1972-06-15

PRIVILEGE


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege based on responses I gave in the House on June 9 and June 12 to the hon. members for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) and Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), as reported on pages 2993 and 3036 of Hansard, with regard to the death of Mrs. Alicia Wiercioch.
After a complete inquiry into her case I find that the information on the basis of which I answered the hon. members was not entirely correct and that my response was ambiguous and would tend to mislead the House and members of the media. This is why, Mr. Speaker, I trust you will allow me this opportunity to briefly set the record straight.
Mrs. Wiercioch applied for landed status on September 30, 1968, one month after she arrived in Canada on a six month visitor's visa. Because of procedures which were in existence at the time, her husband had to fill out an application form on his own behalf so that the entire family could be processed. This caused a delay since her husband was in Poland and had to be processed through our Geneva office which was the regional headquarters for Europe at that time.
During this delay Mrs. Wiercioch accepted work without permission after signing a written statement that she would not do so. Once she informed my department of this, she immediately could no longer be a successful applicant for landing. The department sent her a letter asking her to depart voluntarily, failing which she would be ordered to an inquiry to decide whether or not she should be deported. She had her inquiry on September 24, 1970, at which time she was ordered deported but given permission to work after she stated that she would pursue an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board.
On March 15, 1972, the Immigration Appeal Board dismissed her appeal against deportation and declined to exercise their discretion to allow her to remain on compassionate grounds. Her attorney then made a motion to the Federal Court to have the time limit extended for submission of a motion to seek leave to appeal. This motion was still before the Federal Court at the time of her death. Because the case was sub judice the department had no intention of effecting deportation when Mrs. Wiercioch died.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I stated to the hon. members for Hamilton West and Edmonton Centre that she was not ordered deported for working illegally. I can assure the
House that I did not give this information in bad faith but based it on the preliminary information then submitted to me by the department, which I have now found contained errors that are being investigated. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to set the record straight.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, I see the hon. member for Hamilton West seeks the floor in order, I assume, to discuss this important matter. I am not sure that the matter was raised correctly by way of a question of privilege. Perhaps it would have been better had it been raised by way of a statement on motions, which would have permitted the hon. member for Hamilton West to respond. With the consent of the House, perhaps we might deem that the minister's statement was made on motions, which would allow the hon. member for Hamilton West to speak in reply.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is in order for me, on behalf of my party, to thank the minister for setting the record straight. Unquestionably there was a conflict of evidence which raised many questions in the minds of many people about our whole immigration procedure. Because of what has happened, and because of the outdatedness, if I may use that expression, of our immigration procedures, especially those relating to deportation orders, I hope the minister will make sure that there will be early implementation of those amendments that he believes will make the Immigration Act more acceptable so that in the long run equity will prevail and the act will work more expeditiously.
I would hope that the minister has learned how his departmental officials work. I do not know what action he intends to take, but he has certainly been misled. I notice the minister has drawn his thumb across his throat, indicating that someone is in trouble. It is right that this should be so because of the seriousness of this matter in that this person, who had great respect for this country and wanted to live here in freedom, decided, because of the hangups in the present immigration laws, to take her own life.
I again thank the minister for attempting to set the record straight with regard to this matter.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, thank the minister for his statement, but I think this tragic episode underlines the necessity for a thorough review of the whole question of immigration procedures. A serious problem arises, as the minister knows, owing to the fact that in large urban communities such as Toronto there is a lengthy delay following the decision of an immigration officer in the special inquiry to which a person is entitled.
25319-14J

June 15, 1972
Immigration Regulations
I know the minister is making moves to deal with this problem, but I think the whole policy regarding the issuance of work permits to people while they are waiting, through no fault of their own, for these lengthy procedures to determine their rights should be reviewed.
I suggest to the minister that the time has come to review the policy of allowing the final discretion as to clemency in these matters to remain with what is in effect a court of law. I think that Parliament made a mistake when it deprived the minister of the final right to extend clemency in especially hard cases. I hope that the whole situation will be reviewed because the present situation is entirely unsatisfactory. It is unfair to immigrants and I think it is unfair to the people of Canada.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the remarks that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has just made about the minister's statement concerning immigration. Indeed, immigration regulations should be revised and carefully considered in order to enable immigrants to identify themselves quite easily with our society and prevent undesirables from entering Canada.
In my opinion, the proposal made by the hon. member for Greenwood is fully justified and I suggest that the government and the minister should follow up that matter as soon as possible.



MR. MUIR-INACCURATE INFORMATION IN BOOKLET, &quot;ON THE ROAD&quot;

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all members of the House, particularly those from Atlantic Canada. It relates to a publication, sponsored by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), produced at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer and distributed free of charge by Information Canada and the Department of National Health and Welfare.
The publication in question is entitled "On The Road" and is supposed to be "a guide for youth travelling Canada." The news release that accompanied this booklet states as follows:
The booklet has been designed to present helpful hints, in a comprehensive but simplified manner, to Canadian youth on the move ... whether the trip is long or short, whether walking, driving or riding a bicycle, Canadian youth will find the map section of particular value.
My question of privilege deals with the information contained in the map section of the booklet. On checking the maps of the Atlantic area, I was absolutely astonished to see that the city of Sydney, in my constituency on Cape Breton Island, is designated as being over 300 miles away on mainland Nova Scotia in the historic Lunenburg area. Having removed the city of Sydney, they attempt to eliminate Cape Breton Island by disposing of the Canso causeway. I want to tell the Minister of National Health and Welfare that efforts to ignore us will in no way eliminate us. I might also add there were fears expressed at the time the Canso causeway was constructed that the remainder
[Mr. Brewin.l
of Canada might try to swallow our island as Jonah was swallowed by the whale.
In view of the fact that I have mentioned Sydney, Lunenburg, the Canso causeway and Cape Breton Island, which are all part of Canada's ocean playground, I should like to inform those who prepared the booklet that I am somewhat dubious about some of the instructions. For instance, on page 4 the booklet states: "Drowning is unhealthy".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Muir: We in Cape Breton consider it fatal. It would be bad enough if the only mistake made was to remove Sydney from Cape Breton Island and put it on the south shore of Nova Scotia, but that is not all. They have taken the town of Truro and moved it from the Minas Basin to the center of Nova Scotia where Mount Thom was when I was last there. They have taken the Scottish heritage from New Glasgow and, apparently aware of the recent controversy over the sale of Grassy Island to an American, they have replaced the Scottish name with a bovine heritage and named it New Glas-cow!
I would like to stop there if I could, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot. Dalhousie has been moved from New Brunswick and appears to be in Quebec. Newfoundland has a new abbreviation-N.F.-apparently in keeping with the government's policy toward that province. I assume it stands for "No fish."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question of privilege is obviously receiving a very sympathetic response from all hon. members, and I would not want to limit unduly his right to express his views with respect to the matter he is bringing to our attention. Nevertheless, to this point I find some difficulty in recognizing the question of privilege, in other words, precisely how the hon. member's parliamentary privileges have been infringed. I hope the hon. member will not pursue the matter much further. I gather that he is coming to the end of his statement.


Robert Muir: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I truly respect your opinion, as you well know. I shall not take much more of the time of the House in outlining the shocking discrepancies in the map section, but I must refer to one other inexcusable inaccuracy which appears on page 31 of the booklet in reference to hospitals in Nova Scotia. The booklet lists only two hospitals in Nova Scotia and they are both mental institutions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Muir: This makes me wonder whether the author of the book felt any of the youths visiting our province would require this type of treatment. It might also suggest that when the individual or individuals concerned were preparing the booklet they were on a trip of the variety examined by the Le Dain Commission and not the type of trip I hope the youth of today will be making this summer. Still further, the mental institution referred to in the city of Halifax is not given its correct name, nor is it located at the address given. If anyone were to try to find this
June 15, 1972

institution, he would certainly need its facilities before he finally got there. It would be amusing if it were not so serious.
In recent days there has been growing concern about the usefulness of Information Canada. If there was ever an example of its uselessness, this booklet is certainly it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now arguing a case against Information Canada. I wonder how this can be related to parliamentary privilege. Hon. members must realize that parliamentary privilege arises from a very special case which might be made out successfully at times by hon. members. A responsibility rests on hon. members who believe they have a valid question of privilege to state what the privilege is as quickly as possible.


Robert Muir: I fully agree, Mr. Speaker, with the statement you have made, but I am sure you will agree with me that no more grievous blow could be dealt a Member of Parliament than to remove the largest city from his riding and reflect on the people he represents. Day after day the evidence piles up. It is appalling that Canadians should be so irresponsibly misinformed. I believe that not only the people I represent in Cape Breton-The Sydneys but other people in Cape Breton Island, in the Province of Nova Scotia and, indeed, in Atlantic Canada have been outrageously insulted.
It is because I am utterly opposed to the operations of Information Canada that it is my intention to file with the House a notice in opposition to vote No. 25 of the Department of Supply and Services appearing in the estimates for the fiscal year 1972-73, which involves the expenditure of $10,354,000 for the operation of this agency.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has given notice of his intention to file a notice on the order paper. That, I assume, would be the remedy that he is seeking. Therefore the Chair will have to rule that the matter cannot be pursued further as a question of privilege. I am sure the hon. member will agree with that ruling.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to propose a motion under Standing Order 43. The need for the motion has been quite apparent during the point of privilege raised by the minister, for which I give him credit, and during the remarks following. It is a motion of pressing and urgent necessity for which I am seeking unanimous consent. The administration of the Immigration Act and regulations has created confusion and misunderstanding, as evidenced by numerous incidents which have become public knowledge recently. The motion I shall move if unanimous consent is given is as follows:
Inquiries of the Ministry
That a special joint committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to examine and report upon the present administration of the Immigration Act and regulations and make recommendations designed to bring about suitable changes; and that the committee have power to report from time to time, to appoint subcommittees, to send for persons, papers and records and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as.may be ordered by the committee; and that a message be sent to the Senate requesting their Honours to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems so advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.
I have struggled to remove any controversial or hostile comments from the motion, and if there is unanimous consent to accept it I would be glad to have that done without debate at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.



TABLING OF FIFTH REPORT OF CLERK OF PETITIONS

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk has laid upon the table the fifth report of the Clerk of Petitions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Labour.
In view of the extremely important situation that prevails in the harbours of Montreal and Quebec City, I should like to ask the following question of the Minister of Labour; since the deadlock between ship owners and longshoremen seems to be dragging on, and since both parties stated that they were prepared to go to arbitration, though they have not yet started any proceedings in that direction, can the minister tell the House how, in his opinion, that dispute will be settled without his personal intervention?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister oi Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept all of the premises in the hon. member's question. Both parties have not agreed to arbitration. I am staying in very close touch with the situation and I hope some movement may take place soon.

June 15, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege or a point of order, whichever the Chair decides.
The minister has just said that both parties have not agreed to arbitration. I should like to refer the House to page 3124 of yesterday's Hansard where the Minister of Labour is reported to have said:
-The Maritime Employers' Association has expressed its willingness to arbitrate. It has, however, not initiated the proceedings. The International Longshoremen's Association has put its position somewhat in this fashion, that it is open to the other party to initiate proceedings but the longshoremen do not themselves wish to initiate these proceedings.
Mr. Speaker, the minister has just answered that the two parties did not speak of their intention to resort to arbitration-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member might put a supplementary question. To my mind, an apparent or obvious contradiction in the information given to the House cannot be considered as a point of order or a question of privilege. The hon. member might perhaps want to put a supplementary question to the minister.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour to kindly throw light on the present position of the longshoremen and ship owners, that is to say to tell us whether one or the other party has indicated its wish to resort to arbitration and whether one or the other has undertaken procedures to that effect?


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything to the statements and answers I gave in the House yesterday. I would simply say to both parties that they have an obligation under the law and under their agreement to either singly or jointly arbitrate the difference that has arisen between them. They owe that obligation not only to themselves but to the community of Montreal and to the country which is gravely affected by the unwillingness of either or both to take the action that is clearly in front of them and which they should be taking now.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put another supplementary question to the minister. In view of the importance of the problem, I know that the minister will readily give a clear and specific answer. Can he tell the House whether one of the parties has let it be known that it would be ready to resort to arbitration, if he would personally intervene?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar on a supplementary.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think that the minister was ready to answer, but he needed a few seconds to think over what he would say. I feel that the minister should answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Such is not my impression.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-SUGGESTED TAKEOVER OF LONGSHORING OPERATIONS BY GOVERNMENT

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, last week I directed a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board asking whether he would act on the request of the National Farmers Union, that the government should take over the operations of the stevedoring firms at the St. Lawrence ports and carry on operations until such time as an agreement is reached between the operating firms and the workers. Is the minister now ready to give consideration to and act on that request?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, I am not considering that step.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-INQUIRY RESPECTING MEETING BETWEEN MINISTER AND PARTIES

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
I know that the minister is closely examining the situation in Montreal. Yesterday, he answered rather precisely the questions directed to him but I would like to ask him whether he has communicated with the employers or the union representatives and whether he expects that an agreement will be reached by the two parties involved?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any direct communication with either of the two parties. I simply state that the settlement of this dispute is in their hands, and that is where it belongs. They should get together and bring about a settlement of the dispute.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are five or six supplementary questions. We will try to proceed in an orderly fashion. I will first recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue and then return to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar for a supplementary to his question.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a further supplementary question.
Can the minister say what is keeping both parties from meeting in order to reach an agreement?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, I rather think I fully explained that situation yesterday and I have not very much more to add to that.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-SUGGESTED TAKEOVER OF LONGSHORING OPERATIONS BY GOVERNMENT

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, in view of the evident unwillingness of the Minister of Labour to act effectively in this situation may I ask the minister in charge of the Wheat Board whether he can
June 15, 1972

assure members of this House that grain exports will not suffer as a result of the continued inoperation of those ports?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the movement of feed grain is proceeding through alternate ports in the east, as well as at very rapid rates through other ports. Naturally the capacity for moving grain into export at any moment in time is less without these facilities, but the alternate facilities are being operated long hours at their fullest possible capacity to try to carry the load.


Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Labour. Does he intend to continue the government's laissez-faire policy and allow an illegal strike to remain unsettled by default and the usual government capitulation in these matters?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That obviously is not a question. The hon. member for Joliette.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-SUGGESTION THAT MINISTER REQUIRE PARTIES TO RESPECT OBLIGATIONS

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Since the minister has said clearly that both parties had obligations concerning the public, will he compel them to respect them?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems that many questions are basically repetitions of those put previously and that the question of the hon. member for Joliette has been put earlier today.

For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South. If there is a disposition on the part of hon. members to return to this matter later we will do so.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for York South.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


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


Roch La Salle: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I realize many similar questions have been raised but I believe those concerned are most eager to know whether the hon. minister is going to take a stand regarding the conflict. I just wanted to ask the hon. minister whether, without replacing the parties concerned, he will at least hold them to the commitments he has mentioned.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I must say again that I consider that question has already been raised.



HOUSING


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, who according to the roster should be here today-I am sure he is away for good reason-I wish to pose a question to the Acting Prime Minister on the assumption that the matter was discussed in cabinet and he would know some of the answers. In view of the fact that Mr. McKeough, the provincial treasurer for Ontario, stated in the legislature yesterday that it would be incorrect to say the province had been consulted about the proposed amendments to the National Housing Act, would the Acting Prime Minister inform the House what exactly was the nature of the consultation the federal government and the provinces had in respect of these amendments and whether any provincial governments made substantive comments, criticisms or suggestions when they saw the proposals?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of question that can be answered adequately only by the minister in charge. I will see that the question is put to him and he will answer at the next opportunity.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this time my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council as government House leader. We have had first reading of the amendments to the National Housing Act. I should like to ask him whether there is any intention on his part to bring the bill forward for second reading, or is it to be housing by headline for election purposes only?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Shefford.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he cannot ask a question in those terms. I again take exception to hon. members who ask a question that they should know is out of order and then, when they are called to order, seek the floor again to put it in proper terms. I think the question should be asked properly in the first instance.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will not take the time now, but there is reason for my comment. May I ask the government House leader whether he intends to bring forward for second reading before the end of this month the bill amending the National Housing Act?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have already had discussions with the opposition House leaders concerning what items of legislation will be brought forward before the end of the

June 15, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
month. Since that discussion the National Housing Act and one or two other items have come forward. I hope to state quite definitely next week all the items that will be called before we can look forward to an adjournment. Certainly the National Housing Act is one which has attracted a good deal of support in the country and it would be desirable to deal with it.


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


David Lewis: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I hope you will notice, Sir, that the sin is on both sides, if it is a sin. May I ask either the government House leader or the Acting Prime Minister-if neither one of them can answer perhaps it could be taken as notice-what I suggest is an important question. In view of the fact that most of the amendments to the National Housing Act require co-operation from the provinces as well as the municipalities and, indeed, require that funds be made available by the provinces and municipalities, may the House have a brief explanation concerning why the bill was introduced even for first reading without, as I on good information am informed, all the provinces even approving of the amendments proposed by the cabinet?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if the legislation had not been brought forward I am sure the criticism would have been even more severe.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
As recorded in yesterday's Hansard at page 3125, the minister said, and I quote:
-other remedies more rapid than a court proceeding were available to them.
I should like to ask him the following question. Since these other remedies are not yet known to the members of this House, would he tell us how much longer his department intends to refuse the shipowners the right to prosecute unions for calling an illegal strike?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the other measure to which I referred yesterday was the arbitration procedure. Of course, if the two parties do not wish to use this it is open to them, under their agreement and under the law, to come together and renegotiate an agreement, if that is their wish. It is not for me to intervene and suggest they reopen their agreement. That is for them. My position is that the law requires arbitration. That is the other procedure to which I referred.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
I should like to know why his department prevents the shipowners from prosecuting unions for calling an illegal strike.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, in my view nothing would be served by going into court. That procedure was followed a few weeks ago and then withdrawn. The proper procedure, that which is required, is available to the two parties. It is a wide open procedure. It is arbitration, and that is the procedure that either or both of the parties should now adopt.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Shefford, after which the hon. member for Sainte-Marie will be able to put his supplementary.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-SUGGESTION THAT MINISTER ALLOW SHIPPERS TO SUE UNIONS

Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, since neither party seems to be willing to resort to arbitration, would the hon. minister allow the party which wants to bring the conflict to an end, i.e. the shipowners, to prosecute the unions, so that the courts may decide whether the strike is legal or not?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, of course I am always .prepared to entertain applications for consent to prosecute from either party to the dispute. It is open to them to make an application at any time.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-PROPOSED MEASURES TO SETTLE DISPUTE

Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the minister?
In view of the disastrous effects of this situation for the country as a whole, and in particular for the city of Montreal, can the minister tell the House whether he expects an early settlement of this conflict?
Can he also say when he replies to this question whether he has consulted with his colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) who participated in the preparation of collective agreements and in negotiations and whether he has made suggestions to the cabinet for solutions in order to bring about a settlement of the conflict?


Abram Ernest Epp: I sincerely trust that the two parties will come to their senses, recognize their obligation to themselves and the communi-
[Mr. MacEachen.l
June 15, 1972

ty and undertake the necessary steps to resolve the dispute.


Mr. Woolliams:: You have that line memorized.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton West

-and then the hon. member for Joliette.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the fact it can now be concluded that neither party is prepared to pursue the remedy available to them in the agreement and that have shown no respect for the minister's telegram, and in light of the fact that the public interest is now being adversely affected, will the minister personally intervene now, go to the parties and indicate to them that this matter must be brought to arbitration, failing which the government must intervene? Will the minister do that rather than take the indirect approach?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the minister to reply, but again it seems to me that this question has been asked a number of times today.


Abram Ernest Epp: I am not
contemplating that action at the present time.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-INQUIRY RESPECTING IMPOSITION OF ARBITRATION

Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
As the minister believes that this conflict can be settled only through arbitration-and I fully agree-could he tell the House whether he will compel the parties to accept arbitration?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think I made it clear on a previous occasion in an answer that the act does not give the Minister of Labour the power to oblige or force, which was the other word used by the hon. member, the parties to arbitration. That is not the authority I have. The law contemplates that the parties will live up to their obligations under the law.



HOUSING


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who is responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corpora-
Inquiries of the Ministry
tion I should like to put my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the increasingly high interest rates charged under the National Housing Act by CMHC for NHA loans, and also in view of the very high profits reported by CMHC for the years 1970 and 1971, is the government considering advising CMHC to lower its interest rates on NHA loans forthwith, particularly for low-income individuals?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, these interest rates are the subject of consideration by the government from time to time, and I am sure that when they come before the government again this point of view will be borne in mind.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Would the government consider referring this very important question of the profits and interest rates of CMHC to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs forthwith so that consideration may be given to the over-all picture as it is now because the matter is urgent?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the intention.



FINANCE


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It has to do with interest rates. In his answer on Monday he stated that he has an agreement with the Canadian banks to reduce the interest rate on certificates of deposit by a certain percentage. I should like to know if the minister can tell the House and the people whether there has been any agreement with the banks on the prime and other lending rates?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: No, Sir, the banks have not asked me for any acquiescence in that type of agreement.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I should like to ask the minister, without commenting on the great vacuum between the certificate of deposit rate and the lending rate, and in view of the fact the minister indicated earlier in the House in answer to my question that he would use moral suasion with the bankers in Winnipeg, as a result of which we did have a change in the deposit rate, whether he has received any information at all from the banks as to what they are paying for their swap deposits with the United States?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the banks are as aware of the problems with respect to swap deposits as they were with respect to certificates of deposit that they were issuing for short-term loans to them.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In view of the fact the minister said he was going to travel about the countryside speaking to provincial governments about their involvement with the United States securities and exchange market for dollars, is he speaking directly to the Canadian chartered banks, which

June 15, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
are one of the most aggressive borrowers in this whole area, to dissuade them from putting pressure on the Canadian dollar with their massive borrowings in the United States? This brings us back to the question I asked earlier.


John Napier Turner: Pressure caused by the competition that the banks were exercising for short-term money has been relieved in that particular area by the lowering of the rate paid on certificates of deposit from about 61 per cent last Friday to 51 per cent on Monday, and that particular problem seems to be in hand.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has the minister investigated the development incentive grant of $181,000 offered by his department to Maniwaki Forest Products Limited in view of the fact that the grant includes a sum of money for the creation of new jobs while the manager of the plant has said that the number of employees will not be increased? Could he report on the situation?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the situation is very, very simple; without this grant, the plant would be closed and 170 workers unemployed. By giving this grant, we were creating 170 jobs.


John Stratford Burton: Would the minister agree to subtract the figure of 74 from his estimate of the number of new jobs created through the program, and would he also undertake to inform the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might like to rephrase the supplementary question. Certainly the first part is not in order.


John Stratford Burton: I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Has he obtained a legal opinion from the Department of Justice to ensure that within the terms of the legislation now in effect he can make a grant of this sort under these circumstances under the Regional Development Incentives Act?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the department has its own legal advisers and up to now they have never indicated that there was any doubt as to the right interpretation of the act.


John Stratford Burton: I have a further supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have to try to make some progress. The Chair will allow the hon. member for Regina East to ask a supplementary question, but hon.

members will recognize that a number of questioners are seeking the floor. I suggest to hon. members that perhaps we should try to limit supplementaries.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I have one further short supplementary question. Would the minister undertake to consult the Department of Justice in order to make sure that he is not contravening the terms of this act?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, unless the legal advisers of the department express doubts as to the legality of the action taken by the administrators, I do not see why-because the hon. member should wish to obtain some legal advice-I should have to ask for it.
 sfe



POSSIBILITY OF COST-SHARING FOR ONTARIO HOME CARE PROGRAM

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the galloping increase in health care costs and in light of his statement yesterday that Ontario's coverage of nursing home care may be considered for some degree of cost-sharing, will the minister advise the House whether such an extension would cover as well the Ontario home care program which is intended to remove the burden of patient care from overburdened hospitals and nursing homes?


Hon. lohn C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: What I did indicate was that the first proposal being a component of the over-all health cost proposals of the federal government to the provinces it would provide for federal financial contributions toward various kinds of intermediate care, and possibly nursing homes would be one example. I was pointing this out as an example of why I thought we should expect a favourable reaction from the provinces to our proposal.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bellechasse.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I. want to thank the minister for this answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I call again on the co-operation of hon. members to limit the number of supplementary questions. The hon. member for Simcoe North may ask a brief supplementary.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Will the minister say how long it will be before he will extend this program in order to cut down mounting health care costs?


John Carr Munro: We feel it is very good proposal, and I am glad to hear that the hon. member does as well. I am sure he will join with me in wishing that the provinces will agree to it as soon as possible.
June 15, 1972



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the fact that the seasonal employees of the Quebec Department of Roads are not eligible for benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act, may I ask the minister whether there are discussions at the present time with the Quebec government aiming at settling this problem and having this group of workers covered under the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman's information is either incorrect or incomplete. To the best of my knowledge, all Quebec civil servants are covered by unemployment insurance. Perhaps after the question period we could pursue the matter at greater length.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
I accept the minister's reply that my information is wrong, but I would like to ask him the following question. If the seasonal workers, whom I have just mentioned are covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act, how is it they have not all been informed of this and keep making representations to us on this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General in reference to information I have received from British Columbia about a young girl named Tanya Bush who disappeared and whose body has now been found. Has the minister anything to report to the House on whether any of the penitentiary inmates who were given temporary leave have been connected with the foul play resulting in the death of this young girl?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by the RCMP that an investigation is being made and, of course, I would not like to interfere with the police investigation. I asked the Commissioner of Penitentiaries to make a complete report on an inmate who may be considered as suspect. I have also
Inquiries of the Ministry
asked the Chairman of the Parole Board to send me any available records on that person.
Whatever the case may be, I would like to express my heartfelt sympathy to the young girl's parents, considering her father is a member of the Canadian Penitentiary Service.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I agree with the minister in this regard but I am not seeking information about the investigation. I hope the minister will make a statement in reference to these temporary leaves and the parole system as it is working today because there have been several news items across the nation indicating that people given temporary leave over the weekend have just disappeared. I think we are entitled to know how this system is working, particularly as there seems to be some suggestion of foul play in reference to Tanya Bush.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I have given answers on many occasions concerning the temporary leave program, which has worked out wonderfully in 99 cases out of 100.1 answered all questions on this matter before the House of Commons committee when my departmental estimates were being discussed.



POLLUTION


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the minister inform the House of the amount of damage done by the spilling of 40,000 gallons of oil at a tank farm located at Resolute Bay in the Northwest Territories, and can he also inform the House as to what steps are being taken to minimize the damage and to repair any already done?


Hon. lean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire and supply particulars to the hon. member, but I wonder if that concerns Resolute Bay. Should it not be Spence Bay?


Douglas Charles Rowland: According to my information it is Resolute Bay. While the minister is looking into that matter, could he also check another point? On May 24 in reply to my question he said that, while the regulations under the Northern Inland Waters Act had not yet been proclaimed, companies in the north had been instructed to abide by those regulations as though they were in force. I should like the minister to indicate to the House whether the tank farm and the oil transfer line involved in the spill comply with those regulations and, if so, is consideration being given to modifying the regulations in order to prevent such occurrences in the future?

June 15, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly answer that question because the hon. member refers to an act which does not apply under the circumstances. I will meet him after the question period and I will then be able to obtain further particulars.
* *
*



REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM DISTRIBUTION OF BOOKLET &quot;ON THE ROAD&quot; AND FIRING OF THOSE WHO PREPARED IT

Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in regard to the subject I raised earlier today on a question of privilege. The pamphlet or publication entitled "On The Road" has a notation on the back cover, "Published by the Authority of the Hon. John Munro, Minister of National Health and Welfare". May I ask the hon. gentleman to issue orders immediately to cancel distribution of this jokebook across Canada? Would he also cause an investigation to be carried out to ascertain who the incompetents were who made up this map, this distortion and abortion, and fire them immediately and thus save the taxpayers some money?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with many of the comments of the hon. member. Perhaps he would like to get in contact with many of the young people travelling across the country who have already used this book and found the information most helpful.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crouse:: You've got to be kidding!


John Carr Munro: Certainly it is helpful in combating some of the diseases articulated in the booklet and certainly it is helpful in its advice concerning drug abuse.


Robert Muir: With all due respect to the minister, Mr. Speaker, I feel this is not quite what has transpired and I would suggest that he cancel the booklet immediately. We must save the taxpayers some money by not putting out junk like this. The minister had better check into it.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question prompted by the remark of the Minister of National Health and Welfare that he does not agree with the comments made by my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. Will the minister familiarize himself with the health facilities in Nova Scotia, which he should be familiar with but about which he apparently is ignorant? Through the ignorance of Information Canada the Canadian taxpayers' money is going down the drain and the minister is pushing it.


An hon. Member:: You are a pusher, John!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
(Mr. Rowland.)



MANPOWER


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Having regard to the fact that a number of projects under the Local Initiatives Program, particularly construction projects, have had difficulty in meeting the June 16 deadline because of weather and shortage of materials, could the minister inform the House whether any consideration will be given to granting an extension to many of these worth-while projects, particularly construction projects?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago I announced a blanket extension for municipalities. I am prone to look with some sympathy on individual construction projects being reviewed on their merits. Provided they do not cost the taxpayer any more money, perhaps they should be completed by allowing an extension. I am inclined to look on them with some sympathy and I welcome the hon. member's representation.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I can assure the House that these projects will be reviewed and extended to the point that the money that has been allocated will be used by the respective projects?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I would have to make it quite clear that we would have to examine them case by case. Knowing the hon. gentleman to be a very fair individual, I would welcome his representations on behalf of his own programs.


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


Gerald William Baldwin: I would hope to be recognized by Your Honour tomorrow.
* *
*



POLLUTION


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Your Honour will recall that some weeks ago I put a question to the Minister of the Environment asking when the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act passed by the House about a year ago was going to be proclaimed. The minister, who is at present in Sweden at a very important conference, said that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would make a statement on this matter within the next few days. Some weeks have passed and I am wondering whether the minister may have a statement for the House?


June 15, 1972


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the situation is always the same. A delay of 60 days must elapse between the publication of the list of anti-pollution zones and the proclamation. We only hope that all the conditions will be met so that the act can be proclaimed early in August.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the impact on the economy of Atlantic Canada of eight freight rate increases in some 24 months, has the new purchasing policy outlined by the Minister of Supply and Services when he spoke on Monday on the budget debate covering freight rate payments been accepted in principle by the government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the Minister of Supply and Services was stating some general objectives for purchasing which I am sure would be agreeable to the hon. member.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: May I ask a brief supplementary, Mr. Speaker. When will a formal statement of policy be made in the House on this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Minister of Supply and Services made quite a formal statement. The budget debate is one of our more important debates, and I thought he did well.


Mr. Bell:: This is old stuff.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: That statement was nothing but
window-dressing.


PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY GAS PIPELINE- POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN FUNDING
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development regarding the merger of two consortiums for the construction of a gas pipeline from the Arctic area through southern Canada to the United States. Has the minister been in consultation with these consortiums, can he tell us whether there is to be any government involvement, either in equity capital or loan capital, and can he tell us what will be the proportion of Canadian investment and American investment in this project?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and myself were advised a few days in advance of the merger of those two companies.
With regard to the capital required for the project, all the details will have to be given by the companies when they apply to the government for a permit. That matter will be decided by the government when it has received their proposals.


PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY GAS PIPELINE-COMPLETION OF ECOLOGICAL STUDIES
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As each of the two consortiums had a different route in prospect and will now have to select a single route, may I ask the minister whether the ecological studies undertaken by his department have been completed? If not, when will they be completed, and what particular route do those studies cover?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I trust that the minister will not attempt to give all this information at this time. Normally that should be done by way of a statement on motions, and we are running short of time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us whether the ecological studies have been completed and, if not, when they are likely to be completed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have already told the House that the studies with regard to the construction of a pipeline for natural gas will be completed this fall and that we will then be willing to receive applications. The situation is still the same.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question. Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a position to fulfil the undertaking he gave me on June 5, as recorded on page 2840 of Hansard, when he promised to report on the deliberations at the ICNAF meeting with respect to obtaining some agreement with the Russians on rules of the road in view of fishing operations which are endangering Canadians?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the matter was taken up by representatives of the Canadian and Soviet delegations at the ICNAF meeting and it was agreed between them that another meeting is to be held in the near future.

June 15, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
On June 12, as reported on page 3033 of Hansard, I asked him a question concerning the closing down of the CIP plant in Temiscaming. The minister answered that he would inquire and would let me hear from him yesterday. Has he anything new to report now?


Jean Marchand: I think a similar question was asked Monday, Mr. Speaker, and I did answer it.



ALLEGED ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN AGENTS-REQUEST THAT SAVINGS ACCRUE TO BENEFIT OF FARMERS

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. As the Canadian Wheat Board appears to be making a move to eliminate grain agents in the movement of grain from Thunder Bay to eastern ports, can the minister assure the House that any savings resulting from that move will be passed on to the farmers and not eaten up by increased costs of the bureaucracy which will be incurred by the Wheat Board?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, any saving made in the movement of wheat is automatically passed on to the farmers.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader could at this time, despite what he said earlier about next week, indicate what is to be the business for the rest of this week and for next week. Could he also say at this time what firm commitment he can give about the date for the conclusion of this part of the session and, bearing in mind the number of government days left, what business the government hopes to have concluded by that date?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, today is an allotted day, as is tomorrow. In order to complete the supply period, I should like to designate the first four days of next week, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, as allotted days. That will permit us to continue our discussion of government legislation afterward. On May 29,1 indicated informally to my hon. friend that I hoped we could draw this part of the session to a close at the end of June. At

that time I related that date to a number of items that I should like to see completed, which included the privacy legislation, the bill with respect to benefits in respect of children, the occupational training bill, the representation commissioner bill, the Wheat Board Act bill, the financial mechanisms with respect to mortgage markets bill, the election expenses bill, the foreign takeovers bill, the Canada Labour Code amendment and the Farm Credit Act.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is that all?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I indicated those items at that time. They are still on my list and since then new items have been added, including the housing bill about which the hon. member for York South has shown a keen interest today. Those are the items that I should like the House to deal with, if possible, before we rise. Next week, I will be discussing with my hon. friends the possibility of additional hours of sitting in order that we can complete these items. Most of them, by the way, have been advanced quite considerably. A good number of them are at the report stage or will be at the report stage soon, so it is not an overwhelming task to complete them by a reasonable date.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a brief supplementary question. As June 24, St. Jean Baptiste Day, is a parliamentary holiday when it falls on a week day, and as it falls on a Saturday this year, is the government giving any consideration to following the example of Quebec and taking the following Monday as a parliamentary holiday in order that our colleagues from Quebec can go back to their homes and celebrate this great holiday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in view of our legislative program and the short time at our disposal, I think it would be inadvisable if we were to consider taking that day away from legislation. Perhaps we could do more for Quebec by passing some of this progressive legislation.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the government House leader having to do with the number of items he listed and with his suggestion that the House might recess on June 30. Can he tell the House which goal, in his mind, has priority, getting certain legislation through or recessing on June 30?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, they operate in my mind simultaneously, and I am not sure that one is more important than the other.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If that is the case-


An hon. Member:: Do not take up the time of the Creditistes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If that is the case, and as the minister has given us a program for July, may I ask what are we to do in August?


An hon. Member:: Campaign.
June 15, 1972


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Speaker I rise on a point of order.
We had a few meetings with the other House leaders and, in my opinion, an agreement could be reached towards restricting the length of the speeches as follows: 20 minutes each for the mover and the government spokesman and 15 minutes for any other member.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, June 15,1972
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, the 15th day of June, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant, Esmond Butler
Secretary to the Governor General.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska) moved:: That this House deplores the fact that the government has not adopted the appropriate measures for involving workers in Canadian firms through profit-sharing and stock purchase programs as a means of promoting social stability, reinforcing our country's economy and ensuring greater co-operation between capital and labour.
-Mr. Speaker, seeing the multiplication of problems which arise in the field of employer-employee relations, we thought that it was appropriate to bring to the attention of this House a few suggestions whose effect, in our view, would be to harmonize relations between workers and employers, in areas where participation could apply.
In other areas, we are inclined to believe that a genuine labour court would help eliminate several difficulties, but
Employee Stock Purchasing
today, I shall limit my remarks to possibilities of participation.
We have anticipated the reaction of some hon. members who agree too easily with existing situations, and prefer to take refuge in the federal jurisdiction, in the field of employer-employee relations, and conclude that labour legislation respecting profit sharing is more a matter of provincial jurisdiction.
We are going to try to clearly define everyone's responsibilities in a matter of great interest to all Canadians. Even if the application of proposed measures were restricted to the industrial sector under federal jurisdiction, and though a good many workers are employed in various administrative services, we agree that the government should set the example by establishing, wherever possible, a plan of involvement of workers in the development and profit of business. There are so many ways and means to encourage participation.
Given the contradictions inherent in the present system, I recognize that it is not easy to propose solutions to the many problems of workers. If finance reflected the true image of reality, if a social organization automatically issued new credits to finance any new production, it would not be necessary to put an end to the primacy of capital because such evil would not exist.
Capital would spring up as efficient technicians and workers would undertake and follow up the development of the country's raw materials, and that capital would be available to those who thus create new wealth.
But even if a promoter starts out with his own capital or with capital from associates, even if at the outset he owns means of production, can the same thing be said of the development? Let us suppose an industrialist has the capital needed to establish a paper mill costing $1 million and that he is known as the owner of it. The concern flourishes, its products are good and sell well, the industrialist is making profits and considers expanding his firm because it has been successful. Why has it been successful? Is it only on account of the initial capital he has put in? Is it not also and chiefly because there is wood in the forest, there are workers to make paper out of wood and customers to buy the product? Should the development belong only to the industrialist? Why should it not belong also to those who contributed to his success?
The industrialist may say he paid a salary to his fellow workers and therefore he is even with them, free from any obligation. That is easy to say, but the salary was to provide workers with a living. The plant's prosperity gave them a living, that is true, but the industrialist also lived out of that. If that prosperity can also lead to development, should all those who contributed to that prosperity not get their share of that development?
The initial capital, that was the industrialist's business, but the development is not exclusively his.
We believe the development benefit not only the promoter but also the staff who work with him.
If another million is needed to expand the firm and the equipment, that money should be put in by both the employees and the promoter.

June 15, 1972
Employee Stock Purchasing
The new capital could be set up from 10,000 $100 shares which would be distributed among those who contributed to the establishment of the business.
We all readily recognize that any business that wants to remain solvent must see that its revenues so exceed its material, transportation and overhead expenses that it can pay, under the present system, its employees' wages as well as dividends or interests on shares.
The situation would be exactly the same under a plan of industrial copartnership. Instead of salaries, there would be advances on dividends. As with present weekly salaries which are paid out of the firm's income, the advances on dividends would also be paid weekly from this same income. And in as much as salaries are taken into account to determine the price of commodities, a minimum dividend corresponding to present salaries would, under an industrial copartnership plan, serve to determine the cost price.
When deliberative meetings are convened, every worker would have the opportunity of freely airing his views and the meeting's decision would be final. The workers as a whole choose their representatives to the shareholders' meeting. They also choose the delegates who will represent them within the board of directors. This kind of capital handling by workers is thus carried out through association or the acquisition of shares.
The workers are not unionized people claiming their rights anymore, but partners who express their opinions. Hence, work performance is significantly improved. Everyone will work better and more and no one would think of bringing down the plant. We could even honestly ask ourselves if present shareholders' profits would not increase in such a favourable work climate.
Initiative entrenches the work force into capital, provides them with additional income that reduces their dependence on salaries and produces capital for the people. Share income promotes interest for one's work and is commensurate with productivity. This interest for work increases the feeling of responsibility and creativity. When employees start to think and act as shareholders, they better understand their claims and their needs.
I think I have already mentioned in this House several factors which must be considered when establishing the working and living conditions of an employee. Consideration must be given to the fact that he is a human being, not a machine, that he wishes for security and stability, and usually wants the place where he works to be well organized and well managed. It is normal that he should be treated fairly. The worker also wants to be informed of the business situation of the company, and to be assured that he will receive a fair income-so many basic realities of human nature.
All available means must be used to create a stimulating atmosphere which preserves the good relationship needed between the workers and the managers of a company. It is in this spirit of agreement and mutual understanding that we proposed the motion which is now being debated.
We expect to see varied reactions to the profit-sharing concept. But in the face of numerous strikes in all areas,

we felt that it was in order to try, in the light of facts, to give labour legislation a new thrust so as to lessen as much as possible the bad effects of numerous strikes, which are always harmful for workers and create a climate of defiance which disorganizes the economy.
It can hardly be denied that we often witness glaring contradictions in the field of labour-management relations, especially as concerns full hiring and automation.
In all developed or developing countries, great efforts are made to improve production techniques, to produce more faster, and to invent and operate machines which will produce better and faster than the men whose place they will take.
First it was mechanization, then motorization and we have now entered the automation era.
Progress usually reduces employment and our managers recommend integral hiring, which means striving to find work for the man whom progress has left idle. This is an unavoidable contradiction because our monetary system is not keeping pace. Another contradiction is that popular theory about higher salaries and fewer hours of work.
It is generally recognized that a salary is a reward for work done. If higher salaries are requested for less work, this is no longer seeking a reward for work that is accomplished, it is rather for money not connected with work. This is why the Creditistes are asking for "dividends".
A closer study of current labour legislation will show easily that it is very difficult to apply in several areas. Efforts are now being made to find a solution to technological changes in production methods.
The labour representatives would like to see the employers insure, through different compensatory ways, continued employment even though production methods are improved through mechanization. On the other hand, the employer is not always willing to pay salaries to those who have been replaced by machines. Made responsible for ensuring the workers an income, the government gets involved in more contradictions by imposing restrictions in the large amount of complicated legislation that we know of. This often contributes to having legal advisers interpreting the law and its regulations as they see fit. Therefore, contempt of court sentences are increasing, injunctions are considered detrimental and every kind of method is used as being appropriate for defending the rights of some people without taking into account the duties and rights of others.
This confusing situation which is so blatant in the methods used for solving labour problems leads us to conclude that we have too many novices who pretend to be knowledgeable. The results of their long years of theoretical studies of labour issues show that many of them are in need of retraining from scratch.
They fail to realize that science and industry are the cultural heritage of nations. Science, applied to agriculture, trade, industry and communications, has resulted in huge progress. During the last centuries, man has learned to modernize production through the use of machines which has resulted in solving production problems. Some of our alleged scholars have yet to understand that. One
June 15, 1972

should nevertheless recognize the existence of that heritage and the rights of the inheritors.
There is something disturbing in the Canadian Bill of Rights, the fact that the economic rights of Canadians are not mentioned anywhere. If an individual has the right to life, that individual must at the same time have the right to things necessary to life.
I thought it proper to point out various factors causing misunderstandings about the methods used up to now, which calls for a new pattern in labour legislation in order that workers and employers may be interested in an active co-operation in profit-sharing.
In a brief submitted in March 1970 to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, the profit-sharing institute claimed that profit-sharing had an important part to play in Canada's orderly development and economic growth. Here are some excerpts of this brief under the heading "Challenge of the future"
Profit-sharing has characteristics which gives it advantages that other forms of remuneration do not hold to the same degree;
This is a very flexible system, for it allows employees to be financially rewarded in times of prosperity without hindering the employer in times of depression;
It pays employees on the basis of values which they contribute to create;
It is a form of co-operative return which rewards teamwork and favours industrial harmony;
The system provides for both savings and investment at the same time. It allows employees to share in the rights the ownership of the means of production of the community represents; this is one of the main characteristics of many of the larger profitsharing systems whose members, in some cases, own up to 25 per cent of the outstanding shares. It increases the output of the enterprise, lowers the cost of production and gives an added advantage from the point of view of international competition.
Further on, one reads this:
There was a time when profit-sharing was considered by many as an incidental benefit or a paternalistic measure on the part of employers. But now, as it becomes more general and more complex, it brings the hope that closer co-operation between employees and employers will supplant obsolete antagonism and conflicts. It holds the promise of producing a new motivation in industry at a time when the computer has created confusion.
In the years to come, it could well be that profit-sharing could become a fundamental if not the main form of remuneration, meeting the social needs and economic objectives of our new society.
We are fortunate in being able to add that several industries, in France, the United States and elsewhere, have adopted sharing programs. Their terms and conditions may vary according to the industry, but it is important that legislation be passed to encourage sharing. That is the spirit in which we moved the motion now before the House.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, at present less than 10 per cent of Canadians own stocks or shares. This is an unacceptable level of participation and therefore in a general way my colleagues will support the motion proposed by my hon. friend. We look to greater financial participation in Canadian industry
Employee Stock Purchasing
and business by individual Canadians, and we hope to bring forward measures that achieve this. We think that this is a proper way to develop self-respect and individuality, which can only be achieved when more Canadians, who are presently relying on wages, possess some independent income and therefore have more of a stake in their country. In a society that is increasingly dependent upon capital-intensive industry, the importance of capital ownership becomes more immediate. There is a blight in a society where the means of production are owned almost exclusively by the state or by a few individuals. We must develop adequate incentives and policies, and must implement those policies here, so as to achieve more participation by individual Canadians in capital ownership.
One way to promote Canadian ownership-I suggest this is one matter that should be considered by the committee considering the foreign takeover legislation-is to give more encouragement to Canadians who work to own part of the company by which they are employed. This is not a new concept but one that is promoted vigorously in other countries. For example, in France the state makes profit sharing compulsory for all companies employing more than 100 workers, and these earnings are not subject to personal income tax. There would obviously have to be ground rules for workers to purchase shares in such companies. The transactions would have to be at arm's length. There would have to be confidence between management and labour, something that perhaps does not exist in all companies in Canada today. However, I suggest profit sharing would be one way to bring this about.
In a study entitled "Does profit sharing pay?" by Bert L. Metzger and Jerome A. Colletti, a study conducted in the United States, the following recommendations are made for greater success in promoting profit sharing concepts. I will put them on the record because this particular issue of Hansard is apt to provoke some considerable interest in this subject. The following is the result of boiling down the views put forth by these two authors, and I am referring to chapter 7 of their study.
There should be mutual confidence and respect between management and employees. In a particular company where profit sharing takes place the workers should be paid competitive wages and fringe benefits. It should be recognized that profit sharing is not a substitute for a proper standard of living for the worker employed by that company. Neither is it a substitute for competent management or for sound personnel practices. That is to say, the employee-owner should be in no better position than any other employee; he must remember he is there to do a job. In addition, the company should employ top management staff. The coverage should be as broad as practicable. The plan should be sufficiently flexible that the profit sharing formula is not of the peanuts variety but is significant in itself. There should be appropriate profit sharing education, communication and participation, and there should be competent administration of profit sharing and productive investment of the funds.
How well does this concept work, Mr. Speaker? The authors have gone into this question and at page 7 they list a group of profit sharing companies. The companies referred to are actually department stores, and mighty big ones at that. We have Broadway-Hale Stores, Bullock's

June 15, 1972
Employee Stock Purchasing
Inc., Federated Department Stores, Gimbel Brothers, R. H. Macy and Co., Merchantile Stores, J. C. Penney Company and Sears, Roebuck. Also listed on the same page are some non-profit sharing companies, and these are Allied Stores Corporation, Associated Dry Goods, City Stores Company, Gimbel Brothers-this was in the years before Gimbel Brothers went the profit-sharing route- Marshall Field and May Department Stores. So you can see, Mr. Speaker, there are some giants on either side of this particular comparison.
The conclusion reached at the bottom of page 7 is that the profit-sharing group of companies turned in a much better record than the companies without profit sharing. Not only did the profit-sharing group improve its ratios; the profit sharers increased their return from 10.41 per cent in 1952 to 12.78 per cent in 1969, a gain of 22.8 per cent. During the same period the non-profit sharing firms improved their return only slightly, from 7.78 per cent in 1952 to 8 per cent in 1969, a gain of only 2.8 per cent. The report goes on to say:
With respect to net income on net worth, the non-profit sharers for all practical purposes merely maintained their 1952-53 level of performance through all the years, except for a spurt in the 1964-1966 period. Since 1966, the non-profit sharers' ratios have declined from 10.34 per cent to 8.00 per cent.
In 1952, the profit sharers' return on equity capital was 34 per cent higher than that of the non-profit sharers; in 1969, their return was 60 per cent higher.
Perhaps comparisons such as that do not prove the case, but I think they are significant as indicating there is some considerable merit in the concept of profit sharing and that it is something well worth our consideration.
I turn now to another side of the story and it relates to a matter that came before Parliament a few months ago. I refer to the income tax treatment we gave to deferred profit sharing. I note that in Canada companies that share their profits employ more than 100,000 persons. I refer to companies such as Dominion Foundries and Steel, Canada Packers, Simpsons, Simpsons-Sears, Shell Canada, Proctor and Gamble, Imperial Oil, Texaco, Gulf Oil, Warner Lambert and so on.
I had an exchange the other day in the finance committee regarding the treatment of profit sharing under the capital gains portion of the new Income Tax Act. I think it is relevant because it illustrates my point that we must offer greater incentives to Canadians to make them interested in the profit sharing plans of companies for which they work. I think it is appropriate that I put this exchange in Hansard since it will go forth to those Canadians who are interested in this concept of profit sharing. As reported at page 15 of volume 16 of the committee proceedings on May 30 last, I had this to say:
The final point I would like to make is one that we never really did get into until it was passed in the House and then all sorts of people became concerned. I am referring to the deferred profitsharing plan, what is the plan of Simpsons-Sears, Simpsons and a good number of other companies across Canada. Is there any immediate plan to bring about changes there.
I was referring to changes in the Income Tax Act. The Minister of Finance replied:
Perhaps the best thing to do, Mr. Chairman, is to repeat what I said in the budget speech, and for the convenience of Mr. McCleave and other honourable members of the Committee it can be found on page 17 of that speech.
I said:
I am not persuaded at this time that a lump sum payment out of a deferred profit-sharing plan should enjoy any special treatment. It seems to me that payments out of such a plan should be treated in much the same manner as payments out of pension plans and registered retirement savings plans. All three of these types of plans have in common the deferral of income tax on the contributions to and the income of the plan. The government has previously indicated that it is conducting a general review of the taxation of retirement income plans. I have, therefore, concluded that this specific problem concerning the deferred profit-sharing plans should be considered as part of this general review.


Robert Jardine McCleave: This is the difficulty, Mr. Chairman, with the transition from one minister to another, because I think sometime in December, in the final moments of the debate on Bill C-259, I raised the question in a general way to Mr. Benson by asking whether they were going to be continuing to take a look at some of the sections of Bill C-259 and, in his reply, because he knew I was raising it on account of the interest in the deferred profit-sharing plan, he mentioned it specifically. So a good number of people did think that provision in Bill C-259 would eventually be altered. All I can say, in making a representation, is to suggest to the minister that he see the exchange between Mr. Benson and me on that particular day in December.
Then, the Assistant Deputy Minister, Tax Policy, made the following point, and this will conclude my remarks in that direction, Mr. Speaker:


Mr. Cohen:: Mr. Chairman, if I may make a comment, I think the point to which Mr. McCleave is referring is not the treatment of lump sum payments but deals with another point, the application, so to speak, of the transitional rules to deferred profit-sharing plans. There were two specific concerns. One had to do with how much money standing to an employee's benefit on January 1,1972 would be eligible for the old form of averaging. That point was dealt with in the budget measures and we have shifted the definition from the amounts vested in an employee at January 1,1972 to the amounts credited, and I think that was the specific point of concern, and it was dealt with.
The second point had to do with if in a particular year, an employee or an individual in receipt of certain special types of income, one of which was a payment out of the deferred profitsharing plan, elected to take advantage of the old forms of averaging. Under Bill C-259, as it stood last December, he was precluded from taking advantage of some of the new forms of averaging. That point has also been dealt with in the budget measures and the individual is now entitled to take advantage of old forms of averaging for the old sum as well as new forms of averaging for any current contributions. So, I think those were the two points Mr. Benson was specifically referring to and you have met both of those problems.
That concludes my submission on that technical matter. I hate to go on at length about something like that, but it has never been presented adequately in any news report I have seen. We know now that at least 100,000 Canadians are very much concerned about the points I am making here this afternoon, and by getting them recorded in Hansard it will be possible to send copies of Hansard to those who make inquiries.
Finally, I should simply like to say that because the motion before us has as its major principle the idea of giving an opportunity to 90 per cent of Canadians to acquire some form of Canadian ownership, I think it is generally worthy of support and I intend to support it.

June 15, 1972


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward by the Social Credit party is certainly interesting and I congratulate them for attempting to put forward some solutions to some of the problems that face Canada in terms of industrial relations, one of which would be to give the workers a chance for a piece of the action and perhaps a chance to move in the direction of the people's capitalism. Like many beautiful ideals, the examples we have seen up to now tend to suffer in practice.
I can recall about 25 years ago being very impressed by an article in Reader's Digest outlining the experience of the Jack and Heinz Company in the United States. It was involved in the production of war materiel and had a profit-sharing plan. I was unable to locate the article, but if my memory serves me correctly, because of this profitsharing a sweeper in the plant had an income one year of approximately $19,000. Perhaps Jack and Heinz was working on a cost plus basis.
The motion is particularly ambitious in that it seeks to involve workers in Canadian firms, enhance social stability and reinforce our country's economy. These seem to be laudable enough objectives, but I will attempt to show in the time I have at my disposal that profit sharing, at least as we know it now, is unrealistic, and has not really lived up to its claims.
For some time now many people including politicians, academics, bureaucrats, management and workers have been concerned with the attitude of workers to their work. Contrasting pictures have been painted about the dissimilar attitude of the British worker to that of his counterpart in Germany and Japan. Good Calvinistic doctrines such as incentives, diligence and loyalty have been cited as high ideals applied to those two countries because their success in the post-war industrial sector has been outstanding. Part of this has been due to the attitude of workers. There is no doubt about that. Probably the more important reason these two countries have leapt ahead as industrial nations since World War II has been that the governments of these two countries have been actively involved with industry in a priority planning process. I do not think this necessarily reflects just on the attitude workers have to their work. I do not deny that is important or that it is different from the North American or British concept.
The particular category into which this discussion falls is industrial democracy. When you are speaking of industrial democracy, I think what you are really referring to is shared decision making. In other words, if there is to be democracy in industry, since there is only so much power to go around, if the workers are going to have more, management will have less. I do not think that profit-sharing plans, as we know them, really anticipate this at all. If they did, I would be much more attracted by this motion.
I think we are going to see more industrial democracy. It is sort of a big thing for workers to have the opportunity of deciding their hours of work, rather than follow the clock as in Dickens' time, as well as safety factors involved in their work. We often see an involvement by workers in their security, after their working days are over, through their pension plans. We see unions bargaining for the power to have a say in respect of the kind of
Employee Stock Purchasing
product a plant should produce and the kind of pollution control a plant should be establishing. While all of us are interested and certainly concerned about the worker's commitment and how this affects our society, I do not know that any group of workers has actively sought profit sharing. Profit sharing seems to be initiated by management. I do not pose as an expert in the field, and when I say I do not know that does not mean something does not exist. I do feel that, in the main, the profit sharing established by the firms cited by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) was initiated by management rather than the workers. I do not think the motivation came from the workers.
Now, there is a problem of alienation among workers. Management answers motivation with a judicious mixture of the carrot and the whip. If you provide workers with enough motivation to produce, they say they will increase productivity. I do not know why it follows, but it seems to follow that you will reduce the number of strikes and labour disputes. God knows, we do not need any more. I am not suggesting we need more. The Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) has enough on his plate already. I think it is often convenient for management to forget that motivation is much more than economics. It is a political relationship which has to do with the right of workers to make decisions in areas which affect them. It is much more than just a pay cheque relationship. I see the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) writing letters over there. He has a long history of being associated with the trade union movement. I am sure he would agree with me when I say that the determination of whether or not a worker is motivated is related to more than economics.
While I am talking about this matter of industrial disputes, I do not believe we can ignore the fact that in today's society with repetitive, dull, meaningless assembly line jobs often the only reassurance a worker has of his personal worth comes through his pay cheque. The only reason he has to believe he is a man and is getting ahead is if he gets ahead through having a fatter pay cheque. I think it is the means. It is not the pay cheque itself so much, although that is important enough. Rather it is the reassurance of a man's dignity. That, I think, lies behind a good deal of it. The commitment to profit sharing demands that the workers forget their interest in job safety and the satisfaction of a few more dollars. I think the move further enhances the attitude on the part of workers that they are a commodity. If they have this attitude, then there is fertile ground for breeding further dissatisfaction. They become a commodity and they race one another around the treadmill, often doing piecework.
I think the movers of the motion have forgotten that profit sharing tends to undermine rather than strengthen collective bargaining. If you are involved in profit sharing you are interested in maximizing profit and have to obey management. More profit sharing tends to increase the workers' dependence upon management rather than decrease it, therefore the power workers have to affect decisions about their jobs is reduced rather than increased. This, in the end, reduces the involvement of the workers. Profit sharing plans pit worker against worker.

June 15, 1972
Employee Stock Purchasing
The end result I believe is a rigid internal structure with increased conformity at the expense of a worker's dignity.
One further thing about increasing the worker's motivation is that most profit sharing plans tend to be "announced" by management. This I believe is an example of a paternalistic system. Some workers might take the opportunity, but in the end I believe this paternalism seduces further motivation among workers. Profit sharing in that area, therefore, tends to work against itself. My friends in the Social Credit party, like many other people, dream of social stability. If stability means sanctifying the status quo, with all its injustices, then I do not want any part of it because I do not think progress comes with stability. If I could be convinced that if one kept quiet and were a good boy, that is that the meek would inherit the earth, then I could believe their argument. However, at the moment I cannot.
What is the point in perpetuating the status quo, if that is what they mean. One does not have to be an expert to know there are profound inequities in our society, in the production and consumption of goods and services and in power. Read the book "Who Owns America" and you will find that a relatively few people, less than one per cent of Americans, really have all the power in that society, certainly the economic power. The situation is not very different in Canada. In Canada, 46 per cent of our corporations pay no income tax. In the United States the figure is 37 per cent. Social welfare is private enterprise. I think management often hopes to use profit sharing plans to undermine unions. This reduces the strength of the workers and the possibility of strikes. It is a funny thing that whenever labour loses its voice, for a while everything is quiet. But, because tensions and conflicts tend to build up there is eventually an explosion, whether or not you legislate unions out of existence. I think Australia is a prime example. Arbitration is compulsory there, and I believe the Minister of Labour will agree with me that there are far more industrial disputes and work stoppages in Australia than in Canada.
So, if you legislate people out of their right to strike, ultimately, in a free society-if you are talking about a fascist society that is something else-tensions build up, wildcat strikes become uncontrollable and you will probably cause more harm than good. I am sure members of the Social Credit party do not want that. I think the obvious ploy is to pre-empt unions from being organized. Even sadder, many people believe in this. Many people do not like it, and there are good reasons for that. There are good reasons for people to like unions also. People forget that with the rise to a decent income, through unions mainly, we have created in Canada for our people a vast internal market which we never had in the 1930's. Often people say that they do not need to organize in their company because their company pays union wages. I recall when I was a teacher being very grateful to the fireman because I received a raise as a result of their efforts. They were very helpful. They had a union and we had a federation.


An hon. Member:: You did not get the hose!


Mark Willson Rose: No. People who are organized in this society are getting the hose, including people who have rejected a

union and have been bought off by profit sharing. We know the people who have been able to organize. Let us mention a few of them. There are the trade unions, the doctors' union, the lawyers' union, and the teacher's union. These people have been able to reduce disparity in our society and have not been tied to the valleys of the economic ups and downs, the cycling. This is what the government found out-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Social Credit party, through the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), has brought forward this question for debate today. I say that partly because all of us are seeking ways to improve industrial relations, to enhance industrial peace and to provide in some manner a sense of involvement in enterprise and indeed a commitment on the part of all parties to the undertaking, to the work or to the enterprise in which they are engaged. I was particularly struck with the point made by the hon. member for Kamouraska that science and industry are part of our cultural heritage. Indeed, they are. He, like all of us, is seeking ways of ensuring that the benefits of that heritage should be accessible to all. He raised the question in particular in terms of labour and management and of the people who are actually working in the economy from time to time. He suggested that profit sharing is one of the ways of ensuring that the benefits of that heritage are accessible to all and of ensuring participation in the over-all development of the country. He gave us a number of supporting arguments.
He also expressed the view, if I understood him correctly, that profit sharing may indeed be a unique means for the future of sharing in the benefits of this industrial age. He made some valuable suggestions, but the problem may not be with the concept of profit sharing but rather with the fact that workers in North America appear to be interested in many other ways of sharing in the development of the country than this particular technique. I would only mention in passing a few of those ways that are currently prominent in the bargaining process in the relations between the two parties. For example, the question of labour standards is one of those; so is the hours of work, the question of holidays, the question of separation arrangements, and the question of job security.
It is difficult to see how profit sharing will help resolve the concerns of working people over the security of employment. This is a prominent concern today, more prominent than ever because of the rate and extent of technological change. The impacts of technological change are another issue; so is the enrichment of jobs, the sense of participation in decisions, and the quality of the working environment. These are questions prominent in all labour and management relations today and, as I say, it is difficult to see how profit sharing will assist in approaching their resolution. None the less, they do not stand in the way of progress in the profit sharing field.
June 15, 1972



Mr. Speaker, the federal legislation on industrial relations promotes a plan under which workers are entitled to take part in the establishment of employment conditions through freely chosen negotiators. It provides a framework for relations between employer and employee, but it is not inherently aimed at determining the applicable conditions of employment. The industrial relations plan affords workers the opportunity of sharing the profits of the undertaking through higher wages and better social benefits. As for the remainder, it rests with the parties involved to decide if they will endorse or reject official profit sharing and share purchasing plans in accordance with the free enterprise system which the legislation protects and promotes. The parties can decide that to opt for profit sharing and share purchasing plans, but they are absolutely not compelled to do so.
There are profit sharing and share purchasing plans in operation in some Canadian firms, but they are the exception rather than the rule, apparently because they lack the support of the workers, or of management, or of both.
According to data obtained through Department of Labour surveys on salaries and working conditions in firms of a size sufficient for purposes of comparison, the percentage of workers involved in profit sharing plans has gone down slightly from 5 per cent in 1950 to 4 per cent in 1969. The 1969 Labour Department survey revealed that 8 per cent of all non-office workers in Canada are involved in profit sharing plans, but as no prior figures are available no comparison can be made. The restricted scope of the survey makes it inadvisable to draw too many conclusions from this trend, but it can nevertheless be noted that the percentage of workers involved in profit sharing plans is low.
In this connection, it is interesting to note the various points of view that prevail even within the labour movement. For instance, in a speech delivered before the special congress of the United Auto Workers on collective bargaining, before opening wage negotiations with General Motors in 1967, the late Walter Reuther said in support of profit-sharing plans: "The time has come for American industry workers to have their basic salary definitely fixed; then, they can fall in line near the oven with the shareholders and directors, and when the cake comes out, take their share as everyone else."
On the other hand, there are comments like those of Mr. John Eleen, Research Director of the Ontario Workers Federation. According to the Monetary Times of February 1970, Mr. Eleen is reported as saying: "We are expressly opposed to profit-sharing in the present socio-economic context."
If labour cannot agree on a single point of view on this subject, it is not surprising that management can do it even less.
The idea of allowing workers to share in the profits is not new. In fact, such programs have been more or less popular since the international congress on profit-sharing outlined in Paris in 1889 the basic rules for their establishment. No doubt that the income curve of businesses tends to conceal the appeal of profit-sharing plans.
Employee Stock Purchasing
Firms providing profit-sharing plans would want as their main objectives to instil into their employees the sense of sharing, to promote group initiative, to increase productivity and to ensure the workers' security. Differed profit-sharing plans would also enable us to fight inflation. Finally it is argued that such plans are used as shields against inflation.
In order to prevent hon. members from being swept away by their overwhelming enthusiasm for profit sharing, I think we must examine why such systems are not more common in Canada. Here are some of the shortcomings of such systems: Profit sharing affects the income level of the workers, thereby creating some uneasiness among the labour force. It is alleged that there must exist a close relationship in respect of time between the performance of worker and his remuneration. The differed profit sharing systems hold very little attraction, because a lot of time is necessary to realize them. Furthermore, the profits do not depend directly on performance in the case of a great many workers: actually, they are subject to the whim of the management and most employees have no control over them.
At the national level, profit-sharing systems can tie workers to particular companies. One must keep in mind that these systems can hinder manpower mobility, which we try to promote in Canada through the programs of the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Another important factor which hon. members should take into consideration is that these systems could not be applied to the public sector, which is non-profit. Would these systems then create inequalities in the salary structure of public servants as compared to that of workers in the private sector? If such were the case, it would be illogical to expect greater social stability.
I wonder also whether workers in the private sector who share profits also expect to share to the same extent the losses of the company. Profit-sharing systems have always been attractive in times of abundance and have always lost their appeal in periods of recession.
One could use the telling argument that the collective bargaining system to which the government committed itself is already a kind of profit-sharing system in that sense that workers are asking from time to time for an adjustment of the benefits they draw from their employers.
The words "appropriate measures" contained in the proposal might be given any interpretation but they apparently suggest that the system of freedom of choice, briefly described, should be modified so that the workers may participate in profit sharing and stock ownership programs. To this end, we should of necessity modify the principles of the industrial relation system and this would be probably unacceptable to the Canadian people.
Apart from the industrial relations aspect of the proposal it should be emphasized that workers, and in fact all Canadians, are given the opportunity to participate individually and collectively in industrial growth through saving and investment schemes including cooperatives and investment companies. In many cases, these plans enable people to invest small amounts periodically and to

June 15, 1972
Employee Stock Purchasing
increase their own capital invested in the company, while minimizing the risk by investing joint capital in various endeavours. Moreover, the government has taken steps aiming at giving Canadians more opportunities of participating in industrial growth with the help of the Canadian Development Corporation.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), for having given this House the opportunity of discussing the question of profit sharing in Canada. The concept of profit sharing must take into account so many factors such as the nature of the business, the importance of its operations, the willingness of both employees and employers-that I would find it difficult to impose it upon all Canadians through legislation. But through various tax and budgetary measures, the government is encouraging Canadians to become more and more the joint owners of their concerns and more and more "masters in their own house".


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, before making my remarks proper, I would like to say that profit sharing has shown to those who already used it that it has given very good results so far, particularly in the improvement of labour and management relationships.
It is noted that those who struggle with labour-management litigations are against profit sharing because with the latter the leeches of labour-management conflicts will loose their rationale. Those people who seek to exploit workers or management need bad labour-management relationships, in order to be able to exploit both, and therefore they want no part of profit sharing.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to second the motion moved by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), because it brings an answer to the requests of those people who, at the present time, have given up all hope of ever finding a remedy to economic problems and who are ready to follow some people who believe that the only viable solution will be found in Marxist socialism.
It is a fact that at the present time, a few labour leaders and a few workers' groups are markedly turning towards the marxist left wing.
However, Mr. Speaker, before analyzing these people's behaviours and deciding whether their attitudes are acceptable or not, one must have a look at the present economic and social situation and wonder whether our economic system does not also tend to discourage the workers and prompt them to consider other systems which, according to some people, cannot be worse than our present capitalist and corrupt system, which we call "economic liberalism". Here are the remarks of a businessman in this respect:
Let us get rid of poverty in our towns and of the sort of social discrimination that it means, and we shall deprive at the same time agitators of their motives for action. The present have-nots no longer accept to be deprived of the basic necessities. We should be quite naive to believe that they are not aware of the situation and never think of riot.
These remarks, Mr. Speaker, were made by Mr. Alfred Rouleau, chairman of Desjardins Life Insurance and la

Sauvegarde, while addressing the Board of Notaries at its convention held in Quebec on October 13, 1970.
The workers are discontented and dissatisfied; they are infuriated at a system that keeps them unemployed, that deprives them of their salaries through ever increasing taxes. They are fed up with a system that takes away from them half the salary increases they obtain on account of rising prices.
They are fed up with a system that orders them to refrain from asking for further salary increases but does nothing to prevent scandalous profit increases for some industries, particularly the banks, which we are alone in this House to denounce, while they make or break all the other industries in Canada.
The workers resent those who preach patience and submissiveness or lectures them free of charge while enjoying incomes exceeding $50,000 per annum, if not twice that amount.
Among others, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention Mr. Louis Rasminsky, who, in his Economic Review at the time he submitted the Bank of Canada's Annual Report, practically castigated the workers as being mainly responsible for increased prices. Quite candidly he said:
One way or the other, salaries and prices must be so directed as to bring increases in actual gains more in line with productivity.
Mr. Rasminsky is in a very bad position to speak about productivity as if there is a totally unproductive institution in Canada, it is the Bank of Canada.
On the other hand, data published by Statistics Canada on May 27, 1971 as the result of an analysis of weekly salaries paid in the Canadian industry and of price trends show for the information of workers in the manufacturing industry, that inflation has absorbed 60 per cent of the value of salary increases over the past ten years.
Some ten years ago, the workers in Canadian plants earned an average of $75 per week. That average increased to $125 in 1971, but an amount of over $30 out of the $50 increase has been swallowed up by inflation. In 1961, the dollar value in relation to food, clothing or housing prices, etc, was such that the average weekly salary of $75 at the time was only worth $95 in 1971. In other words, the plant worker only earns per week $20 more than ten years ago, which means an increase of $2 for each year after 1961. Our suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is rather unusual. It is therefore not surprising that the president of the Quebec Federation of Labour has declared to Mr. Claude Piche of Maclean magazine, in the March 1972 issue: "The system must be brought down." And how does Mr. Louis Laberge intend to bring it down? After having constantly been an opponent of separatism, the last QFL convention rejected a resolution condemning separatism and then carried the following resolution:
Resolved that the QFL state its support for a sovereign Quebec originating from labour and that the QFL take ail necessary steps to carry out shortly ... The process must be carried out in accordance with the needs and aspirations of the working people.
However, Mr. Laberge is not alone. What is more serious is that he has found some supporters among other labour leaders. The following was approved in the manifesto of the Quebec Teachers' Corporation:
June 15, 1972

The workers are identifying more and more clearly their common enemy: the capitalist system.
That is what our children will be thought tomorrow at school, that is what professors are presently teaching their pupils: Down with the capitalist system! Long live Marxist socialism! Power to the workers! Schools to teachers and pupils!
Mr. Speaker, should someone have any doubts as to the tendencies and development of the labour movement, they would need only to analyze the CNTU manifesto entitled: "Let us rely on our own means only" to be convinced. Everybody will realize that the present goal is the establishment of a socialist system, a sort of Cuban or Chilean democracy, as well as the suppression of classes of society, the seizure of profits, the nationalization of business undertakings and alleged power to the workers.
What is called the CNTU manifesto is above all a reaction against American imperialistic capitalism that controls almost all economic activity in Canada and in Quebec.
According to the manifesto, a capitalist seeks profit and since profit is the source of power, big capitalists are trying to eliminate small ones in order to concentrate power into their own hands, which leads to the creation of giant monopolies.
Such monopolies determine prices and the quantity of goods to be produced, which plants will produce or will close down and which people will work or will be unemployed. The economic power is in the hands of a few and acts upon and against the workers. Such is, Mr. Speaker, corrupted capitalism, the "economic liberalism" we live in and object to.
In its analysis of the present situation, the CNTU manifesto calls the quiet revolution a "flop", the regional planning schemes a "failure" and the laws that created the Economic Planning Board, the Regional Economic Councils and the Quebec Planning Bureau, "botched legislation". According to the manifesto, and I quote:
The government cannot plan an economy it does not own and no concerted action is possible between the workers and the bourgeoisie where workers do not control the means of production.
Thus, with the Societe quebecoise d'initiative petroliere (SOQUIP), the Societe quebecoise d'exploratjpn miniere (SOQUEM), the Societe d'exploitation et de recuperation forestiere (REXFOR), the state is dependent on foreign monopolies.
What does the CNTU manifesto suggest to change the current situation? Here it is:
Economic freedom should be sought elsewhere than in capitalism, (...) the only way for labour to neutralize the American giant lies in socialism. A labour-dominated economy can be nothing but socialist.
With socialism they mean, firstly, that society through the state owns the means of production (factories, land, raw materials); secondly, that the workers are participating directly and collectively in management and economic decisions; thirdly, that economic activities are planned directly by the state.
And the manifesto ends with this appeal to the CNTU rank and file:
Employee Stock Purchasing
The CNTU rank and file should commit themselves to devote their best efforts to inform the Quebec workers of their hopeless economic and social situation under the current system, to encourage them to consider jointly possible solutions under a people's democracy and finally to urge them to start concrete struggles whose ultimate objective is to replace the current bourgeoisie-dominated system by a classless system, namely a labour-controlled economy.
Part of this is true since most criticisms contained in the CNTU manifesto, for example, are acceptable. It is a fact that American capitalism dominates our economy and makes profits at Canadian workers' expenses, that unemployment and insecurity exist, and that the workers have to pay for the damages sustained by the economy.
It is a fact that workers do not fully reap the benefits of the economy as capitalists do. It is also a fact that they have almost no say in the conduct of economic affairs in which the only part they play is limited to working with their hands and paying taxes. This criticism is not new.
At this point of my comments, I would like to read into the record some of the criticisms made against corrupt capitalism by His Excellency Mgr. Desranleau, on the occasion of his inauguration as first archbishop of Sherbrooke, in 1951, when he addressed 22 archbishops and bishops, numerous prelates and some high-ranking officials. He had castigated the presently tainted capitalist regime by saying, and I quote: "The struggle against capitalism has begun. For more than 60 years now, the church has been denouncing that aspect of capitalism which is opposed to nature."
Here again is another excerpt from Mgr. Desranleau's speech as reported on page 34 of the publication Exhortation, and I quote:
We should stare capitalism right in the face and in the light of the teaching of sovereign pontiffs; it derives its name and origin not from capital, but from the worst excess that takes place within the economic and social order, that of "excessive concentration of private assets into the hands of a few powerful wealthy men", while hundreds of thousands of others are being deprived thereof and suffer in their body and soul. This clarification of both the idea and its formulation has been made recently by His Holiness Pope Pius XII.
This regime which is initially unnatural is maintained only by a series of excesses leading to "the rule of the economy by gigantic industries and the prevalence of an unrestrained thrust into politics", all without the slightest moral concern (Pius XII). Established by money magnates and protected by political influences, capitalism seeks by every possible means at its command, even under the mantle of civil law and without the slightest care neither about the plight of the people nor the death of the poor who lack food and clothing, to reduce production,-
This is what we experience every day in this House. I quote again:
-to reduce crops, to make money scarce, to destroy the most immediately vital commodities, and all this, for the sole purpose of causing prices to rise and of increasing profits. Let us only consider the present abuses of American and Canadian capitalism with regard to three commodities which people cannot do without: flour, which gives us bread, milk, which gives us butter, and potatoes, which are the bread and butter of the poor and the hungry. As long as we see, in North America, those three commodities being bought up, made scarce and destroyed by monopolies under the indifferent eyes of governments, we will have to admit that vitiated, corrupt and corrupting capitalism prevails in North America. And I am not even talking about housing, which is shockingly inadequate, neither about clothing, which has been

June 15, 1972
Employee Stock Purchasing
ferociously taken over by foreigners, nor about the exhaustive development of natural resources, as if it were necessary, in order to enrich a class of privileged people, to ruin this country's future and to deprive generations to come.
It is that capitalism-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I really must remind the hon. member that the time allowed to him has expired, and as I understand the order made earlier, hon. members have agreed not to ask for an extension of time. I, therefore, have to stick to the rule.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this motion which reads:
That this House deplores the fact that the Government has not adopted the appropriate measures for involving workers in Canadian firms through profit-sharing and stock purchase programs as a means of promoting social stability, reinforcing our country's economy and ensuring greater co-operation between capital and labour.
I congratulate the Creditiste party for moving this motion. I think it is very worthwhile. I believe that the concern today of the average working man is, first, security of his job and, second, his take home pay. I say this for two reasons. First, as a man becomes older, often technology phases out his job or for some other reason he finds himself unemployed, and he experiences a lot more difficulty in finding employment. The fact that technology has created a large amount of unemployment goes without saying. Today, in Canada, we have well over 500,000 unemployed, regrettably many of them under 25.
I believe that the simplest explanation as to how labour has been replaced by machinery is the following one. I apply this to rural Canada. In 1900, one person produced enough food for himself and one other person. Today, one person in agriculture produces enough to feed 40 people in addition to himself. This has been accomplished through technological advances from horse-drawn power to motor power and from the reaper to the combine. No industry has so readily adapted itself to technological change as the agriculture industry. Today, Canada is one of the nations enjoying the cheapest food in the world on the basis of per capita dollars earned.
The same technological change has occurred in industry which was speeded up dramatically in the last world war. At that time Canada reached a stage in her development when this House argued whether or not tanks could be produced in Canada. This was very interesting. A Conservative member from Toronto, a doctor whom I know very well and respect and who founded the Wellesley hospital, argued that it could be done. He argued against one of the great men in this House, the late Hon. C. D. Howe. He was finally able to convince him and tanks were produced in Hamilton. As I said, it was a very honoured member of my profession, Dr. Herbert Bruce, who brought this about.
As a result of the tremendous technological changes which have been made, larger and larger industrial complexes have developed. In addition, increased participation by foreign owners brought in the skills to develop our industrial complexes. Since my original argument was that these tremendous changes in technology resulted in a lack of job security, which to many is more worrisome

than their take-home pay, it seems increasingly more evident that this job security could be better stabilized and guaranteed by having the workman share in the profits of that industry. All we have to do is examine what is happening in the United States, where approximately 90 per cent of production results from capital invested in land, structures, machines and working capital, and 10 per cent from the input of labour. This estimate is based on a judgment as to what the relative value of capital and labour input would be if each were competitively evaluated through free market forces. Ownership of this capital is concentrated in approximately 5 per cent of American families. The shareholdings of most of the 30 million American stockholders are of negligible income significance.
Approximately 95 per cent of the people in the United States, those who have only their labour to offer,-I am citing the United States because their statistics are probably a little more sophisticated than ours-are perennially short of purchasing power. However, they need and want many things and services that industry could easily provide. The affluent capital-owning 5 per cent, on the other hand, cannot support mass production. Their factories habitually run at 80 per cent of capacity or less, even though a significant number of American families live in poverty or near poverty. Our economic thinking on these aspects has been a little bit fuzzy.
With regard to labour, ever since the Employment Act of 1946, government has been forced to adopt policies which distort the economic facts and redistribute purchasing power. We see examples of that in the welfare program and the make work programs which we have. It is not 90 per cent to capital and 10 per cent to labour, as their relative inputs would justify, according to the United States study to which I referred, but more like 22 per cent to capital and 78 per cent to labour through ever higher wages for fewer hours of work, and to the unemployed through make-work programs and welfare. This road has led to crisis measures. I do not believe the answer lies in redistributing our existing capital, and let no one think I am a socialist, from the 5 per cent to the 95 per cent as socialism does.
I believe there is a better alternative. It involves methods of financing future growth, a significant and progressively greater proportion of each year's new capital formation, so that the net increase will be bought and owned by new owners representing 95 per cent of our population who now own little or no income producing property. In time, the number of people who do not possess capital will be reduced from 95 per cent on a family basis to 70 per cent, 30 per cent and eventually to zero. As stockholders, all Americans would receive purchasing power from their capital holdings as well as from their labour. In ten years, perhaps $500 billion of newly formed capital would be owned in moderate-sized holdings by individuals and families who today own little or nothing and who have no hope of ever acquiring a piece of the action. Capital ownership to the employee by the employees of the American industry will increase the purchasing power of the employees and motivate them to greater productivity, thereby lowering costs. And this can be done without
June 15, 1972

touching the capital owned by the 5 per cent who today own 100 per cent of the action.
1 believe this can equally be applied to Canada. Indeed, it could well be that shares in companies ought to be set aside for employees who could accumulate them over the years. The longer they stayed with a particular firm, the greater their stake in it would be and the greater their incentive to remain with that firm and share in its prosperity. The industry would be increasingly sure of loyal support from its work force. This could be brought about by the government making provision for tax advantages in connection with programs of profit-sharing and stock purchase. The possibility of requiring all companies, whether Canadian or subsidiaries of large foreign-held corporations, to make available a percentage of their shares each year to their Canadian workers, should be considered. These are steps which in my opinion would go a long way toward ensuring a satisfied labour force and avoiding so many strikes which are disastrous to everyone concerned, including people who are not directly involved in them. They would create a Canadian labour investment in the industrial complex of this country. In addition, of course, it would encourage a greater measure of investment by Canadians in their own nation.
There are other advantages. Possession of capital, possession of a share in industry, gives an individual a degree of independence and flexibility of choice which is not shared by those who are entirely dependent on wages, on welfare, or on the handout. For my part, I would welcome any move to provide such an opportunity to a young man starting out, so that he might become part of a thriving industrial complex rather than just a number. This is a goal of vital importance to all Canadians who believe, as we do, in the importance of the individual. I would go a little further by recommending some related steps toward this objective. For example, I believe we should remove the sales tax. Sales tax accounts for a considerable part of the price of a house and, over the years, the effect of provincial and federal sales taxes are multiplied many times. Furthermore, I would encourage individual home ownership and provide incentives designed to encourage this trend, for instance, by allowing purchasers of homes to deduct from income tax the interest payable on loans. Thus, I would encourage people to own their own homes, to become, in a fuller measure, part of our society not only in the industrial complex by owning shares but by virtue of direct property ownership. This, I believe, is the sense of the motion before us and by these means we could elevate our society to a level at which poverty would all but disappear.

Mr. jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources): Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) on his motion. I must apologize to my colleagues of the Social Credit party for not being able to express all my ideas in French. I did take a course in French, and even went on a crash course in French in Saint-Jean, but although I have a lot of ideas to express, unfortunately my vocabulary is limited.
Employee Stock Purchasing

The motion put forward by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) is interesting, but I wonder how carefully he and his hon. friends have considered it. I say this because it carries certain implications with which I cannot agree. I was interested to hear the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) express some of these ideas this afternoon.
First of all, this idea of sharing in the ownership of a corporation is fine for an individual in his early twenties, say, who is reconciled to the idea of spending the rest of his life working for a particular company. But I am afraid if he locks himself into one situation to the point that he has a stake in the achievements of the company, he will not enjoy the mobility which I think every Canadian should be able to enjoy. I do not think Canadians should be locked into jobs. To my mind, one of the things that has made Canada such a fine country is the fact that individuals have been able to move from region to region and to take on various jobs. I am a strong believer in the idea that an individual should follow at least four careers in the course of a lifetime. If workers are locked into their employment, as suggested in this motion, I think the situation is to their detriment rather than to their benefit. Consider the situation as it is at the present time. If a worker feels he wishes to invest in the company for which he works, that option is surely open to him. It is open to him, if he wishes, to buy shares in any corporation, whether a Canadian corporation or one of the multinational corporations about which we have heard so much recently.
The motion speaks about ensuring greater co-operation between capital and labour. Well, if this could be brought about, I am sure everyone in Canada would say amen. In the relationship between capital and labour, there has to be a greater degree of sophistication than in the past. I recall attending several meetings with the former minister of labour; companies and labour unions set up consultation committees, committees which operate after collective agreements have been signed, so that labour and management can iron out difficulties and, in many cases, head off confrontations-in particular, strikes. In the absence of this degree of sophistication, industry often ends up in two camps, enemy camps almost, with labour on one side and management on the other.
I have seen factories in which they have one cafeteria for the management and another for the workers. It is unfortunate that these two groups do not eat in the same cafeteria so they have an opportunity to discuss affairs rather than leaning toward a separation of management and labour. If we continue to develop opposite camps, let us remember that both have something in common; both want the company to succeed. I should like to see the two groups work together, rather than working toward the same end but unhappily along different routes.
In Japan an individual who gets a job with a company locks himself into the company, in effect, and will do almost anything in order that the company succeeds. This is admirable, but it is not the way that Canadian workers think or the way they should be expected to think. I am a
3176

June 15, 1972
Employee Stock Purchasing
strong believer in the collective bargaining process, and I think it can be enhanced with labour-management consultation committees. Wherever possible we must head off confrontation.
I think it is fair to say that one of the debates current in Canada today is whether strikes in the public service should be allowed. This government has decided that public servants should have the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike. Those opposed to that position are watching the situation carefully. They are watching negotiations with the railways, postal workers, air lines and civil servants to see how these unions handle the new responsibility given to them. Quite frankly, they are watching with a jaundiced eye in the hope that collective bargaining will fail. I should like to see it work, and I think that management, labour and the unions have an obligation to see that it does work. People working for the government or in essential services should have the right to use the ultimate weapon of the strike.
However, in my opinion, in management-labour confrontations today the strike has become, rather than the ultimate weapon, the inevitable weapon. It seems to me it is almost a ritual now when the contract comes up for renewal, negotiations for a new contract break down, a strike vote is called, and the union representative goes on the air and states that 98 per cent of his members have voted to strike. Once this juggernaut starts to move, it is difficult to stop it. All too often, when workers decide to strike they do so in the heat of battle, as it were, at a meeting in some arena or union hall. Those who want support for a strike get on the stage and tell the assembly they have to show management that they are united and stand together, that anyone who votes against a strike will be looked on with more than a jaundiced eye.
It seems to me that in the interests of the worker there should be some kind of cooling off period, and opportunity for the worker to go home and discuss whether or not he should strike. In this day of women's lib I think the housewife, the woman who stays at home and has to put up with a guy who is on strike for 24 hours a day, should be given an opportunity to vote on the issue. Certainly, she has much to say about what takes place over the three or four weeks that her husband is not working. Let the worker discuss the matter with his wife and family and try to come to an intelligent decision, such as that perhaps they should do more bargaining before striking. Perhaps if the wives had an opportunity to vote, the workers would have second thoughts and try to find some other route before resorting to the ultimate weapon that hurts everyone. This is not meant to weaken the position of the union but to strengthen the position of the worker. Then, if he did go on strike, he would be bargaining from a position of strength.
Another sad feature of the strike is the confrontation that takes place at the factory gate or fence. I think both sides are at fault here. Both sides have their angers and their frustrations, and unhappily both have their vicious participants. There are those who drive into a picket line, not necessarily trying to knock people down, but failing to recognize that those who are picketing are human beings who are trying to make a case. Actions of this sort fuel the angers and frustrations already felt by strikers. Then we

have the kind of striker who reacts by smashing and damaging factory property and machines. There is no question that this is to the detriment of the public image of the union involved.
Another matter that bothers me is this. The CLC is supposed to look after the interests of the working man, yet it sees fit to support, at least on the surface, only one political party. I think this, too, is to the detriment of the working man. A Liberal candidate in an election-or a Conservative candidate for that matter-may be the obvious choice to represent the interests of the working men of the area, but because he is not an NDP member propaganda is disseminated to the effect that only the New Democratic Party is interested in the working man. This propaganda ignores all of the good legislation that is brought down, not only by Liberals but Conservatives, both provincially and federally.
I am not saying that unions should not participate in politics because that is one way of getting their message across. But I am suspicious that they reflect the policies of the NDP when they make representations to government, that they will knock anything that the government does and forget to give their support to the good measures the government introduces. The CLC weakens the position of the working man when it climbs on one political party's bandwagon. You cannot pigeonhole the workers of Canada. Some are prepared to go on strike and fight in that way. Others feel that some sort of arbitration should be followed to settle a dispute. Since others feel they should join an organization, not necessarily a union, but an employees association. They feel they can make their case best in this way as they are going through the collective bargaining process. The workers should have a choice in this regard.
I disagree with the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) who describes these people as parasites. He said that because the firemen got a raise, other people who did not belong to their group were parasites because they got the same raise. There is much to be said for employees associations, which can put money aside to be used for better things than strike funds which often are soon dissipated.
Once again I congratulate the hon. member for Kamou-raska for introducing this motion because it gives those of us who feel for the working man, and want to see his rights protected, the opportunity of expressing our views.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Honey):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz)- Immigration-Suicide of Alicia Wiercioch-Request for investigation; The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta)- Post Office-Request for action to improve service in
June 15, 1972

rural Manitoba; The hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton)-Regional Economic Expansion-Grant offered to Maniwaki Forest Products-New jobs to be created.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to commend the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) who has proposed this motion concerning the sharing of profits between corporations and workers.
In view of the many criticisms by labour of the present capitalist system, this motion in my opinion is most timely and I hope that most hon. members will support it.
One must know and understand what the workers really want, not only in Canada, but throughout the world.
In this connection, I should like to quote a page of the findings of a study published in the Action Nationale of February 1972, under the signature of Rev. Father Jean Genest. He says:
Did you know that through a series of ever more comprehensive laws, from 1951 to 1956, Western Germany has renovated the internal organization of entreprises by initiating co-management which, far from being a failure, "equal co-management" such as it has existed for more than 15 years in the mining and steel industry, has proved itself.
Did you know that order No. 67-693 of August 17, 1967, in France, has laid the foundations and conditions of participation by wage-earners to the benefits of the economic expansion and has made its application compulsory in all businesses employing 100 or more employees, effective January 1,1968?
Did you know that in the United States, more than 100,000 firms have initiated a profit-sharing program for all their employees, either in the form of a cash payment, shareholding or a saving plan? The most famous among these firms are Procter and Gamble, Eastman Kodak, Sears and Roebuck, Johnson and Son, Sanborn Co, etc.
The point is therefore, in the western world, to make every effort in order to overcome conflicts between capital and labour, between management and unions, and between social and economic aspects of a business, to achieve through industrial democracy, an involvement of all members in a corporation's success, either on an economic or a human point of view. "The key word is involvement".
Mr. Speaker, workers also call for this right to participation. In an article published in the February 1972 edition of the review entitled The Canadian Worker, the official medium of the Canadian Labour Congress, a union leader who cannot be said to be an anarchist, namely Mr. Donald MacDonald, chairman of the CLC, deals with the right of workers to be involved in corporate management. In an article entitled "Industrial democracy in the 70's", Mr. MacDonald, who was speaking during a conference on industrial democracy which was held in Ottawa in last January, stated, and I quote:
There seems to be general agreement with the principle put for-
Employee Stock Purchasing
ward in the resolution passed during the statutory meeting of the CLC held in Edmonton in 1970.
This resolution read as follows:
"Whereas it is not proper in a free society for workers to be subjected, on the premises of their jobs, to an excessive supervision that would not be tolerated in the community as a whole;
Whereas historically the main forces which have fought for freedom are those of the union movement;
It is resolved that the Canada Labour Congress insists that the principles of freedom be also respected on work sites by fighting for the extension of collective bargaining in order to abolish management's unconditional right to keep the labour force unjustly in stride;
It is further resolved that the Canada Labour Congress, although acknowledging that the role of workers and management does not coincide, supports the extension of collective bargaining to include all questions concerning the industrial life of workers, including the results of technological changes and otherwise for workers, by insisting particularly on the implementation of the recommendations of the Freedman report, production programs, future industrial expansion policies, restraint of operations, methods and processes of operation and pollution control."
Mr. Speaker, the vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Joe Morris, spoke of the experience in the field of participation and joint decision by union leaders in Germany. Here is what he said:
The position of German unions stems from their belief that the economy is not an exclusive monopoly of capitalists or of economic decision-makers, without consideration for the effects or the consequences such decisions may have on employees individually or collectively, or on the community. In their view, industrial ventures are no longer private institutions: they are part of the social structure of the country and should therefore be responsive to the needs of the community. They claim that factories and firms can no longer be viewed as mere agglomerations of physical goods. An industrial enterprise is unthinkable without its workers, its relationships with the world in which it exists, its place within the national economy. Therefore, if its existence affects groups other than its share-holders, these other groups should have the opportunity to influence its policies and its operations. This is the kind of reasoning guiding German unions in their position on co-determination.
As for Mr. George Home, director of the Political Education Service of the Canadian Labour Congress, he talked about the Danish workers' fund contributed to by all employers, including the government, in order to provide workers with dividends. Here is Mr. Home's thesis:
The Danish Workers Federation ... has passed during its convention of May, 1971, specific proposals for the establishment of a "workers' returns and investments fund".
In fact, Mr. Speaker, this is basically a formula under which all employers, including the government, would pay a contribution to their investment fund at the rate of 1 per cent of the wages in the first year and 0.5 per cent more for each subsequent year, up to 5 per cent after 8 years.
Such payments would be added to the usual pay.
This plan also provides that the contribution paid on his behalf will become the worker's personal property through shares.
The worker will keep these vested rights even if he changes job or retires.
The shares from this fund are not negotiable, that is not on the stock market, but they can be redeemed after five years, at the time of retirement or in case of death or serious injuries.
3178

June 15, 1972
Employee Stock Purchasing
The purposes of this fund are as follows: to insure to all wage earners, irrespective of their place of employment, a share in the capital growth of the firm and the revenue derived from this capital; to contribute to the democratization of the economy in insuring a greater degree of equality in the distribution of wealth and income; to contribute to the savings growth and, by the same token, to the increase in the money supply in the Danish industry and other important sectors of the economy.
In each company, the "wage earners' capital" supplied by the company will be invested in shares and at least one workers' representative will serve on the board of directors.
This representation will increase in line with the capital of the workers, and so will their influence at the general assembly where they will be represented by delegates directly nominated by all the employees.
The shares handed over to each worker in proportion to investment benefits are calculated not on the basis of his own company's dividends, but on that of the profits made on the capital as a whole.
Here at home, in Canada, even in Quebec, Mr. Speaker, the profit-sharing concept, the shareholder-worker concept is becoming more popular, even in the close family to the Quebec Prime Minister.
Here is a paragraph extracted from the newspaper Le Soleil of March 31 last and entitled: "Marine Industries employees could become shareholders". I quote:
Marine Industries Limited wants to remain a private concern, and the recent decision by the great majority of employees to become shareholders in the company is evidence of the confidence in which the people of the Sorel area have always held this industry which continues to bring wealth to the regional economy.
A recent survey indicated that 85 per cent of the 2,750 shipyard workers are interested in buying 500,000 shares at a cost of $5 each, and a formal offer to this effect has been made to the Societe generale de financement. As it is well known, SGF some time ago asked for the nationalization of the corporation by the Quebec government.
The reaction was not long pending, since a number of Marine Industries trustees came up with this idea, which also meets with the consent of the Simard group which holds approximately 40 per cent of all shares.
Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 1971, the National Research Council published in its quarterly a most interesting article on the participation of workers in the life of the industry. It was signed by Mr. Leonard Hynes, chairman of the board of directors of Canadian Industries Limited, in Montreal. I quote:
Doubtless, work can be made interesting in various ways within one's own organization. Thus, we have constituted at Canadian Industries Limited what we have called a "participatory management". We do not claim that it is anything new except in the sense that we have adapted the concept to our own particular needs.
"Participatory management" as the expression indicates is an attempt to bring more democracy to the organization and, generally, to express the fact that we recognize a hierarchy of needs according to the concept of the American psychologist, Abraham Maslow. Those needs are as follows: the physiological need to survive above everything else; the need for security that grows after physiological needs are met; the social needs that appear when conditions in the environment are stable; the egocentric needs linked with esteem, a good reputation and the recognition of
our competence and finally the need for personal achievemlent, the highest of all which reflects everyone's wish to achieve one's full potential. In North America, the first three requirements are usually met and the fourth also is to a large extent. There is now the matter of the fifth one which participatory management is attempting to accomplish and this is what led the CIL to launch itself into a program which is based on the first five key points.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that these learned words, these well-wishing ideas and these declarations of pious intentions must be abandoned. Angry workers will not fall for propositions like that. Good intentions are however indicated. These statements indicate that various employers are aware of the problems. Like some labour unionists, they are still pursuing possible and better solutions, so that co-operation may exist between capital and labour and so that production, capital and labour may become true partners.
Mr. Speaker, now there remains to be seen which are the best formulas for arriving at the desired results. My colleague the hon. member for Bellechasse will be called upon to explain it later on, I hope.


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) for introducing his worthwhile motion this afternoon. I have no hesitation in supporting the thrust of it. It gives members an opportunity to become involved in a little ideological exercise here this afternoon. As I read the motion, it seemed to me that its fundamental objective is an endeavour to restore initiative to the people of this country. I believe there is nothing more important to a person than having a personal stake in an enterprise. I spent much of my life engaged in personnel work among people involved in sales. I might mention a good old fashioned philosophy. If a salesman does not own a share in or believe in the product of a company, then he is no dashed good as a salesman. He cannot sell automobiles, he cannot sell insurance and he cannot sell anything else unless he is prepared to have some personal participation.
Having that view, I enjoy the opportunity to discuss the motion of the hon. member. There are, of course, in Canada many employee plans. A good example is the Bell Telephone Company whose employees over the years have had an opportunity to purchase stock in that corporation. Unfortunately, in many other industries where there are employee participation plans it is only the top executives who seem to be able to or seem to wish to participate. I wonder what the reason is. I have my own personal view on that. I believe it has been made evident this afternoon by some of the remarks made during the debate. I choose to call it a good old Canadian syndrome in which security, pensions, retirement plans and so on are much more important to the individual, or seemingly so, than any idea of participation, taking a chance and, as the Americans say, getting a piece of the action. We buy pensions out of our savings. We buy life insurance. We represent the largest group per capita of owners of life insurance of any nation in the world. As a nation, we are more tied to the idea of security than of taking a chance and trying to build this nation.
In order to change that syndrome, that conservative- and I use a small "c"-attitude in respect of investment,

June 15, 1972

we must have some leadership from different places to encourage personal initiatives. Our governments must provide a climate which encourages this. In France, tax emptions are used in respect of employee plans as a form of encouragement. The results there, however, have not been too good. Here, our industry has a rather paternalistic attitude. One often notices in the newspaper that Mr. Smith, employed for 40 years with a certain company, was granted a $250 honorarium because he submitted a good idea to the industry which perhaps resulted in a benefit to the industry of $100,000. This is the kind of paternalistic approach we have here. As a society we have failed to actively encourage increased participation by workers in the businesses which employ them.
I was rather surprised at the remarks of my good friend, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), who complained about the danger of employees being locked in by participating in an employee investment program. I submit he completely misses the point. If a man wants to move around, I submit he can move pretty dashed freely in this country if he should find a little box full of securities.
The opportunity currently presents itself to adopt measures which, in my opinion, will combine two objectives: first, an increase in the number of individuals who are active participants in the economic system and widespread ownership of the means of production; second, a reduction in the proportion of foreign ownership-this is very important-by an increase in ownership by Canadian workers. A society that is sincere in its desire to promote a truly participatory democracy and greater Canadian participation in the ownership of Canadian industry would surely welcome the opportunity that profit sharing and stock purchase programs could provide for the accomplishment of those goals. Not only would such programs promote greater Canadian ownership and participation in Canadian industry, I submit that this approach would also promote the self-respect of workers, the creation of a property-owning democracy, and a reduction in the intensity of industrial strife.
We could proceed by providing tax advantages for profit sharing and stock purchase programs. Another approach that should certainly be examined is that of requiring all companies or subsidiaries of large foreign-held corporations to make available a percentage of their shares each year to their Canadian workers with a view to establishing the long term possibility of returning the ownership of such companies to Canadians. The use of an imaginative and innovative program of encouraging worker participation in the ownership of Canadian enterprises could go a long way toward resolving many of the difficulties presently confronting the government. These approaches are not ones which may be expected to change the nature of our society overnight or immediately solve our problems. The effects of such programs are gradual and so will bring results in the long run rather than immediately. Gimmick solutions may attract the eye of some of us, but I prefer the results of patience and determination. No better time may be found to start this necessary program than now. My only regret is that so much time has already been lost.
Employee Stock Purchasing
I sincerely believe that the Canadian economic dream is, and always has been, the opportunity to get "a piece of the action". The earliest settlers realized this dream directly through the open frontier. The hope of acquiring their own land was what brought most of our forefathers to this country. This was accomplished by our original Dominion Land Act. It is interesting to note that in the United States Abraham Lincoln based his first campaign on the homestead proposal. The homestead bill itself was the first law he signed. The Dominion Land Act and the homestead laws in the United States were responsible for promoting in North America the philosophy of private property, free enterprise and capitalism. They stabilized our economy for over half a century. Today, when different "isms" mean redistribution from haves to the have-nots, it might be useful to remember the wholesome populism of the last century which gave us the economic foundation of the whole country. That populism was based on making haves out of have-nots without making have-nots out of haves.
When the frontier ran out, to a large extent the possibility of realizing our Canadian dream seemed to run out with it. The current crisis we are experiencing in so many areas of our economy should provide us now with the opportunity to renew our commitment to private property for every family and individual. I submit that it is time for an industrial homestead act, an act for the purpose of broadening capital ownership in the process of financing corporate growth, an act that will enable the man on the street to increase his purchasing power in a non-inflationary manner while simultaneously acquiring "a piece of the action" in the form of stock ownership of our major corporations. I repeat that this has to be a step by step long-term policy to be implemented by labour, business and government. An additional virtue of the plan would be to bring labour and business together in a creative way that would be good for both and good for the country.
The possession of capital gives individuals an independence and a flexibility of independent choice not permitted to those dependent on welfare or wages alone. The encouragement of the self-respect and opportunity provided by the widespread ownership of property must be a fundamental aim of our democracy. For example, in North America today 90 per cent of productive input comes from capital, 10 per cent from the input of labour, but 95 per cent of the North American population has only labour to offer and they are perennially short of purchasing power. What a shot in the arm it would be if we could change that percentage from 95 per cent to 90 per cent and even down to 75 per cent as stockholders purchasing power from their capital holdings would eventually be realized.
May I say with great respect that this afternoon the minister in his remarks, it seemed to me, missed the thrust of this motion. He referred to union agreements, etc. I submit that the ideal of individual motivation has escaped him. I suggest that benefits from this type of participation will be measured more in attitudes and in productivity. The minister said further that all employees would not want to participate. I say to you, so what is new? Not everybody wants to be a Liberal or a Communist or a Conservative. But this is the whole thrust of this motion. Let us create a climate where individualism can once

June 15, 1972
Employee Stock Purchasing
again thrive. We have gone too far down the slippery road already to grey anonymity.


Mr. David Weatherhead (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) for bringing forward his motion today which allows us a chance to debate this very important subject. The hon. member for Kamouraska and I have sat on the Committee of Manpower, Labour and Immigration, in my case for the last four years and in his, I gather, for a number of years more. I found him to be a very congenial and interesting member of that committee.
During the nearly two years before last October when I was chairman of that standing committee, I greatly increased my knowledge of the significance of the Canada Department of Labour and its objectives in relation to industrial stability, the quality of life and economic health that we all desire in our Canadian society. The traditional role of this department, which has remained virtually unchanged since its inception, is to promote the improvement of industrial relations and working conditions. From this role has been derived such goals as strengthening the collective bargaining process, improving employment standards and safety levels, ensuring the provision of equal pay for equal work and achieving equality of opportunity in employment.
New legislation initiated by the department supports these principles. The former minister of labour, now Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) brought forward in 1971 and obtained approval for an act to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. These amendments were considered by the standing committee while I was the chairman, and the act and its related regulations have now been fully brought into force. A short time later a bill to amend the Canada Labour Code (Industrial Relations), well known as Bill C-253, was introduced. As hon. members are aware, a successor bill, Bill C-183, has also been introduced, has received second reading and is before the standing committee, receiving detailed clause by clause study. The volume of briefs and letters received and the number of delegations that came to Ottawa following the introduction of Bill C-253 could be used as a case study of participatory democracy. The response also illustrates the importance of the proposed legislation to the economic well-being of Canada.
The successor bill, Bill C-183, reiterates the government's commitment to the proposal that technological change and its impact on employees should be subject to collective bargaining. It will provide a framework for encouraging employers and unions to negotiate the adverse effects on employees. It is my view that this bill when enacted will contribute to industrial stability and peace.
Regulations as authorized under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code (Safety of Employees), have now been fully drawn up by the department. Of the more than 20 sets of regulations, 17 have been approved and promulgated. The remainder are expected to be brought into force in the near future. Among these are important regulations limiting hours of work in the motor transport

industry and requiring periodic medical examinations of drivers. These have been fully developed and are now awaiting final approval. In addition, a comprehensive revision of the Coal Mine Safety Regulations (DEVCO) is also nearing completion. First reading has also been given to Bill C-206 respecting changes to the Canada Labour Code (Fair Employment Practices). Work is also advanced on changes to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act.
In the areas of both legislative and non-legislative activities of the department, I understand it is the intention of the minister to strive for increased consultation in the coming year with the representatives of all those sectors integral to economic and social progress in Canada. Both labour and management, by their actions and public statements, have shown that they want to engage in dialogue with the government. Further, these groups and the general public as a whole expect the government to provide the leadership necessary to establish the ways and means for such dialogue.
I also understand that this subject will be pursued in various ways by the department and by the minister. He is personally looking forward to frank discussions in the coming months with the object of considering social and economic goals for the 1970s which can be mutually agreed upon and fully supported by all those groups which will be directly and indirectly affected. The department hopes that it can engage in more systematic consultation with labour and management to bring them into closer relationship with government and, indeed, with each other, looking at the longer term for industrial relations in Canada as the over-all economic and social environment changes. In this way perhaps we can hope to at least keep up with and anticipate changes that will come and not leave all of us locked into positions of controversy and conflict-to try to find where the public interest resides as well as the private interest engaged in this field. Non-legislative approaches are being increasingly used by the department to meet its objectives, particularly to reduce the causes of strikes, to reduce conflict situations in federal jurisdictions and to reduce the emphasis on the adversary approach.
The industry specialist program, designed to reduce conflict in union-management relations, is about to the strengthened so that early and sustained assistance can be given disputes, or potential disputes, where labour and management wish this kind of aid. The object of this service is to help parties move away from crisis bargaining. The value of the program is borne out by its success rate in achieving satisfactory results in 75 per cent of the cases in which it has been involved since its inception. Indeed, its record in resolving conflict has brought about an increase in demand for its services; hence the strengthening of the service that I have mentioned.
Labour and management are also soon to be offered an industrial relations advisory service which will be created by reorienting and expanding the work of the labour-management consultation branch. Its main task will be to produce procedures for joint discussion and negotiation of problems during the closed period of the contract, those problems that otherwise might be deferred and unnecessarily create heat and congestion at the bargaining table or, worse, blow up into wildcat strikes.
June 15, 1972

This advisory service will be concerned with the attitude of the parties toward one another and toward the concept of improved industrial relations. For this purpose the advisory service will seek to acquire stronger professional competence in communications and human relations. Where labour and management are prepared jointly to seek outside advice, the advisory service will be readily available to them; and where it does not itself possess special competence we proposed to draw on the expertise that may be available elsewhere in the Department of Labour or other agencies.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister also wants to put in motion a strengthened and reoriented research effort concerning rates of pay, conditions of employment and other factors affecting the climate of industrial relations. To support the expanded non-legislative mission, the department will concentrate on five areas of research activity which I think are relevant to the improvement of the quality of employer-employee relations and the effectiveness of the bargaining system. The first is an industrial relations analysis program to monitor social and economic forces likely to affect collective bargaining in the future. The second activity is to provide better and more up to date factual information on wages, working conditions and provisions prevailing in collective agreements, all of which should be an aid to collective bargaining.
The third is research specifically aimed at supporting the industry specialists' program and the work of the advisory service, to which I have already referred. The fourth activity is support to industrial relations training programs. When reporting at the end of 1968, the Woods task force on labour relations claimed that a serious shortage of competent personnel existed in virtually every phase of industrial relations. We hope to look at the effectiveness of the various programs, particularly as they relate to mediators and arbitrators, as a prelude to continuing departmental support. The fifth activity relates to international programs. I believe that programs designed to improve industrial relations can be strengthened by information on activities in other countries, particularly in Europe, and by international exchange of experience.
Let me turn for a moment to another important activity in the department, that of the women's bureau. The bureau is expanding its work with regard to the special problems of working women, who make one-third of our total work force. Indeed, the bureau plays a full part in relation to the recommendations of the interdepartmental committee on the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. In the past year the bureau has received encouraging support from many public and private organizations at the provincial, national and international levels. In particular, the communication media in Canada are generous in the time and space they allot the activities of the bureau.
The Canadian Department of Labour continues to participate actively in the work of the International Labour Organization which, as hon. members know, has been going through difficult times. The Canadian government has helped the organization deal with its financial crisis by paying our assessed contribution somewhat in advance of the due date. Moreover, our delegates to ILO meetings in Geneva-such as the one that I had the privilege of
Employee Stock Purchasing
attending two years ago-have been working in close cooperation with the ILO and other delegations to strengthen the organization's program performance.
As ILO matters fall within both federal and provincial jurisdictions, the department has been making special efforts to involve provincial departments of labour as fully as possible in ILO activities. One result has been to gain agreement of the provinces that Canada should ratify a basic ILO Human Rights Convention, No. 87, dealing with freedom of association and the right to organize. This convention was recently ratified by Canada. In addition, the federal government hopes shortly to be in a position to ratify convention No. 100 concerning equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value.
I see my time is coming to an end, Mr. Speaker. I conclude my remarks by saying that there is no doubt that collective bargaining does not work perfectly: it has its limitations and its weaknesses; it cannot be expected to solve all problems. But we all know-this is my conviction-that no better system has been devised for a free society; and we know, too, that society would not be free without it. Its successes and its benefits far outweigh the problems with which it struggles. Free collective bargaining is not only sound fundamentally; it is an essential element in a democratic society and in an economy such as ours. It was this conviction that lead the government to include in the revisions of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code now before Parliament a preamble supporting free collective bargaining. This preamble sets forth the purpose of the government, which is to support both labour and management in their efforts to develop good relations and constructive collective bargaining.
It is not good enough to ask labour or management alone to improve the system and to improve stability. The responsibility lies jointly with all three parties involved, labour, management and government, to work in co-operation and consultation with each other to achieve this end. The key to success and the only way to face this challenge is to increase the degree of co-operation between the three partners, employers, workers and government. Only in this way will we succeed in reducing conflicts to a minimum, in improving working conditions and, finally, in ensuring the survival of our system of free bargaining.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock, since we are expecting a message from the Senate presently?


Mr. Speaker:: I would rather suggest that the hon. member proceed with his speech, because there is no indication that the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod will be here soon. There may be some delay and there is a possibility that we could waste 15 minutes of the time of the House.
The hon. member, anyway, may proceed with his speech. He may have a chance of delivering a good part of it before the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod arrives.

June 15, 1972
Employee Stock Purchasing


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I simply wanted to abide by the advice that was given to us. At any rate, I am willing to proceed with my comments on the important motion introduced by my hon. colleague from Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne).
I would like first of all to commend-even in his absence-the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) for having delivered a major part of his speech in French, which I deeply appreciate. For that matter, another government member did deliver the first part of his speech in French. It has surely been the intention thus to acknowledge the bilingual aspect of the House, and since the mover is French-speaking, a great spirit of co-operation has been displayed.
Mr. Speaker, the motion introduced by the member for Kamouraska is not aimed at making compulsory, through special legislation, the involvement of workers in the development and profit-sharing programs of Canadian firms, but rather at promoting a climate of co-operation through tax adjustments which would encourage that involvement.
Due to the short time allotted to me, I wish to limit my comments to a single aspect of the motion, namely the involvement of workers in profit-sharing programs of firms, without overlooking the fact that the workers must take part in the development of Canadian enterprise, and I insist on the word "development", not merely by investing their work capital which is, in my opinion, most important, but also, by investing cash capital, whenever their income will allow them to do so, or in any other way.
Mr. Speaker, the International Congress on profit-sharing held in France in 1889 did define profit-sharing as follows:
An agreement freely entered into and providing that the employee will receive a prefixed part of the profit.
As for the Council of Profit Sharing Industries of Chicago, here is its definition:
Any arrangement by which an employer pays or makes available to his regular employees, in addition to their usual wages, immediate or deferred amounts of money based on the company's profits.
Another authority defines this sharing as follows:
Any arrangement for increasing the output and for reducing costs through human co-operation resulting from the employees sharing directly (in addition to their regular salaries) in the company's returns as measured profitwise.
According to historians, it is a Frenchman who holds the distinction of having initiated the first profit-sharing system. Edme Jean LeClaire, a painting contractor living in the 19th century was once impressed by a remark made by a friend and business competitor, to the effect that the only way to suppress any antagonism between employers and employees was to make the latter share in the benifits of the firm. And, after thinking for a long time and having to face other difficulties with his employees, he told himself that the experience was worth a try.
On February 12, 1843, he called a meeting of his employees and advised them that he intended to share his profits with them. They were somewhat skeptical, whereas the Parisian gendarmes, who were told about the decision, undertook to pester Mr. LeClaire because he was

using unfair competition practices. Hark! This man had the courage to stray from the old paths. This was something new!
On February 15, 1843, Mr. LeClaire held a meeting of his 43 eligible employees and surmounted their incredulity by a dramatic gesture: he emptied onto a table before them a bag containing 12,266 gold francs which he distributed among them in proportion to their annual earnings.
Their misgivings thus overcome, they returned to their paint-brushes with greater zeal, realizing that as their work improved the company would become more profitable, to their mutual advantage. This is quite logical.
The plan continued in operation and Mr. LeClaire expressed surprise at the results of his experience. His employees no longer worked as ordinary workers who operate like machines and drop their paint-brushes on the stroke of five. They all had become partners and self-employed.
Subsequently, Mr. LeClaire somewhat altered his system of yearly cash distributions, depositing part of the profits in a fund to cover occasional illness, retirement pensions and compensation for accidents.
In 1926, an American study brought out the fact that the LeClaire Company was operating under another name, but this new firm, Laurent, Fournier et Cie, had kept the profit-sharing plan after 84 years in operation. This company had then 1141 employees, and was still engaged in painting, redecorating, in Paris and other cities in France.
On July 19, 1963, The Profit Research Foundation learned through the French Embassy in Washington-


[Stage Direction]
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 this 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 bill:
An act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to the Criminal Code 1967 Amendment Act, the Criminal Records Act, the National Defence Act, the Parole Act and the Visiting Forces Act-Chapter No. 13.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Dionne:
That this House deplores the fact that the government has not adopted the appropriate measures for involving workers in Canadian firms through profit-sharing and stock purchase programs as a means of promoting social stability, reinforcing our country's economy and ensuring greater co-operation between capital and labour.
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, when hon. members left to attend royal assent in the Senate Chamber, I was making the history of a well known French firm, Maison LeClaire, which operated for 121 consecutive years, and with much success, with its employees sharing its profits.
Today, such profits are being shared as follows: 6 per cent for the two owners; 44 per cent for a mutual aid fund; 50 per cent for the workers, over and above their salaries. That policy produced excellent results in France and could do the same in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from a study which was prepared by an expert on the matter and the conclusions of which were published by 1'Action Nationale in its February 1972 issue. That expert, Reverend Jean Genest, describes how ideas have evolved concerning profit-sharing by workers in Canadian businesses. Here is what he said:
To those thinkers co-management was a duty for management but, in 1970, Mr. Philippe de Woot turned it into a right: "Participation has become an individual's right. Each individual is coauthor, co-responsible and co-beneficiary of common work. Subsequently, it is every individual's right and duty to participate in this work. Under this philosophy, the problem of participation should be considered in terms of the individual's right rather than in term of management's duty. Participation should go as far as transforming the firm's structure. This new structure should permit a dialogue. However, it should not go as far as sharing sovereignty". Whether such participation is a worker's right may lead to considerable discussions but it remains that the entre-prenuers in general followed their interest rather than their duty. Today any misunderstanding as to labour's way of thinking is no longer permitted. Their often systematic refusal of any participation in a certain management of the enterprise is the great reason urging labour and unions towards socialism and its extreme form, communism. Their unassumed immense and serious social responsibilities are paving the way for a decade of violence and restlessness. Something must be done.
The second element of social transformation is profit-sharing for workers. Profit-sharing is generally classified into three main categories: (1) A pure and simple cash payment as soon as profits are known, on the basis of a previously determined percentage; (2)
Employee Stock Purchasing
a form of savings bond redeemed in case of illness, departure or retirement; (3) allocation of corporate shares, known as industrial co-partnership, whose merit is to make workers the legal owners of the corporation on the same footing as its shareholders.
These three types of profit-sharing plans have a very strong psychological and social effect primarily because of the interest which they arouse in the workers for their employer and the feeling of participation which creates solidarity among them. Of the three types of profit-sharing plans-bonus, savings plan and industrial co-partnership-the latter two have held our attention the most.
Mr. Speaker, there are other plans which enable workers to share in the profits, in the property and in the management of industries. Foremost among them is the plan put forward in the United States by Louis O. Kelso in various books he has published.
The Kelso plan amounts to the following: Recognizing that it is increasingly difficult for workers to use up their energies in salaried productivity since machines and automation have replaced them and acknowledging also the continued industrial concentration, Kelso's wish is that workmen should all become capitalists by obtaining the means of being shareholders in the industries which employ them and he makes the following suggestions:
1.	Intensification of a program providing for a distribution of shares within the industry.
2.	Amendment of tax legislation in respect of estates and gifts so as to encourage the formation of a larger number of rich people who are able to provide for their families and whose wealth can be passed on from one generation to the other.
3.	While the transition towards capitalism is proceeding, to bring about the repeal of income tax on limited liability companies together with a tax reform on personal income in order to increase, fairly and equitably, the government's income from the members of the economic community.
4.	Elimination of government measures which directly increase concentration of capital ownership.
5.	Effective regularization of the economy by the government to ensure the maintenance of free and possible competition on all markets, except in the rare instances where monopoly has to be allowed for technical reasons.
6.	Recognition by the government of its duty to ensure all members of the society a reasonable participation in the production of riches, so that they can all receive sufficient income to subsist.
All those are the things which everybody wants. Everybody wishes to have sufficient income to subsist. I continue with the quotation:
7.	Enactment of legislation which would make it compulsory for limited companies which are already well established to distribute 100 per cent of their profits to their shareholders.
8.	Development of a preferential investment system for all families who do not have enough capital to subsist, in order to encourage them to acquire capital, the income from which would be sufficient to ensure their subsistence.
As reported in the newspaper La Presse of September 28, 1970, a Quebec executive, the vice-president of Dupont (Canada) Limited, Mr. F. S. Capon, asked that the small wage-earner be given the means to invest in companies in order to himself become a capitalist. The article, entitled: "Why not investment on credit for the small wage-earner?" went as follows-I quote:
Mr. Capon suggests a solution. Each household should participate in active capitalism by investing in economic growth, and thus drawing benefits from such growth. To that effect, the speaker stated, why not have investment on credit?
3184

June 15, 1972
Employee Stock Purchasing
Mr. Speaker, we are thus able to realize that many persons knowledgable in this field expressed very valuable views, and this is one of the reasons that has led the Social Credit Party to move a motion today, asking this House to carefully consider the possible development of a profit-sharing plan, in order to involve most workers in the development and management of our natural resources, as well as to increase their standards of living and to enable them to live with their own income, to alleviate unemployment and to encourage the next generation to carry on the work of involvement and of development of Canada, for the greatest benefit of the community.
Mr. Speaker, if we considered all the government investments that are made in the various departments, and if we managed to get the workers to benefit from all these investments, from all the benefits that are granted, I think that we might succeed in getting in our country a really interesting social atmosphere which might be beneficial to the whole society.
I could continue and say a lot more on this subject, but, to summarize, let us say that if we were to introduce such a policy, we should certainly take a step in the right direction, in order to eliminate the causes of labour-management disputes, that is between money-capital and labour-capital and ensure social peace, economic affluence for all of us in friendship and justice, which would make easier the very settlement of problems that may arise between the State and its employees by providing better guidance for discussion in the public sector.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are considering in this debate reads as follows:
That this House deplores the fact that the government has not adopted the appropriate measures for involving workers in Canadian firms through profit sharing and stock purchase programs as a means of promoting social stability, reinforcing our country's economy and ensuring greater co-operation between capital and labour.
This is a very interesting and fundamental resolution and the mover deserves credit for bringing it to the attention of the House. I was interested in some of the speeches made, especially the speeches of the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) and the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weatherhead), because they quickly diverted the attention of the House from the main subject to the consideration of labour relations problems with which our labour system is plagued. This could have been a clever ruse to distract us from the main theme. However, I do not believe it was. I think, rather, it stems from the almost universal attitude of governments, and of necessity in our situation, which are so busy looking at the trees that they do not have time to sit back and look at the forest as a whole. I do not say this in a critical way of individuals who support this government, or of members of the government; but I think the situation should be corrected.
I believe it is essential that somewhere as an emanation of Parliament-I believe it should be part of the government itself-there should be a small committee, preferably composed of senior cabinet ministers, whose duty it
would be to oversee the general economy and thrust of government so that programs put forward by various departments would be coherent and would express the general aims and objectives of the country as a whole. Therefore, I think ministers without portfolio should not be junior ministers but a small group of three, four or five senior ministers who have had the responsibility of holding a portfolio; and in this important task they should not be weighted down, as ministers are, with detailed work. Most ministers have to sign documents of various kinds, by the hour, every day, until they have writer's cramp or neither the time nor the energy to give thought to these overriding considerations.
I have digressed, Mr. Speaker, and I do not intend to do so any longer. I wish now to return to the subject matter of the resolution before us. As time goes by in the rapidly increasing technology of production with which we are all acquainted, it becomes evident that less and less of the requirement for production consists of labour and more and more of it consists of capital. As an illustration of this, we might consider that when Canada set out on the great nation-building process and built the first continental railway, it involved the employment of thousands of men. Most of these men could te put to work with a capital expenditure equal to what would be required to buy a shovel, probably around $1.50.
In this modern age a contractor engaged in the earth-moving business probably has an investment of $100,000 in equipment such as an huge, earth-moving machine which involves the employment of only one man. I remember a few years ago when a runway at an airport in my riding was being built. I asked the contractor how much of the general cost involved labour. He figured out that less than 5 per cent of the cost was involved in labour and said, "Look at that machine which takes $25 an hour to operate." He also said that a man's wages were less than 10 per cent of the total cost, and that the machine represented more than 90 per cent of the total cost.
In the United States today, approximately 90 per cent of their productive input comes from capital-land, structures, machines and working capital-and 10 per cent comes from the input of labour. This estimate is based on a judgment concerning what the relative value of capital and labour input would be if each were competitively evaluated through free market forces. Ownership of this capital is concentrated in approximately 5 per cent of the American people. This means that approximately 95 per cent of the people of the United States, those who have only their labour to offer, are perennially short of purchasing power even though they need many services which industry could easily provide.
The affluent, capital-owning 5 per cent, on the other hand, cannot support mass production. Our factories habitually run at 80 per cent capacity or less, even though a significant percentage of families live in poverty or near poverty. What is the government's reply to this problem? Their reaction is that the rich must be soaked. This is not right. Therefore, there must be progressive taxation to funnel-off the accumulation of capital, not production in the form of investment capital but in transfer payments by government for many apparently worth-while causes. But the net effect in Canada is that there is a vacuum so

June 15, 1972

far as risk capital is concerned, with the result that much of the risk capital we require comes from outside our borders.
This system produces three undesirable effects: first, it concentrates wealth in the hands of a few; second, it provides a diminishing role for labour in the production of wealth and, third, it creates a heightening struggle by an expanding labour force to obtain an adequate means of livelihood from a diminishing role in production. Fourth, the few hands in which capital is concentrated tend to become more and more foreign and less and less Canadian.
I think our objective should be that more people should have a stake in our country, more people should own not only the labour but the capital content of production; more people should be able to earn part of their income from capital investment and only part of it from labour, as is the case in the agricultural industry. That is why I think many people stay in agriculture when from a purely economic point of view this field of endeavour is not competitive with other forms of activity. However, it is satisfying because the farmer is both a capitalist and a labourer; he has a twofold interest in production.
It is easy enough to perceive problems-but how does one solve them? Several suggestions have been made, some of them contained in the resolution. One is to profit-share with the employees of companies in the form of bonuses. In some cases this includes small, compulsory savings by employees. Second, we should introduce a tax system which would make profit-sharing attractive both to labour and to capital.
Third, I think a guaranteed insured loan system whereby individuals could borrow money for the express purpose of buying capital shares in Canadian operations should be considered. If this could be achieved, a number of beneficial effects would result. One would be that labour would have a stake in the profits of the companies for whom they work. This would reduce in many cases, as has proven in the United States, friction between labour and capital. In this way I think more people would get some of their income from capital, and this income would continue whether they were ill and unable to work, on vocation or beyond the working age, and it would be transmittable to their heirs.
Also-and this is very important-it would provide a source of investment capital from which Canadians could invest in their own country and thereby make us less dependent on foreign investment in this country. A very interesting article appeared in the Globe and Mail of November 11, 1971, regarding this matter. The author, Mr. Ronald Anderson, had this to say:
The increasing scale and incident of social unrest that have figured so largely in news reports over the past decade indicate that a serious malfunction has developed in the working of the social and economic system.
Reports of unruly demonstrations, violence, work stoppages and protest movements-not in some far off country but near at hand in stable, conservative Canada-have become daily fare for newspaper readers. Environmental pollution, unemployment, bitterly contested wage demands, rejection of authority, poverty in the midst of affluence, and the pressure of inflation on those who
Employee Stock Purchasing
have few defences have become commonplace topics of conversation.
What does all this mean? Why have the troubles erupted so suddenly and on so many fronts? Where is it leading?-
One Canadian businessman who has given long and serious thought to the problem is Frank S. Capon, president of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. Mr. Capon at present is outlining his views in a series of speeches in the Atlantic provinces.
Mr. Capon is disturbed over the trend of developments, which he sees as a grave threat to the free enterprise system of industrial organization-the system that, he believes, is best able to provide the innovation, productivity and technical progress needed to produce affluence for all humanity. At the same time, he is convinced that the opportunity is present, if the destructive potential can be contained, for a dramatic step forward to a very high and broadly distributed level of affluence for all Canadians over the next quarter of a century.
Mr. Speaker, my time has almost expired so I will not continue to quote. However, let me say that the crux of this matter is that this man believes, as do many others who have given the matter a great deal of thought, that it is essential that some of our investment capital as a means of production must be put into the hands of more and more people as labour becomes a factor of less importance in production and capital becomes more important. Profit sharing is not a new idea. There is an excellent round-up of the results of profit sharing by many United States companies in the September, 1969, issue of Reader's Digest. I have no time to refer to it further, but I commend it to hon. members who wish to learn the facts of profit sharing.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, the days which are allotted to opposition parties do not always have the same interest because matters under discussion are often a repetition of questions which have been dealt with in the course of ordinary sittings.
But I must admit that today's subject matter is highly interesting and I would like to congratulate the mover of the motion for affording us the opportunity to participate in this debate and express ideas on a subject which is of present concern.
However, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that this motion is being introduced by a right wing party which, in my opinion, is much more oriented towards government nonintervention. I wonder if, at some point, our Creditistes friends were not siding with the socialists. I may say that I like them much better when they are themselves, and I am sure that after that brief foray into an area which is not favourable to them they will come back to the fold.
Mr. Speaker, social peace, social stability, improvement of the economic climate and better relationship between management and labour are valid goals and in my opinion all hon. members are willing to try and achieve those goals in the best possible way, which is not easy. Sensible people-and I think that most hon. members are sensible people-who can place themselves above partisanship and discuss as objectively as possible, will admit that the government, without having solved all problems, without having fulfilled its aims completely, has nevertheless made valid efforts to try and improve that social climate
3186

June 15, 1972
Employee Stock Purchasing
and establish better relationship between employees and employers.
To my mind, the government has really adopted a realistic attitude in order to create a stable economy in terms of social and economic needs and in order to satisfy the individual worker as much as possible. It has done so without contravening unduly the basic principles in existence in Canada, namely those of private or free enterprise.
The interest manifested by the government is reflected more particularly in the creation of the Canadian Development Corporation, in the recent incentives to industry contained in the May 8th budget as well as its policy on foreign takeovers and finally in the overall industrial strategy frequently mentioned by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Gillespie).
The following extracts are no doubt of great help to support the views I just expressed.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Benson), who was then minister of Finance, made the following statement on February 22, 1971, regarding the Canada Development Corporation and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, the purposes of the CDC are essentially twofold; first, to help develop and maintain strong Canadian-controlled and Canadian-managed corporations in the private sector of the economy and, second, to give Canadians greater opportunities to invest and participate in the economic development of Canada.
The corporation will be expected to work very closely with other members of the Canadian business and financial community. Ideally, many of its actions and investments will be in response to proposals made to it by others. It should concentrate the exercise of its own direct entrepreneurial functions in those areas of particular promise and interest to the Canadian economy where there is not otherwise likely to be a sufficient degree of Canadian participation.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) stated among other things in connection with the budget brought down on May 8:
Ours is essentially a free enterprise system, not one whose every movement is determined by the state. Certainly the federal government can-and will-play a central role in setting its course. But every day millions of Canadian consumers-workers, farmers, fishermen, businessmen, investors-make individual decisions in the market place which over time have a massive impact on the state of our whole economy.
There are some basic things which I think we must take into account in evolving this new policy. I think most Canadians would regard it as fundamental that any new industrial policy maintain and, indeed, raise our standards of living,. Canadian standards are high in comparison with those in other countries. Most of us want to keep them that way. Secondly, we want the opportunity, as Canadians, to participate at all levels in the economic life of the country. We want to exercise our rightful role in shaping the country's economic future-on the production floor and in the executive suite. I have said before that the real priorities for the 70's are economic-the bread and butter issues. I believe we must improve the quality of life. But I believe, too, that includes providing everyone with the means to earn a decent living-and to me that requires good, productive jobs.
Bill C-201 has also been introduced. It provides for the setting up of a screening process under the responsibility of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to assess potential acquisitions of control and ensure that

future takeovers are to be of a significant benefit to Canadians.
We have also proposed-with respect to the subject-matter of the motion now before us-some profit-sharing and stock purchase programs.
It seems that the important issue of profit-sharing and stock purchase programs falls under the jurisdiction of individual companies or employers.
It is hard to conceive that this government may or should influence the decisions of the management of these individual and private firms, through a legislation or otherwise, because we are supposed to live under a free enterprise system ...


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Wash your hands . . .


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I shall remind my friend, the hon. member for Shefford, that I may have to wash my hands, but that he might have something else to wash, and there is no need for me to specify.
This government is in principle favourable to a direct participation of employees in Canadian firms.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Shefford rises on a question of privilege.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the Standing Orders allow my hon. friend to level such charges. If he spoke more often in this House, perhaps he would realize that this is contrary to the spirit of our rules. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I beg you to ask the hon. member to withdraw his words which have doubtless gone beyond his thoughts.


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I think that I merely answered my hon. friend's invitation who is free to interpret my words as he wishes. As far as I am .concerned, it is not the number of speeches that counts, but what is said and my friend might be better off if he spoke less often and thought more about the things he says. That might be more profitable.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I leave it to your parliamentary good sense to ask the hon. member for Lapointe to withdraw his words.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford suggests that the words spoken by the hon. member for Lapointe are not parliamentary. I do not think I can accept the interpretation of the rules suggested by the hon. member for Shefford. I listened to the hon. member for Lapointe, and I really do not believe the Chair should, if the hon. member does not pursue his allegations further, ask him to withdraw what he has just said. I am sure that, upon consideration, the hon. member will realize that it was rather a matter for debate and I am under the impression that the hon. member for Shefford is prepared to accept my interpretation of the Standing Order.
June 15, 1972

At any rate, if the hon. member for Lapointe were to express himself in a manner not in keeping with the Standing Order, I should unhesitatingly invite him to withdraw what he has said, but I do not consider there is occasion to do so now.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have great respect for you, but less for the hon. member for Lapointe, whose contributions to the proceedings of the House are so infrequent that they are practically inexistent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need answer. My hon. friend has revealed his character by the language he used in the presence of other hon. members of parliament. I need not add anything else.
The government as a matter of principle favours a direct participation of the employees of Canadian corporations in the sharing of profits and in the co-ownership of the company where they work. The government has demonstrated its interest particularly with positive action in the field of income tax.
Indeed there are in the new and thoroughly revised Income Tax Act special provisions that recognize and even promote participation and co-ownership.
Of course it must be noted that these special arrangements must not privilege unduly those who contribute to these plans at the expense of other workers and that there should be no tax abuses.
As far as stock-options or profit sharing are concerned, the existing act provides that if a corporation agrees to sell or issue parts of its share capital to its employees at a discount, the employee must include this profit in his income.
The former income tax act provided a special method of calculating income tax on profits. While this method has been retained, it was amended, and I think this was done for the benefit of workers.
Other provisions in the tax legislation encourage the workers to become co-owners of the business concern, either the one where they are employed or others.
I might mention the 3 per cent deduction up to a $150 maximum and also the $500 deduction per child over 14 up to a maximum of $2,000, for child care.
But, Mr. Speaker, as the time allowed to me is almost up, I should like to conclude my remarks with these comments which seems to me to be more to the point.
The government's legislation on labour relations favours the principle whereby employees have the right to take part in the establishment of working conditions through their freely-chosen bargaining agents.
The legislation provides for a structure and a setting which should favour employer-employee relations, but does not try in any way to-for indeed it cannot-impose the terms and conditions under which employers and employees should live, nor can it try to determine what form they should take.
The present system provides the employees with the opportunity to share in the profits of the firm through
Employee Stock Purchasing
increased salaries and benefits. In addition to that, the parties are free to decide whether or not they want to negotiate formal agreements as to the sharing of profits or buying of shares.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) on the motion he introduced this afternoon, which reads as follows:
That this House deplores the fact that the Government has not adopted the appropriate measures for involving workers in Canadian firms through profit-sharing and stock purchase programs as a means of promoting social stability, reinforcing our country's economy and ensuring greater co-operation between capital and labour.
My Creditiste colleagues, as well as many hon. members of other parties, have put forward arguments in favour of profit-sharing, co-management and co-ownership by workers through stock purchase programs.
Does this mean that these proposals are complete and offer a solution to the present economic problems? Does this mean that the Creditiste philosophy is now at a standstill? No, Mr. Speaker. The Social Credit party is beyond this kind of participation, this even more frightening kind of concentration of the whole economy in the hands of the present banking system.
For instance, if you analyze the whole Kelso program you find that the workers would obtain the money to buy corporate stock merely by borrowing this money from banks. The banks would be glad to oblige because those loans would be guaranteed by a State "super bank" or even by the country itself. They would have nothing to lose and everything to gain since they would control almost all the country's corporations by keeping as collateral the stock bought by the workers until they can get them back with interest.
Another mistake in the Kelso program is that it suggests that it would increase the purchasing power.
We know that increasing production does not increase the purchasing power for a given production period. Consequently, stockholding workers investing money borrowed from banks would not spend this money to buy production but rather to increase it by investing into their corporation. With this increased production the purchasing power would be increasingly inadequate to buy the goods produced.
On the other hand, let us suppose that 80 million Americans each get $4,000 from banks to buy corporate stock. This would mean that additional credits amounting to $320 billion would be suddenly injected into the American economy without price control. What a disaster if protective measures as proposed by the Social Credit party were not implemented in the form of compensated discount or by decreased production costs.
Every reform presently advocated either to fight unemployment or inflation, or to promote regional development, or to reform tax legislation or to enable the workers to share in the profit and in the decision-making process

Employee Stock Purchasing
of industry, in short, every reform advocated in various sectors will only be a stopgap of little effect if a rational monetary reform is not undertaken concurrently.
Everybody agrees that a monetary reform is needed, and among others Mr. Claude Lemelin who wrote in Le Devoir of May 10 last, the following and I quote:
How to avoid the recurrence of such crisis? By simply bringing about and as soon as possible a reform of the monetary system which was established a quarter of a century ago. The very minor role played by the United States in the settlement of the crisis where the dollar was yet the main currency affected, marks the end of the American monetary hegemony; it would be desirable for international monetary institutions to reflect this new reality. The terms of the Bretton Woods agreement regulating exchange rates and their fluctuations should also be made more flexible. This is what the International Monetary Fund, while the crisis abated for a year, should have started to do as early as last September when the General Assembly convened in Copenhagen. This is what the International Monetary Fund was adamant to do either through inertia or conservatism. This is why the Washington institution is now being shortcircuited by other monetary agencies.
I would like now to quote from Fortune magazine which is not a Creditiste publication. In its issue of December 1971, there is an article by a Lawrence A. Mayer entitled and I quote:
A world monetary reform: a system to be reviewed.
Speaking more specifically about special drawing rights, the writer replies to the following question:
How does the International Monetary Fund create special drawing rights?
Reply: By a stroke of the pen ... special drawing rights are entered in the books as in a bank booklet. But SDR are not money but they are used by central banks only, not by the public.
Question: How do central banks use them?
Answer: At present, for international payments between banks, but special drawing rights never leave the International Monetary Fund. The Fund only makes transfers from the accountvsf one country to that of another country. There is, however, a great deal of discussion going on at present about expanding and changing the role of special drawing rights, which could, for instance, absorb the dollar surpluses which exist in certain countries, so that SDRs would practically replace the dollar as reserve currency.
The author then specifies that special drawing rights are not based on gold and cannot be converted into gold. Concerning gold, the following question is asked:
Question: Thus, gold will still remain the basis of the system?
Answer: Not necessarily. Theoretically, anything can be used- for instance, any other commodity or, as has been suggested by some economists, a group of commodities or a group of national currencies.
This takes us back to the proposals of the Social Credit Party according to which the present system leads to ruin, as consumers never have enough money to buy the production offered, and production never puts enough money in the hands of consumers to equal the sum of prices, considering that manufacturers have to make profits in order to invest in businesses.
But as the founder of the Social Credit Party explains, just because the profit system leads to unacceptable consequences is no valid reason for trying to abolish profits altogether. We must however seek a system which will allow for the entrepreneur or capitalist to be rewarded and which will at the same time ensure better distribution of the wealth produced.
Appearing before the MacMillan Commission in Great Britain, Mr. Douglas was saying about the effects of savings on the economy, and I quote:
The investment of funds saved means that the same amount of money is bound to reappear in a new price aggregate, so that whenever a given amount saved is re-invested, a new price aggravate is created without a corresponding change in the purchasing power.
This is why we must find new methods of financing our business and production, because the means of financing which are presently recognized and generally accepted contribute to reduce the consumers' purchasing power and to increase their disatisfaction.
By the way, workers have come to think like members Creditistes in this respect.
In Volume 5 of the labour relations task force, prepared in 1968 Mr. Jack Chernick, from the University of New Brunswick, New Jersey, provides interesting explanations on the attitudes of labour as regards profit sharing.
First of all, about the point of view of the workers of the United States automobile industry, he said that they want the same principles applying to General Motors shareholders and officials to apply also to workers. The members of the executive of the company first of all pay themselves a basic salary and put aside the amounts to be distributed as dividends to shareholders. If profits exceed a certain yield, they receive, over and above their basic salary, a bonus proportional to the surplus profits. Sometimes, when business is really good, they will decide to distribute an extra dividend to shareholders. Consequently, the automobile workers have asked the following question:
Any reason why this calculation should not apply to employees as it does to shareholders and administrators of G.M.? Why should the workers not receive, over and above their basic earnings and other marginal benefits obtained at the bargaining table, part of such profits that their work allowed to be made?
Such questions are raised not only in the United States but in Canada. In Le Travail, which is the voice of the CNTU, one can read the following comments on the discussions held during the 1967 convention:
Everyone knows that an undertaking or an industry pays salaries to its employees and gives out dividends to its shareholders. But there is a third portion of the profits that goes neither to the first nor to the second group. That portion is simply reinvested in the company. That is what we call self-financing. The question is, should that third portion be the property of shareholders only? Should not the workers receive a part of it? That question, which is greatly discussed among non-communist French trade-unionists is most important because it opens the possibility of workers sharing in the company's decisions in the economic field.
So the Confederation of National Trade Unions wonders whether workers should not be entitled to a portion of the profits that are reinvested in undertakings. In other words, the CNTU wonders whether the enrichment of an undertaking, whether the undertaking that has become able to increase its production, to expand, to produce more, belongs only to the holders of the initial capital. The CNTU wonders whether employees are not entitled to a share of that enrichment of the undertaking. Social Credit

June 15, 1972

says: Yes, workers are entitled to share in the enrichment ol the undertaking.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister ol Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate, I should like to contribute the experience of a man who has spent 25 years of his life in the labour class, as a factory employee, who has been closely involved in several discussions, experiences and conflicts, but who still has known a good many satisfactions.
The hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), in his motion, is to some extent blaming this government for not having taken steps likely to have labour concerned with participation in business management.
I would like to recall, Mr. Speaker, a few experiences that I have lived in my community, a rather well-developped one-tied in with the aluminum industry- where, as many already know, pay-checks are quite fat and trade-unionism quite advanced. In recent years, the workers have tried various experiences aimed at achieving what the hon. member is wishing for and that is social peace and co-operation between capital and labour.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say incidentally that such co-operation of capital and labour, more or less questioned here, does exist. It is too easily forgotten that there are over 6 million workers in Canada and that collective agreements are being signed every day, attracting no attention precisely because they are entered into amicably, as a result of properly planned and properly implemented co-operation between groups in several sectors.
To be sure, conflicts attract more attention than anything else. This is normal. People thus tend to think that everything is going badly, that management and labour no longer agree, and that chaos prevails.
Such disagreements, of course, do occur for some groups of workers. But I must say that co-operation between capital and labour does exist in most cases, which is fortunate. It would of course be desirable that there should be 100 percent co-operation, which I personally hope will come about. But things being what they are, and man being eternally dissatisfied with himself, it is not likely that a system can one day be devised in which everything would fall perfectly into its proper place. This indeed would be too good to be true, Mr. Speaker, so that we would have to assume that we are no longer among the living.
Do Canadian workers really want to take part in the operation, the administration and the ownership of business?
I should like to mention here a number of examples I have experienced personally. Some years ago, Alcan and Price Company Limited had set a program whereby employees could buy share in these companies at a very low price.
I have personally bought shares of these companies through salary deductions. This was a scheme the companies had conceived to give their employees the possibility of buying shares at a very reasonable price. Actually, we could avail ourselves of a reduction of 15 per cent.
Employee Stock Purchasing
What was happening, Mr. Speaker? It gives an idea of the disposition that can prevail amongst an unfortunately too high percentage of workers. Most of them refused to jump at the offer, even though it was most obvious that as soon as one bought the shares one made a 15 per cent profit. All that had to be done was to buy the shares, pay for them, and upon delivery run to the bank, or to any investment dealer and sell them at a 15 per cent profit. Three quarters of the workers refused to buy shares in spite of the incentive to encourage them to do so. Not only did they refuse to purchase them, but I saw some workers relinquishing their privilege to the very ones they were regularly criticizing, that is the rich man, the influencial man in the community, the lawyer, the doctor, in short, the well-to-do. The workers were handing the certificates over to these persons enabling them to acquire share of the Aluminium Company of Canada Limited, up to 10 per cent of their wages. The professionals in the community thus made considerable profits in a relatively short period of time.
As one can see, the workers are not necessarily willing to participate in the management and ownership of the business because they fear that by being a participant, they might loose some of their freedom, the freedom to criticize the firm. It is unfortunate, but only time will enable us to make improvements in this field.
Today the worker, at least in my social class, tends to enjoy life and the maximum confort he can immediately obtain. Very often workers do not think of saving some money for a later opportunity and that for various reasons, Mr. Speaker. First, there is inflation. Today, the worker who saves $1 deprives himself of the goods he could purchase with this $1, while in 5 years time inflation will have eroded the purchasing power of his dollar and perhaps he will only be able to purchase 75 per cent of the merchandise he could have procured originally.
This is why the worker whose income is limited does not deny himself anything today in order to save because he is afraid that this saving will turn out to be a bad investment. Of course, he could invest this money and get a return that would compensate him for the loss of purchasing power. But here again-and I repeat a suggestion I have already made-the only thing in my opinion which would encourage the worker to save would be for the government to set a tax free amount of up to $500 in earned interest and dividends.
This could mean a total saving of between $5,000 and $10,000 depending on the rate of dividend or interest paid by the company where his funds are invested. This would encourage Canadians to salt away at least $10,000 and I think that a Canadian who has saved and invested that much is a more responsible citizen who demands less from the government as he knows very well that it is he who will have to foot the bill if he demands more.
I have already made this suggestion and I would like very much to see it implemented.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), obviously encourages workers to economize. Of course, when I receive dividends on shares of Canadian corporations, there is a 20 per cent tax reduction on such dividends. This is some incentive. It may not be enough, but should we go much further than this? This is a good question.

June 15, 1972
Employee Stock Purchasing
Have any serious proposals been made in order to ensure that workers have a greater share in the management and profits of businesses?
My colleague, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Mar-ceau) said earlier that, up to a point, workers share in the profits of companies. The company which makes profits is in a position to pay higher salaries and to offer better fringe benefits. Thus workers share in profits insofar as they negotiate contract settlements and get benefits when the company can afford for them.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this is not true of all companies, and I know of several which, because of their low profits, cannot pay the very high salaries which some others pay to their employees.
It was reported in one of today's newspapers that workers in the Seven Islands area are, on the average, the best paid in the country, and we are glad that this is so. But it does not necessarily mean that those people enjoy a higher standard of living, because you have to take into account the high cost of living at Seven Islands, where everything has to be brought in, where practically nothing is produced and where there are great distances to be covered.
Before concluding my remarks I would like to quote some examples which have been lived, some attempts which have been made.
The government is constantly asked to take action. The Quebec government did so a few years ago. It created the General Investment Corporation in order to allow Quebec to control its own economy, and to give the people a chance to participate to a greater extent in industry, by enabling workers to become owners of their industries. We know that after five, six or seven years, the General Investment Corporation has practically ended up as a failure.
Is this attributable to bad administration or to errors by those who headed this business? Possibly.
Is it also due to our lack of business experience or to the lack of industrial knowledge of a certain part of the Quebec population? This is also possible.
I think that the establishment and evolution of an industrial approach is something which takes many years to realize. We certainly will have to wait for several years to achieve this goal, as has been the case in other countries such as England, Germany, or even in Ontario where industry has been established for a longer period than in Quebec.
Lately, experiments have been carried out in the Saguenay region. I am referring for instance to the Couture concern, a casting and machine shop, whose workers decided to acquire the plant by setting up a kind of co-operative at a time when the management was in some trouble. The outfit seem to operate well for the time being, and I only hope that this experiment will be conclusive, that it will be pursued and prove successful, for I believe that it is a kind of experiment which must be tried.
In conclusion, I should like to mention that through its legislation, the government has allowed many such experiments to materialize. One has only to think about 
the Department of Regional Economic Expansion headed by the hon. member for Langelier (Mr. Marehand), and which now provides incentives to small and average concerns, thus allowing many to start, many others to expand, either in Quebec, in the Maritimes or elsewhere in Canada.
These are concrete incentives which enable workers to start businesses, to own, and manage them, to work there and make profits.
I think that governments cannot solve all problems. A government is a group of men with all their good and bad points, without inborn knowledge, and who cannot run everything. I believe that it is from the people themselves that most solutions must come, and workers, in Quebec or elsewhere, can become the owners of an increasing number of firms as long as they are willing to practice self-discipline, save, invest and get assistance from the various levels of government.
If we are really to find again the social balance some claim we have lost-although I do not agree that the disorder, is as serious as some claim-I feel that the only way to do so is through fundamental participation to the creation of jobs, the setting up of enterprises. We will then have greater social participation and better distribution of the benefits that can be assured by the sound evolution of our economy.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I think that we have held today one of the most interesting debates judging by the full significance of the speeches delivered on both sides of this House. I would say that most speakers have readily approved the motion put by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), except for a few doubts raised here and there by some members.
As I will probably be the last member to speak today I would like to make a review of those speeches.
The representative of the New Democratic Party has shown that he does not know much about the principle of workers holding shares in a business. He feels that the worker's only safeguard lies in the employer state or the master state. He does not realize that the worker is as intelligent as the industrialist or any politician or government official in a socialist or totalitarian government.
According to the spokesman for the New Democratic Party, the only solution would be a socialist government vested with full authority to control industry throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe Canadians are prepared to accept such a system in their country. Some government corporations, such as the Canadian National and many others which could be enumerated, come up, at the end of each fiscal year, with balance sheets showing deficits instead of profits.
Similar corporations, privately owned, such as the Canadian Pacific, for instance, involved in transport like the Canadian National, produce each year a balance sheet showing profits.
Many such examples could be given, demonstrating that share-holders and workers in private enterprise in Canada show much more initiative and have participated in the success of each business.
June 15, 1972

If instead of fighting so often in a void labour unions had fought with the goal of obtaining shares for labour in businesses, we should not now be facing the problem of inflation and most workers would be share-holders, instead of proletarians.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) is concerned about labour-management negotiations. Even if workers became share-holders, I am convinced that they would still need to group themselves in unions in order to be represented at negotiations, which would remain quite as necessary as they are now, but would be much more effective. Such bargaining would provide working standards and the employee would practically be his own employer since he would be sharing in profits, thus becoming much more interested in the undertaking where he works.
The minister is also wondering how it would be possible to establish standards for holidays, employment security and retirement pensions.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is much difference between the stock purchasing system and the existing system.
I believe the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) is much more aware of the labour problems than he let on this afternoon. The minister fears also for the public sector. He sees quite clearly that in the private enterprise, workers will get a better deal through higher wages and greater business returns. He sees that workers in the private sector will be receiving higher incomes than public servants. Therefore, the minister seems to fear that it will be difficult for the public service to find the needed staff to make up the establishment.
Mr. Speaker, should the worker stock purchasing program take hold, we would see less competition for public service jobs and political patronage would have much less grasp over these people. The governments will only have to adapt themselves to the private enterprise instead of, as is the case today, the private enterprise having to adapt to the public service.
The minister also fears for some firms that show an adverse balance and are facing bankruptcy. The fact that the worker will be able to share in the firm's profits, will be a profitable incentive, and even the firm will benefit from it.
I am thinking of some mining industries, and in particular the NORMETAL mine, where miners receive a salary on an hourly basis and, in addition, a bonus every two weeks for the work done, according to the production volume. So, if production has increased, the bonus is higher. Miners are thus encouraged to produce more, and if a miner lags behind, it is not the foreman or the boss who will warn him, but the other miners.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, under a system of stock purchase by workers, the problems of unprofitable businesses would be negligible.
Today, because of the pressure exerted by companies, the government grants many tax exemptions which benefit to shareholders. The workers have only a slightly better chance of getting a job and paying taxes to the
Employee Stock Purchasing
government to compensate for losses incurred because of tax exemptions granted to these companies. Under a stock purchase program for workers, the latter would receive their share of the tax exemptions.
Moreover, the grants awarded by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion would also benefit the workers. Today, most undertakings depend on "social welfare" grants from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Still, who is benefiting? The undertakings! The worker gets nothing. All he can do is work in order to pay his taxes and replenish the consolidated revenue fund of Canada so that other grants may be awarded to corporations which will employ other workers.
In other words, this means that you work now and pay later.
Another interesting example is forest resources development. If workers participated in this system under a stock-purchase plan, lumbermen could buy free of sales taxes the tools that they need in their work such as chainsaws, steel-cap shoes, security hats, and what have you)
Today, whereas the contractor is entitled to tax exemptions, the worker must pay federal and provincial taxes on his tools.
Miners, for instance, could become important and valuable shareholders of their companies. Most of those who work for 15, 20 or 25 years in the same mine or for the same company lose their health in the process. And when they retire, they have practically no savings to speak of because they have had too much to pay in taxes. As a result, these workers are very often dependant on the public.
On the contrary, under a capital sharing system, retired miners would at least have shares to sell at a profit, and those moving into ear y retirement would have savings on which to live pending the receipt of their first Old Age Security Pension cheque.
Generally speaking, people say that capital is some sort of accumulated work. However, since no one can do everything, some people work while others accumulate. The Social Credit Party wants all workers to become capitalists so that they may own something.
It is with this in mind that the hon. member for Kamou-raska introduced this motion we have before us today, and we urge the government and the House to examine it carefully.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to sincerely congratulate the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) for the motion which he introduced and which reads as follows:
That this House deplores the fact that the Government has not adopted the appropriate measures for involving workers in Canadian firms through profit-sharing and stock purchase programs as a means of promoting social stability, reinforcing our country's economy and ensuring greater co-operation between capital and labour.
A quick look at statistics, Mr. Speaker, would show that the business concerns in which profit sharing and co-management prevail are few and far between. Even if the results obtained to this day are not very conclusive, I think that we should encourage both management and

June 15, 1972
Employee Stock Purchasing
labour to work toward the establishment of profit sharing and co-management programs.
I think that it would be appropriate to make a thorough study of this formula and to make every effort to find mechanisms which would make it of simple and easy application as well as interesting for both parties.
The Canadian government has never, paid much attention or given much importance to profit sharing plans. As we all know, the Department of Labour, when making its yearly investigations on the working conditions prevailing throughout the country, has at one time gathered and published some information on profit sharing plans, but it has given up this practice since 1954.
For his part, the Minister of Finance has not encouraged enough this form of participation, judging by the new Income Tax Act.
In the present Income Tax Act passed last December, Division D dealing with deferred and other special income arrangements is not very helpful to the members of these sharing plans, except for that subsection 5 of section 144 allows an employer to deduct from his income the amounts paid to a trustee. On the other hand, the capital gains of such a trustee and the amounts received by the beneficiaries from the trustee, if they derive from capital gains from the said trustee, are taxable. Moreover, the amounts that a worker withdraws under a supplementary unemployment benefit plan, are regarded as income and are therefore taxable, according to subsection 3 of section 145 of the Income Tax Act.
Pension funds to which employers contribute part of their profits are also a form of profit sharing known as deferred profit sharing.
The present legislation does not do much to promote such a policy, particularly when profit sharing plans are set up in favour of workers who are also shareholders. The tax reform has squeezed those profit sharing plans. It is known that most businesses which set up such plans are mainly family businesses and that often members of the same family sit on board of directors of the company.
In his analysis of the white paper on taxation which was published under the title "The Benson Iceberg", Mr. I. H. Asper specifies that the Department of National Revenue, more than a year before the tabling of the white paper, had refused to accept the registration of those pension schemes designed for the benefit of employees who are also shareholders in the business.
As a consequence, these business are denied the tax rebates granted to businesses having pension funds. Would the same rules apply in the case of profit sharing by all the employees? This is an interesting question to which the minister should give an answer. Otherwise, it should be said that the government policy is to treat profit sharing plans unfairly.
Before the tax reform, businesses which had employee profit sharing plans were penalized by being denied tax rebates granted to other businesses.

I am quoting the following from Mr. Asper:
The new legislation is maintaining this discrimination. Furthermore, it is forbidding trustees of those pension funds to invest funds in shares, bonds or debentures of the employer's businesses.
In conclusion, Mr. Asper says:
In many cases, this discriminatory step will deprive small businesses from an important source of liquidities.
In Canada, there is no organized movement to promote the association of capital and labour. There are, of course, a limited number of experiences of associations of some kind or other, that are more or less authentic, but the phenomenon is not widespread; it is almost unheard of. The vast majority of Canadian businesses are of the traditional capitalistic type and working for wages is the almost universal system across Canada.
Profit-sharing is the only form of association that enjoys even a minimum of popularity in Canada.
One of the most dependable sources of information is doubtless the Council of Profit Sharing Industries. This organization has, amongst its Canadian members, a firm of professional advisers who specialize in giving technical assistance to those who wish to set up a profit-sharing plan.
The same organization is much more specific in its statistics and closely sticks to reality, when referring to profit-sharing experiences with deferred distribution.
In its brief submitted on March 9 1956 to the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects, it Suggests that there are in the country 150 such cases at the most, among which about a hundred only are recognized by the federal government for income tax purposes as pension funds. The other fifty come under section 79 of the Income Tax Act. The Council bitterly points out that the hundred cases recognized by the government only represent 7 or 8 per cent of the aggregate pension schemes recognized by the Canadian government, while in the United States that percentage reaches 35 per cent, that is about 8,000 out of 28,000 as of December 31, 1955.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the present economy could not be converted into a sharing economy without major changes in our way of seeing things and expressing them in economic terms.
In the face of powerful industrial monopolies, pursuing the accumulation of gains much more than the common good, we may certainly wonder whether they are really exercising rights of ownership.
Socialists seize this opportunity to call for nationalization of major firms, as if the fact of replacing the industrial monopoly with a state monopoly would correct the monopolistic nature of the enterprise. Will the worker, depersonalized and having become number 253 employed by Capital-Anonymous Company, cease to be No. 253 punching the same clock, doing the same work, when the shares have been purchased by the state? Taxpayers will have paid for this purchase and will not draw one cent in dividends.
Something else is needed.
In the magazine Jeune Patron of May 1951, Mr. Alexandre Dubois, an employer himself, son, grandson and great-grandson of an employer, wrote an article that
June 15, 1972

many would find bold, under the heading "Moving ahead of the capitalist undertaking." He begins with this revolutionary sentence: "Enterprise is not ownership."
He explains:
In our opinion enterprise is not an object which can be owned. Man can own things. Enterprise is not a thing, it is an act. To undertake is to act.
-An enterprise is not a property, that is, it does not belong to anybody but is common to many once it is launched into the economy. Everyone is free to undertake, but he is no longer the master of the enterprise he has created when others have participated in it through their labour, their capital, their payments for services rendered-
So Mr. Dubois sees in the enterprise far more than mere investment. Capital investment does not confer sovereign and exclusive rights, especially not in the case of an expanded enterprise which has become a giant, through self-financing and reinvesting of the benefits included in its prices and taken from the public."
If financial interests were a true representation of reality, if a social organization were to automatically issue new credit to finance any new industry, it would not be necessary to put an end to the rule of capital and this evil would not exist then.
Money-capital would arise as technicians and skilled workers would undertake and carry on the development of raw materials and natural resources of this country. And this capital would be controlled by those who thus create a new wealth.
The present method used to finance a new industry or expand an existing business, entails two undesirable results: first of all, it alters the balance between prices and the purchasing power, since it adds to the cost of production the cost of an increasing production capacity; also, it enables whoever owns capital to increase his assets at the expense of consumers who have to pay for it. So you have, on the one hand, always a fewer owners with bigger and bigger properties and, on the other hand, an increasing number of proletarians who can live only with the permission and under the thumb of the former.
This is an inhuman lot that would be easy to change gradually but quickly by applying a financial system in accordance with facts.
Now is the time to apply the principles of sound finance. This is a development, therefore new wealth. If we wish to finance it through money already in circulation, we prevent money from buying products already on the market.
Any new production must be financed through new credits just as any destruction of wealth should lead to a corresponding cancellation of credit.
Therefore, it is the national credit agency which grants money according to the development of the country.
If finance is considered as an accounting of facts, there is no further financial obstacle to physically possible achievements. It is also easy to have finance as a servant of the workers as much as of the first shareholders.
Therefore, the workers could gradually become coowners of the business which is their employer. The more the business would expand, the quicker this accessibility
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
would be. Instead of increasing the number of proletarians, the growing industries would free the worker from his proletarian status.
Co-operative management of big industry would be taken over from the "money men" without trouble, confiscation or nationalization.
Naturally, none of this will be possible until such time as the necessary changes have been made in our present financial system.
At the present time, finance has no close or constant link with reality. Wealth is created without money being created. Wealth disappears without money disappearing. Some people create wealth: others create money and appropriate it for themselves.
As long as that confusion reigns, it will be useless to seek logical solutions anywhere, for finance acts as the policy everywhere.
One change is imperative: we must set aside the present method of putting out money and recalling money and credit; let the government take over the control of the creation of money and credit, according to the proposals of the Social Credit Party of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Proceedings on the motion before the House have expired, pursuant to Standing Order 58 (11).

Does the House agree that we call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we were all shocked to hear about the tragic death by suicide on June 6, 1972, of an unfortunate 35-year old Polish woman and mother, Alicia Wiercioch, who was under a deportation order, having lost her appeal before the Immigration Appeal Board on March 15 last.
As is the case with so many other people, she was so favourably impressed by the quality of life in this country that she decided to take the necessary steps to obtain landed-immigrant status. But various unfortunate circumstances and misunderstandings finally led to her despair and, eventually, to an untimely and tragic death. What a sad end in Canada to this visitor who only four years ago was filled with so much hope for a new and better life! This tragedy, as well as other near-tragedies and hardships of people who have to deal with our immigration and deportation laws and regulations, has finally given a sense of urgency and gravity to a review of the laws and regulations now being carried out by the department.

June 15, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
It is regrettable that the House did not grant me, on June 7, unanimous consent to move my motion as follows:
That the House of Commons Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower, and Immigration investigate the circumstances of the suicide of Alicia Wiercioch, who was ordered deported by the Immigration Appeal Board, and that the committee review the Immigration Appeal Board Act and related federal legislation and regulations and consider amendments to these and other acts as necessary.
From newspaper articles in the past few days it should be clear that the many statements, allegations and accusations that have been reported call for an investigation of this case. I join many of my colleagues in this House and members of the public who have, in their statements in the past week, called for changes in the laws and regulations regarding deportation and immigration matters. It is not right to enforce impractical and harsh laws or regulations. I believe that justice should be tempered with mercy and compassion, and these should guide our decisions. There are often complex circumstances in the life of a human being, and these should be taken into account, especially by those in positions of responsibility.
In view of the tragic death of Alicia Wiercioch and the many complaints from potential immigrants and their sponsors, and especially in view of the hardship resulting from long delays before hearings are brought before the Immigration Appeal Board, I believe the government should give immediate attention to making the necessary changes in proposing to Parliament appropriate amendments to our laws governing immigration and deportation so that all these hardships will be removed.
I would also like to stress the need and importance of improved communication between government agencies and the public. Where indicated, adequate interpretation and counselling services should be clearly offered and readily provided. Instructions printed in many languages in information bulletins such as, for example, in the ethnic press, would greatly assist in providing better communication. I believe that this House and the nation are impatiently awaiting prompt action by the government in matters of immigration and deportation regulations.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member for the manner in which he has pursued this matter from the outset and used all the channels open to him. As you are aware, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) earlier today spoke on this subject in an effort to clear the record.
In case some members were not present at the time, I will try, in the limited time available to me, to set out the facts of this tragic case. The straight, unembellished facts are that Mrs. Wiercioch came to Canada on August 19, 1968, for a six-month visit with a distant relative. Shortly after arrival, on September 30, 1968, she applied for permanent landing.
At the time of this application, as is customary, she was asked to sign and did acknowledge in writing her understanding that she could not work in Canada without the written authorization of an immigration officer. When first interviewed on October 10, 1968, Mrs. Wiercioch

informed the officials* that her husband and two children would be able to go for a trip to one of the European countries where they would apply for political asylum. She stated that her husband had given permission for her to come to Canada and he wanted to join her. She was therefore supplied with immigration application forms for forwarding to and completion by her husband. In early January, 1969, Mrs. Wiercioch brought in the completed forms and her husband's employment reference as an engineer.
At this stage the matter of the examination of the family overseas to determine their ability to meet normal immigration requirements appears to have run into some difficulties. When she was again interviewed on November 25, 1969, she stated that she believed her husband wanted a divorce but that she would still wish to bring out the children. It was then that she disclosed that she had been working without permission. Because Mrs. Wiercioch had effectively disqualified herself from the benefits of that part of the immigration regulations which provide for the admission as immigrants of non-immigrants applying within Canada, the application was refused. She was then given the opportunity to leave Canada voluntarily but she decided, instead, to come before a special immigration inquiry.
At the inquiry, which took place on September 24, 1970, she was ordered deported-basically because she had taken employment here without the authorization of an immigration officer. As is well known, she then appealed to the Immigration Appeal Board, and on March 15, 1972, the appeal board, having found no evidence that she would be persecuted if returned to Poland, dismissed the appeal and directed that she be removed from Canada as soon as practicable.
On March 30, 1972, the department was informed that her counsel had filed a notice of motion on her behalf with the Federal Court of Appeal seeking time within which to appeal the board's decision. Following this notice of motion, as the House has already been informed on previous occasions, all further departmental action respecting Mrs. Wiercioch was immediately suspended and the department received no further communication from her or her counsel until her untimely death.
As the minister pointed out earlier, the refusal of her application was necessary under the existing legislation because she had disqualified herself as an applicant in Canada by taking employment without authorization. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) must by now be aware of all this from the minutes of the appeal board hearing which I understand were forwarded to him last week. I think it is to his credit that he has asked for as much information as possible, and I am sorry that time does not permit me to complete the answer.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the deteriorating postal services in rural Manitoba and especially in my home constituency of Lisgar. This is a subject which I have brought to the attention of the minister and his parliamentary secretary both by letter and in
June 15, 1972

the question period, yet it seems that they are ignoring my complaints.
In a question to the parliamentary secretary some time ago, I pointed out that our local postal service left much to be desired in terms of efficiency, and in his response he denied the premise of the question. I find his attitude toward this problem quite extraordinary. I have had dozens of letters on this matter from my constituents- businessmen, housewives and farmers. The parliamentary secretary might note that I have even had complaints from his own constituency which is adjacent to mine. Could it be that the hon. gentleman is not only ignoring my complaints on the matter but is ignoring also the complaints of his own constituents?
I hope in his reply tonight the hon. member will not once again deny that the postal service is deteriorating. I will not accept this because I know that our postal service is not what it should be in Manitoba. It is my contention that the Post Office has sacrificed its service to rural points in order to streamline its urban services. I submit that the Post Office should not be allowed to create priorities as to which areas should receive better service than others. This is not in the spirit or tradition of our postal service. My point is, that despite theories of rationalization of postal services, cost-cutting and other similar programs, every citizen of this country is entitled as a right to have prompt, efficient postal service the same as we have grown accustomed to over the years.
Now, what is the problem in rural Manitoba? It is simple. It is taking twice or three times as long as it should for letters to reach their destination. I could list dozens of examples. One constituent of mine had advertisement letters sent out within a 60-mile radius ten days before a sale in his business. Most of the letters arrived after the sale was over. He thus incurred a large loss of potential business, plus considerable postal costs which were also lost.
I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, another example of our poor postal service-two letters addressed to the same firm in Winnipeg, from Carman, Manitoba: one was sent on May 13 and the other on May 26. They both arrived on May 29. These letters contained important business documents. I hope the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) and his parliamentary secretary realize the ramifications of such poor service. Business which relies on efficient service suffers accordingly. If the parliamentary secretary wishes, I will give him dozens of examples; but they are all the same.
The parliamentary secretary cannot deny the premise because, as I have said, I have ample evidence that postal services are in fact deteriorating. The minister at times seems incapable or careless about how the Post Office is run. I would urge him once again to contact his departmental officials in Winnipeg and find out where the troubled spots are and rectify them as soon as possible.
Until recently, Canada has enjoyed one of the most efficient postal services in the world. This is rightly so. A country as vast as Canada needs a highly efficient postal service. Our citizens and businesses have grown accustomed to this good service. This is the standard which we are used to and it is the standard which should be maintained.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make two points. The first is that my constituents-and the parliamentary secretary's constituents, for that matter-will not accept statements that the Post Office is running as efficiently as ever. This we know not to be true and we will not accept it. My second point is that no matter what excuse the hon. gentleman is likely to give, as long as it is an excuse it is not acceptable. There should be a common standard of postal service in this country: it is a prime element of business efficiency and this common standard of postal service should be available to every citizen as a right no matter where he lives.
Now that I have made these points, Mr. Speaker, I will give the floor to the hon. gentleman because I am very interested in hearing what he has to say.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member, after asking his original question and raising this subject, did not see fit to present to the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) or his parliamentary secretary concrete evidence to substantiate the kind of complaint he has registered. Anyone can get up and say that the post office service is bad-


An hon. Member:: Are you doubting his word?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That's typical Liberal arrogance.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, apparently hon. members do not want to hear the facts; they are drowning-out my words with the noise they are making.


An hon. Member:: Wake up.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am merely saying that it would have been better if the hon. member had presented to the parliamentary secretary or the Postmaster General specific examples and specific evidence relating to his complaints. These could have been investigated. When the parliamentary secretary hears complaints like that, he brings them to the attention of the minister. That is what the hon. member ought to have done, instead of making these charges.
The Post Office Department has conducted an intensive study of rural mail delivery service in Lisgar. The quality-assurance investigation was extended to every village and municipality in the constituency, and no delays in the delivery service were found. As of June 5, 1972, this study was enlarged to encompass surrounding constituencies. A report from the investigative team on service in these areas should be ready in the coming weeks.
I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that it is virtually impossible to verify delays in postal delivery service in any given locality unless specific cases are given, so that they may be traced. This the hon. member has not seen fit to do; he has simply generalized. Some people do not always get mail in time and some businesses do not always get it either. It would have been better if the hon. member had done a little homework and research, if he wanted to help the Post Office Department, and not hinder it. The frequency of postal service in rural areas is

June 15, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion determined by a set of guidelines. These are the same for all Canada.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, on June 6 the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) issued one of his regular news releases announcing offers of grants under the Regional Development Incentives Act. Part of the news release relating to an offer reads as follows:
Maniwaki Forest Products Ltd. of Montreal has accepted an offer of approximately $181,000 for a new veneer facility at Maniwaki. The project is expected to create an estimated 74 jobs. The incentive is based on a rate of 15 per cent of the approved capital costs, estimated at $472,000, plus $1,500 for each job created.
A little arithmetic will show that 15 per cent of $472,000, the approved capital cost, comes to a little over $70,000, and 74 times $1,500, the amount for each job expected, equals $111,000. The two amounts added together equal $181,000. I want to make it clear at the outset that I am quite aware that the community of Maniwaki has encountered serious problems. I sympathize with it and think a good case can be made for public assistance to that community through a number of means. I want to make it clear that I recognize the particular problems that community faces, as I have said.
I am not dealing with this matter merely because it affects Maniwaki, and I would not want anyone to think that I am particularly talking about Maniwaki or any firm in Maniwaki. I intend to approach this matter from the standpoint of the broader policy and legal questions involved which have come to light as a result of this case. My cause for concern came about as a result of a news story which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of June 8. I raised the matter on a question of privilege the same day, and the government was aware of my concern about this matter one week ago. Today I asked a question in the House about this matter. The news story in the Ottawa Journal of June 8 in part reads as follows:
Maniwaki mayor Louis-Pierre Larocque welcomed the announcement of a $181,000 federal government grant to Maniwaki Forest Products as 'good news for the town,' but plant manager Antonio Cuccaro said the number of employees would not be increased as a result.
Mr. Cuccaro said most of the money would probably be used to modernize the wood veneer plant.
"We'll replace our outdated machinery," he said, "and we'U still operate on a one-shift basis with our 74 employees."
Mr. Cuccaro said the company did not plan to increase production with its new machinery.
"The number of employees will remain the same for some time," he added.
Today I asked the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether he would investigate this particular grant in view of the fact the grant was supposed to be for new jobs while the manager of the plant suggested the number of employees would not be increased. In his reply the minister indicated that he had looked into the matter. His answer was that if a grant had not been given, the

plant would have closed and there would now be 170 less jobs in existence in that community. The grant corresponded to creating 170 jobs, as I understood the minister.
I have no doubt that there were problems facing this industry. The minister may very well be right when he states that without assistance this plant may not have stayed in operation. I have no idea where he got the figure of 170, since the reference in the official report is to 74. I note in the news story that in 1970 this plant had 180 employees. Perhaps that explains the minister's reference. It seems that he is getting his figures mixed up.
As a result of the answer given by the minister, in which he gave no explanation for this problem concerning the creation of jobs, I asked whether he had investigated the extension of grants under this legislation where new jobs were not being created but existing jobs were simply being maintained. The minister said that the legal advisers in his department said everything was all right. He turned down my request to ask the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) for a legal opinion on this matter. This raises some very serious matters, first from the viewpoint of legislation. After all, the minister does have authority within the terms of the legislation: section 5(2) of the Regional Development Incentives Act clearly states as follows:
The amount of a secondary development incentive shall be based on the approved capital costs of establishing or expanding the facility in respect of which the secondary development incentive is authorized and on the number of jobs created directly in the operation and shall not exceed
(a)	5 per cent of those approved capital costs, plus
(b)	$5,000 for each job determined by the Minister to have been
directly in the operation.
When referring to the creation of jobs, I have always understood the term "create" to mean to bring into being. What we are doing here is maintaining a status quo. That is not creating jobs. There may be a case for providing some assistance to an industry in trouble: in fact, that is provided for in section 5 where a primary development incentive grant may be given simply on the basis of certain capital expenditures and is not tied to employment in any way. However, the minister cannot claim that jobs are being created on the basis that he set out with regard to the case that I raised today.
I asked how many of the 58,000 jobs which he estimated have been created under this industrial incentives program are on the same basis. They are not new jobs at all; they are simply salvaging jobs in industries which Eire in trouble. In some instances there may be a case for providing assistance. If we want to maintain existing industries and tie this to employment maintenance, there should be a clearcut policy in this regard: the legislation should spell that our clearly. However, the minister should not be in a position of contravening legislation, as could very well happen in the case which I raised today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member undoubtedly knows, Sogefor, the previous owner of the Maniwaki veneer plant, publicly announced its intention to close the plant in December, 1970. In Febru-
June 15, 1972

ary, 1971, Maniwaki Forest Products applied for incentive assistance, indicating a willingness to purchase the assets of the Sogefor plant in an arm's length transaction and an intention to introduce changes which would make the operation viable in the long run. The company also indicated a willingness to reopen the plant on a reduced scale as quickly as possible in order to offset almost immediately, if in a limited way, the effect on employment of the previous closure. It proceeded to acquire the assets and reopened the plant on June 1, 1971, having obtained from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion an understanding that these actions would not prejudice its application for assistance.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Evaluation of the viability of the project was somewhat delayed because of time required to assess the implications of the detailed plans for changes in the operation. When the evaluation had been completed, an offer of incentive assistance was made. It is this offer that was recently accepted and announced.
In the view of the department, all the actions taken were in accordance with the provisions of the law and the intentions of Parliament at the time it was passed. It is clear that these actions, which helped greatly to offset the effects of the closing and which should make it possible for the plant to continue on a viable basis, were highly desirable. If any member of this House thinks otherwise, I suggest he discuss the matter with the people of Maniwaki.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Friday, June 16. 1972