1971-10-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. lack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table two reports prepared by the Canadian Wildlife Service on the ecological and archaelogical values of national interest in the Suffield Military Reserve in Alberta.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, members of the House will be aware that the United States has just announced President Nixon's decision that the underground nuclear test at Amchitka will take place on or shortly after November 3.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mitchell William Sharp: The government deeply regrets this decision and shares the widespread concern of the people of Canada as expressed in the resolution of this House of October 15.
I need not remind the House that the government has both publicly and privately made clear to the United States Canada's firm and consistent opposition to the continuation and escalation of nuclear weapons testing, and our specific concern about the threat the Amchitka test poses to the North Pacific environment that we share with them, with the Russians and the Japanese.
Our ambassador in Washington was notified of the President's decision this morning shortly before it was made public. I at once took steps to contact Mr. Rogers, the American Secretary of State, and have conveyed to him that this action on their part can only result in a deep sense of disquiet among Canadians.
The hard fact is that in the end the United States government has the legal right to carry out this test. Presumably it is doing so in accordance with what it perceives to be the national interest of the United States. We have also never suggested that this test involves a high element of risk, but no one denies that risks exist.
Canada and other nations threatened will necessarily hold the United States responsible for any short or longterm effects of this test.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that our specific objections to this test are wholly consistent with Canada's opposition to nuclear weapons testing of all kinds and by all nuclear powers.


Mr. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that in view of what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has just said the House will be pleased to give unanimous consent to a motion I intend to propose under Standing Order 43, if unanimous consent is granted, relative to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, today's announcement by the Atomic Energy Commission in Washington that the United States will proceed with the Amchitka nuclear test on November 3.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That this House do direct the Prime Minister to undertake a personal and direct contact with the American President to express the opposition of the Parliament and the people of Canada to the Amchitka nuclear test and further-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition but it seems we are proceeding somewhat irregularly now. My understanding was that after the statement on motions had been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs spokesmen for the opposition would be given the opportunity, as provided under the Standing Orders, to comment if they wished on behalf of their parties. It was my impression that the Leader of the Opposition would be doing this subject to his right of course, after these comments had been heard from the different parties, to make the motion which he is proposing. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would take that into consideration.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I simply felt I was co-operating, as I always wish to co-operate, with the members of the government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: We can take a joke.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -in presenting this motion at this time, and I hope it will receive the unanimous consent of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the motion can be put we have to proceed in accordance with the Standing Orders which require that representatives of the opposition parties be given an opportunity to comment on the statement made by the minister. The Chair will now recognize the hon. member for York South.
9074

October 27, 1971
Amchitka Nuclear Test


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues was also considering moving a motion on the same subject, but I do not see the value of it now in view of the debate that took place the other day.
I want to say on behalf of our party, and perhaps on behalf of most if not all Canadians, that the news which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has given us now makes this day a very sad one. The President of the United States has shown himself entirely insensitive to the needs of the world. He has decided to ignore the concern of Canadians in that area and, indeed, the concern of all people throughout the world that this kind of nuclear arms race should continue unabated.
I cannot help but say shame to the administration of a big and strong power that has so much to do with the welfare and peace of the world ignoring world opinion and ignoring the facts of the situation. This cannot help to produce a greater feeling of warmth or friendship toward the administration of that powerful country.
In my reading of the situation, Mr. Speaker, there are a good many scientists and military strategists who have pointed out that the test is militarily of doubtful value, if not useless, and that the Safeguard system which it is supposed to serve cannot be supported by so huge a bomb as that which will be exploded on or about November 3. I cannot help but feel that President Nixon has yielded to a desire to establish the prestige of the United States in a race that threatens the peace of the world and, indeed, the very existence of this world.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that even at this late date the strong expression of opposition which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has made-I say without hesitation that I congratulate him for his statement and am pleased he made it so clear and so strong-and the expression of opposition by the members of this House may still persuade President Nixon to get off this course of danger and the threat to humanity, to the ecology of the northwest and in general to the morality of the modern world posed by this atrociously unnecessary and atrociously dangerous test.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I highly commend the firmness shown by the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) in notifying the United States government of Canada's opposition, not only on the part of the government, but also of Parliament and the people of Canada, to these nuclear tests to be carried out by the Americans shortly after November 4.
It is astounding to see what short shrift the United States government gives to nations which in the past have co-operated with them in many areas, completely ignoring our representations when we ask them to spare Canada and other countries consequences which can only be disastrous.
I now understand why representatives and citizens of the United States are not so very welcome in most of the countries I have visited, precisely because of their disregard for other nations. The Canadian government has made some representations but the American government advises us that it is not important.

Mr. Speaker, the Americans will entirely bear the onus of their decision. We strongly object to the nuclear test which will be held in Amchitka and I join my colleagues in congratulating the government for the firm stand it has taken with the American authorities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My understanding is that the Leader of the Opposition might want to propose at this time the motion he referred to a moment ago.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in putting this motion I wish to make it very clear that I am not accusing the President of the United States of shameful conduct or immorality. If I get the unanimous consent of the House I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That this House do direct the Prime Minister to undertake a personal and direct contact with the American President to express the opposition of the Parliament and people of Canada to the Amchitka nuclear test, and further that the Prime Minister make this direct contact an absolute and immediate priority.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Talk to McIntosh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


An hon. Member:: The Prime Minister.


Mr. Hees:: The Prime Minister said no and I heard him.



MANPOWER


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table the details of the local initiatives program and the manpower training elements of the special employment plan.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I would like to ask the
October 27, 1971

unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on an important matter requiring urgent consideration.
The Canadian National Railways have announced their decision to discontinue the service of trains Nos. 122 and 123 in eastern Quebec. The decision constitutes an infringement of the spirit of the agreement concluded by the government of Canada and the government of Quebec about the eastern part of Quebec, which is obviously a matter of national concern. It is a unilateral decision in which the population had no part whatsoever, it will jeopardize the development of our region and it denies the principle of participatory democracy.
Therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. LeBlanc), I move:
That the House invite the government to make strong representations to the Canadian National to make them cancel their plan to discontinue trains 122 and 123 and undertake real consultations with the people of eastern Quebec.
I believe that my colleague would like to put in a word. [English]


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has proposed a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 requiring the unanimous consent of the House.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I might say that it is difficult for the Chair to determine whether there is unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard a number of yeas but I am not sure whether other sounds could be interpreted as nays.


An hon. Member:: Let the government House leader say no, if he dares.


An hon. Member:: No.


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


George Harris Hees: Some dirty Liberal said no.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!



LETTERS TO PRODUCERS FOLLOWING PAYMENTS UNDER TEMPORARY WHEAT RESERVES ACT-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to request the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This matter concerns the conduct of the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board in connection with pay-
Wheat Reserves Payments
ments recently received by prairie grain producers under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Cliff Downey: If I have the unanimous consent of the House I propose to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
Whereas, in letters dated the 20th October, 1971, and addressed to and received by prairie grain producers on the same day or shortly after the producers received payments lawfully made under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, the minister responsible for the Wheat Board deliberately and incorrectly stated that the government had been forced to withdraw its proposed prairie grain receipts stabilization program although the minister knew the bill was and is on the order paper of this House under government business; and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a speech. He knows that this cannot be done. He should indicate what the motion is.


An hon. Member:: He is reading the motion now.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether he is reading the motion now but if he is that should be brought to the attention of the Chair.


Cliff Downey: I beg your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. I am coming to the point. I continue:
Whereas the minister deliberately and untruthfully stated that the courts would have been in an awkward position in hearing a case under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act while Parliament was debating the repeal of that act although the Minister is fully aware that this House debated and passed a Bill to repeal the Surcharge on Imports Order, now chapter 18 of the 1963-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I feel I must take exception to the kind of procedure now being followed by the hon. member for Battle River. I suggest to him, and I have had occasion to remind the hon. member for Battle River of the very same point, that the purposes of Standing Order 43 do not permit argument and do not permit one to engage in debate in circumstances where no opportunity is provided under the terms of the Standing Order for anyone to reply to the motion proposed by the hon. member. The only way in which the matter can be handled, in so far as the hon. member is concerned, is for the hon. member to indicate the urgency of the matter and propose the motion. He cannot argue, as he is now arguing, his case in support of the motion. He should indicate what the motion is and then the Chair will ascertain whether there is unanimous consent. But there should not be unilateral debate of the type in which the hon. member is now engaged.


Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, I was only trying to show the precedents with regard to the case we are now reviewing which involves the Wheat Board. I will briefly finish, if I may, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Propose the motion.


Cliff Downey: In essence, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the stabilization program that has been before the House I move:
24372-15)

October 27, 1971
Correction in Hansard
That this House holds that the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board is unworthy of continuing to answer for the Wheat Board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that all motions are not automatically accepted because they are moved under the terms of Standing Order 43. Motions made under the terms of Standing Order 43 are subject to exactly the same rules as other motions. I have very serious doubts whether this motion is acceptable and I propose to take it under consideration before it is put to the House.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, will the Chair also take into consideration the fact that the same minister a few minutes ago tabled certain documents under Standing Order 41(2) with respect to which he should have made a statement in the House so that other hon. members could have had a chance to reply?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River may have a valid point. Perhaps the minister will want to take that under consideration.
Hon. members will appreciate that I do not want to create difficulties in any way, but I feel that motions made under Standing Order 43 ought to respect all the rules in the same way as all other motions. Perhaps I have been guilty of giving the impression to the House and hon. members that any motion made under Standing Order 43 is automatically in order and should be put. However, there are some motions which, even if they were to receive the unanimous consent of the House, in theory should not be put if, according to the views of the Chair, they are not consonant with our practices and with the rules of the House.
I have serious doubts about the hon. member's motion. Basically, I think it is a privilege motion, and the hon. member knows how that kind of motion has to be proposed. That is my impression at first blush. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member and I will look at the matter very seriously before I make a ruling.



CORRECTION IN OFFICAL REPORT OF DEBATES- PROCEDURE FOR MEMBERS

Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a correction in Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: From the sublime to the ridiculous.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, you can see who is making all the noise. I hope they will wait until they hear the correction. On October 14, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: -at page 8691-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I just want to change one word.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thank hon. members who with billowing voices are asking for order, but that is the responsibility of the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: It is only a matter of one word, Your Honour.


George Harris Hees: Is it a four letter word?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The word "there" should be changed to the word "tears". I was speaking to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). The sentence should read: "How is the heavy water tears, Bob?"


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: It isn't Hallowe'en and you are being funny already.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in order to seek the guidance of the Chair. Am I to understand that a precedent has been established today and that we can now go back two weeks and bring up a question such as the hon. member has just raised?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point raised by the hon. member is well taken, but he and all hon. members will appreciate that the Chair has to wait until the point has been made. I certainly disagree wholeheartedly with any suggestion that hon. members can rise on motions and correct Hansard of two weeks ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is right. No precedent has been set. I have, in any event, indicated to hon. members on many occasions that changes to Hansard should be made in the normal way simply by calling the Editor of Debates, thus saving the House a good deal of time. This applies to all hon. members.
I appreciate that on some occasions mistakes which might have been made in the report could lead to difficulties affecting individual members. In such circumstances there is, I think, a responsibility on the part of the House to hear an hon. member who wishes to correct the record immediately. In other circumstances I do not think it is in accordance with the spirit of our rules to change the record or to seek corrections on motions, or at any time, except where there is a very serious change to be made. And that should be done immediately, not ten days or two weeks later.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 27, 1971



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many grants have been made to date under the Opportunities for Youth Program?
2.	What is the name and province of residence of each successful applicant?
3.	What amount (a) was requested (b) was granted?
4.	What grants are presently under consideration?
5.	What is the name and province of residence of the applicants?
6.	What amount is being considered and when will the grant be awarded?
7.	How is the initial payment to be made to the successful applicant?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: 1. Opportunities for Youth had made approximately 2,304 grants as of May 31st.
2.	A report is being prepared for public release containing the names of the successful applicants. Approved projects, by province, have been announced in periodic press releases.
3.	At best, the total amount requested was awarded. However, many amounts requested were adjusted in accordance with Opportunities for Youth criteria and the relative funds available, (a) The target was set at $1,000 salary per student, per summer (i.e. for a three month period), (b) Minimum overhead costs were funded where absolutely necessary.
4.	It is impossible to retrace the exact number of grants that were under consideration as of May 19th, but by May 31st 2,304 grants had been awarded.
5.	See (2).
6.	No applicable.
7.	Each successful applicant received a contract outlining the terms of agreement under which he would carry out his project. After he had signed the contract and returned it to Opportunities for Youth he received a photocopy of the contract now bearing the signature of the Secretary of State, Under Secretary of State or Assistant Under Secretary of State. The first payment, a percentage of the whole amount, was then forwarded to him either from the Opportunities for Youth office or directly from the M.P. of his riding.


PROJECTS APPROVED UNDER OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many projects were approved under the Opportunities for Youth Program and what was the total financial commitment of the government to these projects?
2.	What was the total number of persons involved in the Opportunities for Youth Programs?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. Under the Opportunities for Youth Program, 2,312 projects were
Questions
approved. The total financial commitment of the government was $23,117,585.32.
2.	The total number of jobs created through the Opportunities for Youth Program was 27,832, apart from a considerably larger but undetermined number of persons involved. The figure indicating the number of participants directly or indirectly affected by the projects will not be available until all final reports have been received from the projects.


PROJECTS APPROVED UNDER OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-BREAKDOWN BY PROVINCE
Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the total number of project applications received under the Opportunities for Youth Program and what is the breakdown by province?
2.	Of the total number of applications received, what was the total number approved and what is the breakdown by province?
3.	What was the total financial involvement of the government under the Opportunities for Youth Program and what is the financial breakdown by province?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. Total number of project applications received under the Opportunities for Youth Program was 11,303.
British Columbia	943
Alberta	503
Saskatchewan	214
Manitoba	539
Northwest Territories	18
Ontario	3,276
Quebec	4,276
Nova Scotia	662
New Brunswick	471
Prince Edward Island	196
Newfoundland	205
Duplicate submissions received for	some projects are
not included.	
2. The total number of approved projects was 2,312.	
British Columbia	298
Alberta	141
Saskatchewan	106
Manitoba	87
Northwest Territories	11
Ontario	585
Quebec	785
Nova Scotia	129
New Brunswick	68
Prince Edward Island	33
Newfoundland	52
National	17
3. The total financial involvement	of the government
under the Opportunities for Youth program committed to	
date is $24,567,585.32.	
British Columbia	$2,373,286.54
Prairies and N.W.T. (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Mani-	
toba, and Northwest Territories)	$3,636,347.22
Ontario	$4,889,772.23
Quebec	$9,092,321.22

October 27, 1971
Questions
Atlantic Region	Ontario 1968-69	16,561	35,814	5,696	2,191(Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,	1969-70	21,934	37,935	4,376	2,819Prince Edward Island and New-	1970-71	30,895	44,703	5,931	1,159foundland	$2,758,131.11	National Projects	$	367,727.00	Prairie 1968-69	9,030	13,274	2,561	1,064Estimated administrative overhead	$	800,000.00	1969-70	8,682	15,120	6,558	1,852Evaluation costs	$	200,000.00	1970-71	11,150	18,907	6,206	1,348Information	$	150,000.00	Pacific	Workmen's compensation fund	1968-69	2,661	4,374	614	34(administered by the Depart-	1969-70	6,110	6,472	2,171	82ment of Labour)	$	300,000.00	1970-71	8,205	9,707	1,430	339
The figures in any one year may reflect training supplied in another year since payments are based on estimated costs which are then subject to audit and adjustment.


CANADA MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Rowland: 1.	What were the federal expenditures on the Canada Manpower Training Program in each of the fiscal years since 1967-68, together with the estimate for 1971-72, for each of the five regions of Canada?
2.	How were these expenditures in each of the five regions distributed among (a) purchase of full-time training from the provinces (b) allowance payments to trainees (c) purchase of parttime training from the provinces (d) administrative costs incurred by provincial and municipal governments (e) apprenticeship-training (f) training-in-industry?
3.	What were the total administrative costs in each of the four fiscal years, incurred by the Department of Manpower and Immigration in connection with the Canada Manpower Training Program?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Federal expenditures on the Canada Manpower Training Program:
1. Federal expenditures on the Canada Manpower Training Program
			$ 000	
1968-69	1969-70	1970-71	1971-72Atlantic	25,867	37,574	45,667	trainingQuebec	66,323	90,631	99,758	purchaseOntario	61,769	67,299	83,070	negotiationsPrairie	27,509	34,136	40,755	with thePacific	8,498	15,400	20,327	provinces are notCanada	189,966	245,040	289,577	yet completed2.	Expenditures by Region(1) Full- time Training	Allowance Part-Pay- time ments Training	Adm. Costs	Appren- tice Training	Trg-in- Industry(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)	((f)Atlantic	1968-69	8,239	13,543	Data not	Data not	2,390	6581969-70	13,525	20,044	available available	1,731	7391970-71	16,606	23,698	2,707	904Quebec	1968-69	24,783	35,354	5,436	5201969-70	36,982	46,275	6,485	7081970-71	40.873	55.693	2.112	DOfifi

3.	Departmental accounts are not structured to reflect the administrative costs because referral of clients to training is only one of the tools used in the ultimate matching of clients to occupations. Therefore, the administrative costs for the Canada Manpower Training Program are very closely interwoven with other administrative costs and any apportionment of costs on an estimated basis to the Canada Manpower Training Program would now have to be done arbitrarily and thus be misleading.
Note (1): Includes Part-time training since separate breakdown not available.


RIDING MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK-PURCHASE OF COTTAGES
Mr. Stewart (Marquette): Have any cottages been purchased by the government at Wasa-gaming in Riding Mountain National Park and, if so (a) how many (b) what was the total cost of the cottages (c) what will the land be used for?


Hon. lean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes. (a) two; (b) $16,000; (c) Parking facilities.


GRANTS TO INDIAN STUDENTS
Mr. Godin: Does the government subsidize the Indian students who are educated outside of their reserve and, if so, what amount is granted in each province to students (a) at the primary level (b) at the secondary level (c) at the college level (d) at the university level?
Mr. ]udd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Yes. (a) and (b) In most cases, the amount is negotiated by means of joint school agreement with the Province concerned. The amount in dollars paid to, or on behalf of, students may vary owing to regional disparities in the cost of living, the negotiated tuition fees and grade level of the student, the number of books he requires, (c) and (d) At these levels, the students receive training allowances to cover the costs of tuition, books and supplies, board and
October 27, 1971

room, transportation and clothing. The allowance rates are similar to those paid under the Occupational Training for Adults program of the Department of Manpower and Immigration.


PEI-APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	For the period January 1, 1971 to August 31, 1971, how many applications were received from the Province of Prince Edward Island for loans under the (a) Farm Loan Board Act (b) Farm Improvement Loans Act (c) Fisheries Improvement Loans Act (d) Small Businesses Loans Act?
2.	Of the applications received, how many were approved and what is the amount of the loan in each case?


Mr. I. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Farm Credit Corporation and the Department of Finance as follows: 1.
(a)	Thirty-two applications, (b), (c), and (d) Data is not available concerning the number of applications received by chartered banks and other lenders under these three Acts.
2.	(a) Twenty-two approvals in the amount of $542,500 and six applications are under consideration.
Note: The Farm Credit Act (SC 1959, c. 43, proclaimed on October 5, 1959) established the Farm Credit Corporation as successor to the Canadian Farm Loan Board established in 1929. The Corporation, which is a Crown agency, reports to Parliament through the Minister of Agriculture.
(b), (c), and (d) The following table shows loans granted in P.E.I. for the period January 1, 1971-July 31, 1971. (Figures for August 1971 are not yet complete).
Act	No.	AmountFarm Improvement	410	$993,881Fisheries Improvement	72	$119,219Small Business	7	$ 43,302


ALBERTA-LAND FORECLOSURES
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Have any land foreclosures been made in Alberta due to the unsatisfactory discharge of mortgages provided for by the Farm Credit Corporation in the years 1969-70, 1970-71 and April, 1971 to the present time and, if so, how many in each period?
2.	How many farmers in Alberta held Farm Credit mortgages as of (a) September 30, 1971 (b) September 30, 1970 (c) September 30, 1969?
3.	How much money does this represent in each of the above years?
4.	How many farmers are in arrears in Alberta by (a) one year (b) two years (c) three years (d) four years?
5.	(a) How many actions for foreclosure have been commenced in Alberta, up to the period ending September 30, 1971 (b) in those actions commenced, have stay of proceedings been granted by the courts and, if so, how many?
6.	Has the Farm Credit Corporation undertaken to pay property taxes on farm lands in arrears in Alberta and, if so (a) how many in the years 1969-70, 1970-71, April 1, 1971 to the present date (b) how much money does this represent in each of the years?
7.	In the case of foreclosures, how is the land disposed of and what is the total net loss or gain in each case?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister oi Agriculture):: The Farm Credit Corporation advises as follows: 1. 1969-70, 3; 197071, 8; 1971-Sept. 30, 9.
Questions
2.	(a) 15,983; (b) 15,982; (c) 15,702.
3.	(a) Sept. 30, 1971, $289,396,944; (b) Sept. 30, 1970, $285,315,625; (c) Sept. 30, 1969, $270,389,221.
4.	(a) 1,992, (b) 682, (c) 204, (d) 85.
5.	(a) 85 for the period April 1, 1960 to Sept. 30, 1971; (b) Yes, 20.
6.	(a) (1969-70) 22; (1970-71) 16; (1971 to Aug. 31/71) 9. (b) (1969-70) $33,200; (1970-71) $20,909; (1971 to Aug. 31/71) $13,461.
7.	When land is acquired by foreclosure it is advertised publicly and sold for cash or on terms to the party making the best offer acceptable to the Corporation. Net loss for the period April 1, 1969 to Sept. 30, 1971 was $14,975.03.


SPECIAL EMPLOYMENT OFFICES FOR STUDENTS
Mr. Godin: 1.	During the last school holidays, how many special employment offices for students were opened by the Department of Manpower and Immigration (a) in Canada (b) in each province?
2.	(a) What was the address of each office opened in the Province of Quebec (b) for what period did these offices provide such services?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. During the 1971 vacation period for students the Department of Manpower and Immigration operated Canada Manpower Centres for Students as follows: (a) in Canada a total of 119; (b) in Nova Scotia, 4; New Brunswick, 4; Prince Edward Island, 1; Newfoundland, 1; Quebec, 43. (N.B.: The Canada Manpower Centre for Students at 239 Queen Street, Ottawa, was set up to serve all students in the Ottawa-Hull area so that, in effect, there were 44 points of service for students in the province of Quebec.) Ontario, 56; Manitoba, 2; Saskatchewan, 2; Alberta, 3; British Columbia 3. (N.B.: The Canada Manpower Centre for Students at 729 West Hastings Street, Vancouver operates year round.)
2.	(a) The addresses of the Canada Manpower Centres for Students in the Province of Quebec were:
Amqui
Bonaventure
Carleton
Chateauguay
Chibougamau
Chicoutimi
Donnacona
Dorval
Granby
Jonquiere
La Sarre
Laval
Longueuil
Matane
Matapedia
Montreal
Montreal
Montreal
Montreal
Montreal
95, rue de TArena Ecole des Metiers Ecole Polyvalente 159, boul. Maple 3e rue
23 est, rue Racine, suite 303
Polyvalente Tardivel
1335, Bord du Lac
150, rue LansdoWne
200, rue St-Dominique
500, rue Principale
955, rue St-Martin
945, chemin Chambly
159, rue St-Pierre
Boul. Perron
244 est, rue Sherbrooke
1430, rue St-Denis
1179 Bleury
3800 est, rue Sherbrooke 7000, rue Marie-Victorin

October 27, 1971
Questions
Montreal	6400, 16* avenue
Montreal	9155, rue St-Hubert
Montreal	350, rue Selby
Montreal	535 Viger
Montreal	2111, rue Centre
Montreal Nord	4255, Place de l'Hotel de Ville
Pierrefonds	Arena, boul. Pierrefonds
Quebec	310, boul. Langelier
Quebec Protestant	
High School	945 Belvedere
Rimouski	60 ouest, rue Eveche
Riviere-du-Loup	9, rue Dollard
Roberval	Boul. St-Joseph
Rouyn	425, rue Gagne
Sainte-Foy	2700, boul. Laurier
Saint-Felicien	270, boul. Sacre-Coeur
Saint-Hyacinthe	454, rue Hotel-Dieu
Saint-Romuald	Rue Commerciale
Sherbrooke	321, rue Dufferin
Trois-Rivieres	3500, rue Courval
Vaudreuil	Cit6 des Jeunes
Verdun	4400, rue Champlain
Ville La Salle	13, rue Strathyre
Ville St-Laurent	1375, Ch. Cote Vertu.
2. (b) As in the past the Canada Manpower Centres for Students were open for varying periods of time according to the needs of the student population in each area served. Those in areas with large numbers of post secondary students were usually open for a longer period than were those in areas where secondary school students were in the majority. The average period for which the student Centres were open was three to four months.


AID TO INDUSTRIES IN SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES
Mr. Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley): 1.	Does the Minister of State for Science and Technology intend to encourage industries through aid in research and development and, if so (a) what type of industries will receive aid (b) what criteria will be used to decide which industries will receive aid?
2.	Does the Minister intend to involve the Canada Development Corporation in providing practical application to scientific development?
3.	To what extent will the Department be involved in aid to new companies who are attempting to make practical application of new technological ideas such as the laser?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: 1. Responsibility for aid to industries continues to be that of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and other concerned departments and agencies. The Minister of State for Science and Technology will assist in the development of policies in that regard.
2.	The Canada Development Corporation is an independent Crown Corporation. The Ministry will of course develop close liaison with that agency in relation to the science and technology aspects of its activities.
3.	The Ministry will be concerned with government policy in relation to new technological ideas.


PURCHASE OF SCULPTURE CALLED &quot;TRAFFIC&quot;
Mr. Hales: 1. What department approved the purchasing of the sculpture called "Traffic" which is situated in the park beside the National Arts Centre?

2.	How much was paid for this sculpture?
3.	Who was responsible for signing the purchase order for this work?
4.	Was this sculpture purchased after it was built or was the Laarrtist commissioned to make a sculpture for the park?
5.	What department and vote covered this purchase?


Gérard Pelletier: I am
informed by the National Museums of Canada as follows:
1.	The National Museums of Canada on behalf of the National Gallery of Canada, which is a component of the National Museums, is the agency which approved the purchase of the sculpture called "Traffic".
2.	It has been the long established policy of the National Museums of Canada not to divulge the prices paid for works of art.
3.	The Director of the National Gallery of Canada.
4.	This work was commissioned from the sculptor Ed Zelenak who lives in West Lome, Ontario, near London, on the basis of a full size maquette in lighter, thinner plastic.
5.	The National Museums of Canada Vote 100-Program Expenditures.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr, Alexander: 1.	What was (a) the total amount (b) the individual amounts per court expended for administration of Citizenship Courts for the years 1965 to 1970 inclusive?
2.	How many Citizenship Courts are there and where are they located?
3.	How many applications for Canadian Citizenship were received in the years 1965 through 1970 inclusive and how many were ultimately processed and refused in each year?
4.	Have any studies been made of Citizenship Courts or related institutions in Commonwealth countries and the United States and, if so, when were they made and which countries were involved?
5.	Has a study been made of the efficacy, administration and function of Citizenship Courts and, if so, when was it completed and who made the study?
6.	How many applications for Canadian Citizenship were received at the Citizenship Court in Hamilton from 1965 through 1970 inclusive and how many were processed and refused in each year?
Return tabled.


CANADA MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Rowland: 1.	How many persons commenced training under the Canada Manpower Training Program in each of the five regions of Canada, and in each of the last four fiscal years, in (a) full-time courses under the general purchase agreements (b) part-time courses under the general purchase agreements (c) apprenticeship courses under the apprenticeship agreements (d) training-in-industry?
2.	How many of these persons (a) successfully completed their training (b) discontinued their training or were otherwise unsuccessful, in each of the four categories and in each of the four fiscal years?
Return tabled.
October 27, 1971


CANADA MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAM-NUMBER OF GRADUATES
Mr. Rowland: 1.	Does the Department of Manpower and Immigration have knowledge of the effectiveness of the Canada Manpower Training Program in terms of how many graduates get jobs?
2.	How many graduates from the general purchase portion (fulltime) of the Canada Manpower Training Program were there in each of the fiscal years 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 in each of the five regions of Canada?
3.	How many of these graduates in each of the five regions of Canada and in each of the fiscal years (a) obtained jobs in occupations for which they were trained (b) obtained jobs in occupations related to their training (c) obtained jobs in occupations unrelated to their training?
4.	What is the distribution of these graduates in these three categories according to (a) the time-lag between graduation and employment (b) the duration of employment?
5.	How many graduates did not obtain jobs within the measured time-lag in each of the four fiscal years and the five regions of Canada?
6.	How many graduates who did not obtain jobs re-enrolled in the federal program since its inception in 1967?
7.	How many of the trainees under the general purchase agreements (full-time) re-enrolled in the federal program once, twice, three times, four times, five times, six times, more than six times?
Return tabled.


INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Orlikow: Since the inception of the Industrial Research Assistance Program (a) how much money has been paid in each year under its provisions (b) what was the amount of each grant (c) to which companies were grants made (d) what evaluation was made of applications for grants (e) who made the evaluation (f) what evaluation was made of the effectiveness of grants (g) who evaluates the effectiveness of grants?
Return tabled.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Speaker, on September 29 I placed a starred question on the order paper which read as follows:
What is the authority or basis upon which the government acted in not making certain payments to the Canadian Wheat Board under the terms of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act since August 3, 1970?
In view of the fact that the minister was able to move so promptly in sending out a letter to wheat farmers containing a false statement, I wonder why it has not been possible for the government to answer this straightforward and simple question in the same prompt manner.


James Alexander Jerome: I have made a note of it, Mr. Speaker, but I do not know how the hon. member can say that a matter which occupied so much of the time of the House in acrimonious debate can be called simple and uncomplicated.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call motions 140, 246, 252 and 255?
Motions for Papers



LIST OF BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS PROHIBITED FROM ENTRY INTO CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 140-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the list of books, pamphlets, etc. prohibited from entry into Canada under Item 99201-1 Schedule C of the Customs Tariff Act on the grounds that they were of an immoral or indecent character.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, there is no list of books, pamphlets, etc. which are prohibited from entering into Canada under tariff item 99201-1, Schedule C of the Customs Tariff. As stated in reply to question No. 2044, answered on Monday, October 5, 1970, no separate list of material prohibited under the tariff item is maintained nor does the department issue such a list.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion dropped?


Mr. Orlikow:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



CORRESPONDENCE WITH PRAIRIE PROVINCES


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 246-Mr. Skoberg:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence entered into between the Department of Agriculture and the Government of each of the three Prairie Provinces, concerning the expected invasion of the Bertha army worm during 1971.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, this motion is not applicable since there was insufficient early evidence to predict the serious problem with the Bertha army worm. While a larger than usual number of moths were observed at a few locations, these observations did not, in the light of current knowledge, warrant forecasting undue difficulties with the Bertha army worm. As soon as the situation developed, communication between officials of the Canada Department of Agriculture, provincial officials and others was conducted by telephone and by personal contact in order to avoid delays.


Mr. Skoberg:: In view of the fact that the minister said, in reply to a question in the House, that there had been communication between his department and the provincial ministers, I should like to call for the question on this motion.


Mr. Benson:: Haven't you heard of the telephone?


Mr. MacEachen:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF SECOND NATIONAL PARK IN P.E.I.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 252-Mr. McQuaid:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between any federal department and any department or Minister
9082
[Stage Direction]
October 27, 1971
Motions for Papers
of the Government of Prince Edward Island concerning the establishment of a second National Park in Prince Edward Island.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, this motion is not acceptable as negotiations are still in progress between the federal government and the government of Prince Edward Island regarding the creation of a second national park in that province. All documentation relating to this matter is therefore of a confidential nature. Under these circumstances I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


Mr. McQuaid:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY FOR THE UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 255-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):
That an humble Address be presented to his Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of the Treasury for the United States of America between August 1,1971 and October 15,1971.
Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, there is only one document involved. A letter dated September 8, 1971, from the Minister of Finance to the Secretary of the Treasury has been printed as an appendix to the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence for September 16, 1971, of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. The hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible that in a matter so important to the economy the parliamentary secretary can say there is no correspondence in addition to the document which is now available. Therefore I should like to have the question put.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


John Leroy Skoberg: With regard to notices of motions Nos. 70, 75 and 76 of October 8, 1970, and particularly notice of motion No. 75 asking for research studies concerning transportation policy, can the parliamentary secretary say when we may expect replies?


James Alexander Jerome: I am not able to do so at the moment but I have made note of the numbers to which the hon. member has referred.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is now prepared to initiate direct contact with President Nixon in the hope of securing some reversal of the Amchitka decision? I ask this question particularly in light of the joint communique issued yesterday by the government of Canada and the government of the U.S.S.R. on the whole subject of nuclear testing and nuclear explosions.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: On the question of the authority which I might have in speaking to the President, it seems to me I could not be expected to exercise more than the unanimous vote-minus one Conservative-of the House of Commons. Therefore I do not see exactly what the Leader of the Opposition would want me to say to the President except that which he already knows, and knows more strongly, from the House of Commons itself.
I think there is a further question of practicability. I understand that the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of the United States, when he made the announcement that the test would proceed, also indicated that operations had begun which would make it impracticable to recover the device. It seems to me that the President's decision having been taken, and the operation having begun, it is really futile to think that further representations in addition to those already made, and which are matters of record, could be put forward successfully immediately the decision had been made known. Further representations would really be in the nature of grandstanding.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not quite understand why the Prime Minister should continue to downgrade the influence that the Prime Minister of Canada might have with the President of the United States, but I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman to tell the House whether his government was made aware of the substance of today's announcement in Washington prior to its public disclosure at the news conference held in the United States by the Atomic Energy Commission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the first part of the question, it seems to me it is a novel approach by the official opposition to suggest I am downgrading the influence of the office of Prime Minister, but I do take note of that suggestion. As to the substance of the question, perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs could report.


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer to the second part of the question is that about an hour and a half or two hours before the public announcement was made, our ambassador was called in to the state department and informed of the decision of the President.
October 27, 1971


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Following that indication to the government of Canada, did the Secretary of State for External Affairs communicate with the Prime Minister-I am not asking for the disclosure of any confidence-with a view to making additional representations to the President of the United States in view of the concern expressed in the House and in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It so happened that I was sitting beside the Prime Minister when I received the news from our ambassador in Washington and I immediately communicated, on the basis of our joint agreement, with Secretary Rogers and expressed our deep regrets and the great concern that the people of Canada would have at this decision of the President.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the Canadian government is expecting to receive any advance notice of the precise time and date of the Amchit-ka explosion, or will we have the approximately one and a half hours' notice that we have had in the case of the announcement of the decision to proceed?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the announcement that has been made indicates that they are planning for a date around November 3 or 4. I do expect, of course, that the United States government itself will be giving sufficient notice so that ships and others can be out of the way of danger when the explosion takes place.


Mark Willson Rose: I understand that Governor Eagan of Alaska is considering seeking from the United States government the stationing of ships along the coast as a safety precaution and for rescue purposes. Can the minister tell the House whether Canada has made any similar contingency plans for coastline protection, because all of us will recall the damage that the tidal wave caused the city of Alberni only a few years ago?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I quite understand the purpose of the question. The preparations that the state of Alaska is apparently talking about concern the stationing of ships. I would not have thought that the stationing of ships would prevent a tidal wave.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a supplementary?


Mark Willson Rose: For purposes of clarification, Mr. Speaker. In the event that tidal waves cause difficulties in coastal cities in Alaska, I understand that the governor is requesting certain naval or marine safety precautions to be taken in case there are problems with flooding and damage caused by tidal waves. What I am asking is precisely whether Canada has considered any similar coastline protection for coastal cities and, if so, what is it?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the specific answer to that question is no, and I doubt very much whether, if there were a tidal wave of this proportion, anything more than warning could be given. This kind of warning has now been given. We hope it does not happen and the danger does seem to be very minimal, but if it does happen I just say "Let us pray".


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question related to the whole question of nuclear testing and nuclear blasts, and I direct it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister say whether he is aware of the statement made recently by Robert A. Boyd, commissioner of Hydro-Quebec, reported in the Ottawa Journal on October 23 last, in relation to the planned James Bay power project, that excavation using nuclear explosions is one of the many areas being explored by planners of the project, and what does the government plan to do in light of that statement?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is not a question that ought to be directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would suggest it be directed to one of my colleagues who is far more concerned with internal affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might redirect his question, but my impression is that with this supplementary we may have gotten away somewhat from the original question and I gather there are direct supple-mentaries that hon. members are seeking to put. Having asked the question the hon. member might be allowed to redirect it, and we will then return to the original subject.


Robert Simpson: I direct my supplementary to the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware of the statement of Mr. Robert A. Boyd to which I have just referred, and has the government taken any action in light of this recent statement?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not personally aware of this statement. I might add in respect of an earlier question that our scientists and seismologists have indicated that the chance of a tidal wave resulting from the Amchitka blast is extremely remote.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
24372-16*

October 27, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Since the American government has not seen fit either to delay the nuclear test at Amchitka or to listen to the representations from the Canadian government, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us whether he or some official from his department intends to send a letter of congratulations to those senators and representatives of the American government who have opposed this test?


UNITED STATES DECISION TO PROCEED WITH AMCHITKA
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. After the Prime Minister had been informed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs of the formal reply of the United States administration to the Amchitka problem, did the Prime Minister attempt to get in touch with the President of the United States and, if not, why not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer to the question is no, I did not so attempt, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize a few supplementaries on this point but, as hon. members know, when we spend 15 to 20 minutes on the first question, toward the end of the question period a number of our colleagues do not get an opportunity to ask their questions. Yesterday I undertook to try to give an opportunity today to a number of members in the fourth and fifth rows who did not have a chance yesterday.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The silent majority, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, the silent majority, as the hon. member says. Therefore I would hope that we might try to reduce the amount of time spent on the first two or three questions.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a supplementary?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: After your admonition, Mr. Speaker, only in relation to the second part of my question, which was "if not, why not" and which, had it been answered, would have obviated the necessity for me again to take the time of the House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member would appreciate that I was obviating the necessity to repeat what I had said a moment ago in answer to his leader, namely, that I did not see the utility of doing this and apologizing to the President that even though the House of Commons itself had tried to get a unanimous vote some Conservative was against such a move.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Egmont on a supplementary and then recognize the hon. member for York South on the next subject.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of

the lengthy interest that has been taken in this problem for some weeks now and the recorded vote by the members of this House, and bearing in mind the normal contacts that exist between Prime Ministers of this country and Presidents of the United States, can the Prime Minister indicate whether he at any time expressed to the President the tremendous disquiet that exists in this country and the strong feelings registered from time to time in this House regarding the contemplated blast at Amchitka?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have answered this question before. The answer is no. There has been some communication between the President and myself on other matters, but I repeat that I thought the vote of the House of Commons spoke for itself in this instance.


POSSIBLE CANADIAN CONCESSIONS TO HELP UNITED STATES SOLVE BALANCE OP PAYMENTS PROBLEM
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State of External Affairs arising out of his brief broadcast over a United States network in which he said that we-presumably Canada-would like to help the United States get out of its balance of payments difficulties. I should like to ask the minister whether he, or any other member of the government to his knowledge, has indicated to the United States any specific ways in which Canada will try to help the United States with its balance of payments problem?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the United States knows that we have complied with the requirements laid down by the President. In my broadcast I was indicating-and it seems the point was taken-that it is very difficult to settle the kind of problems now facing the world, economic and financial, if one is faced with ultimatums. In other words, the only way we will be able to deal with these problems is in a spirit of friendship and co-operation. I was indicating that if the United States were to approach us in the spirit and not by saying, "here is a surcharge which will remain on until you do such and such", then I thought we could make greater progress, and I hope that is the attitude the United States will subsequently accept.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, that leads directly to an obvious supplementary. I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Finance, whichever one can inform us, exactly what they would expect to give to the United States in respect of concessions and in what area? The minister said the problem can be solved in friendship and co-operation. I am asking him, as we have asked before, what areas of concessions is the Canadian government contemplating if the United States should be willing to sit down with the Canadian government and negotiate some reduction in the Canadian surplus in the balance of payments with the United States?
October 27, 1971


Mitchell William Sharp: Just in a general way, and I know the Minister of Finance would agree with this, we would like to settle the problems in an expanding economy and not in a contracting economy. In other words, we would like to see the trade surplus we now have with the United States reduced by an expansion of trade in which the volume of our imports went up reflecting an expansion of demand in Canada. That is the spirit in which generally we would like this problem to be settled. On the other question of what we could talk about specifically, the United States has not even indicated the subjects they would like to talk about.


POSSIBLE IMPOSITION BY UNITED STATES OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES BECAUSE OF EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT ACT
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On October 21 reports from Washington credited an official of the United States government with saying the Canadian government had been informed that countervailing duties would be imposed industry by industry if U.S. companies complained about the assistance given to Canadian industries under the $80 million Employment Support Act. I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if such information was conveyed to him either through the Canadian embassy in Washington or through the United States embassy here in Ottawa?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. It has not been conveyed to the Canadian government at any level.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition and then go to the hon. member for Temiscamingue. We have not yet had the first round of questioning and have been going for 15 minutes.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the reference of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to unilateral actions, positions and this sort of thing, may I ask whether it is in order for the government of Canada to unilaterally decide it can break an agreement with the International Monetary Fund with regard to floating our dollar and then protest about the United States taking some unilateral action?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member's supplementary is argumentative and is debate.


MANPOWER
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Inquiries of the Ministry
He tabled today the local initiatives program. Are these application forms presently available at the various Canada manpower and immigration centres throughout Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, they have been mailed to all manpower offices. Many manpower offices may in fact have the local initiatives program application forms today and all the rest should receive them almost immediately. So far as the municipalities are concerned, the co-ordinators for each province are expected to mail application forms directly to the municipalities within their area and that includes the territories as well.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In light of the answer of the minister on Monday that the Department of Finance had acted to support the Canadian dollar in the market over the last week, would the minister now tell us whether he can assure the United States authorities that the Canadian dollar is freely floating and therefore not running afoul or counter to the United States conditions for the application of the surcharge?


Edgar John Benson: Well, Mr. Speaker, that was not the answer I gave.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the minister did indicate that there had been government action to affect the value of the Canadian dollar and keep it below par with the United States dollar. If this is not action by the government, what is?


Edgar John Benson: I said nothing of the kind, Mr. Speaker.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. When may the House expect the government to announce-and I shall quote the minister's words-the "dramatic new moves" to strengthen the Canadian economy as mentioned by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in a speech to an audience at Montebello, Quebec, on October 18 in which he said the government is planning such moves at the present time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is a question of dates here. Perhaps the minister had drafted his speech before the Minister of Finance made his announcement in the House.

October 27, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker. The speech was made five days after the minister's speech-four days after-and did not refer to that speech. Therefore I shall pose a supplementary question because the Prime Minister is not aware of these moves. They obviously are not dramatic.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: I would ask the Prime Minister whether the government has not been convinced by the latest Gallup poll that mere brave words are not impressing the Canadian people and that positive action along these lines is long overdue?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


MANPOWER
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration arising out of the statement he tabled today. In view of the fact that many, if not most, persons involved in the local initiatives program will have been relatively well paid industrial workers prior to being laid off, could the minister explain why a $100 weekly average wage celing has been established as one of the qualifying conditions for the program? I ask this question because the other part of the program, the manpower retraining aspect, has no such ceiling.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there are a whole variety of programs which may be more or less available for different groups of people. This is an average rather than a ceiling. It is the average upon which the limiting of the grant for employment under the program will be made. It does not limit additional amounts being put in by an organization in the right case. The objective, of course, is to do some preliminary sorting, in effect, among the many applications we expect and to indicate preference for support of a maximum number of programs putting the maximum number of unemployed people to work.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Calgary North. I bring to the attention of hon. members that I am trying-and I can only do this with the co-operation of hon. members-to move on because we are running short of time. This is why I am trying to reduce, if possible, the number of supplementaries.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid you did not hear me. I am rising on a question of privilege with regard to the answer the Minister of Finance gave me a few moments ago. I went back to the record and I find that at page 8986 the minister indicated that the government did take action. The minister says he did not say that on Monday. The minister may have forgotten, but

I do not want him innocently to mislead the House. The position must be made clear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows very well that a member cannot raise, by way of a question of privilege, a debate as to what has or has not been said. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member if he thinks that the point should be made, but I suggest to him and to all hon. members that it is not very useful, by way of a question of privilege, to try to determine what has been said and what has not been said previously. But having said that, if the hon. member feels that he has a case and would like to pursue the matter by way of a question of privilege it is my duty to hear him.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am a little puzzled by the interpretation. I would like direction from Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: The direction I would give the hon. member is that he should try to state the question of privilege as briefly as possible and, as I said, I would have to hear him and I will hear him.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My question of privilege concerns the answer given me by the minister in which he said that he had not said something, yet the record shows clearly what he did say, which was my interpretation of it. Surely the House is being misled and I am being misled. If that is not a question of privilege, may I respectfully point out that there must be some way of correcting it at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a correction, but I have to rule that it is not a question of privilege. There are many precedents, which are well known to the hon. member, in support of my contention. In any event, the hon. member has made his point. The Chair will now recognize the hon. member for Calgary North.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The answer which I gave on October 25, 1971, appears at page 8986 of Hansard. Perhaps the answer did mislead the hon. member for Edmonton West. It should have read, first of all-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton West, the Minister of Finance and all hon. members will see where this kind of question of privilege can lead us. If hon. members take five minutes of the question period to say that what the minister said is not what he said, and the minister replies that what he said was what he thinks he said, we might go on for a long time. I do not think it is a question of privilege on the part of the hon. member for Edmonton West or on the part of the Minister of Finance.
October 27, 1971




Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It deals with the security of visitors to Canada, particularly in view of the imminent visit to Canada of President Tito. I put this question to the Prime Minister in all seriousness. In light of the fact that the federal government is the guarantor and ensurer of security of all foreign visitors, prime ministers and heads of state, as was the case with the recent visit of Premier Kosygin, what liaison, what instructions and what plans were worked out between this government, as part of its responsibility, the city of Toronto and other cities in Canada to safeguard and protect the civil rights of peaceful demonstrators and observers, particularly in the city of Toronto? I ask the question because this matter is the responsibility of the federal government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the minister will reply briefly because this appears to be a very general question. It seems to me that it calls for an answer which should normally be made on motions. If the Prime Minister can reply briefly, the Chair will recognize him.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can be very brief because I do not know the details of the arrangements which were worked out. I do know, of course, that there was contact. I can discuss the matter with the Solicitor General to see if there is anything further on which we can report to the House. But certainly the point of view of peaceful demonstration was foremost in everyone's mind, and wherever we were able to allow demonstrations to take place we certainly did not intervene. But we also had to be wary of what the Leader of the Opposition himself, on Monday of last week, termed the dangers of a breakdown in security and we tried to keep a neat balance between the two.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask a short supplementary question. In light of the alleged brutality which took place by the Toronto police with reference to children and women, and the responsibility of the federal government in this respect-and I appreciate the Prime Minister's answer today-would he be prepared to make a statement at some future time informing the House who pays the city of Toronto and other cities for the security which they undertake?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the fact that an interruption occurred when the Prime Minister was about to answer, may I put this question seriously to him. May I say, first of all, that I appreciate his courteous answer. Would he at some future time make a statement in the House on this matter and advise us what levels of government paid for the security for Premier Kosygin and will pay for the security of other dignitaries who may visit Canada at the request of this government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I said in my previous answer, I will certainly discuss this series of questions with the Solicitor General. It would seem to me that this is the kind of question which usually appears on the order paper. The
Inquiries of the Ministry
hon. member might want to consider asking the questions in an orderly form on the order paper and we will give an answer in due course.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might be allowed to ask a further supplementary question, but I have been trying for almost 40 minutes to invite hon. members to proceed a little more quickly in the question period because we are running short of time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Before I put the question may I say that I think security is an important matter and questions concerning it should not be placed on the order paper. This is an important matter because women and children have been run over by police officers, as alleged in the newspapers. I ask the Prime Minister again, in light of the responsibility of the federal government would he check into this important matter with the Solicitor General and make a statement in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I said in my answer that I would check into the matter. I did not undertake to make a statement in the House. I do not agree with the hon. member that if a matter is important it should not appear on the order paper.


CRIMINAL CODE
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that last year 1,649 Canadian women went to the state of New York to have abortions performed, will the government now-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Winona Grace MacInnis: As usual, Mr. Speaker, we get the snickers. Will the government now consider honouring its promise of a year ago in the Speech from the Throne and set a date in this session for a debate on the abortion legislation in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question before. I can only repeat the answer in like terms, that in the Speech from the Throne a year ago last month or this month we said we wanted to deal with many things in this session which was supposed to finish at the end of June. We are now several months beyond that date. Since I cannot guarantee the way in which the House will meet all the problems that have been put before it, I cannot guarantee that we will have time to deal with this particular matter before the end of this session. It really depends on when the session ends and on how fast we deal with matters. I do admit that we made the commitment in the Speech from the Throne to deal with this and several other matters which have not yet come before the House, and if we do not deal with them it is because the opposition has not given us the time.

October 27, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: It is because you do not arrange your program.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I point out to the Prime Minister that we are running short of time not only during the session but during the question period.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Am I to infer from the Prime Minister's priorities that he is now resigned to a continental policy on abortion?



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In light of the information provided by the Minister of Supply and Services yesterday that on behalf of the government he had interfered directly in the management of a Crown corporation, Polymer, and as a result notices of termination of employment with that corporation had been cancelled, thus establishing a precedent, I ask the minister whether he would prevail upon the senior officials of the Cape Breton Development Corporation to cease their preretirement of personnel and also commence a rehiring program in the coal mines of Cape Breton where the unemployment rate is in the vicinity of 25 per cent?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister oi Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I think that Devco management have acted in accordance with the act adopted by this House and, as we all know, we spend millions of dollars a year trying to maintain employment in the coal mines despite the fact that the House had agreed that the size of labour force in general should be reduced.


Robert Muir: May I ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government and the corporation to continue to phase down the coal mines and put people on the streets but not provide any other type of industry and employment for them as the legislation stated was to be done?


Mr. Marchand (Langelier):: Mr. Speaker, to my mind, considerable effort has been made to find alternative solutions. Devco now has a new management; I have reason to hope it may find formulas or solutions the other did not, but I feel the hon. member is right. We were to find alternative activities and still hope to be able to do so.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Could he assure the House that his department checks closely the grants that are given to companies to establish in designated or depressed areas?


Len Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Could the minister advise the House and the taxpayers of Canada why his department gave a grant of $216,000 to a company whose principal was heavily in debt in the area which he left, who owes the income tax department money, who owes Ontario Hydro, who owes land taxes, who owes rent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: He must be a Liberal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask for an explanation from the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have asked the minister a straightforward question on behalf of the taxpayers of this country-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Dryden Hales: -and I want to know why $216,000 was given to this firm.


Jean Marchand: Which firm?


Alfred Dryden Hales: I shall take it from a communique tabled today. The firm is Step Lite Manufacturing Limited which is going to locate in Renfew, Ontario. The principal of that firm is heavily in debt to the income tax department, Ontario Hydro and many other people. Why was that money given?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the news release did not indicate that we had granted any money. Of course, we promised a subsidy, provided all the other conditions were-


An hon. Member:: There is a difference.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: Don't laugh; this is the way it proceeds. It has been proceeding this way all the time. I will inquire into the case and give the hon. member a more detailed answer tomorrow.
October 27, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, the communique states that this company would receive-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean Marchand: "Would."


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In light of the statement by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in Montreal on Monday that that city would have more unemployed this coming winter than all the maritime provinces, could the minister check with his colleague and get the source of that estimate and also find out whether there are any estimates for the rest of the country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the impression that this question was asked yesterday or the day before by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie.

The hon. member could ask another question since I ruled out the first one. The hon. member may ask his question now.



QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT FORECAST AS TO UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, since the question just asked by the hon. member was put yesterday while the minister was not here, would the latter be now in a position to answer, in order that we may know if the government had any extrapolations to the effect that unemployment would reach 12 per cent in Quebec next winter?
Since the minister was not here yesterday, the Prime Minister undertook to see that someone would answer in his place. Can the minister do it know?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure, because I was not in the House yesterday, to what figures the hon. member is referring.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House that he would refer this matter to the minister of manpower and pointed out that it had to do with the statement made in Montreal the day before by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I think the minister should be aware of his colleague's statement and reply to that question.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries. In light of the recent failure to reach an understanding with the U.S.S.R. on the conservation of offshore fisheries, is it the intention of the government to propose that a fisheries agreement be made part of the pending negotiations over a new economic agreement with the U.S.S.R. and, if so, when may we expect details of such an important agreement to be made public?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Ask George Hees.


George Harris Hees: I know more about it than your boys do.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have not failed to reach an understanding with the U.S.S.R. We have made various submissions. We hope we will be able to carry our points and get the U.S.S.R. to agree to our proposals. It would have been a help, however, if members opposite had been present to make representations at the external affairs committee when the Premier of the U.S.S.R. was here and attended the meeting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as the member for South Shore I was present when Mr. Kosygin visited Canada and met with the minister and members of the external affairs committee.


John (Jack) Davis: Why didn't you speak up?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Why didn't I speak up, the minister asks. The reason I did not speak up was that the whole meeting was entirely controlled by the Liberal chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think we should pursue this matter.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I request the right to finish that statement.


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


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The hon. member should resume his seat, and also the hon. member for St. Paul's. We have reached the end of the question period; in fact, we did so a few moments ago. Again I must apologize to the many hon. members who after a fruitless day yesterday had the same experience today. I will try to do my best for them tomorrow, but now we have questions of privilege which should be heard.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, the entire proceedings in the external affairs committee were under the direction of the

October 27, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
chairman of that committee. Members of the committee were only permitted to ask questions in order of rote; there was no opportunity for other Members of Parliament in attendance to ask questions. As a matter of fact, at twelve o'clock sharp the chairman of the committee informed all present that the period for asking questions was now terminated, and this robbed me and other members who were in attendance of the opportunity of asking questions with regard to negotiations. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries has a responsibility to look, out for the interests of Canadian fishermen and he did not carry out his responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Wahn:: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, it is untrue to state that the proceedings at that committee meeting were controlled by me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Were they under control?


Ian Grant Wahn: The procedure at that meeting was agreed upon by the steering subcommittee of the external affairs committee and confirmed at a meeting of the external affairs committee. The number of members from each party to be called upon was agreed upon at both those meetings and it was not imposed by me. In point of fact, a number of members of the opposition parties were called upon in accordance with the decision made not by the Liberal chairman but by the steering subcommittee representative of all parties and the external affairs committee itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Untrue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Greenwood rising on a point of order?


Mr. Brewin:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say that the hon. member for St. Paul's is absolutely correct.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member for Spadina kindly resume his seat? The question of privilege raised by the hon. member for South Shore contained an allusion to the hon. member for St. Paul's who, in fairness, was allowed to make his statement. However, I do not think that hon, members really want to pursue this discussion all afternoon. It seems to me it is rather pointless. Hon. members have made their points and I invite them now to return to the work of the House.


Mr. Ryan:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Spadina rises on a question of privilege.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: This is on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member for Spadina wants to rise on a question of privilege or a point of order I will hear him, of course. But I suggest to him as I have to all hon. members, that there is not much to be gained by pursuing the matter.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I will make it a question of privilege, then. I was present at the meeting. It lasted two hours, from ten o'clock to twelve o'clock, and it took Mr. Kosygin half an hour to answer the first question. It appeared to be a planted question, and nobody from then on-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Battle River.


Cliff Downey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege-


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


Cliff Downey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of the matter I brought forward under Standing Order 43 earlier this afternoon. I am sorry that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board has left the chamber. I refer to the letter that went out from the minister's office to prairie grain producers shortly after the producers received their payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. My question of privilege is, was this blatant attempt to influence public opinion paid for out of public funds-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It may be a question but that does not make it a question of privilege. I had hoped during the question period to recognize the hon. member because he had raised a matter under Standing Order 43. Rightly or wrongly, in such circumstances I always try to give an hon. member the opportunity to ask a question and I fully intended to recognize the hon. member for Battle River. The question might be raised tomorrow, but I doubt if it can be raised now by way of question of privilege. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 26, consideration in committee of Bill C-259, to amend the Income Tax Act and to make certain provisions and alterations in the statute law related to or consequential upon the amendments to that act-Mr. Benson-Mr. Honey in the chair.
On clause 1-section 109: Deductions permitted by individuals.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening section 109 was before the committee. Section 110 has been grouped with section 109 for the purpose of debate.
October 27, 1971

Shall section 109 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Rondeau:: Mr. Chairman, we are still dealing with section 109 of Bill C-259. It is an extremely important section since its passage will change the tax schedule for millions of Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, before coming to the heart of my remarks on income tax, I should like to define the various economic systems in order to make it clear where the tax proposal of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is leading us.
I have here several definitions of socialism, communism, fascism, economic liberalism, the bureaucratic liberalism that we know, and capitalism, and I think that in this list of definitions, the Minister of Finance will recognize himself quite well.
Socialism means that if you have two cows, the government takes one away from you and gives it to your neighbour.
Under communism, if a citizen has two cows, the government takes them away from him and gives him back milk through a dropper.
Fascism means that if a citizen has two cows, the government takes them away and sells the milk to the people.
Nazism means that if a citizen has two cows, the government takes them away and shoots the man.
Democratic economic liberalism-and here, I believe that the Minister of Finance should listen-means that if a citizen has two cows, the government takes them away, kills one, milks the other and throws the milk away.


An hon. Member:: Enough of that bull.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Capitalism means that if a citizen has two cows, he sells one and buys a bull.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday I had an opportunity as well as a good number of my colleagues, to hear most of the speeches made here.
In my opinion, the Minister of Finance has shown sheer arrogance during the debates by not even listening to the suggestions made by all hon. members who took the floor. I only witnessed this response from the minister: he kept the lower part of his body firmly in contact with his seat and looked very confident. He was thinking: Say whatever you want, suggest anything you want, I do not care, I will not change anything in this bill since I have with me a sufficient majority of members who have more wool on their backs than they have guts for reacting, for speaking their minds and state what their constituents want and would like their representatives to say in the House.
Before dealing with the clause itself I would say that I was shocked, two years ago, following questions asked by my hon. colleague from Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) regarding privileges granted to Canadian companies in the last ten years, to learn that Canadian companies had been exempted since 1958. Those figures, Mr. Chairman, are astronomical because they show that an amount in excess of $2 billion that the federal government had the right to collect was not collected from those companies. Instead of seeking to collect the taxes due by those companies the
Income Tax Act
government in 1971 thinks it must seek revenge or impose new taxes on the Canadian taxpayers.
Bell Canada was exempted from the sales tax during ten years for an amount of $79,916,000; Northern Electric, $13,545,781; Distillers Corp. (Seagram), $23,613,000; Canadian Business, $10,463,000; George Weston, $23,078,000; Steel Co. of Canada, $149,736,000; Dominion Foundries, $101,617,000; Algoma Steel, $68,442,000; Ford Motors, $11,249,706; Chrysler Corporation, $69,340,398; Alcan, $149,774,404; Aluminum of Canada, $139,405,412;-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I have listened to him with interest. I wish to address my remarks to all members of the committee. I am not here to beat hon. members over the head about the rule of relevancy, however, if we are to give orderly consideration to the bill I must impress upon all hon. members that we must be concerned about that rule. We are now dealing with sections 109 and 110 of Clause 1 of the bill. I have tried to find some link of relevancy between the hon. member's remarks and the contents of sections 109 and 110, but I cannot. Perhaps I am in error. If I am, no doubt the hon. member for Shefford will point out to me where I err.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I thank you for your comments, Mr. Chairman, but I must say that it is not my fault that the list of corporations which have been exempted from federal tax is that long and that a new tax legislation is now deemed necessary in Canada. It is perhaps that we have been unable to collect the federal sales tax owed by these corporations.
International Nickel Company of Canada Limited was exempted to the tune of $102,100,000; Cominco Ltd., $21,258,000, not to mention others. The total owed by six corporations, Mr. Chairman, adds up to $642,632,000. A sum total of approximately $2 billion was not been collected by the federal government.
I would like, with the help of information supplied by accountants and economists, to draw a comparison between the Canadian personal income tax and that same tax in the United States. I do not draw this comparison with underdeveloped countries, but with our neighbours who have almost the same resources as Canada, to show the difference between the Canadian personal income tax and the same tax in the United States.
Before giving figures, I would refer to a speech made on January 30, 1970 by Mr. R. M. Fowler, president of the Canadian Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers, on the occasion of its annual luncheon meeting. He said:
During the last few years, the tax rate levied on Canadian companies has been allowed to exceed by 10 percentage points that applied to our American competitors.
I also have here the brief submitted to the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce by the representatives of the Canadian Manufacturers Association who, after a comparison between the Canadian and the American tax, had this to say:

The increasing disparity between the United States and Canadian tax rates offers cogent reason for such action not only because

October 27, 1971
Income Tax Act
the U.S. rates are the best available measure of the reasonableness of those in Canada, but also because the extent of the disparity may well be decisive in the minds of able, highly-trained, mobile personnel seeking to exercise their talents in a more hospitable economic climate. The white paper acknowledges the importance of retaining Canadians with outstanding ability but of equal importance is that we continue to attract immigrants of the kind that can make a contribution to Canadian economic and cultural progress. The proposed tax increases on taxpayers earning more than $9,000 is a move in the wrong direction for they neither encourage desirable immigrants nor the retention of Canadians which the country cannot afford to lose.

Mr. Chairman, the figures that I will quote were taken from the U.N. Yearbook of National Account Statistics. [English]
The U.N. Yearbook of National Account Statistics indicates that Canadian per capita income in 1967 was 37 per cent below that of the United States in the same year.

Mr. Chairman, even if the per capita income in Canada is 37 per cent lower than in the United States, our personal income tax, according to the figures I shall quote, is double that which the Americans have to pay.
I would like to refer to studies made by a firm of chartered accountants, Price Waterhouse & Company. Here is what those tax experts had to say about the Canadian and the American income taxes.

Canadian taxpayers have long suspected that they pay more in personal income taxes than taxpayers in the United States at similar income levels .. . few Canadians realize just how large the difference is between the effective rates of Canadian and United States personal income taxes on employment and professional income .. . But some valid comparisons . .. show that... middle-income bracket Canadians may well be paying up to twice as much personal income tax as their counterparts in the United States at the same income level.

Mr. Chairman, if, apart from the fact that the Canadian per capita income is 37 per cent below that of the United States, Canadians must in many cases pay twice as much tax as Americans, it is not surprising that a lot of Canadians want to emigrate to a country where taxes are twice as low as in Canada.
That is why the chartered accountants who made a tax research had this to say:

A materially unfavourable comparison might be a factor both in inducing talented Canadians to leave Canada, taking with them their abilities and their capital, and conversely, in inhibiting the immigration of skilled newcomers from other countries into Canada. The United States is the logical country with which to make such a tax comparison, because of its proximity to Canada, its similar standard of living, and the frequent movement of its residents to and from Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I have here figures taken from page 274 of the 1970-71 Canada Yearbook. They show that in the last five years, 226,465 skilled Canadians with degrees have left Canada to go and live south of the border because they had to pay twice as much income tax as people in the United States.

Now I would like to give comparisons between underprivileged people in Canada and in the United States. I am still referring to the study I mentioned earlier, because if I quoted figures computed by Creditistes, you might not believe me. Here, then is what the experts say:

-we have concluded that in many cases skilled Canadian personnel would find themselves paying anywhere between 50 per cent to 100 per cent more personal income taxes because they live in Canada rather than in the United States. If the comparison is between two taxpayers at similar levels who own their homes, the Canadian counterpart may quite likely incur double the personal income tax burden of the United States taxpayer-

Mr. Chairman, here are the figures: the difference between a Canadian living in Ontario and an American living in the state of Ohio is that, if the Canadian is earning $8,000 in Canada or in the United States, he must pay $1,044 in income tax to Canada while he would have to pay only $416 in the United States, a difference of $628. This means that income tax in the United States if 60.15 per cent less than in Canada. The Canadian levy on an income of $12,000 amounts to $2,327, while it would be $1,007 in the state of Ohio, which means that the $12,000 man in the United States is better off by $1,320 than his Canadian counterpart, a difference of 56.73 per cent. Or an income of $15,000 the United States tax is $1,884 less than in Ontario. On an income of $25,000, the tax is $3,946 less in the United States; on an income of $50,000, it is $7,995 less, a difference of 40.73 per cent.
Judging by the conclusions of the study:

The United States home owner has an additional advantage over his counterpart in Canada in the same income bracket, because the United States taxpayer is permitted to deduct his home mortgage interest and property tax payments in computing his taxable income for United States tax purposes.

Mr. Chairman, in the United States both interest and taxes on property are deductible. I am not saying that the American taxation system is tops, that it cannot be improved, but I use this as an example to show the Minister of Finance that there is room for improvement in Bill C-259.
I will make a comparison between the taxpayer in Ontario and his counterpart in the state of New York: on an $8,000 income in Ontario, the annual rate is $1,044, while in the state of New York the levy is $473, a difference of $561 per year or 54.69 per cent. On $15,000 it is $1,598 less and, on a $50,000 income, the difference is $5,683.
Mr. Chairman, to speak only of mere tenants, in Canada as in the United States, who do not benefit from deduction of interests for real estate taxes, an income of $8,000 in Canada involves payment of $1,044 in taxes, whereas in the state of Ohio it would be only $500, or $544 less. Taxes on an income of $8,000 are $1,044 in Ontario and $569 in the state of New York, or a difference of $475, in terms of percentage, 45.5.
To summarize the difference between personal income tax in Canada and in the United States it can be said that on an income of $8,000, American or Canadian, a citizen pays 29.55 per cent less in taxes in the United States than
October 27, 1971

in Canada. On an income of $12,000, he pays 28.88 per cent less in the United States than in Canada. On an income of $15,000, he would pay 27.7 per cent less in taxes in the United States. On an income of $25,000 American taxes are 23.28 per cent less than in Canada.
Then the Minister of Finance will not find a solution? In fact, he thinks that there is no room for improvements in his bill-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Trudel:: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Yes.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member knows he may ask a question with the consent of the hon. member who has the floor. I take it there is such consent.


Jacques L. Trudel: Mr. Chairman, I carefully listened to the hon. member and his party leader. Since he does not trust any economist, I would ask him to kindly tell us where he gets his statistics, because I believe that in all the tables he mentioned, there are certainly some figures that are inconsistent.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, it is with great pleasure that I shall give to the hon. member the figures he is asking for, but I don't understand how he can ignore them, because they have been sent to him as well as to me. This proves that he is more or less informed, and that all he is waiting for is to vote for the bill, the effects of which he cannot measure.
Mr. Chairman, in answer to my hon. friend, I say that these surveys were made by Price, Waterhouse & Company, a firm of chartered accountants he must have heard of, because it is very well known. These accountants based these figures on the findings contained in the UN Yearbook of National Account Statistics.

The U.N. Yearbook of National Account Statistics indicates that Canadian per capita income in 1967 was 37 per cent below that of the United States in the same year.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for having given me the opportunity to answer my hon. colleague, and I hope that with those references, he will take at least a few minutes to consider the recommendations of that responsible firm of accountants which gives extremely interesting figures.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Chairman, I am quite pleased to put an amendment for the information of my colleagues. I therefore move:
That the tax rate applicable-


Jacques L. Trudel: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
I wish to point out to the hon. member that I examined the figures he quoted before he put his amendment. We now know where he took his figures! He should at least
Income Tax Act
speak his mind, be honest with himself and quote the entire report, which would surely alter his statement.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Really, I did not quite get his question, or rather I did not understand it at all. So, as I am not in the habit of talking through my hat, I will let the matter drop. Here is my amendment:
That the tax rate applicable to personal income in clause 109 of Bill C-259 be reduced by such a percentage as to bring the basic exemption to $3,000 for single persons and $5,000 for married persons.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. The hon. member for Shefford has read the amendment which he filed with the table. I shall not take the time of the committee by inviting argument on the question of procedural acceptability of the amendment. It seems to the Chair, with great respect, that the amendment is clearly out of order on two counts. First, it is contrary to rulings already made in committee during this debate by the Deputy Chairman and by myself-rulings made with respect to other amendments of a similar type. In the second place, the amendment is drafted in general terms: it is the statement of a proposition; it is not drawn so as to amend a particular portion of the section. Having said this, I shall not deprive hon. members of an opportunity of making submissions if they wish to do so, though I am quite satisfied I cannot accept the amendment.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Chairman, will you let us comment on the acceptability of the amendment, or is your decision final?


An hon. Member:: It is final.


Russell Clayton Honey: The Chair has to be frank and say it really cannot be persuaded that the amendment is in order. I have made a ruling on similar amendments, as has the Deputy Chairman, and these rulings to my mind are binding. Then, as I have indicated, even if there were no other reasons for rejecting the amendment it is out of order because it is a statement of a general proposition, and on this ground alone it cannot be accepted.


Mr. Haidasz:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in the committee stage discussion of Bill C-259, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, I would like to make a few pertinent points in connection with medical expenses which may be deducted from personal income as set out in section 110(c)(iii) to (xv).
The federal government's proposals in this section, as in many others, will alleviate the tax burdens of more than 1.75 million Canadian taxpayers. This is most commendable. Another aim of a tax reform bill is to plug loopholes and eliminate ambiguities and unfairness in our tax legislation. Many complaints and representations from constituents involve tax decisions made by officials of internal revenue who base their decisions on tax legislation. It appears that tax legislation is often ambiguous, unclear, incomplete or unfair in particular circumstances. We could eliminate much of this difficulty if we were to

October 27, 1971
Income Tax Act
legislate tax reforms that are clear. I believe some of the points in the section to which I have referred deserve further clarification.
In addressing myself to the subject of medical expenses I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Finance the fact that many people in our country are still being treated unfairly. There still exists in Canada discrimination against people who reside in provinces such as Ontario and Alberta, as well as in other places, where provincial governments have determined that they will make no contribution, or only a minimal contribution, to the medical premium which is payable by the citizens in those provinces even though the federal government pays 50 per cent of all hospital and medical costs.
Some people work for employers who under a collective agreement or voluntarily pay for part of their medical care premium. Such contributions made by employers are then added to employees' incomes. Again, any payments which workers make themselves for medical coverage are in no way deductible for income tax purposes. These taxpayers are treated unfairly, and I hope the Minister of Finance will give serious consideration to rectifying this unjust situation.
The second point I wish to raise today concerns the necessity of bringing relief through tax reform to taxpayers who are burdened with heavy medical expenses in respect of special treatment either for themselves or for their dependants. I refer particularly to those with dependants suffering from perceptual or learning disabilities and those who are afflicted by paralytic diseases.
Included in the expenses they have to bear is the cost of transportation which in many cases is enormous, especially where treatment or care is not available in Canada. What is unjust is the attitude of provincial medical or hospital agencies which refuse to recognize such expenses as insured items. I therefore ask the Minister of Finance to provide that transportation expenses, whether incurred inside Canada or outside Canada, be allowed as deductible items when they are associated with an illness under the care of a physician or by referral.
The other representation I wish to make concerns medical expenses incurred in rehabilitation centres or nursing homes and services rendered by paramedical personnel. I believe such expenses and services should also be tax deductible. Canada's national health cost would be greatly reduced if these services could be rendered at home or outside a hospital specially equipped for the treatment of acute cases. In Toronto, for example, occupancy of a bed available for the treatment of acute cases costs between $50 and $99 per day. This is a great expense, not only to the province but to the federal government. If we could encourage people to seek treatment in rehabilitation centres, nursing homes and similar places I believe our national health costs would diminish.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few minutes of the time of the committee to ask a question for the purpose of clarification. Last evening a discussion was initiated by the hon. member for Kent-Essex with respect to section 110(l)(c)(xii), which reads as follows:
-for any device or equipment, not described in any other sub-

paragraph of this paragraph, or a prescribed kind, for use by the taxpayer, his spouse or any such dependant as prescribed by such a medical practitioner-
I take that section to mean that if a medical practitioner prescribes the use of a special device or equipment in connection with a severe disability or illness, automatically it is deductible for income tax purposes. The reason I raise this point for clarification is that, as reported at page 9068 of Hansard for yesterday, the minister said during the debate:
Certain things are prescribed in the act and the Minister of National Revenue is given certain latitude in determining those things which may be additionally prescribed. I should not like to prejudge decisions which will be made in this regard.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The minister is rising on a point of order.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can clarify the situation for my hon. friend. What the act provides is that certain items are to be prescribed by the Minister of National Revenue. If such items are then prescribed by a doctor for individual patients, then they will be deductible. However, they must be allowed for in the legislation. Doctors are not given free rein to prescribe anything and everything, which is then deductible. If over a period of time different devices are required for the treatment of certain patients, previously we would have had to change the law each time. What we are now providing is that the Minister of National Revenue will be able, following submissions to be made, to prescribe the items that are deductible, and this will be done by Order in Council.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, that does clarify the point I wished to make. May I make one further point with which I am sure the minister will agree; indeed, it has already been emphasized by the hon. member for Park-dale. One of the most crippling financial burdens is chronic illness or severe disability. I hope that the situation under the old act, where it was almost impossible to get the government, the department or Minister of Finance to be flexible in these matters, is not going to be repeated in the new act. This is why I want it expressed in quite specific terms at this time that if a medical practitioner does prescribe, in accordance with the provision to which I have just referred, a device or piece of equipment which is not in the allowable list at that particular time, there will be reasonable flexibility in making this device available.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, there will be a great deal more flexibility. The Minister of National Revenue will recommend to the Governor in Council that specific items be put in without his having to come back to the House and introduce tax legislation, which normally is only done four or five times a year when we have budgets.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, yesterday evening I spoke on sections 109 and 110 grouped together for discussion purposes, and my colleagues introduced on several occasions many amendments which were ruled out of order and which were intended to increase basic exemptions.
Our arguments have to be replaced in their context if we are to be clearly understood.
October 27, 1971

We maintain that the basic exemptions provided, offered or suggested by the government are inadequate to allow thousands, perhaps even millions of Canadians to rise above the threshold of poverty, to have a decent or a minimum standard of living.
We maintain that the proposed exemptions are not only inadequate to allow those persons to be more independent from the public sector, but that they will contribute to increase the poverty of these people, their dependency on public assistance and, consequently, the tax burden because the government will have to tax people more in order to make these social welfare payments.
This is why we insist and repeatedly urge the government to increase the basic exemptions to $3,000 for a single person and $5,000 for married couples.
One must know how to be practical. A $3,000 basic exemption for a single person means that if that person has an income of $3,000 or less, he will have no income tax to pay.
I know one person in Victoriaville, which is my municipality, who has very skilled hands and makes all kinds of small objects he sells at moderate prices to people of the city. His profit ranges from $2,000 to $2,500 a year. This same man helps here and there, doing housekeeping chores to the extent his health allows and earns $500, $600 or even at times $1,000 more during the good years, although much less at times. He is single, 45 years old and crippled. He asked for welfare but was told this: If you did not earn anything, if you stayed home, both feet up on a hassock, if you did not try to manage on your own, if you did not have more than $200 in the bank, if you took it easy, we could help you. But because you try to earn a living, to manage on your own and to improve your lot, we cannot help you. So, the man has no choice. He does not want to stay idle. He has no choice; he must earn his living. Consequently, he works despite his incapacity, runs about, wears himself out working in order to obtain a maximum income as ridiculous as $3,000 per year.
Through this tax revision, the purpose of which is to create the just society, the government is saying: We shall grant him a $1,500 exemption and he will pay income tax on the difference. This same individual, Mr. Chairman, cannot be helped through government programs because he is helping himself and, for that very reason the federal government will make him pay income tax on $1,500. Such is the just society that section 109 will establish. If this person remained idle, if he did not help himself, did not try to improve his lot and to find some income by racking his brains in order to meet his essential needs, he would not earn $1,500, therefore he would be exempt from taxes and the government would say: How generous we are! But of course, since that man does not earn more than $1,500 a year. However, the wheeling and dealing social welfare officials could say: We can help you, provided you first spend your $200 bank savings. When you are broke and without a place to live, come and see us and we shall perhaps help you.
Such is the situation for this Canadian. That is what we are protesting against. That is why, Mr. Chairman, we will fight to the bitter end. It is illogical in 1971 for the federal government not to admit that the minimum income a
Income Tax Act
single person needs, not to make ends meet but to get three poor meals a day, must be at least $3,000 a year. What is most expensive for this individual, my friend from Victoriaville whose sad story I told you? Clothing, food and housing. Housing and food costs continue to climb. It is rather strange since the farmer's income is constantly decreasing. The cost of clothing is still going up, which is rather strange since our market is flooded with Japanese textiles at bargain prices. In the meantime Canadians are unemployed and Victoriaville can be cited as an example. These are the three costliest factors, they are the three essential factors of the spiraling cost of living.
The fight against inflation by the Trudeau government was aimed at these three essentials of life. The government appointed the Young Commission to stop inflation, in order to stabilize prices and incomes. As it turned out the chairman of the commission stated: It is a complete flop; no use going on, nothing can be done without new measures; it is a vicious circle. This, Mr. Chairman, is the result of the struggle. I beg you for some understanding. When the government decided to create that commission, it was because the problem of the high cost of living for low income earners was well understood. Of course, the rich, the high income earner who can pay thousands of dollars in income tax has no worries about accommodation, food or clothing.
However, the poor, the sick, the blind, mothers and others who fall into the category of low income earners cannot fight the high cost of living. They are the first victims. And although they are the main victims of the high cost of living under the present crazy economic system, the federal government says it cannot grant single persons a basic exemption of more than $1,500, as that would cost too much and make us lose too much revenue. Because the government refuses to raise the basic exemption for single persons from $1,500 to $3,000, it must collect a large part of its revenues from small taxpayers.
The federal government is unable to manage its budget except by squeezing to death the small taxpayers who make hardly any money at all. Incidentally, to make $3,000 nowadays is a joke! What can you possibly do with $3,000 a year? It is not even enough to pay for a year at university. What can we do with $3,000? The government says: $3,000, that is a lot of money. $1,500 is enough. We shall tax the difference.
Mr. Chairman, this means that the government governs at the expense of the small taxpayers, that it tinkers with our taxation system under the pretence of setting up a just society. But its only purpose is to get votes and finally it is a just society just for fun, for the big ones at the expense of the smaller ones. Secondly, it means that the government does not run the country in a responsible way and that it is not logical with itself in its fight against poverty.
If the government really wants to fight poverty, it must not bear down the poor but get them out of trouble. You can lead a horse to the watering-place, but you cannot force it to drink. If the government really wants to fight poverty, I urge the Minister of Finance to fight poverty and not the poor and, above all, I urge him to fight the causes of poverty. That would be much better and much more sensible too.

October 27, 1971
Income Tax Act
But no. The government says: We are going to deal with the poor and provide a basic exemption of $1,500 for a single person. In order to demonstrate to what extent this is sad and ridiculous, let us consider the case of a student who wins a scholarship of $1,500 and who sweats it out all summer and earns an additional amount of $500 to be somewhat better off the rest of the year. He would have, in the first place, to pay taxes on these $500. His scholarship being considered as an income he would have also to pay the relevant tax, which is absolutely ridiculous.
It means also that individual efforts to manage one's business are being discouraged. When you read the Treasury Board's pamphlet entitled "How is your tax dollar spent?", you find a beautiful coloured chart, since the government sees poverty in colours as does Mr. Caston-guay in Quebec. This chart shows that 25 cents of each tax dollar are spent on social security. Why is that?
What are these social security measures for? They systematically create poverty.
I mentioned yesterday in the House, the eighth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada wherein it is said that of the 301,000 Canadians who have been following courses, 78 per cent of them have been unable to increase their income. What purpose do these courses, which cost millions of dollars, serve in the end? They are nothing but a social welfare measure.
Mr. Chairman, social security measures now cost us tremendous amounts of money and they do not stamp out poverty; on the contrary, they generate it. The government will reply that this is not true. If it is not, then let it prove that it is seriously fighting poverty and let it increase the basic exemptions.
I challenge the members opposite and all other members to think of and name a single member of their electorate who is able to live in decent affluence on a $3,000 a year income. Let them name a single Canadian citizen who can do it!
Yet, Mr. Chairman, I know several persons who do it. Several of my colleagues also know that. But is it enough to just look at them? Are we not here to pass legislation to held them? Are we here to give fish to the poor or are we not here to show the poor how to fish so they can manage on their own? Are we here to add to the legions of poor or to remedy the causes of poverty?
If we are here to remedy the causes of poverty, Mr. Chairman, there is no reason for this debate to go on in this House if we are sincere. Everybody should understand that this big thick bill is aimed at eliminating the causes of poverty. So let us increase the basic exemption for single persons.
One could say the same for married couples. What is $5,000 for a married couple, Mr. Chairman? In fact, once food, clothing and rent are paid-which are the three costliest items-that married couple does not have enough money to raise a family. That is where they stand. That couple breaks up because of financial difficulties. That couple cannot achieve its aspirations and its legitimate desires. Why? Because of financial difficulties. That couple cannot progress as it would like to do. The same goes for single persons, Mr. Chairman. Some people come

up and tell us that Canada is a big country with large aspirations from coast to coast, that our country is very wealthy, that life is great under a liberal government in a "just society" with its "100,000 jobs".
Mr. Chairman, that can only last for a while. It is time for us to get serious in this Parliament, to roll up our sleeves and to stop our wishful thinking.
As for the just society, Mr. Chairman, it is not only through election promises which are never implemented that we want to see it, but we should be able to find it in books, in bills, in the government's political philosophies, which I find unacceptable.
That is why I speak, and I am not through yet on this subject, as well as my colleagues. That is why we are protesting. In our opinion, the poverty level is $3,000, and I challenge any member to prove that he is able to make ends meet with $1,500 or even $3,000 a year.
Mr. Chairman, when you have two or eight children, what can you do with a yearly income of $5,000? The statistics on poverty show that the poverty level is proportionate to the number of persons in a family, to its growth rate. This means that the larger the family, the more it is threatened by insecurity at the very time when the father finds himself jobless or when his income becomes inadequate.
Among the poor families, there are always large families. This does not mean they are unhappy, because they know what they have and appreciate it. What would a member say if he saw an individual going to the welfare office and wait "on all fours" in front of an official for an hour and a half to be told: We are sorry, but we cannot help you because your file has been mislaid; you are not eligible because you have $300 in the bank.
Such a situation is absolutely shocking. Then, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) faced with a crisis such as that of October last, will come with tears in his eyes and make a pathetic appeal for peace and reason to the Canadians, saying: Be calm, stay home, everything is under control.
Of course everything is under control; people are crushed by big finance. It is very easy to understand. That is why we said, at the outset, that we do not believe in this reform, because it makes no sense.
We want a monetary reform in depth, that will recognize that all Canadians, regardless of their political affiliations, race or religion, have the economic right to a decent living, to a share of the national output, although they may have been replaced by machinery, may not be trained to work, may be too old or too young to work.
How many hardship cases could we not mention today? The economic system should ensure security and freedom, not a system that crushes individuals to its own advantage.
Was money created to be served or to serve us?
Does Parliament exist to serve itself or to serve the Canadian people?
Mr. Chairman, when a new department is created with much ballyhoo in order to tamper with the administration, what does the government say? It says that more administration is required to deal with the situation and that another department should be set up.
October 27, 1971

So everybody applaud, discuss and finally the measure goes through. Why was a new department created? To provide better service to the people, to do this or that.
Has the department been created to serve the government or the population? We have to ask ourselves. If hon. members opposite recognize the merits of this reasoning in the case of an institution, whichever it is, they must also admit it in the case of the financial institution. The Bank of Canada is indeed an institution that is neither American nor European, but decidedly Canadian. What are we waiting for before we use it?
If for lack of revenue the government is unable to boost the basic exemptions from $1,500 to $3,000 for single people, and from $2,850 to $5,000 for married couples, the Minister of Finance should use the Bank of Canada to at least assist those people and provide them with the vital minimum. Of course the minister should stop laughing and get moving.
There is a damn limit!
If the government is unable to grant a larger basic exemption, let is say for what reasons. Naturally, the minister will answer that governmental administration is ever more costly, that our only sources of revenue are the taxes levied from the taxpayers and that each taxpayer, through some sense of national solidarity, must contribute to the fiscal revenue. If the federal government claims that there lies its only source of revenue besides funds borrowed from foreign countries, this means that it is not ready to admit it.
And if the government acknowledges the problem of poyerty-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I suggest that his time has expired.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in order to clarify a situation which is special to those who are dedicated to the administration of such public bodies as school boards and rural municipal councils.
The Minister of Finance has no doubt, as we have, received many representations in this connection, requesting that the new tax legislation take into account compensations granted to school commissioners and municipal councillors and also to mayors of rural municipalities.
Certainly, Mr. Chairman, in the case of all those people constantly dedicated to the service of their fellow-citizens it was quite normal that at some time the government should edict certain compensations to offset expenses incurred in order to attend meetings, and also the time they daily give to public service.
I can speak of this situation at first hand, Mr. Chairman as I was a school commissioner myself over a long period and have co-operated for many years with mayors and municipal councillors.
Every time they had to take a trip, the same remarks were heard: it is unfortunate that there is no law providing some small compensation for our expenses. So, the Quebec legislature passed such an act. I imagine that it is the same in the other provinces-I especially want to draw the attention of the House to what is going on in Quebec- and that some compensation has been authorized. I note,
Income Tax Act
in the information given with regard to this bill, that a certain amount has been provided for this purpose. It may be that I do not understand the provision correctly, but the way I read it that amount is equal to about one third of their pay. So, if a mayor receives $300 annually, he would be allowed to deduct only $100.1 want to assure the House that in rural municipalities the mayor spends $300 and more in the service of his fellow-citizens.
So, I wish we would go to the heart of the matter. That's what we are here for. We must be fair to those people and not discourage them. Even if legislation is presently under consideration in my province to abolish the positions of a great many school commissioners, I want to see the facts as they are, and deal with the present situation.
I consider that man has not been created for the state, but rather that the state must be at the service of man. This is what a great English prime minister, Sir Anthony Eden, said 30 or 40 years ago. This is still true; this proves that we, as parliamentarians, should understand clearly the scope of this thought: Man was not made for the state, but the state for man.
Under the circumstances, I would like the Minister of Finance to assure us that the bill will protect the group of persons I referred to at the beginning. A third, in my opinion, is not enough. I would therefore suggest to the Minister of Finances to amend his bill accordingly, so that in all rural municipalities-I am not referring to cities-at the school or municipal levels-the entire remuneration paid to school commissioners as well as to aldermen and mayors of rural municipalities be deductible for income tax purposes.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the matter raised by the hon. member is covered in another section which is not presently under discussion. It is section 81(3), where he will find that the allowance which previously was given to elected municipal officials has been extended to include persons on school boards and so on. The expense allowance which was deductible for some elected persons and not for others has been extended in particular to cover school trustees.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 109 as amended carry?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: On division.
Clause 1, section 109, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The Chair will now put the amendment moved by the Minister of Finance, namely, striking out lines 3 to 9 on page 283 and substituting the following-


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: This is to section
110.


Gérald Laniel: Yes.
(vi) for the care, or the care and training of the taxpayer, his spouse or any such dependant in a school, institution or other place that is specially equipped to provide care and training to persons who are physically or mentally handicapped and that admits for care, or for care and training, only persons who are so handicapped,

October 27, 1971
Income Tax Act
Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Amendment (Mr. Benson) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: I will now put the question on the amendment moved by the Minister of Finance which is meant to replace subsection 5 on page 286 by the following:
Where a taxpayer was, at the end of a taxation year of a partnership, a member of the partnership, his share of any amount that would, if the partnership were a person, be a gift made by the partnership to any donee, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be a gift made by the taxpayer, in his taxation year in which the taxation year of the partnership ended, to that donee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to ask if it should not be put on record that these are amendments to the proposed section 110?


Gérald Laniel: It was meant from the beginning that section 109 had been adopted, and the only section now in front of the committee is 110. This was understood by the Chair. I believe hon. members also understood that the amendment was related to that section.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know that, but up in the Hansard office they might wonder what happened.


Mr. McCleave:: And down here, too.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Minister of Finance to give us more details about that clause?
Mr. Chairman, you will understand it is not always easy to understand the general meaning of an amendment such as the one you just read. I am not the only person to feel this way, I think. Even if one consults people very knowledgeable in this field, they often find it difficult to clarify some points.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, we have carried section 109. This amendment to section 110 is inserted so that where a charitable donation is made by a partnership, the partners can each claim a portion of the charitable donation that is made. That, simply, is the purpose of the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Benson) agreed to.
Clause 1, section 110, as amended, agreed to.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I believe it has been agreed among the parties that we would now proceed with sections 4 to 8 inclusive, discuss these as a group and then carry the sections as amended. The group of sections 4 to 8 is to be open for discussion at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the minister has stated correctly the agreement that we reached. Perhaps I might spell it out in one further detail. I think the understanding was that from the chair you will call section 4 but the discussion will range over 4, 5, 6, 7 [The Deputy Chairman.)
and 8, and at the end we will vote on them individually and put the amendments, just as we have done with sections 109 and 110.


Gérald Laniel: Are there any other comments? Is the Chair to understand that there is agreement within the committee as to call section 4 but at the same time allow discussion on sections 5, 6, 7 and 8?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: With the question put later, section by section?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 1-section 4: Income or loss from a source or from sources in a place.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 4 carry?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I have several comments to make on these sections. First, this may seem to be a very technical matter but it is something which is very important because I hope I shall strike a blow for mamma and papa, that is, those family units which run the corner grocery stores in Canada. Mamma and papa have great difficulties; they are threatened by Dominion stores, Loblaws and all the other big chains. Also, I suggest that mamma and papa will have their heads beaten in by the legislation that we are being asked to approve.
I think I can illustrate this beyond any shadow of doubt. I know, since we are not expected to carry these five sections this afternoon, that the minister and his officials would want to look again at the matter and, hopefully, to achieve change. Where do mamma and papa get into difficulty under the proposed act? The story starts with section 6, subsection 8 on page 12, which on the face of it seems innocent enough. It provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in section 5 or this section, in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year from an office or employment, there shall not be included any amount that is, by virtue of subsection 74(3), not required to be so included or that is, by subsection 74(4), deemed not to have been received by him.
Then we jump to subsection 74(3), page 178, which is not under discussion at this time, Mr. Chairman, but I have to put it on the record to make the point about the threat to mamma and papa and their little corner grocery store. It provides as follows:
Where a person has received remuneration as an employee of his spouse, the amount thereof shall not be deducted in computing the spouse's income and shall not be included in computing the employee's income.
The next paragraph deals with the situation where a partnership exists. I shall not belabour the point by putting that paragraph on the record because I think I have established enough for the minister and his officials to see the problem that mamma and papa are up against. It is true that much of this proposed law is carried forward from the act which we are being asked to replace. If it was unfair before, I suggest it is even more unfair now.
Let us take mamma and papa in their purest form. They simply operate the corner grocery store without having gone through the legalities of setting up a partnership or
October 27, 1971

incorporating. Although mamma may sit there for 16 hours a day and papa may be out doing something else for part of the time, all the income received from that operation is taxed in the husband's hands. If the store were incorporated, the wife would be taxable on her salary and she would be permitted one thing that is an important benefit under this new act, that is, a deduction for child care expenses. This means if mamma and papa operate the store on their own and the child has to be looked after outside, there is no way under the proposed legislation that any benefit can attach to papa taxpayer.
All this could apply to other types of business, Mr. Chairman, but the corner grocery store is recognized as an institution and for which perhaps we all feel something should be done. Maybe I can reach the hearts and heartstrings of the government by concentrating on it rather than on a small garage or specialty shop. In any event, put mamma and papa to the expense of incorporating, probably several hundred dollars, and lo and behold the magic of the act takes over and they are entitled to child care expenses.
I do not think this was intended. Indeed, I am sure it was not, because no madman would intend to achieve a result like that. None the less, suddenly we find that technicalities are creating an injustice. It is part of our job in this chamber, when dealing with awkward technicalities, to do our best to see that injustices do not happen, particularly to people who are hanging on by the skin of their teeth in the face of competition, people who work long hours for little return. However, I think anyone who runs out of bread on a Sunday, or sends his child out for a bottle of milk, will be using the corner store operated by mamma and papa. I think I have made the point sufficiently for it to be studied by the parliamentary secretary and his officials. Before we get through these sections I hope some heed will be paid to my complaint.
I have four other points, also of a technical and, I think, important nature. The first point concerns those parts of section 6 which deal with automobiles. Some questions were presented by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in its submissions of September, 1971. On page 21 of their booklet they ask:
Is it the purpose of these provisions to place a minimum on the amount of any benefit taxed in the hands of the employee or shareholder?
That refers to the use of the automobile, the company car.
The phrase "exclusive personal use or otherwise" used in both taxing sections is not clear. Does it mean exclusive use as opposed to use by several persons? Clarification is also required as to what elements go into "cost" in these circumstances.
These are technical questions, perhaps as interesting to many Canadians as to mamma and papa because there are a lot of people who enjoy the automobile, such as travelling salesman. There is the question of dividing its running expenses between the operation of the employer and the personal use of the salesman. I present this question for the consideration of the parliamentary secretary.
The third element, which is perhaps not so much a technical one as a question of policy, concerns employee insurance benefits. Under section 6 (1) (f) it is proposed to tax all of the profits under the plan if it is supported by the employer. I suggest this is a little too sweeping. The
Income Tax Act
employee may pay part of that insurance and, if so, I suggest that only part of the proceeds should be taxable or the employee should have a specific deduction for his share of the premium. I hope the parliamentary secretary will deal with that question.
I ask whether strike pay is to be taxed. My understanding is that it is not, but that unemployment insurance benefits are to be taxed. I think the niceties there escape most of us and warrant some elaboration from the minister. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I raise another point which comes from the brief presented by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. This relates to section 7, dealing with employee stock options. Their comment is:
We suggest that a benefit under this section, at least to the extent that the benefit represents an increase in the value of shares held under option subsequent to the date of grant, should be taxable as a capital gain.
That point is made on page 21 of the submission by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I continue:
In the alternative, it is recommended that consideration be given to allowing a deduction for the employer equal to the amount of the benefit which is taxed to the employee.
That is a reasoned point and I suggest it should be given a reasoned answer in this chamber.
Those are the points that I wished to raise as we move in our consideration from section 4 to section 8. However, I come back to the point I began with concerning the mamma and papa small business operations of this country. I think there is an element of unfairness in the way this particular group would be treated under the legislation as it is at present. I know we do not intend to treat them unjustly and I hope we will be smart enough to see that this group suffers no injustice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, although the matters dealt with in these five sections, sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, are specific, which ought to make your task a little easier than it has been up to this point, nevertheless, since there are a great many of them you will not be surprised if in our remarks on them we seem to jump around. There are many different things we could talk about and still keep our remarks relevant to something that is found in these five sections. I propose at this time to raise just three things that are to be found in this group sections. One of them I welcome, another I want to ask a question about, and the third is a matter I think ought to be improved tremendously.
The proposal I welcome is found on pages 11 and 12. It is subsection 6 of proposed new section 6, which is now before us. I shall make my remarks about it brief because at some point my colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, will no doubt get into the debate and have something favourable to say about the battle that he has been waging for many years finally being won. The part I refer to on pages 11 and 12 makes it possible for workers who have to be away from home in logging camps, on constructions sites, and so on, to receive allowances for living away from home or allowances for travel and for those amounts not to be included as taxable income. This is a welcome change in the income tax law, and I am happy to say so. I will leave further expressions of appreciation to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. If there are short-

October 27, 1971
Income Tax Act
comings in this part, you can count on it that he will underline those as well.
The second item I wish to refer to is found on pages 18 and 19. I am looking at subsection 11(10) of section 8-that ought to confuse you, Mr. Chairman. It has to do with trade union dues being allowed as an income tax exemption. I confess that despite the reasonable amount of homework I have done on this bill, I have not checked to see whether the wording here is exactly the same as it was in the previous act. My concern-and at this point it is a question-is whether the wording that we now have will permit as a deduction for income tax purposes the full amount of dues that a trade union member has to pay to maintain his membership in a trade union. There is no difficulty in determining what a trade union is, because the act is clear. A trade union is one that meets the definition of section 3 of the Canada Labour Code or of any provincial statute providing for the investigation, conciliation or settlement of industrial disputes.
The issue that has arisen, however, since we first won this provision more than 20 years ago, I believe, is this: when union dues are allowed, in many cases it is not the full amount that members have to pay which is allowed but only that portion of dues which the government, by regulation, has decreed as being really necessary. To be specific, there are occasions when there are special assessments because of a strike or because of a building project. Things of this sort frequently are not allowed. As I read the tax bill before me, I do not see any reason why they should not be allowed.
What the law would allow is the annual dues to maintain membership. Well, if one is a member of a trade union and the trade union makes, in addition to its normal assessment, a special assessment, the member has to pay that special assessment just as he must pay the normal assessment in order to maintain his membership in that union. I know that almost every year at income tax time I hear from secretaries of local unions or from individual union members, and particularly from those who belong to unions for which the dues are rather substantial. They express this concern, that although they may have paid $100 of $150 during the year as trade union dues, only $40 or $50, or some such figure, is allowed. I just pulled those figures out of the hat.
I should like to know whether the plain, ordinary meaning that one gets from looking at this tax bill actually shows the way this part will operate. It is clear that the taxpayer gets a deduction for income tax purposes with respect to annual dues to maintain membership in a trade union as defined. I do not see any qualification which gives anybody the right to "chisel" on that clear statement. I hope at some point we can hear a definitive answer. I hope the answer will be satisfactory. If it is not, we shall see if we cannot bring forward an appropriate amendment. Mr. Chairman, that completes my remarks on two of the things about which I wanted to speak at this time.
The third matter I want to raise is found on page 15 in proposed new section 8(l)(a)(i). I am referring to the new provision that was first unveiled in the white paper, and it has been included here just about as it was unveiled. It has to do with a deduction to be allowed to taxpayers in respect of their expenses on the job up to either 3 per cent

of the taxpayer's aggregate income or $150, whichever is the lesser. If I may put that in other terms, Mr. Chairman, it means that one gets an exemption of up to 3 per cent except he cannot go higher than $150 in a year.
We feel quite disappointed at the restrictions that the government has imposed on this provision. Workers who have special expenses that are attached to the job in a great many cases have a total of expenses much higher than $150. We think that figure should be more in the order of $500. I have no objection to the higher figure having attached to it a requirement of some kind of receipts or vouchers such as is done with charitable donations. In that connection, maybe the solution is to do the same. I hope the parliamentary secretary's interest means that he is thinking about it seriously.
With medical expenses, a taxpayer has the option of claiming $100 without bothering to put in any receipts. It applies to charitable donations, except that the total for both is only $100. At any rate, the principle is clear. A taxpayer can put in receipts and claim a much larger amount. If he does not have receipts, he can claim $100. Possibly the workers could be told that if they do not have receipts, they will be allowed a $150 exemption, and if they have vouchers they can claim a higher exemption.
All that this amounts to, the way it now stands, is that a taxpayer with a taxable income of $5,000 a year or more, from any kind of employment, receives a flat additional exemption of $150. It is not a tax credit. If it were, I would be shouting hosannas at this point. But no, it is an additional exemption. For the low income person it means a small concession of 15, 17 or 20 per cent of that $150. To the wealthier person, the one in the higher bracket, it means a much larger amount because his marginal rate is much higher.
The parliamentary secretary knows I still regret that the government was not prepared to move from the tax exemption method to a tax credit method. I do not think the government needed to throw this in our faces by extending the exemption method in the way it has done. The government did not have this sytem before. There was no such thing as a consideration for the expenses of all workers. But this is not limited to industrial or office workers. Since there are no receipts or vouchers required, one does not have to be an industrial worker who has to buy certain kinds of clothing or tools.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The deputy minister gets it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The parliamentary secretary gets it too, does he not?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Not the parliamentary secretary, the deputy minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am being corrected. I am glad to accept the correction. Is there a prohibition against Members of Parliament getting this?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Perhaps I might explain, Mr. Chairman. Anyone who receives a tax free allowance of over $150 will not be eligible to claim this exemption. If, for example, a school trustee were paid a tax free expense allow-
October 27, 1971

ance of $100, he would only be able to claim an additional $50 against his regular employment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I freely admit I missed that, Mr. Chairman. I am very glad to hear it. It was a little bit raw as it stood in the white paper for this exemption to be added to the other in all cases.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The deputy minister gets it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As my parliamentary secretary to my right is reminding me, the deputy minister gets it. No one is saying no to that. In fact, the way the heads are nodding I assume it is true. At the marginal rates of some of these deputy ministers, that is pretty good. Really, it is a big joke. The government is making out that it is doing something for the workers of Canada. It is not doing anything. The government has just added a little bit more on top of an exemption level system that is already unfair and in the end it gives a special advantage to those at the top. One of the arguments the parliamentary secretary used in a retort to me-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The governor of the Bank of Canada gets it, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In this by-play over here I am being reminded that the governor of the Bank of Canada will also receive this exemption. He is an employee. In fact, he does fairly well.
I am not going to move any amendment at this stage. We have just started on this group of sections, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. They will probably be around for at least another day. I hope that another look will be taken at this provision. I suggest, again, the idea of requiring either receipts or vouchers so that it becomes genuine, provided the figure is a little higher. I suggest it should be $500 and the law should categorize the amounts so that the governor of the Bank of Canada, deputy ministers and some of these people will not get this additional exemption which means a great deal to them at their marginal rates.
I said I had just three things in this group of sections that I wanted to speak about at this point. Those are the three. I welcome the provision of an allowance for income tax purposes for workers who have to work at construction sites and logging camps away from their homes. I would like a precise answer about the extent to which trade union dues are deductible for income tax purposes. I hope the government will reconsider and put on a more rational basis this proposal for an extra exemption for workers' expenses.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, during the debate on sections 4 to 8 of Bill C-259, one section among others held my attention, namely section 8. Subsection (1) introduces a new element in the act.
Here is the subsection in question:
8. (1) In computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year from an office or employment, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or such
Income Tax Act
part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto:
(a) a single amount in respect of all offices and employments of
the taxpayer, equal to the lesser of $150 and 3 per cent of the
aggregate of
(i) his incomes for the year from all offices and employments (other than the office of a corporation director)-
A while ago, we saw how, to some extent, representatives of corporations could be exempted.
I go back to the quotation:
-before making any deduction under this section-
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to read the whole section, because it covers six pages, and that would be useless.
I shall then confine myself to subsection 8(i) which deals with a possible deduction for employment expenses and transportation costs between the employee's residence and working place.
This new provision of the Income Tax Act was granted following numerous requests from the public. But as in clause 109 that we have just discussed, I think the government was quite reluctant to grant Canadian workers this deduction.
I think that the department officials have set at 1,000 miles per year the maximum distance allowed for travelling between the individual's home and place of work. Thus the amount of $150 mentioned as the maximum deduction comes out to 15 cents a mile. So if I consider that some hon. members get a 16-cent-a-mile allowance for car expenses, I believe that 15 cents a mile is surely not excessive for workers.
That may seem fine at first blush, but far from it. Indeed it is not an amount of $150, but rather a deduction of $150 from his income. Now if a labourer is taxed at 11 or 14 per cent, it can easily be computed. The taxpayer will save $20 at the end of the year. Not more than that!
It is utterly ridiculous to see that the deduction granted to workers travelling to their place of employment is said to be something new, while in fact any professional, either a lawyer, a physician, an accountant or a travelling salesman, is entitled to deduct his travelling expenses in full.
Mr. Chairman, the same privilege should be granted to labourers, either lumbermen or others, who must travel long distances each year, to reach their place of employment.
Mr. Chairman, according to the provisions of subsection 8(1), we arrive at a distance of four miles a day. Anyone with some knowledge of the worker's movement toward their place of employment will admit that it is not four miles a day but rather 10, 16 and even in some cases 20 miles of travel a day.
Today a worker, may it be a lumberman, a construction worker, a miner, if he has no car, finds it difficult to hold a job. I believe that in some trades, like forestry or construction work for instance, the worker must own a car and travel rather long distances to get to his job.
In order to be logical and recognize such right to the worker a deduction must be granted, not a maximum one but a deduction of 15 cents a mile to any individual who can duly prove that to hold his job he had to travel between his home and his place of employment. A construction worker may sometimes have to travel five or ten

October 27, 1971
Income Tax Act
miles a day. At other times, if he has to go to another construction site, he may have to cover a distance of 20 to 25 miles a day to get there.
This reduces considerably his income. Therefore, he must be compensated for the distance he has to cover. If the Parliamentary Secretary listened to my remarks, he will understand, I think, the reason for my intervention and accept to move the required amendment. If not, I shall consider moving one myself.


Mr. McCutcheon:: Mr. Chairman, I am proud to make a few comments at this time following the remarks of my hon. friend from Halifax-East Hants who discussed the matter of mamma and papa businesses. He raised a very sensible question.
As I understand it, a deduction is to be allowed for child care expenses in cases where both parents are wage earners. In my humble opinion there is rank discrimination here because, as my hon. friend pointed out, a man and his wife running a corner grocery store would not benefit from this provision. I can think of dozens of other situations where the wife in a small hardware store, a small garage or a small dry-cleaning establishment works for her husband.
I hope the parliamentary secretary will clear this point up, but as I understand it the only way in which these people can benefit from the provisions of the bill we are considering would be if they were incorporated. I would point out to the parliamentary secretary that if they could well afford to incorporate, the wife would not need to be working in the business. I hope the parliamentary secretary will give consideration to this point.
It seems to me the direction this legislation is taking is that the department just does not like individuals. I do not think the minister and the parliamentary secretary should be led by the nose down the garden path by bureaucracy which does not like to deal with individuals because it believes some individuals will be hard to trace. This is the reason given for not making this provision applicable to the ordinary individual. This is deplorable; it is rank discrimination against certain individuals in Canada. After all, it is the small family store, hardware business and dry-cleaning establishment that is the backbone of this country and the operators of these businesses should receive some consideration in this regard.


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Chairman, as regards this clause, I quite agree that some improvements may be necessary. However, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to the abuses of some civil servants.
You will remember, for instance, that, according to the public accounts, the government had accepted a price of $12 for some CBC employees' meals. It was also reported that hotel rooms at $65 a day had been paid to CBC employees as well.
So, last spring the government was trying, through some local offices, to claim income tax amounts for certain revised years. A citizen of Portneuf received the following bill: 1968 revision-meal expenses, $750.
{Mr. Laprise.]
As it turned out, this man had been travelling between Portneuf and Montreal on 265 days in 1968. He had produced vouchers for the cost of his meals, namely $1.15 for breakfast, $1.65 for lunch and $1.75 for dinner. The total amount of meals he wanted to deduct from his income tax was $769. However, in November 1970, the Department of National Revenue, Taxation Division, sent him the following letter of warning:
Further to information obtained from your employer, we suggest that you revise your expenses as follows:
Year 1968	Previous figure $760
Revised figure $500
Finally, Mr. Chairman, our man had claimed about $2.90 per day which was reduced to $1.70. That was what the department's local offices were prepared to accept.
Several truck-drivers of the province took it up to their member of Parliament. Others even entrusted lawyers to represent them before the offices although they knew that they were right.
I would like the Parliamentary secretary to indicate on behalf of the minister what will be the standards for the years to come. In the case of a person who leaves home for more than ten hours a day, and who must go, for instance, to Quebec City or to Montreal, does the bill provide that the local offices will be informed about that change so that the cost of the meals of that person be deductible?
In fact, as recently as last week, two truckers had to go to the Quebec city office to make representations and there was almost a squabble. The minister of National Revenue had to intervene to settle the matter.
Without a letter from a minister or the services of a lawyer, there is nothing to prevent an ordinary civil servant from the income tax to harass truck drivers whose work is already very demanding. They form a social class which has up to now contributed largely to the development of the country and which has not always been well paid for its work. In Quebec, for example, there are two ways of looking at it: if you earn $7,000 you are able to eat better than your neighbour who earns $5,000 because the province accepts these deductions in percentage form.
What I would like to know today is what the truck drivers of the province of Quebec can expect in the future, particularly concerning the accusations made against them in the past, some of which are not settled yet. In fact, I think that these accusations are completely unfounded when I compare the old legislation with the bill under study.


Mr. Ritchie:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments on Sections 4 to 8. As far as employment is concerned, it seems to me there has been no recognition of losses that may occur. As the brief presented by the Canadian Bar Association points out, under section 5 (2) a person on salary or income computes his loss, if any, for the taxation year in which the loss occurs. In other words, there could be a penalty placed upon a person who might have little or no business or property income and who sustains a loss as a result, say, of having to pay moving expenses or something like that. There does not appear to be any provision for carrying forward a loss of that kind. I may be wrong, but that is my interpretation of this section. If
October 27, 1971

losses were allowed to be carried forward, the federal treasury would lose little or no revenue and I am sure this would prevent any inequities that might arise.
Further, under section 6(l)(a) an employer's contribution to a public health plan will be included in income. As I understand it, some inequities might arise here. In Quebec, for example, under provincial legislation the levy on the employer is regarded as an additional tax. Apparently this is not considered as conferring a so-called benefit to the employee. Under the Ontario or British Columbia schemes, at the present time the employee is considered to receive a taxable benefit. It seems to me that in each case it is a benefit to the employee and should be treated as such.
I should like to say something about the use of an employer's automobile. No matter whether an employee uses a vehicle for his personal use, he is considered to have acquired a value in the car by virtue of his use of it. As I understand it, under the present provision in the act an employee's income includes as a benefit the difference between the value he gets from the personal use of a car supplied by his employer and the amount he paid for its use. The determination of this value is often a matter of dispute. By introducing a stand-by charge the bill has fixed a minimum value to be placed on the personal use of such a car. The stand-by charge will be approximately 1 per cent per month of the cost of the car or, if it is a leased car, one-third the lease cost. This stand-by charge will be prorated on the basis of the number of days that the car was available to the employee.
The stand-by charge requirement means that employees having an employer's car available for personal use will have the minimum amount determined under the formula, minus any payment they make, included in income whether or not they use the car for personal reasons. The bill could result in a number of employees being assessed stand-by charges on the same car, because the car need not be available for the exclusive use of any one employee, although he could be charged for this.
There is one area which is of interest to me-I believe it is section 6 (1) (f)-where the employer makes a contribution to a salary continuation plan for an employee. This, I would presume, is the usual provision where the company, the taxpayer or employee pays into a fund which pays him in return a salary or income maintenance when he is unable to carry on his job. The way it is worded, it would appear to me that a portion of whatever benefits the employee had will be taxable. An amount is deducted from the amount the employer paid in a certain specified time previous to the employee receiving the benefit. This would seemingly create a situation in respect of an employee who has been temporarily disabled wherein he would do better than one who has been permanently disabled. This does not seem fair or reasonable.
This is probably a point which is not of great interest but I have a personal interest in it. Although I have no employer I, personally, have paid for salary continuation in the event of illness. As I understand this provision, it continues the present situation whereby a person who contributes to his own salary continuation plan in the event of illness is not entitled to have the premiums
Income Tax Act
deducted from his income tax. These are the few remarks I should like to say on this section, Mr. Chairman.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Chairman I wish to raise two points at this stage of the committee's consideration. The first point may have been raised but I am not clear on it and wish the matter to be clarified. The parliamentary secretary and the minister will be aware that representations, by people who are handicapped, have been made from time to time for a special allowance or a special provision in order to enable them to cover the cost of transportation to and from work. I am sure the parliamentary secretary will appreciate that many of these people are capable of carrying on useful work but have the very obvious problem of getting to and from their work and must incur special expenses in retaining employment.
I am not sure whether this situation is covered in any way under the provisions or whether the idea of the government is that it is to be covered by the $650 special allowance to be provided for blind and disabled people as set out at page 285 of the bill. However, I should appreciate a comment from the parliamentary secretary as to whether any special provision has been made for these people, because I am sure he will agree that handicapped and disabled people face an unusual problem in carrying out employment for which they qualify.
Second, I should like to underline the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, concerning deductions for employee expenses or worker expenses as set out in section 8 (1) (a), page 15, where provision is made for an employment expense deduction of the lesser of $150 and 3 per cent. It seems to me this is another example of the type of tokenism I see in this bill- a small gesture that is made to the people of this country to get them to think something is being done for them while many other loopholes are left in our tax law.
Many other concessions are made which are of far greater benefit than this token measure. Within the scope of section 8 (1), if we look at all the various categories of deductions which are allowed to various categories of people we find discrimination. First of all, with regard to employees there is a very definite limit placed on the expenses allowed. Then if we turn over the page we find that if there are any expenses with regard to the collection of salaries or wages, whatever the circumstances may be, the legal expenses are deductible. I have no argument with this provision, but there is no limit placed on the legal expenses involved. In fact, some people may even suggest that there is advantage in the fact that there is no ceiling on such expenses. I do not wish to make any charges in this regard because obviously I am not in a position to substantiate them, but certainly this is an open-ended provision. There is no limit in respect of legal expenses which may be claimed as a deduction.
There is also special provision in respect of a clergyman's residence as provided by paragraph (c) on page 16. I have no argument with these provisions but, again, we find no limit imposed. I acknowledge that in respect of teachers' expenses related to their contribution there is a limit. However, if we turn over the page to paragraph (e) on page 17, in respect of expenses of telegraphers or station agents and the amounts they have to spend for meals and lodging while employed by a railway company

October 27, 1971
Income Tax Act
away from their residence we find they are entitled to reimbursement and to deduction of these amounts. Again, I have no quarrel with this provision but there is no limit imposed.
Then we have paragraph (f) in respect of a salesman's expenses. There is no limit placed on the expenses allowed to a salesman in carrying on his occupation. Of course, there are certain obvious problems and difficulties with regard to salesmen and I think some allowances have to be made for their situation. There is limitation, I suppose, in the act; no doubt the department clamps down on some situations. I have heard of various cases where they clamp down on unreasonable claims and I cannot quarrel with it. But there are no limitations written into the legislation.
With regard to transport employees' expenses, there is no limitation written into the act under paragraph (h) on page 18. So here we find a wide range of expenses allowed to various categories of people in carrying on their work. In many cases this is justified and a rational case can be made for this type of deduction. When we come to employees and the expenses which they have to incur in carrying on their work, such as the buying of tools and clothing, and so on-expenses which they have to incur themselves-there is a $150 limit imposed. Thus, it seems that we have here a clear case of discrimination with regard to employees who have to work for a wage and who often have to incur special expenses in order to gain a livelihood.
I sincerely hope, as has been stated by other members, that the government will reconsider this section. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made a perfectly reasonable suggestion providing for a higher amount provided receipts are supplied. I would have no quarrel with such a suggestion. There are various formulas that might be arrived at which would provide a reasonable basis for allowing a deduction for employees expenses.
I recognize that there are, of course, administrative and practical problems involved in carrying out any provision such as this. There will be people who will try to stretch the claims they make and who will find various ways of putting in unreasonable claims. These will have to be dealt with as they occur and legislation must be framed in such a way as to allow the Department of National Revenue to administer the law in a reasonable and effective way. I have no quarrel with such an approach, but it seems to me that after making allowance for the practical considerations involved in dealing with a problem such as this there is no rational basis for deciding on the ceiling proposed with regard to employees' expenses.
I hope that the minister and his parliamentary secretary-I see the parliamentary secretary in the front row and the minister in the second row, and I am not sure whether the pecking order has been reversed-will take this matter under advisement and will give serious consideration to the many reasonable requests that have been made for an adjustment in this provision. I suggest to the government that it would be to their credit to make reasonable adjustments in this regard.
In some ways, I suppose, I should not be asking the government to make such changes because if I wanted to
{Mr. Burton.]
deal with this matter in a partisan way I could say a word or two on it and then allow the matter to slip by, following which I could point this out to the people I might be visiting. I am attempting to be responsible and to bring about reasonable changes in this legislation because the minister and the parliamentary secretary seem to be in a benevolent mood today. I am not sure that this applies every day, but we are not far from Christmas and they might find it in their hearts to make a few reasonable, small changes in this bill which would mean something to a great many Canadians. These changes might make the legislation more meaningful to many people because, as I suggested during the consideration of a previous section of the bill, I am afraid there will be a great deal of disillusionment across Canada when the legislation goes into effect.
People will find that some of the benefits claimed for this bill by the government and its supporters are only an illusion and there will be a great deal of disillusionment as people see the many special concessions and benefits in the legislation for some of the privileged interests in this country. So when a reasonable suggestion is made for a change in the bill such as has been made with regard to this provision, I hope the government will take it under consideration and accept it in order that there can be a greater measure of justice for the working people of this country.
I hope that my representations have reached the minister and his parliamentary secretary and that we will hear some favourable words from them.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I have a point to raise. It is essentially on section 8, the matter of deductions; it also refers to section 6. In my riding there are a number of railway and transportation employees who have constant trouble with the income tax department concerning travelling expenses and away-from-home allowances. The trouble is compounded by the fact that there seems to be an uneven hand involved in making these allowances. I think it is more a case of neglect, or of not looking into it one year and making a detailed examination in the next year.
The railway employee has to make a certain number of trips away from home. Many of these people over the past years have kept track of the number of trips they make, the days they are away and the mileage that they travel. In the past many have been able to take a flat figure based either on mileage or trips; this figure goes through year after year and they are allowed their deductions for these away-from-home expenses. Then suddenly after four or five years they are refused the allowance on the old basis. They are asked for receipts for their hotel bills, restaurant accounts, and so forth, and of course they cannot produce them. There is a great problem there and a good deal of confusion among these employees as to exactly what criteria the department is using to establish away-from-home travelling allowances.
It is a fact that in some cases railway workers may sleep in the caboose and eat their meals from a lunch-box in order to save the few dollars they might otherwise spend. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't; but I think it
October 27, 1971

has been fairly general that they receive their allowances on a mileage or trip basis. However, this has never been established and it is a constant problem for me and other members who have railway and transport workers in our constituencies.
I ask whether section 8(g) indicates any more reasonable or definite basis for an even ruling on this type of claim. I think it is largely an administrative matter, but in various explanations that I have been given the act has been quoted and for one reason or another people have been turned down after, as I say, several years of acceptance. That is the first point, whether this legislation will help in this situation.
The second point concerns people who work away from home all week, who are not transportation workers and do not come under paragraph (g) but probably come under paragraph (h) with respect to a normal taxpayer. These people have not previously been covered for working away from home and returning at weekends. I think it is a very unfair situation. For example, people who are in logging, lumbering or construction may be required by their employers to work at a fairly distant place. They do not come home during the week but they come home on the weekend to spend some time with their families. Of course, they do not spend money on room and food while they are at home. They return home rather than pay expenses while away. This, again, is a situation that has arisen several times: people in this type of activity are refused a travelling allowance to return home at the weekend on the basis that they could very well stay away and eat elsewhere.
I would like to know whether section 8(h) will permit a broader interpretation of the law for this type of person, specifically the one who is forced by his employment to live away from home during the week, who returns home at the weekend and goes back to work on the Sunday night or Monday morning. It seems to me that under those conditions it is reasonable that he should be allowed travelling expenses.
I do not think any government should be heartless enough to say that a man can stay away from home if he wants to get his travelling expenses. That is an unreasonable attitude. A person who is working a reasonable distance from his home should be allowed to come home on the weekend and have his expenses deducted, because he is working under conditions that are not normal. Perhaps
Income Tax Act
my question can be answered when the minister or the parliamentary secretary reply. I want to know if the new section will broaden the interpretation for these people and allow a little better exemption for those who have to work and live away from home.


Mr. Howe:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my voice to that of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent and of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants in making a plea for the small businessman or small farmer whose wife becomes an integral part of his business. She works just as hard as he does in promoting the welfare of the business. She is often there early in the morning and looks after the store while he is at lunch. These small operations are such that a wife can help make a tremendous success of them.
My riding comprises a great many small urban centres. I can think of 20 of more stores where the wife has contributed a tremendous amount to the success of the business. If she had not pitched in and helped, the business would not be such a success and would not contribute so much to the welfare of the community. It has always been a sore point with many small businessmen that they could not have their wife's salary deducted as an expense, whereas they can hire other people and take their salary off their income tax as a deductible expense.
The other point I would like to make concerns paragraph (viii) on page 7 where the allowance for voluntary firemen is listed as $300. This is a figure which was established around 1958. I well remember when the Hon. Donald Fleming was Minister of Finance that he raised the amount from $150 to $300. I point out that there has been a great increase in the cost of living and in other expenses since that time.
I ask the Minister of Finance to take another look at this $300 allowance and see if he cannot raise it to $500. Volunteer firemen do a tremendous job of protecting homes and business places in their communities. They are on call at all times. They may have to leave their own place of business to fight a fire, to protect a neighbour's house, barn or store. They must go out in the clothing they are wearing when the fire siren sounds. The result is that they have expenses which we do not realize. I think this allowance should be increased to at least $500.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday. October 28, 1971