1977-04-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. This motion is prompted today by the report of the Economic Council of Canada which pointed to what it called the "national disgrace" of unemployment caused by eight years of economic failure. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That this House directs the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to make an immediate inquiry into the failure of his programs for stopping the ever widening disparities between the have and the have-not provinces and report his findings to the House at the earliest possible opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can only be presented for debate with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the desire of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) to see justice done to those unemployment insurance claimants who did not appeal at the time of implementation of Bill C-69 on January 1, 1976, and in view of the fact that the minister wants to ensure that payments be effected expeditiously, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House instructs the minister to bring forward, by way of a separate bill, the necessary change to the Unemployment Insurance Act in order to provide justice to these persons.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO PERMIT
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker,
I hope that after having reflected on that very significant motion members will now see their way clear to showing some compassion to our senior citizens.
I rise on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion is prompted by the fact that some 18,000 senior citizens are being deprived of monetary benefits due them under the Unemployment Insurance Act causing them grievous and unnecessary hardship which calls for immediate action to remove the injustice, inequity and unfairness related thereto. In light of the fact that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) has stated that payment of the said benefits cannot be made until passage of Bill C-27 which would legalize the required payment, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That this House, assuring speedy passage, directs the government to introduce immediately, amending legislation dealing specifically with this very unacceptable situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation for debate of such motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can only be made with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity and seek the unanimous consent of the House. In view of the transfer of departments of the federal government to Hull, in the province of Quebec; in view of the current practice of this government to make tax deductions at source from the pay cheques of public servants on the basis of their place of work rather than on the basis of their place of residence, and in view of the fact that
4806
External Affairs
this practice removes funds from the pockets of public servants living in Ontario but working in Hull, funds that take months to recover-funds amounting to as much as $85 per month-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the government immediately circulate option forms to all public servants so that those working in the Ottawa-Hull area may decide whether they wish to have their tax deductions made from their pay cheques on the basis of their residence or of their place of work.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate pursuant to Standing Order 43 can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the urgent need for employment opportunities in the Placentia-Argentia area of Newfoundland and the opportunities that would be created once the facilities on the north side of the U.S. naval station Argentia are turned over to control by Newfoundland authorities, and in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) one month ago advised the mayor of Dunville that the U.S. government is prepared to lease back to Canada the unused properties and that he hoped there will be created a Canadian management authority in the area but that formal negotiations should begin only within the next two or three months, after a period of unnecessary delay,
I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs be instructed to treat the matter of obtaining of the facilities at Argentia by Newfoundland as a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, with negotiations to this end to be concluded immediately and the facilities made available for industrial purposes now, and that the Department of External Affairs make this their highest priority in United States-Canada relations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The presentation of such motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

April 20, 1977


CITIZENSHIP
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise a question of urgent and pressing necessity arising out of the flood of applications which has overwhelmed the citizenship branch of the Department of the Secretary of State, producing delays in processing which have serious consequences for many Canadians. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That this House urge the Secretary of State to initiate such emergency measures as are necessary to clear up the backlog of citizenship applications.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I should say, it is interesting to note how quickly the Minister of Transport has hurried back to the House of Commons-and he has brought his baggage carrier with him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Goodale:: Keep laughing, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. We are still waiting for the Acting Prime Minister to make up his mind on the question of references of unemployment matters to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I would be interested to know if he has yet leaned across the aisle to find out if that would be acceptable to the Minister of Finance.
Let me ask him this question. In light of today's release of the Economic Council of Canada report, which says that despite federal programs to narrow regional disparities, those regional disparities are still, in the language of the council, intolerably large, and which calls our high unemployment levels a national disgrace, I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister will immediately refer this document and its recom-

April 20, 1977

mendations to the appropriate standing committee of the House?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has referred to a publication by the Economic Council of Canada of an important study which will be considered carefully by the government. With respect to his question on references to the standing committee, I have had discussions with the Minister of Finance and we still remain unconvinced that that would be a useful step at this stage.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada remains unconvinced that the parliament of Canada should have any role to play in the determination of employment matters. What we want to happen is not just the government but a committee of this parliament to consider the implications of the Economic Council report. It would be fine with us to start with some indication of the government's response to that very important document. Will the Acting Prime Minister now give us an undertaking that there will be an immediate statement in this House of government policy and government response to this important document which casts serious doubt on the adequacy and effectiveness of both the government's industrial expansion programs and its measures to create jobs in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the report to which the hon. member refers is quite a comprehensive one and brings to light a number of factors that may have hitherto been unrecognized as sources of regional economic disparity. The hon. member will realize that the council places increasing emphasis on increasing productivity per worker in the areas of slow growth and addresses not only the federal government but also the provinces, underlining the necessity of a joint and new approach to the problem of economic disparity.
The hon. member will also realize that the comments of the council on the question of regionalized fiscal policy have already been met, or at least, recognized, by the actions taken in the budget by the Minister of Finance. There is no desire on the part of the government to conceal the seriousness of the problems that are disclosed in the Economic Council's report. Quite apart from the question of whether it would be useful to send it to a standing committee or make a statement at an early date, certainly the matter will be receiving intensive consideration by the government.


PROPOSAL TO ATTACH ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY TO EACH PIECE OF LEGISLATION INTRODUCED
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the interest of this House is not in what is in the report. We know that. That was not much added to by the loquacious summary by the Acting Prime Minister. We want to know what the government is going to do about it. On page 214 of this comprehensive report, there is a recommendation for a continuous monitoring of the regional side effects of federal expenditures and policies which are often contradictory and work
Oral Questions
against consistent regional development efforts. In light of this proposal, will the government consider, as proposed in private members' legislation by my colleague from Peace River, attaching to each major piece of legislation an economic impact study which could include an assessment of the regional side effects of national policies?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to consider the report in the same careful way as the hon. member. I am not in a position to reply to that suggestion made by the hon. member. It is probably worthy of serious consideration.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it has taken the Acting Prime Minister three days to lean across the aisle to ask the Minister of Finance what they are going to do about our earlier request for a reference. How long does he expect it to take to read this report, make a response to the House of Commons and make a reference to a standing committee?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TAX INCENTIVES TO INDUSTRIES IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES- COMMENTS BY PROVINCES
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance on the same subject. It is with respect to the fiscal initiative referred to by the Acting Prime Minister and the one that was introduced by the Minister of Finance in his budget. Has he yet had an opportunity to become acquainted with the provincial governments directly affected by such an implication, that is Quebec and the four Atlantic provinces, about the extent to which it is likely to be effective in dealing with the seriously high unemployment situation in that area? Perhaps equally important, has there been any canvassing of other fiscal initiatives that might be taken in order to fill much of the underlying need referred to in this report?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that we have not yet received any specific comments from the finance ministers of the five easternmost provinces on this specific aspect of the budget.
With regard to the question of changes in the fiscal policy which would be of specific regional assistance, this was a matter of rather extensive consideration in the budget preparation. The hon. member will recall earlier studies financed by- I think I am correct in saying-the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council which at that time passed certain judgment upon the effects of the fiscal measures as a result of which we moved to the grant and loan approach. The hon. member from Cape Breton took exception to regional measures of this kind which, as the President of the Privy Council said, can improve the productivity of industry in the Atlantic provinces and I am rather surprised he should be opposing that kind of change.
80012-26%

April 20, 1977
Oral Questions
POSSIBILITY OF REDIRECTING SOME GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES TO AREAS OF HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: 1 wonder if the Minister of Finance could indicate, because of the fairly strong agreement which I think exists both within the five eastern provinces as well as in the overview of this particular report as to the importance of a greater concern for priorities in federal expenditures, not necessarily an increase, whether there has been any consultation in this area with respect to a review of departmental capital works projects scheduled for next year in order to redirect spending to areas of greatest and chronically high unemployment?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Active attention has been given to this, particularly under the direction of my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, not only to redirect capital projects in this area but to transfer significant portions of the public service into the slower growth regions so that they, too, may benefit from the infrastructure of the government.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Inasmuch as the last part of the minister's answer refers to something which would take years to have an impact, and since unemployment has grown at an alarming rate in the eastern provinces over the last 12 to 18 months, can the minister indicate whether there are any immediate plans to have an immediate consultation with the five eastern governments in view of this report and other comments from the eastern part of Canada in terms of reordering expenditures for the next fiscal year to achieve some measure of impact on the very serious unemployment situation in eastern Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The direct employment measures which were further augmented in the budget are specifically directed to the short run. With regard to the situation in eastern Canada, I am prepared to take under consideration a possible meeting between myself or the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion with his Atlantic counterparts to see if the objectives can be further pursued.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, I have a question for the Minister of Finance-


An hon. Member:: In the absence of Stanley Knowles!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: He is over there.


Mr. Hees:: What did they pay you, Stanley?


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Is he going to the Senate?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I have no concern about any of my members crossing to the other side except on a temporary basis.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about Ed Schreyer!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Now that everyone is reseated in proper positions the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has the floor.


John Edward Broadbent: My question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs-I see he is now back in the chamber.
I should like to ask him why he has announced, in the context of the by-elections in the Province of Quebec, the decision of the federal government to proceed with the construction of a $200 million federal civil service complex in downtown Montreal at a time when an official of the Department of Public Works has stated there is no need for expenditure on such facilities.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: That is a matter of opinion, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Even Buchanan is smiling.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister, at the time of his announcement, said the decision was intended to symbolize Ottawa's commitment to Quebec. At any rate, those were the words attributed to him. Considering that since 1960, 30,000 residential units in the city of Montreal have been destroyed and only
6,000	public housing units have been built to replace them, would the minister justify to the House the expenditure of $200 million on a public service building which is not required, instead of spending the money on housing for which he is responsible?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, if we can come to an understanding with the civic and provincial authorities, there is no doubt Montreal will be provided very soon with the type of social housing the hon. member is suggesting.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my final supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In light of the statements made by the Minister of Finance at the time of the presentation of his budget about the government's commitment to restrain unnecessary government expenditures, is the Minister of Finance prepared to defend in the House a decision to spend $200 million on a public service facility that is not needed when housing which is badly needed in the city of Montreal is being ignored?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question has, as has been recognized, a slightly argumentative tone to it.
April 20, 1977


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Can the Solicitor General confirm or deny the information which I have received and which we have all read in the papers these past few days to the effect that on April 18 his department sent a telegram to the Leclerc Institute ordering the release of prisoner No. 8537, a Mr. Laurier Boutin?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's inquiry, I must say that Mr. Boutin had been first liberated under mandatory surveillance in October 1974 and that his imprisonment was to come to an end on October 12, 1975. At the time of his deportation from the United States to Canada in November 1976, a warrant had been issued to cancel his liberation order under mandatory surveillance. However, in the summer of 1976, the British Columbia courts found that the warrant to cancel his parole could not be executed because it had been issued after the expiry date of his parole. That is why, having reviewed the cases of 17 people detained under a warrant executed after the date of the parole or after the expiry date of the mandatory surveillance, the National Parole Board was under the legal obligation to release prisoner Boutin.


REASON FOR TRANSFERRING INMATE FROM ONE INSTITUTION TO ANOTHER
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
Does the Solicitor General know that since last fall that former inmate has apparently been held at Joliette, Par-thenais, Sainte-Anne, Saint-Vincent-de-Paul and at Leclerc Institute, and is it common practice than an inmate be transferred so many times from one institution to the other?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the transfer of an inmate from one prison to another depends of course on his rating, which is done by penitentiary authorities.


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
[Stage Direction]
REASON FOR EXPENDITURE TO PUBLISH SPEECH BY MR. GfiRIN-LAJOIE
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister explain to the House why his department authorized the expenditure of more than $20,000 to publish the speech of Mr. Gerin-Lajoie, the then head of
Oral Questions
CIDA, last May and does the government agree with this kind of expenditure of public funds?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In reply to the latter part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the sound words of wisdom could have been published for a hell of a lot less than $20,000, if I may put it in that way. So far as the authorization is concerned, it is my understanding that it is not something that came out of the Department of External Affairs but was within the responsibilities of CIDA itself. I believe the matter also came up in committee and was answered by the present president of CIDA last night.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in view of this very unfortunate expenditure, has the minister made it very clear to CIDA that the money voted for it is to be used to help underdeveloped countries and not simply to bolster undernourished egos?


PETRO-CANADA ALLEGED CAMPAIGN AGAINST COMPANY BY FOREIGN-CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The chairman of the board of directors of Petro-Canada stated in his speech to the Canadian Club of Toronto several days ago that a few large foreign controlled companies are waging, and I quote: "an unrelenting underground campaign against Petro-Canada" and that they are "seizing every opportunity to restrict its role and undermine its creditibili-ty ..."
In his appearance before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works yesterday Mr. Strong declined to identify these foreign controlled companies or how they were conducting their campaign. Does the minister agree with the statements made by Mr. Strong or his chairman, or does he consider the statements to be evidence of some kind of paranoia among the board of directors? If the minister agrees with those statements, would he identify the companies involved, how they are waging their campaigns and what steps he is going to take to deal with these foreign controlled companies?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there is more than one group of people who are anxious to bring Petro-Canada to an end. It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition is also waging an unrelenting campaign and perhaps identifying, himself with some of the views of the multinational corporations.


An hon. Member:: Jack Horner as well!


Walter David Baker: Answer the question!

April 20, 1977
Oral Questions


ALLEGED BLOCKING OF EXPLORATION OF FRONTIER AREAS BY COMPANIES HOLDING LAND-GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, despite the minister's objection to giving us any information, I would like to ask him this. Mr. Strong has also said that Petro-Can is being blocked in its attempt to explore in frontier areas by the high cost that the companies holding lands in those areas are charging newcomers. He said that some of those companies have had land declaration permits for 12 years and have not acted in the national interest.
Does the minister agree with that statement? Would he identify those companies? What action is he going to take to open those areas to exploration by Petro-Can and other private entrepreneurs? What action will be taken on that?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite plain that some of those corporations to which the hon. member has referred have been sitting on some very important permits in the north.


An hon. Member:: They have waited seven years for regulations, though.


Alastair William Gillespie: That is one of the main reasons for Petro-Canada moving in. Where those permits are held by foreign corporations, they can prevent a joint venture taking place by asking for an exorbitant arrangement. I do not think the hon. member would want Petro-Canada to take any deal at any price. Petro-Canada is proving to be just as hard a bargainer with respect to permit rights as any of the multinational corporations themselves.


CUSTOMS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Some months ago there were changes made in the customs facilities and the immigration facilities at Gander airport to improve the situation. I wonder if the minister is now satisfied as to the progress of these improved facilities, or are they still at the stage of what I call the cattle pens? If so, has she consulted with her colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, to see that adequate facilities are provided at this international airport?


Steve Eugene Paproski: 
Steve Eugene Paproski: You will do anything for Castro!


AIRPORTS
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Will he tell us whether there has been any substantial change in the facilities that have been provided? Have there been any delays instituted or prolongations instituted in the provision of the adequate facility required for an airport of international stature handling international passengers on a layover basis?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of delays in the process of determining what expenditures could be made and at what particular time. At the present time, we are having a further look at the exact recommendations to be made and the type of construction and alterations which can be managed at this point in time.


An hon. Member:: Ask Dief!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member if it is intended to install adequate restrooms and coffee shop facilities for these people which I am told do not exist in any satisfactory quantity at this time? What does he anticipate the date of starting the work and completing the work to be which has now been under way for over a year, according to my recollection of my first inquiries?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question, I may have left some misimpression. I thought the hon. member was talking about the Edmonton airport. He was referring to the Gander one and I missed the original question when the exchange was started. Am I correct in thinking that he was referring to the Gander airport?


Walter David Baker: The Crowfoot airport.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I was referring to the customs and immigration facilities at Gander and not Edmonton. We can start on Edmonton, if you wish.


Otto Emil Lang: I am glad to know that the hon. member is more interested in Gander. I would have to tell him that the plans for the permanent facilities were moved forward and the decision to attempt to make do with certain temporary facilities has been put aside. Therefore, we will be moving as rapidly as possible with the provision of the permanent facilities for customs clearance in the Gander airport.
April 20, 1977


George Harris Hees: You seem to be kind of upset and confused today, Otto.


TRANSPORT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport on this day of days analogous to the day on which the sheriff joined the cattle rustlers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I would like to ask the hon. member in order to dampen the fears of the people of Saskatchewan, whether he had the assurance of the Prime Minister during the pilgrimage in Saskatchewan that the Department of Transport will not be transferred to the province of Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Good-bye, Otto.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Bye, bye, Otto.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in response to the opening remarks of the right hon. gentleman, I may observe on the forced joviality of the people over there who until now have welcomed as a colleague someone who has decided that the aromas over there and the lack of leadership in any direction leave him no option but to-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Wonderful!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Three out of ten!


Walter David Baker: Another Senator Lang, or is it Senator Goodale?


Otto Emil Lang: Except in the minds of apparently some of the media and perhaps some of the members opposite, there has been no question whatever of any change in my responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: I am delighted, therefore, to assure the right hon. gentleman that such items as the airport at Prince Albert, with which I am so much concerned, will go forward in the way that has been planned and there is no interference with that. I can also assure the right hon. gentleman from a meeting of
5,000	people in Saskatoon last night greeting the Prime Minister that a great number of things of a successful nature are happening to the Liberal Party in the west these days.


Walter David Baker: Did you have to fly anybody in?
Oral Questions


John George Diefenbaker: So far as the last observation is concerned, the same situation prevailed as always because Sas-katonians welcome those for whom they do not want to vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the lame duck Minister of Transport before he flies off to another portfolio.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The CNR has recently announced the cancellation of a plan to upgrade the CN track from Gillam, Manitoba to the port of Churchill. Is the minister aware of this and what is he going to do about this since it throws into jeopardy the whole development of the port of Churchill which was promised by the government four years ago at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference?


Otto Emil Lang: The question of the upgrading of the Churchill line has been brought to my attention and the apparent decision of CN to postpone certain improvement plans in relation to it. I consider that to be a very serious matter. The apparent public reasons for that postponement do not make a great deal of sense and I will be looking into the matter.


TRANSPORT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Four years ago at the conference in Alberta the government promised to upgrade grain handling facilities in the port of Churchill to handle hopper cars which apparently cannot even go there unless the tracks are upgraded. I should like to ask the minister whether or nor the government intends to fulfil its promise to upgrade the grain handling facilities, namely, the National Harbours Board elevator at Churchill, and if they are going to do that, when will they do it, because it is already four years overdue?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that upgrading has been in progress and is taking place, and therefore the hon. gentleman is out of date. That is why I think the question of the rail line and its condition is important.

April 20, 1977
Oral Questions ENERGY


POSSIBILITY OF NEW CONSERVATION MEASURES
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the minister knows, President Carter of the United States went on national television recently to warn Americans of the impending energy crisis threatening the very fabric of that nation. In view of his emphasis on the need to conserve energy and avoid waste, I would like to ask the minister whether any new initiatives are being considered toward a similar goal in this country or whether he is satisfied that our conservation efforts are proceeding satisfactorily?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the government has introduced a large number of conservation measures and is considering others as well in the hope that it will be joined by the provinces in a series of measures aimed at encouraging home re-insulation across the country. This is one of the major areas where Canadians can save energy. Whether or not the government supports that, I think the Canadian people should realize it is in their interest to do so. There are a number of other areas in the conservation field which we will be announcing in the very near future. One of those, of course, is the whole question of home insulation standards for new houses and buildings.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM GOVERNMENT'S PLANS FOR POST-CONTROL PERIOD IN PUBLIC SECTOR
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Finance. In light of the call to the minister by Mr. Pepin, the chairman of the AIB, to declare right now the government's plans for wage control in the public sector in the post-control period, will the minister come clean with the Canadian people who are at least as confused about the government's intentions as is the AIB chairman?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member is not referring exactly to what the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board said, but I would say to the hon. gentleman that my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, has been meeting with provincial colleagues with the aim of achieving a general agreement and a formula which will restrain the rate of compensation increases in the public sector after the end of the anti-inflation program.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I thank the minister for his response and in view of what he said I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board about the apparent abrogation by the Treasury Board of its responsibilities to control the Public Service of Canada wage increases before the controls program has ended. In view of the fact that on at least four occasions recently the Treasury Board has concluded contracts in excess of the eight per cent wage maximum for the second year of the program, will the President of the Treasury Board tell the House whether he considers it his department's duty to keep wage contracts under the guidelines or whether he feels this is something for the AIB alone to consider?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall any settlement that has not been within the authorized limits prescribed by the Anti-Inflation Board. I would like to know of the four occasions to which the hon. member is referring specifically, but I can generalize and say to the hon. member that he should recognize that there are, on occasion, exceptions and arrangements within AIB regulations that are quite permissible. I could give the hon. member and other hon. members an assurance that I know of no settlement that has not been acceptable to the AIB, and indeed all are referred to the AIB.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that security costs at Canadian airports are more than twice those in the United States on a per passenger basis, can the minister advise if recent posters sent by him to airports which read:
Lonesome-Want to be noticed?
Want to meet people?
Like excitement?
Then just ignore airport security regulations.
Will develop and maintain a sense of responsibility with regard to security at our airports?


MINISTER'S VIEW OF NEED FOR MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The director of the office of energy and conservation in the minister's department has stated in an interview in the Globe and Mail of today that Canada will not need a
April 20, 1977

Mackenzie river valley pipeline or any other major frontier energy project until at least 1990. The director, Mr. David Brooks, is quoted as stating that Canadian demands can be satisfied until then by conventional energy resources and renewable resources plus the development of oil sands and heavy oil. This statement is directly contrary to statements made by the deputy minister of energy, mines and resources, Mr. Gordon McNabb, who has said that even with rigorous conservation there will be an energy shortage in Canada in 1990-
Oral Questions


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the document was not drawn up in consultation with me. It was drawn up under the jurisdiction, I believe, of the director of the anti-combines legislation who is responsible for that. He is the one who decided the meeting should be called. I have strong reservations about what the document contains, and we are studying it at the present time. I am surprised that so many people had copies of the document in view of the time it was published. Many people were invited to that meeting, and they all had documents.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the hon. member does not expect to enjoy a preamble of that length. If he has a question to put, he should put it.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Does the minister agree with the statement made by Mr. David Brooks that Canada will not need a Mackenzie river valley pipeline until at least 1990, or does the minister agree with the statements made by his deputy minister, Mr. McNabb, or, in other words what is the official opinion of the government on this question?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the interpretation of Mr. Brooks and I agree with the assessment made by my deputy minister. I believe that after a conversation between the two of them Dr. Brooks will agree that he had either misread, misinterpreted, or both, the facts of the situation.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The contradictory statements of Mr. Brooks and Mr. McNabb indicate deep divisions of opinion in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources with respect to Canada's needs and prospects. Would the minister agree to having Mr. Brooks and Mr. McNabb, as well as other officials, appear before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works to explain their different views and opinions on these major issues?


MINISTER'S POSITION ON ITEMS IN BUDGET AFFECTING FARMERS
[Stage Direction]

Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Apparently everybody but the minister had a copy of that document. I have a question for the minister relating to another document. Was the minister consulted by the Minister of Finance prior to the introduction of his recent budget, and if so, did he indicate his agreement with the fact that in the 19 pages in the budget speech only two sentences dealt directly with agriculture, and those sentences fell under the heading of small business?


Eugene Whelan: I am sure that the hon. member knows that most successful farmers are good businessmen, and there are many things in the budget which apply to agricultural producers in Canada. A smart young member like the hon. member should realize that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
* *
*


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It arises from the leaking on Saturday of a document prepared confidentially in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs dated February 21, 1977. Was the Minister of Agriculture consulted during the preparation by the government of this confidential document leaked to the press last Saturday which made a serious attack on the marketing board concept and, if not, can the minister tell the House why this document was drawn up and made public without his participation when marketing boards fall under his jurisdiction and represent the cornerstone of his agricultural policy?


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the subject which has just been raised, and it is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It is prompted by a number of actions of his department and certain statements by the minister which clearly demonstrate this government's intention to question, to challenge and, indeed, to harass the whole system of orderly marketing of farm products. I want to ask the minister to explain why a deliberate attempt was made to exclude the presence of representatives from any national farm organization at the recent seminar on agricultural competition.


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, not only do I deny the preamble of the question but I also deny that such was the case. Invitations to that seminar were issued on quite a wide basis.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. Does the minister agree with the

April 20, 1977
Oral Questions
contents and conclusions of the prepared document? Does the minister really agree with this nonsense, and would he simply answer yes or no?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not answer just yes or no. I will say that the document, as I stated yesterday, was a preliminary working paper for the purposes of this seminar, and though I find some of its conclusions interesting and even compelling, I do not agree conclusively with the findings because they are of a preliminary nature.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has he been giving some very serious consideration to the problems faced by some 18,000 senior citizens as a result of his not being able to pay UIC benefits to them, to which he says they are entitled? Given the fact that we do not know when Bill C-27 will be given final reading, has he taken into consideration the very unjust and unsatisfactory position these 18,000 senior citizens are now in, and will he now assure the House that he will introduce amending legislation? We on this side of the House can assure him of early and speedy passage so that the legal entanglements can be unravelled and so that these very deserving people can get their benefits.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it was after the decision of Mr. Justice Addy that we came to the conclusion that in all equity the 18,000, in addition to the 600 who filed appeals, should be entitled to unemployment insurance payments. I felt that the amendments to Bill C-27 would cover the situation. On the basis of the hon. member's recommendations yesterday in the course of a question of privilege which was raised, I did look into the possibility of a private members' bill which would clear the House in an hour. I learned that, because this involves an expenditure of funds, we could not use that procedure.
I then considered the possibility of withdrawing a clause and starting a new bill. I understand from the Department of Justice that in order to do that I have to withdraw the whole bill and introduce two new bills, which brings some complexity to the matter. So I am looking to see if there is some way of expediting this matter, but so far I have run into legal roadblocks.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, thank God the minister is now getting a little sense, and I appreciate that, but I have just one simple question. When we are talking about money and about it being expensive or beyond budgetary restraints, what are we talking about? What is so prohibitive about the money the minister just mentioned, without giving us a figure?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I was indicating that a private members' bill of this nature cannot be introduced by a member of parliament. I was not referring to the amount of money, but I have indicated that it should be paid. In the first instance we felt that in all conscience these additional 18,000 people should receive UIC benefits. It is just a question of finding a route by which we can do it as expeditiously as possible, given the rules of the House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answers given by the minister to the effect that he will take this matter up with the law officers of the Crown-perhaps he has not as yet done that-in order to see to it that there is a formula which can be arrived at to bring relief as soon as possible. Can the minister assure me of that?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, that in effect is the stance I have already taken, and that is the advice I have received, but I am not going to take no for an answer just yet. I want to see if there is an avenue.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. We have learned that funds are readily available for a $200 million public services building in Montreal. May we expect an announcement soon about the preparation of working plans, at a cost of about $4 million, for the new national gallery, thus assuring the government's commitment to the entire country?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, basically the decision on whether to proceed with the national gallery rests with my colleague, the Secretary of State.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the recent government report on health and safety conditions in the country's grain elevators, which describes working conditions as deplorable at best, will the minister inform the House what action his department will be taking to ensure that the health and safety of Canada's 31,000 grain handlers will be protected?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: blesome matter. The department has upgraded its regulations very substantially to require a much higher level of safety and attention to the environment of grain handlers working in this country. We have also appointed a commission headed by Dr. Finn of the University of British Columbia. Both the grain handlers' union and the employers were fully consulted with respect to that particular appointee. They support him. He will make some detailed technical recommendations very shortly, as I understand it. In the meantime, certain of the evidence which has come before him we have already incorporated into some of our regulations to upgrade these standards.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, will the minister assure the House that in addition to the corrective action he has indicated he will bring forward amendments to the Canada Labour Code as well as other legislation ensuring compensation for workers whose health has been impaired and giving workers the right to monitor health and safety conditions in the workplace and to refuse to do work which is found to be hazardous or unsafe?


John Carr Munro: I am somewhat surprised at the comments of the hon. member because in the debate on the Speech from the Throne a few months ago I referred to a 14 point program of the government. Included in that program is the right of a worker to refuse to work under unsafe conditions. Previously under the Canada Labour Code it was the duty of workers to refuse to work under such conditions, but now we have established under this program that that is a right which can be enforced. If employers in such circumstances should take any action against such workers which the workers perceive to be unjust-firings or demotions-they have a right to appeal to the Canada Labour Relations Board.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
As the municipal airport located near the town of Mont-magny no longer meets the needs of the area in view of the development of the south shore, can the minister tell the House whether there have been consultations with the Quebec government with regard to that small municipal airport with a view to improving the facilities so that those who want to use it can do so with greater safety?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would have to look into that before I could inform the hon. member whether there has, been any such correspondence.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies, in both official languages, of volume I, part I, of the Tariff Board report on fresh and processed fruits and vegetables.


CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1977 AMENDMENTS TO CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Robert Knight Andras: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since my response to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar I have been reminded that I should have made the one exception that I know of, and that was the Post Office wage settlement of late 1975 or early 1976. I now correct that answer.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 198, 1,392, 1,745, 1,773, 1,866, 2,020, 2,021, 2,035, 2,036 and 2,074.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Which countries have received technical or monetary assistance for projects involving linerboard, newsprint and the pulp and paper industry in general?
2.	For those projects involving monetary assistance what (a) was the amount of each grant or loan (b) interest rate was charged on the loan (c) was the repayment plan for the loan?
3.	How much, if any, of each grant or loan was designated as assistance to develop manpower resources?


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned, the answer is as follows: 1, 2 and 3. (a) (i) Ghana (ii) (a) $998,129.09 loan, (b) nil. (c) ten years grace. Forty years

April 20, 1977
Order Paper Questions
repayment commencing September 30, 1981. Semi-annual payments of $12,500 with final payment of $10,629.09 on March 31, 2021. (iii) Nil. (b) (i) Bangladesh-three projects (ii) (a) Grants of $337,000, $48,750. and $175,000. (b) N/A (c) N/A (iii) $25,000. (c) (i) Sri Lanka, three projects (ii) (a) Grants of $1,000,000, $800,000. and $120,000. (b) N/A (c) N/A (iii) Nil.


Mr. Whiteway: 1.	For the year 1976, how many postage-stamp-type Christmas cards were printed for distribution by the Postmaster General?
2.	What was (a) the per unit cost, including the value of the enclosed stamps (b) the total cost?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1. Seven hundred Christmas cards were printed for distribution by the Postmaster General. These cards were enclosed in folders containing Christmas postage stamps, which were prepared for special presentations and to promote philatelic sales of Canadian stamps.
2.	The Postmaster General absorbed the cost at his own personal expense.


Mr. Allard: Has the retirement age for workers been established at 65 and, if so (a) since what date (b) under what authority?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Department of Labour and National Health and Welfare as follows: No retirement age has been established for Canadian workers. However, the minimum age for receipt of Old Age Security (OAS) and Canada Pension Plan (CPP) basic retirement pensions is 65 years of age. Since there is no retirement qualification attached to OAS and CPP, a pensioner may continue to work and receive his/her benefits at the same time.


Mr. McKinnon: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia, who performed services during (a) 1975 (b) 1976 for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and, in each case, what was the total amount paid?


André Ouellet: am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: CMHC retained the lawyers listed below to handle mortgage documentation for loans approved in the Metropolitan Victoria area, in 1975 and 1976:
Name	Location
1975	C. O. D. Branson	Victoria
Ray T. Bryant	"
Allan L. Cox	"
R. H. G. Harman	"
R. B. Hutchison	"
Louis F. Lindholm	"
I.	H. Stewart	"
David R. Wilson	"
1976	C. O. D. Branson	"
Ray T. Bryant	"
Mohan S. Jawl	"
Louis F. Lindholm	"
I.	H. Stewart	"
David R. Wilson	"
Legal fees in connection with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation direct loans are paid by the borrower and CMHC, therefore, has no record of the amounts paid to these lawyers. The following lawyers were retained to handle legal actions for 1975 and 1976 in the Metropolitan Victoria area:
Name	Location Legal Costs and Fees
1975	Allan L. Cox Victoria	nil1976	Allan L. Cox	"	nil
Where actions are settled prior to trial, the costs are paid by the borrower and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has no records of the amounts.


Mr. Allard: 1.	(a) When the Anti-Inflation Board was created, how many employees did the government expect to hire (b) how many persons are employed at the present time (c) have there been any lay-offs and, if so (i) on what dates (ii) how many employees were affected?
2.	How many employees of the Board have an annual salary of (a) $10,000 to $15,000 (b) $15,000 to $20,000 (c) $20,000 to $30,000 (d) $30,000 to $40,000 (e) $40,000 to $50,000 (f) $50,000 to $60,000 (g) $60,000 to $75,000 (h) $75,000 or more?
3.	What amount has the government budgeted for the Board since its creation?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. (a) A study was completed prior to the setting up of the Anti-Inflation Commission on October 14, 1975 and the estimated figure of 200 employees was based on the assumption that there would be a highly selective monitoring of only 1,200 major firms, and this was only a fraction of the much broader monitoring actually decided upon. At the present time over 15,000 firms and associations are monitored, (b) As of February 11, 1977 the members of personnel were as follows: Secondments, 61; Permanent, 453; Term, 291; Agency, 9; Executive Interchange, 36; Contract, 75; Total 925. (c) No. (i) Not applicable, (ii) Not applicable.
	Annual Salary	No.
(a)	$ 10,000 to 15,000	268(b)	15,000 to 20,000	91(c)	20,000 to 30.000	126<d)	30,000 to 40,000	52

April 20, 1977

Annual Salary No.		
(C)	40,000 to 7 50,000	
(0	50,000 to 1 60,000	
<g>
60,000 to Nil 75,000	
(h) 75,000 or More Nil		
Estimates	Fiscal Year	AmountSupplementary Estimates A	1975-76	$ 4,863,000Supplementary Estimates B	1975-76	565,000Main Estimates	1976-77	12,530,000Supplementary Estimates B	1976-77	10,400,000Main Estimates	1977-78	23,240,000


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount at credit in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1974 (b) March 31, 1975 (c) March 31, 1976?
2.	What rate of interest has the government paid for the use of this money during the fiscal years ending on the dates noted above?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1974 (b) March 31, 1975 (c) March 31, 1976?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1974 (b) March 31, 1975 (c) March 31, 1976?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Balance in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account (CFSA) as at: 1.

(a)	March 31, 1974 2,045,491,841.99
(b)	March 31, 1975 2,116,679,314.41
(c)	March 31, 1976 2,186,562,695.73
Actuarial
Liability Account	Total
3,059,808,551.27 5,105,300,393.26 3,655,451,593.68	5,772,130,908.09
4,270,267,250.56	6,456,829,946.29
2.	Quarterly rates of interest for: (a) 1973/74 Quarter ending 30-6-73, 1.5042 per cent; Quarter ending 30-9-73, 1.5252 per cent; Quarter ending 31-12-73, 1.5364 per cent; Quarter ending 31-3-74, 1.5490 per cent, (b) 1974/75 Quarter ending 30-6-74, 1.5642 per cent; Quarter ending 30-9-74, 1.59 per cent; Quarter ending 31-12-74, 1.6259 per cent; Quarter ending 31-3-75, 1.6363 per cent, (c) 1975/76 Quarter ending 30-6-75, 1.6612 per cent; Quarter ending 30-9-75, 1.6724 per cent; Quarter ending 31-12-75, 1.7109 per cent; Quarter ending 31-3-76, 1.7209 per cent.
3.	Amount of Interest Credited to CFSA during fiscal year ending:
CFSA	Actuarial Acct.	Total(a)	March 31, 1974	79,807,185.87(b)	March 31, 1975	82,790,414.91(c)	March 31, 1976	85,565,010.91
1 10,120,544.37 134,902,988.41 157,615,719.88
189,927,730.24
217,693,403.32
243,180,730.79
4.	Payments out of CFSA during fiscal year ending: (a) March 31, 1974, $135,815,670.88 (b) March 31, 1975, $154,976,541.24 (c) March 31, 1976, $172,352,486.95.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	In each year 1959 to 1976, both inclusive (a) how many personnel of the Canadian Armed Forces have commenced drawing pensions under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (b) how many widows have commenced drawing pensions under the said Act?
2.	In each year 1959 to 1976, both inclusive, how many pensions under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (a) to retired Canadian Armed Forces personnel (b) to widows of such personnel, have been discontinued because of the death of the annuitant?
3.	In each year 1946 to 1976, both inclusive, how many service personnel contributed to the pension or annuity account under the former Part V or under the provisions of the present Canadian Forces Superannuation Act?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. (a)
The number of Canadian Forces personnel from 1959 to 1976 inclusive who commenced drawing pensions under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA) was as follows: 1959, 752; 1960, 1,048; 1961, 1,418; 1962, 1,343; 1963, 1,623; 1964, 2,454; 1965, 3,419; 1966, 3,407; 1967, 2,983; 1968, 2,787; 1969, 4,050; 1970, 4,075; 1971, 4,267; 1972, 4,405; 1973, 3,357; 1974, 3,478; 1975, 3,459; 1976, 3,003. (b) The number of widows of Canadian personnel from 1959 to 1976 inclusive who commenced drawing pensions under the CFSA was as follows: 1959, 98; 1960, 121; 1961, 166; 1962, 179; 1963, 207; 1964, 208; 1965, 283; 1966, 263; 1967, 303; 1968, 303; 1969, 371; 1970, 323; 1971, 375; 1972, 420; 1973, 441; 1974, 478; 1975, 470; 1976,554.
2.	(a) The number of pensions to retired Canadian Forces personnel for the years in question which were discontinued because of the death of the annuitant was as follows: 1959, 91; 1960, 103; 1961, 114; 1962, 127; 1963, 142; 1964, 169; 1965, 190; 1966, 208; 1967, 243; 1968, 295; 1969, 353; 1970, 356; 1971, 331; 1972, 323; 1973, 379; 1974, 524; 1975, 496; 1976, 513. (b) The number of pensions to widows of Canadian Forces personnel which were discontinued because of the death of the annuitant was as follows: 1959, 9; 1960, 12; 1961, 17; 1962, 19; 1963, 26; 1964, 28; 1965, 34; 1966, 39, 1967, 45; 1968, 56; 1969, 50; 1970, 52; 1971, 24; 1972, 11; 1973, 12; 1974, 30; 1975, 39; 1976, 58.
3.	The number of contributors to the CFSA or the former Part V based on the strength of the armed forces as at March 31 of each year indicated, was as follows: 1946, 212,692(1); 1947, 36,535(1); 1948, 34,762(1); 1949, 41,676(1); 1950, 47,185(1); 1951, 68,427(1); 1952, 95,394(1); 1953, 104,-427(1); 1954, 1 12,529(1); 1955, 118,077; 1956, 116,678; 1957, 117,092; 1958, 119,038; 1959, 120,412; 1960, 119,597; 1961, 120,055; 1962, 126,474; 1963, 123,694; 1964, 120,781; 1965, 114,164; 1966, 107,467; 1967, 105,584; 1968, 101,572; 1969, 98,340; 1970, 93,353; 1971, 89,563; 1972, 84,933; 1973, 82,402; 1974, 81,822; 1975, 79,817; 1976, 79,772.
Note: (1) For the period 1946 to 1954 no accurate figures of contributors are available and the figures presented are strengths of the forces; only members of the regular force were obliged to contribute.

April 20, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: 1.	What construction projects are planned for CFB Gagelown in the fiscal year 1977-78 and what amount has been budgeted in each case?
2.	What stage of completion is each project estimated to reach by the end of the fiscal year March 31, 1978?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1 and
2.
Construction Projects Planned for CFB Gagelown in Fiscal Year 1977-78 and Amounts Budgeted
Project	Amount Budgeted	Stage of Completion by 31 March 78Additional Facilities for Helicopter Operations	600,000	30 per centImprove Base Mess Kitchens	17,000	100 per centHeliport Control Tower Modifications	36,200	Addition to Junior Ranks Club	319,400	Fire Alarm Boxes	58,300	Insulate and Heal Building K-33	30,900	Rocket Assembly Building	129,600	Repair Fire Damage in Married Quarter	23,000	Supply/1nstall Trailers for Ammunition Compound Offices	60,000	Construct Ablutions three Buildings	24,500	Fire Protection Base Kitchens	17,000	Construct Kitchen Camp Pelcrsvillc	125,000	Construct Annex to Base Arena	40,000	Construct Change Rooms Men's Messes	58,500	Standby Transformer/Lightning Protection	40,000	Fenccs/Clolhcslincs for Row Houses	200,000	Sewage Lagoon Pctersville	54,500	Rewire MQ Kitchens and Basements	250,000	Rewire Married Quarters	240,000


Mr. Howie: Are maintenance projects planned for buildings or houses at CFB Gagetown in the fiscal year 1977-78 and, if so, what amount has been budgeted in each case?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes. Details are listed below.
Amount
Project	Budgeted
Janitorial Services	$450,000
Repair anchors and racks, high temperature hot water distribution system	80,000
Exterior painting of 1100 MQs and 260 Garages	230,000
Repair water intake structure	55,000

Project	Amount Budgeted
Reroof 407 Married Quarters	500,000
Reroof 7 Base buildings	240,000
Replace windows and doors Barracks	100,000
Interior painting of Married Quarters	209,000
Exterior painting of Barracks	413,000
Replace windows 250 Married Quarters	500,000
Replace furnaces 210 Married Quarters	245,000
Rejuvenate tar and gravel roofs	104,300
Reroof Trafford tile roofs	221,000
Replace vertical siding 760 Married Quarters	440,000
Replace counter tops 200 Married Quarters	70,000
Interior painting of Base buildings	230,000


Mr. Howie: What was the average charge for rent and utilities for PMQ units with (a) one (b) two (c) three bedrooms on each Canadian Forces Base in (i) 1974 (ii) 1975 (iii) 1976?


Barnett Jerome Danson: (a), (b), (c), (i), (ii) and (iii).
Average Charge for Rent and Utilities for all Types of MQs within each Bedroom Category
Married
Quarters Average Charge for Shelter and By Number Utilities On Anniversary
Canadian Forces Base	Of Bedrooms	Date of Effective Charges	Bagotville	1	April 1 1974	April 1 1975	April 1 19762	1 13.05	1 13.05	1 13.233	127.33	127.33	133.61Borden	1	-	-2	123.50	123.50	121.893	145.40	145.40	151.00Calgary	1	-	2	138.01	138.01	139.283	154.84	154.84	161.47Chatham	1	2	126.38	126.38	127.153	142.87	142.87	150.15Chilliwack	1	-	-2	131.47	131.47	134.223	144.69	144.69	151.73Cold Lake	1	-2	124.90	124.90	126.283	1 34.48	1 34.48	139.91Comox	1	-	-2	123.85	123.85	127.573	134.87	134.87	141.17Cornwallis	1	58.00	58.00	57.222	99.04	99.04	102.603	109.67	109.67	116.39Edmonton	1	-	-	-2	149.78	149.78	150.403	159.97	159.97	166.41Esquimalt	1	109.00	109.00	129.072	134.13	134.13	135.143	158.85	158.85	165.48
April 20, 1977

The Budget-Mr. Rondeau
Average Charge for Rent and Utilities for all Types of MQs within each Bedroom Category Married
Quarters Average Charge for Shelter and By Number Utilities On Anniversary Canadian Forces Base Of Bedrooms Date of Effective Charges
Gagetown	1	April 1 1974	April 1 1975	April 1 19762	143.47	143.47	141.933	140.11	140.11	143.08Greenwood	1	-	2	112.48	112.48	113.823	1 17.99	117.99	123.56Halifax	1	1 13.00	113.00	108.562	129.43	129.43	127.253	152.74	152.74	156.06Kingston	1	-	-	-2	160.33	160.33	162.433	182.01	182.01	188.16London	1	-	2	158.31	158.31	157.523	171.62	171.62	176.51Moncton	1	-	-	2	136.83	136.83	140.993	178.13	178.13	185.15Montreal	1	-	-	2	114.20	114.20	117.273	131.57	131.57	138.97Moose Jaw	1	-	-	2	91.00	91.00	96.273	109.78	109.78	117.89North Bay	1	-	-	2	139.24	139.24	143.633	181.79	181.79	189.40Ottawa (North)	1	-	-	-2	186.39	186.39	187.363	196.19	196.19	206.49Ottawa (South)	1	-	-	2	182.77	182.77	186.493	203.12	203.12	221.86Penhold	1	-	2	120.57	120.57	125.303	147.19	147.19	154.78Petawawa	1	_	2	132.90	132.90	131.023	158.14	158.14	162.20Portage la Prairie	1	-	-	2	96.00	96.00	95.493	114.00	114.00	121.57St. Jean	1	-	-	-2	-	-	-3	129.21	129.21	141.44Shearwater	1	-	2	154.56	154.56	160.543	169.12	169.12	177.80Shilo	1	-	2	1 16.42	116.42	114.383	138.63	138.63	139.98Suffield	1	-	-	2	122.31	122.31	126.693	131.82	131.82	143.66Summerside	1	-	2	113.92	113.92	114.303	122.19	122.19	129.65Toronto	1	-	2	174.68	174.68	178.643	202.44	202.44	210.26Trenton	1	-	2	152.76	152.76	152.913	174.77	174.77	183.05Valcarticr	1	-	2	126.10	126.10	124.303	139.94	139.94	143.75Winnipeg	1	-	- .	-2	138.81	138.81	141.683	145.29	145.29	151.46Lahr	1	91.02	93.57	93.032	95.48	112.67	112.343	109.19	117.11	128.22


Ralph Goodale: I ask, Mr, Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, April 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I thought it would be my turn yesterday to speak on the budget, but still I thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to do so today.
Mr. Speaker, as several previous speakers have shown we all agree that the Canadian economy is now reeling and that the federal government alone and not the provinces or the Pequiste government in Quebec is responsible. We now have the economic results of the government policies. As we all know, there are now in Canada more than one million registered unemployed people, quite apart from a million others who are not necessarily on the records of manpower and UIC centres.
Mr. Speaker, according to the present budget, the federal government is expecting another 200,000 unemployed people in 1977, which means that this government has led us to the worst employment crisis ever in Canadian history. Furthermore, the number of families living on welfare and not considered as part of the unemployed population has been increasing. Canada now has more than 750,000 families in this situation, which means that in 1977 2 million Canadians are living on welfare. It also means that 4 to 5 million people are depending on money doled out by the federal or provincial governments to the extent that these governments pay into welfare funds. And while we are complaining about unemployment and about the overly numerous people who must live on

The Budget-Mr. Rondeau
social welfare benefits, we see at the same time that Canadian man-hour productivity has been 50 per cent lower than in the U.S. with an average hourly wage which is twice what Americans get for the same job. As a result our prices are no longer competitive and we rely on imported products to meet our requirements. Mr. Speaker, we are now depending on other countries, even for essential goods. That is why the Canadian market is flooded with cheaper foreign products. In 1976, for example, 55 per cent of the shoes sold in Canada were imported. Yet the shoe industry was one of the oldest in the country.
This is the record of the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin, who has been unable to solve the problem of the shoe industry in Canada as he was unable to solve the problem of the textile industry. And now he is paid $55,000 a year as chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board to solve the inflation problem which affects the entire Canadian economy. In 1976, furniture manufacturers followed on the heels of the shoe industry because 62 per cent of furniture sold in Canada during 1976 was imported. In the textile industry, the situation is even worse and we hear similar stories from other areas, namely agriculture and others.
From the point of view of economic conditions, businessmen, who are not imbeciles, will not risk borrowing money at 12 or 13 per cent interest on top of service charges. This would be a real interest rate of 18 per cent to invest in production. Mr. Speaker, the money business has grown more important than the production of life essentials.
In 1968 the interest rate was 6 per cent and one of the first moves of the present government, just after its accession to power, was to abolish the ceiling on interest rates to reward the world of finance. Now we have the following results: The interest rate has doubled since 1968 and while the worker works to become unemployed, interest rates have doubled and the world of finance is thriving and healthy.
Furthermore, while the different levels of government preach restriction to the Canadian people and invite them to tighten their belts, they empty their pockets with expenses of more than 55 per cent of the overall GNP while telling us about the unity of Canada to try to make us forget the economic disaster we are experiencing.
The federal government alone will spend more than $2,000 per capita in Canada in 1977, representing an average of over $10,000 per Canadian family. We will have to pay financiers some $5.35 billion in interests on federal bonds alone, that is to say $15 million a day in interest which we could easily avoid if we would call upon the financial services of the Bank of Canada, our own financial institution, on the basis of expenses incurred to finance our own federal bonds instead of relying on the private chartered banks which are electoral funds providers.
Mr. Speaker, once again in 1977 the budget provides for more than $1 billion under the foreign assistance program, not to mention long term loans bearing no interest which are

April 20, 1977
granted to various countries of the world. At the same time the federal government lends money to Canadian provinces at 10 or 12 per cent interest rates to have them participate in the so-called profitable federalism of the Prime Minister and of Canada.
National defence will cost more than $5 billion in 1977. Federal bureaucrats in all departments will cost over $8.5 billion, which means that more than $20 billion will be spent in Canada in 1977 to pay for our national defence, which at best exists only in theory, and to meet expenditures for public servants, interest charges on the public debt and foreign assistance. Mr. Speaker, if you add to that the cost of unemployment insurance and the cost of welfare incurred by the federal government, besides the amount paid by the provinces, we will spend in excess of $50 billion in 1977 to try to keep the artificial breath of our declining economy.
Before such an administration, Mr. Speaker, the worker who is lucky enough to keep on working with a good salary is penalized by taxes taken out of his wages, which makes him sick of working because he is deprived of the fruit of his labour while unemployment insurance and welfare or social assistance benefits reward fairly too well those who are the recipients, as compared to those working and bound to pay taxes.
In an economic climate as unhealthy socially as the present one, profits are no longer the normal incentive to business. Rip-offs have become quite common in business. When we see, for instance, that goods bought for $6 sell for $25, this is not normal and business has truly become a regular rip-off. The system is so unsound that one cannot expect to live on profits, since it is too expensive. People want to become rich immediately since they do not know what can happen tomorrow morning.
The social and economic climate of insecurity in business causes everyone to seek not profits, but business lottery, like Foto-Canada ticket. The economic climate is the result of past administrations who governed for the benefit of finance, which is growing wealthier every day at the expense of the workers who get poorer day by day. Instead of coming to grips with the root causes of the evil, this Liberal government in its last budget deals with the symptoms of our sick economic system, like a carpenter acting on the advice of so-called experts would repair the roof of a house when he should be fixing the crumbling foundations. In order to truly remedy what is wrong in our economy, Mr. Speaker, the last budget should have contained measures designed to lower the interest rates to 6 per cent, or to the same level as before 1968 and before inflation.
Second, the government should cut defence expenditures by 50 per cent. Third, it should provide a guaranteed annual income to everyone through the Bank of Canada so as to cut unemployment insurance and welfare costs and enable those now on welfare and unemployment insurance to work if they are able to do so and to supplement the guaranteed annual income they would receive. Thus, thousands of people now on welfare and thousands of unemployed could work and improve their standards of living while performing some tasks that are
April 20,1977

essential to the Canadian economy. For instance, producers could hire them to pick potatoes in the fall instead of letting them rot or of bringing in Haitians like they did in my area and have been doing nearly every year.
For example, they could pick potatoes or work on some essential public or community projects. Unemployed and welfare recipients could lead a more dignified life instead of always having to depend on others. The guaranteed annual revenue financed by the Bank of Canada would allow the various governments to cut at least by half the extremely high administration costs of unemployment insurance and social welfare. Let us not forget that the federal bureaucracy, with all its departments cost more than $8,600 million in 1976, and in 1977 will cost almost $9 billion. This money saved on bureaucracy could be reinvested in order to help small businesses in competition with foreign and domestic firms as well as with large businesses which smother the smaller ones that now receive more government subsidies.
Fourth, Mr. Speaker, we should use the Bank of Canada to lend at a rate which would just cover the administration costs, or 1 per cent, the amounts required by municipalities, cities, school boards and provincial governments, so that instead of having to go to New York, Boston or elsewhere, those various administrations may obtain funds at the rate of 1 per cent in order to carry out major and essential public investment projects. Then, they could cut taxes for the benefit of small homeowners, since they would have lower interests to pay to international finance. This measure alone, Mr. Speaker, would make it possible to effect positive changes in the Canadian economy.
I also wish to emphasize that in the last three years, our balance of payments deficit has increased by more than $11 billion. Our total deficit now exceeds $40 billion, which means that we bought from other countries $40 billion worth of goods more than we sold to them, and what is worse, Mr. Speaker, the goods we export are mostly unprocessed raw materials, non-renewable resources, and soon Canada will have to import products manufactured from these materials. We have a trade deficit of more than $40 billion and soon Canada will have to pay or devaluate its currency. Once more, Canadian consumers will be penalized, since they will have to pay a debt incurred with a devaluated currency. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, West Germany, the country of the bad Germans of 1939 against whom we fought and won, have a trade surplus of $37 billion, exactly the opposite of Canada which won the war. All countries who won the war against Germany owe it now more than $37 billion. Germany lost the war in Europe that lasted six years, but won the economic war in the last 30 years. Germany is showing surpluses, while we have a trade deficit of over $40 billion.
Mr. Speaker, Canada now owes its shirt to other countries. Germany has accumulated a $37 billion surplus against those countries which cannot help getting into debt. Mr. Speaker, 1 really wonder who has won or lost the war.
1 should like to point out to my colleagues that in 1975, Canadian taxpayers paid $12,709 million in income tax, and
The Budget-Mr. Rondeau
companies, $5,748 million. In 1976, taxpayers paid $14,889 million and companies, $5,210 million. In 1977 taxpayers will pay $15,620 million and companies $5,760 million. In other words, the taxpayers will have to pay more and more income tax while companies will get a break. Of course, Mr. Speaker, companies know better how election funds operate.
In the March 1976 issue of Quest magazine, one could read this:
In every five-day week we work two days for the government. We pay taxes we never heard of. We pay taxes on taxes and we spend more on taxes than anything else. Taxes shot up a staggering 239 per cent in the years between 1961 and 1975, family income went up 142 per cent, the cost of shelter 128 per cent and food 66 per cent.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the matter of Canadian energy, a most important issue. Oil companies keep on hiking their prices with the benevolent approval of governments; I will give statistics since these price hikes amount to a new form of hidden tax which the governments can blame on world wide oil price increases. They have even invented an artificial energy crisis in order to camouflage their hypocritical tax. From 1965 to 1969, the price of a barrel of oil at the well-head was $2.98. Profit on that barrel was $1.27. The federal tax amounted to 14 cents. Provincial taxes or royalties were 30 cents. Production costs for a barrel were 87 cents.
Because of successive price hikes up to January 1st 1977, the price of a barrel of oil at that date was $9.75 at the wellhead, that is a corporate profit of $3.63, $1.54 for federal taxes, $3.90 for provincial taxes or royalties and a production cost of 68 cents per barrel instead of 87 cents in 1965. While the production cost decreased by 19 cents, the sales price jumped from $2.58 to $9.78 a barrel, an accrual of $7.17 a barrel for an increase in corporate profits of $2.36 per barrel, $1.40 in federal taxes and $3.60 for various provincial taxes.
Mr. Speaker, all those who are blaming it on an energy crisis are getting their piece of the cake paid for by Canadian citizens. This faked energy crisis has once more enabled the government to hoodwink Canadian taxpayers with misleading advertising from these companies and to picks taxpayers' pockets each time they fill up their gastanks or turn up their thermostats in their homes.
The oil crisis, concocted by multinationals in conjunction with governments, is nothing but another hypocritical tax which enables governments to earn revenues to finance their extravagances and pay $20 million daily in interests, including $15 million on the national debt and $5 million on debts incurred by Crown corporations. Since I rose for my 20 minute speech, the national debt has increased by $274,000 and we have to pay $300,000 in interests.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you will find there is unanimous consent that the

April 20, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Francis
speeches for the balance of the afternoon should be confined to 20 minutes.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is so agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we would agree to that. However, I had hoped that the proposal would be for the balance of the debate.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We have no objection to that, Mr. Speaker.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I just had a discussion with my colleague from the other side of the House. This was supposed to be for today. I regret being unable to give my agreement for tomorrow because I had indeed prepared a speech which might take 22 minutes. Therefore it might be ill-advised to ask for extra time. If extra time is granted tomorrow, I am prepared to give my approval today.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, let us say that the hon. member will be allowed to speak for 30 minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed that the limit on speeches from now on will be 20 minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is agreed, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is agreed and so ordered.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be well within that period. I wish we had television in this House. I have wished it many, many times. There is no other way in which we can convey to the people of Canada what is going on in this place.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) introduced his budget on Thursday night, March 31. The following day, the proceedings of the legislature in Toronto were televised and I went home that night to watch extracts on the television screen. I saw the government spokesman, the Hon. Darcy McKeough, say that it was a good federal budget. I saw the leader of the opposition, Mr. Stephen Lewis, attack it in the most strident terms. These are two parties represented in the opposition in this House, Mr. Speaker, and it seems to me there was a bit of truth-one could say a moment of truth- when these two parties, not friends of the Liberal government, discussed the budget in the capital of the province of Ontario, Toronto, some 250 miles from here.
Mr. McKeough knew that the federal Minister of Finance had very few options before him. We have a serious threat of inflation which must be restrained. We have levels of unemployment that are much higher than we want them to be, and something has to be done to create jobs. We have a crisis in our balance of payments, and we have a falling currency. Within this situation, there is very limited room to manoeuvre. On the other hand, Mr. Lewis, the leader of the opposition,
(Mr. Kaplan.)
who is perhaps the best representative of what has been known as "the British disease" to strike our television scene in many a day, said the government had to spend a lot more money to create direct jobs, those temporary jobs which would vanish when the government's spending ended. He wanted to spend. At the same time, he would have been the first to criticize the government if the fires of inflation had been fuelled through his advice being accepted.
I think it is no accident that the two provincial budgets which have been brought down very recently-in the province of Quebec by the Parti Quebecois finance minister, Mr. Pari-zeau, and in Toronto by the provincial treasurer, Darcy McKeough-are in very much the same mould as the federal budget which we are discussing. Others preceding me have outlined the specific details. There is some direct job creation-$100 million more, for a total of $458 million-but, as the minister pointed out, these are not career jobs, not the long-term employment that our young people are seeking. They are jobs which will end when government spending for this purpose ends.
There are tax reductions. All of these matters have been outlined. The tax reductions are to encourage small business, to give the average taxpayer something. But the scope for tax reductions is limited-a total of $1.17 billion. The program of restraint in government expenditures will continue. As the hon. member for Ottawa West, I am pleased to rise and support the budget, although the constituency I represent will be one of those feeling the impact of restraint in government expenditures, especially in the public service field, as much as any constituency in Canada.
The budget projects financial requirements in the order of $6.4 billion, but the minister was quick to say that he did not wish to pre-empt the private sector. He wants to put as little pressure as possible on the funds available for private investment. But this is still an expansionary budget. Cash requirements of this order are going to present a challenge to the monetary and financial institutions of this country.
The anti-inflation program is to be continued because we are not out of the woods yet. The minister indicated that a phasing-out program could not begin before October. He has expressed, however, in this place, the hope that the program itself can be terminated within the original time frame; that is, three years.
The major thrust of the budget, Mr. Speaker, is to encourage the private sector to create jobs. This is going to be denounced by some members on the other side of the House as inadequate, but if we stop to think about it, the jobs that are to be created in private industry are the kind of jobs with career expectations, the kind of jobs that give more satisfaction, the kind of jobs that represent a more permanent contribution to the Canadian economy. We are all painfully aware that wages in Canada are something like 10 per cent higher than in the United States, although this is not easy to measure. Indeed, in
April 20,1977

this period of changing exchange rates the comparison is even more difficult to make.
We are very much aware that productivity in Canada is very much lower than that in the United States, our major trading partner, and we also know that the measurement of productivity is subject to very serious limitations. If specific studies are made in areas such as the electrical equipment industry, for example, it is very possible to demonstrate the serious gap which exists between Canadian productivity and productivity in the country of our major trading partner.
I welcome the budget as representing the only thing that is possible in the circumstances we face. There was a time in which finance ministers were presented in the aspect of Santa Claus with goodies to be given to everybody. Unfortunately, there can be no Santa Claus at this time. The notion that the budget can be criticized because there is nothing in it for one group in society or for another falls far short of recognizing the true purpose of the budget, which is to encourage moderate expansion of the economy and create jobs where they are absolutely essential in the private sector.
Mr. Speaker, I have some criticisms to make of the budget. Frankly, I think more should have been done in the field of energy policy. I see that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) is in the House and I look forward to hearing from him in connection with the further development of policy in the field of energy. I am not ashamed of our record, but I think we can do more and better than has been done so far. I would like to have seen measures to remove taxes from insulating materials. I note that the province of Ontario did take measures of this kind in the budget delivered last night. I would like to have seen a lead in the field of urban transit. One of the great disappointments to me is the silence of the budget on this issue.
The party to which I belong made a specific promise in the course of the 1974 election, one of which we are very much aware. In the field of energy conservation it would be possible for Canada to take action by bringing forward a long-term policy for urban and interurban transport. We might, for example, have undertaken measures to develop a technology suited to our northern climate. We have serious problems in moving people to and from their places of employment during our harsh winters. The basic technology has been inadequately developed. This is an area into which we could put federal funds with the very minimum of constitutional challenge, and I believe it is unfortunate that the budget did not take initial steps to develop a public transit policy as a means of saving petroleum resources which are so badly needed.
There is another area about which I, personally, feel very strongly. I realize that my hon. friends are not going to agree with me on this. I find it difficult to reconcile the fact that though nothing is provided for urban transit, $200 million more is set aside for the milk subsidy. It is true that $150 million of that sum is not a cash requirement of the budget but a write-off of expenses incurred in marketing surplus milk powder and a few other things. I am told that $48 million is in addition to the current subsidy. For the life of me I cannot
The Budget-Mr. Hees
make sense out of the marketing boards and what they are doing in the way of rationalizing the industry, providing a suitable product for the consumer, or even regulating the supply which is brought onto the market. By the standards according to which I have tried to judge the policy, I find it incomprehensible.
I intend to vote for the budget. I intend to support it because I think it is the right budget for Canada at this time. The phase through which the world economy is passing is a very difficult one to interpret, not only for ourselves but for the countries with which we are most closely associated-the economies of the western European powers, North America, Japan, Australasia. The prosperity for which we are looking has been very slow in emerging from our neighbour to the south as a result of current economic difficulties. There is no doubt in my mind that later this year the Minister of Finance will have to look at matters again, and it is only right that he should do so, along with Darcy McKeough in Ontario and Jacques Parizeau in Quebec and others who have considered in a responsible way what we can do at this time by way of budgetary policy. I am going to cast my vote in favour of the budget, and at the appropriate time I hope to register my concern as to the lack of an urban transit policy.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, with a million unemployed people in this country and the prospect of an increase in that number as the year goes on, it is obvious that we must look for new and practical ways to find permanent jobs for a very large number of our fellow Canadians. I believe that one of the more important ways we can do this is to process more of our raw materials to their finished state.
For far too long we have been shipping out of this country a far too large proportion of our primary products to be processed to their final stages of production in other countries which thereby gain the many advantages of employment, taxes and profits which accrue from this further processing. We have in Canada the skilled manpower, managerial skill, cheap power and excellent transportation facilities which are needed for this further processing and it is about time we started doing something about getting more of this work for Canada.
Now, what should and can be done? Thirty years ago the government of Ontario introduced a plan which has been largely responsible for the spectacular expansion of the pulp and paper industry in that province during the intervening years. It required companies to process in the province a far higher proportion of the logs which they cut, a large proportion of which they had been shipping in the raw state to paper mills in the United States. What has worked so well in the case of the pulp and paper industry in Ontario can work equally well in other primary industries right across the country. It should apply to all raw materials which we ship to other countries for further processing, and can succeed equally well because of the great dependence of other countries on our primary products to feed their manufacturing processes.

April 20, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Martin
It is obvious that a certain proportion of the raw materials we produce must be exported in the raw state, but not nearly the proportion that is the case today. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce should now undertake an intensive study of our primary industries to determine what proportion of the primary products we produce can reasonably be required to be processed to their finished state in this country.
Having decided what proportions of our various primary products should be further processed in Canada, we must produce an incentive which will be sufficiently attractive to persuade those who normally export our raw materials that it will be profitable for them to build the plants which will be necessary to carry out this additional processing in Canada. It has become painfully obvious that the grants now provided by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, although useful, have not proved sufficiently attractive to bring to our areas of slow growth sufficient new industry to reverse the dangerously high rates of unemployment that have persisted in those areas for many years.
I believe that in addition to the DREE grants which are now available to areas of slow growth, we must also make available an additional incentive in the form of a graduated scale of federal taxation which will permit new plants processing primary products in areas of slow growth to pay no federal taxes in the first full year of profitable operation, and gradually increase its tax payments until it is paying full taxation in the fifteenth year. My conversations with leading businessmen across the country have convinced me that this incentive, added to the present DREE grants for slow growth areas, will prove sufficiently attractive to accomplish what has to be done.
In the following ways these incentives will pay for themselves many times over in the years ahead. First, we can drastically cut the present far too high expenditure on unemployment insurance by stimulating the economy and enabling people to find work. Second, we can greatly increase tax revenues, because more people will be working and paying income taxes, more commodities will be sold and the buyers paying additional commodity taxes, and the increased volume of business will lower the unit cost of production and make available more profits to tax. I strongly urge the government to adopt this suggestion for providing employment for a large number of our people.


Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the budget debate. Also, I want to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Kaplan) and members on the other side who agreed to a time limitation of 20 minutes on the debate. I hope this is the kind of reform that most members of this House would be delighted to see become a permanent feature. I think that what cannot be said in 20 minutes in the House by any of us is probably not worth saying anyway.
I want to commence my comments this afternoon by making some very praiseworthy comments, which I think are quite justified, about the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) for the kind of budget he has produced and the vision he has
[Mr. Hera.)
shown in a difficult time in our economy. I do not think that my words are taken out of context with the kind of support that has been shown by many outstanding leaders in this country. Although I would not normally look in this direction for support for a budget brought down by the government in Ottawa, 1 think it is noteworthy to quote an excerpt from the budget speech delivered yesterday by the provincial treasurer of Ontario, which in many ways was along the lines of the budget delivered here in Ottawa. He said that without profits there is no investment, that without investment there are no new jobs, no productive and non-inflationary jobs.
I think that is a fact of life. I think it is a fact which the government has very clearly recognized right through the piece. At this time perhaps more than any other it has come forward in sharp focus in the budget presentation of March 31. At some point in time we shall have to find the means of explaining to people generally that profits in themselves are not evil. It is what is done with profits that is so important. Basically, profits are an essential part of the engine of industry, and the minister recognizes this. I think all members on this side of the House recognize it, and I think most people who are anxious to secure meaningful employment, jobs which are long-lasting and are not temporary work measures, realize it as well.
I think that that comment of the provincial treasurer yesterday is a very important one which Canadian society must understand more and more. I also think business has the responsibility to tell its side of the story much more effectively than it has in the past. It has a great social responsibility to ensure that the kinds of benefits which will flow from this kind of budget will indeed be passed on in the form of additional jobs during a time of serious unemployment and when increasing unemployment appears to be on the horizon.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the budget recognizes that at a time of higher than usual unemployment levels there is also a need for government to look at the situation and to ask itself: Can industry alone handle the problem, or does there need to be a little bit of pump-priming, as it were, from federal sources? The response that the government has come forward with is a Canada Works program and a Young Canada Works program which will have the effect of creating 600,000 man-months of work in this country over the next while. The amount of money involved is $458 million.
Although a number of people criticize these kinds of projects, when one looks at the fantastic employment figure involved 1 think such criticism has to be tempered with a measure of understanding that indeed this kind of added incentive to the economy is probably essential with unemployment levels as high as they are.
I have indicated that we are facing difficult circumstances under which the minister has to work. These are difficult economic times not only for Canadians but for the world. It is ridiculous for any member of this House to suggest that we can resolve problems in our economy without paying any
April 20, 1977

attention to what happens elsewhere. Canadians do not live in a vacuum, no more than people in any other country.
The United States of America is our best customer; we are their largest supplier. When their economy slows down, it is obvious that some plants in Canada will slow down. A plant in my riding that produces General Motors' vans will not make vans if people in the United States are not buying them. There are only two such plants in North America. They are not going to make them in Scarborough; it is as simple as that. It is terribly important, whether we like it or not, to realize the facts of life that we have to the south of us. They have an economy that is ten times the size of ours. If it improves, it will redound to our benefit. Of course, when it slows down we will feel it. On that score it is worth noting that the recent improvements taking place in the American economy have been noted recently in a number of financial publications. The demand for automobiles, the demand for houses and other major goods in that country is moving up on a very substantial curve. This is excellent medicine for our own idle plant capacity.
The leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) indicated that we are operating our plants in Canada at approximately 80 per cent capacity. Obviously, it would be better to move that figure up to 85 per cent or 90 per cent. The way that can be done is for more of our goods to be bought. The way that will happen is for the economy of the United States, as well as Canada and other countries to which we export, to improve so that they can absorb more of our goods. This is why the news on the horizon in the United States is extremely encouraging.
If the Canadian executives of industrial plants in this country can be convinced that what is happening in the United States is real and is not just illusory, then the budget measures which the Minister of Finance has introduced should work themselves into our system. They should be able to make maximum use of them and show it in terms of added employment as the year progresses and on into 1978.
The economy of the United States is moving ahead at the kind of pace I have demonstrated, and the figures are showing. The economy of the United States is coming back on the rails. This is extremely important, as I have indicated. It will have a direct impact on what goes on in this country. It is something of which we have to be very conscious. In the automotive business we have 7 per cent, and capital investment is expected to rise this year and next year in the United States. This will provide a tremendous potential stimulus for what will develop over the next two years.
Some evidence of the reality of the improvement in the United States economy is the fact that their Congress has been somewhat reluctant to pass the proposal put forward by President Carter for the $50 tax rebate to individual Americans. The reason they are reluctant to pass such a proposal at the present time is that the measure may no longer be needed. It was to act as a stimulus to the economy. Members of Congress, who are, after all, representatives of the public at large, are getting the feedback and the feeling that this kind of
The Budget-Mr. Martin
stimulus may no longer be needed. They are concerned, as we are concerned, that there should not be an artificial stimulus put into the economy if it will have a serious adverse effect on inflationary problems.
The aggravation of inflationary pressures is very much with us and is very much a problem with which we must continue to cope. The suggestion is that if the stimulus is put into effect in the United States, in spite of some objection in Congress, the gross national product in that country might go up some 6 per cent by the end of the year. They are anticipating an improvement in the productivity rate of some V/i per cent, which is in the form of an added kicker to the rather good picture that is showing down there.
I have taken some time to point out this very important development, because it is very much like being a manufacturer selling to one of the large department stores. If the department store has a drop-off in its business, then the manufacturer, obviously, will have a drop-off in what goes on in his plant, resulting in the lay-off of employees. If the department store starts to pick up-as I suggested the United States economy is doing-and it is a big customer, then things will go much better in your plant. That is the kind of scene we are looking at in Canada. That is the kind of scene that the Minister of Finance had the foresight to look at and take into account in preparing his budget.
The budget is a cautious document at a time when we need caution. We cannot afford to throw away the gains we have made through controls. We must be careful of that. We must reinforce, in Canadians, the will power to fight inflation. We must adopt an attitude of keeping down inflation. It is still the number one problem. We must not expect our economy to skyrocket. We must be prepared for higher energy and food costs. These are problems that we would certainly not wish upon ourselves, but which will, indeed, be present, and there is very little we can do about them.
Given these things, the outlook is promising. The rate of inflation has been lowered by controls. Government expenditures are down by $750 million from the amount forecast in the budget last year. The target for 1977-78 is $650 million less than the expenditure plan announced in February by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras). The growth plan for 1977-78 is only an increase of 9.8 per cent over last year. That is lower than the expected increase in the gross national product. It is also lower than the 11 per cent increase predicted in the last budget. This budget will help speed the pace of economic recovery. In 1977 we can look forward to the gross national product being 4 per cent higher in volume and as much as 11 per cent higher in value than that of 1976.
In the time remaining I would like briefly to review some of my concerns. In our democratic system, within our party members are able to put forward concerns for the various procedures which we have to ensure that government policies reflect or give an opportunity for all members to make their contributions and voice their concerns. One of the concerns is in the area of energy conservation. As chairman of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, I

April 20, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Martin
feel we need more government direction in this area. We need to concentrate on long-term strategies. That is evident.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) was in the House this afternoon and made the point that it is far cheaper to conserve a barrel of oil than to discover, develop and bring to market new barrels of oil. He also made the point that we must spend money on conservation measures. The budget has indicated that we will continue developing our energy supplies as well as developing better conservation practices. My only concern is that the focus may not be as sharp and as serious as we will need. I look forward to increasing measures in this direction as the years progress.
In the area of unemployment, I was concerned, as I am sure other members were, about the increasing rate. There was a feeling among many of us that gentle stimulation was needed in that area. That gentle stimulation has been provided, with care, to ensure that the kind of stimulation put into the picture will not unduly increase our rate of inflation. I mentioned the job creation program that was increased by $100 million to a total of $458 million.
In the area of capital investment, I am most conscious of the Economic Council of Canada estimates that we will need $850 billion in this country over the next ten years. 1 am very pleased that the budget is doing a number of things to encourage investment by ordinary Canadians in the private sector, so that as much as possible of our new investment in this country can be provided by Canadians and, therefore, we will not have to resort more than absolutely necessary to going outside our country to seek the capital that we need.
I was also encouraged, in the area of investment, by the kind of incentives for small businesses and venture enterprises that are provided in the budget, because they are the backbone of our economy. Independent businessmen generally have voiced their approval of this budget, of what the government is doing and of the fact that this budget will give them an opportunity to create more jobs by expanding their facilities and to go on with the work of producing the kinds of goods they are able to produce.
I cannot complete my remarks without indicating one area of disappointment which, as a member of a large urban community-namely, metropolitan Toronto-has concerned me for some time; that is, the need for assistance in the area of urban transit. Again I say that I am not entirely clear whether this is an area in which the federal government should be directly involved over the long term. Nevertheless, I feel that we did make a commitment some years ago, and although that commitment has been met to the extent of approximately one-third, we must consider spending the remaining $200 million on measures that will give metropolitan Toronto and other major urban areas the kind of stimulus they need to get on with important matters relating to urban transit which are direct offshoots of our conservation programs, such as encouraging people to leave their private automobiles at home

when they go to work. This is an involved subject, but I believe that we must continue to look at it.
With regard to the transportation strategy which we must develop, I have mentioned in past debates in the House that I believe we need a better mingling of our transportation systems by air, train and bus, so that perhaps for trips of over 500 miles we should concentrate on the use of aeroplanes, for trips of between 200 miles and 500 miles we should concentrate on rail service, and for trips of under 200 miles we should consider travelling by bus. This is a time when Canadians must move around this country. We must do all we can to encourage people from Quebec, from the west and from other regions to intermingle and to discuss their concerns and listen to the concerns of others. It is an important area, in my view, in terms of the national unity that we are trying to develop in our country at this time.
One other area on which I would urge the government to concentrate in its forthcoming social legislation is help for the disabled. They are not numerous in terms of percentages. When a breadwinner suddenly finds himself disabled, from whatever cause, he is in a terrible plight today if he has a family to look after. Much has been done for the elderly, although more needs to be done, there is considerable concentration on the problems of young people, but the disabled group, which falls in the middle, people who suddenly find themselves incapacitated and can no longer earn their livelihood, should receive greater assistance. This is an area to which I believe the government should address itself in the future. I realize the problems at present in bringing in programs involving additional expenditures, but I urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and others on the government benches seriously to consider-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue? I must point out that we have agreed to 20-minute speeches. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the attitude should be of a member taking part in the debate on the budget presented on March 31 by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). I do not know if it should be the approach of a beggar approaching a bank manager, or of a millionnaire temporarily reduced to selling apples on the street corner approaching his client. Perhaps by the time I have completed my speech I will not be any wiser as to which of the courses I will adopt.
However, I would like to make six points. The first is with regard to the deficit. Our deficit financing is in the order of $6 billion or $7 billion this year. It was $1 billion less in the last fiscal year. These are deficits that occurred in good times. I pose this philosophical or financial question: What would have happened had those deficits been run up in bad times, and how
April 20, 1977

would we have handled them? Are there any studies under way, any papers produced by learned scholars, or unlearned ones, as to the effect that this deficit financing will have on us in future years? 1 know not and, as anybody who knows me obviously appreciates, I am not in the fiscal stream. It concerns me. If we cannot manage our affairs better when we have supposedly good times, why should we expect our affairs to be more manageable in the future when the deficit we are running up now is thrust upon other shoulders?
The Globe and Mail put it rather well in its editorial on March 31, the morning of the presentation of the budget by the Minister of Finance. The article reads in part as follows:
The government has achieved a budgetary surplus only once in the past ten years. Federal debt obligations have nearly doubled, to $42.2 billion, between 1966 and 1976. Servicing that debt had climbed from $1.2 billion to $4.7 billion.
That is almost a fourfold increase over ten years. Does it, or does it not, give us pause in this place? Apparently it does not. But it is still a question we must ask. In the article, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is quoted as saying:
"As a country", Mr. Clark said, "we have become the world's largest borrower of international capital... These figures reflect a country which lives not only on borrowed dollars but on borrowed time, a country which has lost its competitive edge in the world".
When I look around, I realize that all 264 of us in the House of Commons are presented every day of the week with bills and I wonder how we would run our personal affairs, pay our bills and run our households if we adopted the attitude we have toward national financing. There may be a philosophy which says that each and every one of us is here to make a determination that the country known as Canada should carry on its back a debt load which will be passed on from generation to generation to the end of time. I suppose that would be fair enough if you considered that debt load as you would a mortgage which can be a perpetual mortgage because the country will always remain the type of country that is able to handle it.
It is not as if you and I were dealing with a debt load on our homes, knowing that we are getting older and might not be able to handle it. The fact is that in this country a certain number of people enter the work force at the age of 16 and continue to work for many productive years. So perhaps the answer that we must acknowledge is, that there has to be some kind of mortgage hanging over our lives so long as we continue as citizens and can handle it. But I wish somebody would spell it out for me instead of bringing out the figures which I have been seeing in my more than 15 years in parliament.
Secondly, I intend to say something nice about the budget. It will be a quick reference, so I hope hon. members opposite will listen to what I have to say before I go on to something else. I think that the concession regarding deductions for income tax purposes, the capitalization under the DREE program, is probably a fair one. It gives an opportunity for companies in Atlantic Canada, for example, where the problem is greatest, to use the income tax system and DREE to their best advantage. It is one of those technical things that
The Budget-Mr. McCIeave
has not been spelled out. We have not been presented with any paper which says it is a good thing, or what it is expected to achieve; but I think it probably recognizes something which I have always thought should be recognized, and that is that if we are going to have a Department of Regional Economic Expansion, we should recognize the philosophy that there are parts of the country needing more help than other parts.
In this regard I say to my friends opposite-I think they would probably concede this-that the five eastern provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland are the provinces which have not progressed as well as they should in recent times. I think the Minister of Finance should be complimented for that particular step in his budget, and I hope it has the effect for which the minister hopes.
1 would like to turn to the third point in my remarks. I raised this matter with the Minister of Finance the other day. During the recess I met a young man who is in the construction industry-which is having its own difficulties, as one can appreciate-and who had a common law liaison with a woman. There are two children as a result of that liaison. He has since moved to a different relationship with another woman, but he is still obligated to look after the children of his previous liaison.
When I raised this matter the other day with the minister, I think he stated the law quite properly when he said that the Department of National Revenue does not give common law partners the same rights under the law as it gives somebody who is a member of a regular marriage. In this case, this man terminated his prior relationship but is responsible for looking after the children. He has been called upon to pay $700 or $800, and in no way has he a chance to claim anything when he files his income tax return before the end of this month.
I think that is wrong, and I think the Minister of Finance recognized, when he replied to me yesterday, that it was probably wrong. At least his department and the Department of National Revenue have initiated studies with regard to this question. I raise this matter on behalf of a very ordinary taxpayer in my constituency. If we cannot change the law or the practice, the effect on that young man will be grievous. He will have no incentive to go anywhere or to do anything about meeting his obligations either to the woman to whom he was once married in a commonlaw sense or to the woman to whom he is now married in a very proper sense, or to the children of both liaisons.
This is not a partisan issue, but surely it is an issue which must be of concern to anybody around here who seeks justice. It is something we have to deal with, and I hope soon. Money has been paid, and is being paid, under a proper court order. The court has recognized that the man has an obligation to the two children of the common law relationship. Surely it could be part of our housekeeping changes in the law, which started last year, to deal with this matter. I am probably arguing on behalf of thousands of people across Canada, but I am talking about one particular case in my constituency. I hope the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue

April 20, 1977
The Budget-Mr. McCleave
(Miss Begin) will turn their departments toward coming up with a very quick answer in this regard.
I should like to turn to the question of capital gains. Hon. members will realize that my approach is not consecutive. I was a member of the committee which considered the Benson white paper. I was involved with the whole thing until it finally came to pass a number of years back. I wonder if the capital gains tax is really achieving the purpose we thought it would achieve. I understand that the tax from both the federal and provincial points of view achieved about $54 million in 1972, about $84 million in 1973, about $90 million in 1974, and perhaps $100 million in 1975. These estimates were provided in the Globe and Mail of October 14, 1976.
If these figures are correct-and I imagine they are; certainly, the first figures are correct-the capital gains tax revenue would not even cover government expenses for one day, and they provide about one-third of 1 per cent of the total revenue of government. Under those circumstances, and knowing the crying need of the country to have capital invested, I wonder whether that sort of tax is really worth it, or whether one should take the very serious view that because the realization is so small with regard to the over-all revenue that is raised perhaps it should be abolished. I do not know, but I raise this as a very serious philosophical question, because obviously we are in a period when capital investment is almost at stagnation and this question is of concern to most members of parliament.
To carry the theme a little further, we are also under a fair amount of pressure from the farming community to re-think the capital gains tax as it applies to farms which are not owned by individuals, but by a corporation or some form of partnership. I think we should re-examine what the capital gains tax is doing not just to farmers but to all Canadians. For example, the very legitimate argument is made to myself and others that a farm which is close to a city in Ontario is very different from a grain farm in the western provinces which may be between two cities but very remote from both of them, so that one person's possible gold mine is just a living to another person. I think that should be part of the study which I suggest should be carried out.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the other burning question-the first being the economy of the country, the other being the state of the nation, or national unity. I hope to deal with it in a reasonably positive fashion. A couple of days ago the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) put a question to the government House leader about getting parliament involved. Something that bothers Canadians is that from what they regard as the heart of Canada, this parliament, not enough has been^aid. I think this is a very justifiable criticism, Mr. Speaker. The other place moved very quickly on the matter. Even if one can criticize the other place, one can never say it did not respond rather quickly to the national unity issue.
For what it is worth, 1 suggest that the House leaders should set aside a certain period over the next year for members who

wish to make submissions on what should be done about national unity and the questions that will confront us when Premier Levesque presents his referendum. This could be 30 minutes every evening from six o'clock, Monday to Thursday. It would give each member an opportunity to speak on a very, very important topic. I do not think it should necessarily be tied to any particular motion unless a very general one such as: We all believe in Canada. That almost sounds like motherhood.
Half an hour every evening would allow members to contribute to the continuing debate and comment on things like the figures issued by the Quebec government or those issued yesterday by the Ontario government which also set off a hot debate. I suppose other governments, and even this House, will be able to set up their own figures. At least over the next critical year members would have an opportunity to be heard on this important matter and add to a debate that is very necessary for the future of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on the budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). This is a budget designed to meet many of the serious problems Canada faces today and which every western industrialized country faces; that is, the problems of inflation, unemployment, our competitive position in the world, the energy crisis and the economic turmoil which resulted from it.
The budget seeks to reduce inflation by maintaining the Anti-Inflation Board's program until the fall. This will give business, industry and government an opportunity to negotiate a way to maintain the restraints on wages and prices for some time ahead. The government has indicated that it plans to reduce its expenditures by some $640 million below its estimates tabled a few months ago. A good deal of stimulus has been provided to the Canadian economy by a reduction in taxes of more than $1 billion with the indexing of old age security payments, guaranteed income supplements and family allowances in January of this year. The budget provides for a further $1 billion reduction in taxes to industry and individuals through incentives to industry by means of the investment tax credit, the inventory allowance of 3 per cent and various investment incentives.
More important to low-income families is the increase in the employment expense allowance from $150 to $250 and the credit against federal income tax of $50 per child. These combined measures will reduce taxes for families with four children, with an income of $10,000 upwards, by at least $200 a year, which will be a welcome relief.
Another problem that we face during this period is a rapidly expanding labour force. From 1965 to 1980 our labour force will grow by 50 per cent, whereas in most European countries the increase will be from 5 per cent to 15 per cent and in the United States it will be about 30 per cent. On top of the other problems we face, we have the special responsibility in Canada of providing these additional jobs.
April 20, 1977

Perhaps the greatest difficulty facing the minister and the country is the problem of increasing our productivity. This is the greatest challenge to business, labour and government. We have developed a very high standard of living over the past few decades, mainly through trade. Even though our industry was less efficient and on a smaller scale than that of other countries, we were able to be competitive. Most of this was due to the fact that wages tended to be low in this country. Now they are equal to most other countries, and in some cases higher than, say, in the United States. The country still has to depend on foreign trade, however, for over 25 per cent of the gross national product, so we must regain the competitive position we lost in many industries over the last couple of years due to spiralling inflation and the resulting increase in the price of products we sell abroad.
This budget seeks to regain our competitive position by controlling inflation and by providing an investment tax credit for the modernization of plant and equipment. More important, it provides an increase in the investment tax credit for research and development programs. Surely, in a time of rapid technological change, a company that is not doing adequate research and development and is not providing innovative programs in the design of products will not be able to maintain a good position in the marketplace. I think this investment tax credit for research and development activity in industry is very important.
The discussions of the last little while which have involved industry, labour and government are equally important for the regaining of our productivity and our share of world markets. Surely, unless those three bodies can agree on a suitable structure for sharing our economic pie, we will not be able to regain our productivity. Therefore, discussions involving government, labour and industry are terribly important if we are to maintain our productivity and sales abroad.
The budget proposals regarding regional development are most significant. The tax investment credit has been extended for three years and for the first time, so far as I am aware, a new fiscal tool has been forged for dealing with regional development. The new investment tax credit for areas like northern Ontario will rise to I'h per cent. In the areas not designated under DREE it is 5 per cent. In the maritimes the credit will increase to 10 per cent. I suggest to the minister that he ought to consider raising the credit in all DREE areas to 10 per cent. At present I think he will find that economic forces which attract industry to southern Ontario rather than the north, especially to the big cities, are very strong. So strong are those forces that an investment tax credit of at least 10 per cent will be necessary as an incentive to attract new industry to many slow-growth areas of Canada.
I note that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) said in this debate that $580 million had been spent under the Regional Development Incentives Act, and that that sum had created some 127,500 new jobs in DREE areas since the beginning of the program. I point out that the
The Budget-Mr. Foster
investment tax credit has been extended as well to research and development projects. This will have an important bearing, as well, on DREE areas. By making available such an investment tax credit the government is clearly signalling to business and industry that it wants them to establish their operations in designated areas. If they do as the government wishes, they will be eligible for a grants, and their taxes will be reduced as well.
In the past few years many people have criticized the DREE program. Some say it has not been overly successful, that businesses have gone broke and that the government is fighting the natural economic forces in the country. I think, if one looks carefully at the origin of such criticism, one will find that it comes mostly from areas not designated and, therefore, not receiving the benefits of the DREE program. Let us keep that fact in perspective. As the minister said, the program has created 127,500 new jobs in the slow-growth areas of the country. Surely that is an adequate indication of its value.
The DREE program perhaps is most important for the small businessman or the small entrepreneur who does not have a great deal of technical ability or know-how with which to expand or develop a new industry. This program shows such entrepreneurs that the government wants them to establish their operations in slow-growth areas of the country and will give them part of the money with which to do it. Now there is the investment tax credit as well to give encouragement to local entrepreneurs.
Last week I had the privilege of attending the opening ceremonies of a cabinet-making concern in Sault Ste. Marie- Fiore Cabinets Limited. Let me tell hon. members the circumstances of the case because I think it is typical of DREE projects. The head of this company had emigrated to Canada in the 1960s, gone to work in the steel plant and had begun a small, part-time construction business of his own. He began making cabinets, cupboards, staircases and other high quality cabinet materials. In the past few months he put together a small plant with a capital investment of a little over $100,000. The plant will employ between eight and ten people. He is making a high quality product which will be consumed in his immediate area. He said to me that the business is like a dream come true. The amount of the DREE grant in this case was some $18,000. Surely that is a small amount of money to pay for helping to establish a successful plant which will employ from eight to ten people. That is not much money to spend for the creation of such new employment.
It seems to me that a new enterprise begins as an idea. In addition, the entrepreneur must have skill, or business knowhow, and capital. If you put all these factors together, you produce a successful business venture. But the most critical factor is business know-how. Skill in business, or ability to carry out one's business aims, is most important and hard to find. The DREE program attempts to help the small entrepreneur realize his aims. Often lack of capital is a problem. The DREE program can help a small entrepreneur in this regard.
4830

April 20, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Foster
It is interesting to note that in Sault Ste. Marie some $85 million worth of capital investment has been stimulated by the DREE program. To date, that program has assisted 19 projects and has been instrumental in creating 1,347 new jobs. All this has been done, I believe, with the expenditure of some $13 million under the DREE program in that one city.
I suggest that in order to aid development, including the regional development program, it would be useful to establish in northeastern Ontario a DREE office to serve that area. At present people in northeastern Ontario must travel either to Thunder Bay or to Toronto to seek assistance or advice. A few weeks ago I met in Toronto with officials of DREE, the Ontario Development Corporation and an entrepreneur who wanted to start a new plant in the Algoma riding. Since the regional office is located in that city, we were able to sit down to discuss the project with officials. We discussed its virtues and how it could be organized.
Unfortunately, that kind of facility, that kind of convenience is not available in northeastern Ontario. The office is located in the principal city of Ontario, where the program does not actually operate. People who must drive, say, 500 miles or 700 miles to the district office in Thunder Bay, or the regional office in Toronto, may be discouraged from making inquiries to determine if their projects are viable or if they can qualify for a grant. For this reason I was pleased to note that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion yesterday, in reply to my question, indicated that he hoped to announce some time in the next few weeks a new office to serve northeastern Ontario.
We can do other things to stimulate economic activity in slow growth areas of Canada like northern Ontario. For instance, we could decentralize the operations of industry, especially of Crown corporations and government departments. Let me be specific. The people of the north shore area of Algoma district are interested in seeing the new uranium refinery for Ontario established in their area. The refinery would create between 150 and 200 new, permanent jobs and between 300 and 400 jobs during the construction phase. We have the uranium mines operating at Elliot Lake. They produce some 5,000 tons of yellow cake a year at present. This production in the next seven or eight years will be expanded to around 9,000 tons of yellow cake a year. That is truly a massive increase in production. It will result in an expansion of that community from around 10,000 or 11,000 people today to around 30,000 by the year 1985, and perhaps even more.
There is very great public support in the north shore area for a uranium refinery to be located there. Practically every municipality has supported this proposal by resolution. Chambers of Commerce have supported it, and other citizen groups. If it makes sense for us to provide grants to industry to locate in slow growth areas, surely it makes good sense for Crown corporations to locate their facilities in the slow growth areas of northern Ontario.

This area of the north shore has gone through great economic ups and down during the past ten years, with the uranium boom and bust of 1959 and the lumbering boom and bust of 1969. It has left much of the area deprived of any real economic activity during the past eight to ten years. A new industry of this magnitude would provide an important industrial tax base for the area, new job security and a whole new economic outlook for the future as it relates to secondary manufacturing and processing industries.
Another area of decentralization I would like to see take place by the federal government relates to the Department of Transport. There have been recent indications by the Seaway authority that they want to cut back their activity at the Sault ship canal. That is a very backward move. They should be looking to expansion of that lock and development of additional transportation facilities, not cutting back at a time when that important canal should be expanding the transportation of goods during the coming years. The Sault Ste. Marie-St. Mary's River locks handle 90 million tons of cargo a year. The Montreal to Lake Ontario area handles only 48 million tons. The Welland lock system handles 59.9 million tons of cargo per year. This gives some indication of the importance of the Sault lock.
We have received some encouragement from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). He has ordered a review of the feasibility of establishing a new and larger lock for Sault Ste. Marie. At the same time, he has reversed the decision of the Seaway authority to cut back the night shift and ordered that it continue until the results of the study are known. We are going to see a very great expansion in shipping in this area over the next 25 years. At the same time, the Department of Transport should be looking into the feasibility of establishing a new coastguard base at Sault Ste. Marie. In any event, new facilities will be required on the upper Great Lakes. A new coastguard base would not only provide employment but ensure better control of shipping, ice breaking and pollution control.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue only if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) is to be complimented for accurately assessing the difficult dilemma facing Canada today; that is, the need to stimulate our economy while at the same time avoiding a further increase in inflation and an increase in the federal cash deficit. Unfortunately, the announced restraints in federal spending will be more than offset by the inflationary forces at large in Canada today. Our present government has been the author of a tax burden upon Canadian families which has risen from 12.9 per cent to 18.6 per cent of total income. The government has now told
April 20, 1977

Canadians that they are living too extravagantly, while presenting a budget that carries a $7 billion deficit.
Government is more than a symbol to Canadians, more than a focus for their hopes and aspirations. It is the model; it is the pace-setter. In that role it is critical that those who lead our country provide the kind of image which encourages Canadians to believe that the restraint which they practice in their own homes is part of a larger effort to run a tight ship or a lean ship in Ottawa. Such restraint is critical in a budgetary sense as a part of a fight against the two-headed monster, unemployment and inflation, that is eating away at our quality of life. The government of Canada, in its administration and in its management of programs, must set an example. I truly believe that as Canadians we should not only be troubled but ashamed of that deficit. If it were wartime, yes-but not in this day and age. I am a baker, not an economist, but that troubles me. My grandfather had a saying that people who are not afraid to roll up their sleeves seldom lose their shirt. Government, industry and every Canadian must roll up their sleeves, but let the government provide the leadership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: The present anti-inflation strategy has been notably unsuccessful. It has been assumed that today's inflation is caused by the same factors which brought about inflation in the nineteenth century. The response of the present government has been to deal with the problem through measures which would have worked against nineteenth century inflation. Despite the use of such anti-inflation tools as tight monetary restraint, as evidenced by the highest interest rates in Canadian history, and the acceptance of severe unemployment, we still have rapid inflation. Also, since 1971 the total take of our GNP by governments in Canada has risen from 38 per cent to 43 per cent, and of that total 80 per cent is at the federal government level.
I believe that there is a myth alive and well in the political planning area of each ministry that an effective government is a spending government. I believe, from talking to public servants who have spoken to me on the doorsteps in the past few months, that they do not believe that. They, like the rest of Canadians, want to see something more innovative in the management of our government services. Perhaps the new word should become "trade-offs". The trade-offs should become a way of life, with no new government program put in force until one comes off the bottom, perhaps an obsolete one, or that we find fat within the system.
There is duplication in business life as there is in government. It is time to take a definite look at that. People have said to me that no local member of parliament should talk in this way. I disagree. I would be an irresponsible citizen if I did not talk now about this kind of trade-off in our government service. Measures to promote restraint in government must go beyond a simple reduction in the number of paper clips used. Government must take a leading role in looking at the fat within its own system. How can the government appeal to labour and management to practice restraint when they them-
The Budget-Mrs. Pigott
selves are the chief culprits in setting an unhealthy pace in waste and ill-planned spending?
Canadians are demanding an accountability from their government. Frankness and action are necessary to restore our self-respect. Such a goal will not be achieved by clever political moves, arrogance and excuses. We need a leadership which will restore a common purpose of self-restraint in the national interest. A program of restraint, hard work, and balanced budgets may be a bitter cure for economic ills, but the lack of such treatment will lead to even more unhappy times for Canada. Taxpayers today expect that if they tighten the belt there must be self-control in Ottawa as well.
Ottawa is still spending at a rate faster than the economy is growing. It has been pointed out that the Anti-Inflation Board has no mandate to ensure that governments take steps to reduce the size of their deficits. Professor Thomas J. Cour-chene, of the University of Western Ontario, in a special study for the C. D. Howe Research Institute suggested that there is simply no viable alternative to Ottawa's setting its own house in order and keeping it that way.
It is easy to talk of restraint. But the Chinese have a saying that "talk does not cook rice". It has been suggested that we still run government on the basis of a philosophy which presumes that the tasks facing Canada are unchanging, whereas it ought to be assumed that, like any other human activities, the functions of government can become obsolete and unproductive sometimes within a short time. We have been content to measure government programs, not by results and performance but by size. Big is beautiful in Ottawa! It follows that a lack of results is taken to indicate not an inappropriate program but the need for increased size. In Canada today, however, the problems which governments face belong to an area of economics in which results are the measurement of an activity.
There is a need to improve government performance. But this involves more than a reshuffling of the organization chart. Government agencies ought to be given specific goals, with a clear timetable and a clear assignment of accountability. This means that a budget should not only outline money to be spent but also that social changes should be expected from the programs. Each year, systematic reports should determine how well targets have been achieved. Every program should be assessed by an audit committee. Castles in the air cost a great deal to keep up.
Then, again, the objectives of each program should be approached through the establishment of clear priorities. When making an assessment of programs, departments which do not spend all their budgets should be given praise. Much more research is needed into ways of managing government programs more effectively. Greater effectiveness in government will be reached through the organized abandonments of programs which are obsolete. One thinks of the famous story told by Mr. Drucker, the management consultant, about the British navy. In 1945 it succeeded in eliminating a position
80012 -27Vi

April 20, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Demers
which had been established in 1812-that of a man standing on the white cliffs of Dover with the duty of looking for Napoleon. How many people do we still have in the public service today who are "watching for Napoleon"?
Canadians are demanding, with great justification, a better performance from government. Our post-war affluence must give way to the return to the virtue of thrift and some old-fashioned common sense. Political rhetoric can no longer disguise the fact that ours is one of the world's costliest governmental superstructures.
We must abandon non-productive programs. Tax reforms to restore initiative must be implemented. "Sunset laws" to ensure that the usefulness of government bureaux and Crown corporations is reviewed on a regular basis must be introduced. It is human nature to look for scapegoats, but creating a hostile climate between government, labour and management to point fingers at each other, when we have such great national problems to face as unemployment, inflation and strains upon national unity, is a tragedy.
Today I believe the taxpayers expect from government and from hon. members on both sides of the House a new look at government spending. I urge the Minister of Finance and the government of which he is a part to consider very seriously the plight of Canadians today and to institute real, not imaginary, restraint to the benefit of the economy and of the people generally.
[ Translation]


Mr. Yves Demers (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to speak today on as important a subject as the Canadian budget.
I should like to call to the attention of the House certain weaknesses that exist in our present tax system. Though they exist, specially with regard to taxes, I shall address myself mainly to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) because the authority to change or amend income tax legislation lies with his department.
The Liberal party is recognized as being the one that attempts by every means to eliminate regional disparities and in addition tries to do justice to all citizens, young and not so young, and that from sea to sea. As a member for five years now, I have noticed in this regard that in caucus discussions center mainly on changing the laws to adapt them to the needs of the people while applying fairly and equitably to everyone.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the minister some of those failings which, from my point of view, create injustices for Canadians. In my first example, I shall compare the income tax paid by two families made up of the father, the mother and two children. In the first case, the father earns an annual salary of $20,000; in the second, the father earns $10,000, the mother, $10,000 as well, which means a total family income of $20,000 in both cases. When one spouse alone is breadwinner of the family, when he fills out his income tax returns, federal and provincial in the case of the province of Quebec and a few other provinces, he must pay, after statutory deductions, $4,926 in taxes.

When both spouses fill their income tax returns, $10,000 for the husband and $ 10,000 for the wife, the total income tax for both is only $3,728. So the spouse who is the only one filing an income tax return on the family income must pay $1,198 more than if he were completing two returns. Then, when the husband is the only earner in the family, his income tax is 32 per cent higher than if both spouses were completing an income tax return.
I would like to give another example still more glaring. In this case, the family income earned by both spouses is $20,000 in wages, plus $2,000 in interest or dividends. They have two children and, besides the statutory exemptions, they make maximum contributions to a pension plan-20 per cent of the salary-and they are also entitled to the maximum deductions for child care and I suppose they have the maximum deduction for the home ownership savings plan and obviously the deduction for interest.
When the husband is the only one to earn this salary of $20,000 plus $2,000 in interest, only $1,000 in interest is not taxable. He is being denied child care, and home ownership savings are limited to $1,000. When figuring out his income tax, this individual whose family earns a total of $22,000 a year has to pay $3,614 in tax to the province of Quebec and to Canada. On the other hand, his neighbours whose family income is exactly the same, that is $22,000 a year distributed half and half between husband and wife-both entitled to the same deductions as in the first case where only the husband works outside-have $2,000 in non taxable interest income. Child care expenses amount to $2,000, home ownership savings to $2,000 and non taxable interest income to $2,000.
Thus, if you figure out the income tax of both husband and wife, the total amount payable by those two individuals is only $1,087. Therefore, the income tax paid in that case is $2,527 which is less than in the case where only the husband files an income tax return. The result of these disparities leads me to the following calculation. When the whole family income is under the husband's name, his taxes are, would you believe it,' 332 per cent higher than when both spouses send individual income tax returns, this for the same family income.
Yes, 332 per cent higher. Why such a difference? As we all know, the first reason is the progressive increase in tax rates. Thus, when only the husband declares a $20,000 income, the tax rate on the eleventh thousand or on the twentieth is much higher than on the first $10,000 income individually declared by each spouse. Furthermore, if the husband declares $2,000 in interest, he is allowed an exemption only of $1,000, whereas this exemption is $2,000 when both spouses declare this income. Something else, if both are working the child care deduction is $2,000 for two children, but they are denied this deduction when only one of them is working. We face the same problem with the home ownership saving plan. If the husband is the only one working, it is limited to $1,000, but if both are working they are allowed a $2,000 deduction.
April 20, 1977

In addition, if we analyze the statutory deductions, we realize that the basic deduction for the taxpayer who files his federal income tax return for 1975 is $2,090. If his wife does not work, he is entitled to claim only $1,830. This means a loss of $260. As for medical expenses and charitable donations, a personal $100 deduction is granted without receipt, thus couples who file their income tax return can claim that $100 twice. At number 5 of the income tax return, a 3 per cent deduction on wages is granted. Once again, the taxpayer who is the sole breadwinner is restricted to the maximum deduction of $150. If both earn they can claim $300. This is not all, because for your information it is worse at the provincial level since that deduction amounts to $500 per income tax return. Thus a couple filing two returns is entitled to $1,000, but if there is only one breadwinner the exemption is only $500.
Mr. Speaker, I realize on the basis of those examples that our taxation system is grossly unfair to couples when one spouse only is working. Yet, it would be only logical to encourage mothers to stay at home as much as possible to raise their children, which would also avoid marriage break ups. As we know, the family is the single most important component in our society. For that reason, I believe that such a situation creates very serious inequalities which the Liberal Party should correct as soon as possible. I hope that before bringing in those measures, we will not wait until a group of non-working mothers starts a lobby.
Far be it for me to dictate how the situation should be corrected, but I might suggest for instance that we should tax the family income instead of the individual's income, as is being done in the United States. I realize that such a procedure would cause other problems. However, the department could consider another way of doing it, by granting perhaps the same deductions to a couple that fills in one return as to those who submit two.
I should be delighted if I finally convinced the hon. members of the House when I acquainted them this afternoon with these serious inequalities, and I hope that the necessary amendments to our tax system will not be long in coming. There is another point which I should like to bring to the attention of the House, Mr. Speaker. I have computed the taxes which a Quebec resident must pay and I have compared them with those which an Ontario resident must pay. For a $20,000 income from employment and with statutory exemptions only, the married person whose spouse does not work and who works in the province of Quebec must pay $5,249 in federal and provincial income taxes, annuities and health insurance, while his Ontario counterpart pays only $4,273. There is therefore a difference of $976 or 23 per cent between the Quebec resident and the Ontario resident.
That gap will grow wider in 1976 because the Quebec government did not gear personal income tax to the cost of living, as was so often promised. Therefore the fact that personal income tax in Quebec is much higher than that of their neighbours in Ontario has several effects. For instance, I know some employees of the House of Commons and from private industries in Ottawa who would rather rent an apart-
The Budget-Mr. Nystrom
ment in Ontario instead of Quebec precisely because of that income tax differential. That tax gap results in a substantial emigration from Quebec to Ontario.
Again we Quebecers often wonder how come so many companies take their head offices out of Quebec into other provinces. Several factors naturally are involved. However one aspect favours such an emigration. These company administrators who make their decision about the site of their head offices are human indeed and when a decision has to be taken, they do keep in mind the lesser taxes they will pay if they settle outside Quebec, and that greatly influences their choice. And my earlier calculation revealed that provincial tax on a $20,000 income is $976 more in Quebec than in Ontario.
Many corporate directors however have incomes high above the $20,000 mark, and then the extra tax they must pay in Quebec increases in proportion. It is therefore my view that the province of Quebec should review their tax system to make it more similar to the Ontario one.
There is also another point I would like to make. Recently, when I visited a sports goods shop in Montreal, I saw a baseball glove made in Hong Kong and imported by Jelinek Imports Limited. There was also a baseball mitt made in Taiwan and imported by the same company. There was even a Canadiana tennis racket, unfortunately the Canadiana brand was quite misleading because it was made in Taiwan. There were also tennis balls from England, all imported by Jelinek Imports Limited. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we have here a member for High Park-Humber Valley called Otto Jelinek, who opposed very vigourously the decision by the minister to reduce Canadian import quotas to support our Canadian manufacturers. It is my hope that the same member is no longer a shareholder of Jelinek Imports Limited.
I would like to conclude on these remarks.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, when one speaks in a budget debate one can talk about many of the very serious economic problems we are facing in this country, or one can speak about the high rate of unemployment we have in Canada.

We could not refer to the issue of national unity and that of the province of Quebec remaining within Confederation, but this afternoon, rather, I would like to speak on the question of a national food policy and a national policy for Canadian farmers.

I am very tempted to speak about the province of Quebec, a province that I love. I am tempted to speak about why I think we should all stay together and why we have to recognize many of the legitimate aspirations of the people of Quebec.
Since I only have a few minutes, I want to spend it talking about policies for food and agriculture. There are many rumours going around the country that the cabinet is going to

April 20, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Nystrom
make a decision on national food policy very shortly. I am very fortunate to have here in the House the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott). I want to say a few words about what that food policy should be and some of the fears I have.
I have a fear that there is going to be a bias in that food policy away from farmers, away from the family farm and away from the orderly system of marketing that we have known in this country for so many years. Farmers have fought for that system in the past in order to build it up. Many things have happened recently that lead me to that conclusion. I sincerely hope I am wrong.
We had the Food Prices Review Board and many of the statements that it issued from time to time. It had, in my opinion, a definite anti-orderly marketing or anti-marketing board approach. Then we had the very famous DM-10 report which took a very similar position. It took a position against the orderly marketing approach, the farmers' organizations and the marketing board approach. A copy of the paper that came out of the meeting that the minister talked about today in the House very recently leaked to the press. It was a meeting that many people were invited to, according to him.
Some people from the marketing boards went to that meeting. One of the biases in that report, confirmed by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in the House today, is that it takes a negative point of view vis-a-vis some of the marketing boards and orderly marketing in this country. I say to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that the time has come in this country to look at food policies and pricing and not just at marketing boards. Not all marketing boards are perfect. I am not going to be the person who says that they are. We must not just look at marketing boards; we must look at all the other factors that go into the pricing of food in Canada. We have the retailers, the processors, the wholesalers, the transporters and the advertisers.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am glad to see the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs applauding. I will put his applause on the record. I am glad to see that he is very much in favour of that approach, so that when we do have a future food policy those things will be taken into consideration.
There are many things that concern me. First, there are myths. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke in Winnipeg of myths very recently. There is one myth that we have to knock down, and that is that farmers in the west are very wealthy. We had high grain prices for a while, but grain prices have now started to drop. The price of grain has dropped drastically over the last year.
Farm income in Canada, on a gross basis, dropped from January, 1975, some 31 per cent according to Statistics Canada. Gross farm income in the west dropped by some 38 per cent over the same period of time. The prairies are a major factor there. There are a lot of people in western Canada and, indeed, right across the country who are concerned about the future of agriculture and about the security of farm income.

That question must be a very large part of any future food and agricultural policies in Canada.
Over the years we have built up many marketing boards and various stabilization plans, federally and provincially, that are a very important part of the food and agricultural policies of this country. I would like to deal with this area in three sectors this afternoon. First, I am concerned about the availability of food in this country. All of us know that there is the potential of a grave food crisis in the world. The world's population is about four billion. That may double to about eight billion people by the year 2000.
Fifteen thousand to 16,000 people are dying every day of starvation. Over half the population of the world is undernourished. If we cannot feed them now, what are we going to do with them in the future when more and more farmland has been plowed under? Quality soil in Canada is becoming less, as it is in many parts of the world. I think Canada has an obligation to the world food scene. Its obligation is not just in terms of aid; it is in terms of offering to the people of the developing countries technical assistance and expertise to make sure that they become self-reliant and can produce their own food.
I am convinced that most countries in the world can produce enough food to feed themselves. We can offer them the assistance which they so badly need. Many people think we are already doing that; that we are already helping to develop these countries. It came as quite a shock to me to Find out a few weeks ago that the developed world imports more protein from the developing world than we export to them. There is a net shift in a negative direction; we are going in the wrong direction.
A lot of the very high quality land in Third World countries is used to produce luxury crops for export. They produce tobacco, bananas, coconuts and all kinds of luxury foods for the western world. They use their best land for that and they try to feed their people on food grown on secondary land. As a result, there is famine in many countries which should be able to support themselves. This situation has increased since a few years prior to the so-called green revolution.
The second problem we have concerning the availability of food is feeding ourselves. Many Canadians say we could easily feed ourselves. The Department of Agriculture says that 250 acres of land is going out of production every day in Canada. That is about ten acres an hour of good farmland. Only 4 per cent of our country can be farmed. Most of our country is rock, timber and water. If we keep taking the best farmland in Canada out of production, such as in the lower mainland of British Columbia, the Montreal area and the southern Ontario area, we may not be able to feed ourselves a few years down the road.
The Science Council of Canada has said that by around the year 2000 we in this country might become a net importer of food. How do we reverse that once we have paved over a lot of our best farmland? If we had a sensible policy, we would stop building schools, factories and hydro lines across much of our better farmland. If we had a sensible land use policy in this
April 20, 1977

country, much of which is under provincial jurisdiction, we could have federal leadership regarding land banks and zoning. We could build cities, factories and suburbs on land of much poorer quality. That could be done if we took land out of the private sector and made it a social responsibility. We should preserve good land for growing food. That could easily be done in Canada.
The other matter I am concerned about when it comes to the availability of food is self-sufficiency in food. There are many crops in this country which we could and should be producing if we wanted to feed ourselves. Many people say it does not make economic sense, that we should import many foods from tropical countries, from California and Florida; but may I remind you that many of those places will have problems with growing food in the future and may not have a food surplus to export to us. Many of those places may have a shortage. If we are going to get it in the first place, we will have to pay a high price for it, and that is not good for our consumers.
The other things that will work to our disadvantage if we are not self-sufficient in many of the commodities we can produce is that we will lose farmers who could be farming; we will lose food processors, packagers and the secondary industry that could be processing, packaging and distributing Canadian food; we will lose jobs, money and productivity; and we will suffer a balance of payments problem. Those are a few of the problems we will have because of the fact that we are not self-sufficient in many of the basic foods. There are various commodities one could mention which we import from the United States and process in southern Ontario, in the middle of some of the best farmland in north America, when we could be processing Canadian foods. Ontario peaches are a good example of that.
The second problem we have when it comes to food policy is the manner in which we produce food. How do we produce it? Do we produce it through the tried and successful methods of the family farm? Many people laugh at that and say it is nostalgic and sentimental. A number of studies have been made which show that the most efficient way of producing food is on the family farm. The whole farming family is part of the unit. They are proud of that unit and they produce efficiently. Their productivity has gone up faster in the last 20 or 30 years than that of any other segment of the economy. We must not forget that that is the most efficient way of producing food. I would not want to see food produced in this country by huge corporations that are integrated right down to the farmstead, taking over all the farmland. That will happen if we do not protect some of the institutions that the farmer wants for himself.
We need orderly marketing in Canada. There has been criticism of marketing boards. The paper referred to by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs a few days ago was critical of them. It referred to the number of egg producers who went out of business between 1965 and 1975. We did not get CEMA, the national egg marketing board, until
The Budget-Mr. Nystrom
1975, and I hazard a guess that if we did not have orderly marketing of eggs in provinces such as Saskatchewan and Manitoba we would soon be down to one or two large producers. At least we have been able to save some smaller units because of national marketing boards. If you have these products out on the open market without any supply management, you will shortly have just a few companies which will capture the whole market and there will be a monopoly of corporations.
A marketing board is nothing more than an organization to plan production, just like trade unions or business associations, so that the private sector can get together and plan production. You would not think of General Motors producing eight million more cars than they can sell. You would not think of any corporation producing many more products than it could sell. I do not see why farmers should be called upon to produce more products than they can sell. That is why they need marketing boards, and that is why they need orderly marketing. That is why they have to plan their production like everyone else in this country.
If you do not have that, you will have huge corporations such as Kraft and McCain's in the maritimes, and a few other companies, producing food in Canada. Then what will the consumer be paying? What will the housewife in Sudbury be paying for meat, fruits and vegetables? That is the fear I have. There is a bias, particularly in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, against marketing boards. Some people may say that marketing boards may do more for big producers than for the small ones.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: That is not so.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Perhaps in some cases marketing boards are better for big farmers than for small farmers. But we can reform marketing boards.
We should look at the whole question of the capitalization of quotas. I do not see why quotas cost so much when farmers want to start producing a commodity. Basically, quotas should not cost money. They should be allocated, first of all, to the small guy who wants to start out, or the smaller farmer so he can have an efficient unit. Quotas should not be allocated on a percentage basis to all farmers involved in producing a certain commodity, because the big farmer gets bigger, and although the small farmer also gets bigger, he does so at a much slower pace than the big farmer. In that way you help the big guy more than you help the small guy. But if you did not have a marketing board, the small guy would not be there at all, and even some of the bigger guys would not be there. They would all be gobbled up by the huge corporations.
So let us keep the marketing boards. Let us allow them a bit of a bias for the small producer, and let us have government policy with a bias for the young people involved in farming. Let us give them opportunies and breaks and get them into the marketplace. That is the bias we need in a national food policy. Then not only do you have security of supply and security of income for farmers, which is gradually going up, but you will also have a stable price for the consumer. We

April 20, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Nystrom
would not have the constant fluctuation of price that we have in so many commodities in Canada.
The other thing I am concerned about when it comes to how we market food is that there is also a tendency of going toward an open futures market by some members of the cabinet. I am thinking of the Minister of Transport in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang). I think that is a dangerous trend. There is Cargill Grain which is now competing with the wheat pools owned by the farmers in the prairies. It is a huge company which operates 40 or 50 companies around the world. Its sales a couple of years ago amounted to $9 billion. It is so big and strong that it makes a wheat pool look like a mouse compared to an elephant. I do not want to see that type of development continue, because if it does it will drive away grain producers as it did many farmers in Canada.
It is important that we look at the second problem I have raised and make the decision that we will have the farm family as our basic unit of production, that we will have orderly marketing as a system for marketing their products, and that we have a guaranteed income system so that the farmer can have a secure income which goes up with the cost of living in Canada.
In the remaining minutes left to me I want to talk about the third aspect of food production. If we produce food in an orderly marketing way, and if we produce enough of it, is the food going to be good enough? Will the quality of that food be good enough? I suggest that the quality of food in Canada and in the world is going down each year. Recently, in the United States, a report was prepared by Senator McGovern. It stated that in the United States about six out of ten of the major diseases which cause death have possible links to bad diet. The World Health Organization recently stated that up to 90 per cent of cancers might be caused by environmental factors, food being one of them. Of course, there are others such as smoking and pollution.


Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Not smoking.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The member from the tobacco growing country says "Not smoking". Drinking is another factor. Many of these factors could be caused by bad diet. Every person in Canada eats on average over 100 pounds of sugar a year, a commodity which we do not have to consume because our bodies produce enough sugar from carbohydrates. This is what happens in a modern man's diet. There is more processing, more artificial food, more fabricated and phony foods, like wood bread which we discovered in the United States, are coming on the market each and every day-junk food, heavy calorie foods. There are today more fat people and more unhealthy people than we have ever had. Over 1,800 chemicals are put into our food supply on a routine basis, and probably another 1,000 chemicals are used from time to time. Most of those chemicals are not present for any positive, nutritious reason. Granted, some are, but most are not. Some are present to make bread white, to make chickens yellow, to produce more volume or to absorb water.

Cellulose is present in ice cream. Cellulose is actually wood pulp which makes ice cream more crispy. Most additives are put into foods to make them more profitable and convenient for food companies. They are supposed to be more attractive to the consumer. I do not know why we have to do these things. Packaging and advertising contain the same bias. We are teaching people to eat crappy food, junk food. When I sit with my three-year old watching television and watch the child respond to advertisements about high sugar food, about McDonald's and about french fries, I become angry. People are being socialized at an early age.
In the government's food policy, which I hope is coming very shortly, I hope the quality of food will be of prime importance.
I hope we will have tough legislation in this country so there will be fewer additives and fewer artificial and synthetic foods.
I hope we can produce food for the purpose of nutrition. Recently, the vice-president of a large supermarket company in Canada came to my office and told me that food companies can sell nutritious food as easily as the junk food they are selling today. All they have to do is slap on a label, put a product through the advertising system and that product can be sold very easily. I suggest that what we need is strong government legislation so that we can have good, wholesome and nutritious foods on the market.
Just to summarize very quickly, we need a food system which will assure availability of food for the future, which will reserve our farmland for farming, which will make us self-sufficient in food, which will produce many of the crops and commodities we are not producing today, so that we can process them here and give Canadians jobs and which will provide orderly marketing and good quality food.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to participate in any debate in this House. Although I generally disagree with the philosophy of hon. colleagues to my left, I must indicate without hesitation that I share some of the concerns just expressed with reference to the development of the formulation of a national food policy. I think that people like Colonel Sanders, Ronald McDonald and H. Salt have done more for the food industry in this country than the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) put together. One has to admit that this government has been responsible, particularly in recent months, for a long list of records: record inflation, record expenditures, record unemployment levels, record deficits-


An hon. Member:: Kidnapping.


John Wise: -record uncertainty, confusion, confrontation, mistrust and division throughout Canada. These are records which are unacceptable to the Canadian people, which will no longer be tolerated and which the government will soon live to regret. As a result of its lack of performance, its lack of adequate and appropriate action and its lack of programs and policies, this government has created a situation in this country
April 20, 1977

whereby the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) on budget night found himself almost completely paralysed. The contents of his budget provide ample evidence of this rather pathetic circumstance.
One journalist quite accurately described the task of the Minister of Finance as being similar to one crossing a minefield while wearing snowshoes. Such an observation, although to a large degree true, does not by any means let the minister off the hook. The minister has been a member of this government since 1962. He has been a major policy and decisionmaker since 1970, and consequently he has been a major contributor to the present state of our economy and to the position he found himself in on budget night.
Not desiring to be accused or guilty of being ungrateful for small mercies, I want to grasp this opportunity to welcome the tax cuts to medium and low income earners. At a time when we have over one million unemployed, the incentives to business and the additional $100 million to the $358 million make-work program are absolute necessities. The obvious question that must be posed, of course, is this: Are these suggested measures sufficient to provide the jobs required? In addition, we must know whether this budget will indeed provide greater stimulus to the business and industrial sectors of our economy, and when we can expect the resulting impact to reflect positively on our over-all economic performance.
Most who have commented since the introduction of the budget have expressed real doubt that the proposals are significant enough to provide much hope for any major improvement in terms of additional employment, reducing the inflation rate or strengthening our economic performance. In fact, the Minister of Finance has since admitted the fact that he did not have tools of significant magnitude at hand to be able properly to effect a reduction in the rate of unemployment. Many business leaders have indicated that because of the lack of stable economic conditions, the lack of investment capital and their poor competitive position, they are operating at 20 per cent less than capacity. This being the case, in many instances it is highly unlikely that the extra incentives provided in this budget will be fully utilized. Consequently, little benefit will be reflected in the business and industrial sectors and the number of new jobs created will fall far short of the number required.
I want to make a brief comment at this point on the government's approach to make-work programs. There has been much said and written about these programs, both for and against. Many examples of very worthwhile and excellent projects could be sited yet on the other hand many wasteful, useless and otherwise bad examples can be found. Dissatisfaction has been expressed from time to time from various quarters of the House regarding the distribution and allocation of funds.
Personally, I have no argument with the allocation of funds, nor do I have any argument with projects approved in my constituency. Indeed, by comparison local funding has been adequate and fair. The selection of good projects has been assured by an extremely dedicated, geographically representative, knowledgeable and hard working constituency advisory
The Budget-Mr. Wise
group. I point to their activities with pride and I am grateful for their sincere interest and assistance. I am certain that if other expenditures made by the government were as carefully screened as those by the Elgin constituency group and, indeed, by other committees, our economy would be in far better shape today than it is.
However, having made those observations I am concerned about the guidelines laid down for the Canada Works program. Sponsors are required to submit applications which are for purposes not considered to be part of their ongoing duties or responsibilities. What this really does is place greater temptation and emphasis on the sponsors in many cases to request projects which could be unnecessary, basically nonessential and consequently of less benefit to the community.
I firmly believe that the guidelines governing the old local initiatives program, which allowed municipalities, boards of education, conservation authorities and similar public bodies, to secure funds for their day to day operations and activities, were far more effective and beneficial. These organizations, if I can refer to them using that terminology, should have the necessary structure to deal capably with administrative responsibilities. Second, when such organizations received funding, every taxpayer and resident in the community benefited from the program. Third, these programs were usually labour-intensive. Jobs were thus created for many unskilled workers, and this certainly is a major area of current concern.
I hope the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) will carefully assess the projects in the first phase of the Canada Works program and compare them with those under the local initiatives programs in terms of dollars spent, jobs created, project worthiness and community benefit. I request that if a clear indication is evident that greater value can be achieved by revising the present Canada Works guidelines, the minister take immediate and appropriate action.
I want, now, to deal with an area with which I have some special responsibility in this House, namely, agriculture. This budget is in keeping with the long-standing Liberal tradition of total disregard for the agricultural industry. Like the previous budget, one small concession is given high profile attention, while on the other hand buried deep in the documentation a few more nails are driven into the coffin. Mr. Speaker, this government has chosen to continue its long-standing policy of undermining the agricultural industry. It has given a great fanfare to deferral of capital gains if re-invested in another like enterprise, while at the same time-if you can imagine it-it has further lowered tariffs on canned meats, many vegetables both fresh and processed, and some juices such as tomato juice.
Mr. Speaker, the capital gains deferral provision was long overdue. We welcomed that change because it was one of the many changes that my colleagues and I had been requesting since the harsh and unfair impact of the tax became evident. I know that my colleagues, the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldi-mand (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Halifax-East
4838

April 20, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Wise
Hants (Mr. McCleave), have dealt very extensively with this subject on many occasions. This budget fails, once again, to extend capital gains tax deferral to family farm corporations and to moneys received from all forced sales. It fails to provide any recognition for inflation and land appreciation values, much of which results from factors that have no relationship to the production capacity of the land for the calculation of capital gains tax payments.
I suggest that an amendment to deal with this situation is absolutely necessary if the government is to continue the application of capital gains on farmlands and farm properties. I am told that in many cases, because of inflation and the dramatic increase in farmland prices, the deferral of a tax payment has actually resulted in a far greater payment and hardship than if no deferral provision existed at all.
Mr. Speaker, some sweeping changes must be forthcoming in tax policy. They are long overdue. The industry is deserving of them and it is imperative that they come immediately. It would seem to me, since the sale of farmland in itself has long provided the pension and retirement funds of farm operators, that a "once in a lifetime" exemption from capital gains tax would be in order and quite acceptable. Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the application of capital gains has in itself been inflationary and has contributed largely to increased land values, perhaps it would be advisable to consider the removal of their application on farmlands and farm property generally.
Another area of great concern that again has been ignored by the Minister of Finance is the inability of the farm wife to receive income for her contribution to the general operation of the farm enterprise. More often than not, her knowledge and influence and day to day functions are many and varied and certainly are most beneficial in the over-all success of the business. Under present law one is able to hire, pay and deduct as an allowable expense almost anyone except the farm wife. The only way that women or children who work on family farms can be entitled to payment is if the farm is incorporated. If this is done, they pay lower taxes on the first $100,000 and pay their legitimate labour fees on the farm. But there is a catch. If they choose to pass the farm on to the next generation, then they lose the tax deferral provision.
It is a pity the minister has ignored the many briefs and representations that have been made by our most responsible and respected farm organizations. I want to draw attention to a fine brief on the subject of taxation as it relates to agriculture, prepared and presented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture-obviously in vain. One of the most progressive recommendations deals with special rules that would enable a farmer to assign land to an appropriate form of retirement savings plan so that he may retain his funds for investment use on the farm.
In general, when a taxpayer invests in a retirement savings plan, he has to save out of his income sufficient money to make that investment. This is very advantageous from an income tax point of view, and most taxpayers are not too severely restricted in the sort of investment they may choose to make. A farmer, however, is typically under constant pressure to make

additional investment in his farm to maintain its technological efficiency and economic viability. This severely limits the ability of the farmer to take advantage of the tax deferral benefits of investment in registered retirement savings plans and also reduces the amount he may make available from his income for investment, because it must be an after-tax amount.
It is proposed that to correct this situation a special provision be made that would permit the farmer to obtain tax deferral by assigning part of the value of his land each year to a registered retirement savings plan account. The existence of the deferred tax obligation involved could be registered as a lien on the land, so that it could not be sold or transferred without automatic notice to the tax authorities. It should be provided that the farmer could at any time, if the funds became available, reduce or dissolve the special RRSP account by investing part or all of the amount in that account in another RRSP. In the event of the death of the farmer the RRSP could be inherited by the spouse; or if inherited by others it would become payable. It would be our expectation that such a provision would be used sparingly by farmers, in fact, but that it would be exceedingly useful to some-especially young farmers with heavy investment requirements.
Mr. Speaker, I want now to direct your attention to three areas of major concern, areas which the government continues to do almost nothing about and no doubt would prefer that we forget entirely. These three areas are farm income, farm input costs, and tariff inequities. Reports from Statistics Canada indicated a decline in farm cash receipts during the year 1976. Basing its findings on preliminary estimates of farming operations in all provinces except Newfoundland, the agency shows a drop to $9,737 billion from $9,877 billion in 1975, a total decrease of $140 million.
At the agricultural outlook conference last December economists told delegates in attendance that net farm income would decline for the second consecutive year in 1977. This year's drop is estimated at more than 20 per cent, to $3.36 billion from $4.25 billion last year. Yet the Minister of Agriculture continues to pat himself on the back and make references to himself as the best agriculture minister that farmers in this country have ever had.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: Hon. members opposite may applaud, Mr. Speaker, but an examination of the record proves such references to be false, inaccurate, shamefully boastful and untrue. The truth of the matter is that increases in farm input costs far exceed those of farm income, and by an ever-increasing margin. Farm operating costs for 1976 jumped by approximately 11 per cent, and another 5 per cent at least is expected this year. That would be a total increase of 16 per cent over two years. Major factors contributing to these costs are farm machinery, interest on loans, wages for farm labour-if appropriate and satisfactory people can be found-energy costs, and inflated land prices.
April 20, 1977

Fertilizer prices have doubled, generally, since 1972. For example, fertilizers which cost in the neighbourhood of $113 a ton in 1972 today cost about $210. Others which cost $93 and $110 in 1972 today would cost $185 and $225 per ton, respectively. Sprays and chemicals have increased in price by approximately 50 per cent, in some cases even more, during the last five years. For example, materials which for a given quantity would have cost $29 and $70 in 1972 today cost $71 and $93 for the same quantities respectively. Baler twine has doubled in cost. A 100-horsepower tractor which could be purchased in 1972 for $9,800 now costs in the neighbourhood of $20,000. Similarly, a combine priced at $15,000 in 1972 now carries a price tag of over $30,000. Diesel fuel, to give another example, has doubled in price during the last five years and will soon experience another price increase.
The price of most concentrates and livestock rations has tripled. For instance, 16 per cent dairy ration cost $51 a ton; now it costs $160 a ton. The price of poultry ration in the same period has risen from $65 to $174. The price of hog grower has risen from $56 to $160. Beef supplements cost $62 a ton in 1972, but the cost is in the neighbourhood of $140 a ton in 1977.
There is an urgent need, Mr. Speaker, for reform in another area of the Canadian agricultural industry. I am referring to the tariff structure which relates to our agricultural industry and agricultural products. There is nothing in this budget to indicate that this government is prepared to tackle this problem or that it even recognizes that our native producers are suffering unduly because of continuing government inaction. The agricultural industry of this country is burdened with an antiquated tariff structure, many items of which have not been revised for 25 years.
For the horticultural industry in particular the problem is crucial and bears on their continued existence. Briefly, it is simply a matter of unfair competition. For example, Canada has a specific duty on imported fresh and processed vegetables between 1.5 cents and 2 cents per pound. Perhaps this was adequate protection at one time. Unfortunately, by its very nature, this kind of protection is unable to keep pace with inflationary prices. Our competitors, such as the United States and European Economic Community countries, have ad valorem duties in the order of 15 per cent or 20 per cent on the same products. Therefore, as prices go up the tariff goes up and protection is automatic, regardless of price levels. We must not allow our fruit and vegetable producers to suffer the fate which befell the sugar beet producers of southwestern
The Budget-Mr. Tessier
Ontario, in the late 1960s when stiff and unfair competition from foreign producers drove them out of business.
No one in this House should need to be reminded of the damage imports of offshore beef last year did to our beef industry. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) ably raised this point last evening. Oceanic imports increased by about 57 per cent over the level of the previous year as low priced beef poured into our market. Mr. Speaker, we have a valuable asset in our livestock producers. We do not need to subsidize them to any great extent, but we must not take advantage of them in a world surplus situation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform him that his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Claude Tessier (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join the debate on the budget. I know this is not easy, but neither are solutions easy to find or to apply. The results might be two or even three years of frustration, of search for essential answers that seem impossible to find.
I think this debate is important as it is an opportunity for a member to express his views and suggest how the government should find answers to meet the needs of our constituents. This is why I should like to discuss such important subjects as first, a privileged sector of our economy, agriculture; second, I also wish to mention industrial decentralization and like every member in this House I hope that industrial decentralization will not be just a motherhood statement or a verbal contest but effective decentralization, even in rural areas. Especially as concerns inflation and competition problems, my riding is right next to the American border and we know that in our country the problems of inflation, wages and productivity spell unemployment for our workers.
This debate will also offer a golden opportunity to speak about Canadian unity. That subject seems to haunt several members but I think it is high time to consider the issue of Canadian unity in terms of cost and that some members will have to realize that however laudable it may be to invite Quebec to stay in Confederation, the rest of Canada owes us an answer and we in the province of Quebec will have to pay the price of it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member but it is six o'clock.
It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
At six o'clock, the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
80012-287/2

Thursday, April 21, 1977