1971-12-23

PRIVILEGE


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I might say at the outset that it concerns the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Yesterday, during the question period, I directed a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion concerning his administration of the Regional Development Incentives Act, a duty entrusted to the minister by Parliament. This duty entails the spending of public funds which were voted by this House; and, for disbursing these public funds the minister receives a salary, also voted by this House and paid out of public funds.
My question was put because of allegations made by a Quebec labour organization and the minister's response through a newspaper. Your Honour ruled the question was such that the minister should indicate whether he would make a statement on motions. The minister neither answered my question nor complied with your ruling. Instead, in my opinion, he twice abused the Standing Order on Privilege before Your Honour could intervene to get the floor in order to make what I consider to be abusive and evasive comments.
On a supplementary, the member for Crowfoot asked the minister to assure the House that, in administering these public funds, he was not subject to conflict of interest. The minister at that time refused to seek the floor to give that assurance. Following these proceedings in the House the minister, outside the House, yesterday made a statement to the public media on these proceedings in the House. I do not comment on these vicious allegations, Mr. Speaker, for you have ruled that political argument made outside the House cannot be raised as a question of privilege in the House.
However, there is one allegation that does not fall into this category. It is a statement that, with respect to proceedings in this House, can only be made in this House. The minister demanded that allegations of patronage against him be substantiated or withdrawn. That statement is a commentary on yesterday's proceedings and a demand that the allegations of patronage against him be substantiated or withdrawn. The substantiation or withdrawal of statements made in the House is something that can only be done in the House and, in this case, on the initiative of the minister himself. Under our Standing Order 17(1), the minister should have made that demand yesterday. He did not. He sat mute in his seat. The minister, therefore, in his statement outside the House, reflected on the action of members in this House, for which he
had a remedy-if he had a grievance-when he said that the comments or questions by members were a "bunch of lies".
If Your Honour confirms this breach of privilege, I will move, seconded by the member for Peace River:
That the matter of this question of privilege be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Hopefully, the minister will make a statement to clear up this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East has given the notice required under the terms of Standing Order 17. Since receiving this notice the Chair has given serious consideration to several aspects of the matter raised by the hon. member. As the House knows, the duty of the Chair is limited to determining the procedural question whether or not a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been raised. In reaching such a decision the Chair must take into account not only the Standing Order but also long established practice in relation to parliamentary privilege.
An analysis of the hon. member's statement indicates there are two aspects which he wishes the Chair to consider. The first relates to proceedings which took place during the question period yesterday. I have looked at this very closely and I have been unable to determine that there has been a breach of parliamentary privilege on the part of the minister. On this point, I will only comment that according to the long established practice of the House an incomplete or unsatisfactory answer to a question or, indeed, the refusal of a minister to reply to a question cannot be regarded as a breach of parliamentary privilege.
The second aspect of the hon. member's presentation has reference to statements made outside the House by the hon. Minister of Regional Expansion. As the hon. member for St. John's East has pointed out, there are precedents to the effect that such statements cannot found a question of privilege. May I suggest that the Speaker cannot be expected to monitor, or audit, or question or, indeed, to censor the many statements made by hon. members outside the House relating to the conduct of our proceedings. Were it otherwise, the Speaker would be a busy man indeed.
I should also add that in my view the motion proposed by the hon. member is not procedurally acceptable since it merely proposes the reference to a committee of-and I quote his own words-"the matter of this question of privilege". This could hardly be an acceptable motion for debate by the House at this time or by the committee in due course. In the light of these considerations, and taking into account the precedents and practice to which I have referred, I do not think the Chair can rule there is a prima

December 23, 1971
Business of the House
facie case of privilege on which we might spend the rest of the day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table under Standing Order 41(2), the Job Vacancy Survey Report, in both official languages.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am really rising on a point of order to indicate to the House that, instead of dealing with either of the motions which have been put on the order paper in my name, I should like to seek consent to make another and a simpler motion. I will read the motion and then I would explain the purpose of it and ask for consent to move it. If consent were given, we could then deal with it. It reads:
That following Royal Assent this day the House shall stand adjourned until Tuesday, December 28, 1971 at two o'clock.
At the moment we are somewhat uncertain as to when it will be possible to complete the remaining item or items of business before the House, so it would be inappropriate for the House at this time to decide the questions contained in the major adjournment motion which is on the order paper. So to avoid premature discussion on that point I will put this simpler motion which would have the effect of adjourning the House today following Royal Assent and bringing us back on Tuesday next.
I have felt a certain amount of anguish in deciding whether to ask the House to come back on Monday or on Tuesday. In view of the transportation difficulties which members from distant points would encounter in returning to the House by two o'clock on Monday, I decided we would probably all be better off if we came back here on Tuesday at two o'clock, and for this reason I make that change. So, if I am given consent, I would move that following Royal Assent this day the House should stand adjourned until two o'clock on Tuesday, December 28,
1971.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave of the House to present this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There is unanimous consent. I will put the motion which is as follows: The President of the Privy

Council (Mr. MacEachen), seconded by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang), moves:
That, following the Royal Assent this day, the House shall adjourn and stand adjourned until Tuesday, December 28, 1971, at two o'clock in the afternoon.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I will not have much to say. I start off by pointing out to the minister that the anguish to which he was exposed is nothing like the anguish of the Members of Parliament who have to go long distances home to celebrate Christmas with their families and constituents and then come back here on Monday. His anguish is not now quite as sharp, but it is still very poignant.
With respect to the minister's motion we have, of course, given our consent, but I think it should be made plain that there is an understanding among all parties that when we have completed the study of Bill C-275, which will mean the completion of all the business which the government House Leader indicated the government expected to be completed-with the exception of Bill C-176 which we will discuss later, today-we will then recess until Tuesday. There will be no further discussion in this House today on Bill C-176.1 think that is the understanding, and I put it on the record.
Our position on that has been made quite plain in this House and outside this House. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) said quite plainly that the arrangements we have reached, or thought we had reached, which would involve acceptance of an amendment which the government has indicated to us it would like to put forward, plus a further amendment which, in our view, is one which carries forward the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) a year last summer, excluding cattle and cattle products, would put Bill C-176 in a form in which we could accept it.
From our point of view, with that being done, Mr. Speaker, it is our belief that the passage of Bill C-176 would not be overly delayed. There would be some debate, I assume, but not a very lengthy debate. I say this because it may give hon. members some indication of what our position is in the event that we come back next week and have to debate this measure. Our position is clear. We maintain it. We hope the other protagonists in this issue will see the light of reason as we have seen it.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: As must be obvious, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions within the last couple of hours which have resulted in the request of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) for permission to offer the motion now before the House instead of either of those on the order paper. May I say that we are glad that the debate does not have to take place today on the motion for a recess of seven or eight weeks. We have views about that, in light of the number of times we are told that there is not time in the parliamentary schedule for things that ought to be done, but we can express those views if and when that motion is called next week.
In other words, what we have before us now is simply a motion that would provide that when today's work is done we stand adjourned until two o'clock on Tuesday. I should like to confirm the understanding already indicated by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), namely,
December 23, 1971

that the only government business to be dealt with today is to be Bill C-275. I am in a position to say that, although we have some amendments that we wish to offer, and although there may be some votes, we are prepared to give such consent as may be necessary to enable the House to complete its deliberations on Bill C-275 today. That might be late. If it is achieved early, at least it is clear we will not revert to Bill C-176 today.
We also welcome the Christmas spirit that prompted the President of the Privy Council to suggest we come back on Tuesday rather than on Monday. As he knows, because this was involved in the discussions, we would have preferred this resumption to take place the following week, the first week in January, so that we could give adequate consideration to Bill C-176. We would even be prepared to consider some House order regarding time, provided there was agreement among the parties as to certain amendments that might be accepted.
Although I am suggesting an alternative date for coming back, namely the first Monday or Tuesday in January, I am not suggesting that this motion be delayed. If as a result of the discussion later this afternoon there could be agreement on how we handle Bill C-176, that of course could be dealt with later this afternoon.
Perhaps one can say, although we seemed to have a rather serious impasse, discussions have produced a resolution at least insofar as the Christmas weekend is concerned. We hope the government that has listened to reason regarding this weekend will also listen to reason when we come to the question of the length of the recess at this time of year, and also when we come to the question of what should be done to make Bill C-176 a decent and proper piece of legislation.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, discussions were indeed held among House leaders in order to find a solution concerning the debate on Bill C-176.
The proposal made by the President of the Privy Council a few moments ago would enable members to enjoy a few days' rest next weekend and to consider seriously the debate on Bill C-176 which will be carried on next week in order to find a solution in the interest of Canadian farmers and consumers once the legislation is passed.


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


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you could ascertain from the government side now what would happen in case we did not finish Bill C-176 between Christmas and New Years. In all fairness to members, because their Christmas plans have been disrupted, I think there should be some indication from the government concerning what will happen. I am not speaking particularly for the hon. member for Crowfoot, because we are all of the same opinion on this side. If there is any specific purpose to further debate on Bill C-176 at this time of the year, the government should indicate to members what will happen over the New Year's weekend so that we can make plans accordingly.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will appreciate that it is not within the functions of the Chair to make those inquiries. Perhaps this should be done in the course of the conversations which I gather are to take place during the day.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask leave of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43. I do so because I feel it is an urgent matter dealing with suspicions, doubts and public understandings created by articles in the public media concerning bankruptcies and lay-offs at DREE sponsored firms. In this regard, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion which I think will clear up the matter once and for all. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, for the sake of public understanding and in support of his department's programs, lay on the table of the House information outlining the number of commercial operations financed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion that have either gone into bankruptcy or laid off personnel, and to clearly establish DREE procedures in this area.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion moved by the hon. member for St. John's East. The Chair must invite hon. members to show whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent and therefore the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether the government did in fact appoint an interdepartmental committee some five months before the October crisis of 1970 to consider the steps to be taken in the event that the War Measures Act was put into force by reason of insurrection.

December 23^ 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I do not think it is reasonable for the Leader of the Opposition to expect an answer to this kind of question. The way in which the government conducts its decision making and policies is certainly something which is private to the government. I do not mind saying that it is true that, as a result of the very disturbed social conditions in the world in 1968 and 1969, after the unrest on campuses across Europe and America as well as Canada, major strife and riots that we had seen in North American and European cities, the government was planning ahead to find ways in which it might meet any such contingencies.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether there were any particular developments in Canada in 1970 which prompted this consideration by the government.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that that question is in order, but the Prime Minister may be allowed to reply. The Leader of the Opposition is asking whether some time ago there were circumstances in the country which might have justified the government taking certain action. I wonder whether this is the kind of question which is in order, but in the Christmas spirit I will not object to the Prime Minister answering the question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I suggest with all respect that the question is very much in order in view of the public importance of the whole matter at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, that decision must be made by the Chair, and that is my suggestion.


An hon. Member:: Where is the Christmas spirit?



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In the light of the apparent leakage to the press of highly sensitive cabinet documents, what action is the government taking to tighten its regulations or otherwise prevent the repetition of such leaks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I missed the last part of the question when the member said "by way of doing" something in particular.


Francis Andrew Brewin: By way of tightening its regulations or otherwise to prevent the repetition of such leaks.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is a very interesting suggestion that we tighten our regulations. The member knows that ministers take an oath of office and officials take an oath of secrecy. In the whole system of administration there are tons of documents circulating all year round, it is really a matter of knowing if somebody is going to break his oath and decide to take decisions upon his own head which can best be arrived at in a democratic
way by the government responsible to the people. I cannot see how the member wants us to tighten the regulations if people are going to break the rules.



POSSIBLE COMMITTEE STUDY OF METHODS TO PRESERVE SECRECY OF DOCUMENTS

Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question. Would the government consider referring to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of this House or some other committee of this House the whole question of the secrecy of cabinet papers and the extent to which it is necessary to change methods to prevent documents that should be kept secret from being exposed to the public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. Anyone who knows anything about government realizes that when we want to get free discussion between officials and ministers they should be able to speak their minds with the utmost frankness. There has to be some part of government operations which is conducted in secret. There is no way in which any government will get around that.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question Mr. Speaker. In light of the Prime Minister's answer and in light of information contained in the leaked document, would the Prime Minister discuss with the government House leader the possibility of restoring item No. 78 on the order paper at the next session in its existing form so that the government and the country may have the benefit of discussions and inquiry by a committee of this House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will read item No. 78 and perhaps give an answer tomorrow.


An hon. Member:: Tomorrow?


Gerald William Baldwin: I will phone you at nine o'clock tomorrow morning.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the large sums of money being spent by the minister's department on projects in Quebec City where the minister's constituency is located, can he indicate if similar programs are being planned for other major centres in Canada such as Montreal, Regina and similar centres.


James Aloysius McGrath: Don't forget Halifax!


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, no more money is expended in Quebec than anywhere else. I think that we have spent some in Regina, through grants; we spent some in Sept-Iles, in Newfoundland, in New Brunswick-for the construction of a complex-in short we spend money everywhere. I do not think that more money is spent in Quebec than elsewhere.



POLICY RESPECTING GRANTS-DISCUSSION WITH PROVINCES

John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question. In view of some quarrel with the minister's statement, and in view of the widespread dissatisfaction with the department's programs as well as the fact the department is now reviewing designated regions and special areas, is the minister considering holding a conference with representatives of all the provinces in order to develop a more acceptable approach to the national problem of eliminating regional disparities.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are in constant contact with the provinces and, as far as I know, no particular province has complained about our regional economic expansion programs. A few hon. members have complained but, apart from that, nobody has ever complained about the way in which we are proceeding.


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question. Will the minister consider making a statement on motions to explain why his department has made no progress in its job of eliminating regional disparities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that this question is in the form of a statement or allegation and in those terms it is not acceptable.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I admit that there is much worry about the subsidies received by Quebec, but I deplore the fact that some hon. members are not happy to see that Quebec is getting some subsidies even when this is justified, and I would like to congratulate the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that there is no question of privilege there, but rather a question that could be debated.



RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECISIONS ON GRANTS-ROLE OF MINISTER

James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question. The hon. member has twisted the questions of members in the same way the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion does, and he knows there is not an element of truth in his allegation. I should like to ask the
Inquiries of the Ministry
minister, since he made a statement outside the House yesterday to the effect that he has no role in the decisionmaking process regarding grants made under RDIA, who makes these decisions and who has the ultimate responsibility for them?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as usual the premises are false. Yesterday, on television, I did not say that I had no part to play, but that I seldom intervened. This is something entirely different.



RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECISIONS-REQUEST FOR NAMES OF MEMBERS OF OUTSIDE COMMITTEE

James Aloysius McGrath: A further supplementary. During that television interview the minister just referred to, he mentioned-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask the question?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, it was the minister who referred to the television interview, and I can ask a supplementary question in the same vein. I should like to ask the minister if he could tell us who comprises the "outside committee", I think was the term he used, that he mentioned in the television interview yesterday? Who makes decisions under DREE? Could the minister name the members of that outside committee and could he tell us who has responsibility for the final decision?


Mr. Horner:: And what role they play in the Liberal organization?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, no committee outside the department makes any decisions on subsidies. I simply stated that a committee made up of persons chosen outside the government supervised the application of the program and the allocation of subsidies. That is entirely different.


James Aloysius McGrath: A further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope we do not spend the whole question period on this very important matter. I appreciate that it is important, but we have been spending a bit of time on it and it has perhaps developed into debate. However, if hon. members feel that we should pursue the matter, I will recognize a few supplementaries.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a supplementary question, I think the minister has an obligation to name the members of this committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this is debate. As I mentioned a moment ago when the matter was raised by way of a question of privilege, the hon. member may be dissatisfied or unhappy but he cannot insist on an answer from the minister.

Deeember 23, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



ALLEGED MIS-SPENDING OF FUNDS-GOVERNMENT POLICY ON ELECTION EXPENSES

John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of what has been revealed, I wonder if he is now prepared to comment and declare policy with regard to the Barbeau commission recommendations on election expenses which might clear up all this misunderstanding?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making an allegation at this time and the question cannot be accepted by the Chair. The Chair is prepared to recognize all supplementaries.



ALLEGED STATEMENT BY MINISTER REGARDING ROLE OF OTHER MINISTERS IN PARTY ORGANIZATION

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: My supplementary is also for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and is in regard to a possible conflict of interest. The minister stated that the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce are in the same position as he with regard to their party organizations, as party organizers. Is the minister going to explain what these-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether we should pursue this line of questioning. I would think a majority of hon. members might feel this type of question is not in order.


Paul Yewchuk: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was a little mixed up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: I simply wanted to ask the minister to clarify the position that these various ministers hold in the party in the interests of the public.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate, as I was suggesting a moment ago, that this is hardly the kind of question which can be answered during the question period-perhaps by way of a statement on motions but hardly by way of an answer during the question period.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, I think I have a question of privilege. I can state it briefly and you can determine whether or not I have. My understanding is that the minister was asked twice in clear language to name the people who are advising, at least, his department on the grants made under the DREE program. We do not have the names and Your Honour has suggested that to pursue this matter would be debate. May I respectfully suggest to Your Honour that one of the purposes of our being here as an opposition is to check administration policies. Another purpose is the examination of administrative follies.


Mr. Gibson:: Who will check the opposition?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I must defer to my hon. friend from Hamilton-Wentworth, and say again that I love him. The

other day, however, his own House leader did not care a hoot for him.
One of our purposes in being here, surely, is to check into administrative spending and place policies under some kind of examination. I think by his refusal to answer the question the minister has established that we, prima facie, have a legitimate question of privilege to raise against the minister, and I so raise it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is a very distinguished member of the bar and a very distinguished member of this House, yet I would hesitate to agree with him. There are many precedents to indicate that hon. members cannot raise by way of question of privilege a minister's failure to reply to a question, a minister's refusal to reply to a question, or the reply of a minister which is not entirely to the satisfaction or not at all to the satisfaction of the hon. member who asked the question. I suggest with great respect to the hon. member and to the House that this is not a matter that can be raised by way of question of privilege.



AMOUNT LOST BY BANKRUPTCIES OF FIRMS IN QUEBEC

Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion could inform us whether the $500,000, which he referred to as having been lost through bankruptcies and which he said was not a bad track record, was the total amount lost through bankruptcies, or are other moneys involved?


Jean Marchand: I could check this, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister was pretty sure about that on television yesterday. He is not half so smart in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


James Aloysius McGrath: Why does the minister not say inside the House what he said outside the House?


Jean Marchand: I referred to about $500,000.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister suggested that there were other bankruptcies. Why does he not make a statement in the House and be the sort of minister that he is supposed to be?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is about to recognize the hon. member for Huron. I think, after that, hon. members will see that everyone has had the opportunity to ask a supplementary, and that we should go to the next subject.



DESIGNATED AREAS-REASON FOR DESIGNATION OF MONTREAL BUT NOT AREAS IN WESTERN ONTARIO

Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister why it is that the city of Montreal is a designated area and slow growth areas in western Ontario are not?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think it is time we moved to another area.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I sent him notice of it. Can he say whether newspaper advertising regarding the sale of revolvers and other firearms by mail order is in conformity with the law and/or public safety?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it is a little difficult for me to give a legal opinion on orders of the day. I have referred the hon. gentleman's question to the appropriate provincial attorney general whose duty it is to enforce the law.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Secretary of State.
Since there has unmistakably been renewed violence by young people these last few years, especially in Quebec, and since this phenomenon also coincides with a great slackening of censure of films and plays featuring violence on the CBC network, can the minister tell the House if he intends to take steps in that connection so as to improve the quality of the plays and films shown on television by the CBC.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister may reply briefly to that question and it is with such qualification that I recognize him.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, surveillance of films shown in theaters comes under exclusive provincial jurisdiction as the hon. member might know. The control over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation programming is the sole responsibility of the CBC. The hon. member might discuss the matter with the directors when they appear before the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.



RAPESEED-POSSIBILITY OF TARIFF REDUCTIONS BY UNITED STATES AND JAPAN-AMOUNT IN STORAGE

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, in his capacity as reporting for the Wheat Board. It has to do with the rapeseed situation. Since he comes from a constituency which, since the
Inquiries of the Ministry
destruction of the Bertha army worm, is known as the land of rape and Bertha control, I want to ask the minister, what are the prospects of securing reductions in the tariffs on rapeseed into the United States and into Japan?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question of the tariff on rapeseed entering a variety of countries is a matter of constant examination. In the case of Japan, this was the foremost subject in my conversations with the officials and ministers in Japan. When there is good news to be announced, I will let the House know.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the tariff in Japan is 27 cents per bushel. What is the probability of this amount being revised as a result of the negotiations the minister conducted? I ask this in view of the tremendous pile-up of rapeseed in storage in our country today.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, speaking of the pile-up, I can say that deliveries have been coming in from farmers at a slower rate than last year. On the question of the tariff, our objective would be to have that tariff reduced to as low a level as possible. I have in mind a zero figure.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that type of generalization will not help the western rapeseed producer. I ask, what are the possibilities of the reduction taking place, and what negotiations are taking place with the United States? Unless these tariffs are reduced the pile-ups will continue and the western farmer will suffer.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reassure the right hon. gentleman that I am doing everything I can to help the western farmer.


Gerald William Baldwin: That's what is worrying us.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister is helping them leave the farm.



ALLEGED BARRING OF CANADIAN HOCKEY TEAMS FROM PLAYING IN EUROPE

Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising out of the report that two hockey teams from Canada have been barred by "Bunny" Ahearne from playing with certain European teams. The teams in question are the Glenden College Gophers from Toronto and a bantam hockey team from Kamloops.


An hon. Member:: Hurrah!


Len Marchand: This is a serious question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister advise the House of the circumstances surrounding this report and, also, if the teams are being barred from playing with all the European teams which have extended them an invitation.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to look into the circumstances surrounding this particular occurrence,

December 23, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
although I question whether it would be very helpful for the boys on the teams concerned if the government were to make representation to Mr. Ahearne,


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While the minister is checking into that matter, could he also check into the situation of the Ottawa Peewee Hockey Team which is being prevented from playing in Finland over the Christmas season for the same reason?


An hon. Member:: You are offside, Bob.


John Carr Munro: Yes, I will.



CONFIRMATION OF ARRANGEMENTS FOR KAMLOOPS BANTAMS TO PLAY AT LAHR AND BADEN

Len Marchand: Really, you know, the importance of this is that these teams have gone over to these European countries at tremendous expense as ambassadors for Canada. My supplementary to the Minister of National Defence is this: can he advise the House whether contingent arrangements to play Canadian teams at Lahr and Baden have been confirmed for the Kamloops Bantam Hockey Team?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: My understanding is that they have been and that the teams will be most welcome at these two Canadian locations.



POSSIBLE LOSS DUE TO CROP UNDER SNOW-PROCEDURE FOR REINSTATEMENT OF QUOTA

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, which is similar to the question asked by the hon. member for Marquette about a month ago. He asked the minister to check into the amount of grain that is lying under snow and whether any government policies will apply to the people whose grain is under snow. May I also ask at the same time whether people whose crops are under snow will lose their quotas as a result of the A and B quotas being cancelled?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the Canadian Wheat Board about the latter subject which the other hon. member previously asked about, and they have indicated that it will be their policy to examine especially those cases in which, because of factors beyond the farmer's control, he could not deliver his quota of grain. They will extend the quota in such cases. This will apply specifically to barley under snow with respect to which the quota was terminated on December 10.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask whether these people will have to make specific applications or whether the procedure will be automatic?


Otto Emil Lang: Of course they will have to make specific applications. The Wheat Board does not know who they are until they apply.



TRANSPORT


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It was prepared for the Minister of Transport who was sent a telegram today protesting unprecedented increases in freight charges related to the importation of feed. Since it seems likely we shall adjourn, and the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture is to meet next week, would the Minister of Agriculture confer with the Minister of Transport with a view to making a statement when we come back on Tuesday?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will take the question as notice.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister clarify the statement he made yesterday to the effect that United States complaints with respect to the auto pact safeguards might be justified, by informing the House which of the two safeguards he had in mind?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps I can send the hon. member a transcript of the whole press conference. If he wants to read it and then ask a question, I will answer his question gladly.


John Edward Broadbent: Since I assume the Prime Minister does not intend to answer, I will ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether the government has yet reached a decision on abandoning either or both of the safeguards in the auto agreement.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not yet reached a decision. But I assumed, when I read the report of the press conference, that the Prime Minister was referring to the two safeguards, the ratio, and the Canadian value added provision. Everybody knows that these have been so outshot by the success of the agreement in Canada that they have no more practical value. The hon. member knows that. Everybody does.
AUTOMOBILES-POSSIBLE TRANSFER OF PRODUCTION OF PONTIACS FROM STE. TH^RflSE TO UNITED STATES


John Edward Broadbent: Can the minister tell the House whether he has received notification from General Motors Corporation of Canada concerning

December 23L 1971

a transfer of production of Pontiacs from Ste. Therese to the United States?


Jean-Luc Pepin: (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce): No, Mr. Speaker. My information is that General Motors will be making an announcement sometime in January to that effect. It would, of course, be made known to the public at that time.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Since a meeting had been scheduled between the Quebec Civil Service Minister and federal officials, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he received an answer from the Quebec Civil Service Minister; if not, does he intend to meet the Quebec minister to reach an agreement on the new Unemployment Insurance Act?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: There has been almost continuous discussion going on at the official level between the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the governments of many of the provinces, and I have nothing to add at this moment.



MANPOWER


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that his staff in charge of processing applications in connection with the local initiatives program is working night and day but is still behind in getting some of these projects approved and under way, may I ask whether the hon. gentleman would consider putting additional staff to work, bearing in mind that a deadline has been set? In all fairness, I must commend the minister for the co-operation I have received in connection with a number of projects.


Otto Emil Lang: I should like to thank the hon. member for his kind remarks. In part, the heavy work load is due to extra checking in connection with a number of projects following representations by hon. members and others. I am satisfied that the progress made in approving applications has now achieved a very good pace and that approvals will be forthcoming very quickly to the extent of the money available.
Inquiries of the Ministry POLLUTION



E.B. EDDY PLANT-COST OF REMOVAL

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Bearing in mind the statement the minister made outside the House in relation to the affairs of the national capital I should like to ask him whether he will be making a statement inside the House when he has established the cost of taking over, at public expense, the E.B. Eddy plant in Hull as part of an environmental clean-up?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I made no statement on that subject containing any figures. No figures have yet been established, and I did say they had not been established. When they have been, I shall certainly be prepared to consider making a statement in the House.



INCOME TAX


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister advise us whether the income tax regulations necessary following the passage of Bill C-259 will be ready by January 1? How long will those in business and the professions have to wait before they can examine these regulations which govern at least 50 per cent of tax administration?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: The regulations have been in preparation but it would, of course, be presumptuous for us to release regulations before the legislation has received Royal Assent, something which presumably will happen today. We are working as fast as we can to get the regulations out as early as possible.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: To the extent that publication of such regulations is delayed after January 1, would the minister agree that considerable confusion will exist in the minds of the public since more than 50 per cent of the administration is governed by regulations?


Edgar John Benson: I would not agree with that premise at all. Many of the regulations made in connection with the old act will continue. After all, this is not a new act. It is an act amending an existing act, and many of the regulations will continue.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Labour.
In view of the increasing number of complaints we are receiving, particularly with the approach of Christmas,

December 23, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
and the many unfulfilled requests for unemployment insurance benefits, would the hon. minister tell us what he intends to do to cope with this situation?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This question comes up daily. There are bound to be some cases of delay among the 600,000 unemployment insurance applications which are processed weekly. When the delay is attributable to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, remedial action is taken immediately. When the delay is the result of the employees' or employers' action, things move slower. But we do have a responsibility, even though it is Christmas time, not to let the plan deteriorate into being a welfare plan, and the claims approved must be legitimate claims.


Henry P. Latulippe: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Would the hon. minister also tell us whether all this trouble is not a result of centralization of the centres? Would he accede to requests for decentralization as a factor of better service to the population?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member must take for granted that the hon. minister will consider his question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether as a result of the decision by the Irish government to withdraw its contingent from the United Nations peacekeeping force on Cyprus, Canada has been asked to contribute a larger number of men, and, if so, what attitude the government has taken toward any such request.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: We have received no such request.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Considering the long time during which our forces have been on Cyprus, can the minister advise us whether this country is taking any initiative toward bringing about some meaningful mediation directed to a settlement of this problem?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the House may recall that when I announced the extension for another six months of our participation, I said we were making it quite clear that we hoped our continued participation would not be an excuse for delaying the negotiations. To that extent at least, we are applying pressure for successful negotiations.




Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. This is related to one asked earlier, and to which the answer was in the affirmative. I would like to ask the minister whether he can make arrangements with the Unemployment Insurance Commission for a change in its regulations so that in situations where records in unemployment insurance offices indicate that the claims are in order and the computers do not seem to spew out any cheques, the cheques could be issued, authorized by the appropriate authority, by hand, so that people could get their money?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, it would be much faster and more appropriate if the hon. gentleman would bring to my attention specific cases so that I could give them my personal attention.
if! *	*



HOUSING


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. On Friday, December 17, in a reply to a question put by my colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough, the minister stated he had not yet studied the prediction of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada that rents may increase in 1972 by between 5 per cent and 15 per cent but that he would and, if such a prediction seemed correct, he would initiate action with the provinces. Has the minister studied that prediction, and does he believe now that the prediction is serious enough for him to initiate talks with the provinces to avert such rent increases?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister might reply to the first question briefly. The second question, in which the member invites the minister to express an opinion, of course is not in order. I draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that there are four minutes left before the end of the question period, and I hope hon. members will try to limit their supplementaries.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the Housing and Urban Development Association has been studied. In our opinion the data on which it was based are somewhat questionable and we do not agree that there will be that kind of increase. But in spite of all that, we are in constant consultation with the provinces in an attempt to keep down increases in housing costs generally.
December 23^ 1971



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour with respect to a statement he made the other day on civil servants and the definition of employees. Could the minister advise if the province of Quebec has accepted that definition, and whether he has had any reply from any of the other provinces? In fact can he somewhat assure us that the other provinces feel that the act as it stands now, with its new definition, is acceptable?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to announce that the employees, the civil servants of British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have all been included under the new act, and the fact that they have applied to come under the act indicates that they consider it a very good act.
So far as the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland are concerned they have accepted the plan, and negotiations are taking place on some technical matters. So far as the province of Quebec is concerned, whether it intends to remain outside the plan as of January 1 next is a matter to be determined by that province.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to that great friend of the mink ranchers of Canada, the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister indicate whether or not consideration is being given now to the extension, by a year or more, of the period in office of the Chief of the Defence staff?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that would be a Governor in Council decision, and it would have to be announced in due course.



STATISTICS CANADA


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce as the minister responsible for the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The question is apropos of the Prime Minister's recent remarks on a harmonious bilingual and bicultural capital. The question deals with complaints I receive daily about discrimination against English-speaking public servants,
Inquiries of the Ministry
particularly in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Would the minister undertake a study of the situation there and report on his findings to the House?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will do so, Mr. Speaker.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, would the minister attempt to find out how it is that the names of persons to be promoted are known to the staffs of the import and export trade sections in the DBS even before promotion boards are held?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I said I would inquire, Mr. Speaker.



ALLEGED DETERIORATION OF MORALE OF EMPLOYEES

Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a supplementary question. I, too, have been getting reports of abuses of the provisions of the Official Languages Act in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and of the general deterioration of morals in that department-


Some hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


William C. Scott: -of morale in that department. I would like to ask the minister whether he would undertake a further study of the matter before it gets any worse? Further, would the minister report to the House after his study has been completed?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I said I would inquire about the situation with regard to appointments, not of morals.



INDUSTRY


Jean-Luc Pepin: If you will allow me to make a correction, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer back to the answer I gave to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. I did not intend to confirm the rumour he was talking about. I only wanted to say that G.M. will be announcing its intentions, according to my understanding, some time in January.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a further question about the War Measures Act. I would like to ask him whether there were any discussions with representatives of the provincial governments and the municipal governments, with regard to the invocation of the War

December 23, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Measures Act or the implications of the War Measures Act prior to the kidnapping of James Cross in 1970?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: None that I can recall, Mr. Speaker. In the previous year when there was a police strike in Montreal, there was a question of assistance by the army but I am quite certain that there was no mention or any discussion of the War Measures Act at that time.



WAR MEASURES ACT-ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING CONSULTATIONS PRIOR TO PROCLAMATION

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of the revelations made by Mr. Bain in his article, is it not a fact that if those allegations are true the explanations that were given by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice of the circumstances under which the War Measures Act was invoked, were stating the very reverse of the truth?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, it is not a fact, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman rises on a point of order?


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Certainly this is a matter which concerns the privileges of the House, although hardly of those automatons over there. It is a question of privilege when the House was informed that the only reason the War Measures Act was invoked was the request from the government of Quebec and the municipal government of Montreal, yet now we find that the whole question was studied over a period of time. This House was actually deceived by the answer given.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my intention to recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and then call orders of the day. Hon. members will have to keep their other important questions over Christmas and ask them on Tuesday.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the front page story, and the fact that the holiday season includes such festive fare as peanuts and pecans, I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs what he intends to do about the findings of the Consumer's Association of Canada that the term "mixed nuts" on cans means nothing because the cans include mostly peanuts?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that question could also be kept over the Christmas weekend, but in the Christmas spirit the minister might be allowed to reply briefly, and then the Chair will call orders of the day.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have been away with the 'flu and have not seen these reports. I will look at them immediately to see if action can be taken.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in view of the importance of the auto pact negotiations, and the fact that I could not hear the correction by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce of his earlier answer. I wonder if the minister could repeat his answer to the House, and in addition assure us that no change in government policy will be announced until we meet again.


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated a moment ago, the question period is finished. If hon. members want to pursue it, they have the right to do so if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I said that GM would make an announcement "to that effect". The words "to that effect" might have implied that I was confirming the rumour mentioned by my hon. friend. I got up to state this was not my intention. I meant to say that GM would make an announcement, I am informed, possibly some time in January, as to their intention regarding their plans in Ontario and Quebec.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Speaker, are we continuing the question period.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will refer to Standing Orders, he will see that it is provided that the question period is to last 40 minutes. The 40 minutes expired four minutes ago, and I was going to call orders of the day.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Christmas recess is about to begin, and in view of the fact that a number of hon. members have important questions, would it be in order for me to ask if there is consent to continue the question period.


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


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege.
I know that according to the Rules of the House the Chair is free to choose the hon. member it wants to recognize and I accept that. But, as I have risen perhaps 30 or 35 times during the oral question period and because it seems to me that I should ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce a question that is vital to the Canadian industry-


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
December 23, 1971


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, if hon. members to my right would be agreeable, we would be delighted to hear the hon. member's question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do so in the hope that during the Christmas recess something might be done about the situation. May I call Your Honour's attention to the fact that the sound system today is working very poorly.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope this will be looked into during whatever recess there is, but certainly this will be brought to the attention of the appropriate officials of the House.
Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, December 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Drury (for Minister of Finance) for the second reading and reference to the Committee of the Whole of Bill C-275, to amend the statute law relating to income tax.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, before the Minister of Manpower and Immigration leaves the House I wonder if it would be in order to raise a point which certainly is an important one. Today we had tabled in the House the job vacancy survey-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that Orders of the Day have been called. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and there is no way, unless there should be unanimous consent, that the hon. member can raise this matter. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate on a question of privilege.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I understand we are on Bill C-275 and, despite Your Honour's unique capabilities, I am surprised that you would rule out my question of privilege. I am raising a question specifically in respect of Bill C-275 in view of the job vacancy survey tabled in the House today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he has the right, as have other hon. members of the House, to speak on the order of business that is before the Chamber now, but the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway also has her rights in this Chamber and she has been recognized. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I am on a question of privilege.
Income Tax Law Amendment Act, 1971


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has ruled on the question of privilege of the hon. member. If the hon. member is indicating to the Chair he wishes to speak on the subject now before the House, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has been recognized by the Chair. If the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate can indicate to the Chair that he has a legitimate question of privilege then I will hear him, but to this point he has not so indicated. However, I shall hear him.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, if you are not prepared to hear my question of privilege, how can you rule on it? The minister is in the House and is about to leave. A document has been tabled that is directly relevant to Bill C-275 and which makes direct references to the manpower training program. I am sure my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway, who is an outstanding member of this House, would be quite in agreement with my request. I should like to know whether the minister would stay during this period of debate on Bill C-275 and avail himself of the opportunity to make a brief statement on the job vacancy survey to the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With respect I suggest the hon. member is making a representation to the minister. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night I was expressing our repudiation of the government's view of society which is only too clearly reflected in certain sections of the bill now before us. This view of society divides people into "haves" and "have nots" and it is quite obvious from this bill that the government intends to keep it that way. The first part of the bill reflects that intention only too clearly by its tax reduction of 3 per cent for individuals, right across the board without any regard to their income, and 7 per cent for corporations. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if we might have a little more order in this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that some of these caucuses should be held outside, if that would be all right with hon. members. I know we are all getting weary at this time, but at least we want to be able to make ourselves heard.
The first part of this bill embodies the age old "trickle-down" theory or recipe for dealing with difficult times in this country. It follows the idea that what you have to do is to make corporations and business concerns strong, and that by doing so you strengthen the entire economy. In my view this is putting the cart before the horse.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. gentleman who was trying to get the floor a few moments ago, the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan), who referred in the debate last night to the need for the development of human resources. Yet as he went along not even he could see that this bill is just simply the old idea of backing the industrial and economic resources of the country, completely neglecting the development of human resources which I think is very important. When it is a question of stimulating the economy, I think the

December 23. 1971
Income Tax Law Amendment Act, 1971
government would do well to realize that it has spent a long time trying out the trickle-down recipe which has not worked. It never has worked and will work less well as time goes on.
I think the government would do well to realize that what we have in this country is a group of captive consumers. We have many people whose income is relatively small. They have to spend money as soon as they get it, and we know what they spend it on. They spend it on the bare necessities of living, and do not spend much on the luxury items. So I think the government would be well advised to consider reversing this taxing arrangement and giving the really big tax reductions to the people who need them, namely, to the captive consumers who are bound to spend what they have on the goods and services which the country needs to produce in order to keep the wheels of industry and the services going in this country. These are the people who should be given the tax concessions.
Instead of that, this is another piece of legislation which proposes to give tax reductions to What I will call the uncontrolled corporations as opposed to the captive consumers. Because when this money is handed over to the corporations, either in the form of direct grants or tax reductions, no conditions are attached to it. No attempt is made to evaluate what is done with the money, to find out whether this money stays on the Canadian side of the border or whether or not large amounts of it are siphoned off to other countries, notably our neighbour to the south.
The worst part of this arrangement as embodied in the bill is the fact that the taxpayers, among whom are found many people who can ill afford to do so, have to pay for the care of the casualties of the operations of the big, uncontrolled corporations resulting from our way of doing business, which is that those people who have shall be given more by government concessions, and those people who have little shall have even that little taken away.
The high cost of treating illness, malnutrition, nervous and mental disorders, retardation of various kinds, delinquency and crime results from having a large group of people in our midst who do not have decent homes, proper nutrition, good clothing, decent educational opportunities, health care and the rest of it. These are not frivolous statements at all, and these are the reasons why we are opposed to the earlier clauses in this bill which propose to make larger concessions to and tax reductions for uncontrolled corporations than to captive consumers.
I know that members on all sides may think that we in this corner are not uttering words of sense and wisdom. I would remind hon. members opposite, and particularly those occupying the government benches, that when years ago Canada had a severe depression everyone knew there was a depression. Even the government of the day knew there was a depression, which is more than can be said for some subsequent governments. The trickle down recipe which we now have did not work at that time either. It was only when the president of the United States decided that human conditions and people in the lower income brackets needed looking after, and established programs
[Mrs. MacInnis.J
to care for their needs and built up the economy, that there were the beginnings of a glimmer of hope.
I do not intend to deal any further with the earlier clauses of this bill because spokesmen among my colleagues have dealt with them very thoroughly. I do not think there is any need for me to do more than to say that we do not accept the principles underlying the first part of this bill.
However, I wish to deal with the second part of the bill on which very little has been said today. The second part of the bill has to do with the on the job training program. The government proposes to make available for the winter of 1971-72 the sum of $20 million for this new on the job training program. I want to say right away that we in this party consider that this program is based on a good principle and that it has possibilities. Consequently, we are much more favourably disposed toward it than toward some other programs to which I could make reference.
One principle, which I think is very good, of this on the job training program is that it removes the impediments which we have found in earlier manpower training programs and which we have opposed. These restrictions prevent women in households where there was male support from being able to avail themselves of the programs to the extent of receiving living allowance. This restriction is removed in the new program and the allowance applies both to women and to young people. Under the terms of the old manpower training programs, in order to qualify for training allowances people had to be in the labour force for three consecutive years, and it was found that women in the home and young people were prevented almost entirely from taking advantage of these programs because they were unable to meet this qualification.
To this extent I consider that the on the job training program is an improvement and has possibilities. However, I believe that certain questions must be raised at this point. The principle of giving money to employers to train their employees on the job is not a new one. It has been operating in industry since 1967 under the occupational training for adults act; but so far as members of the House are concerned we do not know very much about the success or otherwise of this program.
I want to ask the minister why there has been no evaluation of this program which has been in operation now for about five years. We want to have answers to a number of questions before we can be sure that the new on the job training program is going to work. We would like to know how many people have been trained since 1967, how many men and women are involved-because obviously there are women who have qualified, not the ones I mentioned but some others-and for what kind of jobs the training has prepared them.
I see the minister moving his hands out in a sort of Kewpie doll salute.


Otto Emil Lang: It is all available.


Winona Grace MacInnis: It may be available but there are questions on the order paper that have not been answered. Perhaps it is available but one would need a prospector's pick and other equipment to dig it out, as well as a
December 23, 1971

burglar's tool bag to be able to get at some of the places where it is kept.
We would also like to know whether any of this training was for part time jobs. As far as women are concerned, even those women who qualify, many part time jobs would be essential to fill their needs. We would like to know whether in this regard statistics are available. By "available" I do not mean in the government books; I mean whether they have been leaked out to ordinary members of parliament so that we can get at them. We want to know whether or not these people are still holding these jobs and how good the training has been, as well as how many people are holding the jobs. Particularly where women and young people are concerned, we do not have the information we would like to have.
I do not think there has been any wholesale or public evaluation of the success of the manpower training program. We know that as far as women are concerned the program has been used to subsidize industries which pay low wages, such as the needle trades, shoe-making and others. In these industries there are a lot of recently arrived immigrants who are pretty well defenseless because they are largely unorganized and do not know the ways of the country. There have even been complaints about these people being replaced by new groups coming along. Sometimes these manpower training programs have been used to subsidize large corporations who would otherwise have trained their own employees. I think these older programs should be evaluated before we are asked to undertake new ones.
I would tell the minister that there are questions on the order paper which are unanswered and to which we would like answers so we can get on with this matter. However, Mr. Speaker, I think we may be able to look with hope to this new program if we can find out what the success or otherwise of the previous one was.
We know that since 1954 women have constituted the fastest growing segment of the labour force every year. Yet they are pretty well regarded by some as a nuisance in the labour force, and it is hoped that when we arrive at some state of so-called normalcy they will disappear. You may think this statement mirrors a superiority complex or even an inferiority complex, but some members opposite do not recognize such a thing as an equality complex. The women of this country are increasingly coming to want the same sort of deal as is available for men. I do not think there was any need for the surprise of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at the increasing number of women and young people shown in the October unemployment figures: Yet after these five years of manpower training, there are still no special training programs to meet the need of women in the labour force or those who want to get into it.
As I have said on many occasions, since the service sector of our economy is growing the fastest, we should be creating programs to serve it and to train women for the full-time or part-time jobs for which they are especially fitted in the service field. There is no reason why the government, industry or the labour unions should regard jobs as full or all-day occupations. It is just one of the time-honoured shibboleths, one of the stone-age myths,
Income Tax Law Amendment Act, 1971
that a job has to be a full-day job. Women are entering the labour force by the thousands, yet many of them need only a half-day job to supplement their husband's low income and they need the other half day at home to look after family needs.
Any on the job training program should consider the new programs that are needed. My own city of Vancouver is as far advanced in meeting this need as any place in Canada. Many organizations there have demonstrated that women can be trained for certain jobs, but they have to convince the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) that the training programs should be carried on under public auspices. As well they must then convince employers that the jobs are necessary.
For instance, we need day care centre aides. I know that the supervisor of a day care centre has to be college trained in modern child psychology, administration etc., but there is also a tremendous need for aides, and these jobs could be filled by older women whose families are grown or young girls who have dropped out of high school. If the on the job training program made training available for such aides, this would be half the battle. There is a tremendous need all across the country for day care centre aides, teachers' aides, social work aides, recreation aides, etc., and it is women and young people who could be trained to fill the need.
The minister has certainly had lots of training in how to be elastic in approach. If he can handle the Wheat Board, manpower and immigration, and the Public Service Staff Relations Board, he has certainly learned to be flexible. He is in a position to understand how the ordinary woman feels when she has to try to divide her time between the job outside the home, look after her children, do the shopping and try to keep her husband quiet in between times.
I know the minister is going to say to me that I am talking about on the job training for employers, and will ask where we are going to get the employers for such things. Well, years and years ago we had the same row about trying to get nurses' aides accepted-nobody wanted to employ them. But we finally managed this. If the present program needs to be amended to achieve this then I suggest that he get the amendment ready, because it is an important point.
If this on the job training program is to be of value to women and young people the minister must consider municipal governments and voluntary organizations as potential employers. There are municipalities which very much want to employ people in these capacities, and I do not know if that is possible under existing legislation. I hope before the debate finishes the minister will answer some of the questions that I have raised. I wonder if he will say whether it will be possible for "employers" to mean municipal bodies, voluntary bodies and co-operatives bodies. I think that ought to be possible.
Since introducing the manpower training program in 1967, the government has had to spend more and more money on it every year. This year it is spending about $330 million, the reason being partly that the government does not like the currently large unemployment figures and prefers to shift people from the ranks of the unemployed

December 23, 1971
Income Tax Law Amendment Act, 1971
to the ranks of those undergoing manpower training. Not enough of this has been done, although I am glad that it has been done.


Otto Emil Lang: Don't knock the program.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I am not knocking it; I am merely laying the groundwork for my next remarks. I merely pointed out why this was happening. Since we are spending so much money on the ordinary manpower training program, I thought it might be sensible to consider spending this $20 million for on the job training on people who, during the last five years, have been cut off from the benefits of manpower training, namely, women and young people. It would be a good idea to give them top priority. We should allow those people who previously were cut off from the benefits of the program because they did not meet the necessary qualifications or criteria to take advantage of the new on the job training scheme. I am not knocking the program. I merely want to show how it can be of greater value.
We should include young people and women in the program for other reasons as well. I suspect that for the Prime Minister, the figures relating to unemployment are mere book entries rather than the tragic human figures for whom there is no room. He suggests that the unemployment figures are swollen because large numbers of young people and women have entered the labour force. If the Prime Minister thinks that-and I will not say just now if I support his view-then I suggest that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) should have an additional reason to consider giving top priority to women and young people in the on the job training program. That would be an excellent idea. Actually, I suspect the Prime Minister is not paying too much attention to what is happening in the unemployment field, otherwise he would realize that young people and women not only have been entering the employment field in greater numbers, but that they will continue trying to enter it. They will not just go away, and no amount of urging that they go back to their homes or to the streets will remove them from the labour force. I suspect that the Prime Minister merely refers to book entries and does not realize that behind these figures lie the tragedies of women and young people who are desperately trying to get a start in life.
The trouble is that when people are unemployed too long and in receipt of social assistance they lose not only the will but the ability to work. If hon. members do not believe that, they should consider what Mr. Paul Hoffman of the United Nations who has been for so long concerned with work in the developing countries said to a number of us at the United Nations last fall. He told us that it is utterly impossible for people who have never been given the chance to earn their own way and attain a decent standard of living to work steadily and be responsible to the community. He said we should not even expect them to do that, and he is dead right. If we do not want more and more people sitting around and drawing social assistance, and then being unwilling and unable to do any kind of work, we will have to find jobs for them now, jobs that they want, before they get into habits of idleness.
I suspect that the Prime Minister has not been looking at the facts as they really are. He has been paying too much attention to some of the early church fathers and to

some of the other early historical figures from way back, as is evident from his remarks. I should like to see him coming back to the twentieth century for a while. I did not like hearing the Prime Minister say that people's morals are divided into those of serfs and princes, and that is the end of it.


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I do not like Canadians being divided into serfs and princes, as they might have been in the time of Machiavelli, Shakespeare-


An hon. Member:: Or Trudeau.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes, or Trudeau. I do not like to think that our Prime Minister belongs back in those times, yet if he keeps on talking that way, I will have no alternative but to think that. I think that the Canadian people, if given half a chance, will work as hard as anybody. Be they men, women or young people, they are entitled to a chance. I believe they are entitled to participate in the training for work program and to employment that will provide them with the income they need to live. I think that the people who are unemployed as well as the crippled and those who are otherwise incapacitated have a right to a guaranteed income which will enable them to keep their sense of decency and self respect.
I think, Mr. Speaker, you will agree that I have stuck pretty well to this bill all the way through my remarks. I have been trying to show the minister some possibilities regarding this bill. If he harbours reservations about what this bill will do, he still has the chance to deal with them before this bill becomes law. I submit that if it is necessary to change this legislation in order to make it of value to those in this country who really need it, that should be done.
I hope that the minister can take some time off over Christmas to get rested up and boned up. Perhaps I should not say "boned up"; I was thinking of turkeys. In any event, I hope he is able to rest, so that he may be able to undertake his labours, which will be considerable, in
1972.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question? In her remarks the hon. member referred to a certain lack of information. I was surprised, because she referred to certain questions regarding people in training, the results of training programs, and so on. She said there are questions on the order paper about this. I have looked through the questions and have not been able to find such questions as she has referred to, and I wonder if the hon. member could direct my attention to them or, in the alternative, if she finds that there are not such questions on the order paper, whether she could make it clear that my department is very prompt in this regard.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is not necessary for me to repeat the very realistic comments of my colleagues. I merely want to make some comments on second reading and perhaps refer to some of the literature that the minister and others have distributed in the last little while.
December _23^J. 971

Yesterday it was clear that the go vernment opposite had no intention of differentiating between labour-intensive industries and capital-intensive industries, although I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) would like to spend more time expounding theories in this area. I submit that the real crux of our remarks lies in this: the government must distinguish between labour-intensive and capital-intensive industries.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) suggested that he could not understand what my colleague from Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) was referring to. This may be another case of "let us not confuse the issue with facts". If the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate did not understand what my colleagues was suggesting, then, I suggest, he does not understand the facts of life. May I also suggest that he does not understand the concept of the equality of people. It seems that hon. members opposite are unable to recognize the difference between poverty and wealth; to them, all people are equal.
Not long ago the minister drew attention to the promptness with which his department answered questions placed on the order paper. I wonder why the department is not just as prompt to inform the House of Commons of the contents of the Bryden Committee Report. Why is he not as prompt in supplying information to the House in relation to other studies which have been conducted? They have not been tabled in the House of Commons even though their contents have been leaked to industry and to the public.
The minister should appear in the House more often to answer questions relating to his department. Consider his attendance record back to November 10-I use that date as a convenient point of reference. He should have been present on 19 occasions to answer questions, to make known to members what some of the programs upon which his department is engaged really mean. But we find he was here on only eight occasions. I give the minister due credit for the fact that he was often overseas doing something for the national benefit, but it remains true that questions arise in the House of Commons which should be answered and which can be answered adequately only by the minister who exercises responsibility for the department.
Listening to the observations made by the hon. member who spoke before I rose, one would get the impression that everything connected with this program was going well. As we look at the definitions in the bill on pages two and three we really must ask ourselves what is the purpose of this whole exercise in connection with manpower training programs. Reading the letters which are sent to us we find that many people are failing to obtain the benefits the government would like to suggest are provided by manpower retraining and on-the-job training programs.
I wish to draw attention to one of the real difficulties arising from the present arrangements by quoting a letter which came to me from Saskatchewan. The writer attended a technical institute in his province where the department of manpower sponsors various programs. He writes: 24725-51
Income Tax Act
I am presently enrolled in a Canada Manpower sponsored grade XI course at Saskatchewan Technical Institute in Moose Jaw and should like to proceed to a similar grade XII course. However, a grade XII course is taught in Regina only. Presently there are approximately 20 students who will qualify to fill the one available opening in grade XII in Regina.
In addition to this there are two other students and myself who cannot qualify for grade XII due to the fact that we spent four months in grade X, five months in grade XI and we are allowed a total of 52 weeks only.
I would appreciate it, sir, if you could possibly explain the method I could use to further my education through Canada Manpower.
Because I am a man with a wife and five children, it is my desire to raise my standards through a university degree in journalism and to enter the field of labour relations.
It is of the utmost importance to me and my family that any possible government assistance not be withheld at this stage.
Any consideration given to me on this matter will be greatly appreciated.
As to the question raised in this letter I can only say that many representations have been made to the government and to the minister to allow some discretion to local officers when assessing particular situations. Government offices operate only on the basis of regulations. They boast about the number of people taking part in retraining programs but the very people who possibly are in greatest need of two or three extra weeks are unable to obtain consideration because the number of weeks' training is limited by regulation to 52.1 suggest the government should consider amending its regulations by order in council to enable further time to be granted in cases where this is desirable. Surely local officers could be given some leeway with respect to cases like the one to which I have just called attention.
Returning to the question of study and analysis, it is a fact that departments themselves invariably set up an internal committee to analyse the effectiveness of their own programs. I would suspect myself that many such committees would produce a subjective report which would suit its own needs, not the type of analysis which would deal frankly with all the realities involved and enable all those who were interested to know exactly what was going on. It is extremely necessary that an objective analysis be made by people outside the department, possibly even by Treasury Board itself. We are aware that the Auditor General expressed certain reservations as to the manner in which public funds had been disbursed in connection with manpower programs. The observations put out on December 16 by the department refer to the results of the manpower training program survey, indicating that of the nearly 70 per cent of former students now working, only 33 per cent had held jobs before enteripg their courses.
Reference is made in this report to a publication of the Economic Council of Canada. If we look at this latter publication we read at the bottom of page 114 the following statement: "The method employed in the department's present model raises some doubts as to the confidence with which one can attribute benefits to training per se". Surely, this observation should in itself be enough to suggest that an objective analysis should be undertaken by someone other than the departmental minister concerned.

of either labour-intensive or capital-intensive industries. Mr. Speaker, how can the provisions of this bill stimulate the economy?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the Chair.
On Clause 2-"Income Tax Act" defined.
Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, if clause 2 is carried, I am sorry. I was perhaps inadvertent and missed it. I wanted to ask a question of the parliamentary secretary.


Gérald Laniel: I am sure the House will agree to allow the question even though the clause has been adopted. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for its courtesy. My question arises out of something I mentioned during second reading of the bill. It deals with technicalities and it might be useful to have this on the record for the benefit of those who are trying to fit this piece of tax legislation in with certain others which have gone before. It arises because of the wording of the notice of ways and means motions. There are two notices. The one we are dealing with I gather is strictly confined to what will happen in the taxation year 1971. However, the two notices that were on the Order Paper for December 17 refer to events subsequent to the taxation year 1971. I am not referring to clause 5 of this measure which deals with the manpower training program; I am simply dealing with clauses 2, 3 and 4. I am wondering whether the parliamentary secretary will be saying that in reality there will be another income tax bill to carry on the purpose of that resolution through 1972 and a portion of 1973.


Mr. Mahoney:: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is quite correct. The bill before us deals, in so far as the corporate and personal income tax reductions are concerned, with the present Income Tax Act. The 1972 and onward changes of course affect the Income Tax Act as amended by Bill C-259. It was not felt appropriate that amendments to amend the Act as amended by Bill C-259 be brought in until that bill itself was in effect. Accordingly, when we resume sitting in the new year it will be the intention of the government to bring in another bill implementing the balance of the ways and means motion.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I thank the parliamentary secretary for that explanation. Would that be in addition to another measure the Minister of Finance has suggested to us in the final stages of Bill C-259, or would there be one big enterprise in the New Year?
24725-51*
Income Tax Act


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I really cannot say what procedure will be followed at that point.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that we are now discussing clause 3?


Gérald Laniel: The committee will study clause 3 at this time.
On Clause 3: Additional deduction from tax.


John Edward Broadbent: I will keep my remarks brief, Mr. Chairman. Among the points made earlier today and yesterday it will be recalled that the central objection the New Democratic Party had to clause 3 as it now stands is that it offers a flat rate of tax reduction on personal income right across the board. Two problems arise, in our view. The first is the question of equity, which results in people in some income groups getting substantially more money than those at the lower end of the income scale. Secondly, directly related to that is the fact that one of the intended effects of this whole bill will not be carried out because so little money would be going to that section of the population which spends most of its disposable income. There would be actually little stimulus added to the economy and little input to generate more employment.
Therefore I have an amendment to clause 3 which I intend to move. It is an amendment which would have three effects. First, it would get money where it is needed, and only where it is needed. Second, it would remove the lack of "progressivity", if there is such a word, from existing clause 3. Third, it would offer a substantial injection of money into the economy immediately. I move:
That clause 3 of Bill C-275 be amended by changing the figure "11 per cent" in line 16 to "20 per cent", and also by changing the period at the end of line 18 to a comma and adding immediately thereafter the following words: "or $40, whichever is the lesser".
Perhaps I may add just a concluding comment in respect of the amendment. It would involve, in terms of our rough calculation, the same amount of public expenditure as is already envisaged by this bill. What it would do would be to transfer the money from where it is not needed, and in fact where it is uselessly expended, namely, from the corporate sector and the upper section in the income scale, on the one hand, to average and low-income people on the other. This is something that we in the New Democratic Party believe, in terms of justice and terms of economic stimulus, is needed immediately, and I hope the amendment will gain the support of all the members of the House.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. It is the feeling of the Chair that the amendment of the hon. member, at first glance, is acceptable unless hon. members wish to express different points of view and perhaps convince the Chair otherwise. However, I am ready to put the amendment at this time because I consider the amendment to involve a reduction of tax, and this is in order.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my party I want to say we reject the amendment. I should like briefly to explain our reasons.


Gérald Laniel: Order. Is the hon. member speaking on the procedural acceptability of the amendment or on the amendment itself?

December 2.^1971
Income Tax Act


Robert Jardine McCleave: I understood your Honour to say you were accepting the amendment and were going to put it.


Gérald Laniel: If the hon. member wants to discuss the procedural acceptability I will not put the amendment. Otherwise I will put the amendment and give the floor to the hon. member.
It has been moved:
That clause 3 of bill C-275 be amended by changing the figure "1} per cent" in line 16 to "20 per cent", and also by changing the period at the end of line 18 to a comma and adding immediately thereafter the following words: "or $40, whichever is the lesser".
The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I think the hon. member who proposed the amendment should probably be allowed to speak on it first. I did rather jump the gun but I would yield to him.


John Edward Broadbent: Go ahead.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member invites me to go ahead. As I indicated yesterday in my remarks on second reading, we thought that there was merit in providing a greater reduction in the personal income tax because this money, especially in the hands of the lower income groups, would find its way back into the economy very quickly. I also indicated that about 37 per cent of the gross revenues of the government were obtained from the taxes imposed upon the individual taxpayer in Canada. I think there would have been room for a greater measure of tax relief than that proposed by the minister in his third budget of 1971, presented to us on October 14, but the effect of this amendment would be really spread over a full year and would be a reduction of the personal income tax rate by something in the order of 40 per cent rather than 20 per cent, since the 20 per cent only refers to the half year period.


An hon. Member:: No.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You have it reversed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: This is my mathematical interpretation of it, and I am sure there are mathematical geniuses in the other party who would be able to correct me if I am wrong. I do not think I am, because 11 per cent is one half of the 3 per cent mentioned by the Minister of Finance in the budget. Perforce, the 20 per cent must be a half of 40 per cent. I say that this verges on the border of financial irresponsibility, and therefore we must reject it and do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: at all of doing things on the basis of fairness and equity it should accept this amendment.
Since the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when minister of finance, brought in a tax reduction exactly along the lines of this amendment, I hope that he will persuade those around him that a little consistency on the part of the government would be in order and that the government should support this amendment. We think that this is one of the most important features of the bill that is now before us. We support the principle of a tax reduction for the reasons that have been stated, but we think it is thoughtless and unfair to say that the government is giving a tax reduction and expect people to be happy about it when it is structured in such a way that those in the lower brackets get so little and those in the upper brackets get so much. That is why we urge the committee to accept this amendment to clause 3.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, it is always tempting to enter into philosophical discussions with members of the NDP of the kind this particular amendment reflects. It is the line of thought we have heard from them throughout second reading debate. However, the government feels that the corporate sector of the economy is of value and that the reduction in tax for the corporate sector is of value to the national economy. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speaking to this amendment and indicating his party's intention to vote against clause 4, because this really presents the package to us as representing their point of view.
Any reduction of taxes for any sector will always be subject to the criticism that it is not enough. Any change in taxes will also always be subject to the criticism that the timing is wrong. These criticisms are trite, tired and old but they will always be with us.
I have listened carefully for the last half day but have not found anything new in what members of the NDP have said. The government must accept responsibility for making the decisions on what tax reductions are appropriate and when they should become effective. As we all know, these tax reductions were announced by the Minister of Finance in October and are effective as of July 1 this year. In combination with many other measures and steps taken by the government during the current year and as early as March, 1970, this has had the effect of putting the Canadian economy back on the move in a very satisfactory fashion. I am quite prepared to defend the government's policies and decisions. Certainly the government cannot accept this amendment nor can it accept the advice of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that clause 4 should be defeated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the parliamentary secretary's suggestion that what I was putting forward was a philosophical argument, would he say that is what the Secretary of State for External Affairs was doing when he, as minister of finance, proposed a 20 per cent reduction and a $20 maximum?
Income Tax Act


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I have no way of reading the mind of the Secretary of State for External Affairs a number of years ago, so I cannot answer that. I did not suggest that the amendment was a philosophical argument; I suggested that it reflected the philosophy we have been hearing from the New Democratic Party, and I think I can stand by that statement. I can conceive of occasions when a tax reduction with a ceiling in terms of dollars would be appropriate, but at this particular time it is not felt to be appropriate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, my colleague the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants has indicated our attitude with regard to this amendment. We have indicated that this tax cut from a personal point of view was somewhat too low, but really it is a question of whether it is too low or whether it is almost wiped out. I would say quite candidly that I think a 40 per cent cut on a six month basis borders on financial irresponsibility. Not only is it the pattern for this year but it will be in effect for 1972 as well because the minister announced that we will have another bill possibly in 1972. There is an indication that there is a $40 limit, which will eliminate all the rich people. The $40 limit is going to take in the carpenters, plumbers, steel workers, and all those people who are now earning $10 plus, unless they have exceedingly large families. When you consider that a married man with two children and an income of $9,000 pays almost $2,500 in tax, you can see where this $40 limit will apply.
There are a tremendous number of people in this country both within and outside organized labour who earn from $13,000 to $15,000. They will be told that they are the elite and should not get the benefit of this tax cut. These people work hard for their wages and salaries. Why should they be hit that much harder for tax? This whole philosophy of taxation indicates that even some of our present progressive income tax system is regressive.
I would say that this amendment would cost the equivalent of the 11 per cent provision and perhaps more than the corporate reduction. Is the corporate reduction worth nothing? If the government had been prepared to accept this amendment or had proposed one of its own which would have been of greater benefit within the private sector, then we would have been prepared to forgo the corporate sector because of the amount of money that would be put back into the economy. But on the basis of choice, that extra cash in the hands of corporate business is a benefit for them. Of course, the NDP has a blind spot when it comes to corporations. I do not know where and how they think business is carried on in this country. I suppose they say "eliminate corporate business and nationalize everything".
Had this been a somewhat higher tax proposal with regard to individuals, as I say, we would have been quite prepared to forgo the corporate side; but on the basis of the amendment going as high as it does, it is, frankly, financial and fiscal irresponsibility.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Chairman, when my friend the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants took his first look at the amendment I think he misunderstood it and was too quick to leap to his feet to say that it was financially irresponsible and to announce his party's opposition to it. I suspect

December 23, 1971
Income Tax Act
that they are stuck with that at the moment because their financial critic supports that view. May I persuade in my usual kind and friendly fashion the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Peace River and other colleagues of theirs-and this applies particularly to the hon. member for Edmonton West-that it might be a good idea to reconsider this matter. If this amendment were accepted, the reduction in tax for a married man with two children whose taxable income is $4,000, to use the figure used by the hon. member for Edmonton West, would be $40 instead of $1.09. If the man's taxable income is $5,000, his reduction will be $40 instead of $4.53. If he is one of those steel workers mentioned by the financial critic of the official opposition whose taxable income is $9,000, which means that his gross income would probably be around $12,000, his reduction will be $40 instead of $20.55. It seems to me that a man's taxable income would need to be somewhere around $12,000 or $13,000 before he could reach that $40 limit.
Surely that would cover all the low and middle income people, be they steelworkers, clerks, or what have you. At the other end of the scale, the reduction for a person whose taxable income is $30,000 would be $40 instead of $152.34, and the reduction for a man with a $100,000 taxable income would be $40 instead of $757.70. I am certain, Mr. Chairman, that my good friend from Halifax-East Hants would like to reholster his gun, rise to his feet and say that, having had second thoughts, he agrees with our position. Possibly the present misunderstanding is our fault, because we did not initially explain our position adequately. We did not tell the committee what the import of this amendment would be. My colleague for Oshawa-Whitby tried to keep his remarks short, to enable us to get through this stage quickly. I hope, after having had second thoughts, that the members of the official opposition will decide that this amendment is worthwhile after all and that it is not financially irresponsible.
Our research people have advised us that this amendment will not involve any greater financial loss to the treasury than the proposal as it reads at present. I hope my arguments will persuade the people on this side of the House. I also hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs will convince his side of the House of the merit of our position, because the point of view that he held a few short years ago coincides exactly with the point of view expressed in this amendment. I do not think the official opposition should object to the amendment; after all, it will provide for our middle and lower income people a substantially greater tax reduction than would be provided by the present bill. At the same time, the cost to the treasury will not be any greater. Surely the parliamentary secretary can tell us why this course is less appropriate now than it was on an earlier occasion.


Winona Grace MacInnis: They are financially irresponsible.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I will leave the matter of corporate tax cuts until we come to clause 4. At present we are dealing with clause 3. Surely, in terms of income tax reductions, our proposal is far more appropriate than the government's proposal in the legislation.

This amendment would accomplish exactly what the government wants to do, namely to provide money for those in the lower and middle income groups. They are the consumers who would benefit most from this legislation. I am surprised that the government have not used the method we suggest. Have they discussed it? If the Secretary of State for Esternal Affairs would just move over a couple of seats and whisper words of advice in the ear of the parliamentary secretary, I am sure he would have some chance of convincing the parliamentary secretary that the amendment should be accepted. The government at a later date will be glad that the amendment has been accepted, and we shall be happy if the government takes credit for this idea. My main reason in speaking was to point out the advantages of our suggestion to the official opposition in particular. I ask them to think again about the results the amendment would bring, if accepted.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that if I remained silently in my place this afternoon, other hon. members would also show the same restraint and that we might do our duty and complete dealing with this legislation. However, as I sat here and listened to the NDP filling up the pages of Hansard this afternoon with their clap trap, I thought I had better put some of my own clap trap on record, and that is what I intend to do.
That party launched its argument on the false theory that a tax reduction is the key to eliminating poverty in Canada. I listened to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway telling us about conditions of poverty in this country, and everyone concedes that they were valid observations about our society. But I suggest that the idea of tax reductions reaching or even affecting people who live in the conditions she described is wholly unrealistic. You cannot, even by reducing taxes by $40, which is the maximum that that party proposes, hope to alleviate the conditions of poverty that she describes. The elimination of poverty is one of the national priorities of Canada, but it is not to be brought about either by tax reform or tax reduction.
I want to look at the tax reduction package and offer what I understand to be the reasons for it. Let me say why I think the government proposal is the only sensible way to do this.
The purpose of this tax reduction, as I understand it, is to stimulate the economy. We should try to create more jobs in Canada and eliminate some of the uncertainty in this country with regard to our economic future. Tax reductions are, it is thought, one way of doing that, but you cannot eliminate poverty with one piece of legislation.
There are a number of ways of stimulating the economy and creating jobs, and one of them, certainly, is by increasing the purchasing power of Canadians, particularly of Canadians who use a large part of their income for consumption. That is the characteristic of low-income people. Therefore, it was thought important to offer tax reductions to people who would put the money they gain back into the economy. That is being done through this measure.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That was exactly our point.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That is right, and that is being done through this piece of legislation.
December_23, 1971

There is another way of stimulating the economy, creating jobs and reducing economic uncertainty. You can do that, as well, by offering tax reductions to the corporate sector and to Canadians with higher incomes. I find myself very often differing with the hon. member for Edmonton West, so it is a pleasure for me to be able to agree with him and repeat the point he made. Corporate tax reductions will have an important effect. They will give confidence to the business community and increase the profitability of business. They will encourage businessmen, since those businessmen will be possessed of extra liquidity, to make additional investments.
I cannot understand why the NDP has what the hon. member for Edmonton West calls this blind spot. Why does that party not concede what is so obvious to anybody who thinks of these matters? Why does it not concede that a corporate tax reduction will bring a stimulating effect to the economy? The reductions will make the economy move more quickly; they will be instrumental in creating jobs for the very people that party is concerned about and on whose behalf it has advanced the amendment. How can one argue that we will eliminate poverty by giving people a $40 tax rebate? I should like to make one other point which perhaps is relevant to the proposed tax reform package put forward by the government. Corporations are not separate entities; corporations are a conduit. The NDP does not realize that these corporations represent stockholders. The profits they earn belong to Canadians-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: And United States citizens as well. But the tax reduction accorded to individuals is related to the reduction accorded to corporations. I mention this because it is entirely possible for an individual who runs a business or owns part of a business, and who receives a salary, to arrange the stream of income between himself and his corporation in such a way as to minimize the effects of taxation. If you reduce the tax on corporate income without reducing the tax on individual income, or vice versa, you will find individuals responding by making an individual or corporate decision to alter the flow of income. The aim of tax policy is to establish a greater degree of neutrality between the income which goes to an individual and the income which goes to a corporation. It is necessary to make the system work, and to do so there has to be a comparability of taxation as between individual incomes and corporate incomes.
If members of the NDP would think about it, it would be obvious to them that it would defeat the purpose they themselves have in mind if reductions accorded in individual taxes were exaggerated in relation to those accorded to corporations.
These are some of the reasons why I cannot support the NDP amendment or the arguments upon which the amendment is based.


Mr. Nystrom:: First, I wish to correct a false impression given by the hon. member for Don Valley. He suggested our party thought we could cure poverty by reducing taxes by $40 a year. This is far from the truth. He knows we cannot seek to amend this bill except in a limited way.
Income Tax Act
We cannot go beyond the sum of $160 million or so mentioned in these provisions. We are seeking to redistribute this sum so that people in the lower and middle income brackets may receive the benefit of tax reductions, not just the wealthy.
It has been said that maybe this amendment reflects our philosophy on taxation. It does. Our guiding principle with respect to taxation is equity. This is one thing we are trying to achieve. The bill before us is not based on equity, but on the exact opposite. The hon. member for Don Valley told us that a person in receipt of a low income would spend the money. Certainly. But under this bill the man with an income of $4,000 would benefit by a tax reduction of $1.09. He really could not go out and better himself and his family on $1.09.
I was not surprised to hear the spokesmen for the Conservative party, including the hon. member for Edmonton West and the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, say that we in this corner were pursuing a policy of financial irresponsibility. What is so irresponsible about trying to institute a tax system based on equity? If this is irresponsibility, it is the type of philosophy I like. It is the people in the lower income brackets who need money and who spend it. These are the people we should be concerned about.
The financial critic for the Conservative party and others across the way are concerned about tax cuts for the corporations. How many more hand-outs do they wish to give to these people? In the last ten years, gas and oil companies have paid tax on only 5.7 per cent of their profits. How much more generosity do these people need? Why does not the average worker or farmer enjoy this kind of concession? All we are asking for is equity, and this is something which the Conservative party and the Liberal party do not wish to give to the ordinary person in Canada.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Is the hon. member aware that the gas and oil industry have never taken their profits out of the business? They have left them in and they have continued to invest more money, more than has ever been earned. Does he recognize that this incentive to continue investment in Canada is partly a result of the tax system? And who benefits from this economic stimulation? Who benefits from the increased number of jobs being offered in Canada?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The hon. member is 100 per cent correct when he says the tax system is partly responsible for the investment made by the gas and oil companies. But I suggest he should read the speech which was made here a while ago in this chamber by his hon. friend from Duver-nay before he talks about tax incentives given to the mining and oil companies. Most of these companies are owned by multi-national corporations with head offices in the United States and elsewhere. Over 98 per cent of them are owned outside this country.


Gérald Laniel: It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the House may proceed to the consideration of private members' business pursuant to Standing Order 15.
Progress reported.

December 23, 1971
Income Tax Act


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it may be we should find out whether the House would be ready to dispense with the private members' hour in the interest of continuing the discussion which has been taking place in the committee.


Gerald William Baldwin: I always like to have these public explanations made in connection with any thought of dispensing with the private members' hour. Perhaps we could go even further than that and sit between the hours of six and eight, without in any way restricting the right of hon. members to give adequate consideration to this bill.
I say this because a great many hon. members have arrangements to make late tonight. Would there be any indication forthcoming as to the length of time it would take to complete this portion of our business, supposing we were to sit between five and six and again between six and eight? I am not asking for any undertaking, but some indication of what hon. members have in mind might be of help if we are to assess this situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest we take it an hour at a time. The issue at the moment is that of suspending private members' hour. We agree to that, and we can consider the other matter later.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is there unanimous consent to forgo the private members' hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The House will now resume the study of Bill C-275, an act to amend the statute law related to income tax, in committee of the whole.



INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT. 1971

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-275, to amend the statute law relating to income tax-Mr. Drury-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Gérald Laniel: When the committee rose it was discussing clause 3, on which there is an amendment moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.
On clause 3: Additional deduction from tax.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, just before we broke for a moment, our amendment is based on one thing, and one thing only, namely equity. We are trying to get more money into the hands of the poor and middle income groups. We realize this is only a part of tax reform, and we realize tax reform is only a part of the fight against poverty. The proposal in our amendment is one of the things we will have to adopt if we are to give a decent break to the lower and middle income groups.
We know that the economic system discriminates against the low and middle income earner. Unless we stop current practices the low or middle income earner will not be free to pursue what he wants economically and socially. The whole capitalistic system accentuates this. It gives rewards to those who make high profits.
[The Deputy Chairman.]
Someone said that hard work earns high profits. I know a lot of people in this country who made a lot of money not because they worked hard but because they had a few lucky breaks, or because they had a rich uncle or a rich grandfather. I know many people who are working hard on farms and in factories but who are discriminated against. We are not saying that they should be given special benefits, but we are saying that there should be equity in the tax system; that their income should be taxed on the same basis as someone who is fortunate enough to have a great deal of wealth.
Hon. members do not realize what this bill does. It is giving a $1.09 tax reduction to a married person with two children earning $4,000, and a $202 tax reduction to the man earning $50,000. The poor fellow who is just getting by on $100,000 will have his tax load reduced by $750. That is the type of equity that the Conservative and Liberal parties want. That is the type of equity I do not stand for and that I am fighting against.
Hon. members opposite talk about initiative. This bill gives initiative only to those people who have a lot of money. What about the small guy? Have they ever thought of giving him some initiative so that he could have a chance to enjoy better housing, buy a few more books for his children, and find better opportunities for his family? We would probably have a better and wealthier society in Canada if this were the case, instead of handing out bigger and bigger carrots to foreign corporations and the wealthy.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Chairman, I heard the hon. member say that if we did those things he mentioned maybe we would have a wealthier society than we have today. I thought the same thing as I listened to the hon. member for Duvernay. As much as hon. members opposite want to attack our tax system, attack the economic policies of this country and attack the extent to which we have been dominated by foreign investments, it still cannot be overlooked that we have the second or third highest standard of living of all the countries in the world. This has not resulted from the implementation of the policies that the NDP have been advocating, and it certainly would not result from following the policies advocated by the hon. member for Duvernay.
When I hear attacks on and challenges to the economic policies and tax system of Canada, I concede that there is a lot wrong with the tax system and a lot of reform is required. But it is important to remember that this is the system which produces one of the highest standards of living in the world.
That is not something that the members of the NDP should write off. They come here claiming to represent the interests of the underprivileged. I do not know where they get that mandate, but they claim to do so. But it is seriously wrong for them not to take into consideration the fact that the tax system and the economic policies of our country have been responsible for giving us our high standard of living.
When they complain about the taxes paid by the oil and gas industry and say they should be higher, and that other sectors of the economy should be paying much higher taxes than they, hon. members opposite may be right; but why do they fail to take into consideration the effect that
December 23^971

the policies they recommend would have on the standard of living of Canadians?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I do consider this effect, Mr. Chairman. But may I point out that we also have the highest unemployment rate of any industrial country in the world, and this is a direct result of the policies we have been following in Canada.
I would like to point out to the hon. member that the standard of living of a large number of Canadians is far from being near the highest in the world. In Sweden the average working person is much better off and has a higher standard of living than the average working person in Canada. Certainly the standard of living is high for a few people in this country, for the select few who are benefiting from the system, but it is not that high for the vast majority of Canadians, certainly not for the 40 per cent of them who are living at or below the poverty line. It is these people I am concerned about, and it is against these people that the tax system works.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak on the amendment other than to make the few introductory comments that I made at the outset, but I cannot refrain from replying to the unmitigated nonsense uttered by the hon. member for Don Valley who specializes in creating little caricatures to attack.
He says the NDP have ignored the effects of the economic policies of the Liberal party for the last 25 years. He says we have not acknowledged that those policies have produced growth beyond that produced in other countries. We have acknowledged this. We have said it over and over again. If he wants to listen now, he can hear it again. We do acknowledge this point. But what economists in this country and elsewhere have said is that we pay a very high price indeed for our kind of economic growth.
There are alternative methods that would not involve selling out ownership of the resources of this country. Sweden, the United States and other countries have developed their economies using policies different from those used by the Liberal party here. I grant the point that we have had good economic growth in the past 25 years, but I do not grant that the methods selected by the Liberal party of Canada were the only ones which could achieve that kind of growth.
The second red herring introduced by the hon. member for Don Valley was his suggestion that we were proposing this kind of amendment in order to overcome poverty. That is rubbish. No one in this party has said that adoption of this amendment would overcome poverty. If they did it would be irresponsible and false. What we have said is that the adoption of our amendment would put money into the hands of the poorer people in a much more significant way than the government is proposing.
It is disgusting that a man making $4,000 a year, who has a wife and two children to support, will benefit to the extent of only $1.09 under the provisions of this bill. We say that instead of that man getting $1.09 he should get $40. That will not fundamentally change the earth; it will not overcome poverty, but it might improve that man's situation.
Income Tax Act
We are also saying that the government should not introduce this across across-the-board tax reduction that gives millionnaires hundreds and hundreds of dollars when tax reduction could be applied in a much more equitable fashion.
The third myth, of course, is that we are not interested as a party in stimulating the economy and that we do not accept that a 3 per cent reduction will have a good effect in generating growth. Again I say that is garbage. I wish the hon. member for Don Valley would listen to the argument. He gets up and creates red herrings and refers to points which never were made. Why does he not listen to the argument and then reply to it?
Let me deal with the 3 per cent which he said would stimulate the economy across the board. I would be pleased to commend the remarks of several economists to the hon. member because they would say that this is hogwash. We want to get money into the hands of the people who will spend it fast, not into the hands of the upper income people who will reinvest it. We all know this measure is intended to deal with the immediate situation, and our amendment would achieve that. It would give the $160 million to everyone earning $9,000, $10,000 or less. Principally that is where most of the money would go. That would have a stimulating effect on the economy. So much for the nonsense talked by the hon. members.
Finally he said we are opposed to corporations. The brilliant financial critic of the Conservative party made the same point; that is, that the New Democratic Party really is not concerned with corporations. That, too, is garbage. Look at what the party across the way is doing in respect of the automotive industry. I have spoken to management people who are very concerned that this government is going to obliterate the auto industry in this country. If anything, they share the views of the New Democratic Party because they say, in terms of responsible industrial growth in the automotive industry, it is our party that talks sense and not the government party.
The government states that the 7 per cent across the board corporate tax reduction is going retroactively to stimulate the economy. Again I would suggest the hon. member read what our economists say, and not necessarily socialist economists, because they would say this is garbage too. The companies which will get the benefits will not create any jobs at all. They will just make windfall profits. The companies that will benefit are all capitalintensive companies. Our party would say that, if we are to have a sensible taxation policy to stimulate the corporate sector of the economy, by all means consider a 7 per cent tax reduction, but make it conditional on the company expanding and on the expansion not being just capital expansion. A corporation policy that would stimulate the economy would make sense, but not what this government is offering.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on Bill C-275.
I feel our friends of the NDP are pleading a case "hand over fist", that they would insist that the rich pay more
10754


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, after hearing the remarks of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby with regard to the arguments presented by the hon. member for Don Valley I realize that my colleague was attempting to reach the intellectual capacity of the hon. member for Don Valley. Unfortunately the latter is not here at the moment but I am sure that some of his colleagues on the other side will pass on my remarks to the hon. member for Don Valley.
I must tell hon. members a little story with regard to the hon. member for Don Valley. Last spring he spoke to a high school in my riding.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Gilbert: Some time later he said to me-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Will the hon. member resume his seat. I know the hon. member wants to tell us a little story but the Chair would prefer to hear about the amendment, instead of the story that the hon. member has regarding another hon. member.


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, the experience is directly related to the amendment before us. After speaking to a high school in my riding, to the Riverdale Collegiate, he
December 23^1971

told me that he was depressed by the attitude of some of the students. He spoke about the "give up" attitude of the students because of the high unemployment rate that we are experiencing in Canada. He said that many of the students felt they could not get jobs even though they were well trained. This made them feel very depressed, and the hon. member expressed his concern to me.
I just wanted to reach the heart of the hon. member for Don Valley and to tell him that as a result of this bill I will have to go back to the riding of Broadview and tell a working man with an income of $4,000, a wife and three children, that when this bill passes he will receive the princely sum of $1.09. I imagine that the hon. member for Don Valley will be able to go back to his riding and tell the people there who have an income of $30,000 or more that they will receive at least $150 or more. I am sure that after the hon. member for Don Valley had expressed his concern for the working man in Broadview who would only get $1.09, whereas the hon. member's friends would get over $150, he would be persuaded to vote for the amendment.
I am not only relating my remarks to the working men in Broadview; I am relating them to all working people. If the hon. member for Parkdale were here he would probably agree with me, as would some of my Conservative friends, such as the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys in whose constituency there is a high unemployment rate and where wages are depressed. I am sure that they would like to go home and tell the working people in their constituencies that, if the amendment presented by the NDP had passed, they could have at least $40 as a tax credit.
I think the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, who stood in his place yesterday and asked the Minister of Justice about guns and how we should register them to protect the public-and I agree with him-would also agree with me that it would be far better to say that the people of Quebec should at least enjoy a minimum benefit of $40, so that the people of Quebec should at least enjoy a minimum benefit of $40, so that they would not have to buy guns or have a revolution, and we would not have to pass another War Measures Act.
I am sure that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, who understands the feelings of the people in his riding, realizes how necessary it is to pass this amendment. I could continue by referring to the hon. member for Lanark-Renfew-Carleton, who will be saying on Sunday "Blessed are the poor". If he thinks that the poor are blessed, surely he could give who have an income of $4,000 or less more than $1. I suspect he would want to give them a Christmas charity of a minimum of $40.
I notice that the hon. member for Essex is also present, and I remember the statesmanlike speech that he made.


Mr. Whelan:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I want to tell the hon. member for Broadview that I think I know as much about poverty as he does. When he says that my views and his views are similar and that I have concern for the poor, let me tell him that I was raised on a mother's allowance. I have heard nothing but garbage from his party this afternoon. If we all took part in this debate none of us would get out of here. The hon. member is simply taking advantage of the situation.
Income Tax Act


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gérald Laniel: Order, please.


John Gilbert: I want to assure the hon. member for Essex that I am sure that he has experienced poverty. But I also have experienced poverty.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Intellectual poverty.


John Gilbert: I can say that we could shorten this debate if the government accepted the amendment and were charitable at Christmas time. What I was really going to say about the hon. member for Essex is that he made a statesmanlike speech with regard to credit unions, and I compliment him for it. I remember him saying that it was one of the most major issues that he had ever faced as a Member of Parliament. Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the hon. member that this is a major issue which he must face. The question of poverty in Canada may not be striking, because it only involves $160 million, but it indicates an attitude with regard to the working people.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Essex rises on a point of order, and I hope this time it will be a legitimate point of order.


Eugene Whelan: It is a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I should like to tell the hon. member for Broadview that my concern for the poor is as great as his, and my record of dealing with the poor is as great as his, but I do not think we have to be as vocal as they have been this afternoon to prove it. We have done a lot for the poor since I have been a Member of Parliament. The poor of this country are treated better than those in any country in the world.


Gérald Laniel: That is a very good point of debate but it is certainly not a point of order.


John Gilbert: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I appreciate your protection. However, if the hon. member wants to make a speech he can do so, and if his concern is as great as ours he will vote for the amendment. The hon. member for Don Valley said that this tax reform will not eliminate poverty. That is quite true, but this amendment is a step in the right direction. We in the New Democratic Party would go much further than the government has in regard to tax reform; we would bring in other bills to make this a better country for all Canadians.


Mr. Allmand:: Why don't you do it in Manitoba and Saskatchewan?


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. We should try to debate this matter in the Christmas spirit and display a good sense of humour. This would assist the Chair in properly conducting the debate.


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, I enjoyed the remarks of hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. I am sure he expresses concern, but I am waiting to see how he votes on this amendment. He certainly presents an attitude of concern to the workers of this country, but we will put him to the real test when the vote is taken.
24725-52!

December 23, 1971
Income Tax Act
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Don Valley spoke about corporations and their concern about spreading the tax moneys that they might save as a result of the tax decrease of 7 per cent. I would remind him of what we heard in the House yesterday about what corporations are doing with the sales tax allowance which was given on radios, television sets, and so forth. The parliamentary secretary said then that the corporations did not pass the tax allowance on to the consumer and that in fact the price on some of these articles has risen. We had the same result when we granted an excise tax allowance to drug companies-they just put it in their own pockets. I would assume that the same thing will happen to this 7 per cent tax allowance.
I am sure the hon. member for Don Valley will be impressed with the remarks of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby concerning the intellectual argument. After all, it is when you go to the heart of a man that he changes and I am sure when the hon. member recalls his experience in my riding with working men and the concern he expressed for them he does not want me to go back there and tell them that the government will give $1.09 to a married man with three children who is earning $4,000 a year. When he goes back to his own riding he can tell his friends there who are making $30,000 a year that they will benefit by $150. I am sure the hon. member for Don Valley will be persuaded to support this amendment.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question? The question is on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.
Amendment (Mr. Broadbent) negatived. Yeas, 13; nays, 56.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 3 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 3 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 4 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Clause 4 agreed to: Yeas, 53; nays, 13.
On clause 5-Additional deduction for manpower training.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to make a speech, so everybody can relax.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, my remarks may be longer if there is interference. At the end of my previous remarks the Minister of Manpower and Immigration said he was surprised to hear that certain questions I had referred to had not been answered. After looking at the order paper, he said he could not find the questions and invited me to tell him where they were to be found. I am sorry he is not present to hear me. I have done as he suggested and I am surprised to find that all the questions

have been answered. He was quite right, and I congratulate him for the speed with which his department answered these questions. I have another question and I do not know to whom to direct it. His parliamentary secretary is not present.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I am here.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I want to know whether the legislation, as now worded, precludes on-the-job training contracts being entered into with municipal bodies, governments or voluntary bodies as employers.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I will convey that question to the minister and transmit the answer to the hon. member.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, I will speak for only three or four minutes. I have waited since two o'clock to raise certain questions and I am sorry the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is not here to answer questions concerning clause 5. I had hoped that he would make a four or five-minute speech on the manpower training program, which is under his jurisdiction in one sense, and that he would speak briefly about the survey on job vacancies which was tabled today in the House. We have been waiting for that survey to be tabled for several months and I think it is unfortunate that I have to raise my questions at a quarter to six on the day when we adjourn for the Christmas recess. For this reason I will keep my remarks short and direct a couple of questions to the government. I hope the minister will respond to them.
The document I hold in my hand, which is the survey regarding job vacancies, cost the Canadian taxpayer $3.5 million. This survey, the contract for which was let by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, is a comprehensive document and indicates that there are 38,500 jobs vacancies in Canada today despite the fact that over 500,000 people are unemployed. There are several comments I wish to make. Firstly, these vacancies are a clear and categorical repudiation of the statement the Prime Minister made in Montreal recently. He said that if the Canadian people were to fill the job opportunities available, we would not have unemployment in Canada to the extent existing. He suggested that Canadians do not want to go to work. Mr. Chairman, this survey which has been conducted by professionals in the field indicates that there are only 38,500 job vacancies at a time when about 550,000 of our people are unemployed. I am making a "guesstimate" when I say that about 550,000 of our people are out of work on December 23, 1971. If there are 38,500 jobs available, then somewhere along the line we as Canadians have failed in our efforts to bring together those who are seeking work and job opportunities.
In Canada there are hundreds of manpower offices. We have a multimillion dollar program under the auspices of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, yet there are 38,500 jobs which are not filled. People are not aware of these jobs, or training programs are not being integrated correctly and we are not training people to fill these jobs. In the alternative, these 38,500 vacancies cannot be filled by Canadians. Perhaps Canadians are not qualified to fill them.
Decem ber 23, 1971

I notice that opposite is an hon. member from the Lake-head region who is an educator. He is listening to me. I ask hon. members who have been involved in this field and are as interested in it as I am whether these 38,500 jobs are those that Canadians have been trained to fill. If they are, then I suggest there has been lack of co-ordination of effort as between Manpower officials, Manpower centres and industry, because we are not training people to fill these jobs. If, among our 550,000 unemployed, Canadians cannot be found to fill these jobs, it is obvious that we must retrain our workers. Clearly, the implications are serious for our vocational, technical and operating schools across the country.
I would like to think that since this survey has been in the minister's possession for several months-and I raise a big question mark as to why it has not been tabled before today-the minister has evolved some major strategy for implementing in a practical way the suggestions that flow from this document. I suggest that there are hundreds of inferences that members of the House can draw from this document, some of them relating, for instance, to the total lack of co-ordination of effort that I mentioned a moment ago. The phrase "co-ordination of effort" sounds like an ad hoc, fruity phrase without any meaning. When I talk about lack of co-ordination of effort I mean that there has been a breakdown in co-ordination with regard to manpower programs. This breakdown has serious implications for those programs.
Secondly, there are serious implications for our manpower offices. I say that, even though conceding that officials in the Manpower offices across Canada are working diligently, as dedicated public servants, in trying to bring jobs and the people looking for them together. I suggest, nevertheless, that either because of lack of funding or for other reasons Manpower offices are not fulfilling the responsibilities given to them under the legislation. One must conclude that because 38,500 jobs which are available for Canadians are not at present filled.
The minister's predecessor commissioned this study because it was felt necessary for the government to be in possession of such a survey and because it would give members of the government an idea whether the Immigration Act ought to be amended. The report has serious implications with regard to the immigration policies of the government. I understand that the minister brought before cabinet a bill to amend the Immigration Act but that the idea was vetoed by the Prime Minister. So far as I know, there is no further plan to bring in amendments to the Immigration Act. Nevertheless, this document is prime evidence of the fact that the government must spend some time in this House amending the Immigration Act if the implications of the job vacancy survey are to be met and answered.
I will not take much more time, but by these remarks I give notice of questions we shall raise relating to the Immigration Act, relating to the co-ordination of effort I spoke about, relating to Manpower offices and Manpower personnel, to Manpower training programs, to programs affecting industry and to programs affecting employees of Canada. Our questions will relate particularly to our Manpower offices and to the implications flowing from this report. Those are the matters which we shall pursue in the House and we shall ask the government about them.
Income Tax Act
The information gathered in this report cost us $3.5 million. The situation, as revealed in the report, has existed for several years. The report has not been made available to Canadians, and we do not know why. We intend to pursue this matter vigorously when the House resumes its business after the Christmas holidays. We hope it will return before February 16, the date that was intimated by the leader of the House.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 5 carry?
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that Bill C-275, to amend the statute law relating to Income Tax, be read the third time and do pass.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will be even briefer than I was before because of the many hard hearts and thick heads around here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I know another speech will have no effect on the House unless I elaborate. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:
That Bill C-275 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole House for the purpose of reconsidering clause 3 and in particular for the purpose of reconsidering an amendment to clause 3 to increase the deduction therein provided from 1 i per cent to 20 per cent subject to a maximum of $40 for any one taxpayer.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? The question is on the main motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
I am sure it would be of interest to hon. members to learn that Mr. Gordon Dubroy, Clerk Assistant of the House of Commons, today reached a milestone in his distinguished career. He has just completed calling the one thousandth division of his career.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members and visitors to our galleries who have had the experience of watching Mr. Dubroy on these occasions have been not only impressed but astonished by his ability every time to perform this very difficult exercise in so flawless a manner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I know all hon. members would want me to express to Mr. Dubroy on their behalf our continuing affection and admiration for his distinguished services to the House of Commons. We wish him many more divisions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is a temptation to give Mr. Dubroy a chance for his one thousandth and first time, but we will settle for "On division."


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I heard Mr. Dubroy make one mistake back in 1966. I would not want to mar the evening by having that possibility happen again, so we will dispense with the division.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the House rise until Your Honour calls us after the other place has completed consideration of this bill, when we might wish to reassemble for royal assent.


Gerald William Baldwin: I would be agreeable, Mr. Speaker. We will be around for a few minutes yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will therefore suspend its sitting until the call of the bells.



SITTING SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
At 6.18 p.m. the sitting was suspended.
[DOT]	(7:40 p.m.)

[Stage Direction]
[DOT]	(7:50 p.m.)
The House resumed at 7.55 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Government House Ottawa, December 23, 1971
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Roland A. Ritchie, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today at 7.55 o'clock p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
December 23, 1971

sir,
Your obedient servant,
Louis-Fremont Trudeau Brigadier General
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of the honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Copyright Act
An act to amend the Customs Tariff
An act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Old Age Security Act
An act 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
An act to amend the statute law relating to income tax.
_________________________	10759
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mr. MacEachen moved:
That this House do now adjourn.

I have the pleasure of reminding hon. members that if they have a moment before leaving the House to join their families, I shall be most happy to welcome them in Room 16 to wish them and their wives and families a Merry Christmas.


Mr. Danforth:: And a merry Christmas to you, Sir.


Mr. Speaker:: When we are back next week I shall have the opportunity to wish hon. members a happy New Year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made earlier this day, the House will adjourn until two o'clock in the afternoon of Tuesday, December 28, 1971.
At 8:10 p.m. the House adjourned, pursuant to special order, until 2 p.m. Tuesday, December 28.

Tuesday, December 28, 1971