal year. The hon. member must know, on the one hand, that there is no money in the Petro-Can budget, but then he says that he is
June 25, 1975

going to do all those things he suggested with money he would save from Petro-Can over a number of years.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Are you putting the money in, or are you not?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member will understand that when he gets the information at the appropriate time.
May I return to what I was saying a few moments ago about where you are going to cut? This is a difficult question. How are we to cope with some of the serious problems confronting us? The Conservative opposition shows a shocking ambivalence in its approach to budget cutting. You know, they have to give lip service to the idea that somehow or other unemployment insurance is a great rip-off. They have to do that. So they get up and talk about the UIC and say that, sure, they would like to see the three-week period extended to six weeks, and so on. After they have said that they have, in a sense, placated most of the shell-backs who denounce unemployment insurance in total.
Then, having said that, they talk about changing the UIC much more fundamentally and basically. Their proposals are far more far-reaching than any we are now talking about. Their proposals would, in my judgment, really undermine the integrity of the program, if they were accepted. Let us not forget-and I coming from the Atlantic provinces certainly cannot forget this-that the Minister of Finance has not cut the benefits under unemployment insurance. He has repeatedly told us this. I, for one, say that it is good for him that he has not cut benefits, although he has been repeatedly urged to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It is true, as I concede along with hon. members opposite who have said so, that there are a number of abuses connected with the program. But let us not be fooled. The vast majority of Canadians drawing unemployment insurance draw it because they need it very badly. So I say that the Minister of Finance took what I consider as the least painful of the various options open to him.
There was a time a few years ago when we might not have been as concerned or as pleased-depending on which side of the fence you happen to be on-about the basic changes in the unemployment insurance program. I notice that the minister, I beg your pardon, I mean the hon. member for York-Simcoe-God forbid he should ever be a minister-rationalized beautifully this afternoon. If anybody ever used statistics as a yo-yo, it was the hon. member for York-Simcoe this afternoon. His performance was remarkable. He talked about a $3.75 billion UIC payout, and about how the payments had gone up incredibly as between one year and the next. Of course they did. How come it has taken him so long to discover that we improved substantially the unemployment insurance program several years ago and, as a result, that hundreds of thousands of Canadians who were out of the work force in those intervening years have had available substantially greater benefits than ever before? So, one should not say that these payments involve a shocking increase in government expenditures. The program was deliberately improved, with the support and backing of hon. members
The Budget-Mr. Jamieson
opposite, many of whom wished to go even further than we went. I concede that some hon. members who are present this afternoon were not members of the House at that time. The records of the House will bear out my statement.
By the way, let me deal with the hon. member's juggling of figures. The hon. member denounced the government in a shocking way by saying that tax revenues had gone up by 41 per cent. The hon. member suggested this is terrible. I ask my hon. friend, what does this mean? By and large it means that the people of Canada were making significantly higher incomes in the years about which he is talking. That is the real accomplishment.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Taxes are up by over 40 per cent in two years.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. gentleman had his innings today; now he must sit on the back bench and catch some of the foul balls he sent this way.
I only have a few minutes left, which I am sure hon. members regret deeply. Let me say a word about the energy situation, because the situation has been misrepresented, both intentionally and unintentionally. The fact is that one must start with this basic question: what would the situation be today if the federal government had not intervened to establish the one-price system across the country? That is the point from which you start. If we had not done that, Mr. Speaker, we should have seen world prices charged in this country, or prices in one part would have been significantly different from prices in another part of the country. We would have had a situation which every member of this House conceded a year and a half or so ago would have been thoroughly undesirable and divisive for this country. Therefore, the Minister of Finance, and those associated with him, deserve a tremendous amount of credit for the manner in which they handled the whole question of the one-price system.
We are into this situation today because the circumstances of a year and a half ago have changed. The Minister of Finance made it perfectly clear that our exports to the United States, principally, have declined to the point where the tax which he was to bring in to maintain equalization is being reduced. Incidentally, it is ironic, but we are in this situation where, despite the criticisms and complaints of a few months ago-and they came from many members opposite, particularly those from the west-about our reduction in the quotas of energy flowing to the United States, that country today is not even taking the amount of the quotas that we established. In any event, that is only an aside.
The fact is that with the reduction in those, plus the increase in the amount being imported into Canada, the people of Canada were faced with a situation where we either had to let natural forces take their course or we had to maintain the one-price system. If we were to have adopted the first alternative, the prices in eastern Canada, not only for gasoline but for home heating oil, industrial oil and every other consumer product, would have been substantially higher than they are going to be as a result of the measures brought in in this budget.

June 25, 1975
The Budget-Mr. Jamieson
I was amazed today to hear the hon. member for York-Simcoe. Let him come to Newfoundland and say that it is a disgrace to have the people of Canada, the gas users, be required to pay this in order to maintain a price in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. I say shame on you.


Walter David Baker: That is a misrepresentation and you know it.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If it is a misrepresentation, then my ears are a lot worse than I think they are.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You know I never said that.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I was about to go on to say, when the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) made the interjection, and I think the hon. member knows better, that I would not deliberately misrepresent-


Walter David Baker: You did it inadvertently-


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am doing my best to be fair to the hon. member. Let me go back. The hon. member said that the consumers of gasoline in Canada should not be required to pay for a special consideration, privilege-I do not know what the word was-for the people of Quebec and the eastern provinces. I suggest that is essentially what he said. He went on to say that he would prefer to see it handled out of general revenue. I think that is the total quote.


Walter David Baker: That is better than the first time.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: My friend did not give me a chance to finish the first time. I think hon. members who have been here as long as I have will know I have yet to be properly, fairly, or correctly accused of misrepresenting anyone in this House. I do not mind mixing in debate.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if the record is checked it will be found that I used the word "inadvertent". I am prepared to say it may well have been inadvertent. I am also prepared to say in the terms of the first statement made by the minister, it was in fact a misrepresentation of the statement by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). I am not suggesting that it was deliberate. I want the
minister to understand that. It was certainly inadvertent. If it was otherwise, I apologize to the minister.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I really do not require any apology. I know this is the sort of thing that goes on here. Perhaps it ought to go on a little more often. Before it is six o'clock, I want to finish one point with regard to the gasoline tax.
I think it is a misrepresentation, whoever makes it, to give the impression that, in some way or other, if it were not for the one-price policy, this tax would not have to be imposed. In other words, what it is doing is maintaining a one-price policy across eastern Canada, and not just for gasoline. Far more important, it is significantly holding down below the world prices fuel oil, industrial oils, and various products of that kind.
I could spend a good deal of time, if it were available, talking on the positive side, the conservation argument. What the Minister of Finance has done is apply the tax where there is the maximum amount of discretion in so far as usage is concerned. I have constituents who will suffer as a result of this tax. It is true there are people who have to use their automobiles when they do not have an alternative. Nevertheless, on balance it is a more proper way of doing it than to use the technique proposed opposite, namely, to do it through general taxation or something of that sort. I do not believe that would turn out to be anything as fair in the long run.
I have barely touched on some of the matters. I tried to convey my disappointment that the opposition, particularly the Progressive Conservatives, have not seen fit to come up with positive and tangible alternatives. I am sure there will be a detailed examination of those things said today. Perhaps we will hear other things during the budget debate. However, as things stand at the moment, I think their policy is in as much disarray as it was a year ago next week, when they were then, as they would be now, repudiated by the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 26, 1975