1972-04-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to lay on the table a document in both official languages describing the types of investigation, both environmental and otherwise, being pursued by various government departments with regard to a northern pipeline.



STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion of urgent and pressing necessity. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan):
That in view of the chronic increase in the unemployment rate of Canadians under the age of 24 over the last two years; the inability of government summer employment programs to assist less than 5 per cent of the over-all youth labour force in Canada and the repeated failure of the government to announce any program to adequately respond to what is developing as a major crisis in youth unemployment coming as it is at the end of the school year-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member does not follow the rules the motion should not be put to the House. The hon. member knows the rules and he should abide by them.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I was just coming to the direct motion, Mr. Speaker.
That this House directs the government to immediately convene a federal-provincial commission on human resource planning to develop a short-range program offering incentives to assist the hiring of young Canadians on a seasonal basis, and the development of long-range manpower planning to co-ordinate the output and enrolment of our institutions of higher education with the capacity and expansion of our labour market.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Egmont. The motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I seek the consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43. Briefly, it relates to an information bulletin issued by the Department of National Revenue one day before the announcement of the sale by the Toronto Telegram of its subscription list to the Toronto Star. The bulletin deals with the purchase of such lists of customers or subscribers and appears to have the effect of making the purchase price paid by the Star deductible for income tax purposes. I therefore move:
That the Standing Committee on Privilege and Elections be empowered to investigate the circumstances surrounding the sale of the Toronto Telegram subscription list to the Toronto Star, particularly, the circumstances involved in the issuing the day before the sale was announced of an interpretation bulletin by the Department of National Revenue which had the effect of saving the Toronto Star $5 million in taxes at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is proposed under Standing Order 43. It requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is no unanimity, the motion cannot be put.

April 18, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It relates to recent reports from Canadian industry forecasting this summer's student unemployment prospects and the likelihood they will be unable to absorb many students into this summer's labour force. In view of the 1,300,000 students who will be looking for work very shortly and the over one-quarter of a million young people now unemployed, I wonder whether the Prime Minister can indicate what response is being planned by the government beyond the very miniscule response already announced?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think this opinion was expressed by industry last year around this time. It has some basis in the sense that if there is to be a great hiring of young people this summer it will have to be through industry more than by the government itself. But I remind the House that we did last year at this time, or perhaps a little later, announce certain programs for the summer which were met with a great deal of skepticism by the opposition parties and a very few months later they were thankful the thing had gone through. I hope this will be the situation again this year.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, without accepting all of the Prime Minister's answer may I ask this question. In light of the fact that the government programs will utilize less than 5 per cent of the young people seeking employment during the summer months and in view of statements earlier by the Secretary of State that there had been consultation with industry about their being a greater input from industry in meeting this problem, will certain specific plans or programs be announced before the heavy influx of student unemployment which will face us very shortly?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can only repeat the same answer. The views of the hon. member are not dissimilar to my own. I said in my answer that the government itself could only absorb a small proportion of the unemployed and the hon. member indicates he agrees with me. That is why last year we had a package of programs; when we have anything to announce this year further to what we have already announced we will do so.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there seems at the very least to be a difficulty in communication as industry itself does not seem to be aware of the plans the government has in mind in respect of the private sector. I wonder whether either the Prime Minister or one of his ministers would be prepared to make a statement on motions shortly giving an indication in some detail of the various programs of assistance or incentives which might be brought forward to alleviate this very serious crisis?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not think the hon. member is justified in suggesting that industry is not aware. He may not be aware and perhaps some persons in industry may not be aware, but industry generally is fairly aware.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has given some thought to rectifying this problem in two ways, by giving employment to a number of these young people during the month of June as enumerators, election clerks and so on and, hopefully, by a new government after the election in June that might be able to deal with the situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker that is one of the problems, but there are so many problems-


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



NATIONAL REVENUE


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of National Revenue last Thursday, April 13, whether he was aware of an interpretation bulletin issued by his department-I said in October or November; actually, it was issued on September 17, but published in the Canada Gazette on October 9-dealing with the acquisition by anyone of a list of customers or subscribers and, if so, whether he would inform the House of the circumstances under which such an interpretation bulletin dealing with the deductibility for tax purposes of the purchase price of a list of subscribers was issued by his department at that time.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the interpretation bulletin, No. IT-33, a cope of which I would be happy to table with the consent of the House, was issued on September 17, 1971, as part of an ongoing program to make the public aware of the assessing policies of the department. It embodied a practice first set forth in departmental instructions in March, 1963, and in effect ever since. These instructions were based on several decisions of the Income Tax Appeal Board, for example, John Blunt Publications Limited, (1951), appeal No. 292, (1955), and Halliday Fuels Limited, (1960).


David Lewis: May I now ask the minister whether he would tell the House what particular thing happened or was expected to happen, what particular deal had occurred or was expected to occur, what particular purchase was taking place or was expected to take place, to require that this bulletin be issued one day before the purchase of the Telegram list by the Star was announced and two days after the deal had been made?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: As I think I made clear in my answer to the previous question, this was done as part of an ongoing program of the department. Bulletins on various ques-
April 18, 1972

tions are issued from time to time as work on them is completed, and as far as I am aware there is no connection between the two matters.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I admire about the minister's answer is his straight face. I should like to ask the minister a second question which I asked him last Thursday. He has offered to table the interpretation bulletin, which I think would be useful, but would he also be prepared to table a copy of any correspondence between anyone in his department and anyone representing the Toronto Star or speaking on behalf of the Toronto Star, and any memos of conversations that may have taken place between anyone speaking for the Toronto Star and anyone speaking for the department?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If such correspondence exists I would have no personal objection to tabling the information, but it is my understanding that I would be precluded from doing so by the provisions of the Income Tax Act passed by this parliament.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, if I may. I am not asking the minister to table correspondence dealing with any tax matter in which any organization may be involved. I am asking him to table correspondence regarding an inquiry, if there was any, from the Toronto Star relating to tax interpretation, which I suggest to him is entirely different, and also any memos there may be of conversations between him and any representative of the Star, Mr. Honderich or the Hon. Walter Gordon, or involving any member of his department on this matter.



SUMMER JOBS-POSSIBILITY OF GRANTING TAX RELIEF TO PRIVATE INDUSTRY EMPLOYING STUDENTS

Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister which is related to other questions put previously concerning the hiring of students during the vacation period.
Since private corporations seem to be somewhat reluctant, as they were last year, to hire students during their vacation, can the right hon. Prime Minister tell us whether the government intends to grant such corporations more tax relief or work out other arrangements with them in order to incite them to hire students during the vacation period?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should expect a reply to such a question to be given in the course of a budget speech rather than during the oral question period.
Inquiries of the Ministry



NEW POLICIES TO PROVIDE SUMMER EMPLOYMENT FOR STUDENTS

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also on the same subject and is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. As the government's own recent cross-Canada survey shows that little change in student employment levels is expected this summer compared with last summer, and even given the expected employment programs of the government, are new policies being prepared for the direct employment of the remainder of these students?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I implied in answer to the first question, Mr. Speaker, if any new policies were to be announced they would be announced in the House in due course.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: As the average unemployment rate among returning students last summer was 17.9 per cent, is the government designing policies to eliminate or substantially reduce that level and, if the latter, by how much?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think I could only answer that question in the same terms as I just used for the first question, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. As figures released a few days ago by Statistics Canada show that the index of industrial production, with which I feel sure the Prime Minister is thoroughly familiar, has been falling since the first of the year, thereby obviously contributing to rising unemployment in March, is the government planning to introduce new measures in the very near future to change this very serious situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, without agreeing with the premise ot the question I would say that if any program is to be announced it will be announced in due course in the House-if the House, of course, is sitting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: As the Prime Minister is obviously not familiar with this situation would he make himself familiar with it so that he can give some much needed personal leadership in this very serious matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is not in order. The hon. member for South Shore.


George Harris Hees: In other words, get off your you-know-what.


Mr. Crouse:: Watch it, George. My microphone is open.

April 18, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



DATE OF LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE

Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. The third preparatory session of the United Nations Seabed Committee, attended by delegates from 95 countries, recently concluded a month of discussions on the agenda for the next law of the sea conference. Can the minister tell the House whether a date for this conference has been set and whether the Americans are in agreement with our position in view of the importance of this conference in conserving our fishery resources on the Atlantic coast?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, a date for the conference has not been set. However, in addition to the possible conference of all nations next year in respect of all law of the sea matters, we hope to host a conference here in Canada on fishery matters.



DETERMINATION OF CANADIAN POSITION FOR PRESENTATION TO LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the American government has announced several positions with respect to marine resources and the continental shelf and that a number of other countries, including Iceland, have done so, has Canada finalized its position for presentation to the law of the sea conference and, if so, when can we expect a public statement on it?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have a good idea as to the policy approach we will be taking. However, we still wish to discuss it with all interested parties including our fishermen, in the interval before the conference.



POLLUTION


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Arising out of the many oil spills which have been taking place on the Pacific coast, including the wrecking of the freighter Vanlene, more recently the discharge of bunker fuel into Nanoose Bay, and last Friday the damaging of a barge of the Gulf of Georgia Towing Company Limited carrying 950,000 gallons of oil and gasoline, resulting in the discharge of some 6,000 gallons into the waters of the harbour, I want to ask the minister whether the regulations under the Canada Shipping Act have been passed, and what steps are being taken to tighten up and enforce such regulations with respect to ships carrying oil and petroleum products on the Pacific coast?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it would take a very long time to reply in detail
(Mr. Crouse.)
to the hon. member's question. I can say to him, however, that a series of regulations have in fact been gazetted and more are now in preparation and will be introduced over a period of perhaps the next two, three or four months, all of which are designed to have the effect to which the hon. member referred, that is, to tighten up the regulations.



SHIPPING


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport a related question with reference to the report which I understand he received some two weeks ago regarding the sinking of the tugboat, Haro Straits. Has he received such a report, does he intend to make it public, and can he tell the House why no attempt was made to raise the tugboat to the surface or recover the bodies of the five men who were drowned?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, on the last part of the question, no official decision has been made with regard to raising the vessel. I am not disposed against that concept, but we are trying to figure out whether it is in fact feasible to do so. On the matter of the report, an interim report has been received. I am not sure whether I am within the laws of the House in saying it in this way, but I can assure the hon. member that an official inquiry will be held.



FINANCE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance which is related to some of the previous questions. In view of the rather bleak prospects for employment for university students and university graduates in many cases and the large increase in the number of students who are classified as defaulting on their student loans, will the minister give consideration to extending the interest-free period on loans to students in cases where students whose loans are now due are unemployed through no fault of their own?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: I will take that question and representation into consideration, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has a supplementary to an earlier question.
April 18, 1972



TRANSPORT


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the fact that the Darling report has been in the hands of the Minister of Transport now for about a year and as it contained some very valuable recommendations as to the engagement of Canadian shipping in offshore mineral exploration, is the minister in a position to tell the House whether these recommendations will find their way into some form of legislation in the near future?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: think I can assure the hon. member that some of them will, Mr. Speaker. I think the difficulty is that some of them are contradictory. While the ones to which the hon. member refers may be beneficial on the east coast and in other coastal areas, there are others that perhaps would not be. It is a question of sorting out the recommendations to come up with a compact package, and that will be done as soon as possible.



REPLACEMENT OF CANADIAN BY FOREIGN VESSEL- REPORTED NEGOTIATIONS BY CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS FOR PURCHASE OF VESSELS IN SWEDEN

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary, is directed to the Minister of Transport and arises out. of the question on the Darling report. Would the minister investigate the recent waiver by customs which resulted in a foreign vessel, Traveltol, and its crew, replacing the Canadian vessel, Federal Hudson, and its Canadian crew on the east coast. Would he also look into the circumstances in which Canadian National is reportedly negotiating in Sweden for two vessels for the Newfoundland trade?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into that. I know something about it, but the answer would be much too detailed for now. Perhaps I could give the hon. member a written reply.



ANNOUNCEMENTS OF POLICY FOR ATLANTIC PROVINCES

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is associated with the Darling report. The minister indicated to me before the Easter recess that certain announcements would be made regarding transportation policy for the Atlantic provinces by the interdepartmental committee or the federal-provincial committee. Can the minister now be more definite about when these announcements might be made?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: As I
recall, and it is from memory, Mr. Speaker, I suggested I would make them available at the time of my appearance on estimates before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. If that is inordinately delayed, I will be glad to table them in the House in the interim.
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR TRANSPORT



RENEGOTIATION OF TREATY WITH UNITED STATES RESPECTING ROUTES

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: My question is also for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the minister is aware of the urgent need for more air routes in western Canada, particularly for Calgary and Edmonton. Has the minister had any discussions with United States cabinet ministers on the renegotiation of the bilateral air treaty with the United States, and can he give any information about when these negotiations will be concluded and the new treaty signed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the forum for such negotiations is not between ministers but between two agencies of government in the first instance. We have made strong representations to the United States government with a view to getting better access for western Canada and we have indicated that we are prepared at any time to resume negotiations. I understand the next round will be held some time in June but how soon the matter will culminate in an agreement or whether we will get what we want from the United States is, of course, an open question until the negotiations have been completed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In view of the fact these negotiations have been dragging on for more than three years at the level of officials, would the minister not consider taking the matter up with his opposite number in the United States government so that an agreement could be expedited?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is obviously a representation.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Last Thursday the minister indicated that his department had some ongoing studies into the differential between automobile prices in this country and in the United States. Would he clarify whether he meant that this is a new, specific study, or whether this is a study that was begun some time in the past and was a regular part of his department's work?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in a nutshell I can say that this is a more in-depth analysis than the type which has been continuously made in the department.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the importance of the answers determined by the study, would the minister undertake to provide his findings, not in all detail since part of that information might be confidential, but general, economic
1392

April 18, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
information? Would he undertake to provide such information to the House after his studies are completed because of the importance of this question both to the Canadian consumer and to those employed in the industry?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will be thinking about it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Careful! That is a damaging admission.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General.
In view of the present very difficult situation in Montreal, particularly the systematic and deliberate blocking of Montreal bridges, and of the great difficulty experienced by the police in reestablishing order, can the hon. minister tell us whether there have been requests from the province of Quebec for assistance to Montreal police forces?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: No, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
On March 10 last, the Quebec professional association of millers sent the federal government a resolution requesting financial assistance for the Quebec egg producers. Can the minister tell us what he told the association in reply to its request?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, since then there have been a number of meetings involving the egg producer associations of all the provinces of Canada. Although these meetings have not brought about a final agreement, it has been indicated to me, at least, that the associations are satisfied that a great deal of progress has been made. What I have indicated to them is that as soon as they are in a position to sign an agreement for improving the market structure we will be willing to help financially to improve the situation immediately.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is the minister changing his view on the bill?



TRANSPORT


Mr. Douglas Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the very serious shortage of lumber cars in the interior region of British Columbia which is causing orders to be lost and hundreds of people to be laid off? If he is not, will he look into this crisis immediately with a view to getting lumber traffic back to normal forthwith?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation, having made some inquiries this morning. The main problem appears to be with the Canadian National supply of cars. An additional 500 cars have been leased from the United States and as of this morning there were something over 1,300 on the road. The CNR has placed additional orders for 1,000 cars, or will convert 1,000 cars during the current year. Therefore awareness of the problem is very high.


William Douglas Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his response. Will the minister or his officials contact the Association of American Railroads and endeavour to get Canadian boxcars returned to Canadian carriers as quickly as possible?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the Association of American Railroads has been contacted. It does not have any authority to force or require cars to be returned quickly. We are trying to institute a more co-operative arrangement that will get the cars back.
 * *



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has a decision been reached with respect to reducing domestic air fares? My question is prompted by a statement by the chairman of the board of Air Canada regarding the poor profit showing of the airline last year.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as I believe the hon. member knows, any decision with regard to reducing fares would have to be initiated in the first place by Air Canada. I have had discussions with the chairman of the board of Air Canada with a view to having group fares and various packages comparable to those available overseas made available in Canada. I think some moves have been made in that direction.


James Aloysius McGrath: Can the minister give the House an undertaking that a decision will be made in this respect before implementation of the summer schedules in Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I could not, of course, give any such assurance because the decision on fares, I

April 18, 1972

repeat, is one for Air Canada to make. However, I will be glad to pass along the representation.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of State attached to the Department of Finance concerning the possibility of a statement being made regarding monetary policy. It appears at page 1348 of Hansard. I am sure the Minister of Finance has been made aware of the question. I am wondering whether he can now give an answer, particularly to the supplementary question I put.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to direct my attention to the question. I want to tell the House that I see no immediate need to make a statement on interest rates. As to the supplementary question, I am weighing all the economic and human factors before coming to a decision on whether or not there should be a budget.



RAPESEED-SUGGESTED PROVISION OF INCENTIVE PAYMENT OR FLOOR PRICE TO ENCOURAGE PRODUCTION TO MEET DEMAND

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It has to do with the very large reduction in the anticipated acreage for rapeseed this year. I think the reduction is of the order of 37 per cent, from 5,450,000 acres to 3,700,000 acres, this being in part due to the uncertainty of price levels. As we have built abroad a very large rapeseed market-indeed, it has been the Cinderella of all grains- would the minister give consideration to providing either an incentive payment, as is provided for barley, or an assured floor price so that the production of rapeseed will keep up with the demands of importers in all parts of the world?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the right hon. gentleman's contention that the level of production of rapeseed ought to be kept up, even though the market fluctuates from time to time, because the long-term prospects for rapeseed-and rape-seed oil sales appear to be good. We have had a bill before parliament to bring rapeseed under the Canadian Wheat Board Act so that some of the things the right hon. gentleman has alluded to could be done. I do not think we can make the kinds of commitments he has suggested until and unless rapeseed is under the aegis of the Canadian Wheat Board.


John George Diefenbaker: Disregarding for the moment the matter of the Canadian Wheat Board, there would be
Inquiries of the Ministry
nothing to prevent the government fixing a floor price. I speak as one who comes from an area in northern Saskatchewan that has produced a great deal of rapeseed. Indeed, the motto of the town and district of Tisdale is "the land of rape and Bertha control", following the success last year in beating the Bertha army bug. Would the minister not give consideration to bringing in a floor price for rapeseed so that there would be reasonable certainty of the price being maintained?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, that is something that the government as a whole would have to consider, obviously. I can advise the right hon. gentleman that we have made some financial advances to the rapeseed association to enhance their marketing capabilities during the past few months.


John George Diefenbaker: That has not helped.



RAPESEED-POSSIBLE INCLUSION UNDER CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD

['Mr. Speaker, on-the-job training was part of a special emergency training program during the winter months. It is my intention to make it a permanent feature of manpower policy. Of course, this could conceivably be at the expense of other programs that have perhaps outlived their usefulness in order that I can remain within my budgetary requirements.']
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture in light of his answer to the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Is it the government's intention to bring forward legislation to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and, since the legislation is permissive, is it also the government's intention, immediately upon passage of that legislation, to have rapeseed brought under tbe juisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be proper for me to answer what might be done if and when a bill is passed. What is stated in the bill is rather clear. I think it has already been stated that we intend to present to parliament a bill that deals with these things.



Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As Canada now has an observer at the Organization of American States, can the Prime Minister enlighten the House as to what the government's plans are concerning that organization? Can he assure us that this is not a step toward membership of our country in the Organization of American States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will look back and consider the white paper on foreign policy which was tabled in the House many months ago I think he will find the general stance of the government on Latin America explained there.
Inquiries of the Ministry MANPOWER

April 18, 1972


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration with regard to manpower training. Is the minister in a position to advise the House at this time regarding the requirement of three years in the work force in order to apply for manpower training and obtain the allowance? Is the minister thinking about reducing that time period? If so, when will it come into effect?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, too much applause might destroy my reputation of being rather hard-boiled.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I might have to show some emotion, which would be wrong. The fact of the matter is that I think the suggestion of the hon. member is progressive and it is one we have thought about. The answer is yes. As to when such a move would be implemented, that of course would depend on how long the session continues. That could conceivably mean some time before Christmas.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I, too, welcome the minister. As far as I am concerned, he will still be as fast-footed as he has been in the past. If I may turn to another area, on-the-job training, about which I know the minister is quite concerned in view of the fact it has had relative success, is it the intention of the minister to increase the government's involvement substantially in this area? If so, which Christmas are we talking about if the minister does bring this into effect?


John Napier Turner: Save your Santa Claus suit.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, on-the-job training was part of a special emergency training program during the winter months. It is my intention to make it a permanent feature of manpower policy. Of course, this could conceivably be at the expense of other programs that have perhaps outlived their usefulness in order that I can remain within my budgetary requirements.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. As a number of representations have been made by myself and others

regarding a meeting between the minister and the People Over Planes group of Pickering township that is to be held here in Ottawa, will the minister indicate when this meeting will in fact be held?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain of the exact date because it is a question of a date that is convenient to all parties, but I assume it will be some time next week.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Is the minister in a position to indicate to the House what information will be made available to this group when the meeting is in fact held?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly stated that, in so far as the ministry is concerned, anything and everything relevant to this project from the first day of its origination is available. It is purely and simply a matter of trying to work out the proper mechanics for making it open to anyone who wishes to see it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are two or three members seeking supplementaries on this subject. There are less than five minutes remaining in the question period. I seek the co-operation of hon. members to try to limit supplementaries, although I appreciate the matter is of importance, so that we can go on to the next subject. The hon. member for Ontario has a supplementary.


Norman Augustine Cafik: The minister has indicated he will make all relevant information available. Does this include information with regard to alternate sites?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have always assumed that the word "all" means exactly what it says. Therefore, if it is alternate sites, yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If we have time we will return to this subject matter in a few minutes.



HARBOURS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In reply to a question I directed to the minister several weeks ago, he indicated that he hoped to be announcing shortly the formation of a port authority at Churchill. Can the minister now say when he will be making this announcement?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that letters of invitation have gone out to the various people who have been proposed for membership on the board for the port of Churchill. I do not know how many of these have been returned. The short answer is that as soon as we get the acceptances I will make a public announcement.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may ask a supplementary and then I will recognize the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock.
April 18, 1972

Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, the minister announced that letters have gone out to the expected appointees. Can the minister again assure the House that local representation on this body has been considered?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am not absolutely certain whether in the case of Churchill there was and is a properly incorporated body. As I recall, there is. It would have been asked to nominate someone. Certainly the province of Manitoba has been asked and has put forward a name which we have of course accepted.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister state whether the government has made a decision on whether or not it will assist the farmers of southwestern Ontario in re-establishing the sugar beet industry? A submission was made to the minister a short time ago on this matter.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, a decision has not been made. As I recall it, and I would like to recheck this, the submission does not necessarily involve a direct assistance program by the federal government. It is far more directly related to such things as longer term marketing and, indeed, the establishment of a refinery that could process the crop.


Robert Elgin McKinley: In view of the minister's answer, is the government giving consideration to the establishment of a long-term sugar policy for Canada so that we can have a viable industry here?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall, I am sure, that we are a party to an international sugar agreement. It is certainly not complete nor perfect, but it is somewhat better than the situation prior to the closing down of the sugar industry in that area.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. I do not see him here but someone opposite could perhaps take notice of it. Is it a fact that consideration is finally being given to restoring Saturday mail delivery service in Canada?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will draw this question to the attention of the Postmaster General.



GOVERNMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR SHIPS- REQUEST FOR DEFERMENT AND REVIEW

Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries. In view of the fact the government's new insurance program covering ships engaged in the fisheries is causing considerable hardship to small ship owners, will the minister consider deferring the program and giving the whole matter a complete review?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the government's insurance program is probably one of the best things any government of this country has ever done for fishermen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. It arises out of a previous question I directed to the minister some time ago with regard to possible revisions in the administration of the brucellosis testing program for cattle. Having regard to the fact that a number of losses have occurred which are directly attributable to the administration of this program carried out in early spring, has the minister had an opportunity to consult with the Health of Animals Division and in so doing come up with a better plan for the administration of these tests in respect of timing?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have had some discussions about this matter. We certainly want to avoid the problem of handling these cattle at the wrong time of the year. If there are any instances where it can be shown that losses were the result of either negligence or some other action on the part of our officers, we would consider an application for compensation in those respects. It is, however, rather difficult to suggest that we change the whole program that has been evolved because the value of these testing programs is very great indeed even in relation to the losses we have had.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have just about reached the end of the question period but perhaps the hon. member might be allowed a supplementary. Then I will recognize the hon. member for Greenwood for the last question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I was not requesting that the total program be changed; I was merely asking for an assurance. Can the Minister of Agriculture assure

April 18, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
the House that a better timing program will be instituted in order to avoid testing these cattle in the spring?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at that very carefully.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport and is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Ontario. Would the government give consideration to setting up a full public inquiry, such as the one that was held in London, England, I believe, when a new airport there was planned, so that the public can make representations and the inquiry can examine the evidence as to the need for a new airport and the best possible location for it?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all certain that the forum the hon. member is suggesting would be an appropriate one for achieving the objective he has mentioned. So far as making the material available is concerned, I have already said that that will be done. I might also point out that there will be expropriation proceedings at which all interested parties as well as the public at large can be heard.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the minister consider as an alternative referring this whole matter to the transport committee of this House so that witnesses can be examined and the need made clear and public?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Again, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that that is the appropriate forum but I would be glad to consider it.



MOUNT HOPE, ONT.-DETAILS OF EXPANSION

Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister soon be in a position to inform the House of the details of the proposed regional airport expansion at Mount Hope, Ontario?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. To the best of my knowledge the drafting is already available; I will look into this and pass the information on to the hon. member.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We cannot have further supplemen-taries on this subject. The question period expired three minutes ago. I think we should call Orders of the Day. I understand the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has a question supplementary to a previous question. A number of hon. members have not had an opportunity to ask their questions and I have tried to make a mental note

of them. I apologize to them for the fact that they were not called upon. In view of the fact they are mostly members in the last row to my left, perhaps we might all work together tomorrow to try to give them priority. Orders of the Day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the Minister of National Revenue rising on a point of order?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I could have consent of the House to table the interpretation bulletin to which I referred in an answer I gave earlier in the question period.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister needs unanimous consent to revert to motions for this purpose. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from April 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. O'Connell that Bill C-183, to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate on the second reading of Bill C-183 briefly and for the purpose of dealing with but one aspect of the legislation. In doing so I shall be reciting a bit of history, and I do so not just because of the interest I have in the story to which I should like to refer but because I think there are one or two points about one change being made to the Canada Labour Code concerning which there should be clarification from the government side.
When I first came to parliament back in 1942, there were still living a large number of employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway who had lost their pension rights as a result of the 1919 general strike in the city of Winnipeg. At that time there were men who were still working for the Canadian Pacific Railway but whose pensions would be
April 18, 1972

less than they would otherwise have been due to the 1919 strike. There were also many retired CPR employees drawing no pensions at all because they had lost their pension rights as result of the 1919 strike.
It is a fact of history that my predecessor, the late J. S. Woodsworth-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the Chair is having some difficulty hearing the hon. member. There are several individual conversations being carried on in the chamber. I wonder whether hon. members would be kind enough to go behind the curtains if they wish to continue their conversations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, my predecessor as the member for the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre, the late J. S. Woodsworth, during the years that he was in parliament did his very best to persuade the government to take the necessary steps to restore the pension rights that were lost by those CPR workers. I would point out that employees of other organizations, such as Canadian National Railways, the Manitoba government telephones and certain other groups, who lost their pension rights at the time of the 1919 strike had those rights reinstated, but this was never done for the CPR employees.
When it became my privilege to succeed Mr. Woodsworth, one of the battles that I carried on was the attempt to get those rights reinstated. As a matter of fact, it took only a few more years until most of those who had lost their rights had passed on, so it soon became an issue no longer of concern to living people. However, the grievance that had been suffered was so serious that some of us felt legislation should be enacted to make sure that this kind of thing would not happen again.
Accordingly, in the middle forties I started using the device of private member's hour to present various bills in an effort to do this very thing, namely to protect pension rights against loss as a result of a strike or a lockout. My efforts in private members' hour in those days succeeded just as well as similar efforts in private members' hour succeed today. In other words, our proposals were talked out with kindness and approval.
In 1948, the then Minister of Labour, the Hon. Humphrey Mitchell, introduced the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. This, indeed, is the piece of legislation which, under the revision of the statutes in 1970, became Part V of the Canada Labour Code and, of course, it is Part V of the Labour Code which is being replaced by Bill C-183, now before us.
Accordingly, when the late Humphrey Mitchell brought in the bill to provide for the regulation of labour matters in 1948, I then started trying to move the appropriate amendment to that bill. The bill was referred to the appropriate standing committee, and in that standing committee I moved an amendment which would have had the effect of protecting pension rights against loss resulting from a strike. I regret to say that in the committee we lost. However, there are times when one does not give up, and when that bill came back to the committee of the whole house I tried once again to move an amendment. This time, in addition to such efforts as I made on the floor of
Canada Labour Code
the House, I consulted certain people behind the curtains, in their offices and so on, and did all I could to persuade people in high places that the request I was making was a reasonable and legitimate request that ought to be enacted into law.
As a matter of fact, one of the persons I approached was the Prime Minister of the day, the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King. I pointed out that during his years as Prime Minister he had in fact taken care of a number of grievances that arose during the 1910 labour disputes and the 1919 strike in Winnipeg. He finally expressed agreement that what I was requesting should be made part of the law of the land. Therefore, on June 17, 1948, in committee of the whole, when I moved my amendment that would protect pension rights against loss resulting from strikes, I was met, and I knew by this time this was going to happen, with a counter suggestion made by Mr. Chevri-er, who was then Minister of Transport, to the effect that my idea was acceptable, but that the government would like to spell it out in a few more words so it would be clear beyond any doubt.
Actually, the amendment I moved, and this is found at page 5369 of Hansard for June 17, 1948, was as follows:
That section 4, subsection 2(b) be amended by changing the period after the word "Act" to a comma, and adding thereafter the following words:
and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, no employer shall deny to any employee any pension rights or benefits to which he would otherwise be entitled by reason only of his ceasing to work as the result of a lockout or strike or by reason only of dismissal contrary to this act.
The reason those last few words about dismissal contrary to this act were inserted was that these words were already there in the subclause I was seeking to amend. The pages of Hansard for that day are in themselves interesting, although they do not tell the entire story. In any case, in the middle of that afternoon a point was reached when the then Minister of Transport, the Hon. Lionel Chevrier, got up and suggested that an alternative wording would be acceptable, and that wording was as follows, and I quote from page 5390 of Hansard for that day:
That section 4, subsection 2(b) be further amended by changing the period after the word "act" to a comma, and adding thereafter the following words:
"and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, no employer shall deny to any employee any pension rights or benefits to which he would otherwise be entitled by reason only of his ceasing to work after the commencement of this act as the result of a lockout or while taking part in a concerted stoppage of work due to a labour dispute where such lockout or stoppage of work has been enforced by the employer or called by the recognized representative of such employee, as the case may be, after all steps provided or contemplated by law have been taken through negotiation, collective bargaining, conciliation and arbitration to settle such dispute or by reason only of dismissal contrary to this act."
In other words, my simple wording was enlarged upon to make it crystal clear that the protection of pension rights against loss resulting from a strike or lockout was to apply only in the case of a clearly legal strike and, of course, it was to apply only after this act of 1948 came into force.
At the page to which I have referred, page 5390 of Hansard for June 17, 1948, it will be noted that I accepted

April 18, 1972
Canada Labour Code
the alternative wording proposed by Mr. Chevrier, whereupon my amendment was withdrawn, Mr. Chevri-er's amendment was put and it was carried. At the next page, 5391, there is an indication that the bill was reported, read a third time and passed. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we won the battle and had a provision written into the federal legislation of this country that from then on workers were not to lose their pension rights only because they took part in a strike or were involved in a lockout, provided in the case of a strike that it was legal in terms of the legislation we passed at that time. The provision we thus won on June 17, 1948, was clearly written into the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, and the language I have quoted became part of section 4 of that act. Those words are to be found in subsection (2) of section 4.1 need not read the words again because I have already placed them on the record.
My point is that since 1948, the law has been crystal clear that what happened in 1919 cannot happen again; that pension rights are protected against loss resulting from a strike. I may say that within a very few years after that legislation was enacted by this parliament, most of the provincial legislatures copied those very words and put that language into their provincial labour laws. I know in this day and age it may seem unnecessary to think of requiring this kind of protection, but experiences in the early part of this century were very tragic and, as I say, this was an important gain to labour, to have this protection put into the law.


Mr. Perrault:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Is he aware of the fact that the matter of protecting pension rights is continued in section 184(3)(d) of this bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should have thought the hon. parliamentary secretary would have realized that the direction in which I am speaking is such that I will be coming to that very soon.


Raymond J. Perrault: I am sorry.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was saying before the question was put to me, that one of the beneficial results of getting this kind of legislation into federal law was that most of the provinces adopted it, so it is not now possible for workers in Canada to lose their pension rights because of involvement in a strike.
I want to point out also that when the Statutes of Canada were revised in 1970, this provision was carried forward into Part V of the Labour Code which is chapter L-l of the Revised Statutes of 1970. Although there was a little rearranging of the words, the same idea is there and the provision is well set down in section 110 of Chapter L-I of Revised Statutes of Canada 1970. So far no change; so far, all is well. Now, as the parliamentary secretary pointed out, this provision does seem to be carried forward in the bill now before us, Bill C-183. He identified the clause, namely clause 184, of the bill now before us. The clause is under the general heading "Unfair Practices". At page 55 of the bill one can read at the top of the page:

No employer and no person acting on behalf of an employer shall.. .
Then, we drop to the bottom of the page and find the following in (d):
. .. deny to any employee any pension rights or benefits to which the employee would be entitled but for
(i)	the cessation of work by the employee as the result of a lockout or strike that is not prohibited by this Part, or
(ii)	the dismissal of the employee contrary to this Part;
Despite my suspicions being aroused when I see the
Liberals making a change, I have read that clause backwards and forwards a dozen times and I think it is all right. There are now only about as many words in that clause as there were in the amendment I moved back in 1948. The Liberals of that day multiplied the number of words about four times. One reason I have entered this debate is that I understand the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) wants to assume his right to close the debate at the end of second reading and I hope he will give us the assurance that the shortening and changing of the language does not detract by one iota from the basic principle, namely, that pension rights cannot be interfered with in any way because of a strike so long as it is a strike that is legal under the provisions of Part V of the Labour Code.
As I say, I have read the language proposed in 1948 that was in the former statute and that is in the Revised Statutes of Canada for 1970, and I have now read the wording in the new bill, but I would like from the minister the assurance that nothing has been lost by the change of the language or by the shortening of the sentence. I am sure he agrees with me, and I am sure this is what he wants, but I think it would be useful to have his clear statement that it is the intention of the government to continue to have in our law the reform which was won in 1948, namely, that pension rights cannot be lost or interfered with because of a strike.
However, one other change has taken place. If my good friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Perrault) will continue to follow the legislation that is before us I would ask him to take note of this: The Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act of 1948, in addition to section 4 which provides that pension rights cannot be interfered with because of a strike, contains a section under the heading "Enforcement", section 40, which reads:
Every person, trade union and employers' organization who violates section four or section five of this Act...
And Section 4 is the one which dealt with pension rights.
... is guilty of an offence and liable upon summary conviction,
(a)	if an individual, to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars;
or
(b)	if a corporation, trade union or employers' organization, to a
fine not exceeding one thousand dollars.
In other words, the Act of 1948 not only provided that pension rights could not be interfered with but also contained a declaration that any employer who did this was guilty of an offence which, on summary conviction, was subject to a fine. That provision for fines, and for treating
April 18. 1972

the offence as one subject to summary conviction, was carried forward in the Revised Statutes of Canada for 1970. For example, I read section 146 of Chapter L-I, which is the Canada Labour Code:
Every person, trade union and employers' organization who violates section 110 .. .
And that in the Revised Statutes is the section which deals with pension rights.
* [DOT] * or section 111 is guilty of an offence and liable upon summary conviction,
(a)	if an individual, to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars,
or,
(b)	if a corporation, trade union or employers' organization, to a
fine not exceeding one thousand dollars.
As I say, there was no change from the act of 1948 in the revision made in 1970. But now, when we pick up Bill C-183, the one we are dealing with today, I find there has been a change. May I at the risk of repeating myself make it clear that in the two previous versions to violate that section about pension rights put an employer in the position of being subject to summary conviction and a fine. But under Bill C-183 this seems to have been changed.
I see under the heading "Offences and Penalties" in clause 191 at page 62 of the bill two sub-clauses and it is the second one which is relevant. I shall read clause 191(2):
Subject to section 190 . . .
That does not do anything because it talks about strikes and lockouts.
.. . every employer or trade union who violates or fails to comply with any provision of this Part other than section 148, 184 or 185 is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars.
This is the very striking change to which I call attention. In the case of the act of 1948 and in the case of the Revised Statutes of 1970, it is clearly stated that to violate the section which deals with pension rights is an offence for which there can be a charge and, on summary conviction, a fine. But in the new bill it is clearly stated that clause 184, the clause having to do with pension rights, is excluded from the possibility of being treated as an offence and hence subject to the fines provided.
In my opinion the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is the kind of lawyer I am. You know, we pick up our knowledge of law around here. There may be other lawyers who can explain this to me. My hunch, from having listened to explanations around this place, is that the change probably would result in a person who suffered any wrong having a civil action because some law had been broken, but what has been taken away is the making of this unlawful act an offence subject to summary conviction. I feel very strongly that this lighter treatment in this kind of provision should not remain as it is. I say again I welcome the fact that the provision we won in 1948 has been carried forward. Try as I can, I cannot see anything wrong with the new wording. I think the protection is just as good in the shorter wording as in the 1948 longer version, but I am disappointed and disturbed over the fact that it was previously an offence for an employer to interfere with pension rights because of involvement in a strike, whereas this bill removes that offence. In that sense, there is that much less
Canada Labour Code
protection for the worker involved. I hope that when the Minister of Labour responds at the end of this debate, he will deal with this phase of the matter.
As I said, I rose to take part in this debate to deal just with this one matter. My colleagues have spoken generally on Bill C-183. We in this party welcome this bill. The only substantial change we would like to see would be the one that has been asked for, namely that current contracts should be renegotiable with respect to the technological change provisions. But generally speaking, we like the legislation and we hope that it will soon reach the statute books. However, I appeal to the minister when he responds at the end of this debate to do two things for me; one, to give me the assurance that the shorter wording of the provision protecting pension rights is just as meaningful as the longer version was and, second, to assure me that consideration will be given to keeping it as it was, namely, that interference with pension rights because of involvement with a strike is an offence that should be dealt with severely. We do not want any more incidents which cause suffering of the type which occurred in 1910 and 1919. I remind the minister that the provinces copied the earlier legislation, and if we weaken it in any respect at the federal level, they are likely to weaken it too.
I thank the minister for his attention to this one issue which I regard as very important.


Mr. C. Terrence Murphy (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-183 is obviously put forward by the government at this time in an attempt to solve the dilemma in which Canada finds itself as a nation which is highly dependent upon trade for its economic survival. When one considers that this country exports about 30 per cent to 40 per cent of its gross national product, and when one considers that those goods are going into markets where the competition is very severe, one realizes that there must be technological advancement in order to enable producers to compete effectively in these world markets. Competition is essential if we are to maintain the standard of living to which we have become accustomed, and if we are to maintain employment at the desired level in Canada. On the other hand, it is also obvious that as new technology is introduced into industry, whether it be by way of materials or by way of machines, the human factor will be involved increasingly. Men or women are necessarily laid off, sometimes in large numbers, in order to accommodate these technological advances or changes.
This bill, as I see it, is an attempt to solve this problem to get us off the horns of this dilemma. At the outset, I would like to say that in principle I agree wholeheartedly with this bill. When I wrote to the former minister of labour some time ago, I said, among other things, that I supported completely the basic principle underlying the Freedman report, namely, that we should not plunge blindly ahead seeking quantitative changes at the expense of human dignity. I firmly believe we must take steps to ensure that the security of people who are disadvantageously affected by the introduction of technologically innovative devices is protected, and that such people are given the opportunity to adapt to changed conditions and to participate in a meaningful way in Canadian society.
1400

April 18, 1972
Canada Labour Code
Despite that feeling, I do think that the bill with which we are dealing here must be looked at more closely in committee. In the first place, this bill applies only to members of organized unions. It does not apply to all members of the labour force over which the federal government has jurisdiction. Everyone probably knows that there are in excess of 500,000 people within federal jurisdiction governed by the provisions of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, but only half of those belong to trade unions. It would be nice if some sort of minimum standard could be established in this bill or in another bill, which would provide the same type or protection to those members of the work force who are not members of organized unions but who nevertheless may just as easily be affected by the introduction of technological advances by their employers. I know it may be difficult, but I think it is something that the committee should study well and on which possibly it could make recommendations.
There is one other point which is most deserving of study. Under the bill as it is presently constituted, a bone fide union bargaining in good faith and a bona fide company bargaining in good faith may enter into a collective agreement which will provide the machinery for settling problems which might occur as a result of the introduction of technological change in that particular industry. In other words, the union and the company will sit down and negotiate their contract provisions, either spelling out what will be done in the event that a number of employees are displaced or providing the machinery for settling any disputes which might arise in the event of such an occurrence. In all of these cases, those agreements will provide that in the event of disputes between the bargaining agents, the union and the company, the disputes will be handled by way of grievance procedure. If these disputes are not settled by the use of the grievance procedure, they will end up in front of the board of arbitration-whose decision will be binding on all parties. This will be the result if bona fide unions bargain in good faith with bona fide companies who also bargain in good faith.
On the other hand, if a union does not so bargain or if a company does not so bargain with the result that the agreement which is reached between them does not contain any provision which would take care of people who might be displaced in the event of technological change, under the provisions of this act the union would have the right to apply to the Canada Labour Relations Board which would have the power to grant to that union the right to bargain, and eventually even to strike. So, we have this contradiction. The bona fide union and the bona fide company which bargain in the spirit which we all want, end up with an agreement which could lead to binding arbitration in the event of a dispute. On the other hand, those unions or those companies which do not bargain in the way we wish would end up in a situation in which the union really has more power potentially because it can be given the right to strike in the event of disputes arising as a result of the displacement of people resulting from the introduction of technological change.
It seems to me that this is an anomaly which must be corrected, because I do not feel that the bona fide union and the bona fide company should be put in a weaker position or a position which they might find less acceptable than that of a union which, possibly for many rea-

sons, does not wish to bargain on this very important point. We must remember that despite the provisions of this particular bill, especially those dealing with technological change, unions now have the power to bargain on these very points. I, for one, would like to see less governmental interference in this area. I am a firm believer in free collective bargaining, and the freer it is the better. However, I also realize that not all companies are perfect, and not all unions are perfect.
Since each group is composed of human beings, the representatives of companies and unions on occasion tend to display the human frailties which we all possess. As a result, I have come to the conclusion that there should be some governmental intrusion in this area. There should be some incentive given to unions and companies to bargain in this very important area. However, if the bill remains as presently worded, I cannot see how a union would be given any incentive to bargain. If a union knows that if it does not bargain it may end up with the right to strike in the event of a dispute, why should it bargain and end up with nothing better than the right to submit to binding arbitration?
I suggest a compromise, Mr. Speaker. I know it has been suggested before, but I do not think it has been suggested in this context. It is that those companies which we seek to cover under this clause of the bill should be given no more than the unions and companies which bargain in good faith. In other words, we should consider the concept of introducing some type of compulsory arbitration in the event that disputes arise should technological change be introduced and, as a result, a significant number of employees are displaced.
There is one further point I would like to touch on with reference to this bill. It concerns the clause dealing with the inclusion of supervisory personnel in bargaining units. What exactly is meant by this clause is not too clearly spelled out. I hope the committee will examine it closely. I suspect that what is meant is supervisory personnel at the lowest level. If that is the case, a problem arises because it is the supervisory personnel at the lowest level who, so to speak, are given the job of enforcing the rights of the company under a collective agreement.
It is the lower level supervisory people who have the day to day job of meeting with union stewards and members of a union on the job, and who deal with disciplinary matters. It might well be that they could be included in the same bargaining unit, but I wonder what would be the position of an individual if he were asked to discipline one of his own union members, one of his union brethren. His would be a very difficult situation. I do not think he could wear two hats. This provision opens up the possibility of innumerable situations involving conflict of interest. It is something that has not been much discussed one way or the other. I hope the committee will look into this provision closely, to make sure we are not setting up an arrangement under which there will be such a conflict of interest at a very basic level in any plant.
Having made these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the government for the attention it paid to submissions which were made, not only to the present
April 18, 1972

minister but to the previous minister, after the original bill was introduced. The changes that have been made during the last few months have cleared up a number of problems that existed previously. I hope the presem minister keeps an equally open mind during the committee discussions.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I want very much to take part in this debate not because I am an expert on labour legislation but because, like most citizens of Canada, I am very much concerned at the labour picture which appears in our country today. At the outset, I wish to commend my colleagues, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), on the stand they have taken in this debate because I believe they reflected the thinking of the majority in our party. They realized, in a sympathetic and sensitive way, that today labour has a major problem.
These hon. members agree with me that the growing confrontation between labour and the management of corporate structures has an ever increasingly serious effect on the whole population of Canada, and not just on those portions of the population directly affected by particular disputes. One thing we tend to forget is that we are dealing with legislation affecting the main trade unions in Canada. I point out that there are a tremendous number of Canadian workers who are not tied into labour unions. Unfortunately, or possibly fortunately, the tremendous ramifications of government legislation also affect these workers seriously.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Edmonton West, this occasion gives the government a rare opportunity to see if this legislation can be improved in committee, improved so as to provide leadership for the country and for the provinces concerning a problem that has assumed tremendous proportions within the last few years. More and more, the government is being asked by organized labour and the corporate structure of industry to introduce legislation that will strengthen their respective stands, not only in disputes now under way but in the settlement of disputes that may occur in the future.
Through a process of natural evolution, unions and other organized groups of labour have begun banding .together in order to present a stronger front. This has caused the banding together of industries in order to present equally strong opposition. This polarization has gradually brought the country into a position in which many Canadians suffer greatly when an industrial dispute or strike takes place. I do not think the harmful effects which follow strikes are intended, but are spinoffs because of the nature of the action taken. I point to some recent results of such actions in a dispute between employer and employee of which you are well aware, Mr. Speaker. Not long ago an entire city was paralyzed by a fall of snow and a strike of snow removal crews. I will not go into the issue of whether these employees were right or wrong, but a tremendous catastrophe could have come about had there been an outbreak of fire or lawlessness because there was no way in which the population of that city could have been protected.
Canada Labour Code
We are finding that the power of labour has continually increased in this evolution to the extent that it is now possible for very small groups in the labour force to walk out and, because they are affiliated with a larger group, to ensure that their picket lines will not be crossed. In this way a very few people can bring severe hardship to the majority of the citizens of Canada. This is only one of the problems we must look at today.
The second problem that has been brought out by all members who have spoken has been that very often a dispute between a trade union and industry causes a breakdown in normal production so that contracts are lost as well as productivity which sometimes are never recovered. It is Canada as a whole, not just the trade unions or industry, that suffers very dramatically in these circumstances. One unfortunate circumstance which results from a prolonged strike is that many small corporations and individual businesses go into bankruptcy. The strike makes it impossible for them to carry on normal business, so, they are forced to discontinue their operation.
These are the problems to which we should direct our attention, the problems which face all Canadians, and they must be solved. This is why, with my colleagues, I look forward to this legislation going to the committee where I am sure very serious consideration will be given to it. I hope that the government will be ready and willing to accept amendments from whichever party they come. The whole problem must be attacked by parliament, Mr. Speaker.
An ugly situation is developing in Canada today. People who are not affected by the financial outcome of a strike are becoming disillusioned with the use of the strike to settle major problems. All across the North American continent there is the realization that, although strikes were necessary to ensure labour a satisfactory return for its efforts in past years, they may have reached the end of their usefulness as a tool. But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot demand that trade unions give up this tool which, after all, is the only major implement they have to obtain what they feel are their just deserts. In all fairness, I do not believe that we can ask them to forgo this right unless we, as representatives of the people, can offer a substitute that is logical and plausible and which will achieve this end.
Perhaps the labour legislation in the United States which provides for a cooling-off period is a start. Labour unions quickly found that they needed legal expertise to survive, and today they employ some of the best legal brains available. The same can be said for the corporation; their legal officers are experts. At the federal and provincial level, there are in the departments of labour men who have dealt with the problem for years and through study and observation have learned a tremendous amount about the problems involved. Surely, it would be possible for the government to take the initiative to get these three groups together to see if the problem can be solved. I am not in any way suggesting that this has not been attempted, but unfortunately most of the effort has been directed toward solving a particular strike

April 18, 1972
Canada Labour Code
rather than to achieve the long range solution that is so necessary.
The government has a tremendous responsibility with regard to this legislation, Mr. Speaker. We in the official opposition, and I think I speak for the majority of our members, hope that this is not just another exercise to put up-to-date legislation on the books, but is rather an honest effort on the part of the government to provide a vehicle that can be used to prevent some of the problems we have encountered in the last three or four years. I think there is no question in the mind of any member of this House but that we are embarked upon a collision course between the trade unions and the corporate structure of this country. Every time there is a confrontation between these two there is no winner. Trade union representatives never achieve all they feel they should have. Industry always feels that it has granted more than it should have granted.
So, looking at it practically, when an agreement is reached and a contract signed, both sides to the dispute are granted time in which to prepare for the next confrontation. These agreements never solve anything. By buying time, both sides are able to prepare immediately for the next round of confrontation, which they each know will take place. Thus we see a polarization taking place between the great colossus representing labour and the great colossus representing industry and management, with labour making ever more demands, the confrontations becoming ever more severe, and ever more Canadians being involved and being hurt. That is why I plead today for the government to make full use of this opportunity and, in committee, not to try to process this bill quickly. Let us consider it honestly and sincerely. Let there be consultation between all parties in this House and those who will be most affected. Let us try to bring in legislation that will begin solving some of these major problems.
The kingpin on which this legislation turns is whether or not technological changes are sufficient grounds for the reopening of a contract once it has been entered into by both parties. This is of vital importance to both sides. As I say, we are dealing with two giants, and not with two individual organizations. Naturally, trade unionists are greatly concerned about whether technological changes mean a loss of jobs. They have learned from experience that most technological changes, either temporary or permanently, lead to loss of jobs. On the other hand, industry says that without technological changes it cannot streamline its enterprises and compete in international markets. These are fixed positions. The issue this bill raises is simply this: is technological change, when introduced during the life of a contract, basis enough for renegotiating the entire contract? Labour says yes and management says no, so there is confrontation. It is in this area that parliament is responsible. We must bring in legislation which will make it possible for parliament to guide both sides, for the good of the citizens of Canada.
Most people in Canada are not thoroughly versed in the fine points of labour law or the fine points of contract settlement. They do not want to be so versed. What they do want is the type of Canada where, day after day, they can earn a living for their families. Most families under-
(Mr. Danforth.]
take expenditures or obligations which are paid slowly, on budget plans. Our people do not want their normal earning power interrupted by a strike that may not touch them directly but may affect them indirectly. Such a strike may curtail their opportunity for making a living, or their means of transport, or their means of communication. These are the things in which our people are interested. Think of the service we can render the people of Canada and the workers of the world if we, in this House, can formulate a reasonable way of settling these disputes and so avoid the violent confrontations which have been so costly. I think that is what we are trying to do.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak in the debate on Bill C-183, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code. I have listened with a great deal of interest to spokesmen from both sides of the House and have found that I agree with many of the views expressed. At the same time, I must point out that there are always two sides to every question. I have sometimes felt, over the years, that organized labour has received many black eyes which, frankly, I do not think it has deserved. Without doubt, sometimes criticism could be levied at certain strikes which have taken place. Quite frequently, however, the cause lies much deeper than the dispute itself. Setting proper conditions in the economy would, I believe, bring more benefit to the Canadian nation, especially if we could do so in a manner that would ensure that all groups of Canadian society, whether organized labour, pensioners, those in unions and those not in unions, could share in the increasing prosperity which we enjoy every year. So far we have not in Canada, unfortunately, devised a plan for sharing fairly among all Canadians our annually increasing prosperity which is reflected in terms of the gross national product. That is the end to which parliament and hon. members should be working in their attempt to find solutions for the labour-management problem which seems to be with us currently.
This is an interesting and important bill, Mr. Speaker. It contains some new provisions and some necessary changes to existing legislation. It is my intention to support it. I trust, however, that the minister will incorporate in the legislation some of the proposed changes offered by various hon. members in the debate. May I point out that inadequate legislation and lack of real understanding of labour problems on the part of government and manage-* ment has led to much labour unrest and to many unnecessary strikes over the years.
The present act governing federal jurisdiction in the labour field was introduced in 1948. A few amendments over the years were made to it; but there is no doubt that it has long been out of date and in need of major revision. That is why organized labour has generally indicated that the proposed legislation is an improvement over the old and should be endorsed, despite some of the rather weak clauses in the bill. Other members of my group have dealt with various aspects of the legislation, so I will not cover those aspects again at this time. It is my wish, however, to deal briefly with several interesting aspects of labour problems. I should like to make a few general comments first on the general labour situation in Canada.
April 18, 1972

A few weeks ago the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Railway Labour Association made their annual submissions to the federal government. Both briefs called for a number of major changes in the government's economic policy and advocated changes which would greatly improve the living standards of all Canadians. Too few people in our country give credit to organized labour for the job it has done over the years to improve the lot of all Canadians, not merely those who belong to some particular labour union. Labour has led the fight to improve social conditions and living standards all over this nation and the improved lot of the average workingman is testimony to the success of its campaign.
I can recall the struggle of some of the early unions for better conditions. Mr. Speaker, I live in a mining area and I know of miners who were blacklisted in every mining camp for having had the courage to strike for such things as the 8-hour day and the 40-hour week. They were blacklisted for wanting clean sheets in the camps and improved safety conditions in the mines. Those of us who have followed them enjoyed the benefits they won for us, although at the time the general public had little sympathy for them. No one today would suggest that they were not justified in their fight for better conditions at that time. The same arguments were used against labour then as now, namely that industry could not afford to meet the cost, but somehow we have survived as a nation and the living standard of Canadians has improved.
An example of labour interest in the welfare of Canadians generally was shown in the briefs presented to the federal government by the CLC and the CRLA. They called for a number of major social improvements, including such things as the war against poverty, and advocated an all-out attack against the increase in poverty which we are experiencing in this country. The briefs called for a guaranteed annual income and an increase in the old age security pension to $100, payable at 60 years of age. They requested the government to establish a cost of living index which would indicate the actual increases in living costs. The briefs called for a revised policy on Unemployment Insurance which would exclude severance pay and vacation pay from the classification of earnings under the act. They requested that severance pay and vacation pay be looked upon as deferred wages or savings, which they are really.
The briefs of these labour unions dealt with pollution problems. Again they requested the federal government to bring in national standards and to enforce the regulations for the clean-up of our environment. They called for more research on environmental problems. The briefs dealt with tax reform, one of the major problems facing this nation. They requested that adequate tax legislation be introduced by this government and that a tax system be established which would bring equality to all Canadians. They urged the government to take action on housing and trade problems, as well as problems dealing with our native people. This is a clear indication that organized labour is interested in the whole Canadian scene, not only in their own union activities. I believe that this is sometimes overlooked by members of parliament and Canadians generally.
Canada Labour Code
I would like to make just one more point on this general position of labour in this and in other countries. The workman has only one thing to sell, his labour. In my opinion, he should have the right to organize and bargain collectively. This bill retains that right. I certainly endorse this aspect of the legislation which we are being asked to vote upon.
I would now like to get down to one or two points in the legislation. While I intend to endorse the bill when the vote comes, I still feel there are several sections which the minister should look into and, I hope, amend. One deals with a basic industry, fishing. I point out to the minister that for years fishermen have been fighting for the rights which any group of workers should have under the various labour jurisdictions in Canada. The present legislation will not give the same protection to fishermen that other labour groups will enjoy. In my opinion, all workers in the fishing industry are entitled to full protection under the Canada Labour Code. For this reason, the definition of a fisherman in this current bill must be changed. I understand that the present wording of the definition will exclude about 75 per cent of the fishermen. I urge the minister to check this very closely and bring in the necessary change to give this group of workers the protection they should have. I see no reason why any group of workers in Canada, regardless of the occupation they pursue, should be discriminated against.
An excellent brief was presented to members of parliament by the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union some weeks ago. Points in this brief have already been raised by several of my colleagues and others, so I will not repeat them at this time. However, when this bill goes to committee, I urge the minister to invite representatives of this union to present their views. They should be closely questioned on their proposed amendments. I trust that something constructive will come out of this so that this group of workmen will have the coverage they should have under Canada's Labour Code.
There is another point I am going to raise. It is touched upon in the legislation. This deals with discrimination against workmen because of age. I recently had an example in my own area of a man 51 years of age who was denied employment because he was too old. I have taken up this case with the labour department and they are investigating it. This rank discrimination against workmen must stop. We must incorporate in legislation sufficient safeguards to make certain that people in this category are protected against discrimination in any industry in Canada. I am not certain that we have all the necessary safeguards. They certainly ought to be incorporated in a Labour Code because in our industrialized society, we are reaching the stage where industry is more interested in the younger workers than those who are getting on toward retirement age. This is another field where we will run into a great deal of trouble unless discrimination of this type is nipped in the bud. I feel it should be done through legislation.
There is another matter I would like to discuss briefly. I think this is one of the most important items in the whole field of labour-management relations. I am going to talk briefly about conciliation procedures. In my opinion, it is in this area that one of the major weaknesses in labour

April 18, 1972
Canada Labour Code
relations lies. I do not think we have enough skilled labour negotiators. I do not think that governments generally, federal or provincial, have paid sufficient attention to this very important aspect of settling a dispute between labour and management. Much more can be done. One of the worst examples in Canada of this weakness is our own federal government. Time after time, we find that negotiations do not begin until the expiry date of the contract is very close. Sometimes the expiry date of the contract passes before finally, in desperation at the lack of progress being made in the negotiations the workers are driven to strike. This should not be. This is part and parcel of the conciliation procedures which I think should be looked into and updated.
The federal government should be the employer in Canada that sets standards. It should be the employer in Canada that gives guidance to other employers in the treatment of agreements that become due. But in many instances we have seen the sorry spectacle of the federal government being one of the worst offenders as far as labour contracts are concerned. I trust that from now on we will see an improvement in this regard.
We have had a great deal of discussion about technological change, and to me this is the most important aspect of the whole bill. Our group welcomes the inclusion of provisions in the legislation dealing with technological change. There is no point in burying our heads in the sand, because technological change is with us and is increasing in scope. The mere fact that these provisions are included in the legislation is an indication that we are looking to the future.
There is no doubt that we are going to run into trouble in this regard. Workers in some industries are very apprehensive about their jobs and will try to protect them in negotiations with management. This is one other problem facing Canada today. If our economy guaranteed a job to every Canadian who wanted one, and I believe it is the right of every Canadian to have a job if he wishes to work, I am quite certain many of these strikes which currently take place would not arise. I think it is the failure, not only of the government but of the members of the House, to set up an economy that guarantees work for individuals that is often the basic cause of much of the labour-management unrest that we have in this country.
We hear a lot about the loss to the economy through strikes, and I frankly admit that this loss is very serious. But there are other losses that are much more serious. Take, for example, unemployment. There are some 650,000 Canadians who are out of work every day of the month. Over the course of one year, this means about 150 million working days are lost. In the case of workers who for reasons of ill health are forced to lay off work, the number of man days lost is far greater than the man days lost as a result of strikes. I am not trying to say that work days lost through strikes is not a serious matter because it is, and we should try to bring the parties together so that we can lessen the number of strikes taking place in this country. But surely we must look at the situation in perspective and realize that there are other areas in which the loss of work days is far more serious than the loss that is usually attributed to striking unionists.
[Mr. Harding.)
Again may I point out I am certain that the tightening up of our labour procedures will help materially to improve labour-management relations. This is the reason I am so pleased to see the progress that is apparently being made in the field of labour relations through the implementation of this legislation. I shall not say more, Mr. Speaker. When the bill comes back to the House, we shall have an opportunity of seeing any changes that have been made in the committee. Again, I urge the minister to look very carefully at the suggestions that have been made by various groups. I hope that when the bill returns to the House we will see a further tightening up of the legislation which I and most Canadians hope will bring about a better era of labour-management relations in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before I recognize the hon. Minister of Labour, I should advise hon. members that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate at this stage of our proceedings.


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to thank all hon. members who have participated in the debate over the past several days for the contributions they have made. I particularly want to express my gratitude for the general climate of opinion evident from the contributions made by members on both sides, which I take to be an opinion favourable to the principles of the bill. I think this bodes well for the debate that we will be having at the committee stage.
Having listened to the members of various opposition parties and members on this side of the House, I feel that there has been a general endorsement of the basic principles of the bill, though some caution has been expressed. Interest has been shown in specific clauses, and during the committee stage we will have the opportunity of exploring these. I welcome the attendance of members at the committee stage and I assure all hon. members that, so far as the Minister of Labour is concerned, it will be very worthwhile to issue an invitation to any interested groups in the country to come forward and make representations.
I recognize that this bill has come forward at a time when there is very high public interest in labour disputes. Indeed, this interest is not only high but is coloured and sharpened with a certain degree of irritation. It comes at a time when there is a large amount of group militancy, not only in Canada but in many other countries as a result of efforts made to change social, economic and other conditions under which people live. Therefore, we find a bill which is the first attempt to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act in 24 years coming forward at a time when people are far more critical and less passive than they have ever been in the past. This is why I am encouraged to hear there is a general acceptance of the broad approach reflected in this bill through the endorsement of it by members on both sides of the House.
The bill in its broadest sense is designed to put a legal framework around the collective bargaining process and to regulate the relationships between employers and employees in the public interest. I trust that is what we
April 18, 1972

will conclude even when we have been through the committee stages and various members have brought forward their specific criticisms.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) expressed general support. He modified it with some caution and drew particular attention to the recommendation of the Woods task force concerning a public interests disputes commission. Other members have drawn attention to this proposal. I have studied it very carefully, and I have concluded it would not be a contribution to dispute settlement in Canada. I am not going to go into the reasons for that at this stage, but I know it will come forward in committee and I should like us to have a very thorough investigation of that proposal to see exactly what it would mean, particularly for us as parliamentarians. It has very serious implications for the role of government in dispute settlement, and particularly for the role of members of parliament. It will be a good thing to have that out in committee to see every side of it.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) highlighted the technological provisions in the bill, but seemed to be saying that employers should be in the same position whether or not they had provision or procedures to deal with technological change. I may have understood him wrongly, but as I listened I thought he was saying that even though there are provisions or procedures an employer ought to be put into the position of having a contract reopened during its closed season. We have not taken that approach, and because we have not there are exemptions from technological change provisions inserted in the bill. I hope that question, too, will come forward at the committee stage.
The hon. member for Gamelin (Mr. Portelance) made a very interesting contribution in drawing our attention to the New Zealand experience, which is also the experience in another Commonwealth country, Australia, where there are mandatory arbitration procedures and the use of labour courts. He indicated quite clearly that this process has its failures, that the mandatory or compulsory arbitration approach is not likely a successful one because there are strikes that just happen to be illegal. We have turned our backs on that process here in favour of a process that continues the Canadian experience of investigating disputes, going through a conciliation procedure with a mediation procedure following that.
When we look at the figures in respect of federal jurisdiction we have no reason for complacency, but we do have reason to believe it is a basically satisfactory procedure. About 95 per cent of the disputes into which the labour department has been drawn have been settled without strike action. Moreover, some very interesting statistics concerning man-days lost in the federal jurisdiction are available.
For example, in 1966 there were 133 man-days lost out of every 10,000 man-days worked. In 1971, that was down to 9 days lost out of every 10,000 days worked. We will not be able to maintain that level, undoubtedly, but I think it does reflect the building up of mediation procedures in the department under the former Minister of Labour. He is in the House this afternoon and I think we all want to
Canada Labour Code
welcome him back after his absence, just as we want to recognize the major contribution he has made to this bill I am now putting before the House. The mediation procedures launched during his time in office had a great deal to do with improving our experience in federal jurisdiction over the past three or four years.
The hon. member for Gamelin once again drew attention to the settlements on the St. Lawrence docks. I hope members will forgive me if I just allude to that again, but it, too, confirms and reinforces our confidence in the mediation procedure which goes into effect as soon as a contract is signed. It should be a constant and permanent feature as it is very helpful where there is a third party; an honest broker, a neutral observer or a person who gains the confidence of both parties to a dispute, works with them constantly and helps bring about an amendment to a contract during a period voluntarily agreed upon. This helps the parties calm down their emotional postures or positions that are adopted psychologically during these relationships, and this is very difficult to improve.
That mediation procedure was used in respect of the complex situation at the docks and the settlement that has emerged there is perhaps a milestone, as much as it is a monument to the previous Minister of Labour, in labour history. The wage settlement is extremely modest, but that is not the important thing at all. The important thing is that the employers, having combined in a council, looked at that situation; the longshoremen looked at their situation and the long-term future of the Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec docks, and came to the view that they could to the benefit of both sides exchange productivity, give up absolute work practices and gain real and effective productivity in exchange for job security and pension changes, and other things that have some real benefit.
As the hon. member for Gamelin mentioned, I think there are many other situations in Canada which can be described as technological laboratories where human relations are involved, where those involved could usefully follow the pattern which was instituted in respect of the docks, with particular relation to job security and the retirement benefits in exchange for the giving up of featherbedding practices and other work rules that really injure the Canadian economy as well as the economy of the local community.
In this bill we are seeking to encourage the parties to bring into their bargaining procedure the whole question of technological change. Many others here have referred to this as a basic element they want to support, regardless of other features of the bill about which they are not too sure at the present time.
All I want to say to the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) is that I appreciate the common sense he displayed. He ought to have stuck to his own remarks and omitted all those quotations, which really came from academics, many of which in my opinion were irrelevant to the situation and undermined the very common sense proposals the hon. member was making. He sounded better when he was on his own.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) reinforced his acceptance of the basic Freedman princi-

April 18, 1972
Canada Labour Code
pie, the right to bargain collectively in respect of the effects of technological change. I think he spoke for all of us in this regard. We all know that the labour force of Canada is not against technological change and does not want to retard or prevent it. Our whole future as an effective, modern economy depends on us absorbing that technological change and, in fact, putting it to work for us as a society. We do not want the effects of it to weigh so heavily and perversely on the employees of enterprise.
Many employers are approaching this matter in an intelligent way, recognizing a social and human responsibility, and we want to extend that principle, so far as we can, in the federal jurisdiction by encouraging the extension of this process. That is the basic feature of the bill.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Serre) represents an area with a very high organized labour population. I think he said that 80 per cent of his constituency is involved in the organized labour movement. I was encouraged to hear him say that this bill would not only be good for labour but would be good for management. I do not know that I will be able to comment on the very interesting remarks made by so many members on both sides of the House. I particularly wish to say I appreciated the remarks of the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne). He has a background in labour affairs as a result of his experience in the union movement, and he made a very useful contribution to the debate as it began on its first day. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) suggested the bill should encourage more of the sort of quiet process that was followed on the St. Lawrence docks. If he understood the bill, he would know that is exactly what it is trying to do. He suggested that the process that went on there is the very kind of thing that reduces the adversary approach. All of us know the kind of group militancy that is common in society, not only in the labour-management field. If we think about it for a moment we will see it as part of the social environment today.
We find as the complexity of society increases that the interdependence of all of us on each other increases and it becomes very difficult to effect change and therefore group militancy has become very common. We must contain that. We cannot turn it off entirely because we have a free society, but we must contain it. The kind of quiet activity which went on at the docks was exactly designed to contain it in the sort of framework we have created and are modifying now. What he was appealing for is exactly what we are trying to bring about in this bill.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked for certain assurances concerning clause 184 in the bill. I can give him the assurance that there is no intention to change the provisions respecting pensions, and in our view there has been no change in the protection of pension rights during or as a result of a strike. I think that was the assurance he wished. I want to say with as much clarity as I can that there was no intention to alter that which existed in the previous bill. In our view nothing has been altered from the previous bill with regard to those pension rights which might otherwise be affected by a strike.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question at this point? Would he also comment on the change which appears in the bill in respect of penalties for violating that clause?


Mr. O'Connell:: Yes. I was just about to mention that. I believe it was clause 190 to which our attention was drawn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Clause 191.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Clause 191, subclause 2, omits the offence to which the hon. member referred going back to clause 184(3)(d). Now, may I refer him to clause 189. It is in that clause that we believe we have coped with it in even a better way by making it an unfair labour practice to be considered by the new Canada Labour Relations Board. In our view a fine may not be the right way in which to approach it. It is far more important to have the unfair labour practice brought before the Canada Labour Relations Board. The clause in question states that the Board may by order require the party to comply with that section and may do certain other things to enforce its order of compliance. We think perhaps the enforced compliance is better than a fine. Once again in the committee we would be glad to have opinions concerning whether we have done the better of two things. However, I do wish to give the assurance that there was no intention to retreat from the positions which existed previously.
I know there are many members who have raised very interesting points concerning arbitration procedures, concerning the supervisory personnel, concerning appointments to the Canadian Labour Relations Board and whether that board should be a representative board as we have understood the existing one to be or whether it should be a public interest board as we believe it ought to be. Interesting points were also raised concerning bargaining rights for professionals and other matters of that kind.
However, one other subject came up so frequently I want to refer to it specifically. It was brought up by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault), the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather), the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding). Many members have referred to the position of the fishermen. We have taken a step forward with regard to the bargaining rights of certain fishermen. It is true we have not covered all commercial fishermen. We do not want to leave the impression that there is discrimination. We have taken a step further with regard to those who share in the catch as fishermen. This provision is similar to the one which applies to dependent contractors in the trucking industry. We have grave concerns about going any further at this time. We have grave concerns over the legal question of the right of including others as employees under this act who may in fact not be employees. However, I did meet with the representatives of the Allied Fishermen's Council. I had a very good talk with them. I expressed a great deal of sympathy for the case they were making. I advised them we do not feel we can go further at this time than is being proposed but we will have it out again in the committee. So far as I am concerned, they are very welcome to return and I would appreciate it if they would
April 18, 1972

come back and place before the committee the case they are trying to make.
We know there are various provincial governments which are moving in this field, as in other fields, further than industry might like, as in the case of the pulpwood lot people who cut and sell pulpwood to others. There is a special question here and I want to express a great deal of sympathy in respect of the bargaining rights of these people concerning prices and other conditions. At the same time, however, I would of course be frank to say we may not have the jurisdiction and this question has to be settled.
Mr. Speaker, these remarks will conclude those I wish to make in closing this second reading debate. Let me again thank all those who participated. I believe they did so with a great deal of thought in this area and with a high spirit of interest. I look forward to meeting them again in the Standing Committee in the very near future. I hope we can get this bill into law so that its beneficial measures can become operative.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Call in the members.
'


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is most unusual, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: There can be no point of order, since I have already called in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I say that at times one can expect the co-operation of hon. members. As I understood it, there was an understanding in this House among hon. members about the disposition of this bill after second reading. The Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) made a speech closing off debate on the second reading stage of the bill. He patted hon. members on the back for their contributions. Nevertheless, the understanding agreed on has been violated by certain government members who have attempted to use this House for their own selfish purposes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bell:: The government doesn't have the guts to call an election now.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour called for the co-operation of the opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have all the time in the world. I am being serious now. As I say, the Minister of Labour called for co-operation. Let me say this, too. We wish to be responsible; however, so far as I am concerned, I do not want anybody to cross the floor or go behind the curtain in future and seek my co-operation, because I will not give it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Until certain people here can act like gentlemen and arrive at an understanding in the spirit appropriate to gentlemen, and I am afraid certain government members have a long way to go, there will be no co-operation from me in the future.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger).]


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jerome:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether that is a point of order. I do not think there should be discussion on what is not, to my way of thinking, a point of order.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I see the minister is rising. Perhaps I can raise it after the minister has completed his remarks, Mr. Speaker.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour was drawn into the alleged point of order by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), who complained about some misunderstanding. I declare here that I never went behind the curtain and I did not come to any understanding. I do not want to be associated with going back on any understanding, because I entered into none.


James Alexander Jerome: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, although I was not mentioned-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are the one I am after.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Alexander Jerome: If I am the one the hon. member is after, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why he did not say so. I understood from his remarks that he referred to conversations I had had with hon. members opposite about this bill being passed on division by ten o'clock last night. That is what we discussed, and that did not take place. As hon. members know, there were discussions relative to the passage of the bill at nine o'clock, I believe. We talked about the bill being passed on division by ten o'clock. That was the suggestion that was made last night, and what was suggested did not happen. Instead, debate was carried on for some time this afternoon by other hon. members of the House. The understanding not having been carried out, the situation has become entirely different. That is exactly what happened and I do not feel in any way, Mr. Speaker, that any confidence has been broken or any understanding transgressed in any way.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a question of privilege. I do not think, in the first place, that he raised a valid point of order. We have already had a few minutes discussion on the matter. I think we should try to get on with private members business which, too, is important. The hon. member having sought the floor on a question of privilege, the Chair will recognize him.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from the remarks made by the Minister of Labour. Of course, my remarks were not directed to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: To any who believe that they were, I must say that they were not. My remarks were directed to
April 18, 1972

the parliamentary secretary and, no matter what he says, I say to him, your observations are incorrect.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The argument that you just delivered is meaningless.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he should address his remarks to the Chair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment this evening are as follows: the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis)-National Revenue-Issuance of interpretation bulletin concerning deductibility from taxable income of money paid by Toronto "Star" for "Telegram" subscription lists; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-St. Lawrence Seaway- Participation with United States in study on possible year-round operation; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Industry-Closing of McBean Colliery-Provision of pensions similar to benefits for Devco miners.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed in todays order paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Robert Carman Coates: that Bill C-15, to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of the result of opinion polls) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on Bill C-15, I would first like to place on the record the explanatory note that outlines the purpose of this bill. It reads as follows:
The purpose of this amendment is to prohibit, and to make punishable as an illegal practice, the publication in any manner before election day of the results of a poll of the political opinions of the electors. The proposed amendment does not prohibit the taking of such a poll for private purposes.
This is not the first time this bill has been debated in this chamber. Each time I have placed it on the order paper, I have found that it has produced a good deal of valuable discussion among the public and the media. I found that if it does nothing else, it at least makes the
Canada Elections Act
public aware of some of the dangers associated with opinion polls, especially those used during election campaigns and published by the media, particularly the newspapers of this nation. In my opinion, this practice all too often results in newspaper promotion stories about the polls rather than the merit of political parties' campaigns and the policies that are being proposed.
I first introduced the bill because of what happened in the last provincial election in the province of Quebec. I felt that newspapers used opinion polls to stampede the electorate to vote for the Liberal party of that particular province at that time because of issues that developed around the Parti Quebecois whose object was to separate Quebec from the remainder of Canada. In this regard, I would like to quote some comments that appeared in the press during that election campaign and one that followed in Great Britain which produced a similar result. These results indicate that most of the time opinion polls do more damage than they do good. All too often, the result of such publication is that people involve themselves in discussions about the relative strengths of political parties based on percentages reflected by these polls rather than the relevant strengths of political parties based on whether they have the policies that will be of greatest value to the future of either a province or the nation.
I should like to place on the record some of the comments made by Charles Lynch in an article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of May 7, 1970 concerning polls and what transpires when newspapers use them to try to convince the electorate that certain things may or may not happen. Mr. Lynch said in part:
The polls introduced a scare element into the campaign-
He is talking about polls that appeared in newspapers in the province of Quebec during the Quebec provincial election campaign.
-and had they not done so, there is reason to believe that the Parti Quebecois might have run up a larger vote on election day than was actually the case.
The polls led to the celebrated Brink's truck evacuation of Montreal.
Publication of the polls altered the tone of news coverage of the campaign, thrusting the separatist issue to the fore, and leading the CBC to decide that the election merited night-long, nationwide coverage on television.
It can be argued that the polls rendered a national service, if indeed they served to check the separatist surge and swing the undecided vote to the Liberal federalists-but however desirable the results, the fact remains that the polls intruded into the basic democratic process of holding an election.
The poll results became central to almost everything that was written about the Quebec election between April 18 and April 29. And they diluted what otherwise would have been the shock effect, provincial and national, of the size of the separatist vote on election night.
No political commentator is likely to argue for the abolition of advance polls, or straw votes as they used to be called, because they give us so much to write about in the course of a campaign.
They may even keep us from looking more foolish than we usually do, and for an example of that we need only look back to the British Columbia election last August.
Without the help of the polls, most commentators labored under the impression that the NDP would upset the government of Premier W. A. Bennett. When the results were in, the pundits headed for the border with the laughter of the victorious Mr. Bennett echoing in their ears.

April 18, 1972
1410____________________________________
Canada Elections Act
The voters had spoken, without benefit of opinion polls, which might or might not have influenced the result had they been legal.
People in my line of work realized how heavily we have come to depend on the polls in our campaign reporting, and we learned a badly-needed lesson about the importance of discussing election issues, rather than forecasting results.
The question is not whether or not the poll; are accurate-most of them are remarkably so. Rather, it's whether or not they distort the democratic process and, by depicting the voting pattern in advance, alter it.
It has been my contention that polls are and can be used for the particular benefit of the person or persons producing them. They can be accurate, as Mr. Lynch points out in his article, or they can be completely inaccurate. Their inaccuracy can do great damage by fooling people who do not usually pay much attention to newspapers but depend on them during election campaigns to provide them with the facts as seen by what they have come to believe are political analysts of some repute. Unless we have some type of regulation of opinion polls, they could be misused in a very dangerous manner.
I have pointed out in the past that there are two newspaper chains in this country to which such a large proportion of the reading public subscribes they can pump much information into their homes that may or may not be accurate. It is not good enough to say the people will find out eventually because, during an election campaign, people depend on the accuracy of what they are reading. If it is not accurate, it is too late after an election campaign to make corrections because decisions have been taken on the basis of what the people read. It is no help to say, what is the difference; what we said was inaccurate but has been corrected now.
I wish to give an example of another serious problem, that of the monopoly building up in the newspaper field. Although the figures may have increased now, some time ago Southam News Services had a readership of its various newspapers in Canada of 849,364. FP Publications had a readership across Canada of 858,589. So that between these two there are over 1.5 million readers. The Thomson chain had a readership of 371,006, though this figure may have increased now. This is an indication that the three combined have a readership of about two million daily.
If these newspapers were so inclined-I am not suggesting that they would be-they could join together to perpetuate the dissemination of a great deal of false information by means of polls, especially during the last week of an election campaign. This is why I am concerned at the lack of any regulation today. Any political party could publish a poll, and in such a way that the public would not know that the party concerned was putting out misinformation in order to create a certain impression in the minds of the voting public. This situation concerns not only me but, I am sure, many Canadians.
Many newspapers and individuals across this country are asking whether polls should or should not be allowed.
I believe there should be some kind of regulation that would at least ensure they had some authenticity; that there should be some requirement that must be met before they could promote whatever purpose the poll had [Mr. Coates.)
in mind. I do not know whether this will ever be the case but I do know that we should keep discussing the question if for nothing else than to make the public more aware that there is some doubt about the validity of polls and that they should not place too great a dependence upon them. If we are able to make people better aware that they should not read too much into polls or place too much dependence upon them, that polls can be inaccurate, then during the time that is available to us today we have at least accomplished something. As I see it, this is one of the values of private members' bills.
There will be a general election campaign not too long from now, whether in June, in October or next April or May. I would not like to see in the next general election in Canada a recurrence of what happened in Great Britain during the last general election campaign in that country. In that campaign the people of Great Britain were placed in the position where the political parties were not discussing anything but where they stood in the most recently published poll. They were concerned that the Labour party was ahead by six points, that the Conservative party was catching up and was behind by three points, and so on. Each newspaper had its own poll which it claimed was more accurate than any other. The pages of the newspapers which should have covered the policies being put forward by the two major political parties in that country were, instead, filled with information about what those newspapers were determining to be the public feeling as a result of the polls they were carrying out. This is an unfortunate situation and I should not like to see it repeated in this country during the next election campaign.
What we should see on the pages of newspapers during an election campaign are the issues in the campaign, the policies of the various political parties and views as to the best political party to suit the needs of the country. We should not be told that one political party has 45 per cent of the support of the electorate whereas another political party has only 38 per cent as a result of its present image. Rather, the people should be able to make an educated determination of which political party is best and should be given the responsibility of running the country for the next four or five years.
I should like to conclude my remarks by putting on the record some of the things Peter Dempson, who was an associate editor of the Toronto Telegram prior to its demise, had to say about opinion polls:
Should public opinion polls be banned in Canada prior to a general election?
After the fiasco of the polls in the recent British election, an increasing number of Canadians now believe they should be. Indeed, many people are convinced that political sampling before, and during, an election campaign can do more harm than good.
Their main cricicism is that professional pollsters often confuse, exaggerate, influence and even deceive the public when their findings are published.
That is my opinion, Mr. Speaker. I ask hon. members to support this bill.


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I have been interested by the remarks of the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) in connection with a bill to amend the Canada Elections Act passed
April 18, 1972

in this House not more than eighteen months ago. Through his bill, the hon. member is simply seeking to prohibit the publication, before election day, of the results of public opinion polls conducted by various organizations in general or at election time.
This question was rather fully looked into when we considered the Elections Act, more particularly section 105, regarding what should or should not be published. The committee had concluded that to prohibit the publication of such results or polls would serve little purpose, mainly because we are living in a world of intercommunication, and that it would be extremely difficult to prevent any association from conducting polls and publishing the results in another country, and then from sending them back to this country at election time.
In my opinion, too much is made of such polls. In his comments, the hon. member suggested that they are aimed at altering election results.
On that point I cannot agree with him for the main reason that I think the Canadian electorate is a lot more mature when it comes to express its political opinion by vote or to be influenced by a poll.
The example given by the hon. member; namely the effect of a poll in the province of Quebec, with regard to the Parti Quebecois during the last provincial election is at least inaccurate. I think we can all recall clearly the case of a poll result that was clearly reversed by public opinion, therefore such a claim cannot be supported on the basis that the result of a poll may alter an elector's vote.
Can advance poll results influence a vote? I would think that they can perhaps to a certain degree, in view of the percentage of credibility given to them by public opinion, since the effect of those results is after all, to inform. But I have seldom seen people who could be influenced by them. On the contrary, as most hon. members, I have seen poll results being in favour of a political party which, on the basis of those results stopped working while its opponents kept up their effort and succeeded in reversing the poll results or in showing that they were false.
I spoke a while ago of what I consider in a way a serious lack of confidence in the maturity of the Canadian electorate if we want the agencies specializing in gallup polls for now on to stop publishing incomplete although very detailed results.
Such results, in my opinion, are meant to inform provided they carry some credibility. If they inform the population as a whole, they may have a beneficial influence on public opinion.
We must realize that during an election campaign, even though our communications are excellent, it can still be interesting and important, strictly from the point of view of information, to know what may be happening in other parts of the country.
But I doubt that this could really change the opinion of the elector. I think the Canada Elections Act, which the mover of this bill intends to amend, cannot go so far in forbidding the outflow of information.
Canada Elections Act
To my mind, publishing the results of a poll is giving out information. A while ago, my colleague mentioned that English newspapers were full of poll results which did not take into account the real political problems. I feel that instead of blaming the organizations which publish these results, he should blame the newspapers and the reporters for their lack of maturity in not giving the electors the required information.
I seriously believe that even if we wish to ensure in some way the secrecy of the vote and to avoid any external influence on the electors, we have just the same to provide him with valid information.
Since those media are now world wide, to forbid under a legislation the publication of polls would give more weight and significance to those polls whose results would anyway appear in foreign publications and would eventually be otherwise communicated. It would be extremely difficult, due to our various media, to prevent the people from getting acquainted with them.
The only thing to do is to explain the results of the polls to the people. In my opinion, the public have already shown that they are not taken by those results, that they accept them as valid information, and the tactics of men as well as politics are such that the political party which seems to be the favourite following a public poll tries to take advantage of it. Obviously! On the other hand, the party which may believe to have been wronged, strives harder to change public opinion.
One can mention the rather striking example of the forecast based on a Gallup poll showing that 3, 4, or 5 per cent of the Canadian voters would vote, for instance, for the Social Credit party at the next general election. In my opinion, no one would be surprised by such a forecast, neither would the Canadian voters as a whole be affected by it. Actually, I think that it would be a mere indication of the general trends, whereas anyone would still be at liberty to try and change public opinion.
I may add that even though the intent may be commendable, I cannot see really how any amendment to clause 105 of the Canada Elections Act, for instance, would entail the elimination of this type of forecasts, which by the way are given far more importance than they actually deserve. In other words, if these Gallup polls are of an informative nature, then I think that the information they supply is worthwhile and should be allowed publication.
I have faith at least more than the sponsor of this bill, in the sound maturity and the discriminating judgment of the Canadian people in regard to information. I do not, therefore, consider the information provided by Gallup polls more important than it actually is.
I fail to see in these circumstances how the proposed amendment to the Canada Elections Act can be effective and, above all, how we could put a stop to this kind of Gallup polls.
In conclusion, I must say that thanks to its maturity the Canadian people are in a position to cope with the problems raised by these Gallup polls or by any abusive interpretation of their findings.

April 18, 1972
Canada Elections Act


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member for Cumberland-Col-chester North (Mr. Coates) has had the opportunity of introducing this bill. It is very timely in view of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will likely call an election within the next couple of weeks. Whether or not we will be faced with an election very shortly depends to some extent on the result of polls now being conducted. I am very interested in this matter and have a bill on the order paper similar to the bill of the hon. member. I have no objection to the taking of polls but I object to the results being published during an election campaign.
A poll taken recently may have some bearing on whether the Prime Minister will call an election soon. It was conducted by the Gallup poll organization and showed that approximately 40 per cent of the Canadian public was unable to say how it would vote if an election were held immediately. I suppose the result of that poll scares the pants off the government, just as it would if the figure applied to the opposition. This might mean that the Canada First party with some effort would be able to pick up that 40 per cent and form a government. I suppose this means the Prime Minister has been hedging his bets for the last two or three weeks.
We all know that very little is being done in the way of legislation and very little is on the order paper to be done. We are waiting for the completion of a poll being conducted by the Liberals the results of which will, hopefully, indicate to the Prime Minister whether or not to call an election. This in itself is an indication that polls do have some influence on election procedures.
I understand the Conservatives have conducted recently at least three polls with varying successful results, depending upon how you view them. There is a portion of the Canadian public conditioned to reading ads published by soap companies, automobile companies and other entrepreneurs of the nation, many of which suggest that their product is the best. They might say that their product will get a person's teeth whiter than any other toothpaste. They say they have conducted a survey which shows that 99 per cent of the school children who were asked indicated that Crest is the best toothpaste. Another one will say that Close-up ensures the whitest teeth and also freshens your breath. Another poll will indicate that Ultra Brite, to the extent of 99 per cent, has been proven to be the most successful whitener of one's teeth. A large number of people in our nation believe that one must be on the winning side and therefore must use Listerine although it tastes very bad, because tests and surveys have proven it to be the best.


Mr. McCutcheon:: What about Scope?


William Arnold Peters: Exactly the same claims are made for Scope. This, of course, is where the problem arises. It depends upon who takes the survey and the purpose for which it is taken.
Recently I prepared a questionnaire for the people in my riding concerning a number of problems. I was very careful in that survey not to weight it politically but,

rather, to weight it in the direction in which I wanted the person to think. Dealing with the unemployment situation, the results received in several instances were not those I had anticipated; but after taking a second look at them I realized that in many cases I had put something into the question which I really did not intend. It could have been misinterpreted.
One question asked whether people were paying unemployment insurance and there was a follow-up question asking whether they had ever drawn unemployment insurance benefits. I was surprised to find there were people who had paid unemployment insurance for long periods but their answers had no relationship to questions involving the operation of the unemployment insurance fund. I decided the reason for this was that the employer was also paying unemployment insurance. I did not ask that this person concern himself with answering the questionnaire and therefore I did not anticipate the result I obtained.
I believe that much of the result comes from the way in which the question is asked. In many instances the questions asked are never published with the results of the survey, so one is never really sure to what the yes or no answer pertains or what the implication is in the series of questions asked. I believe anyone who has read the results of flamboyant polls which give a great deal of credit on one side or another should seriously consider whether this is not really a form of misadvertising. I suggest it does not always work exactly in the way one would expect.
In the recent election in Ontario a number of polls indicated that the New Democratic Party was in a position to form the government. The government gave a great deal of credit to this position. It is my opinion that the poll worked in the reverse manner because obviously a number of people would have liked to take a chance on a number of New Democrats but were not willing to take a chance on the New Democratic Party forming the government of Ontario. This poll produced a violent reaction which I am sure the pollsters had not contemplated.
The point I am making is that I believe all polls are subject to interpretation. However, I believe the publishing of the results of polls has an effect on an election. It has the effect not only of conveying information but also of producing a positive result. If members do not believe there is such a positive result, then most advertisers in the same field are throwing away their money by conducting polls and publishing the results. With the long experience of some of the companies I have mentioned in this field, I do not think they would be throwing away their money in this regard.
I believe polls should be taken for the purpose of assessing how the attitudes of people are developed. I think any advertising agency which is conducting an advertising campaign, political or otherwise, should be assessing the situation and I agree entirely with the hon. member who said that the results of polls should not be published at the time of an election because they are misleading. If they are effective at all, they are effective in creating a result which has nothing to do with the orderly process upon which we embark when democratically selling the ideas of a particular candidate and a particular political party. I
April 18, 1972

hope the House will divide on this matter and will vote in favour of the motion of the hon. member.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, my interest in this piece of legislation grew as I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) when he talked of the outcome of a provincial election in Quebec, which might have been caused precisely by the publication of the results of a poll taken a few days before the election. Well, I would not like to go over this election in Quebec, which everybody remembers and took place in April 1970.
On the other hand, I would like to be specific and make clear the causes of the defeat of the Parti Quebecois which was mentioned earlier. These causes are completely foreign to the results of the poll taken during the days before the election. They have nothing to do with the figures which were reported, and, as somebody was saying very rightly, a political party which cannot overcome the results of such a poll does not deserve to be elected.
The Parti Quebecois came up with several reasons to try and justify its defeat. They even claimed that news reports had made light of the inability of those people to form a government. They also said that the electoral map was badly divided in the province of Quebec, and that this favoured some parties against their own.
They also said that the Liberal party had spent ten times as much on its election campaign as had the Parti Quebecois. I think that some joker summarized very briefly what happened in April 1970 when he said that the factor which caused the defeat of the Parti Quebecois was the fact that too many Quebecers voted Liberal.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the Chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Munro that Bill C-170, to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children, be
Family Income Security Plan
read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, in principle I support Bill C-170. However, I cannot support the "on again, off again" manner of the government in dealing with this legislation. Many moons ago it started out as a white paper, then it became Bill C-264 on September 13 of last year. Bill C-264, the original bill, contained the implementation date of May 1 of this year. I do not see any good reason why the original bill could not have been passed last September and any weaknesses in it or any amendments to it considered at a later date. But no, the government repeatedly refused to bring the bill before us for debate. The House will remember that they allowed it to die on the order paper. Now they have finally brought it back in the form of Bill C-170.
This bill contains no suggestion as to when it might be implemented. It comes back to us as an open-ended package which this "just society" government, this "friend of the poor" government will use as and when it sees fit as part of its noticeably accelerating process of voter manipulation.
Sir, allowing the original Bill C-264 to die on the order paper without being brought forward for debate, despite the pleas of the opposition, represents a new low in what I would call political cowardice, and with a fair degree of conniving too. First, this government became noted for its policy of governing by white paper. We all remember the deluge of white papers that was being spewed forth. Public opinion had to be tested on everything. You would almost swear it was a minority government, because it trod so gingerly, instead of a government that had been given a mammoth mandate in 1968. It had been given a large majority and I contend it was given that majority to govern.
We on this side of the House on many occasions have criticized the government for its cowardly reluctance to use the mandate that was given to it by the people, a mandate to govern by legislation and not by white paper. Somehow, members of the government appear to have taken our advice. But now they have sunk to a new low, not only with this bill but with others such as the competition bill. The government has tended to introduce legislation and then wait for reaction from the people and from the provincial governments. If the reaction is not completely favourable, the government in effect withdraws the legislation, as in the case of the original bill, by allowing it to die on the order paper. It is what is known as chickening-out.
What this country needs is a government with ability and courage. I think this government is lacking in the former and is almost completely devoid of the latter. There comes a point when any self-respecting government, out of common decency alone must realize that it can go only so far in using the people's own money in an attempt to manipulate their political support. I contend that there comes a point when this process becomes obscene, and I think that point has been reached in this particular case.

April 18, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
I wish to make a few specific remarks on a few points in the bill that strike me as making little sense. I have only to take my own riding of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador to indicate what I mean. There is a stipulated figure at which a family is cut off from receiving any family allowance under the new proposal. Let us take the case of a family in the city of Montreal that has an income of $8,000 a year. For argument's sake, let us say that in that family there are six children, three below the age of 12 and three above the age of 12 but under 17. According to this bill, that family will receive a total family allowance cheque of $85 a month.
Let us take the case of a similar family in Labrador City, Wabush or Goose Bay in my riding. The family has six children, three below the age of 12 and three above the age of 12 but under 17. Let us say that family has an income of $10,000 a year. Compared with the family in Montreal which will receive $85 a month, the family in Labrador City will receive a family allowance cheque of $45 a month. There is a difference in the salaries of the two families, $8,000 in Montreal and $10,000 in Labrador City, but an agency of the government, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, on the basis of its studies agrees that $8,000 in Montreal is equal to the $10,000 income in Labrador City. Yet under the proposed new family allowance scheme the government will pay some $500 less per year to the family in Labrador City.
I contend that the DBS only skimmed the surface in dealing with the differential in the cost of living as between Labrador City and Montreal. In addition to everything else, winters in Labrador City are longer and as a result fuel costs are higher. It costs more to clothe and feed children in Labrador City. I repeat that the government's own agency agrees that $8,000 in Montreal is equal to $10,000 in Labrador City, yet the government says it will pay the family in Labrador City $500 a year less in family allowances than it will pay to the family in Montreal. Surely justice and common sense would dictate that this differential, when it is recognized by an agency of the government, ought to be recognized in the implementation of this bill.
There is another point that should be made. While I agree with the basic theory of the bill, in my opinion the scheme should be based on the income of the principal wage earner of the family. However imperfect the tax reform legislation which we passed, it contains measures to compensate working wives for day-care costs in respect of their children. The new Unemployment Insurance Act provides for maternity benefits to be paid to pregnant women while they are away from work to have their children. In contrast to this positive step, the family income security plan takes a negative step and actually penalizes working wives through its cut-off level which is based on gross family income rather than the income of the principal wage earner.
If a wife goes out to work to supplement the meagre salary of her husband, under the new proposal it is likely that the addition of her income will push the total family income above the cut-off level and she will therefore forfeit part or all of the family allowance. For a middle-class wife this may not be too important, but for families
(Mr. Peddle.]
struggling to get out of poverty even the loss of the family allowance cheque will hurt. The family income security plan is a disincentive for working mothers who know that they will lose part or all of their allowance as a result of their initiative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Cut-off levels should be based not on income after deductions but, rather, on gross income. In this way personal income tax exemptions and child-care deductions would have full power for working mothers. Cut-off levels could then be scaled to ensure that the less advantaged families benefit most from the family allowance. Speaking of cut-off levels, Mr. Speaker, you do not have to be an expert to observe the inconsistency of many government departments in their assessment of when families need government support. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) took into account the fact that it costs more to raise a child when he reaches the age of 12. I appreciate the wisdom of that. However, in the new Income Tax Act the former minister of finance did not recognize the fact that children are more expensive to raise, until they reach the age of 16.
There is here a breakdown in logic and communication. According to Bill C-170, the Minister of National Health and Welfare believes that a family with one child and a gross income of $4,500 a year or less should receive maximum assistance from his department, while the Department of Finance continues to impose a substantial tax on the same person. I think this points out the serious inconsistency of the government's views.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Lack of communication.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: As I said at the outset, basically I agree with the proposal in Bill C-170, but I am going to make a very serious suggestion and I am pleased that the minister is in the House. I have had some unkind things to say about what I believe was the motivation for delaying this bill, but perhaps I have been too harsh. Perhaps I have been wrong.


An hon. Member:: No, no.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I will be the first to admit it if I am wrong. However, I suggest to the minister and to the government that they prove to the people of Canada that they have acted in good faith. Bill C-264 was read the first time on September 13, 1971, and the government promised that the new legislation would come into effect on May 1, 1972, just a few days from now. Let the government prove their good faith by making these payments due to the people who qualify under this program retroactive to May 1, 1972, no matter how long it will take to pass the legislation. I make that suggestion very seriously, Mr. Speaker. I know there will be objections to it. Government members will say, "What about the people who do not benefit? Will they be asked to pay it back?" But that is the government's problem and they have to live with it.
As in so many other cases, this government has raised the hopes of a large number of Canadian people. The minister said that some two million families would benefit and he promised that this legislation would be in effect on
April 18, 1972

May 1 this year. I am calling upon the government now to make that promise good, no matter how long it takes to get the bill through the remainder of the legislative process, and to make the payments retroactive to May 1, 1972.
I think the government has vacillated on this program. It started out in May, 1970, with a white paper which was not acceptable: it came back on September 13, 1971, in the form of Bill C-264. Despite the pleas of the opposition, even in that extraordinary session of parliament I believe I am correct in saying that our party pleaded that the House stay and deal with it, but the government obviously did not want it passed. I do not now want to hear any suggestion that the government does not go along with this reasonable proposal that they should prove their good faith, nor do I want to hear any suggestion that the original bill was held up because of obstruction by the opposition. Such is not the fact. I maintain that the government had ulterior motives for holding back this legislation, and I call upon them to prove their good faith and make me a liar by implementing this bill as fast as possible and by making the payments to those who would benefit effective May 1 this year.


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this all-important piece of legislation because of its historical basis in the Canadian social system. We in Canada have seen great progress made in the development of our system of social security, a system which is a basic right of Canadians. One need only recall the nineteenth century and its barbaric lack of laws for protecting the ordinary citizen, and compare that century with our society today, to recognize some of the fundamental changes that have been made. These changes did not come easily; some of them were fought hard for. The history of the development of our social security system goes back to 1926 when the Liberal government of the day was forced to introduce old age pensions across the board, mainly because of the pressure of a small minority in this House which forced the government to bring in such legislation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They did it to save their necks.


William George Knight: At the time there was talk of governments not being able to afford this type of program. I did not hear this, of course, but the debates are recorded. It was argued that this would be too great an expense, that people had no right to such pensions, and so on. Now, Mr. Speaker, the old age pension is paid and it has been increased, although by minimal amounts.
In the developments that have led up to the family income security plan there have been other developments which have recognized the social rights of Canadians as members of productive units. These developments have helped in the productivity of the work force of the Canadian nation. After the Second World War, family allowances were paid to all Canadians with families, regardless of religion, race, creed or colour. The family allowance was paid as of right, as a commitment of the community to the youth of the nation. It was paid because we were committed to the idea of developing a society in which people could live with dignity and justice. The
Family Income Security Plan
family allowance cheque was particularly significant in my family. I recall how important that cheque was for my mother. It helped her to take care of her children, to provide them with basic necessities as well as provide a little spending money.
Mr. Speaker, it may be said that the family allowance program was a move that enabled women to reach a certain plateau of equal rights in our society. The allowance enabled them to exercise responsibility in financial matters connected with the family. In the neighbourhood in which I grew up, I recall that family allowances meant a great deal to mothers no matter what was the basic income of the family. The cheque was important because it helped in the raising of children and maintaining the well-being of the family structure, because by using that allowance month after month the family taught the child the responsibility of handling money and spending it. I think that was important, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps members of cabinet who deal with major issues may not be very impressed with this argument and may not think it too important, yet it is important in our society because the allowance represents a protection, a social right enjoyed by all Canadian families.
The government has introduced its family income security plan. The name of the program sounds impressive. In the last few years I have learned that whatever legislation this government introduces, the name of the legislation is always impressive. It may be a grain income stabilization bill, an income supplement program for old age pensioners or, as now, the family income security plan. This legislation is based on the principle of selectivity, on the principle of reintroducing the means test as a means of checking on family income. It is not based on any concept of social right in our society. It is based on dividing our society into those who have and those who have not. It is based on an assumption that I call piecemeal Robin Hood-ism on the part of the Liberal government.
Piecemeal Robin Hood-ism may be defined as an attempt to take from the rich to give to the poor. It is like the wife of Louis XVI telling the people to eat cake. It has nothing to do with the productivity of our society and everyone's right to share in it. It is not based on any concept of social right. It is merely a piecemeal program under which the government, following the advice of its bureaucrats and technocrats, is out to sabotage the social security system of the Dominion of Canada. Of course, in the long run, this program will be dropped. This is the first step in that direction. In the meantime, the government wants to cushion the effect of removing the family allowance altogether and a selected group within our society is to remain sheltered.
It is important to consider what the government is doing by adhering to the principle of selectivity. In the neighbourhood in which I grew up, all families were paid the family allowance regardless of family income. The family that lived down the street got the allowance, just as did our family, and our positions were comparable. Under this proposal, the family down the street might get a cheque but my family might not. Clearly, this scheme will create stigmas within our society. It will become a method

April 18, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
by which the local grocery store will note your low income by the size of your cheque.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned not only with the means test, for the size of your family allowance cheque will tell everyone that you belong to a low income family. I might say that I am used to that. The amount of the cheque sent to your house will be directly related to the size of your income. It will let people know how much you earn and in that way will be as demeaning as the welfare cheque. Because it adheres to the principle of selectivity, the government will, in neighbourhoods like the one in which I grew up, create among those who receive family allowance cheques the sort of stigma that is attached to any welfare scheme.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member is talking about discrimination and how terrible it is. Is he for it or against it?


William George Knight: I hear the comments of the Tory member. His party claims to represent the small people. I remember what members of that party said in the income tax debate. No doubt we will hear from them in this debate. I remember the speeches Tory members have made on the labour code legislation. We shall see what that party does with the legislation before us.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member should return to his written text and not ad lib.


William George Knight: Perhaps we shall also hear from the hon. member later. Mr. Speaker, one cannot overemphasize the basic importance of universality. The principle cannot be ignored. I should like, for a moment, to go beyond the principles involved in this legislation and talk about the principles of the plan itself, for one can see why this government disagrees with the party I represent on matters of principle.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What principle?


William George Knight: There are so many differences of principle between us that I could spend the rest of the evening discussing them with the hon. member. I think the details of the plan are well worth examining. If you look at the details, you will find an even more incredible suggestion than the selectivity principle contained in the plan. A payment of $15 a month will be made for a child up to 11 years of age and $20 a month for a child between the age of 12 and 17. An income floor of $4,500 for a family with one child is stipulated. After that, $500 a year is allowed for each additional child in the family. Families with incomes above floor level will receive smaller amounts. With each $100 of income, the benefit decreases by 33 cents.
Let us consider what may well take place. A family with one child under 12 years of age, with a family income of up to $4,500, will receive $20. A family with an income of $6,000 will receive $15.05; $7,000, $11.75; $8,000, $8.45; $9,000, $5.15; and $10,000, $1.85, but it is not payable.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is the Liberal just society.
[Mr. Knight.)


William George Knight: I quite agree with the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). The figures I have quoted are the benefits received by a family with one child between the 12 and 17 years of age. I earlier stated that it was for a child under 12 years of age.
A family with two children under 12 years of age, with an income of $5,000, will receive a payment of $30; $6,000, $23.40; $7,000, $16.80; $8,000, $10.20; and $9,000, $3.60. A family with five children under 12 years of age, with an income of up to $6,500, will receive $75; $7,000, $66.75; $8,000, $50.25; $9,000, $33.75; $10,000, $17.25; and $11,000, 75 cents. Even that kind of framework will develop a number of weaknesses in the plan. It will take a Philadelphia lawyer, assisted by a number of lawyers such as the minister in charge of the Wheat Board to figure this out and explain it to the people of Assiniboia and the rest of Canada. I warn members of parliament and those who run for office here that they will have to work 24 hours a day for three, six or eight weeks to try and figure out this kind of program for people in their constituencies. I can see all kinds of problems arising strictly on the basis of the detail of the plan and the selectivity principle involved.
I wish to deal with a number of weaknesses in this plan such as applications and the responsibility of the people of Canada. If a person wants to be a beneficiary under this program he must apply, complete all the reports, do the filing, inform the government of changes of income year by year, give the age of the children and inform the government each time the size of the family changes. They must file in order to receive the benefit in the first place, and inform the government of any change of income in the family. For example, if the wife goes to work, this increases the income. If a man loses his job, it reduces the income. If there are two children, which is the size of the average family in Canada, each time their ages change the government must be informed.
What is the government's reasoning behind this? Do they want to get to the point of totally discrediting any kind of social security plan in Canada? Of families receiving partial benefits, 42 per cent will receive less than at present. The question of selectivity permeates this entire plan. It causes untold problems and burdens for the Canadian people. I want to cite three examples of what could happen under this plan as it now stands. A family with one child, living in Toronto or Vancouver with an income of $5,001, will no longer receive the baby bonus. According to the government, this family is rich. A family with two children under the age of ten years, living in Toronto with an income of $9,000, will receive $3.60 per month rather than the present $12 per month. If their income increases by $1, they will be cut off. Talk about the just society, Mr. Speaker! Let me give a third example. A family living in Toronto, with five children under 12 years of age, will receive 75 cents a month if their income is $11,000. If their income is higher, they will not receive anything. An incredible mess is created by this kind of program based on selectivity.
There are other matters that ought to be looked into. I am pleased to see that the rates announced by the minister can be changed. Let us look at those rates in terms of their face value. Based on the Canada standard health
April 18, 1972

rules, the minimum expenses per child under 12 years of age, per month, are as follows: food, skim milk, 24 ounces per day, $20.50; protein, four ounces, hamburger and either two eggs or two ounces of cheese, $8.40; vegetables, carrots and waxed beans, $5; bread and margarine, whole wheat, four slices daily, $3; orange and other vitamin C juices, $3; soap and toothpaste, $1. This totals $27.90. Shelter, on the average, $15; clothing, $7.75; dentist, minimum care, $2.50. That causes one to chuckle. The monthly total is $53.16. These are outlined in the Canada standard health rules as minimum expenses per child under 12 years of age.
The government has introduced a selective program that both initially and in the long run will hurt those in the middle income bracket, people earning between $5,000 and $9,000 per year. Therefore, let us look at what the position will be when this piece of legislation is implemented. Let us look at some of the administrative jungle out of which the Canadian people will have to crawl or even shoot their way.
This legislation may very well have been introduced in an attempt to tackle Canada's unemployment problem. With unemployment running at around 6 per cent of the labour force, the government has decided to double the number of people employed in administering the program compared with the number who administer the present family allowance program. Where the government now employs some 730 people, under this program, according to an answer placed in Hansard on December 27, 1971, the number employed will rise to 1,477.1 am willing to predict today that even if this program is implemented by next fall many, many more people will be required to figure out some of the problems created as a result of the selective nature of the program.
The cost to the department of this program alone will be about $13.7 million. This does not include court costs, the cost of the tax appeal board and other government agencies. These costs will mount because the government will ever be searching for those who do not properly fill in their applications for income security. There is one interesting sidelight to this, and it is that in order to get the plan before the public the government will have to undertake a massive advertising campaign from one end of the country to the other. Who will benefit from that? One has only to think of those who show up at Liberal party dinners in Toronto to suspect who will benefit.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Simpsons and Eatons.


William George Knight: Yes, but I do not think they will handle the advertising. That will be a job for Maclaren and Foster. If the government wants competely to botch up the program, they will turn over the advertising campaign to Information Canada. The only good that will come out of this selective program will be the benefits received by friends of the government, friends who are becoming fewer by the day.
There are seven distinct sets of circumstances in which applications under the plan must be filled out. First of all, one has to make an application. Then you must reapply if your income goes either up or down, if the number of
Family Income Security Plan
your children changes, if there is a change in the age of the children, and so on. This is going to keep people employed continually in the department and I would suggest such complexity will not meet the needs of the Canadian people as a whole.
With this plan, the government is creating an immense bureaucratic and administrative jungle. Those of us who spent the Christmas recess in our ridings know that many people came to our doors to see us about the difficulties they have experienced under the Unemployment Insurance Act, with all the different matters within the act, all the exceptions to the rule, all the difficulties with the cards that the computer would not accept or would not send out. All winter we have handled case after case dealing with claims for unemployment insurance because the government has listened to technocrats and bureaucrats and decided that it had a nice little plan which it could apply selectively and with which the new computer would be able to deal.
As it turned out, Mr. Speaker, the computer was not able to deal with the plan and as a result claimants went for months without payment. Next fall I suspect we will see the same kind of process going on, except that every family in Canada will in one way or another become involved with the problems of this plan.
I should like to put some other matters on the record in relation to administrative difficulties connected with this bill. All applications for family allowance must be checked to determine the eligibility of the applicant. In the case of eligible applicants, benefit payments must be calculated on the family income and age of the children. In the case of non-eligible applicants, appeals and explanations must be handled. Statements disclosing a substantial increase or decrease in income must be processed, with appropriate adjustments made to benefits. Divorces, separations and marriages must be reported if family income is affected, and benefits must be adjusted. Adjustments must be made to benefits where estimated income differs significantly from actual income. Administrative machinery must be set up to recover benefits paid out to ineligible persons. Administrative machinery must be set up to detect frauds, including misrepresentation of income, misrepresentation of the number of children, misrepresentation of the age of children, failure to report income increases, failure to report deaths, marriages, and so on. Administrative machinery for liaison with the provinces will have to be established.
All this means an incredible jungle. I am sure that if the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) viewed this plan with a great deal of seriousness he would join the opposition's stand on this bill and repeat what he said about co-ops and credit unions. Then if this bill still went through, he would resign. I appeal to the commonsense of government members. I appeal to their reason; therefore, I may well fail in my appeal. But I want to tell the House that in view of the selective basis of this bill it will go down as a regressive step that has been taken in an important social welfare program in Canada.
Let me deal with the whole question of income as it is referred to in the bill. I wish to ask a number of questions

April 18, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
which I hope the minister will answer. While travelling in my riding during the Easter recess a number of people drew my attention to their difficulties and concern about whether this plan is based on gross income. They were concerned about how it will affect the family farm. If we look at page 6 of Bill C-170, we find that the benefit will be $20 minus 33 cents for each full $100 of income by which the income of the child's family for the base calendar year exceeds $4,500 when the child is the only child in the family, or the aggregate of $4,500 and the amount obtained by multiplying the number of children in that family in excess of one by $500 when that child is not the only child in the family.
In each place reference is made to income without any description as to whether it is taxable, net or gross income. This is an important matter which ought to be explained very clearly during all stages of this bill, because it makes a great deal of difference to every farmer and small businessman in Canada in terms of income definition. Let me refer to page 2 of the bill, clause 2(2)(a) which states that the income of a person for a calendar year is his income for that year computed in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act applicable thereto. The clause goes on to provide that this is minus the amount of any death benefit paid to the taxpayer in that year under the Canada Pension Plan or any provincial pension plan as defined in the act. That part of the bill again refers to the Income Tax Act. I quote that paragraph of clause 2 as follows:
(a) the income of a person for a calendar year is his income for that year computed in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act applicable thereto, minus the amount of any death benefit paid to him in that year under the Canada Pension Plan or a provincial pension plan as defined in that Act-
There is reference to the so-called income tax bill, that piece of reform passed last year which will long be remembered for its non-reform. Let us look at this matter in terms of the definition of income. On page 2 in division B, under computation of income we find that the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year for the purpose of this bill is his income for the year determined by the following rules, and then it goes on to provide that you must determine the aggregate of amounts each of which is the taxpayer's income for the year, other than a taxable capital gain from the disposition of a property, from a source inside or outside Canada, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, his income for the year from each office, employment, business and property.
If we turn to page 26 of that reform bill we find the following provision in paragraph (g):
any amount received by the taxpayer in the year that was dependent upon the use of or production from property whether or not that amount was an instalment of the sale price of the property (except that an instalment of the sale price of agricultural land is not included by virtue of this paragraph)-
That is a further reference to definition of income. I see that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) is in the House. Perhaps he will take the opportunity to explain to the House in some detail the effect of the family income security plan in terms of whether it is based on over-all, net or gross income or taxable income.
We are faced with another difficulty because of the selectivity of this program and its over-all commitment to 
dividing Canadians into haves and have-nots. There are other aspects of this plan which make it obvious that someone in the government is not up to par. When I look at the plan and realize it is based on income, knowing that the income of people changes from year to year, I begin to wonder whether the government took a member of the task force on agriculture and put him with the group which drafted this income security plan. We have here the creation of selectivity in respect of a group of people, particularly the farmers in the west whose incomes are based on international markets over which they have no control, a transportation system over which they have little or no control, and prices over which they have no control.
The government is now telling these people that under the income security plan they must adjust their incomes for each year that it changes. A farmer's income can change from one year to the next by thousands of dollars, as can the income of a fisherman or a small businessman. I am not sure that this applies to the legal profession.


Mr. Gilbert:: Take it from me, it can.


William George Knight: My colleague suggests that it can. What I am trying to get at is that there is great complexity in this legislation as a result of a simple matter of selectivity. The government sits idly back and will go to the people during the next federal election and tell them what it is doing for the poor. I suggest all the government is doing is erecting flagpoles in front of their homes and flying flags.
There is one thing about Liberalism in respect of legislation, and anyone who studies history will know this. It is that Liberalism is based on the philosophy of changing things a little bit here when it is too late, and a little bit there when it is too late. Liberals bring in certain kinds of social reform but they never get to the heart of the matter. They never tackle the problems of the minorities in our society and they never tackle the corporate industries in terms of proper taxation. They continue to protect the economic system from any kind of change that might benefit the Canadian people.
This program is intended to be based on a guaranteed income. It should be based on a net income for every citizen, rather than on a type of selectivity which lumps people in the position of haves and have-nots in comparison with that group in our society which has a great deal.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say a few words on Bill C-170. First of all, I must say that I am completely in favour of an increase of family allowances, as I have been for a long time. In fact, I have always wondered, each year, why successive governments did not increase the amount of those allowances or ever ventured to bring them into line with the cost of living.
We have seen all other pensions periodically increaded while governments never stopped to try to adjust these allowances, leaving them still at the same rate.
Today, an increase is being proposed. First we are told that they will be increased to $15 for children under 12 and to $20 for children aged 16 and 17. Upon reading the
April 18, 1972

bill, it is clear that we are losing the very essence of these allowances, their universality. We will again be having selective allowances, to which I am opposed. It is enough that old age pensions be awarded on that basis, which is more costly than granting a $55 pension to all old people.
I believe that if we make the same mistake for family allowances there will be no end to payment of investigators throughout Canada. I suggest that it will cost the government more to finance all this bureaucracy, investigating about each child, in each family, each month about the parents salaries in order to check whether a child is getting the proper amount.
I wonder whether that is not one of the government's devices for creating employment. That is also what I figured when the guaranteed income for old people was brought forward. Everyone is taxed to give all old people $50, but it is evident that only about 40 per cent of the elderly get $55. However, it costs more in salaries to withhold this supplementary income from some 50 percent of the elderly. It would save the government money just to pay out the pension to all old people, even those who do not need it. At the end of the year they would just return it by way of taxes.
We shall have the same situation for family allowances. As in the case of old people, there will be discrimination applied to children.
That selective system which takes away from some people to give to others reminds me of a nursery of 50 children where milk would be taken from the bottle of the fatter baby and given to the leaner one. The measure is as ridiculous as that!
The child, if considered as a human being, is entitled, as a member of society, to social justice. If I want to be fair to ten children, I will not see them as coming from poor or rich families, but as human beings. And if the state wants to exercise justice and grant them an equitable social allowance, it should give to each of them the same amount.
Being rich or poor is the father's problem and not that of the child. As concerns social justice, it applies to the child. If some father is richer, let us forget about it because at the end of the year, the state will catch up with him through his income tax return. Let's not worry. First of all, let us be fair to the child, let us consider him as a full-fledged human being entitled to receive justice personally.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the universality factor of family allowances is abolished, this will destroy an undertaking that started several years ago. Since its inception, the present system has applied across the board. Without any consideration being given to the family income, the children under 10 receive $6 per month, and those 10 and over up to 16 receive $8 per month.
In the province of Quebec, the provincial government pays an additional $10 a month for children from 16 to 17 years of age inclusively who attend school. The province gets this amount back from the federal government. Again in the province of Quebec, the government also pays, in bi-yearly payments, the following amounts per year: for the first child, $30; for the second, $35; for the third, $40; for the fifth, $50; and for the sixth, $70. You
Family Income Security Plan
have to add to those amounts $10 a year for each child from 10 to 16 years of age.
Mr. Speaker, it can be said of family allowances paid in the province of Quebec at present that they are universal, since they are paid for all children, whereas the new legislation provides for a selective method.
I think that many problems will arise in the calculation of allowances to be paid for those children. Moreover, the great number of bureaucrats needed may cost more than would the payment of $15 for each and every child. Besides, we will have to make sure that some family heads pay this amount back to the treasury, as is done at present. At the present time, family allowances are universal, and at the end of the year we pay back in income tax any overpayment received, but at least the child has the comfort of being able to say: I get my allowance. Once again this is the problem of the family head.
In this legislation, as is stipulated in subparagraphs (a), (b), and (c) of clause 6(1), there is a ceiling on family income, and whenever the family income exceeds this ceiling, allowances paid in respect of children are reduced, or sometimes abolished, depending on circumstances. According to the bill under consideration, the amounts of benefits ranging from $15 to $20 will be reduced to 33 cents per each $100 of income. As I said a while ago, it is interesting to examine a table of income to determine what a child will receive in relation to his parents' wages.
I have done some quick figuring in this connection. For example, if a family with one child earns $6,000, from that income will be deducted the maximum income of the mother and father which will make a difference of $1,500, that is a reduced benefit of $4.95. The child will therefore draw an allowance of $15 less $4.95, that is $10.05. If the parents have two children, the maximum amount is $4,500 plus $500, that is $5,000. The total amount of $6,000 less $5,000 gives $1,000 or 10 times a reduction of 33 cents that is $3.30. The child will therefore get $11.70.
In a family with four children, still drawing a $6,000 income, the child will get-I did not figure it out, but in any event it is easy to do so.


Roch La Salle: It is hard to figure out!


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: It may be and it will be even more complicated in a little while.
In the case of a couple who earn $8,000, Mr. Speaker, and have one child the ceiling is $4,500; the allowance is $11.55. When there are two children, if the total salary is $10,000, the ceiling is $5,500 and the benefit is reduced by $18.15. We then realize what the situation is; then the act tells us that when the payment is less than $5, the child gets nothing, not even 15 cents per month.
This of course will be based on the revised salary of the father and mother, the salary made in the last year. If on the other hand the father's salary increases or decreases during the years, of course new inquiries and new calculations will be required to find out what each child will get. In Quebec, there are even families with ten children.

April 18, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
Imagine the calculations and the bureaucracy that will be required solely to control selective family allowances. One would think that the government is looking for Chinese puzzles. I really don't know whether the government is trying to create jobs or increase their number but by multiplying them it is also multiplying the headaches for everyone. It is also multiplying administrative costs, and the injustices towards every Canadian citizen. Without fail, all those inquiries will lead to injustices as is the case year in and year out with the old people.
If only we could have impartial and infallible inspectors. But that is impossible. They are human. We always tend to protect those we love more or punish a little those we love less, and then the tug of war starts. There lies the work of the member of a riding. If only selectivity did not exist, the member would have 50 per cent fewer problems or cases to solve. We should try to connect this with the inspector who has not done his duty, or has not done it properly, or perhaps has done it too well in some instances.
This whole issue stems here again, from those selective allowances that are provided for in this bill. When it was before the committee, I had a chance to read the briefs that were submitted, and I kept thinking: this government will certainly be under pressure and will agree with the recommendations contained in these briefs to the effect that in 80 per cent of cases, people feel that the government should make the allowances universal. That is why I am surprised, after having read so many briefs opposing this bill, that this government has stuck to its guns.
We are then going to keep on with our speeches for perhaps a day or two, but we will necessarily have to vote, and I am sure that this will not change anything in the bill. This bill was drafted by departmental officials who, I fear, do not know how to erase once in a while. They will not change anything in the bill. They stick to selectivity, and this we cannot accept. To give another idea of the protests, I can say that I have received 50 more letters. I wish to quote a few newspaper articles. The minister has probably read what they have to say about this selectivity. I quote:
Strong opposition to the exclusion of 40 per cent of families from family allowances.
Taking for granted that the child is a contribution to society much more than to the family, Les Organismes Familiaux Associes du Quebec objected, in a statement of position published yesterday, to the elimination of 40 per cent of families from the family allowance plans as proposed respectively by the governments of Quebec and Ottawa.
Through this statement, this group which represents tens of thousands of families in the province places so to speak the debate on this question in its true perspective, namely, the responsibility of the state to assume with the parents the financial burden of bringing up children tomorrow's adults.
We must keep in mind that in Quebec two families out of five will be cut off next May 1st from the family allowances because of the selective approach adopted by both government levels; eligibility will be based on family income and on the number of children.
Now, the family organizations do feel that this cutting off will mean "losing a right gained 25 years ago."
Those remarks were published in the newspaper Le Soleil on January 6, 1972. May I quote from another source which is not the least important one: the farmers' wives of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area who met to

protest against this bill, against the selective feature of this bill. They are not against the principle of the bill, for they approve of the increase, but they also advocate the universality of the allowances. This is the reason why the AFEAS, formerly known as the farmers' wives groups, will hold their convention in Jonquieres on May 16. There was a preliminary meeting and I would like to quote from the report of that meeting. Here it is:
During the past three months, the women of the Urban Committee of the AFEAS have asked the advice of many members in order to learn their views on the family allowances system.
Most of the women questioned have stated that they did not approve the programs as introduced by the provincial and federal governments. They said that the allowance was withdrawn at a time where a child needed it most that is when he was undertaking higher studies. The women also suggested that an allowance should be granted from five years of age and raised according to the age of the child and the cost of living, because they said that their financial problems increased when the young people were entering high school.
The following was stated about a report on universality:
A report submitted by the responsible members of the Urban Committee points out that the women questioned were in favour of an universal and taxable allowance on the entire family income. This formula, according to the report, would be the fairest way of giving to those who have little money and to take from those who have too much.
The report adds that selectivity as applied to family allowances is a step more reminiscent of social welfare than of children's aid.
The women consulted also opposed the way the government intended to increase the allowances after the fourth child if those 18 or over are excluded. When they reach that age, allowances will no longer be paid for them, although more money is needed for them for clothing, food, school fees and recreation costs, the report goes on to say.
On the subject of the responsibility incumbent on governments, it adds:
Our governments have some responsibility toward the family. Parents do not bring up children for their own sake but for that of society. The betterment of family life should prevail over political advantage. So, those women believed that the above-mentioned legislation promoted a higher birth-rate among the people not so well off and a sharper fall in the birth-rate among those in the middle income bracket.
Moreover, those women are asking that a survey be conducted among students aged 18 years or more on their financial assistance. The report suggests that this is inconsistent with the tax allowance for dependents. Those women also point out that governments will have to take income into account in connection with the poverty line.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted the House to be aware of this evidence. Surely the committee has heard quite a few of these representations but we can see that they have changed nothing. We still stand where we stood the day the bill was introduced and I am convinced that this situation will continue. We are going to debate and vote and nobody will dare criticize the government and force it to re-introduce the old family allowances formula and universality even though 80 per cent of the population is asking for it.
Once more, I wonder why the government is repeatedly bringing forward this selectivity concept which nobody wants. This is why I again urge the House to think it over before passing this legislation. As for those still in a position to influence the government, let them speak reason to it and let it be known that universality of family allowances is requested by most of our citizens.
April 18, 1972


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like, in turn, to make some comments on this bill which is definitely deemed to be one of the most important pieces of legislation this Parliament should pass in the near future.
Of course, Bill C-170, providing for an increase of family allowances is accepted in principle by all members of this House and I think that the Canadian people look favourably upon the increase of these allowances.
Surely, it is not sufficient to merely criticize the government for the provisions of this bill. I think it is important to note that the tabling of this legislation has required a considerable period of time while we are well aware that thousands of households have long been awaiting an increase compatible with the cost of bringing up a child.
There is a so-called selectivity principle, but others favour universality. I think that there is a difference of opinion in this respect. It is my understanding that by tabling this legislation, the government has sought to increase the benefits for those who need them most and naturally to reduce those received by household heads who can easily provide for the upkeep of their children.
I listened to several speeches, and I have to respect the opinion of each and everyone. Personally, however, I would be tempted to favour selectivity, unlike others who maintain that the same allowance should be paid all over the country, and for every child.
I think it is a mistake to give too much importance to the payment being made to the child. In all fairness, we should, according to some members, give every child the same allowance. Certainly as far as this goes, this is valid reasoning, but we know very well that in practice it is not really the child who spends the money. The child certainly has a part in his parents' expenses, but we know very well that family allowances are in fact spent or administered by the family head.
I feel that under a selective plan, a low-income family will be able to receive an appreciable, if not sufficient, increase. From there, I think there was an attempt-and this is the way in which I understand this legislation-to narrow the gap between the big man and the little man, as they are commonly called.
For instance, a few years ago, we granted a national across the board salary increase of 6 per cent. On this basis, people said that in a just society you had to grant a 6 per cent increase to all, which, in my opinion, was extremely unfair, since the man who made $3,000 could only receive a $180 increase, while the man who made $20,000 got a $1,000 increase. I think that this widened the gap between the big man and the little man even further.
Now the proposed selective scheme leads me to think that we are heading for a readjustment in favour of the really under privileged family, at least the family that needs it most.
I surely deplore the fact that a number of families will have to do without family allowances.
When members of a "cercle de fermieres", for instance-a group of people who are not considered as high-salaried people-are against a selective program, I am surprised, because the farmers, considering their
Family Income Security Plan
income, will surely not be at a disadvantage on account of a bill like this one. I rather believe that from $10,000 up, a number of families will have to do without their allowances.
We also know that two families out of five, in the province of Quebec, will lose their family allowances. However, we know full well that three out of five families need it that much more. To my mind, it is really a matter of redistribution amongst the most needy and I sincerely think that we are steadily progressing towards a just society by creating a more acceptable social climate.
I am tempted to support this bill because I believe in selectivity. We should have redistributed those allowances amongst the neediest a long time ago.
I am sorry that 40 per cent of all Canadian families will have to do without family allowances. On the other hand, I feel that the other 60 per cent will derive greater benefit, and they are the ones who need it most.
I am quite convinced that selectivity is better than universality. I think it is appropriate and I for one want to support it.
We know that the administrative costs of such a program will increase. To say that the complexity of these formulas would incite us to refrain from any action is a negative attitude. I realize that this will not be easy, that it will be complicated, but despite the complications we had with the new unemployment insurance benefits, I know also that Canadians were generally in favour of increasing these benefits.
I hope that the experience we had with unemployment insurance will benefit Parliament and that the government will be prepared to apply this formula. And I also think that such an experience will prompt it to make further preparation.
The minister has quoted a while ago figures about the administration costs, which are quite different from those given tonight, suggesting that the increased family allowance would be less than the additional administration costs.
I think the hon. members should not listen to such arguments. But then again, between doing nothing and doing something, even if it entails some difficulties, there is a difference. I know that any new formula raises problems, but I wanted to be positive. I recognize that there are difficulties and I urge the government to eliminate them as soon as possible.
It is understandable that the administration costs will be higher than they are now, due to an important change. But we must also consider the advantages and recognize them.
Nevertheless, I would remind the minister involved to review calculations. I admit that they are highly controversial. For those whose income is under $10,000 a year, taking into account a certain number of children, I believe it would be equitable to review the calculations. In fact, it must be recognized that for an average-size family, an income of $10,000 cannot be considered as excessive. I also feel that, taking the cost of living into consideration, those who have an income of $15,000 can more readily stand this deduction.

April 18, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
However, while remaining very positive, I should like to ask the minister responsible to review calculations. I hope that when we reach the committee stage recommendations will be submitted. I believe agencies will appear to make representations to the minister. I dare hope he will consider reviewing his figures and making the adjustments called for. This bill certainly warrants further amendment.
I suggest that the selectivity principle is quite justifiable and acceptable, and since it will be possible to make representations in committee and it is hoped that the government will reconsider some calculations, I think that the legislation before us has a great deal of merit. I hope that it will be implemented for the benefit of low-income families. We recognize that it is urgent to help them.
Before concluding my remarks, I should like to ask the minister to give substantial assistance to 18-year-olds to enable them to complete their studies. We know that from age 18, children have greater needs, as a high percentage of them are heading for universities or other institutions of higher learning. Should we not think seriously about a scheme to help them until completion of their studies?
We have recognized that at 18, a child attains his majority, but we also know that in fact, he remains a student until he is 22, 23, 24 and sometimes 25.
In fact, I wonder whether the government should not help him financially so that he could further his studies, even under a selective plan.
This would certainly contribute to the establishment of a social climate more appropriate and more encouraging for the children, thereby easing the burden of fathers who have much difficulty making ends meet.
Mr. Speaker, I shall be satisfied with these few remarks, as I hope I shall have the opportunity of rising on third reading to repeat that, although I agree with the spirit of this bill, I dare hope that the government will modify a number of figures in respect of people earning $10,000 or less.
I should also invite the government to consider net instead of gross income because, owing to a number of factors, gross income is often misleading. Therefore, I submit that we should consider net income first. With the co-operation of course of all hon. members, while accepting their very positive comments, we should have the opportunity of adopting this bill as soon as possible for the welfare of the families in distress and of granting them the additional allowances provided for under the bill before us.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter this debate so that tomorrow, on behalf of my colleagues and on my own behalf, when I have completed my remarks or toward the end of my remarks I may move an amendment to the motion before the House. Since the recess for Easter, we have all had an opportunity to study this bill carefully and to appreciate the principles animating it better than we appreciated them before.
In our view, therefore, it is important to deal with the basic principles of the bill and some aspects of it, for what
[Mr. La Salle.)
the minister has done in this legislation is to pervert the idea behind the principle of family allowances. He has suggested that he is using family allowances as an antipoverty measure. This was never the purpose of family allowances when they were first introduced. That is not the philosophy behind payments of this sort. That was not the philosophy behind the idea when it was first presented in 1944-45, and it is the wrong philosophy with which to approach payments that are intended, basically, to assist families in bringing up their children with decency and security. This is not intended to be an anti-poverty measure. I shall in some detail point out tomorrow, when I come to the body of my remarks, that as an anti-poverty measure this is a shameful piece of tokenism which cannot accomplish anything in the field of poverty, either.
All those on the government side, the minister included, have naturally tried to put the best face on this bill while talking about the number of families that will be affected one way or another by it. It is always possible to say, when discussing bills like this, that 11 million families, or whatever the number will be, will receive more. When I hear that, the first question I ask myself and which I ask hon. members to ask themselves is, more than what? What the minister tries to get us excited about is that we will no longer pay $6 a month or $8 a month for helping to bring up a child. The payment, it is said, will become $15 or $20 a month, although I submit in most cases it will be $10, $11 or $9 a month. I will go into details tomorrow. At any rate, we are supposed to get excited about that kind of generosity. Well, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not generous, it is not thoughtful, it will not do the job and it is, as I have said, a perversion of the original idea.
What the minister said but was careful not to emphasize was that over one million families will not get anything under his plan. I should like the minister or anyone on the government side of the House to tell the people of Canada that there are one million rich families in this country which do not need any assistance to bring up their children in decency and security. In the minister's statement of March 24 there is a contradiction that I have not been able to figure out. I will mention it now as we approach ten o'clock. Perhaps the minister can enlighten us at some time. On page 1133 of Hansard, the left-hand column, the minister is reported as saying:
Two and a half million families will receive benefits. Nine hundred thousand families will receive maximum benefits.
On the next page, page 1134, in the left-hand column he says:
Full benefit under FISP will go to 1,249,000 families-
I do not understand why there is so much difference between those two figures. In one statement the minister said that 900,000 families will receive maximum benefit and in the other that 1,249,000 families will receive the full benefit. The difference of 300,000 families is not a small figure. The differential of one-third as between the figure given on page 1133 and the figure on page 1134 of Hansard is pretty large and important. I do not know which figure is correct.
What the minister did not emphasize, and what I want to emphasize tonight particularly and again tomorrow, is that over one million families will not get any benefit under this bill. As I said, I challenge the minister to tell me
April 18, 1972

and this House that there are one million rich families in this country.
With that, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will permit me to call it ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in the last few years we have seen in Canada a growing monopoly of newspapers in our major centres. In the last few months we have seen that monopoly extended to one afternoon newspaper in the largest urban area of Canada, metropolitan Toronto. I think parliament and the people of Canada have not only the right but the duty to look carefully at the way in which that kind of monopoly has come about. It seems to me, on the basis of reports I have seen in newspapers and on the basis of the interpretation bulletin to which my questions today and the other day referred, that it is very likely that the public treasury will pay for the establishment of an afternoon newspaper monopoly in metropolitan Toronto. That is not what we ought to be doing; that is not what the government ought to be doing.
The first point that strikes me as odd is the coincidence of dates. According to reports, the deal between the Toronto Star and the Toronto Telegram was completed on September 15, 1971. It was announced publicly on September 18, 1971. On September 17, 1971, two days after the deal was completed and one day before it was publicly announced, the Department of National Revenue issued a bulletin. This clearly indicates that the Toronto Star will be able to deduct as a business expense the $10 million it paid for the subscribers list of the Toronto Telegram. That coincidence of dates is a very serious matter which I believe this Parliament ought to know about.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) used the adjective "pusillanimous". I say the minister made a less than heroic attempt to hide behind the income tax law in refusing to give information. I have not asked for information about the tax position of the Toronto Star! I am not interested in that. I am asking him to inform the House and the people of Canada about any correspondence between the Toronto Star and his department relating to information with respect to the possible application of the law.
I asked for information regarding conversations that may have been held by the minister and members of his department with anybody representing the Toronto Star, whether it is the publisher, Mr. Honderick, a member of the board of directors, the Hon. Walter Gordon or any-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
body else on behalf of the Star. That is not information relating to the Star's tax payments or tax liabilities. It is information regarding conversations and correspondence, using the word in the legal sense, by the department as to the application or possible application of laws and what might be done. It goes to the question of whether the department was requested, asked or pleaded with to issue some kind of interpretation bulletin such as was in fact issued on September 17 last.
During the course of the deal between the Toronto Star and the Toronto Telegram, I read in a newspaper report that the publisher of the Telegram believed that the money he was receiving for the subscribers list was a capital gain; it was payment for goodwill in the subscribers list. If the Department of National Revenue permits Mr. Bassett to have the $10 million as a capital gain, the public treasury will pay it both ways. If this is a capital gain to Mr. Bassett, it cannot be a business expense to the Toronto Star. If it is a business expense to the Toronto Star, it cannot be capital to Mr. Bassett. If the two work out as the newspaper report indicated, the public treasury will pay the part that the publisher of the Telegram would have had to pay if it were income, and will pay the part the Toronto Star would have had to pay if it were not able to deduct the $10 million as a business expense for the year.
What is it we are doing? All this is behaviour that facilitates the establishment of a monopoly in the largest afternoon newspaper market, and facilitates the loss of 1,200 jobs. The government would have been serving the welfare of this country a great deal better if instead of making possible these large tax concessions to powerful newspaper organizations it had used some of the public money to assist the Toronto Telegram to carry on so there would be some competition among newspapers in metropolitan Toronto and so that 1,200 Canadian jobs might have been retained. This would have been a service to this country. That is not in fact what has happened.
A month or two ago I raised in this House the question of the remission of $6 million in sales tax to Canadian Oil Sands Limited of Alberta, a subsidiary of the "poverty stricken", multi-national Sun Oil. We gave them a Christmas gift of $6 million. There is now the possibility that we are going to give a gift to a large, powerful newspaper corporation. Then we present to this House new legislation on family allowances which is meagre and shamefully inadequate. It is this kind of double standard that I object to, as well as the way the government carries on.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think the best way I can respond to the hon. member's question is to begin by again placing on the record what I said in the House this afternoon. At that time I said that interpretation bulletin No. IT-33 was issued on September 19, 1971, as part of an ongoing program to make the public aware of the assessing policies of the department. It embodied a practice first set forth in departmental instructions in March, 1963, and in effect ever since. These instructions were based on several decisions of the Income Tax Appeal Board. I mentioned specifically the cases of John Blunt Publications Limited in 1951, appeal No. 292 in 1955, and Halliday Fuels .Limited in 1960.
1424

April 18, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I can now add that since this afternoon I have been informed that work began on the preparation of this bulletin on December 14, 1970. The first draft of the bulletin was completed on January 5, 1971 and it contained in its present form the paragraph in which the word "subscribers" appears. I should also add that the department began issuing interpretation bulletins of this kind in 1970. I have been advised that they are not issued in respect of specific matters which the department may know could be brought to its attention for more formal consideration.
Let me conclude by saying that, as I said earlier, it is my understanding that the provisions of the Income Tax Act prevent me from giving the kind of information that the hon. member seeks. But I think it should be evident from the information that I have provided that the connection he has attempted to establish between the transaction in question and the issuing of the bulletin in question simply does not exist.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY-PARTICIPATION WITH UNITED STATES IN STUDY ON POSSIBLE YEAR-ROUND OPERATION

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, like any maritimer I have a concern for the operations of the St. Lawrence Seaway. And like any Canadian I have a concern about how one can battle, if never successfully, the Canadian winter. Flying to Ottawa from Halifax in recent weeks, I have always watched whether the ice was clearing from the seaway and I gathered that the people operating the seaway are certainly having their problems with this winter.
A few days ago my attention was drawn to an article by Jeff Carruthers which appeared in the Ottawa Journal on March 14 last pointing up some experimentation that was proposed for the St. Lawrence Seaway system. I quote him as follows:
Originally intended to be called The Year of the Gulf, the program as now envisioned is to stretch from this year through 1976, with peak scientific activity for 18 months between late 1973 and spring of 1975.
The federal department of the environment, which is co-ordinating the project, is asking the federal treasury board for some $9 million for the project. A similar sum of money is to be obtained from existing budgets in participating government departments.
Federal officials say that it is almost assured that the project will be approved as proposed.
The question that brings us to the sauce for the goose tonight is one that I directed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), though I presume it could also have been directed to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis). In any event, it raises some questions as to the amount of money which should be used on such experimentation to keep the seaway open for longer periods in the year.
Parliamentarians are already familiar with the report by the Ottawa firm of D. William Carr and Associates. It is suggested by that group that the debt should be restructured so that it would cover only those expenditures necessary for providing facilities to shipping. The seaway should then be required to repay only the interest on the capital debt, not the debt itself.

The report also says that Canada should move to increase tolls since this country is paying five-sixths of the investment costs of the seaway and covering six-sevenths of the waterway's deficits. It suggests that even with the 5 per cent annual increase over the next five years-and it argues that there should be nothing of a greater nature- the debt-ridden seaway would not become self-sustaining. The report suggests that if tolls were increased by 5 per cent per year for five years, seaway revenues would be kept abreast of the expected increase in costs, but such a toll increase would be insufficient to cover interest, operating and maintenance costs and seaway deficits would continue to mount, though at a slower rate. The report also suggests that if there are no toll increases, by 1985 the debt will have gone up to $1.6 billion, or three times what it is today. These are awesome figures. They are available in the Carr report.
My purpose in speaking this evening is to ask someone to reply on behalf of the minister and to find out just how far the government proposes to go with any experimentation. Will an attempt be made to balance the increased benefits of a longer season with increased tolls? Is that sort of balance to be kept? Perhaps the situation is to be left as much out of joint as it is now.
I come from a part of the country where transportation subsidies are quite common. When looking at transportation as a whole, I have adopted the philosophy that this is something which can never really pay its way. No matter what biased statements are made in this place, I do not think transportation as a whole in Canada will ever pay its way. I do not think it should have to pay its way if it helps to keep the country together or open up new horizons. If it serves the public in this way, then that service is sufficient in itself.
When I hear remarks made about subsidies to maritime transportation, particularly those made by people from central Canada, and knowing the amount of money being funnelled into the St. Lawrence Seaway, I am reminded of that old con game where a fellow makes a great deal about throwing coins into the bowl of a beggar, so much so that people do not notice that with the other hand he is engaged in a modern version of the Brinks robbery.
In any event, I have asked the questions and I hope the ministry will answer by stating exactly what is proposed in respect of experimentation in so far as the St. Lawrence Seaway is concerned.


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: In replying to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) I wish to express my appreciation for having an opportunity to put on the record the participation of Canadian officials in this very important matter.
This evening I can confirm the statement made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) to the hon. member on March 22. A request has not been received from the United States to contribute to their study concerning the subject of keeping the St. Lawrence Seaway open on a year-round basis. However, a study has been conducted for some time now by various federal officials from both within and without the Department of Transport, together
April 18, 1972

with provincial representatives, to study the technical difficulties as well as the economic and environmental implications of an extended seaway season. United States representatives have attended these meetings as observers and Canadian observers have attended United States meetings.
It is assuring to note the co-operation which exists between our two countries on these important discussions. I have noted a number of items in the hon. member's speech which I will be pleased to bring to the attention of the minister who I am sure will want to consider them seriously.



INDUSTRY-CLOSING OF MCBEAN COLLIERY- PROVISION OF PENSIONS SIMILAR TO BENEFITS FOR DEVCO MINERS

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when I asked the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) about his attitude in respect of pensions for the McBean miners in Thorburn, Nova Scotia, I was not trying to single out the minister for any partisan purposes but to take the opportunity once more to bring the issue of the problems involved in the closure of the McBean mine before this House. Had his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), been in the House I would have questioned him also because he is the one to whom the final appeal was made by a delegation from Nova Scotia consisting of people from the United Mine Workers, the government of Nova Scotia and the miners themselves. However, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is indirectly involved because the Devco operation is to some extent responsible for some of the administration of the McBean mine at Thorburn.
I am appealing tonight to the government, through the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, to once more consider the plight of the McBean mine and the miners and see if something constructive can be done even at this late date. I sincerely hope the government will take another look at the problem, because the need for coal exists in the area. A market is literally only a few miles away. The Nova Scotia Power Commission thermal plant can more than absorb this mine's total output. There are institutions and people in the area who need coal for heating and they are able to buy it, under the circumstances, at reduced rates. There are also institutions which depend on coal produced at the McBean mine who can ill-afford the cost of making other heating arrangements. However, this is a minor point because the skills of these miners, once they cease to be used, probably cannot be replaced if the mine is not kept in operation.
It is ironic in looking at the annual report of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources of a year ago to see the following statement which appears at page 73 under the heading "Phasing out of coal subventions":
As a result of the improved economic situation in western Canada and the alternative programs instituted for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick federal subventions have been phased out and will be discontinued in 1970-71.
How ironic! The western coal mining industry is doing well. Therefore, we will conveniently discontinue the subventions and effectively cripple the eastern coal mining industry. I find this very ironic. However, before dealing with this situation any further I should like to raise the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
main issue I wish to discuss tonight. Assuming that this mine is in fact to be closed, what will be done to make certain that the miners affected will receive the type of retirement pension to which they are entitled? It seems to me it is self-evident that the government would not wish to promote discrimination among miners in one province in the same type of industry. It is bad enough to hear about discrimination in different parts of Canada, but here we have a situation in which the miners who are being administered through the Cape Breton Development Corporation are receiving pre-retirement pensions considerably greater than those scheduled to be given to the miners at the McBean mine.
It would seem to me, again, that the government, in order to be just in this case, must take several steps. It must do so immediately. It must undertake, in co-operation with the government of Nova Scotia, that the McBean colliery workers will receive exactly the same benefits as those received by their brethren in Cape Breton. It must immediately make an effort to see that the eligibility and age for the receipt of benefits is lowered. It must as soon as possible make the very best arrangements possible for high priority in respect of re-employment, with all necessary upgrading and on-the-job training.
This would only be pursuant to the policies undertaken by the then minister of energy, mines and resources some time ago. The former minister, on October 7 of last year, indicated that he would make every effort to assist in the endeavour to rehabilitate the remaining work force. He pointed out at that time that although there was, as he called it, a one time grant of $930,000 given to offset the financial losses incurred, as he said; "to the time when either the financial grant provided by Canada is exhausted or the work force employed at the McBean Mine has declined to the point where further operation of the mine is impractical," the intent of that original grant was to terminate the mining and assist in rehabilitating the work force. This was not completely accomplished and, therefore, he said: "I arranged for a second grant of $750,000."
Coincidentally, this grant came at a time when the Central Nova by-election was being contested approximately a year ago. It seems to me that at that time the government was full of largesse. They were going to do great things for Central Nova in general and for the McBean mine in particular. Unfortunately, we have seen little evidence of their good will since that time.
Without ending on a rancorous note, may I again appeal to the government to take another look at this important situation affecting 200 families and see what can be done, in the first instance, to maintain the working of this significant part of the Nova Scotia coal industry and, secondly, to make absolutely certain that there is no discrimination or unfairness in looking after the needs of the men if indeed their employment is forcibly terminated.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minister I wish to say that the McBean mine is in no way connected with Devco. It is entirely a provincial responsibility. However, the minister would be happy to see that the hon. member's point of view is brought to the attention of the provincial government.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Wednesday, April 19, 1972