June 13, 1972

PC

Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack

Progressive Conservative

Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the first budget brought in by the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), I feel compelled to make an observation that might help to explain some of its shortcomings. I should say at this point, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance has the sympathy but not the support of all members on this side, at least in my party. It is not easy for an aspirant to the leadership of his party to wear the mantle of Minister of

Finance in such a way as not to tarnish his image. I am convinced he was thrown to the wolves, and that is unfortunate. He might have brought a measure of human dignity to the leadership of the Liberal party, if he had been given the opportunity, something that has been sadly lacking in that party.

On April 27, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if he had given the Minister of Finance permission to bring down a budget. As usual, the Prime Minister avoided answering the question. On the following day the Minister of Finance announced, in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), that he would bring down a budget and table the budget papers on May 8. He had about ten days in which to throw together a budget, have it printed and drum up a little enthusiasm for what most people expected would be an election budget. I am not saying it was done in exactly that way, although it certainly looks as if it were.

If this really is an election budget, Mr. Speaker, then I am all for it. In all my years in Parliament, and I will have been here ten years next Sunday, June 18, the anniversary date of the 1962 federal election, I have never seen a budget that so clearly vindicates the Leader of the Opposition. I must say that while this budget vindicates our leader and our party in its tax reduction measures, it does not go nearly as far as we should like; however, that is understandable. This government has drifted so far from the realities of present day Canadian life and has so completely lost touch with the people, that this budget must appear to it as the great cure all. It cures nothing, Mr. Speaker, being just a palliative.

What will be the effect of this budget on the youth of our country? I am particularly concerned, because this budget has done nothing for youth, nothing for those categories of young people who are still in school or just leaving secondary school and not yet employed and who are without any present hope of obtaining employment. The Opportunities for Youth and Local Initiatives Programs are mere stopgaps; these schemes are without stability or security. Benefits for recipients are neither stable or secure. When the money the government has allocated to these programs has been spent, and do not forget that these are short term programs, Mr. Speaker, the few in each community who have been recipients of this money will be no better off, except to this extent: they will have been given two months pay. At the end of that time they will not have learned enough from those brief programs to enable them to acquire steady jobs, which need a certain amount of knowledge and limited skill if they are to be retained. And, so, these people will wander through the swamps of idleness and unemployment; they will despair of their ambitions; their spirits will be dulled and, in many cases, destroyed.

In this country, Mr. Speaker, we need an apprenticeship system for our youth similar to the old, well tried and proven English system under which young people were taught certain skills. After finishing, they stood a good chance of earning a decent living. What I am saying is borne out, I submit, by an editorial which appeared recently in the Ottawa Journal, from which I wish to

June 13, 1972

quote. The headline reads, "The Young Don't Want To Live on Welfare". The editorial reads in part:

The Canadian Council on Social Development reports startling increases in the numbers of young people on welfare-

Most of the young persons told interviewers they rejected welfare as a way of life; 97.3 per cent said welfare was only a temporary form of relief for them. More than a third considered it 'a big trap; once you get into the welfare rut, it is really hard to get away from it.'

Why are so many young people who don't want to be there, in danger of being trapped in the welfare jungle? In March, the unemployment rate for the under-25s was 11 per cent, compared with a 4.2 per cent unemployment rate for Canadians 25 and over.

This is a most depressing and worrying situation. Somehow our society in the private as well as government sectors must shape itself so that the young can go to work. If they do not it will mean far more than so many statistics about unemployed-it will mean the people who will compose the future of this nation are soured and frustrated, and their spirit no less than their citizenship will bear blighted fruit.

I sincerely hope that that possibility will not materialize. In fairness to the new Minister of Finance, I must admit that this budget is a beginning, albeit a small begining. Pensions for the elderly have been increased, no doubt in response to the urgings of the Leader of the Opposition. However, this measure stopped short of parity. To begin with, the basic pension has fallen far behind the rate of increase in the cost of living. The government appears to be hung up on the means test for the income supplement, and has again applied the modest increase to the supplement rather than to the basic pension. In addition, the government failed to take into account the abnormal rise in the cost of living which has taken place since it has been in power. The increase should, really, have reflected that rise, which has certainly been more than one of 3 i per cent. However, I would not stand in the way even of this slight increase, Mr. Speaker. Elderly pensioners in this country have waited long enough. I would not want them to wait until the government changes hands in the next few months; this, apparently, will happen.

Let me mention the efforts we have made to have pensions increased. Those of us who have been fighting for increased pensions for veterans would not mind campaigning on this budget. We could point out that, although the government has offered the veterans 3} per cent extra, their basic pension rate is still $1,000 below the level established by a previous government. Some years ago, the basic pension was set at the level of the average, annual wage of an unskilled labourer. Today, that level is at $4,500 per year. Nevertheless, the veteran's basic disability pension has been allowed to drop to $3,500. The government previous to the present one allowed this to happen, and the present government has apparently not considered the matter important enough to take corrective action.

The pledge to maintain the basic veteran's pension at the level of the annual wage of an unskilled labourer was given by an earlier parliament. As a Member of Parliament I feel bound by that pledge. It is a responsibility I cannot pass off as lightly as hon. members opposite seem able to do. When this basic level was adopted, veterans' organizations approved it as being as realistic as they could hope for and they were prepared to live with it. If the veteran's basic pension were to be raised to that level,

The Budget-Mr. Alkenbrack

the increase proposed in this budget would be acceptable. Until that is done, Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept a total increase that resembles a gratuity more than a decent living for those who have sacrificed so much for their country.

I now turn to housing, Mr. Speaker. The 11 per cent sales tax on building materials remains, despite appeals from all over Canada for its removal. Now the government, more callous than ever, has announced a new housing program which it knows it can not implement before the next election. Government members know this. This is only an attempt to get support from a great segment of the Canadian public that no longer has confidence in the Trudeau administration.

The main thrust of this budget, Mr. Speaker, is the group of measures designed to stimulate the economy by offering incentives to industry and business, and here again the Leader of the Opposition has provided the guidelines. However, Mr. Speaker, the government has once again jumped off the boat before it reached the dock. Again, we have a token gesture on the part of the government in an area that has suffered the most in our system, the free-enterprise sector.

I can agree wholeheartedly with any measures that will compensate for the shortsighted policies that have resulted in a general slowdown in the industrial and business sectors over the past four years, with a resultant escalation of unemployment. Not only is it imperative that we take steps to revitalize the economy in order to create new jobs, it must be done in order to protect jobs that presently exist. We have had no evidence of that, particularly during the past couple of weeks. While I agree in principle with the measures in the budget to encourage production, I cannot accept the government's view that they have provided the answers to the problems that exist. I do not think they have gone far enough, and I do not think that there are enough built-in incentives to create jobs as well as increase production. Jobs are not created automatically when production increases, nor are jobs created in proportion to production increases.

While I quarrel with the substance of the incentives in the budget for industry and business, I reject out of hand the spurious argument of the leader of the New Democratic Party. I do not think it is evil to make it possible for industry and business to turn a reasonable profit. Profit is the stimulus that keeps our economy vital and promotes healthy economic growth. The incentive to realize a profit from one's investments creates jobs, and that is the way jobs are created in our system. I remind the leader of the NDP that the majority of Canadians like our capitalist, free-enterprise system. Indeed, it would be well for both the Liberals and the NDP to take some notice of the rejection by the Canadian people of socialism and government control of every aspect of daily life. We in this country respect the right of free choice and the sanctity of the individual. We do not need socialism, and we do not want socialism. It would be a poor substitute for what we have now.

As with every budget tabled by this government since they gained control of our country, this budget is more

June 13, 1972

The Budget-Mr. Alkenbrack

significant and remarkable for what is missing than for what is present. There is no mention in the budget of measures to establish a more equitable schedule of disbursements from the coffers of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. This greatest pork barrel in the history of Canada keeps growing larger, more cumbersome and the department becomes less equitable in its approval of projects.

DREE is a political football unmatched in magnitude in the annals of Canadian government. It is a comedy of errors and, more correctly, a tragi-comedy. It is a tragedy because the money being disbursed by this department is tax money. It belongs to all Canadians. It is tragic because it is being used by this government to attempt to build political strength in areas where that strength, or support, has to be bought. It is tragic because this government cannot buy respect and support from any part of Canada with dollars, however many they are willing to spend. No government can buy respect and confidence. It must earn the confidence of the people and respect will follow. This can only be done if a government demonstrates that it is prepared to listen to the people, heed the people and govern for the people.

The mandate won by the government in the last election is not in any way reflected in this budget, Mr. Speaker. The mandate of the official opposition is, in some facets, reflected in this budget and there is a measure of poetic justice in the fact that the government is on the point of going to the Canadian people for a new mandate. There is a distinct possibility that the government will hesitate to put this budget forward as an election budget. In that case, we can expect a new one in the not too distant future, Mr. Speaker, and I can suggest what the government might put in that budget. First, it should go all the way on the recommendations of the Leader of the Opposition on old age pensions instead of stopping short of parity. There is no parity in a measure that does not take into account the rise in the cost of living, or of the fact that inflation is now out of control. I suggest that in the next budget the government restore the schedule of veterans' pensions whereby the basic pension is equal to the annual wage for unskilled labour. No one could accept a level that is lower than that for unskilled labour.

If the government is really serious about wanting a new mandate, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot imagine them wanting to give up the keys to the kingdom at this point, I suggest that they include in their election budget measures to eliminate the incredible waste that has marked their years of misrule. They should abandon the wasteful projects that are siphoning off the hard-earned tax dollars of our citizens and fire the ministers who have been handling them. They have had their fun and nothing can last forever. Just tell them that there comes a time when all good things have to end. Since the present government has been in power, just four years, the cost of government has doubled while the national budget has increased by 50 per cent. Using that as a yardstick, if the present government is returned to power, Canadians can expect their national budget to be double what it was in 1968. No one can deny that the present government is playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship with our economy. Every year that the present government is in power, we move closer to national bankruptcy. While such a prospect would play

into the hands of the socialists in our midst, it is cause for alarm for the rest of us.

I wish to refer to an editorial in today's Ottawa Journal pertaining to our National Debt. I will quote from it presently. This is a vital question. The minister has completely ignored that most onerous item, the cost of carrying the total public debt which now stands at $2,022 million for the fiscal year. We are now paying 14 per cent for our money. No home owner in Canada would accept this rate for a first mortgage on his or her dwelling. Accordingly, they ought not to tolerate a 14 per cent mortgage rate on our country. I now quote from the Ottawa Journal:

The net national debt at March 31 was $17,922,000,000, an increase of $600,000,000 compared with March 31, 1971. The gross national debt, which includes assets such as government loans, advances and investments, was $47,633,000,000, an increase of $4,658,000,000 in the year.

The cost of carrying the total public debt, chiefly in interest, rises year by year-$1,301,000,000 in 1967-68; $1,480,000,000 in 196869; $1,717,000,000 in 1969-70; $1,920,000,000 in 1970-71 and $2,122,000,000 in 1971-72.

This means that each Canadian has an interest bill of some $100 staring him in the face each year. Interest charges are not an abstraction. In 1971-72 the public debt costs were 14 per cent of the budgetary expenditure and exceeded the bill for defence.

Every government can spin a tale on how it can not help increasing debt. Yet it still seems daft always to be paying more and more in interest when money could be employed-if debt were reduced-in improving the amenities of life and reducing taxes.

If one increases the debt, one increases taxes. We must reduce our public debt to a level more in keeping with the taxpayers ability to bear it. No one can really fault a brand new Finance Minister for adopting a protectionist posture when tabling his first budget, especially if the minister concerned aspires to lead his party. However, we have reached a point at which a budget, any budget, is of paramount concern to the average Canadian citizen. We have reached a point at which a budget must reflect the government's confidence in its ability to solve serious problems and face up to the realities of Canadian life. A shrug of the shoulder is not a good substitute for concerned leadership. Nor is a budget of this sort an answer to the longstanding ills in our economic system or to the inequities suffered for so long by the disadvantaged, the elderly and the veterans. I would not say this is a budget of confidence. I call it pussyfooting around the issues.

I had hoped I would find evidence in this budget that the government plans to decelerate its reckless program of spending and direct its fiscal strength toward productive benefits for our troubled nation. The government has not done so.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Order.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

William Warren Allmand

Liberal

Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):

Mr. Speaker, the budget debate provides Members of Parliament with an opportunity to discuss important economic issues. Today, I should like to discuss what I and many of my constituents consider to be the most serious economic issue facing the country today. I refer to the problem resulting from unsatisfactory labour relations and, in particular, to the right to strike in essential industries and in the public service.

June 13, 1972

Since the beginning of this year, my city of Montreal has been plagued by a continuing wave of serious strikes. There was the common front strike of 210,000 provincial employees which lasted for 11 days. Taking part in this strike were teachers, hospital workers, court employees, hydro workers and so on. This dispute has not yet been settled. There was also a strike of blue collar workers which started back in February. The men were ordered to return to work but the strike is presently being continued. Taking part in this strike are garbage workers, traffic maintenance men, sewer workers and the like. I might also add that there were garbage strikes in Toronto and Vancouver. All these strikes are, of course, within the provincial sphere of responsibility, but I draw attention to them because they have an impact on the entire national economy and are interrelated with labour relations in the federal field.

On the federal scene we have witnessed a strike of air traffic controllers, the NABET strike and, now, the strike of longshoremen in Quebec and the St. Lawrence ports. Both the air traffic controllers strike and the longshoremen's strike have been marked by serious economic consequences not only to Quebec but to the whole nation. As a result of this experience, people in all parts of this nation at all economic levels are seeking a better way to resolve disputes between labour and management. Labour, management, government, blue collar workers, white collar workers and all serious labour analysts are reaching the conclusion that nobody gains from a long strike. This is particularly true of strikes involving essential services which enjoy a monopolistic position.

It is evident that in most strikes more is lost by the strikers than is ever gained through wage increases and better working conditions. And we must take into account losses suffered by employers, the loss of markets, sometimes permanent, loss of work in related industries, loss of production and the loss to the community as a whole. It is my opinion that the strike is an outdated weapon in accomplishing legitimate economic goals and that where essential services are involved it is a form of anarchy, a kind of warfare between vested interests. It is very often a form of blackmail directed toward the general public, a conflict which recognizes that might is right with little concern for justice or social needs.

What I say with respect to the right to strike I apply as well to the unlimited right of lock-out. The distinguishing feature of our strikes in the public service is that the public service is monopolistic and, moreover, paid for through taxation. When a certain segment of the public service goes on strike, it is in effect, attempting to reallocate the expenditure of tax money, sometimes unjustly. Alternatively, the general level of taxation is forced up. For example, a government could be forced to spend relatively more on television services than on medical care, even though a parliament or a legislature might have decided that it was more important to spend money on medical care than on television.

There are other serious side effects of strikes in essential public services. The consumer is directly affected. Society as a whole bears the brunt of such strikes twice over, first by being deprived of certain goods or services for the duration of the strike and, second, by being made

The Budget-Mr. Allmand

to pay in the form of higher prices the cost of the gains made by the unions. There is also the inflationary impact on the economy to be considered. In order to discourage public servants from striking, governments are often compelled to grant large pay increases with the object of placating the unions. Both the Economic Council of Canada and the Public Service Commission have admitted that this practice encourages prices to follow wages and contributes to the inflationary spiral.

There are other serious spill-over effects. For example, the 12-day strike by air traffic controllers in 1972 was the consequence of a $3 million difference between the government and the union. But the loss to the economy as a whole as an indirect consequence of the strike has been estimated at $150 million. So what was originally a dispute over $3 million resulted, due to the strike, in a loss to the general economy of $150 million.

I should like to refer, now, to some of the public opinion polls in connection with strikes in essential services. I shall read first the results of a public opinion survey published in the Ottawa Citizen on April 29. The question was as follows:

Some people believe the right to strike has outlived its usefulness and that before any strike is permitted both management and labour should agree to abide by a voluntary arbitration decision for at least a year. Do you favour or oppose such a plan?

On a national basis, 78 per cent were in favour, 12 per cent opposed and 10 per cent undecided. In labour homes, 74 per cent were in favour, 16 per cent opposed and 10 per cent undecided. In executive and professional homes, 81 per cent were in favour, 13 per cent opposed and 6 per cent undecided. The results of a national Gallup Poll were published in the Montreal Star on May 15. The following question was asked:

What about strikes in occupations where the public is seriously inconvenienced-such as strikes by employees of the postal service, airlines, railroads or the telephone service; do you think they should or should not be permitted to strike?

On a national basis, 32 per cent said they should be permitted, 57 per cent said they should not and 11 per cent were undecided. In union homes, the corresponding figures were 48 per cent, 41 per cent and 11 per cent and in non-union homes, 61 per cent, 28 per cent and 11 per cent.

Another poll was carried out by the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion and the results were published in the Ottawa Citizen on April 19-these are all recent polls. The question read:

As you know, there have been a number of strikes recently. In general, how serious do you think such strikes are for the Canadian economy?

I shall summarize by simply saying that in non-union homes 68 per cent of those asked described the effect as very serious, 25 per cent as fairly serious and 4 per cent as not very serious.

I should like to refer as well to some statements made recently by Mr. George Meany, head of the AF of L-CIO in the United States. According to Mr. Meany, labour should voluntarily replace strikes with reliance upon binding arbitration for a one year period. He said that the strike is a 19th century tactic, and with the advent of corporate giants and correspondingly super-unions, strikes become even-matched struggles which drag on for

June 13, 1972

The Budget-Mr. Allmand

weeks, radiating economic shock waves far beyond the limits of the actual conflict. That is what Mr. George Meany, one of the top union executives in the world today, has said about strikes. While it is easy to recognize the frustration of management, of labour and the public with respect to such strikes, it is not easy to find workable solutions. Extremely complex problems are involved and there are no panaceas. The suggestion that we can solve the problem merely by making strikes illegal is totally unrealistic. The mere passage of a law declaring a strike illegal may not settle anything.

The present longshoremen's strike in Montreal is illegal. The Montreal policemen's strike which took place a few years ago was illegal. We have had many serious strikes which were not legal. In Australia, where there is compulsory arbitration, there are five times as many illegal strikes as there are legal strikes in Canada.

The problem with illegal strikes is to find an appropriate sanction that will deter such strikes or prevent them happening. Some suggest fines against the union, the union leaders or the strikers, but it is not always easy to enforce execution of such a provision. Others suggest that we put strikers or union leaders in jail; but we cannot jail all the strikers in a large strike, and even if we could this would not provide us with the services needed. We cannot pick men off the street to fill highly skilled and difficult jobs. With regard to jailing union leaders, we have seen that such a measure can easily lead to an escalation of the dispute and perhaps to serious political confrontation. Others suggest decertification, withdrawal of the checkoff provision, or similar sanctions.

Many would argue that the most effective sanction and the greatest incentive to settle a dispute is loss of wages to workers and loss of revenue to employers. Many believe that this is the most important sanction that will lead both sides to negotiate a settlement. I shall point out later that many experts today question that particular means of settlement in certain public service and essential services disputes.

Even if we could legislate men to stay on the job, we cannot guarantee that we will get better results. We may still be faced with work to rule situations, slowdowns, wildcat strikes, product sabotage, rotating strikes and study sessions. All these tactics have been used by unions when they have deep founded grievances and no other method of settling them. In recent years there has been great concern voiced by many Canadians on this subject and there have been several studies, royal commissions and legislative provisions. In 1967 this Parliament passed the Public Service Staff Relations Act after exhaustive committee hearings. This law gave the public service unions the right to organize, to carry on collective bargaining and to strike. The right to strike was provided for, except in the case of designated employees whose duties were necessary for public safety and security. I presume the groups covered by that provision were the RCMP, the armed forces and other similar groups.

It was stipulated in that law that unions could opt for one of two routes; either for binding arbitration or for the right to strike. The majority of the unions opted for the

arbitration route at the beginning, and I should like to refer to the percentage that did so. During the initial stages after passage of the Public Service Staff Relations Act in 1967 there were 81 occupational groups that applied for certification. Of those 81 groups only 10 opted for the strike route; all the others opted for the arbitration route. However, as of March 1972 the number of groups opting for the strike route had increased from 10 to 18, with the number of employees involved rising from 38,000 to 64,000.

We might ask what is the reason for this change from 10 to 18 groups in favour of the strike route as opposed to the arbitration route. Some have argued that those who originally chose the arbitration route found that they got smaller settlements than unions in the private sector who had the right to strike. Businessmen and others in the private sector should remember this when they criticize different governments for giving the right to strike to the public service. They cannot expect workers in the public service to accept smaller wage increases through arbitration procedures when they see their co-workers in private industry negotiating higher settlements with the threat of a strike hanging over the whole issue.

In 1967, the government of Lester Pearson appointed the Woods commission task force on labour relations. I should like to give the House some of the findings that commission made with respect to strikes in essential services and in the public sector. The commission said that in their view collective bargaining was the most acceptable form of resolving disputes. They said that this "antagonistic co-operation" must be contained, however, in the interests of labour, management and the public. They recommended that the services of a conciliation officer be imposed on the parties before they are permitted to engage in a strike or lockout. They also said that it was extremely difficult to say in advance in what industry resort to strike our lockout should be curtailed, and that the length of a strike or lockout is frequently the critical factor in such an assessment. They felt that we should have a flexible approach and that the determination that a given stoppage of work should be terminated in the public interest was a political decision. They said this political element is an inducement to the parties to drive them to settle their dispute.

I wanted to go into the whole subject, which I consider to be most important, in great detail, Mr. Speaker, and I was going to refer to the experience of other countries. However, since preparing my remarks the time of speeches has been reduced from half an hour to 20 minutes, so I shall have to skip a lot of what I was going to say. Therefore, I will come to my concluding remarks since I have only a few minutes left.

One of the principal points that I want to make is that in addition to the right to strike and the right to lockout there should be a right to service, especially essential services. The basis of the right to strike, which is that the cost to both union and to management will eventually force both to arrive at a compromise, I submit is no longer valid since, first of all, the cost of many strikes is now borne by the public, particularly in the service industries such as transport, education, garbage removal and so on. Second, in other cases the cost of a strike is carried by

June 13, 1972

suppliers and sellers of a product. For example, a recent cannery strike ruined many small tomato growers, while only inconveniencing the union and the management of the cannery. There may have been no cost to management or labour.

The spread of techniques to save management from loss is shown in the agreement that when one airline is struck the extra revenue gained by other airlines is given, after deduction of costs, to the struck airline, or management can simply raise prices. Workers can often expect to make up their lost wages in overtime. In a recent New York school teachers' strike, the teachers demanded the opportunity of extra teaching time, even if much of it were useless. In short, the cost of most strikes is now paid by the public. Consequently, we must recognize a new right, the right to public services. I believe firmly what we must do is make the arbitration provisions in our Public Service Staff Relations Act more attractive so that more of our unions in the public service field will resort to arbitration rather than to the strike.

We should also assure that there are better grievance, conciliation and mediation facilities. We should provide for continuous bargaining to get to the trouble spots well in advance. In respect of essential services where a strike may seriously affect the economy, public health or safety, there must be provisions to prevent or end such strikes. Such provisions now exist in the act, but maybe they should be extended. It is merely a question as to where we draw the line. Parliament has always reserved the right to pass special legislation to end a strike and this has been done on several occasions. The question arises again as to whether this right may be left with Parliament or whether it should be delegated to the government to use as it sees fit.

Before I conclude, I should just like to emphasize these points. We must seriously re-examine our labour laws, especially those relating to essential and public services. We must admit that some factors do not apply today as they applied in the 1920's, 1930's and the 1940's, when labour was poorly organized and often exploited; nor is management organized in the same way. We must recognize the public's right to services, especially the right to basic essential services such as security, safety, health care and so on. We must recognize the right of elected officials to determine the priorities in allocating tax funds and the general level of taxation in order to serve the general needs of all the population, not just the demands of organized labor.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Prosper Boulanger (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):

Order, please. I regret that I must inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PC

William Skoreyko

Progressive Conservative

Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity this afternoon to participate in this debate. I am delighted to participate for a number of reasons, but first because there was so much time spent in the committee and, indeed, by this House dealing initially with that voluminous document. I am delighted to participate because the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is sincerely trying to find a work-

The Budget-Mr. Skoreyko

able plan in the mess he inherited from the former minister of finance.

Before I get to the budget itself, I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) and the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Deakon), both of whom dealt rather extensively with the inadequacies of our immigration laws as they exist today. I intended initially to deal with some of the anomalies of that act, hoping to give those Canadians, seven million in number, who are of European or other extraction than English or French an opportunity of feeling they are part of the Canadian community. I think those two gentlemen covered the inadequacies of that act, so I will not deal with it further.

Referring to the budget itself, sometimes referred to as the pride of the Liberal party, it is amazing to recognize how quickly this government points out that there are so many thousands of Canadians who will not pay any tax at all, or will indeed have their tax reduced, while at the same time they say nothing about the thousands who will pay much more. I liken this budget to FISP and other family allowance programs recently before this House because the Liberals went across the country publicizing the fact that, under these plans, 1.5 million Canadians would get more, but they said not one word about the 1,200,000 who would get nothing.

It is true that through the budget the government has reduced corporate taxes, but it has said nothing about how it is going to maintain that tax reduction. This is a temporary measure, of course, to say the least, in the absence of any consultation with the provinces about proposed reductions in their corporate income tax. These proposed reductions depend entirely on provincial governments not changing their corporate tax structure. I should like the minister to indicate whether he has had consultation with provincial governments in this regard. I should like to know whether he has dealt to any extent with the 30 per cent credit for dividends from taxable corporations which would only have effect if provincial governments do not change their structure or grant similar credits. Will the minister consult provincial governments in this regard so the corporate structure of Canada can be made aware of provincial attitudes?

There is something wrong with government fiscal and monetary planning when we find small businessmen feeling pinched day after day, many of whom have been going out of business because there was nothing for them in the budget. There is something wrong when we find municipalities arranging their financing needs or borrowings out of the country in order to make a saving. They can get reduced interest rates. There is something wrong when we find municipalities begging for funds and assistance to establish land banks for future use. Whatever money is available to them now for this purpose comes from foreign countries. There is something wrong with the budgetary processes and policies of this government when in urban centres in Canada it is virtually impossible to build a modest home for under $18,000; when the cost of living in this country is going up constantly, and when unemployment is increasing rather than decreasing. There is something wrong when the Minister of Finance, new as he is, stands pat on a budget which is devoid of

June 13, 1972

The Budget-Mr. Skoreyko

remedies for the ills of our economy. There is something wrong when the government has to resort to stop-gap measures such as LIP and the Opportunities for Youth program instead of creating the kind of economy which would provide the long-term jobs that the youth of our country are looking for and need.

Getting back to what the minister may or may not have done with the provinces, I should like to pursue this matter a little further to find out what undertakings he has received from various levels of government across the country. In the absence of such undertakings, the tax proposals in this budget could further widen the regional economic gap in Canada. One can foresee corporations phasing out their operations and moving from one area or province to another to take advantage of the absence of estate or gift taxes. In spite of DREE, these moves will take place, particularly in circumstances where existing plant facilities have been fully depreciated. One major move out of any number of regions in Canada could create untold hardship on the citizenry.

I would like to know if the minister, since taking over the Benson brainchild, has given the fullest consideration to the impact on the free enterprise posture of the country of the imposition of the capital gains tax. Has the minister seen what has happened to the corporate profit structure in the country since 1968? I wonder if he is aware that the best performance of the corporate structure in Canada was before the 1968 general election. I wonder, also, if he is aware of the impact on entrepreneurs of the dividend tax credit proposals. Is he aware that the industrial structure of this country which is most capable of buying Canada back has had, by these tax measures, its appeal to making investments in Canadian corporations made less attractive than ever before?

I wonder if the minister is aware of what has happened to taxable income in the rural communities, the farming enterprise of our country, in recent years. Is he aware of the declining total tax payable by the agricultural sector of our country? Does he know that since 1968 the agricultural economy of the prairie provinces has dropped and is staying at that low level, yet there is nothing in the budget to ease the burden of the farmer? I am expecting, Mr. Speaker, that the attitude of the new Minister of Finance may not be the same as that of the former minister toward the western provinces.

Another strikingly strange development in the House over the months has been the silence of those who expounded views on Canadian nationalism and economic nationalism. Almost daily in this House, and certainly two or three times a week, the NDP asked the government what they were going to do about buying Canada back. Suddenly there was DISC, and suddenly there was a surtax. Just as suddenly, the NDP and the Liberals who spoke about the possibility of buying Canada back clammed up; there was no more interest in economic nationalism.

What would be the result if foreign investment withdrew from the country? I would not suggest that the nation would go bankrupt immediately, but certainly the standard of living would drop to anywhere between 40 per

cent to 60 per cent of what it is now. I ask how many Canadians are prepared to give up 10 to 15 years of this standard of living to buy back foreign-owned Canadian industry. However, there are reasonable alternatives and solutions with a minimum of impact on foreign investors which would at the same time encourage Canadian investors to invest in Canada more.

For a nation that is some 100 years old in terms of governing ourselves, the lack of attention given to corporate law is most deplorable. I have no qualms about attracting foreign investment to Canada. Let us invite the wealthy nations of the world to bring in all the capital they can spare. We need all the capital we can get. That is how Canada was built in the first place. But we need rules and guidelines.

Let us deal for a moment with a hypothetical situation and take Germany as an example. That country invests in Canada $100 million in German marks deposited in Canadian banks. They would have to search out our export and import markets in the hope of selling and buying goods from Canada, because for a number of reasons they would have a major investment in Canada and would have to negotiate a trade arrangement to get back some of the invested money.

What is needed is a set of foreign investment laws or guidelines so that the multinational corporations would know what they have to live with. The foreign investor will not, and cannot be expected to invest in Canada or in any other country where there is any threat of nationalization or takeover. Assurances must be given that the laws governing foreign investors can be tolerated. I give the example of a law passed in Mexico not many years ago under which it became illegal for any foreigner to own more than 49 per cent of a corporation or business in that country-51 per cent had to be Mexican owned. Yet in the long run that legislation has not stopped foreign investment in Mexico.

On the other hand, let us examine the example of the Bahama Islands. The picture is entirely different. Foreign investment has dried up almost totally there because of the government's negative attitude toward foreign investors. Surely the minister knows that acceptable foreign investment guidelines and laws can be formulated. The present foreign takeover policy, the Gray report, is meaningless and gutless. It reflects only the incompetence of this government to deal seriously with the problem. In the absence of a sound, long-term policy in this area the government has had to resort to political gimmickry in an attempt to dupe the Canadian people into believing that they have taken serious steps in an area of great concern to many Canadians when in fact they have done nothing.

I want to see a great deal of foreign investment in Canada, but I want to see it here in cash. I want to see multinational corporations with established credit bring cold, hard currency into this country and put it to work. I do not want to see multinational corporations borrowing from our leading institutions, because of their multinational credit ability, so as to acquire Canadian companies. In far too many cases the acquisition of Canadian industry by the transfer of shares and the acquisition of necessary credit from Canadian banks has resulted in a Canadian-owned company becoming foreign controlled.

June 13, 1972

I do not find withholding taxes offensive. I am sure that most corporations cannot dispute the validity of a just withholding tax. The other disaster, of course, as it has its impact on the Canadian corporate structure and is the direct responsibility of this government, is the floating of the Canadian dollar. The long-term adverse consequences of that move have not yet been fully realized.

There are other serious government instrusions into the corporate sector of the country. We have the competition act and the new labour act. Some of the strangest thinking emerges from this government on occasion. Millions of dollars are poured into the Canadian industrial complex to stimulate the economy, to stimulate business activity, to create jobs and to create business stability. DREE is trying to do all this, and the government after all this effort then introduces the competition act. The explanatory notes or preamble state that a dynamic and efficient market economy is the basis of the Canadian economic system and that the purpose of the competition policy is to keep the market as efficient as possible. Those are beautiful words. But what is necessary for a good and orderly market economy? There are a number of things necessary. There is the right of people to produce, the right of people to buy, the right of people to sell, the right of people to distribute goods and services of their own choosing, the freedom of an individual to do what he wants to do and how he wants to do it.

If you subject our industrial complex to rules and regulations that govern all aspects of commercial life, if the restrictions are so all-encompassing, so restrictive, so extensive as to regulate individual action, then those rules are no longer defensible. The sum total of restrictive legislation is that it leaves no area of freedom. The competition act is not only highly complicated but it is an administrative nightmare; it is unworkable from the business point of view. Instead of promoting efficiency and more vigorous competition, the reverse will be the end result; we will get less efficiency, less competition and less production.

A more serious effect could be that the industrial complex in Canada will have to seek greater integration with the United States of America and surely will be compelled to develop very different economic policies both domestically and internationally. I presume my time has expired, Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
NDP

William George Knight

New Democratic Party

Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):

Mr. Speaker, I take part in this debate to outline some of the concerns I have about the government's proposals within the budget. I begin by complimenting the hon. member who has just finished speaking for outlining the basic philosophy taken by the Conservative party. He outlined a policy on the one hand of saying the government does not go anywhere in terms of its foreign ownership legislation, and on the other hand of calling for absolutely no restriction on foreign investment. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that they are trying to walk a middle line. Sometimes this works for some groups, but I suggest to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition that the people of Canada are waiting for some direct and comprehensive policies on their part and not a continuation of

The Budget-Mr. Knight

their trying to walk a middle line, trying to go in two different directions at the same time.

This budget was introduced as one-

-to buttress the Canadian economy, to provide incentives for Canadian industry to grow and compete and provide jobs.

The document entitled "Budget Highlights" described permanent incentives to strengthen the competitive position of our manufacturing and processing industries as follows:

General corporate tax rate reduced to 40 per cent on Canadian manufacturing and processing income only, effective January 1, 1973.

Tax rate reduced to 20 per cent from 25 per cent on manufacturing and processing income eligible for small business incentive, effective January 1,1973.

Two year write-off introduced for machinery and equipment... for manufacturing or processing in Canada.

That was assumed to give the Canadian economy the incentive to create employment, to go ahead in terms of benefits with jobs for Canadians, With all due respect, may I point out to the government that there is no guarantee that tax cuts of this nature will go into the development of more jobs for Canadians, that in fact the only role this kind of budget plays is in fattening the profits of corporate interests. There is no guarantee in the budget of one more job being created. One can only wonder who are the types who can praise this type of budget. I note that in the Toronto Globe and Mail of June 7, the president of the Canadian Manufacturers Association was reported as saying:

This is a Minister of Finance who speaks our language ... he did not deliver more than was necessary, but he did deliver, and come next January we will feel the beneficial effects.

I wonder who the "we" will be. I assume it will not be the vast majority of the Canadian people. The "we" will be the corporate interests in the Canadian Manufacturers Association. That is a fundamental point in describing the philosophy of the government toward multinational corporations. It is coupled with a piecemeal, loose, totally irrelevant piece of legislation concerning foreign ownership. In the finance committee today we were given a complete outline of how this legislation is worse than useless. That will be a committee report which every member of this House should read.

What did the budget do in terms of the agricultural sector of the economy? It did nothing. As a matter of fact, in terms of manufacturing and processing, in terms of who will have their taxes reduced, the ways and means resolutions accompanying the minister's speech provide as follows:

-for the purposes of this provision "Canadian manufacturing and processing profits" of a corporation for a taxation year means the amount, determined under rules prescribed for that purpose by regulation made on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, of a corporation's income for a taxation year from the manufacturing or processing in Canada by it of goods for sale or lease except that, for the purposes of this provision, the manufacturing or processing of goods for sale or lease does not include

(e) farming or fishing including the processing of any produce of

farming or fishing for the purpose of preparing that produce for

marketing,

(f) logging including the processing of timber in the course of

logging operations-

The Budget-Mr. Knight

Farming and fishing, including the processing of any produce of farming and fishing for the purpose of preparing the produce for marketing, will not be included. When he was questioned in the agricultural committee, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) showed that he was not even aware of this particular aspect of the budget. His government has given no answer to the question as to whether this tax cut will in any way be related to the agricultural industry.

At the same time as that problem develops, we see at page 22 of the booklet entitled "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent" that two cents of each tax dollar will go to the agricultural industry. In terms of the importance and significance of this industry, that is a disgusting, almost irrelevant situation created by the government which offers nothing more than corporate tax write-offs without dealing with the basic problems of the individual, of the personal income taxpayers who include the farmers.

At the same time as this government introduces fantastic cuts in corporation taxes, we remember how over the years they have proposed to introduce so-called tax reform. Last fall they claimed there would be a more equitable tax system and that they would be carrying out the recommendations contained in the Carter commission report, the concept that a buck is a buck. Then they backed down, and we still have a tax system of special privilege where a single person earning $10,000 a year in wages or salary pays $2,285 in taxes, the individual making $10,000 a year through capital pays $833 in taxes, and the individual earning $10,000 in dividends from a Canadian corporation pays a mere $193 or less. Under this Liberal government that is what is called a just society. But in the spring they brought in a budget which further reduces taxes paid by corporations. They have the gall to call this equity in our tax system.

Mr. Speaker, there has been some suggestion that the cut in corporation taxes will help our industries to react to the United States DISC program. However, it is interesting that in the finance committee today it was learned that a company can very easily keep the manufacturing of auto parts in the United States and set up the assembly plant in Canada, thus benefiting from the DISC program in the United States and the corporation tax cuts in this country. This is an atrocious manner in which to run a government and it is an atrocious claim that employment will be created through this kind of activity.

Today we have seen the unemployment figures and note no substantial change. This budget is not an answer to the unemployment problem. What is the alternative that the Tory party has been suggesting in the last couple of years for the more equitable distribution of income and the creation of full employment? All we have is a greater cry for some kind of incentive, a greater cry for a further reduction in corporation taxes, a greater cry to treat the large corporate interests in an easier manner than even this government has done. But Mr. Speaker, that is even less of a solution than what is proposed in this budget.

As time goes on we must decide the economic policy of this country. We need to develop an industrial strategy related to the creation of full employment while at the

same time attacking the problems of inflation. Until the government develops a full industrial strategy instead of merely putting band aids on those parts of the economic system that keep splitting, we will not develop anything like a just society or the kind of society where each knows that the other is paying his fair share of taxes.

This government could easily have used the money provided to the corporations by way of tax cuts to reduce the taxes of the individual taxpayer in the lower and middle-income groups. This would create considerable consumer demand for goods, thus creating employment and providing for the money to flow back into the economy. But neither this government nor, I would suggest, the official opposition are going to forget their friends who sit in the corporate boardrooms and cry for concessions in order to make greater profits.

There has been considerable talk in this budget debate, Mr. Speaker, about foreign takeovers and direct investment, particularly by members of the Tory party. They say that if foreign investment were curtailed it would be a disaster for Canada, ignoring the sound economic statement made by the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kier-ans) who pointed out that investment in this country is not so much the problem as is the expansion of foreign firms already operating within the Canadian economy. If we are to survive in the twentieth century as an independent nation, this is the problem we must come to grips with. This budget does not deal with the farmer, the small businessman, the ordinary citizen of Canada; it deals mainly with the corporate interests and the self-interests of the party in power.

May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Prosper Boulanger (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):

It being six o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.

At 6 p.m. the House took recess.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink

AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 8 p.m.


NDP

William George Knight

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knight:

Mr. Speaker, just before six o'clock when the House adjourned for the dinner hour I was discussing the fallacy behind the corporation taxation cuts, suggesting they would not affect the ordinary citizen of Canada. I referred to the economics relating to those cuts and suggested it was a fallacy to assume that such cuts would be instrumental in creating jobs for Canadian citizens. I submit they will merely provide additional profits for the corporations involved.

I said that in the last few years our tax system has been changing constantly. The Carter commission's report was brought down, then the white paper was presented by the former minister of finance. The House debated the so-called tax reform bill in the previous session. Amendment were moved to that bill, and then those amendments were amended. Now the government has introduced a budget which totally disregards equity in our tax system. So we have seen considerable changes. One might say this situa-

June 13, 1972

tion can be compared to a caterpillar turning into a butterfly: the butterfly is not half as pretty as one might expect. We live in a society that is still full of inequities. These extend to our tax system and to the special privileges this government has given to the private, corporate sector of the economy.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Maurice Dupras

Liberal

Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):

Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to commend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) for his budget, which has been realistic in all respects, taking into account the difficulties of our times and tending to create employment, something which we greatly appreciate.

The welcome given that budget by the Canadian people is a good indication that the minister, who has been holding his portfolio for only a short while, will be as successful in his new functions as he has been in his capacity as Minister of Justice.

As I said the measures which he announced in his speech have been welcome by most Canadians who have judged them objectively. For that matter some have already been passed and more than 1,800,000 Canadians are taking advantage of them.

Those measures are consistent with the spirit of the white paper tabled recently by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), which set objectives for those Canadians who are concerned about creating a more viable social environment. It is therefore natural that sufficient income should be guaranteed everyone within a federal state.

The budget speech also announced fiscal measures to stimulate the economy, measures that I should like to dwell upon at greater length to bring out those elements capable of promoting the creation of new jobs. All the advantages stemming from those measures are possible and are given the Canadians without tax increases.

The minister has been accused of having brought down an election budget. Mr. Speaker, the same accusations were made by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings (Mr. Hees) in june 1971, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) brought down his budget. The hon. member was so convinced he was right at that time, that he even had the audacity and arrogance of betting that a general election would be held in the fall of 1971. Each budget, over the past two years, has brought forth the same reaction from opposition members. They clamour that an election is close at hand. How can they, on the one hand, accuse the government of introducing an election budget, then on the other say there is nothing in the budget? The only ones to be taken in by that little game, Mr. Speaker, would seem to be the press, who trumpet forth that there will soon be an election, because a number of opposition members say so.

Among the social meausres indicated in the budget speech is the escalation of the basic old age security pension to the full increase in the consumer price index, effective January, 1972, and the increase in the maximum payment under the combined old age security guaranteed

The Budget-Mr. Dupras

income supplement by $15 per month for a single person and $30 for a married couple as of January, 1972, with full escalation after April, 1973.

The announcement of these measures, together with the special exemption for taxpayers aged 65 and over to $1,000 from $650, along with a similar exemption for the blind and those confined to bed or wheelchair, came as a consequence of the will of the government to enlist the economy of the country in reaching the objectives of human development and social justice. In this endeavour the measures announced are a step in the right direction.

The increase in the old age security guaranteed income supplement is a recognition of the important contribution the people receiving it today brought to our country in their productive years, a large number in wartime, working long hours in war plants or on farms, contributing with their income tax to finance their country's total war effort. They were in the front line as active participants in the development of our country. They helped bring into being this great Canada that has so much to offer to the young generation, and they did it without many of the social benefits which today we take for granted. I have no resistance to giving our senior citizens a better life. There is no conflict in my mind as to the distribution of social assistance. While I recognize that we must give some priority to youth, we must not neglect our senior citizens.

The budget, Mr. Speaker, justifiably I believe, has been called a budget for old people, young people and industry. First of all, it seeks to restore the competitive potential to Canada's manufacturing industry. It also aims at neutralizing the impact on the country's economy of recent changes which have taken place on the international scene, such as the emergence of new trading powers like Japan and the nations belonging to the extended European Economic Community, or the protectionist trend imparted by the Nixon administration to the commercial policy of the United States. Furthermore, it aims at improving the economic status of several more or less marginal groups of citizens: old people, veterans, students, people who require medical care and those in need of transportation for the purpose of receiving medical treatment. Finally, it is aimed at speeding up as a result the creation of permanent and lasting employment.

Those announced measures are an indication that the minister has faith in the Canadian industry. The effect of those provisions on the economy is largely dependent on the willingness of the industry in each province to take advantage of the proposed tax concessions. It is also an act of faith in the economic potential of the country which has succeeded in creating more employment than several European industrialized countries combined.

The tax concessions granted to the manufacturing and processing industries will from now on quite favourably compare with those already granted abroad, especially in the United States' and the member countries of the European Common Market.

Consequently, it is to be expected that those measures will surely become substantial incentives for the establishment in Canada of new manufacturing plants or for the expansion of existing facilities by allowing the increase of

June 13, 1972

The Budget-Mr. Dupras

the income to be produced finally by the capital they will have invested.

Those measures may also be a first step towards the adoption of a national industrial strategy taking into account the needs of the various industrial sectors in our country. In our view, the best industrial policy would be to concentrate our efforts on those fields in which we are already successful.

The number of our achievements in industry may be most impressive, but we must still concentrate on traditional activities which have enabled us to demonstrate our capabilities to all other countries.

Among these activities, there is, for instance, the pulp and paper industry which is still recovering from last year's slump which was one of the worst in the past 40 years. Seldom have so many adverse factors come together in such a short time, in one particular industry: precipitation of the Kennedy Round tariff agreements, increase in value of the Canadian dollar which has now gone up nearly 10 per cent compared to 1970; finally, the 10 per cent American surcharge imposed last August, and a slowdown of the economic activity.

As a result, plants in Canada have been forced to reduce production to avoid the accumulation of excessive inventories whereas during the previous years many of them had increased their production capacity so as to be in a position to meet a world demand which was expected to be higher than it has really been. Many of these companies have had to establish large-scale programs to cut all non-essential expenses and consequently they have had to reduce to less than $50 million in 1971 their expenses for new machinery, compared with an annual average of $150 million over the previous ten years.

Another field in which we excel is aeronautics. The aircraft industry is one of the most important employers in this country, particularly as far as the production of the short take-off and landing aircraft (STOL) is concerned.

The products of this important industry are very popular throughout the world and we see Caribou, Otter and Beaver aircraft used both in highly industrialized countries and in the bush of under-developed countries.

If we want our sales promotion campaign to be successful, we must necessarily demonstrate the great merits of the STOL aircraft. It is up to us, the manufacturers, to use it, to show its great usefulness to the best advantage and to advertise its relatively low cost.

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the remarks the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) made and which can be found in Hansard for June 5, on page 2847, while dealing with the act on the review of acquisitions of control of Canadian business by foreigners. I quote:

Technology for what? To produce things people do not want. It may be the moon, supersonic aircraft or technology to provide services the people do not want. They have the same priorities for destroyers, CF-5's or hydrofoils. Now, the current one going on is that somehow there is a technology of STOL aircraft-

-for Short Take-Off and Landing-

-which might place Canada in the forefront.

Mr. Speaker, our interest in this aircraft is quite obvious: both in the development and sale of such aircraft, we should consider the possibility of giving a Canadian industry a development which would place it among the most important in the world. Our intention to use these aircraft between Montreal and Ottawa to test their value and that of other electronic devices connected with this type of operation is justified.

Again, I don't understand why the former minister is questionning the wisdom of the government in establishing this type of service between Montreal and Ottawa.

I do not think it is aimed at saving a few minutes to hon. members and other travelers, but by helping an industry which has given proof of its efficiency it is a way of demonstrating that the aircraft has a wide range of possibilities.

Neither do we intend to underestimate the importance of the manufacturing and service sectors in which we excel; we must also encourage the development of the primary industry. We could hardly expect the establishment of an expansion-oriented policy without national development in this field of activity. We obviously need a balanced expansion and we should move toward a national strategy.

In drawing up this industrial policy, we should take into account that belief which is of concern to our fellow citizens to the effect that we exercise a kind of monopoly over our natural resources and that we can exact a ransom from all other countries by using such resources as a bargaining tool in international trade negotiations.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that nothing can be farther removed from the truth than this belief and I find this argument utterly absurd. We are surely the largest producers of some metals such as nickel and zinc. As for other important metals, our reserves are considerably smaller.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the statement that the rest of the world would use up its mineral reserves thus increasing the value of ours is not true in terms of mineral products, since the possibilities of new discoveries on land, apart from the sea bottom, continue to exist. Land and sea contain unlimited amounts of most metals. Technology will certainly make these reserves available to us.

Indeed, our mineral resources are only valuable when they are discovered, mined and developed and if we do not reach this goal, we run the risk of losing our position on the world market. Those who believe we should spare our natural non-renewable resources should take into account that the need for some of them can disappear. Without running the risk of using up our present reserves, it would be unwise on our part not to develop them and, later on, possibly face the situation where the demand for such supposedly limited reserves of the mineral could progressively decrease on world markets.

I think for instance of coal which is mined in the eastern part of the country but which is needed increasingly less.

The changes in technology indicate that it is not impossible that natural non-renewable resources which we consider so important today because of their value can be

June 13, 1972

replaced tomorrow by others of easier extraction and cheaper development.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PC

Melvin James McQuaid

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate for a few minutes in this debate. I feel that at the outset I should warn Your Honour that my remarks will be of a somewhat parochial nature inasmuch as I propose to deal with the serious economic situation facing the Atlantic area. I make absolutely no apology for this approach, because the economy of the Atlantic provinces is a system upon which depends the livelihood of more than two million people in the region. We did enjoy a period of great prosperity during the first half of the nineteenth century. Our fish was sold in the British West Indies, our timber found a ready market in Britain, we carried on an extensive shipbuilding industry and in general the economy was not too bad.

Unfortunately, the basis of our prosperity was undermined when ocean transportation was gradually replaced by air and rail transportation. The Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations made this clear in its report, from which I quote the following:

With the cheapening of transportation and the growing advantages of large-scale production, industry was drawn nearer to the rapidly increasing populations of western Canada and the central provinces and nearer to the centre of United States industry which financed and controlled so many of the Canadian manufacturing enterprises.

In other words, we could not compete and an increasing number of small establishments in the Maritimes were compelled to close down. As a result, many of our people were obliged to leave for other areas. It is alarming to note that between 1961 and 1969, a period of only eight years, 150,000 people left the Atlantic area. Of these, 36,000 were from Newfoundland, 7,300 from Prince Edward Island, 58,000 from Nova Scotia and 49,000 from New Brunswick.

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this trend is the fact that two-thirds of the 150,000 persons who found it necessary to leave were between the ages of 15 and 34, the really productive years. As a result, in my own province of Prince Edward Island today 44.2 per cent of the population are either under 15 or over 65. I notice, according to figures released a few days ago, that our province, proportionate to its population, has among its citizens more voters over the age of 65 than any other province in Canada. In the province of Newfoundland, 45.2 per cent of the population are either under the age of 15 or over 65. In Nova Scotia, the percentage is 41.4 per cent, and in New Brunswick 42.7 per cent. The Canadian average is 39.4 per cent.

Thus, we in the Atlantic area are well above the Canadian average in terms of people who have not yet reached, or who have gone beyond, the really productive years of their lives. I suggest that a lowering of the level of migration can only be achieved through the generation of employment at a sufficiently high level of income to make remaining in the area an attractive proposition.

The key to regional development is to narrow the income gap between the Atlantic provinces and the rest of

The Budget-Mr. McQuaid

Canada. But this is a key which unfortunately nobody has apparently yet been able to turn. I would ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to take note of the fact that without question we are the backward area of the nation. The main impetus for development in the Atlantic provinces must come, I suggest, from the establishment of secondary manufacturing industries. It has been estimated that we need 170,000 new jobs in the next ten years in order to encourage our people to stay in the area. It has also been estimated that in order to achieve this objective the total capital investment required will be in the vicinity of $25 billion.

The people in my province are dependent to a great extent on agriculture, but unfortunately our farms are becoming fewer and fewer in number. From 1961 to 1966, a period of five years, the number of farms declined by 2.5 per cent in Newfoundland, 13.3 per cent in Prince Edward Island, 23.1 per cent in Nova Scotia and 26.1 per cent in New Brunswick. I suggest this is a very serious situation in an area so dependent upon agriculture.

Our farm labour force has declined. In 1956 there were 49,000 people engaged in farm labouring, but by 1969 it had dipped to 26,000, which represents a drop of 53 per cent. During the past 25 years some 6,000 farmers have been forced off the land by economic circumstances that unfortunately continue to plague us even today.

I was interested in some figures recently released by Statistics Canada showing that the net income of a farmer in British Columbia is the highest in Canada. After all deductions are made, the net income of a farmer in British Columbia is $4,260, compared with the net income of a farmer in Prince Edward Island of $913. In other words, the farmers of British Columbia receive five times the net income of farmers in Prince Edward Island. Therefore, how can you expect young men to enter agriculture? Indeed, how can you expect anybody to continue farming when they have a foreseeable net income of only $913? Farm income is decreasing. Last year, 1971, there was a decrease in farm income in Nova Scotia of $5.5 million, a decrease of $6.3 million in New Brunswick, $7.2 million in Prince Edward Island, for a total decrease for all three provinces of $19 million. This compares with an increase in the prairie provinces of $400 million.

Our per capita income is low. In my own province in the year 1969 it was $1,818, compared to the Canadian average of $2,913. In other words, we are a little over $1,000 below the Canadian average. The Senate Committee on Poverty found that the level of income in 68 per cent of the families on P.E.I. was less than $3,000 a year. That, again, is a very serious situation.

I suggest to the members of this government that we in the Atlantic area are not getting our fair share of money under programs such as LIP. Out of a total of almost $160 million last year, the Atlantic provinces received only $41,517,000. On the other hand, the province of Quebec received almost $63 million. I suggest that $41,517,000 is insufficient in an area so badly in need of assistance as ours. My own province of Prince Edward Island received just over $2 million. We are thankful for what we have received, it has been a help to us; but I suggest in all seriousness that it is not enough.

3112

June 13, 1972

The Budget-Mr. McQuaid

Spokesmen for the government tell us that we in Prince Edward Island are being taken care of under this famous development plan. Under the development plan as it is presently set up, $725 million will be spent over a 15-year period. At first sight that sounds very good, but let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that of that $725 million only $225 million is being contributed by the federal government, the rest has to be contributed by the province itself.

Therefore I ask, where is this $500 million the province must contribute going to come from? There are only 111,000 people in the province of Prince Edward Island and today our direct debt is $110 million, about $1,000 for every man, woman and child in the province. According to the latest figures released by our finance department, to service that debt alone will cost about $11 million, which is about $100 for every man, woman and child in P.E.I. So before the government can turn the wheel at all it must raise from the taxpayers-who are not able to pay-$11 million just to pay the interest on what they owe.

I always maintain that governments are very little different from individuals. I can go to a bank and borrow a certain amount of money. However, there comes a day when the banker says to me, "I am sorry; I just cannot go along with you any longer. You do not have the assets to back up your loan". As sure as I am speaking here tonight, Mr. Speaker, unless the situation changes this is what we will be facing in the Atlantic provinces. People will not buy our bonds because they will say there are insufficient assets to stand behind them. Recently, student researchers conducted a survey and out of 1,841 questionnaires that have been evaluated, 1,136, or 62 per cent, see the plan killing small farms and businesses. Only 667, or 36 per cent, are satisfied with the direction the plan is taking. In all seriousness again I suggest that the development plan is not the solution to our problems.

Let me repeat that the problem confronting all four of the Atlantic provinces is that of slow economic growth. The manifestations of this slow economic growth are lower per capital income levels than the national average, higher unemployment rates, and substantial migration. The ultimate objective must be the fullest and most efficient use of the human and material resources of the region. The opportunity for productivity, for productive work, must be made available to all our people; and our greatest hope is access for maritime manufacturers to the markets of Ontario and Quebec.

In this connection, I was particularly pleased yesterday to hear the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) announce that tenders for the supplying of commodities to the federal government would be considered f.o.b. factory. This is what he said as recorded at page 3040 of Hansard:

A proposal which I intend to discuss further with my colleagues is the establishment of a policy under which any Canadian who wishes to sell to his national government can bid on the basis of his costs at his plant, that is his bid will be judged f.o.b. plant rather than f.o.b. destination which would of course then include transportation costs to destination.

There is no question but that this is very admirable and will probably help us in the Atlantic area, because we cannot compete by reason of high transportation costs.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that this is not the only cost, that is, moving the product out of the Atlantic area; we also have the cost of moving raw materials in. In a great many of our manufacturing plants the raw materials must be brought in. In my own province, where we have been denied the causeway, the cost of bringing raw material in is a very material factor added to the cost of the finished product. Consideration should also be given to that factor, but the fact that bids will be considered f.o.b. factory will be of help. I suggest we must not forget the cost of bringing raw material in, because it increases the cost of production.

During the years immediately following the last war the Canadian economy enjoyed one of the greatest expansions in its history. But the Atlantic provinces shared only to a very limited extent in this prosperity, and it is beyond dispute that the rapid expansion of the Canadian economy as a whole has not improved the relative position of the Atlantic provinces within our national economy.

We in the Atlantic area want to contribute productively to the national output. We do not want to be dependent on any of the provinces of Canada. We do not want to be a poor relation. I know that some of the richer provinces of Canada are beginning to complain because they have to contribute to the poor provinces such as my own. We do not want to be dependent on handouts to stay alive.

There is no doubt that we have potential in the Atlantic provinces. We are well located in relation to the large markets on the eastern seaboard of the United States. We have an intelligent and hardworking labour force. Unlike many other provinces, we are free of serious problems of congestion, and our problems of pollution are very small. In fact, they are minimal and in the few cases where pollution does exist it is much easier to control. We have the potential; all we need is impetus. We need money poured into the area to encourage industry to settle there. I suggest seriously that industry will not settle in that area, because of the obvious disadvantage of transportation costs, unless help is given by the federal government.

I say, therefore, without fear of successful contradiction, that with an improved program for regional development we can and will be self-sustaining. Give us the tools and we will do the job.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Walter Bernard Smith

Liberal

Mr. Walter Smith (Saint-Jean):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to take part in the debate on the budget presented to and digested by people all across Canada. It was a very good budget and I can assure you it was well received by citizens in the county of Saint-Jean, which I have had the pleasure of representing since the last election. I should also like to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and wish him much success in the portfolio he now occupies, which he is fulfilling in a magnificent manner.

Let me quote from Mr. Gerard Filion, president of the Canadian Manufacturers Association. He was praising the federal government for coming around to industry's position on a number of economic matters, the free enterprise system for the high level of material benefits it bestowed, and the Canadian Manufacturers Association for its strength in vigilantly pursuing the manufacturers' cause. He said:

June 13, 1972

This is a Minister of Finance who speaks our language . .. He did not deliver more than was necessary, but he did deliver, and come next January we will feel the beneficial effects.

The opposition has not surprised me in the least in its ocmments during this budget debate. It seems its hon. members are determined to criticize practically everything the government proposes. There is never a word of praise or of constructive criticism.

This government has increased old age pensions and supplement pensions for our senior citizens. The maximum supplement has been increased $15 for single people and $30 for married couples. The tax exemption was increased from $650 for citizens over 65 to $1,000. I suggest that the opposition is constantly criticizing the government for the high unemployment rate. In the five-year period from 1965 to 1970, more than one million jobs were created. This figure exceeds the total number of new jobs created in the same period in Belgium, Germany, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom combined. The total population of those seven countries, about 12 times as great as Canada's, had fewer jobs created than Canada. This momentum is continuing in Canada.

This government created the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and has spent over $900 million in the past three years in creating new jobs in the regions of Canada in greatest need. In the county of Saint-Jean many industries have taken advantage of federal subsidies for the construction of new industries and for the expansion and modernization of others. This county has been declared a designated area since December, 1970. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) extended the deadline from June of this year to June, 1973.

The county of Saint-Jean welcomes this extension because it will encourage more industry to our cities and towns. We find Canadians of different origins, French, English, Scottish, German, Chinese and many other ethnic groups working together as Quebeckers and Canadians. Many new jobs have been created in my riding under the Local Initiatives Program. This program has been well received. Unfortunately, some of the projects submitted were not accepted. Close to $1 million have been allocated to date under this program in the county, and many thanks go to the officials of the Department of Manpower and Immigration who have approved constructive projects. The officials of the local Manpower centre in Saint-Jean and others have been very helpful in preparing and suggesting projects to be created which correspond with the local needs of each section of the county.

Many new projects were accepted this year under the Opportunities for Youth program which had much success last year when it was first started. Students welcome such initiatives and it is hoped that many worthwhile projects have been accepted for this summer, permitting students to earn enough money to continue their studies next fall.

Agriculture is very important in the county, and the dairy industry perhaps employs more people than any

The Budget-Mr. W. Smith

other. Only two years ago this industry was not too healthy, but thanks to the dairy commission and the federal-provincial marketing plan which was put forward and accepted by the dairy producers, today they have nothing but praise for the government's guidance in the production and marketing of dairy products. The price of butter, milk, cheese and milk powder has increased in the past year. My congratulations are extended to the industry for their co-operation and understanding.

Market gardens occupy an important sector of the county, especially in the area of rich, black soil where each year several thousand acres are sown to potatoes, carrots, turnips, onions and many other small vegetables. Nevertheless, more protection should be given to producers of green vegetables during the fall season by imposing better controls over imports from the United States at that time of the year. Most of the carrots and turnips in the region find a good market in the United States and Great Britain.

Thanks should be extended to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) for his understanding and good judgment of the textile industry which only two years ago was threatened by imports. Much improvement has been noted in this industry in the past year and more employment has been created in the past few months. The Canadian Textile Institute has admitted that the government's policy has stimulated investment and restored confidence in the industry. However, more improvements are necessary because the industry accounts for slightly more than half the total market of textile products and our imports are higher per capita than those of Great Britain, the United States and the European Community; so the situation leaves something to be desired.

In the county of Saint-Jean there are over 100 industries manufacturing many products such as carpets, household equipment, building supplies, prefabricated homes, cables, and many others. In the past year the cities of Saint-Jean and Iberville have seen the construction of a multipurpose school erected in each city. I was happy to learn that the federal government's contribution to each was close to $2 million.

I have noticed that I am running out of time, Mr. Speaker. There are many other subjects on which I wanted to comment. However, before my time expires I would like to say a few words regarding an important problem which Saint-Jean, Iberville and many smaller municipalities have encountered each spring, especially in the past three years, namely, the flooding of the Richelieu River.

Thousands of acres of land on each side of the river are flooded every spring, and good farmland is being eroded and damaged to the extent that several acres cannot be cultivated and sown in agricultural products until late July. Damage to homes has been very high in the past three years. Last spring the water level remained high for about six weeks and millions of dollars of damage was suffered by the residents of the area.

The rock between Iberville and Saint-Jean is apparently the cause of the flooding, delaying the excess flow of water which comes from the Adirondack Mountains and Lake Champlain in the United States. In the mid 1930's when the Friers Dam was built below Saint-Jean, I am informed that plans were made to remove the rock, thus

25319-Hi

June 13, 1972

The Budget-Mr. Tetrault

permitting the water to flow downstream toward Sorel into the St. Lawrence River, but because of the war in 1939 this project was not realized.

I understand that a joint committee has now been created jointly by the province of Quebec and the federal government to discuss the possibility of removing the rock in front of the city. The construction of a dam just below the rapids is also under consideration. This dam would allow the lowering of the water level in Lake Champlain during the winter months, thereby eliminating much of the surplus water that flows down the Richelieu toward the St. Lawrence. I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Forest) for his interest and continued support in finding a solution to this grave problem.

May I conclude my remarks by saying that the government has resolved several of our problems. I hope this government will be re-elected to finish the job which we undertook a little over three years ago, to resolve all the present problems and those that may arise in the future.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
SC

Oza Tétrault (Whip of the Social Credit Party)

Social Credit

Mr. Oza Tetrault (Villeneuve):

Mr. Speaker, I see that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is in his seat, and we are pleased to make a few recommendations concerning the budget he brought down here on May 8.

Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the Minister of Finance for having had the courage to read out the budget speech with a broad smile, but I hardly believe the taxpayers will accept it with a broad smile. Reading between the lines, we realize that this budget again benefits those who control our economic blood.

Mr. Speaker, the minister did not mention the increase in the national debt, nor the increase in the interest rate citizens will have to pay. He did not mention that individuals will pay an extra billion dollars in taxes. He did not breathe a word about the federal government's constant deficits, nor of the rising cost of living nor, finally, of the decreased purchasing power of the dollar.

The government seems to be in a permanent state of deficit, particularly since the years 1961-62, when deficits reached $791 million and for 1972-73 the anticipated deficit is $800 million, all these deficits, since 1961, totalling $6,285 million.

Mr. Speaker, our national debt has increased over six years: in 1967, by $421 million; in 1968, by $784 million; in 1969, by $576 million; in 1970, by $392 million; in 1971, by $417 million and in 1972, by $552 million.

I shall now indicate the figures of interest payable yearly and daily on our financial burden. In 1970-71, interest on the national debt reached $1,800 million, representing $5,150,680 a day. In 1971-72, interest paid totaled $2,030 million, representing $4,561,643 a day. And in 1972-73, the figure will be $2,260 million, representing $6,191,100 a day.

Mr. Speaker, the government is rather generous for the controllers of our economic blood while over the year in interest alone we pay $6,191,000 every day to help financiers go on crushing us.

The government suggests that we now have a problem of overproduction. Accordingly the government tries to boost its trade on international markets and if a country

has no money to buy our products, the government generously hands it an interest-free loan over a 50-year term and if necessary it grants it an extension of 10 years; in other words, that country can take 60 years to pay the loan back.

Here are the names of a few countries to which the government has granted low-interest loans over 50 years or more: Ceylon, 10 loans for a total of $15,500,000 at 3 per cent interest; India, 24 loans for a total of $265,333,000, interest-free; Pakistan, 17 loans for a total of $123,238, interest-free; Jamaica, 15 loans for a total of $11,500,000, interest-free; Brazil, two loans for a total of $10,167,000 at lj per cent interest; Tunisia, three loans for a total of $56,000,000, interest-free.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on listing 12 other countries to which the government has granted interest-free loans. If it is possible to grant interest-free loans for a period of 50 years to all these countries for building roads, bridges, dams, water works, schools, hospitals, why does the government not want to do the same in Canada for Canadians to build everything that is related to public services through loans granted by the Bank of Canada, as we say so often?

Mr. Speaker, charity begins at home.

The budget provides that the government will collect $1,125 million more in personal income tax than in 1971.

As to the so-called gifts of the government to the corporations, I do not believe in them.

The government will pay $500 million more to our senior citizens and $425 million more to our veterans, that is, a total of $925 million. This means that the government will on the one hand distribute $925 million more, while on the other hand collecting $1,125 billion more from the taxpayers. What a gift! Once again, the taxpayers in the middle income bracket will be the big losers.

As an example, Mr. Speaker, I shall refer to our neighbour the United States which has adopted nearly the same monetary system as Canada and which is regretabbly facing problems somewhat similar to ours.

Today, the world's wealthiest country is broke. Last year, the American economy reached a new high of $1,000 billion; however, the administration of their 21 most important cities lack funds to pay their policemen, their firemen, their teachers and other employees. Because of a shortage of funds, the New York Civic Library will have to cut by half its time of operation: it will remain open 40 hours a week only instead of 78 hours, as previously.

The city of St. Louis cannot hire the policemen or firemen it needs. The city of Boston is on the verge of bankruptcy and cannot replace its 102-year-old wooden sewers. Mr. Speaker, such are the wrongdoings of our present system.

I noticed that several members dealt with the budget but that nobody, except the Creditistes, said a word about our famous limping monetary system.

Who has the right to create money?

June 13, 1972

Meyer Amschel Rothschild is credited to have said, "Give me the right to create the money of a nation and I don't care who makes its laws."

Who has the right to create money? The answer to this question is quite simple and should be obvious to everyone. Because money today represents goods and services, the people who create the goods and services should have the right to monetize them. The main reason why so many people have the wrong conception of money, what it is, and who should have the right to create it is because, for many centuries, gold and silver were used as a medium of exchange. This creates a lot of confusion among people today. The reason for this confusion is that gold and silver were not only a medium of exchange but were also commodities, because they had intrinsic value, the same as tea, furs and many other commodities that have been used as money in the past. On the other hand our modern money, paper currency and bank deposits, have no intrinsic value; they only represent goods and services. This is so important that I must emphasize it again. Paper money and bank deposits have no value in themselves. They only represent value.

I think this is quite clear, Mr. Speaker.

Here are a number of quotations from the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce. During the session of 1939 the committee held 30 meetings. Its proceedings covered 850 pages. These are questions and answers made by Mr. Graham Towers, the Governor, at the time, of the Bank of Canada. How money is created by banks:

Banks issue a substitute for money.

Q. When you allow the merchant banking system to issue bank deposits-with the practice of using cheques-you virtually allow the banks to issue an effective substitute for money, do you not?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PC

Thomas Gordon Towers

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Towers:

The bank deposits are actually money in that sense.

Q. ... As a matter of fact they are not actual money but credit, bookkeeping accounts, which are used as a substitute for money?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PC

Thomas Gordon Towers

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Towers:

Yes.

Q. Then we authorize the banks to issue a substitue for money?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PC

Thomas Gordon Towers

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Towers:

Yes, I think that is a very fair statement of banking, (p. 285)

I think this is quite clear, Mr. Speaker. That matter was discussed in this House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, although there are enough resources in Canada for everybody to live decently, one realizes that there is much poverty. Indeed, two or three Canadians out of five live in poverty. In my constituency-and I believe it is the same everywhere-the 50, 55, 60 and especially 65 year-old people are the ones who are suffer most. They do not have enough income to make both ends meet.

Recently I met a 69 year-old man whose wife is 63 and who gets only $135 a month for both of them. And recently, the provincial government told them they would not get any welfare when old age pensions are increased to $150 a month.

I see that one of the government members finds that funny, but older people do not think it is funny.

I hope the hon. Minister of Finance will take notice of our recommendations.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Grant Deachman

Liberal

Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):

Mr. Speaker, in the last moments of this debate I want to refer, not in a very sensational way, to what to some might not believe to be a very sensational subject, that is, some matters concerning my own riding which are affected by

The Budget-Mr. Deachman

federal expenditures. Before doing so I want to join with others in this House who have extended their congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on assuming his new portfolio, and to congratulate him in particular on the introduction of his first budget.

The riding of Vancouver Quadra is a city riding, a slice out of residential Vancouver. It has no industry, no great commerce. It is essentially a riding made up of residences and has, in fact, very few new high-rise towers. It is really an old-fashioned residential district. It has, however, within its boundaries some institutions to which, over many years the federal government has made very substantial contributions.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Grant Deachman

Liberal

Mr. Deachman:

I refer to the University of British Columbia, situated at Point Grey in the city of Vancouver. Let me give you an idea of the size of this university, Sir. On a year-round basis, 50,000 people work or teach or learn on this campus. During the daytime it has the population of a small city. Despite the fact that it is essentially a provincial institution, the impact of the federal government upon it is substantial. I shall not refer at length to the per capita grant formula, to student loans and to other ways in which federal funds go toward the support of the university and the students, but in particular to a few projects which are remarkable and which I think should be drawn to the attention of the House.

One such project is the health sciences centre which has been under development of the University of British Columbia for the past decade. When completed, this health sciences centre, combining all the disciplines of medicine and paramedicine in the University of British Columbia, will have a teaching hospital of some 350 beds, research and teaching facilities involving the teaching of 450 medical students and 600 nursing students. In addition, an estimated 3,000 students of allied health professions will receive part of their training in the university hospital. The allied health professions include rehabilitation, dentistry and dental hygiene, social work, pharmacy, psychology, home economics and physical education. If you were to visit the University of British Columbia today you would see buildings housing these various teaching, research and healing institutions in the process of construction or already constructed on the campus.

The contribution of the federal government, which is to be matched by the provincial government, toward the construction of the health sciences centre was recently announced at $24,389,533. The press release which made that announcement went on to say that $36,272,788 has been contributed to the University of British Columbia for the health sciences centre since the establishment of the health resources fund in 1966.

Almost equal in size, and eventually to be almost equal in impact, is a little known project now under construction at the University of British Columbia called TRIUMF. The letters stand for Tri-University Meson Facility. Essentially, what that means is a cyclotron into which has gone some 5,000 tons of steel. It looks like a battleship being built on the promontory at Point Grey. The steel for it was fabricated at the Davey shipyard in Lauzon, Quebec.

June 13, 1972

The Budget-Mr. Deachman

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink

June 13, 1972