1973-07-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Yesterday the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty) proposed a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. The Chair had some reservations about the terms of the motion. I felt that perhaps there was a suggestion that the motion, as drafted, implied a charge by innuendo. My main reservation in connection with Standing Order 43 is the one which I have brought to the attention of the House before, that really the use of the Standing Order ought to be considered very gingerly by hon. members because there is no opportunity for the government to reply to charges, statements and declarations made under Standing Order 43 since we have immediately to ask unanimous consent of the House. This is why I thought we should not embark on a situation where we enlarge in any way the use of Standing Order 43. I have always felt that, to some extent at least, there is an over use of the Standing Order, and with this in mind I thought I should have a look at the hon. member's proposed motion. But the matter having been aired to some extent later on by the hon. member in the question he asked, there may be no harm if at this point I simply ask if there is unanimous consent.
[ Translation]
I was referring to the motion moved by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo yesterday and I ask the House if there is unanimous consent.

Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity, so I cannot put the hon. member's motion to the House.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In his absence I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister, but if I may say so, Mr. Speaker, we have a right to expect the Minister of Labour to be here and to be accountable during this developing labour situation. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister if, in the light of the failure of the conciliation board to find common ground with the railways and the non-operating unions, the government has reached any decision on what action will be taken to avert a strike?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, no definite decision has yet been taken. We are still hopeful that the normal procedure will bring about a settlement.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister if the absence of the Minister of Labour this morning means that at last the Minister of Labour is prepared to personally intervene to help settle this dispute?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for recognizing that there are occasions when ministers must be absent from the House on public business. I am not quite certain whether the Minister of Labour is engaged in this activity, but at any rate he is making every effort possible to bring about a solution.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary. May I ask the government House leader if it is the
intention to recall Parliament in the event of a strike, which now seems very likely?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would appreciate that a question asked in those terms is hypothetical. I appreciate the importance of the matter, of course.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, since I just spoke the Minister of Labour has come into the House. Perhaps, with the indulgence of the House, the minister might take the House into his confidence and tell us what his position is with regard to the failure of the conciliation board to find common ground in the dispute between the railways and the non-operating union and state whether he is now prepared to intervene personally?

July 13, 1973
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that, of course, the possibility of personal intervention of the Minister of Labour in an incident like this is always there. Just when that should take place, and when it would be required, I think is a question for the government to decide. In the meantime, the services of some very experienced mediators of my department are going to be available on a continuing basis to the parties to try to bring them together and get a settlement of this dispute.


DISPUTE WITH NON-OPERATING RAILWAY EMPLOYEES- ALLEGED REFUSAL OF COMPANIES TO APPOINT EXPERT TO STUDY VALUE OF PENSION-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that one of the major difficulties in reaching agreement was the differences of opinion between the representatives of the union and the company as to the value of the pension which had been agreed upon, is the minister giving consideration to the proposal made to the conciliation board by the union representatives that an impartial expert in the field of pensions be asked to study the pension proposal so that he could arrive at a figure showing the actual value in terms of a percentage of the total wages which the pension agreement gave to the workers?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, that general suggestion is worthy of consideration, and we are giving it that consideration.


David Orlikow: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the companies represented on the conciliation board and the chairman of the conciliation board refused to consider this proposal by the union-a proposal incidentally which the union said it would have been prepared to accept regardless of what the arbitrator found

would the minister give consideration to the government making such an appointment?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I said "general" advisedly. Whether we look at it in the precise terms suggested by the union representative is open to question, or whether we get some impartial person or body to have a look at this whole question is very much in our minds at the present time. I cannot go further than that.


DISPUTE WITH NON-OPERATING RAILWAY EMPLOYEES- CONTINGENCY PLAN TO TRANSPORT GRAIN IN EVENT OF STRIKE
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Has he had any discussions with the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to develop some contingency plans in the event of rotating strikes to ensure that the movement of grain is not impaired over the summer months?


John Carr Munro: It is very much in the minds of the government generally, Mr. Speaker, and of the minister responsible for the Wheat

Board. In terms of specifics, or what these arrangements would be in that eventuality, I think questions along those lines should be more appropriately directed to the minister responsible.


POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES COMMISSION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Since, in the face of another potential railway strike in Canada, the government again has no definite proposals to avoid a strike and no definite plans and policies to deal with a possible strike, is the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he cannot preface a question by a preamble such as this. The hon. member is making a statement. It should be possible for hon. members to ask questions without putting preambles, prefaces and allegations ahead of their questions. The hon. member is recognized for the purpose of asking his question.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, is the government now going to prepare legislation to establish the industrial disputes commission, to assist in those areas where essential services are concerned?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if we were satisfied that this formulation would in any way avoid situations such as we are facing at present, of course we would. But, as Minister of Labour, I am not entirely satisfied that it would make that type of contribution.


An hon. Member:: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see a number of hon. members, including the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, who wish to ask supplementaries. Perhaps we might return to them in a moment after we have completed the first round of questioning. To that end I will recognize the hon. member for York South, followed by the hon member for Temiscamingue.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister arising out of one of the papers for the western economic opportunities conference tabled yesterday by the Prime Minister. I do not know whether the Acting Prime Minister has been involved in this exercise. One of the papers emphasizes the need for expanding agricultural production. I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government will present to the western premiers at this conference concrete proposals to encourage farmers to increase the supply of food products for Canadians, which would help
July 13, 1973

to keep food prices to the consumer from continuing to escalate.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there will be proposals put before the conference of that kind, but not only at this particular conference, of course. The Minister of Agriculture himself has emphasized on a number of occasions that this is one of the main purposes of policies now being proposed by the government to deal with the inflationary problem.


POSSIBILITY OF A PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture, whichever one of them feels he can deal with the question, whether the government will propose a program of price support for agricultural products so that the farmer may be able to plan ahead and to increase the supply of food products but at the same time be guaranteed a reasonable and decent income, taking into account his costs of production.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can say about what I will say at the conference is this: my approach would be-concrete perhaps is not the right word to use-solid. It would be a solid approach to agricultural production that would mean benefits not only to the agricultural producer, but for the consumer in Canada, for consumers in the world and for customers we have built up by export sales largely for our agricultural products.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South on a supplementary and then, as I said a moment ago, the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


FINANCE
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps some day I will learn the difference between concrete and solid. I should like to turn to another subject to be dealt with at the western conference and ask the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance, whichever one of them wishes to answer, whether the federal government will be ready to agree to an amendment to the Bank Act in order to make it possible for provinces to establish provincial banks under public ownership, if the provinces so desire.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the options I suppose that is open to the federal government, and any reaction to that proposal would be made at the conference itself.
Oral Questions


INQUIRY AS TO PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH WESTERN CANADIAN BANK
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. It bears on a question I asked two months ago. Has the minister yet received any official contact from a group in western Canada to set up a western Canadian bank?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Agriculture. I hope this will not deprive me of the right to ask another question when my turn comes.
During the western Conference on Economic Opportunities, will the matter of feed grain prices be considered? At present, these grains sell in Manitoba at $45 a ton against $80 in the province of Quebec. Will there be a discussion on price parity for all Canadian farmers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting my provincial counterparts in Prince Edward Island, at Charlottetown, before the western conference. Feed grain discussions will take place at that meeting. Any feed grain program that I or the government have anything to do with will be a Canadian feed grain policy.
[ Transla tion]


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Temiscamingue wishes to ask a supplementary question.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, this is not a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member asked a supplementary question. I will therefore give the floor to other members who have supplementary questions, and then to the hon. member.


FEED GRAINS-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT MARKETING BY WHEAT BOARD WILL BE DISCUSSED AT WESTERN CONFERENCE
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statement by the Prime Minister that the marketing of feed grains would be a subject for consideration at the conference and the fact there is no mention of this in the position papers, can the minister assure the House that the principle of orderly marketing

July 13, 1973
Oral Questions
and control by the Canadian Wheat Board will be the principal factor in the considerations put before that conference?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that because of representation which has been made by members of parliament from across the country as well as by provincial premiers and provincial ministers of agriculture. It certainly will be discussed.


SUGGESTION THAT FIXED DATES BE ESTABLISHED FOR OPENING AND CLOSING OF SESSION-GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the House leader, the President of the Privy Council.
Since hon. members of all parties would like to go on holiday but are unable to do so, is the House leader now considering the possibility that Parliament or the government summon the Houses and suggest that adjournments and prorogations take place on fixed dates, so that we can know where we are going?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, it has been the intention of the government in the past number of years to target for adjournment toward the end of June or early July. That was achieved in all sessions of the last parliament with one exception. Because of the large volume of public business, we were unfortunately not able to adjourn at the end of June. However, I am working with my colleagues in the other parties in the expectation or maybe the hope we can adjourn within a week or so if we can make proper arrangements with regard to the completion of public business.
[ Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Does the minister think that if the government introduced its legislation in proper time we would be able to end the session by the end of June?


AIR CANADA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. As talks have broken off between Air Canada and the Canadian Airline Employees Association, what steps will the minister now take to resolve this situation?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the best way I could answer that would be to indicate

we will be looking at the situation very closely for further reactions of the parties involved in the course of the weekend. That will leave the option open as to whether further intervention is required by myself or my department.


ALLEGED USE OF NON-UNION PERSONNEL BY COMPANY DURING STRIKE-REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO PROSECUTE
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. In answer to questions in the House last week, the minister indicated he was reserving judgment on a request from the union involved in the strike referred to asking for leave to prosecute the company for unfair labour practices until such time as mediation had a chance to work. Now that mediation talks have broken off, is the minister prepared to accede to the union's request to prosecute?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member states that mediation talks have broken off. I have tried to indicate I hope this is a temporary situation.


ALLEGED USE OF NON-UNION PERSONNEL DURING STRIKE-RESULTS OF INQUIRY BY MINISTER
Douglas Charles Rowland: Has the minister completed his inquiry into allegations that Air Canada is forcing non-union personnel to act in the capacity of the striking workers? If he has completed those investigations, what are the results?


John Carr Munro: I have not completed the investigation, Mr. Speaker.


PENITENTIARIES
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Solicitor General whether consideration has been given by him or by the government to the appointment of a commission to inquire into conditions in penitentiaries in general. I mention in this connection with Prince Albert Penitentiary where in recent months there have been six suicides and guards have been dangerously attacked.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: We have been extremely concerned about the suicides at Prince Albert Penitentiary and an internal inquiry has taken place. However, the inquiry determined that there was no apparent cause or consistent pattern for these suicides. I might add that we have recently received a report from a board of psychiatric advisers-it will be made public in a week or so-in which recommendations are made for dealing with potential suicides. One of them is to build a medical and psychiatric centre in the prairie provinces where these people could be kept and treated. We hope to
July 13, 1973

proceed with the construction of such a regional centre toward the end of this year.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister not consider appointing someone outside the service to investigate conditions in the penitentiaries? I mention this in connection with Mr. Harold Ballard who, living in the salubrious circumstances which prevail at Millhaven, where he says the place is operated as a high-class motel, with him enjoying tenderloin steaks-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the right hon. gentleman would now ask the question.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not get to my question. I had to place the facts before the minister because otherwise he would not be aware of them. Do conditions similar to those described by Mr. Ballard apply in other penitentiaries and, if so, is the Solicitor General finding it difficult to keep people out of them?


William Warren Allmand: I was surprised when I read Mr. Ballard's statement, because I visited the Millhaven minimum security institution where he is staying and it did not appear to me that conditions were that good.


John George Diefenbaker: Maximum comfort with minimum security!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Ballard is in for a few surprises because his conditions may change a little.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: With respect to the first question about an inquiry, I should remind the House that the House of Commons itself has set up an inquiry into the penitentiary system. Visits have already been made to the penitentiaries in the Kingston region, and the penitentiaries in the Quebec region will be visited next week. I hope it will be possible for a visit to be made, also, to the penitentiaries in the west so that these particular matters can be looked into.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It arises from the fact that the latest monthly statement issued by the Department of Finance shows, among other things, that taking budgetary and non-budgetary transactions together the government was left with a surplus amounting to $350 million. Would the minister make a plea to the Minister of Finance to redirect some of these funds in order to relieve the hardship caused people on low incomes, on disability and blind pensions who are suffering from anxiety as a result of the high cost of living?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to make such a plea since the government as a whole is very conscious of their situation.


An hon. Member:: What are you doing about it?


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, the answer to which might go a long way towards relieving the threat of a strike on the railways. In view of continuous pleas about the inability to meet justifiable demands of railway workers over successive years of negotiation, and in order to enable the Canadian National system to meet justifiable demands of its workers in future negotiations, I should like to ask the minister whether the government is giving consideration to transferring one or more billion dollars of the public debt of the Canadian National Railways system to the government of Canada, relieving the Canadian National system of the onerous interest debt it has been paying since 1923, and thereby enabling the CNR to use its available profits to meet its payrolls?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, anything I might suggest would be long-term and would not affect the current negotiations. Certainly it is in my view, in the long-term interests of the country to recapitalize both the CNR and Air Canada.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Harry Kuntz (Battle River):: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the forthcoming western economic conference and the fact that there is a severe shortage of soybean meal in some regions of western Canada, which is having an adverse effect on the poultry industry, would the minister advise this House if freight assistance will be given to the western poultry producers to offset the exorbitant freight rate of $45 to $60 per ton that is now being charged to move this meal from Ontario to Alberta?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this request has been received not only from the west but also from the east and we are considering it.


Harry Kuntz: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the minister that freight assistance is now-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Oral Questions PUBLIC WORKS

July 13, 1973


PORT STANLEY, ONTARIO-REQUEST FOR INSTALLATION OF LIFE RINGS ON PIER IN VIEW OF RECENT DROWNINGS
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question, through you, to the Minister of Public Works. My question is prompted by three recent drowning disasters in five days at the lakeshore village of Port Stanley on the shores of Lake Erie. Would the minister move with dispatch to re-install the life rings at suitable locations on the pier in that municipality to provide some greater measure of public safety?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of these incidents but I will certainly make inquiries and do whatever is within our responsibility to cure the problem.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Norvai Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that the Attorney General of Saskatchewan expressed grave concern this morning over the refusal of the federal cabinet to co-operate in the plan to train 30 Indians by the RCMP, would the minister give some reason to the House and the people in Saskatchewan for this refusal to contribute to the plan in view of the fact his department initiated the idea in the first place?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone should suggest that we have refused. We initiated the plan and we are willing to contribute. The problem at this time is in determining the share of the federal government. This department having initiated this plan, I would suggest if that sort of statement were to be made in Saskatchewan it would not do very much to help the situation. When we are negotiating, each party tries to get the best deal possible. I am very keen to solve this problem in respect of a proposal which was initiated by my department at the beginning.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to ask when he plans to introduce the promised legislation to regulate the transportation of cattle, both by rail and by road, non-stop from western Canada to Toronto, a measure which would greatly reduce cattle losses en-route and subsequent losses after arrival in Ontario?


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: I think they should stop in Winnipeg anyway.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think we all appreciate the prospects for legislation being introduced in the House at this time. All I can say is that it will be introduced when the session begins in the fall. I have instructed our health of animals branch to upgrade any measure that should be taken to ensure that animals are shipped in the proper fashion.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the recent discovery by the Prime Minister of the great value of the monarchy, is it the intention of the government to invite the Queen to return to Canada on a third visit this year in order that she might open the annual Liberal meeting in Ottawa?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might rephrase my question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Don't spoil it, George.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House will appreciate, I think, that in view of the procedures of the House a question of that type is not in order and the hon. member should not, therefore, be allowed to ask a supplementary question. If anyone has enough imagination to think of one which might be in order as a supplementary, I am sure the hon. member would be the one who could.


MANPOWER
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I do not know if the minister hears me, but I will proceed with the question anyway. I should like to ask whether it is the policy of the government to have Canadian manpower centres assist willingly upon request in supplying employees to firms who are involved in a legal strike, when such action in reality leads to a form of strike breaking?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, our posture in this regard is one of neutrality. We do not wish to contribute to strike breaking and we will not do so.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, in view of the government's hands-off policy in respect of providing these people in cases of legally sanctioned strikes, people who might be receiving UIC benefits, and in view of the fact that
July 13, 1973

Canadian manpower centres in two instances I know of provided individuals to displace those strikers, I wonder if I might ask how the government justifies the position of not only denying workers UIC benefits but-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member's supplementary question is merely an argument and is not in order.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that the western economic conference will begin in approximately 10 days, and in view of the minister's repeated statements on his so-called multi-dimensional approach to changes in regional economic expansion thrust, will he advise whether changes in the thrust of the department will be announced before or during the western economic conference, and whether a new thrust or impetus in respect of western Canadian secondary processing and manufacturing industries will be discussed at that conference?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that we have had a team working with the four western provinces on the basis of the working papers which I submitted to the House two weeks ago. These negotiations and talks are going extremely well. I think it is fair to say that all provinces have accepted the underlying principles of the new approach, and that the western economic conference will be discussing specific items, and high on that list will be manufacturing and processing in western Canada, which I am convinced ought to be enhanced.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I notice he is not here so I wonder if I might direct it, through you, to his parliamentary secretary. I did give the minister notice of this question, Mr. Speaker.
On June 27 the minister told the House that the government was keeping close watch on basic raw materials, the supply of which may become short. In light of alarm among aluminum purchasers about forecasts of a shortage of aluminum ingots as a result of heavy foreign demand in Japan and the United States, would the minister tell the House what action he has decided to take to ensure that domestic requirements are met and not neglected at this time?
Oral Questions


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and see that the hon. member gets an answer.


William James Kempling: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister's parliamentary secretary. In light of the report that United States interests are endeavouring to purchase 263 tons of zinc, would the minister tell the House whether the government is ready to apply export controls, if necessary, and is studying this reported U.S. endeavour?


Herb Breau: I will see that that part of the question is answered also.


ELECTION EXPENSES
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that officials of ITT have complained that the executive assistant to the minister in charge of multiculturalism, Mr. Mel Mclnnis, made two attempts and veiled threats last fall to have the United States parent company overrule the decision of their Canadian subsidiary which refused to contribute funds to the Liberal federal campaign, and in view of Mr. Mclnnis's denial that he so harassed these officials, would the Acting Prime Minister tell the House if in fact an investigation has been carried out? If so, is he now satisfied that Mr. Mclnnis was telling the truth when he stated that no threats were made to ITT when he attempted to get funds from the Canadian subsidiary for Liberal party coffers?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the position is that ITT would make no contributions to any political party, including the Conservative party.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In the absence of the Minister of State in charge of multiculturalism I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question again. Has Mr. Mel Mclnnis resigned, has he been asked to resign, has he tendered his resignation, or have there been discussions that he might resign as executive assistant?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will make inquiries.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should tell the hon. member that I have serious doubts about his question. It could easily be placed on the order paper. When an hon. member inquires whether a public servant has resigned, or will resign or contemplates resigning, it is normally a question which should be placed on the order paper. I

July 13, 1973
Oral Questions
appreciate that there might be other connotations. The hon. member may ask his supplementary question, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton West.


An hon. Member:: Will the minister resign?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I was wondering whether the Acting Prime Minister could inform the House if the Minister of State in charge of multiculturalism, who has been absent for several days from the House, is in fact out looking for his executive assistant?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I was inspired when I suggested we should not have a second supplementary question.


Mitchell William Sharp: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the House will regret to hear that the minister responsible for multicultural affairs is not well and will wish for his speedy recovery.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I should like to ascertain what the advisory committee of the UIC is doing. Can the minister advise me, now that several members have returned from their holiday in Switzerland, whether in fact the advisory committee is meeting, whether it is meeting in other places than the city of Toronto, whether its report is ready to be handed to the minister and, if not, what is holding it up, keeping in mind that the committee brought in a report in respect of the first part of its investigation in April. I think there is some responsibility in the minister's department to ensure that these matters are followed through. What has he to report with respect to the question asked?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the advisory committee is committed, quite properly, to holding public hearings, one in Toronto which, I believe, is scheduled for July 19, following which they will travel to Vancouver to hear representations, from claimants in both cases. Following that, I am sure they will be able to finalize their recommendations in the form of a second report. I might add, as I said before, that in spite of that delay, which is logical and reasonable, to get claimants' views, we have been taking action to correct the situation in which we found ourselves.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In order to ascertain whether in fact the advisory committee has properly accepted its statutory responsibility which is to bring a report to the minister within six months of the end of the year, I wonder whether in fact the advisory committee has given this report to the minister and whether the minister is now in a position

to table it. If not, what is holding it up this time in view of the committee's statutory responsibilities?


Robert Knight Andras: The report is on its way to me and as soon as I have examined it I will table it.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the great importance of the position of the chairman of the National Energy Board, particularly under present conditions, I should like to ask the minister whether he can assure the House that the government will be appointing a successor to Dr. Howland to take office by the time Dr. Howland retires.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we have this under consideration at the moment. I would hope so.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the importance of the position, and the need for an appointment can hardly come as a surprise to the government, has the minister any explanation as to why all he can do this morning is tell the House that the government has the matter under consideration? Is there any possible reason for delaying making such an important appointment?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Sir.


George Harris Hees: There is not a Liberal in the country who has a spark of energy in him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Supply and Services. Having in mind the meeting of Liberal
leaders scheduled for this weekend at Vancouver and the forthcoming further meeting on economic objectives in western Canada two days from now, will the minister give consideration to increasing that very small proportion of orders which his department places in British Columbia when letting contracts for services and supplies, which I think amount to only 5 per cent?
(Transla tion]


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the statistics with me, but if my memory serves me correctly, over the past five years, in absolute terms as well as in percentages, purchases in British Columbia have doubled. It is true that

the situation is still unsatisfactory, and for that reason we are considering opening a regional purchasing office in British Columbia, as we did recently in Edmonton.

[ English]


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr.   Ian. Arrol@York East: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister did not answer whether the government would consider some emergency action to help at least those on fixed incomes. In view of the reports from three room registry services in Toronto and the housing consultant to the Metro Social Planning Council that the increase in old age pensions has accelerated a general round of rent increases in Toronto and has left many of the poorest on pensions almost no better prepared to face-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a speech rather than asking a question. I think I have to caution hon. members again to ask their questions as briefly as possible without prefacing them by lengthy statements.


Mr. Arrol:: May I then ask the question directly, Mr. Speaker? Would the Acting Prime Minister answer the question and indicate whether any immediate action will be considered?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman, through you, for his representations. They will be taken into account.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns the 30 acres of defence land at Jericho. In view of the statements of the Minister of Urban Affairs that the government would be prepared to put housing on this land, could the Acting Prime Minister tell the House now what the policy of the government is with respect to the 30 acres? Is it for housing or is it for parkland?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be directed to the minister responsible for urban affairs who will be here on Monday.


John Allen Fraser: I am sorry the Acting Prime Minister does not know what the government's policy is-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


John Allen Fraser: -but can he advise the House where the money came from to pay the $33 million for parkland in Toronto, and would the government be prepared to take funds from the same source, apply them to the Department of National Defence, and get this land back to Vancouver for recreational purposes?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: From the reaction to the hon. member's question he will appreciate that perhaps it was not a question but rather a representation.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the meeting held in Debden, Saskatchewan, on June 21 between federal government veterinarians and farmers whose herds are affected by brucellosis or Bang's disease, when a comprehensive brief was presented to the government regarding measures which could be used to bring the disease under control, and suggestions for adequate compensation, has the minister studied this brief and has a decision been made to implement some or all of the recommendations?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with everything that the hon. member has said, which of course would be quite natural.


An hon. Member:: What is brucellosis?


Eugene Whelan: Some hon. member asks what is brucellosis. It is a disease that has the same effect as an abortion.


George Harris Hees: Explain, Gene.


Eugene Whelan: It is contagious abortion. I just want to say that we have studied the brief, and we have the utmost confidence in the Health of Animals Branch of the Canadian Department of Agriculture which has one of the best records of all health of animals branches in the world. We are studying what additional compensation should be paid to the farmers, and the report will be made soon.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: As a supplementary question, in light of the fact that, despite the wonderful record of the Health of Animals Branch, several more infected herds were discovered in the last few weeks and brucellosis is reaching epidemic proportions, when can we expect the minister to make the necessary decisions, which will be humanitarian in their approach, rather than trying to hold a club over the farmers' heads?

July 13, 1973
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Solicitor General if he would be prepared to tell the House why the U.S. drug runner Marysville, and her crew and passengers, seized two weeks ago off Vancouver Island, in a brilliant combined operation involving the RCMP and naval forces, on suspicion of smuggling $1 million worth of hashish into Canada for the illegal drug market, have now been released and are free to return to their trade if they so wish, especially as the cache of hashish-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member's novel, but I think he has reached the point where a question might be asked.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, according to the report that I have, 20 persons are charged in this case. Ten of those persons are charged with conspiracy to import narcotics and conspiracy to possess narcotics for the purpose of trafficking, and the remaining ten with conspiracy to possess a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking. I have many other details. It is a long report, but generally speaking that is the situation at the present time.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, the ship has now been released and my latest information is that she left port last evening.


William Warren Allmand: According to the information I have here the two vessels utilized in this operation have been detained under seizure, but something could have happened between the time of seizure and this morning.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Earlier in the week I asked the minister what were the reasons for the delay in sending the federal subsidy to milk producers. Receipt of the subsidy has been some three weeks late. At that time he was unaware of the situation. Can he tell the House now whether the cheques have at least been deposited with the Post Office, and the reason for the delay?


Eugene Whelan: The
reason for the delay, Mr. Speaker, is that they use computers in the department, and because of the change made by the government in increasing the payment to the farmers the adjustment to the computers took three weeks. I have been given to understand that all producers should receive their cheques by today. Most of them should have received their cheques by Tuesday or Wednesday of the past week,

and the remaining group will have theirs today or Monday.


AIRPORTS
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he explain to the House why the public announcement of the firm awarded the runway construction contract for the London airport was first made two weeks after work was started and that I, as the member representing the riding, was not notified, particularly since I had previously asked the department for this information?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire into the details and answer the hon. member.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that transportation is vital to the economic well being of the two landlocked provinces of Canada, Alberta and Saskatchewan, could the minister tell the House whether or not he will be attending the western premiers conference, and if so will he at that time be making a statement with regard to a new government transportation policy for the benefit of western provinces?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will attend the conference, and if the hon. gentleman will follow the workings of the conference he will know what I will be doing there.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might be permitted to address the question I asked yesterday of the President of the Privy Council to the Minister of Public Works. Has he caused an investigation to be made into the circumstances leading up to the rental of property on Argyle Street, Ottawa, by the Department of National Health and Welfare and, if so, is a report of that investigation available to be tabled in the House?
July 13, 1973


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have inquired and the circumstances are perfectly normal. It is a very normal transaction. The cost of space per square foot is $3.90, which is very inexpensive. There is nothing at all abnormal about the transaction.


BROADCASTING
[Stage Direction]
10, VANCOUVER-REQUEST FOR FULL CBC COVERAGE OF AREA
Mr. Harry Olaussen (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Communications. I do not know if the decision has already been made regarding this issue, but in view of the fact that the CRTC has to make a decision, resulting from hearings that took place in Vancouver on June 11, on whether channel 10 should be assigned to the CBC or to a commercial outlet, and in view of the fact that there is large public support in the outer rural areas of the B.C. coast for the CBC's application, can the minister inform us how he intends to bring full CBC national coverage to areas that may end up with another commercial network?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I conveyed to the chairman of the CRTC the representations made by another hon. member. I do not think that the decision has yet been made, unless it was taken this morning, which is unlikely, and I know that the matter is being examined by the CRTC.


Harry Magnus Olaussen: As a supplementary question, can the minister explain why the CBC's application was not mentioned in the public notice inserted in the Vancouver newspapers, in which only the commercial applications were mentioned?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's supplementary could be placed on the order paper.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In light of the recent rash of train derailments and the accusations made by some members of the CTC, and the fact that the minister some time ago promised a full report from the CTC on railroad safety, is he now in a position to table that report, or can he indicate when it will be available?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I cannot table the report for the simple reason that I have not received it. The Canadian National is now inquiring into one particular accident for which it was blamed. Notwithstanding all this, Mr. Speaker, I think I
Oral Questions
should remind hon. members that, among the ten largest railway companies in North America, Canadian National ranks fourth in terms of security and accidents. Therefore, I do not think we should blame it too much.


John Raymond Ellis: On a supplementary, I put no fault on the Canadian National, which had a very favourable-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might ask the
supplementary.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I merely want to know when we might have the CTC report on safety.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the CTC many times to rush this report because the public is worried about accidents and I am, too.


REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT OF REGULATIONS ON EDIBLE OILS AND FATS
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As a result of the regulation by the minister's department that starting December 1, edible oils and fats will only be allowed a maximum of C-22 fatty acids, is the minister considering delaying this order in view of the worldwise shortage of edible oils and the high percentage of western rapeseed that is of the high erucic variety?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the statement made by the hon. member, but as to his question I have no intention of delaying the regulations.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the extra perimeter security program which the minister has instituted, at considerable expense with regard to overtime, I should like to ask what steps he has taken to investigate the failure of that program at the Kingston penitentiary for women where an escape took place earlier this week.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the additional perimeter security program was not implemented at the women's penitentiary. It had been implemented at the medium security penitentiaries for men where certain precautions were necessary. As a result of the escape from the women's penitentiary-I may say that we recaptured the two women involved-extra precautions will be taken.

July 13, 1973
Oral Questions AIRPORTS


TORONTO INTERNATIONAL-BAGGAGE HANDLING ON CHARTER FLIGHTS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister explain why passengers on some charter flights landing at terminal No. 1 in Toronto-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the hon. member's question in a moment, but the Chair has serious doubts about inquiries made of a minister during the question period when a member begins his question by asking whether the government can give an explanation. If that is the type of information hon. members are seeking, I think these questions should be put on the order paper. Perhaps the question might be asked in another form.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I am directing the question to the minister because I receive contradictory statements from officials of his department. Why is it that passengers on some charter flights landing at terminal I in Toronto which are connecting with Air Canada flights in terminal II must carry their own baggage to terminal II rather than have it handled in the normal way?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the whole matter of the No. 2 terminal and the chartered flights is extremely complex and, if the hon. member has really a specific case in mind, he should take the trouble of advising me of it in writing and I shall provide him with a satisfactory answer.
[ English]


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley East and then call orders of the day.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the intention of the airlines to reduce the extent of the group fare policy, has the minister discussed with the Canadian Transport Commission the desirability of maintaining the group fare rates presently in effect on Air Canada and CP Air, as requested by the athletic directors of the University of British Columbia and the University of Victoria?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not discussed that matter with the CTC.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North.
[Mr. Allmand-I


INCOME TAX
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of National Revenue has the answer to a question I asked yesterday. Is he prepared to give that answer now?


Mr. Speaker:: This would require the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I can give a preliminary report to the hon member. My officers advise that as far as they can determine, no charges have been laid at the request of the Department of National Revenue, taxation branch, against persons involved in the situation to which the hon. member referred. If he wishes to give me names, I will check further.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-194, to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will implement the ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, notice of which was given at the conclusion of the budget speech on February 19, 1973. Although this bill will amend both the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, most of the amendments are to provisions of the Excise Tax Act. This is the act which imposes the general 12 per cent sales tax and certain special excise taxes.
The amendments will provide some important exemptions from sales tax. One of the most important of these new exemptions is the exemption for all children's clothing and footwear. This exemption is intended to provide relief to young families with children. These families face a constant need to replace outworn and outgrown clothing. It is estimated that this exemption will benefit families with children by about $30 million a year.
Another exemption from sales tax provided by this bill which will benefit nearly every family is the removal of sales tax from confectioneries, chocolate bars, soft drinks, juice drinks and cream and sugar substitutes. This measure will round out the existing exemption for most food products to make exempt from tax all food and drink except alcoholic beverages. This exemption will benefit

Canadian consumers to the extent of approximately $70 million a year.
There are also important sales tax exemptions for municipalities. Clause 4 will provide an exemption from sales tax for materials used to construct an incinerator to be owned by a municipality. This exemption also covers machinery and apparatus to be used in such an incinerator. The exemption will be provided by making payment to a municipality of an amount equal to the sales tax included in the price of the goods used to construct and equip an incinerator. This is the method followed in several other parts of the act to deal with situations where the eventual owner acquires a completed structure from contractors. Municipalities will also benefit from the exemption for instruments and materials they purchase to detect and measure pollution.
The bill will repeal the special 10 per cent excise tax on toilet articles and cosmetics. These goods are very widely used and I think hon. members will agree they should no longer be subject to special taxation. The bill will also repeal the special excise tax on all clocks and watches except to the extent that their price when sold by a manufacturer, or their duty paid value if imported, exceeds $50.
In addition, there are a number of other amendments which are technical or consequential in nature or which affect products not in widespread use. With the exception of clause 3, which corrects an oversight in legislation passed in 1971 and has very limited application, all the amendments are relieving. With regard to the title of the bill, it will be noted that both the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act are to be amended. The Excise Act imposes taxes, referred to as duties of excise, upon alcohol, alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. It is necessary to amend the Excise Act only because there is a cross-reference in it to the special excise tax on toilet goods and cosmetics which is described in the Excise Tax Act and which is being repealed.
That is all I want to say at the present time, Mr. Speaker. I shall be glad to provide more details to the House or to the committee with regard to particular amendments when the bill is being considered in committee.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, this particular part of the budget, other than the removal of the 10 per cent special excise tax on cosmetics, I suppose, has no great sex appeal and certainly no great public interest. I come to the point that I have made time and time again, that a budget bill should be considered as quickly as possible after the presentation of the budget.
A practice has crept in over the past several years, particularly under this administration, of delaying debate on bills that have been brought in to implement the budgetary measures proposed by the Minister of Finance. They are debated many months afterwards. I admit that there must be some interval for industry and those affected to consider the implications of the minister's budgetary provisions, so they can make representations to the government or write to the member of parliament asking him to put forward their points of view. But this idea of bringing forward these measures some six months after
Excise Tax
their announcement, after the event, so to speak, is wrong both from the point of view of the House and of the public.
We have now reached the point of considering these proposals. May I say, as one who has followed Customs tariff changes, that many people are being adversely affected by these tax measures. Many farmers will be hit hard With regard to this year's crop, for instance. Many fruit and vegetable growers are being hard hit this year, and any representations that they may make through their members in this House will be after the event. If the government's heart should be moved to make any changes with regard to these proposals, that action will be too late as it will be ex post facto.
Having said that, I want to say that in essence there is no section of this bill or principle of it that members of the official opposition would oppose. We would have liked to see different types of changes in the excise tax. Sales tax should have been reduced generally rather than on a selective basis. Apparently the government has taken it off certain items which have been the subject of a good deal of attention or pressure during past years. Rather than taking it off children's clothing or confectionery products and saying that the taxpayers of Canada, or the consumers of Canada, will be saved so much, it would have been better if the minister had brought about a general reduction of the sales tax.
I say that because of the great number of people who are to be given relief under the Income Tax Act, if they are in the position to pay income tax. I refer to old age pensioners and many people on lower incomes. It is no good granting income tax relief to them; they are not even getting a piece of the cake. But everybody has to pay sales tax of one sort or other. Every adult pays it for clothing, and for most of the things we purchase we pay the 12 per cent sales tax at the manufacturers' level no matter whether the goods are manufactured in or imported into Canada.
I would have thought that, as an alternative, the minister could have given serious consideration to reducing the sales tax in Canada from 12 per cent to 10 per cent. The minister could utilize the abundance of funds that he seems to have, as we see that budgetary surpluses are ever mounting as a result of inflation, since he is dealing in dollars. Bringing about a general reduction in the level of federal sales tax would be instrumental in combating rising prices. It must be remembered that the disparity between tax exempt goods and taxed goods is very wide as a result of the 12 per cent sales tax that is imposed at the manufacturers' level. This disparity is compounded by the profit margins taken in the distribution of goods. In effect, it compounds the inflationary thrust that we are and have been experiencing in Canada.
The minister has suggested changes with regard to personal income tax to partially counter the effect of inflation. There will be the indexing of incomes and as a result we shall eliminate the self-interest that the government may have in progressive inflation, because under a so-called progressive rate income tax system, the higher incomes rise as a result of inflation, the greater is the
5592

Excise Tax
percentage of those incomes that the government takes in taxes. That results in higher government revenues.
The same applies to commodity taxes. By bringing about a general reduction in commodity taxes the minister could have avoided taking advantage of inflation and so have alleviated the conditions of people who are not income taxpayers. He could have eased for them the impact of the ever-increasing rake-off or skimming-off that is experienced as a result of the sales tax. The same may be said about provincial sales taxes. Instead of lowering sales taxes, some provinces have increased sales taxes and some may increase them even more.
I say that a general reduction in such taxes would have been my first alternative, or my first option, if I had been in the minister's shoes. Indeed, the benefits for the total Canadian population will be greater if there is a general reduction in the sales tax. That would be better than reducing the tax on specific items. Apparently the minister has set aside that proposition. At least, he may have considered it but he put it aside in favour of selective cuts.
So far as children's clothing is concerned, this proposal is fine. It benefits people with young children. It does not benefit those, whatever their income range may be, who have teenage children. In this day and age many young children are bigger and heavier than was the case in the past. There is a tendency for our population to produce bigger and taller children. The Canadian population is growing in size. We certainly notice it when we come to middle age, but it is not that kind of thing I am looking at.


Mr. Baldwin:: Not with present food prices.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: The hon. member should speak for himself.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am speaking for myself. I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) lives on tea and arrowroot biscuits. The hon. member's reputation for this is well known in the House. As he celebrated his sixty-fifth birthday a short while ago, I thought it as well to put his idiosyncrasies on record. He has a well known reputation for being a tea and arrowroot biscuit fellow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that is not the case with the hon. member for Edmonton centre (Mr. Paproski).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That means that all the constituencies in Edmonton are solidly represented. A generation ago, if we looked at high school students who turned out for a football team it was rare to see one weighing over 200 pounds. Today it is not uncommon to see 15-year and 16-year olds, who are not fat boys, weighing 240 pounds; and are over six feet tall. They are big, husky young men. So I am saying that families having larger children will not benefit from this elimination of sales tax on children's clothing, because children's clothing is measured by sizes. Some people will benefit from the elimination of this sales tax because their children are very small. It is surprising the number of people this affects. There may be some difficulty.
|Mr Lambert (Edmonton West).]
The other day I received a letter which proposed that in order to qualify for the tax exemption on children's clothing, those children attending school up to a certain level should be able to use their identification card to purchase tax exempt clothing for their own use. This would benefit children of all sizes in this age group. One 12-year old child may weigh 150 pounds and be five feet six inches tall. Another 12-year old may weigh only 120 pounds and barely reach five feet. Under this proposal the effect would be the same for both.
In the administration of the elimination of sales tax on children's clothing, some sort of formula should be devised that is much more equitable in so far as the taxpayer is concerned than mere reliance upon a certain size. I do not know what size a 12-year old would wear. Possibly they would need a 14X, or something like that. It has been a long time since my family grew out of children's clothing. I would not call my 17-year old a child; he would not appreciate it. The benefit should be passed on to all taxpayers, not only those with normal sized or small children.
I now wish to deal with the question of confectionery products. I daresay the soft drinks, chocolate and sweet biscuit industries will be quite happy with this provision. Whether the general consumer will benefit from it, I do not know. It may be this 12 per cent tax relief will be used to counteract a potential price increase and therefore serve for a time as a cushion against the inflationary push that these industries face as much as everyone else: thers is no doubt they have to pay increased wages and taxes. But what about the general consumer? For years I have read the arguments and briefs presented by the soft drinks and confectionery products industries. The same can be said for many others. This is a selective cut. I hope the Canadian manufacturers and distributors of these commodities will pass on the tax relief to the consumer. We will see.
The special 10 per cent tax on toilet articles and cosmetics is being removed. This is highly selective and, I think, arbitrary. I do not know how much of this type of product is manufactured in Canada, but a good case can be made for costume and other jewelry manufactured here. The special 10 per cent impost on Canadian-manufactured and other jewelry increases the eventual retail price at which the Canadian manufacturer and distributor of Canadian produced goods has to compete with imported goods. They have a hard enough time as it is.
The 10 per cent special excise taxes which remain are an anachronism. The minister could have dispensed with them all along the line. Increases in revenues from other sources would soon make up for the elimination of this tax. The 10 per cent excise tax is the remnant of a World War II tax. It was supposed to be a temporary tax. The only thing that seems to outlast temporary taxes are the temporary buildings in Ottawa: they have much greater longevity and much greater endurance. If we get rid of this tax, maybe then we can get rid of the temporary buildings.
What is the value of the $50 limitation on clocks and watches? I hope the minister can explain this in his reply or when we deal with it in committee of the whole. Only the large manufacturers who mass-produce will benefit from this provision. The minister need only go to the
July 13, 1973

market to find this out. Does the $50 represent the manufacturer's list price or the retail price? I hardly think it would be possible to design a clock or a watch to sell for $50 in order to qualify for the exemption. The limitation has been placed at $50. At what precise level will the $50 apply? It seems to me it would have to be the manufacturer's cost or the cost of the import, otherwise retail merchants' sales, and so on, will introduce an element of uncertainty into the whole thing that will make it impossible. I hope I am not setting up an Aunt Sally or straw-man merely to attack this provision. It is a question that has come to mind, and I think we should have some precision in these measures.
The last point-some of my colleagues will be dealing with this later-refers to the unfortunate decision of the minister to limit himself to a selective reduction of sales tax. He has failed to do anything with regard to building materials. My party will be examining this question at greater length after the luncheon interval. I commend the minister for the provision allowing municipalities to get a refund of sales tax on materials used in the building of incinerators. I would hope the same assistance could be extended to industry. It is not only the municipalities which use incinerators.
There is, of course, a pollution problem facing us. It seems to me that rather than make grants toward the construction and installation of machinery to control pollution whether at the municipal, public level or the industrial level, we should use the tax system to provide a program of incentives combined with forgivable loans. I know there is a program in operation already, but I am inclined to think it is only a half-hearted one at a time when we should really go all out with respect to arrangements to assist both industry and local government to control pollution.
It is the Canadian public, in the end, who will have to pay for the elimination of pollution. This is as certain as we are all standing or sitting in this room. What steps are to be taken? Do we insist that manufacturers shall install the necessary controls and pay the entire cost? The result would be to increase the price of the commodities produced. And who will pay the increased price? The Canadian consumer. Do we insist that municipalities install new sewage works for the advanced treatment of sewage? Who will pay for them? The residents of the municipalities, with money taken out of taxes. There is no magic formula, no money tree. It is a great disincentive when government says to an industry or a municipality that it must install pollution control devices under compulsion, with little or nothing by way of assistance. In the case of municipalities it probably means an increase in taxes. Mr. Speaker, there are all sorts of reasons why municipalities do not wish to increase taxes. Sometimes, indeed, they cannot do so. Sometimes they cannot borrow money because they have already passed their borrowing limit based on possible assessments.
Let us, then, work through our tax system, through forgiveness of income tax, through forgiveness of sales tax. Let us more forward. After all, if a demand is thus created for certain types of products, certain types of anti-pollution devices, there will be increased activity in 26446-631
Excise Tax
the industries concerned; more income tax will be paid by those firms and by their employees, and the net cost to the government will be much less than the gross cost. It seems to me we must look at these programs always on the basis of the net cost to government. The provision we are considering here is a step in the right direction.
I hope there will be co-operation from other areas of government which can assist the municipalities in sewage control and garbage collection. After all, the littering of city streets, and so forth, arises through a defect in personal habits. Littering is not a pollution problem but a personal problem. A great deal of the pollution along our highways and in the streets of our cities is simply the result of bad personal habits. Let us get together in a concerted program to deal with these matters. In the end, I am sure we shall find it far cheaper to use our tax system to provide an incentive to industry and to municipalities to deal effectively with pollution rather than force them, as we say in French, au pied du mur, by placing them under compulsion and obliging them to install this equipment under pressure.
There are other points in this bill to be covered but, as I said when I began, we are generally in favour of what is being done and I hope that by the end of the debate this day we shall have completed all stages of the bill.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us could be known as the Minister of Finance's candy, chocolate bar and soft drink bill. Its intention is to eliminate the tax on confectionery, soft drinks, and so on. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) becomes the candyman. Our party supports the bill in general although there are a number of points I should like to raise, two of which particularly concern me. I also want to say at the outset that I hope we can deal expeditiously with this measure and get it through the House this afternoon. The same applies with respect to the bill which is to follow.
As the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert)
has said, the bill before us removes the federal sales tax from a number of items. I am glad to learn that the Minister of Finance is to monitor the effect of these cuts, particularly of those concerning foodstuffs, soft drinks, confectionery and children's clothing to determine whether the consumers will actually derive any benefit.
The minister told us that the cost to the treasury of the removal of the sales tax from children's clothing and footwear would be some $30 million annually, and from food and drinks about $70 million annually. This amounts to some $100 million lost in revenue. 1 wonder whether it will really get back to the consumer. My fear is that it will not. Maybe I am shopping in the wrong places, but it seems to me that the cost of soft drinks, for example, has actually gone up since the budget, and that the price of many of the other items named in the bill have also increased. If this is the case, the $100 million will in fact have gone to the corporations which produce these commodities; it will be a windfall and a rip-off for them.
When taxes on certain items are cut in order to benefit the consumer, the government should make sure that those benefits are actually passed on to the consumers of the country. This does not always happen, of course. For

July 13, 1973
Excise Tax
example, I recall that in the midsixties-I was not a member of the House at that time-the federal government removed the sales tax from prescription drugs. I think there had been an 11 per cent sales tax in operation.
I recall noting at the time that the price of drugs did not decrease; instead, it continued to increase at its regular rate. So the cut did not benefit the consumers but served to increase the profits of the companies producing drugs.
The same is true, I fear, of many other actions taken by parliament in the hope of helping ordinary citizens. I cannot help thinking that the meagre increases in the old age pension which are made from time to time fail in their purpose because landlords take the opportunity to increase rents, and those who run nursing homes for the elderly raise their prices. This is a matter of real concern to me.
I hope the minister will tell us when we get to the clause by clause study in committee whether he believes the $100 million being remitted will actually be passed on to the consumer. If it is not, it might have been wiser to use the $100 million annually to provide increased family allowances. We could have put it into the Canada Assistance Plan, or perhaps even into old age pensions to help those in this country who really need additional purchasing power. If the minister can prove otherwise, I will be pleased, because I think in general sales taxes are regressive taxes and ultimately should be removed from all items which are consumer-oriented, as all people have to purchase things such as drugs, clothing and food. I think this is a very good measure if these tax benefits are actually passed on to the consumer.
As the hon. member for Edmonton West said, sales tax is a regressive tax because everyone must purchase clothing, food, shelter, fuel, and so on, in their daily lives. It does not matter how poor a family is; in the wintertime in Canada it must have fuel. It does not matter how rich or poor people may be; they need food and clothing. When you have a sales tax on these items you are taxing the people who are poor in a much harder and more direct way than you are taxing the middle-class and upper-income people.
I am pleased the minister has brought forth these changes in the Excise Act as this will eliminate sales tax on many items important to consumers. At the same time, I cannot help but re-emphasize the fact that the minister should be monitoring these tax cuts. He should get up in the House and say to what extent the consumer is benefiting from the $100 million tax cut. He should inform us whether this is a benefit or just another corporate rip-off, a windfall to the companies that produce children's clothing and footwear and confectionery goods like chocolate bars and soft drinks. If that is the case, the minister should say to these companies they must pass on these benefits to the consumer. If they do not, she should then take much tougher action in taxing the companies or dictating to them what they must do in the future.
The purpose of this bill is to give the consumer, the ordinary person, a break. This legislation should result in the ordinary person getting an advantage from the tax cuts. I will not go over the tax cuts themselves as they are

pretty general and deal with a number of areas involving food and clothing, etc. This measure is welcomed because the price of these items is increasing very rapidly.
There are a couple of minor points I wish to raise in terms of the necessity of reducing the tax. I see, for example, in clause 5 that the special 10 per cent excise tax on toiletries is to be repealed. Many toiletry items are used by all citizens and the tax on them should be repealed, but some of the items here are more in the luxury line and the tax perhaps should not be repealed. I am sure members like the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) and others from the north would not be interested in the removal of tax on special perfumes and scents.


An hon. Member:: Those are for our girlfriends.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I note that the special tax on deodorants, creams for preserving and restoring the skin, depilatories and various kinds of soap is being repealed. Perhaps these are for girlfriends, as the hon. member has suggested, and perhaps some of these items are necessary; but I am inclined to think some of them are luxury items. If that is the case, they are purchased by people who can afford to pay increased prices, and the excise tax would go to the consolidated revenue fund and could be used in giving citizens more purchasing power, particularly those in the lower income groups. There are toiletry items on which the sales tax should be removed, such as toothpaste, toiletries for babies and items of that sort, but I wonder about some of these other items.
I note that the maximum applied to clocks is $50. I think that is good. This will cover most watches and clocks, people who want more expensive items can well afford to pay the excise tax. I am pleased to note the reference in this bill to the repayment or rebatement to municipalities of taxes on certain equipment such as incinerators and equipment to reduce pollution. This is something municipalities have been urging for a number of years and I welcome this part of the bill. I am also pleased that the tax will be removed from items produced or manufactured by those who are blind, deaf and dumb, mentally retarded, and so on. This provision will give them a break in the production of these goods and services.
I conclude by saying I hope this bill goes through very quickly. Basically it is good. There is only one thing I really want to insist upon, and that is that the minister satisfy the House and the country that the $100 million to which he has referred, in terms of reduced taxes as a result of this measure, will be passed on to the consumers of this country. The minister must satisfy us that the $70 million in relation to the removal of sales tax on soft drinks, confectioneries, and so on, will actually go to the consumer in the form of reduced prices for soft drinks, candy bars and other foods, and that the $30 million in relation to the removal of sales tax on children's clothing and footwear will actually go to those who purchase these items.
Like the hon. member for Edmonton West, I think sales tax should be removed from all clothing, not just children's clothing because, as the hon. member suggested, there are children of various sizes and shapes. Many of us, like myself and the hon. member for Edmonton West,
July 13, 1973

outgrew children's sizes at a very young age. I think the minister would have been more progressive had he taken the sales tax off all clothing and footwear in this country, not just for children but for senior citizens, old age pensioners and others. Had he done that, this would be a more equitable tax system, and the additional revenues needed because of the removal of this sales tax could easily be made up through a more progressive income tax system, by plugging some of the loopholes and by taxing the extracting industries and resource companies at the higher rate which they should be paying.
[ Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-194 which aims at removing the tax on certain items is an innovation, I believe, in Parliament. We are in the habit of always increasing taxes rather than reducing them.
This bill provides for a tax reduction on certain items. However, there is a clause of the bill which increases from 9 to 12 per cent the tax on old age security pension. At the same time, taxes are being reduced on cosmetics, candies, soft drinks and at a time when the minister wants to explain the logic of this tax reduction, we can read in this morning's papers that the price of milk will increase again next month. We shall pay less for soft drinks and a little more for milk, which is an invitation to drink Coke rather than milk.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who preceded me has said something quite logical, that the sales tax on children's clothing should be totally abolished. Instead of introducing a series of bills, such as Bills C-192, C-193 and C-194- the latter's purpose being to reduce the sales tax on certain items-the minister should have set about adjusting direct taxation and working to suppress indirect taxation. It is all very well to say: we won't pay taxes to clothe our children, but some families have incomes below the poverty line and they have to go on paying taxes on the clothes they need.
It therefore seems to me that direct taxation would be more logical than this type of indirect taxation. In fact, the bill provides that children will be tax-exempt, but that parents, whether rich or poor, will have to pay. In my view, everyone should be on an equal footing.
One very important point-and I congratulate the minister for having thought of it-is the abolition of the sales tax on purchases by municipalities. The latter will be reimbursed for the taxes paid on materials which they need. For years we have been asking that municipalities be given such favourable treatment, for until now they have been forced to pay like everyone else. The result was that the taxpayer paid higher municipal taxes because the municipalities were paying taxes to the federal government. I hope that this clause will prompt municipalities to take into consideration tax exemptions on building materials they need, and God knows that they need building materials to proceed with the works to be done.
Mr. Speaker, despite a few shortcomings Bill C-194 represents yet a substantial improvement over what existed to date. Later we will discuss the bill clause by clause and I do not think that anybody in this House would
Excise Tax
object to certain classes of Canadians paying lower taxes and sales tax in several areas.
However, I still maintain that the indirect tax is a sneaky levy that everybody has to pay, whether rich or poor, when we could have had a direct tax adjustment so that those who earn less would pay less and those who earn more would pay more and the whole population could benefit from it as well.
The whole population does not benefit from indirect taxes in the same way. The rich have no difficulty; it is the poor, and there are a lot of them in Canada, who suffer. A well off family with eight or ten children will no longer pay any sales tax on clothing while another family with an annual income of perhaps less than $5,000 and with five, six, or eight children as well will have to pay the usual tax and will be exempted in the same way as the family earning $25,000 or $30,000 a year.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) should have introduced a legislation affecting the entire Canadian population and taking into consideration the position of every family in Canada within the limits of their family operation. In any case, the bill is yet an improvement, and as to its shortcomings I hope that one day they will be eliminated or corrected so as to improve the well-being of the Canadian population and Canadian families, all Canadian municipalities and provinces.
[ English]


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) in seeking a general reduction in the sales tax added to many commodities purchased by Canadian consumers. I refer in particular to the way in which the sales tax has remained on items of jewellery, many of which cannot really be considered luxuries. Unless I am misinformed, wedding rings still have a special tax imposed upon them. It would seem to me that if a reform were made in this respect, it certainly would not be a disaster to the Canadian economy and it would be a great help to the individuals involved. It might even be considered a noble gesture toward an institution that can do a certain amount of support these days.
I hope that the minister will consider the way in which, to a large degree, an unnecessary tax is maintained upon many products of an industry that is bearing more than its share of the tax burden of the country. We know that through confiscatory income tax policies, the government is now generating far more income tnan it can sometimes find ways to spend it. Certainly it should be easing the situation of consumers.
As well, I should like to make a very brief plea to the minister to reconsider the laudable reform that the bill is making in permitting some tax relief to industries that employ handicapped persons provided the industry is operated by a certified institution. I suggest to the minister that consideration be given to people who are selfemployed because they are handicapped, and who cannot work for large corporations but are doing their best to be self-supporting. They need this kind of assistance. They are as much in need as any institution, whether it is high-priced bureaucracy or an organized association.

July 13, 1973
Excise Tax


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret it very much, but I have to remind hon. members that it is one o'clock. The House will resume its work at 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, there are a few things I would like to say on several clauses of this bill which deal closely with the everyday living of people and families, particularly those people in the middle and lower income groups. First I want to refer to the clause which removes the federal sales tax on children's clothing and footwear. The minister says that this will save consumers about $30 million a year. I am very glad to hear that. I should like to find out on what the minister bases his calculations and whether they work in practice. From what I can find out, there was an almost immediate drop in the cost of children's clothing and children's footwear after the budget announcement. In the month of March the price of children's clothing decreased by 4.2 per cent and children's footwear by 3.4 per cent following the removal of the federal sales tax.
In April, the price of children's wear remained the same but the prices of some of these items were offset by others. In May there was a slight rise in the children's wear index of half of 1 per cent, and in June the children's wear index rose by .4 per cent. Between April and May there was an increase of 1 per cent in all footwear. Apparently there are no separate figures available for children's footwear but just an over-all figure for all footwear. In spite of the fact that apparently there has been a very slight increase in prices again-the main drop in the month following the budget was 4.2 per cent for children's wear and 3.4 per cent for children's footwear-prices have remained fairly steady. I am glad this is so, and I hope it will continue because these items are of considerable concern to families on lower incomes in particular.
Of course, there are other considerations that have to be offset against these factors. For instance, the end of March is when children's winter clothing is appearing in the sales. This may have had some effect on the price level; I do not know. However, I do know that some of us are most anxious to find out whether this saving of $30 million is going to reach the consumer or whether it is going to be absorbed somewhere before the consumer gets it. The same thing obtains in the section of the bill concerning the removal of federal sales tax on food and drink for human consumption. Here again, the minister said the consumer will save approximately $70 million. Again, I should like to have something very substantial on how the minister calculates this and how he is going to guarantee it. That is a round figure of $100 million for children's wear, footwear, food and drink.


John Napier Turner: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What I said this morning was that the

tax representing children's clothing was about $70 million, and the tax representing the other consumer goods was $30 million. The question is, of course, to find out how much of that is passed on to the consumer. I did not put it in the terms that the hon. member puts it, namely, that the consumer will have saved that amount. That is what the tax represents. The question is how the tax will be passed on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order but is perhaps something that could be answered when we go into committee.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that you rebuked the minister, because I am glad to get this comment. It underlines what I am now going to say, which is that either the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray), or both-certainly the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-said some time ago that he had set up a monitoring agency to make sure that in the case of food and drink the savings were passed on to the consumer. There has been a lot of inquiry, particularly on the matter of soft drinks, about how that monitoring agency is getting along, what it is doing, what it has monitored and whether it has found that the savings are being passed along.
If the minister would like to get up and report on that, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will not discourage him, because I would like very much to hear about it. Some of us on this side of the House are a bit inclined to doubt that the monitoring agency exists outside the mind of the minister. Maybe it does, but we have not had any proof of its existence up to this point and we would like very much to know whether the monitoring agency is monitoring, what it has found, and if these savings are being passed to the consumer. Many hon. members have had correspondence, as I have, indicating that far from there being savings, the cost of soft drinks in the stores has been going up.
I should like very much to know how this is working. After all, it is a very good thing to take off the tax, but if the saving remains some place in the food chain and does not get to the consumer, we are not getting very far in relieving the cost of living for the consumer. I think it is a very good idea to take the sales tax off these things, but I cannot help wishing that the minister and the government would not be so ready, every time we want to see action taken, to place selective controls and curbs on those foodstuffs necessary for a good, nourishing diet, to jump so quickly into the breach and say they have taken the tax off pop, gum and candy, because we know that pop, gum and candy are no substitute for good food. They may be like the baby soothers of old days and fill the hole in the mouth to get people quietened down, but they are no substitute for good, nourishing food.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: There are a lot of people in the country who, while welcoming the removal of the sales tax from these items of clothing, food and drink, are very disappointed that the government is not doing more-in fact, is not doing anything to see that the cost of living is brought down on those items of foodstuffs
July 13, 1973

so necessary for a good diet. I see the minister smiles, and probably he is thinking that I am preaching a counsel of perfection to the government over there; but one of these days I think the government will move in this direction because they will have to. At the moment, members of the Liberal government are at a meeting in Vancouver figuring out, not only how the west was won years ago but how the west is going to be won again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Never.


Winona Grace MacInnis: If they could figure along the lines of holding the cost of living at a level where people can afford to live properly, then I think they might find it could be won again. But the west will not be won merely by removing federal sales tax. This is a step, but a small one.
I cannot resist this opportunity to say that we wish, even if the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is not interested in our food committee recommendations for putting food on the tables of those who need proper nutritions food, that in conjunction with the efforts of the provinces the minister would take that up as a crusade. It would be a step forward if we could have the lower income families of this country properly nourished. Then we would not need to spend the taxpayers' money on all those institutions that are made necessary because of bad nourishment. I am speaking of medical hospitals, mental hospitals and homes for retarded children, to say nothing of institutions coming under the authority of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), to which people must be sent because we were not far-seeing enough to introduce measures that would make it pssible for people to keep well in body and in mind.
I want to touch on the clause having to do with sales tax on goods manufactured or produced in Canada. I am pleased to see what has been done with regard to sales tax on goods produced by the labour of individuals who are handicapped in various ways, that is, who are mentally retarded or in any way physically or mentally handicapped. I think that section is very good indeed.
Those of us who have been around our riding know that there are various sheltered workshops, training places, hospitals and other institutions where people suffering under various physical and mental handicaps work. We know those people produce very fine pieces of handicraft. This provision will help considerably in the sale of those products. Not only will it help in the selling of the products; it will also help in the publicizing and educational work that is carried on as a result of the sale of these products. That will help to get others more involved in the lives of these people, many of whom have suffered very severe calamities, physical or mental. I congratulate the minister for having introduced that provision. I think it will really help. Many make their living in this way. Such work helps to boost the morale of people who must remain in institutions.
These sections, of course, are good, but do not go far enough because they apply a band-aid to a really bad wound that needs much more antiseptic and cleansing treatment than the minister has been prepared to provide
Excise Tax
so far. For instance, I do not think there should be a sales tax on a whole lot of the necessaries of life. I do not see why we must stop at children's footwear and clothing. Adults need footwear and clothing too-except those who frequent nudist camps in ridings where there have been certain difficulties in this regard. We need this relief, all of us, not only children, not only the handicapped. So I hope that the minister, having taken the first good, but timid and hesitant steps along these lines will continue moving in the direction in which he has begun to move. Finally, let me make clear that it is my party's intention to support this legislation.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words about this bill. I shall divide my comments into two parts, the first having to do with sales tax and the second with a specific area of concern at which I hope the minister will look in future.
When prices are rising rapidly and when the supply of goods is reasonably abundant, it is generally conceded that a reduction ir sales tax is good because it will ht lp everybody across the board, but especially those on lower incomes. Man;' tables show that those on lower incomes spend, proportionately, a great deal of their incomes in taxes. It is generally conceded that sales tax is the item that takes most of their money in taxes because their income tax payments are not too high.
In the budget address the minister, according to the report on page 1438 of Hansard, said that although sales taxes are to be reduced by $190 million, revenues for 1973-74 will still be $200 million more, according to the forecast, than they were in 1972-73. This indicates that there was room for further cuts in this area. Some thought, in view of our high rate of inflation, that the cut would be in the order of $500 million, and some even guessed it might be as high as $1 billion. In any event, I suggest it would have been timely if the minister had cut sales tax, particularly on personal items.
I believe that the sales tax on many items of personal use could have been eliminated. I regret that the minister did not make such cuts, as government revenues are high, almost too high for comfort, indicating that we may be overtaxed. Of course, the year is not yet over and previous forecasts may need to be revised. I think that cutting sales taxes at a time of rising prices would have been of value in combating inflation.
The other area of concern about which I have received representations is that to do with fur farming. Within the last three years many fur farmers have gone out of business because fur prices have been falling. They have complained that furs are classified as luxuries. Probably they were luxuries in days gone by. Now, when the uninitiated go into a store it is hard for them to tell the difference between imitation fur and the real thing. I believe the government should examine this complaint and this aspect of taxation and place garments made of fur on the same basis as garments made of other fibres, synthetic or otherwise, in order to make furs competitive with other materials.
It is said that, with more expensive clothing, style is the great factor in determining price. I submit that it is not reasonable to assume any more that a fur garment is, of

July 13, 1973
Excise Tax
necessity, a luxury when other garments that look the same are not considered luxuries. I point out that the number of fur farmers is relatively small. These fur farmers are usually scattered around the countryside. We all bemoan the fact that so many people are leaving rural areas. I believe the minister should do something to help stabilize the fur industry. True, the price of furs has improved in the last year mainly because of the so-called long-fur trend. Besides fur farmers there are many people in my riding who make their income partially from trapping; they are Metis, Indians and others who do not normally earn much. I suggest that the minister take off or reduce the tax on fur garments. He should at least look at this idea with a view to making fur garments more competitive with garments made of other materials.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words with respect to section 4 of the bill having to do with payments to municipalities of an amount equal to taxes. I notice that the government has seen fit in that clause to authorize payment with respect to machinery and apparatus that has to do with incinerators owned by municipalities and operated for purposes of garbage disposal. That is to be commended, but it does not seem to apply to specialized motor vehicles, with their specialized motor equipment, which are really part and parcel of the whole of this new process of incineration of garbage by municipalities.
I wonder whether the minister might consider an amendment to the bill to deal with these specialized motor vehicles, the packer trucks and the equipment used in connection with this kind of garbage operation, and grant the same kind of generous payment upon application as is granted to the municipality, because these vehicles feed the incinerators. I quite understand not including the maintenance of office equipment, which is not closely related, but this is merely an adjunct of equipment. This is the part of the incinerator that goes along the streets. When dealing with this matter, I ask the minister to consider extending this very generous provision to the equipment that is used to feed the incinerator which is now exempt.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. McCleave in the chair.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, this clause requires an explanation by the minister. I am wondering, with the repeal of the 3 per cent and the changes of the Income Tax Act, whether all the necessary income into the consolidated revenue with regard to old age security falls under the one heading of 12 per cent. Will the minister tell us how he has been able to justify the collection of the 3 per cent which hitherto was applicable under the Excise Tax Act to the old age security fund? The provision had always been 9 per cent. We are now changing it to 12 per cent. Obviously there is a gap.

How can the minister justify the collection under the act, when the act did not specify 12 per cent? It must be remembered there was no statement by the minister that he was changing the act at that time. If there has been, as the explanatory note indicates, a lacuna-something that was forgotten-regardless of whether it was forgotten intentionally or not, there is still no authority to collect the tax.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, no one noticed the oversight. Of course, the tax was continually paid and collected. Indeed, in expectation of this amendment correcting the oversight the parliamentary rule affecting imposition of sales tax is applied.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That may not be quite good enough. Perhaps the minister can refresh our memories as to when the consolidation took place and if there was a lacuna. I suspect the changes were made last year. I do not have a revised copy of the act in my hand. The minister will be able to inform us precisely of the date the changes were made to the Old Age Security Act. We want to be very careful that this is not just a retroactive cover-up. If there was a gap, there has been an impropriety in collecting a tax which was not authorized.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with a very narrow point here in the sense that the paragraph to be amended deals only with a motor vehicle, tractor or machine being operated as a motor vehicle or tractor-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am sorry.


John Napier Turner: This is only in situations where articles are purchased free of sales tax and diverted to a use for which they are taxable. I think there were probably fewer than five instances of that. We are not aware of any instances during the period in question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I realize we are into the general area here. As I recall it, this is the old logging and farming equipment clause where original equipment, outside of casual use, is to be used for a specific purpose. This is the authority for going back and reassessing. The question is that the act only provided for 9 per cent. If it is now 12 per cent, and even though the gap was there previously, I do not think it is quite fair to the taxpayers, regardless of how few there are, to have to pay that amount.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member should know that this is trying to correct the situation where something is purchased free of sales tax by a provincial government-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Or a farmer.


John Napier Turner: -or a farmer and resold within a five-year period. Then the tax is applied. This is not unfair to those people. We are not aware of any transactions that have taken place within the period. We have not received any complaints. I have not been advised by my people of any instances that would be covered by the point raised by the hon. member.
July 13, 1973


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have one last point. Obviously these cases come to light after the event and there is a reassessment. If the sales took place during the period of a lacuna, obviously the Minister of National Revenue will impose that tax which was payable under the law applicable at the time of the transaction.


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Chairman. That would be my recommendation to him.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Payment to Municipality of amount equal to tax
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister has indicated that instead of making a statement at the end of second reading he would reply during this stage to suggestions or proposals made by hon. members during the debate. I have in mind the suggestions put forward by my hon. friend from Grenville-Carleton. I admit the minister cannot amend the bill at this time, because a considerable amount of change would be required in order to give effect to these proposals. But the comments have been made and I am sure the minister would wish to say something about the views expressed by my hon. friend. I should also like to hear the minister comment on the recommendations I made with regard to pollution abatement or control equipment, and an extension generally of the philosophy behind the somewhat ad hoc program which is now operative.


John Napier Turner: Perhaps I might deal first with the point raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. Motor vehicles were, of course, deliberately excluded for the obvious reason that if they were exempted now, the cost would we well beyond what was contemplated. However, I will bear in mind the point the hon. member made, and at some time in the future it may well be that the good sense of what he says will get home to me.
As to the general question raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West and the suggestions he made, may I say that the Department of Finance is collaborating with the Department of the Environment to see that the incentives about which he spoke are applied, through the Income Tax Act, to the industry engaged in the manufacture of antipollution equipment in a way which would ensure that the polluter is given an incentive to install such equipment by way of deferred capital cost allowance.
I know that the technique of capital cost allowance was not liked in some quarters of the House, but it is one way of accelerating the efforts of many companies in this country to install anti-pollution devices without unduly affecting the cost structure of those industries. I agree with the general strategy suggested by the hon. member and we are seeking, in co-ordination with the Department of the Environment, to adopt a cohesive, over-all approach.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister.
Clause 46(4) of Bill C-194 stipulates that the following items will be exempt from excise tax:
(a) materials for use exclusively in the construction of, or
Excise Tax
(b) machinery or apparatus (including equipment to be installed in a chimney or smoke stack) and repair and replacement parts therefor (but not including motor vehicles,-
But, with regard to mechanization, does the minister provide exemption in his bill for the machinery that may be used in the incinerator chimney?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
[ English]


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I wish to deal with clause 5 which concerns clocks and watches, custom jewelry, and so forth. Jewelry is dealt with in paragraph 8 of schedule 1. It also carries a 10 per cent impost. There is a continuation of the enactment of certain excise taxes on all the items covered by paragraph 8.


John Napier Turner: As to watches, I am wondering whether the hon. gentleman may not have misunderstood the clause. There is an exemption from sales tax with respect to the amount of $50, no matter what the price of the watch might be.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will admit that I did misapply the effect of the reduction in tax. The minister is maintaining, in other words, a taxable ceiling of $50 with respect to all clocks and watches; therefore, the person who would benefit is the purchaser of the more expensive watch.


John Napier Turner: No.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister says it is a percentage of the amount by which the sales tax or duty paid value exceeds $50?


John Napier Turner: That is the tax.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is the amount on which the 10 per cent is levied?


John Napier Turner: Yes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Then my original proposition is correct. As I understand it, there will be an exemption if the watch costs less than $50. If it costs more, it will be liable for tax. But that is not how it reads.


John Napier Turner: Every watch is exempt on the first $50. In other words, if it costs $50 there is no sales tax. If it costs $100, sales tax at 10 per cent applies to the next $50.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The excess over the $50. Now we are clear on that score.
Will the minister tell us why he is still maintaining the whole of paragraph 8? There is paragraph 8(a) dealing with clocks and watches; paragraph 8(b), dealing with miscellaneous articles of all kinds; and paragraph 8(c) listing articles commonly known as jewelry. It is an old tax, an anachronism.
5600

July 13, 1973
Excise Tax


John Napier Turner: It is basically a luxury tax, and that is why it is maintained. I took the cut-off level at the $50 point. A watch costing $50 or less is obviously bought by people to keep time. A watch whose price exceeds that amount may well include a jewelry content. We were not relieving the jewelry content of the tax. We had in mind the necessity of everybody having a timepiece. Those other taxes come under the general heading of excise taxes. I agree a lot of them are historical items, but their prime motivation is still the luxury content attached to them.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 5 carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: One moment, Mr. Chairman. Clause 5 contains many subclauses. I would caution you, Mr. Chairman, that now we are discussing clause 5 we are moving from one schedule of the act to another. I think we should take these subclauses seriatim so that we may discuss them properly.
Subclause (3), 1 suppose, is merely an elaboration of the changes made. I do not know why "cages and boxes" have been added. Why should live poultry be transported in anything other than a cage? Has this change been made because the trade prefers the term "boxes"? The minister might also comment about the removal of sales tax from bottles intended to contain food or drink.


John Napier Turner: The addition of the words "cages or boxes" in paragraph l(j) was made on the advice of the Department of Justice because the existing definition was not wide enough to cover those containers in which live poultry is transported. Sub-paragraph (k) is added because it is consequential upon the new exemption of sales tax on soft drinks.


William Gordon Ritchie: Further along we find reference to goods produced by the mentally retarded and the clause refers specifically to institutions holding a valid certificate. Can the minister indicate what criteria are to be used in this regard and how such an institution will apply for this certificate? This question has been asked a good many times.


John Napier Turner: A certificate is
obtained by applying to the Department of National Revenue. They apply for a certificate within the definition of the sections. This is done in the same way as a certificate would be obtained by an association eligible for charitable deductions.


William Gordon Ritchie: As this is a new one I assume they would have to send in a resume or a description or categorized institutions, and most of these are run under provincial authority.


John Napier Turner: I would think the Department of National Health and Welfare would be glad to extend advice to any institution which wanted to qualify under that section.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I think this might be a good time for the minister or someone to indicate just what the effect of subclause (4) is, because it simply refers

to section 1 of part IV of schedule III of the said act being repealed. Of course, this is consequential upon the next subparagraph, but this is an important one because it covers all sorts of exemptions from sales tax on feeds for animals, fish, fowl or bees, and it covers a great deal in so far as farmers are concerned.


John Napier Turner: This is consequential upon clause 5, subclause (5), which provides an exemption from sales tax on all items whether consumed by humans or animals, except alcoholic beverages-and I assume at this stage they are only consumed by humans. Going back to paragraph 5(1), this relates specifically to sales tax exemption on alfalfa meal, feeds for poultry and for animals, and so on. This exemption is no longer required since there is a more general exemption for all feeds for fish, fowl, bees, etc.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I suppose this is the birds and the bees clause, but it is rather odd, or unnatural to lump together in a clause the elimination of sales tax on clocks and watches under $50, and then extend the exemption to cages and boxes for the transportation of live poultry. Then it covers bottles for food or drink, and then the sales tax is repealed on animal feeds and feeds for bees. Then we come to human things, that is, food and drink for human consumption including confections, sweetening agents, seasonings and other ingredients to be mixed with or used for the preparation of this food and drink except for wine, spirits, beer, malt liquor and other alcoholic beverages. That is the famous soft drinks clause.
Then we find the elimination of sales tax on feed for animals, fish, fowl or bees and on supplements, and then we have articles and materials for use exclusively in the manufacture or production of the tax exempt goods mentioned in sections 1 and 2. This would be the animal feeds, and the animals themselves, unless I read this wrong. When we look at section 2 of part IV-


Stanley Howard Knowles: This section was designed to confuse.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It certainly was, and it has. I am just trying to see if I can skate from one subsection to the other. What I want to know is precisely what machinery is covered by this reference to articles and materials used exclusively in the manufacture of these goods. As I see it, we are referring to part IV of schedule III, and clauses 1 and 2, and they deal with baking powder, baking soda and cream of tartar and yeast. Clause 2 then refers to bakers' cakes and pies and similar articles, but not including simulated chocolate bars or candy bars. Am I right that it is the machinery and articles used for these products, or are we getting into much more?


John Napier Turner: No, the hon. gentleman's assumption is right. This is machinery or articles used in the manufacture or production of baking powder, baking soda, yeast, bakers' cakes, pies, etc.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All right, as long as we know. Having ingested all those materials, and having seemingly developed some ailments, we then move into the health section, because section 1 of part VIII of

schedule III is repealed and another section is substituted therefor. What is the change that is being made?


John Napier Turner: Since all foods and near-foods are now exempt, this subsection is no longer relevant.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The confectionery products are the only ones being taken out?


John Napier Turner: That is right, and that is a near-food.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes. What kind of equipment is referred to in 3.1 in this clause?


John Napier Turner: Clause 5(7) is a new item with a list of articles which are exempt from sales tax when purchased because they are special equipment for illnesses, such as a motor-driven vibrator to be placed on the back of a person to discharge fluid from the lung. This is used in the case of children, for instance, with cystic fibrosis.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All right.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 5 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Just a minute. Again, Mr. Chairman, you are going too far. If you will notice, clause 5 is an all-encompassing clause with many subclauses, and we decided we would go along with one subclause at a time. We are trying to figure out where the exemption of sales tax is, not only for the benefit of the members but for those people who are trying to figure this out, and we have only gone about half way through.


Gérald Laniel: I should point out to the hon. member that the Chair is trying to be co-operative. I had been looking at the hon. member for some time, and seeing no reaction from the hon. member I asked if the clause carried. I am sure the committee will agree that we should continue with the clause if the hon. member has further questions. The Chair is not restricting in any way the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, you merely have to call the clauses, but hon. members had to examine the schedules as they existed and reconcile them with this bill. Even the minister and his assistant have difficulty moving through them. Even if we have to wait 20 or 30 seconds at some points, I feel we should not be rushed. Otherwise I will offer the Chairman a copy of the schedule.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then he would be confused, too.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is right. This is a departure from what has developed over the years and there is certainly not too much logic in following one thing after another. I concede that the committee deserves some latitude here.
Excise Tax
I misled the committee inadvertently in answer to the hon. member for Edmonton West. Let us go back to clause 5(5). We will go over the words which are found on page 5 in section 3 and which reads:
Articles and materials for use exclusively in the manufacture or production of the tax exempt goods mentioned in sections 1 and 2 of this Part.
We are now in the old Part V of the schedule. That whole Part V has been eliminated. So the words in this part referred to are the preceding two items, 1 and 2.


William Gordon Ritchie: I was interested in subclause (10) (i) on equipment to be used to detect, measure, record or sample pollutants to water, soil or air. I can think of soil sampling used to record various ingredients in the soil. Would they be considered as pollutants at certain times? I was wondering how broad this particular clause might be and what the changes were.


John Napier Turner: This applies to the type of equipment that municipalities purchase to test the water or air around the municipality. It does not apply to the type of soil testing inspection equipment to which the hon. member refers.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I take it, Mr. Chairman, that subclause (9) where excise tax on sodium chloride, which is salt, is exempted, is an extension. However, the one that really intrigues me is the exemption on ice in section 14. The minister is really getting into a tax free drink because he has exempted the mix and he is now exempting the ice, and if there is any water in it it will also not be taxable. The only thing that is now subject to tax is the alcoholic or liquor content of the drink. I suppose that might be the next step.


John Napier Turner: Ice was always exempt. The hon. gentleman is right; the only part of the drink we tax now is the alcohol. We offered to transfer that to the provinces.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My colleague the hon. member for Dauphin asked about equipment that is used to detect, measure, record or sample pollutants to water, soil or air. That is equipment to assist the municipalities in their detection of pollution although, strangely enough, it does not include the vehicles, the aircraft, the ships or office equipment involved. For some people this may be somewhat difficult. Let us move to paragraph (j) which reads:
truck chassis for the permanent attachment thereon of equipment, at a price in excess of five hundred dollars pet unit, specially designed for use directly for road making or road cleaning.
Is this to assist the municipality only? Does this cover goods purchased by municipalities? Is it felt that the municipalities need assistance in acquiring equipment that is used directly for road making or road cleaning in competition with contractors who would do this on a contract basis?
I was wondering whether the contractors would have to pay sales tax on this type of equipment, and would this not encourage the municipality, since it would be tax free,
5602

July 13, 1973
Excise Tax
to go into the business itself rather than use equipment owned by a contractor who has to pay tax?


John Napier Turner: This new paragraph (j) expands on existing exemptions. The existing exemption is for certain heavy equipment purchased by the municipalities. It reads that it applies to equipment at a price in excess of $500 per unit specially designed for use in road making or road cleaning, but not including automobiles or ordinary motor trucks. We are dealing with heavy equipment.
What happens sometimes is that a municipality purchases a truck chassis and arranges to have it installed on a truck body or heavy snow removal equipment bodies. The new paragraph would permit such a chassis to be purchased exempt from sales tax prior to the installation of the equipment on it. So there is an existing exemption in favour of municipalities on heavy equipment. The hon. member is really bringing up a philosophical point which already finds its resolution in the statute. All we are doing is curing a technicality to ensure that if a chassis is bought separately from equipment that might be added to it, in contemplation of that addition, the sales tax originally applied to the chassis.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with a situation that existed in Hope town in my constituency. I do not know whether the Minister of Finance remembers it or not, but we have had considerable correspondence with the department on this matter.
A cab and chassis were purchased with a view to using them for road making and snow plowing. The chassis was purchased with certain options that would permit the installation of equipment from a truck they previously owned. A ruling from the department said that this was not an item that would be covered by the regulations as they existed then. That was a very unfair decision. The chassis could not be purchased off a lot since certain options had to be put on it. It was certainly not bought for resale. The town clerk made a declaration that it was not for resale.
Am I correct in assuming that that kind of inequity is corrected in this clause? Later they had a machine company install the box on the chassis, but because the two parts were purchased from different companies there was no allowance for it.


John Napier Turner: Yes, this was the type of situation we had in mind.


Gérald Laniel: I hesitate to call clause 5 because I notice the hon. member for Edmonton West has left the committee for a moment to go to the telephone. I wonder should we wait for a few seconds, unless other hon. members have questions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I have a question that comes under the general ambit of clause 5 but it relates to lines that appear on page 7. Perhaps when there is an opening one should move in. Has the minister any comment to make on the appeals that were made to him earlier today that the sales tax should

be removed not only from children's clothing and footwear but from all clothing and footwear?


John Napier Turner: I have no comment to make at this stage except to say that the purpose in lifting the sales tax on children's clothing and footwear was to recognize the pressures of the cost of living on young families.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister not aware that where there are young families the parents also need clothing and footwear, and the payment has to come out of the same purse?


John Napier Turner: I understand that, Mr. Chairman.


Reginald Cyril Symes: What kind of monitoring device is the Department of Finance or the Department of Consumer Affairs setting up to ensure that the savings from the reduction in tax will be passed on to the consumer?


John Napier Turner: We are, of course, watching the situation, but we are not in the price maintenance business. We cannot ensure that a retailer will pass along a manufacturer's cut, but we have been watching the consumer price index, and since the budget of 1973 the price of children's clothing has fallen 4 per cent. The price of children's footwear has maintained itself at a relatively stable level. There was an immediate drop, and then it was caught up again in the general price level. In clothing and footwear the results have been encouraging so far.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Is there a specific agency or will there be a specific agency not just to look at general trends but to examine carefully what is happening in these areas?


John Napier Turner: Yes. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has set up a monitoring process, and I have made certain suggestions to have it refined. At the moment we can get statistics from Statistics Canada on footwear and clothing. These, of course, are wider generically than appear in the monthly release. Thus, when you get to the specific items you have to break down, with the help of Statistics Canada, for example, the various items in the food basket. I suppose it is a little premature to catch all the trends because you have to allow the inventories to move through stock before the full effect of the sales tax reduction is seen.


Mr. Foster:: With respect to the item concerning goods manufactured by the mentally and physically handicapped, would this cover the sheltered workshop kind of situation? I do not know if this type of institution is certified by the province or by the federal government, but if such an institution were certified as a charitable institution, would that result in this exemption being granted?


John Napier Turner: Yes, it would cover sheltered workshops if a certificate were obtained from the Minister of National Revenue.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The minister may have replied to a number of questions when I was out of the chamber, but I would like to ask him what he does with the reports from the monitoring system if he gets evidence that the saving
July 13, 1973

is not passed on to the consumer. Has he anything in mind to make sure the savings goes to the consumer, or will he just try to persuade the retailers in some very gentle fashion?


John Napier Turner: Part of the purpose of monitoring, of course, is to apply a moral suasion sort of price control system. That is all I have, but I believe scrutiny by the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Department of Finance and public scrutiny will have a salutary effect.
We were talking about children's clothing and footwear before the hon. gentleman came into the chamber. So far there is some encouragement there. I received undertakings from the manufacturers in the soft drink industry and in the confectionery industry that they would pass on the tax reduction to the wholesale or retail trade. So far as the wholesalers and retailers are concerned I do not have that type of bite and control, nor do I want to get into the field of retail price maintenance, something which is prohibited under the Combines Investigation Act.
A large number of confectionery manufacturers and soft drink manufacturers have already written to me to say that they have passed on the sales tax reduction in the form of lower prices. I got a form of undertaking from the industry association, and when I get a complaint from anybody I refer it to the industry association. The majority of manufacturers in the soft drink industry have said that the saving from the tax reduction has been passed on in its entirety despite increases in concentrates in late 1972.
We have also heard from confectionery manufacturers who are considering producing a larger quantity product at the same price as previously. I know that the hon. member for Vancouver Kings way may not like the reduction with respect to soft drinks and confectionery, but in making my analysis before the budget I found that a considerable part of the price of the meal in the lunch pail of low income families was due to chocolate bars and soft drinks.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: To the despair of the dentists.


John Napier Turner: Well, my friend says "to the despair of the dentists". What he is really saying is that only rich children can have bad teeth. But I am not getting into the health argument.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Let us hope that poorer children do not have bad teeth.


John Napier Turner: We are lowering the price but not inviting them to overconsume.
In examining what has been happening-and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs can give us this analysis-I have to try to examine the effects of other items in the cost structure. Sales tax is only one. There is labour, import of material, the effect of the devaluation of the Canadian dollar as against the source of a lot of materials, particularly sugar. I have to weigh all these and analyse them. I hope we are going to have a
Excise Tax
sophisticated system but we are still at the preliminary stage.
Looking at what I have so far, at the manufacturers' level the price of soft drinks has risen only half as much as the general food price index since the budget. In confectionery, the price of chocolate bars has not improved over the general cost of the food industry, taken as an industrywide figure. We have to look at the size of the bar and what is happening at the wholesale and retail level. The federal authority does not have control over the manufacturer, only the tax.
That is where we are now. I hope that as this process continues, through the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs we will have some information that will be useful to the House as the year goes on.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister. Does the minister intend to try to monitor the effects of this cut, and how often can we expect reports? Are they going to be on a regular basis?


John Napier Turner: The government is prepared to report to parliament on a regular basis. Eventually, the tax cut is going to wear off and be difficult to trade. We are going to have an interesting study during the year as to how this works. If you take sales tax as part of the cost of an item, economists tell us that that cost factor is eliminated. Then if competitive forces are really at play, there ought to be a price reflected. Here again I have to analyse the other factors that bear on costs, both domestic and international, and try to isolate what effect the sales tax, taken as a sales tax, has on the final result.
It is easy to monitor prices; it is hard to try to weigh the factors that may have influenced the price structure.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, we have been dealing with the sales tax on these commodities, and I do not think anybody would deny that the cut has probably been good. But I have another question for the minister. I have never heard any member of the government explain why, in a bill like this, the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials is not removed. This is particularly so when houses have increased 104 per cent in cost in the last four or five years, and only 4 per cent of the wage earners in one major city and about 6 per cent across the country can afford to buy new homes.
It may be that the government get $300 million or $400 million of revenue from the tax and that fact probably has been taken into consideration. But being fair with the minister this afternoon-as fair as I can-could a plan not be devised where a refund would be given to purchasers of new homes for materials used, either for single units or apartment blocks?


John Napier Turner: The hon. gentleman is right when he mentions the revenue aspect of it; it is between $400 million and $500 million. After considering the various options available, in trying to achieve one of the thrusts of the budget, namely to put more disposable income in the hands of Canadians in order to meet the rising cost of living, I felt' it would be more effective to do so across the board by reason of personal income tax deductions. I thought that was more immediate, more

July 13, 1973
Excise Tax
universal and less discriminatory between the home owner and the tenant, less discriminatory between the new home and the existing home. I tried to do it as aggressively as I could, with 70 per cent of it being concentrated in incomes of less than $10,000 a year. One has to exercise options in the amount of the revenue bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How much revenue are you losing by the changes in this bill?


John Napier Turner: We are losing $135 million.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In reference to the amount of revenue from shelter-that is, dealing with single residences and apartment blocks-it seems to me that an adjustment should be made for tenants in the same way that the provinces make a refund of taxes. I think the greatest hardship today is the cost not only of food but of shelter as well. I would remind the minister that this tax was brought in by a former Liberal government and since then parties on this side of the House have been asking that it be repealed. At this time, when we are into one of the worst housing crises ever for the average person, I cannot see why a change should not be made. But because opposition parties have asked that this tax be repealed, the government stubbornly refuses. This causes hardship to the average wage earner.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the trouble the Minister of Finance has taken to explain this business. I may be a little obtuse but I want to ask some specific questions. First of all, has any monitoring machinery been set up through an agency in his department?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the government decided that the monitoring would be done by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Has any such agency been set up in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


John Napier Turner: It is not an agency as such but there are public servants who are doing this work.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Is there any way that members of this House can discover the results of the findings across the country and how well the savings arc being passed along? If so, when can we get reports? I have sat in this House for quite a while and listened to statements about monitoring but we are no further ahead than we were. I want to know when we can find out what the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has found about passing on the savings to consumers?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, at this stage all I can do is impress upon my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs the wish of this committee of parliament for these figures. When we get these figures in the Department of Finance, we will want to analyse the underlying reasons for them which might
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).J
include other factors than the reduction or elimination of sales tax.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I wonder
whether the minister is up against the kind of people I am up against in my riding who say "We want to know when the savings will be passed on to us and if they are going to be passed on". We hear that soft drinks and chocolate bars are up in price. I want to know whether this is so, but I do not know how I am going to find out. The minister says "After you, my dear Alphonse", and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs says "After you, my dear Gaston". They go back and forth but how can we find out?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, a lot of the figures are already public knowledge. I was just summarizing what the figures I got them from Statistics Canada suggested. When the budget was brought down the next day and during several days thereafter several major retailers announced an immediate 10 per cent cut in the price of children's apparel. Many of the smaller individual retailers followed suit. Initial reaction was satisfactory. I think there was some evidence that so-called tax sales were used to clear slow moving stock; that was done, too.
As a result of those cuts by manufacturers, and despite the trend towards a rise in the cost of living, since the date of the budget children's wear, excluding footwear, has dropped four points. Children's footwear dropped immediately two points but then made up two points, so that it has remained about even. It has not been caught up by the rise in the cost of living. So there has been a tangible effect.


Winona Grace MacInnis: But what about the effect on food and drink. That is what I was talking about.


John Napier Turner: I mentioned that as well. I said on the basis of the figures we had, soft drinks had risen only half the range of that for the general food industry, taken industry wide, but confectionery products had stayed with the trend. In other words, there has not been that improvement in confectionery that we had sought, and we are investigating this.


An hon. Member:: What about reductions on Coca-Cola?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about Arrowroot biscuits?


John Napier Turner: I would suggest to the hon. gentleman who spoke about Coke that I am afraid I cannot help him with what he puts in his Coke.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the question first raised by the hon. member from Calgary, who asked about the dropping of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. Personally, coming from a rural constituency, I do not see all that much house building in my part of the country. However, having had the privilege of going to some cities and seeing some palatial homes with swimming pools, I am not sorry for their owners.
July 13, 1973

Is the government giving consideration to doing what some provinces do? In my home province, if a person's income falls below a certain level, he is given a grant of perhaps $800 or $1,000, which reimburses him for the increased price of lumber, an increase due to sales tax. Is the government giving consideration to doing something like that? That will help poor people who cannot build a home, let alone a swimming pool.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Edmonton West is recognized.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, an hon. member on the other side has risen also.


Gérald Laniel: I am sorry; I did not see the other hon. member. I have recognized the hon. member for Edmonton West, and if I have made a mistake, I will correct it myself.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I should like to hear some clarification of a point the minister raised a moment ago. I am referring to the question of the sheltered workshop and to the definition of "certified institution".
There are in my city, and no doubt there are in other cities, what are known as sheltered workshops to which people report for work. All the work is done there, the goods are produced there, but the individual does not live within that institution. He may go home. He may be partially mentally infirm or be the victim of an accident. He goes home to a relative, who may have a room for him, and is cared for by arrangement. That person does not live within the institution. When I refer to institution, I refer to sheltered workshop.
I would hope that, within the definition, such an establishment could qualify as a certified institution. I am not saying that it is not so; all I want is clarification from the minister that such type of establishment is actually covered by the legislation.


John Napier Turner: The hon. gentleman is right,


Mr. Herbert:: I listened to the hon. member for Calgary North speaking as a construction man, I would be only too happy to see tbe sales tax on building materials removed, in the same way that I would be happy to see removed corporation taxes or, for that matter, personal income taxes. However, to suggest that removing those taxes would do anything constructive with regard to housebuilding in this country is sheer nonsense. It would not have any effect whatsoever. Further any elimination of this tax at this stage would be of great assistance to those people who can well afford to build houses at the present time in this country in the $40,000 or $50,000 bracket.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The saving is passed on to the consumer.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have listened to the hon. member speaking on several occasions, and I cannot say that he has ever been very kind in anything he has said. He says he is a house builder. He is certainly not a builder for the people. I suggest there is merit to the argument respecting
Customs Tariff (No. 2)
the tax applying to the cost of materials that go into a house. If he were aware of the size of the problem across this country and had listened to speeches which have been made on this side of the House, and, indeed, by members of other opposition parties, regarding the cost of housing and the cost of materials, he would know that if the tax were taken off the materials that go into an average house, the saving would be enough to give an average person, a small homebuyer, a down payment.
I suppose, being a Liberal, he at once comes to the defence of the Liberal party. He is like one of the great leaders of this country who once said "British I was born and British I shall stay". Having listened to the hon. member, I felt that he was born a Liberal and would die a Liberal, no matter how wrong he is.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 5 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

John Napier Turner: that Bill C-195, to amend the Customs Tariff (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
He said: I wish to thank the House for its courtesy with respect to Bill C-194. We are now dealing with Bill C-195. I think it is the understanding that I will speak until four o'clock and, if I finish before four, we shall call it four o'clock and go on with private members' hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the House agree?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, to protect my rights, let me say that that is agreed. Unfortunately, I have an aircraft to catch. It will not wait even for an undignified person like myself. Therefore we have agreed that the minister will make a statement and, hopefully, conclude it before four o'clock, after which the House can proceed with private members' hour. If he does not conclude at four, we will continue on Monday.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: If I do not conclude by four o'clock, I will conclude on Monday.
The bill before the House for consideration today. Bill C-195, implements the substantial range of temporary tariff reductions which I proposed in my budget of February 19 and which were set out in the ways and means motion amending the Customs Tariff which I tabled at that time.

July 13, 1973
Customs Tariff (No. 2)
These reductions in tariffs form an important part of the comprehensive program contained in the budget. The twofold thrust of that budget is to provide continuing stimulus to economic growth and at the same time mitigate the inflationary pressures that are squeezing family budgets, eroding the hard-earned savings of Canadians and jeopardizing Canada's international competitive position. These reductions in customs duties will play a part in achieving that objective, along with the substantial reduction in personal income taxes, the abolition of sales taxes on children's clothes, all near-foods and non-alcoholic beverages, the abolition of special excise taxes on a number of articles once considered luxuries, and the indexing, beginning next year, of the personal income tax system.
This bill will reduce tariffs by an average of five percentage points on imports into Canada that amounted last year to a value of more than $1.4 billion, about one-third being made up of foods. The lowering of the tariff will help to reduce the upward thrust in the cost of living, not only by reducing the price to Canadians of many imported goods, but also by the effect it will have in pressing many Canadian producers to moderate their own prices in order to remain competitive. The goods on which it was proposed that duties should be cut were selected with considerable care and a number of important factors were taken into account.
As a result of the Kennedy Round of trade negotiations, the most-favoured-nation duty on many important categories of manufactured goods was reduced to 15 per cent. There were, however, a number of consumer goods that continued to carry a rate of 17 V4 or 20 per cent. It was considered reasonable and appropriate to make a temporary reduction in these higher rates on a number of products of particular concern to Canadian consumers, such as household appliances, furniture, other household articles, toys, sporting goods and processed foods.
Other goods included in the ways and means motion were those in short supply or for which prices were rising rapidly. This, of course, meant that if the reductions were to be meaningful they would have to cover a substantial range of food, including meats, fruits and vegetables.
As I indicated in the budget, every effort was made in selecting products for tariff reduction to avoid any significantly adverse impact on production and employment in our factories and farms across Canada. We recognized, of course, that it was not possible to be absolutely certain that this objective would be met in every case. We proposed, therefore, that parliament authorize the government to restore the tariff on particular goods to their original level in cases where it was satisfied that the lower duty could result in genuine hardship. Let me assure the House that we are fully prepared to follow this course in such cases.
Since the budget was introduced, we have, not surprisingly, received representations from a variety of groups contending that this or that reduction would create problems for them. On my instructions, officials in my department are very carefully reviewing each of these submissions and reporting their findings to me. My officials have already met with representatives of a number of firms and associations and they have sent out a questionnaire to

obtain the kind of detailed information that is required for a careful analysis of the situation.
In some cases, any problem that might have been created for Canadian producers as a result of a lowering of the tariff has already been erased by the recent appreciation of the currencies of a number of other countries in relation to the Canadian dollar. For a number of products, the effect on prices of the tariff reduction has been more than offset by appreciation of the foreign currency. In monitoring effective tariff reductions, one has to weigh against that the appreciation of foreign currencies against the Canadian dollar.
Officials of my department are also considering possible means of providing help to companies facing potential difficulties other than by restoring the tariff to its previous level. For example, sufficient assistance might be provided by making use of existing authority in the Customs Act to reduce duties on some of the components imported by Canadian companies for incorporation in the products they manufacture. This authority has already been used in several cases and a number of other requests for reductions in duty on components are being actively reviewed.
I can assure the House, however, that we are fully prepared to make use of the authority requested from parliament to restore the tariff to its previous level in cases where we are satisfied the reduction would create genuine hardship for Canadian companies and their employees, and where no other alternative means of assistance is available.
A number of the complaints I have received about the budget changes seem to be less concerned about the reductions than about the fact that there was no advance consultation, or that the changes were made on a unilateral basis and not in return for concessions by other countries, since this was a budget matter, affecting not merely a few products but a comprehensive temporary adjustment in import taxes, it was not possible to have advance consultations. As to the concern expressed about not seeking reciprocal concessions, may I point out that the reductions were made for purely domestic reasons. Because these reductions are temporary in nature, they do not in any way impair our ability to bargin for permanent changes in tariffs by other countries in the future.
If it were decided to offer any of these tariff reductions as concessions in a future multilateral round of trade negotiations, this would be considered only after a detailed examination of the position of domestic suppliers. Such an examination would, of course, take account of their interests as producers, importers and exporters, and of the over-all Canadian trading interest.
Other representations I have received expressed concern that these temporary reductions will be continued beyond February of next year. As hon. members know, the bill provides that these reductions will expire on February 19, 1974. As I said in my budget speech, the reductions will be thoroughly reviewed before that date.
There is a sector on which I would like to comment in more detail, the one providing for fresh and processed fruits and vegetables. The tariff schedule for these products, introduced in 1959, was based on a study made by the
July 13, 1973

Tariff Board in the 1950's. The only significant changes made since its introduction were the tariff reductions of the Kennedy Round and the Temporary tariff cuts set out in the bill.
It has become increasingly apparent that a number of the tariff items covering fruits and vegetables are in need of review and revision in light of production, marketing and price changes which have taken place since 1959. For example, the greenhouse industry has become an important factor in the Canadian market, particularly for cucumbers and tomatoes. New foreign suppliers have come on the scene in recent years. Moreover, the present tariff structure cannot effectively deal with either the sudden influx of large quantities of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, brought in at very low prices, or with the problem of periodic shortages. The structure is clearly out of date and does not meet the needs of growers, processors or consumers. Accordingly, I have directed the Tariff Board to review a number of the tariff items covering fresh and processed fruits and vegetables and make whatever recommendations the board considers appropriate. The terms of this important reference have now been made public by the board.
Finally, I would like to draw hon. member's attention to tariff items 10601-1 which appear on page 9 of the bill. No change was made in the specific rates of duty which apply on the canned fruit covered by the items, but a rate of 12 Vi per cent has been placed as a ceiling on these specific duties. There have been detailed discussions with growers and producers about the ceiling rate, in particular with regard to its application on imports of canned peaches. As a result of these discussions, which have been fully reported to me, I have concluded that it would not be desirable to maintain this ceiling rate on canned peaches beyond February 19, 1974. While I believe that this ceiling is appropriate in currrent circumstances, I do not wish to preclude the possibility that action may be taken on canned peaches before February 19 if the circumstances change.
I also want to say that in consultation over the past few weeks with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), we took some action to restore the position of greenhouse tomatoes and sweet cherries. On greenhouse tomatoes we imposed a surtax under Section 8 of the Customs Tariff equal to the difference between 1 lA cents per pound, the "seasonal" duty now in effect, and 10 per cent, the "offseason" duty which had been removed in the budget. This was merely the restoration of the tariff rate that could have applied if action had not been taken in the budget. I was convinced 4amaSe was being caused to Canadian producers of greenhouse tomatoes and we restored the rate to that which existed at the time of the budget.
On sweet cherries, we imposed a surtax under Section 8 of the Customs Tariff equal to the difference between the value for duty at 21 cents per pound for processing cherries and 33 cents per pound for cherries for the fresh market. We had determined that the restoration of the 10 per cent off-season rate which had been removed in the budget would not protect the growers in British Columbia and Ontario from the price competition of American cherries. This action was taken under article 19 of the GATT treaty, the so-called escape clause, and we notified the
Pensions
United States authorities and consulted with them as requested in that article. That order went into effect on Saturday, June 30.
I think that is all I have to say at this stage. I shall, of course, be interested in hearing the reaction of hon. members, particularly during the committee stage, to the individual items. Again I wish to thank the House for the progress which was made possible in my items today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills and private bills.


Mr. Cafik:: On a point of order, since we are starting
private members' hour at seven minutes to four I should like unanimous consent to an order that at seven minutes to five private members' hour shall be concluded.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the many times the private members' hour has been cut short, I do not think it would be asking too much if we were to give it an hour and seven minutes today.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I will buy that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have no choice.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not wish to upstage the government whip, but is there not an understanding as to which of the motions we are going to deal with today?


Mr. Lefebvre:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The motion in the name of the hon. member for Compton.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Number 35, private members' notices of motion.


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The various House leaders wish to know what the business is to be on Monday. Just to confirm the arrangements, let me say we shall continue to consider the Customs Tariff bill, C-195, followed by the electoral boundaries legislation and the Criminal Code.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
[Transla tion]

Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan Act so that pensions provided under

July 13, 1973
Pensions
the two legislations be paid to any person who has reached the age of 60, and be increased to $200 a month for a single person and a married man and to $150 a month for a wife, notwithstanding her age.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on February 25 last, I suggested that the House consider the advisability of amending the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan Act so that the pensions provided under the two legislations be paid to any person who has reached the age of 60, and be increased to $200 a month for a single person and a married man and to $150 a month for a wife, notwithstanding her age.
Mr. Speaker, we will have much to say about this. I would very much like all the citizens of Canada to take part in these discussions, because we are increasingly becoming aware that the cost of living is rising, that our old people do not have enough to live on, that many married women of less than 60 years of age are not entitled to the pension, and that couples have a hard time subsisting. Every time we meet any of those citizens, they tell us about their needs and ask us to do something for them, because they can find no other way of living decently.
So, to straighten things out in our society, which is unbalanced though very much alive, which goes ahead although with a limp, in a country that abounds with natural resources, there is no ground for it. We must provide at any price incentives to our economy in order to make the Canadian citizen happy.
I am delighted at the opportunity that is offered to me to speak on this important matter of old age security and pensions plan in Canada.
Every segment of our national economy must have a fair share, so that the economic balance will be reflected in the whole of the national economy to the satisfaction of all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that we alone, the 264 federal members and ministers, have all the powers to maintain or restore the national economic balance among the constituent elements of our country. We should not forget that the final objective of the economy is to satisfy the needs of the citizens.
I do not wish to act as a philosopher, a moralist, a preacher, a persecutor of an economic doctrine; I merely wish to consider the present facts of our national economy as such where each year the difficulties caused by inflation, unemployment and poverty are expanding, where pi'oductivity is rising in spite of increasingly evident troubles and an increasingly inconsistent distribution.
Mr. Speaker, our difficulties are so much easier to overcome since they depend only on mere readjustments of the income of our people on the one hand, and on the sharing of personal and corporate taxes on the other, these two factors being under the immediate control of the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, carrying out our duties in this area would provide undisputable evidence of the value of federalism. No president of a bank or company, private or otherwise, no matter the millions or billions of dollars he may have,
(Mr. Latulippe.]
is responsible for proposing or adopting legislative measures involving the incomes of the people or the sharing of tax money between private citizens and corporations.
Those who are entitled to vote here are not the great independent institutions of the government but hon. members who, following a thorough review of our patched-up economy, must take the necessary means to correct it.
Well, Mr. Speaker, personal incomes and corporate taxes are indeed under the strictest control and responsibility of the ministers and hon. members which Canadians have elected to provide for their personal, family and social needs, according to our productive potential in 1973.
I am talking about 1973, not about past years, and I take the facts of the 1973 production into consideration to make these remarks today. It is up to us in the House of Commons to understand the problem, to be aware of our mission and of our powers. It is up to us to solve the problems of inflation, unemployment and poverty by establishing a national balance between individuals, families and corporations, between incomes, expenditures and profits, between taxes, duties and reserves, between needs, costs and prices, between employers, workers and dependents, between capital and labour, between citizens' rights and national production, national consumption and national capitalization.
That is the point we have reached, Mr. Speaker. That is where we must start to reestablish economic balance; otherside, our society will go into decline. In fact, if we don't get it into our heads that we have to get the economy back on its feet, using the appropriate legislative procedures that are available to us, terrible things will happen.
The government does not produce anything, but it administers everything. It is the people who produce everything, even its ministers and members of Parliament, and their salaries. As for the administrative and legislative powers over the trading, issue, circulation and of money and over interest rates, banks and finance, we must study them all.
Interest rates are too high. Canadians cannot even have houses built any more, because they have to pay seven or eight times the cost in interest. Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense in a civilized country. We should have our eyes fixed on organizations and on taxes, and all that must be under our control so that we can restore balance between all the components of our economy, so that we alone will be to blame if we fail.
Mr. Speaker, we can succeed, I know, because production monetary machinery and political economy are there. All this is available to us. Production exists. It amounted to $114 billion in 1973, that is $5,000 per individual or $25,000 per family of five, as an average. It is up to us to look after the distribution, because that is the only really urgent problem. At the same time we could solve almost all the other problems that we have been trying to solve for a long time, by insignificant fragments, without any worthwhile result, simply because we failed to look at the whole of the problem.
The whole of the problem is easy to see. It is before us. Our production is great; it represents $5,000 per person, as an average, but each of us consumes only $3,000 in order to be able to capitalize $2,000 for the years to come.
July 13, 1973

This is, Mr. Speaker, the clear and exact view of the whole economic situation of Canadians in 1973. Out of $114 billion in national production, only $66 billion are earmarked for goods and services consumption for 1973, so that we may capitalize $48 billion for future requirements. Then we have to see if there are no capitalization excesses. I believe there are substantial ones. We capitalize too much, Mr. Speaker. People have needs. We deprive them in order to capitalize while such capitalization in many cases is pro forma. Part of such capitalization-$8 billion- benefits our most wealthy citizens and the balance, $40 billion, are capitalized in favour of private and public corporations, millionaires and multi-millionaires.
It is on the figures concerning our economy for 1973 that we must pause and think at length before taking any further action in terms of amending our laws respecting the distribution of tax revenues between individuals and corporations.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) among all members of different political parties is best informed on all monetary, economic and political mechanisms respectig the curreny situation and the distribution of incomes and taxes between individuals and corporations.
Mr. Speaker, if we look at the situation as it is with a clear vision we realize that credit must be issued free of any debt for financing public endeavours which would reduce the burden of taxes for taxpayers and leave them more purchasing power to meet their needs without relying exclusively on the government and social welfare allowances.
That is precisely where the cause of inflation, unemployment and poverty lies. Let us give a little more to certain low income people by taking the amounts in the excessive reserves of large companies without touching in the process the incomes of other citizens who participate in the production through their work or capital. Everything is there. There we have the cause of all our economic unrest. Everything is there and we are here to help the underprivileged. We are all responsible for the decisions we are going to take in that regard but the Minister of Finaance must know all the aspects of the situation. All members want to help him reorganize the distribution of our great production in the interest of all citizens according to their vital needs, for their total fulfillment; we consume only $66 billion for the years to come, that is to say $8 billion in the hands of the more prosperous Canadians in the upper income bracket and $40 billion in excessive profits, reserves or depreciation of large, private or public corporations.
This is where we must correct the economic unbalance which brings about inflation, unemployment and poverty, so as to restore national balance between individuals, families and corporations for the good of all in Canada, while maintaining for the large, average or small corporations a more satisfactory share of the profits, reserves and depreciations, thus providing them with a measure of security and the opportunity to expand, both now and in the future, while solving the problems of inflation, unemployment and poverty in our national environment, in the sight of all mankind.
Pensions
Mr. Speaker, I am not making up anything for we all know the volume of our national production. We all know that we spend only $66 billion and that production is plentiful and we all know also that 10 per cent of our population are unproductive because they are unemployed. If we did put all these people to work by realistic financial means, we could produce more and distribute more through compensated discounts in order to reduce prices. Prices are rising now and when prices rise, the cost of living also rises and when the cost of living rises, taxes rise.
The economic balance does not exist any more and that is why I say that our society and our economy are rickety. We must absolutely restore the balance. It can be restored only if we face facts and realities.
Now, the facts and realities are that we produce automatically and distribute goods in driblets. So, if we can produce automatically through automation, we have to find means to distribute automatically our production. Then, if this is automatically done, the consumption has also to be the same. Otherwise, we will see what we get now, that is complete unbalance and the state running into debt.
According to some reports I have read, Mr. Speaker, by year's end we will post a deficit of about $3 billion and Quebec will report one of about $2 billion. It is like that in all large municipalities as well as in many small municipalities.
Mr. Speaker, where are we going? All citizens turn to the government asking for the right to live. Then ask the state and the state is overburdened, overindebted; it cannot distribute production anymore. We are certainly going to break down and we will have dollar devaluations like the ones that are taking place in the United States and everywhere. That, Mr. Speaker, is not to the credit of nations. We have to intervene, we of a small country like Canada, we who already find it so hard to support ourselves and we have to help big nations because they devaluate their money. In that way, they reduce still more the price of their products and compete with us.
Mr. Speaker, that is not a way of settling the problem. It is a kind of bankruptcy on the part of governments when they devaluate their currency. Therefore, that is not a way of solving the problem. We can do credit to our economy, to our community, if we base ourselves again on real facts, if we use common and actual methods so as to give that society its proper balance, in order to give to those who are in need, to distribute our products, our surplus products.
There is excess production while labour grows scarcer. We can increase manpower, increase production, distribute more production. Mr. Speaker, if this does not suit us, to remain within the international community as regards the monetary system, we can do like other countries and separate; we do not need other countries to lay down the law to Canadians. As a matter of fact, we do not even need other countries to live. We should export our surplus to foreign countries and exchange them for products we do not manufacture.
That is the only thing we need. We do not need international monetary agreements; these agreements always end in a general dispute and create discord in society. If it is

July 13, 1973
Pensions
not possible to solve the problem using these grandiose methods, let us abandon them altogether. We can concentrate our efforts at home and do business with other countries without having to face up to these great economic measures which only end up throttling us, disorganizing us and annoying us.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak much longer, though there is still a great deal 1 should say. I thank my colleagues for having listened to me, and I ask all those who truly wish to do something in our society to study the economic measures I have presented to them, that I have made available to them, and to which I ask them to adhere. I ask them to co-operate and to force the government, as well as the departments involved, to act, so that we can establish an economic balance in our country, for the benefit of all Canadians.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, the motion that we have before us is one with which we have dealt on a number of occasions in this parliament. It deals with old age pensions, the Canada Pension Plan, and the reductions of ages and qualifications.
I think a number of hon. members have spoken on this issue and I think that everyone in Canada-and parliamentarians are no different in this respect-really feel that perhaps it is impossible to do everything that we ought to do for our senior citizens in view of what they have done through their contribution to our own personal lives and to society as a whole. None the less, we have to look at this matter in an objective way, and at what has been done and can be done, in view of our position as the federal government.
Perhaps for a moment I could talk about the history of this government and of parliament-and I do not mean the twenty-ninth parliament but the parliament of Canada- and about what it has done for senior citizens in the past. Back in 1952, parliament eliminated the needs test for payment to senior citizens and established an old age security payment on a universal basis of $40 a month. Today, in 1973, that OAS payment is now $100 a month. It is interesting to note that since 1968, the year in which the former Liberal government was elected, the pension has increased from $76.50 to $100. Since 1967 under another Liberal government, the guaranteed income supplement of $30 a month was added and is now up to $70.14.
This means that for those senior citizens who have no outside income other than their pension a single pensioner can draw $170.14 a month and married pensioners can draw $324.60. I do not think there is any doubt that these payments compare favourably with those in any other country in the world, and it is said by many that they are the highest payments to senior citizens of any country in the world. I should say in all honesty that it is very difficult to make international comparisons of this type. However, in comparison with any other country I do not think there is any doubt that we do as well or better than any of them. In fact, in the vast majority of cases we do very significantly better.

In addition to these over-all payments there are other special things that are done for senior citizens; for instance, in terms of income tax exemptions for those who have incomes outside their old age pensions. In 1971 the basic exemption for a single person over the age of 65 was $1,100, plus a special allowance of $500 by virtue of being over 65. Today that allowance is $1,700, plus $1,000 special allowance for those over 65. In the married category, in 1971 the basic exemption was $2,100, plus $500 special exemption for those over 65; today it is $3,000 plus $1,000 special exemption.
These are very significant benefits. There is a recognition, not only in the OAS and GIS but also by the Department of Finance, that there have to be provisions of a different type, namely tax exemptions, to give a special break to our senior citizens.
In addition there are other policies covering other branches of the government. For instance, in housing programs sponsored by the federal government for homes for senior citizens very large sums of money are provided to ensure that those who wish to live or who have to live in such institutions can have such accommodation at reasonable rental rates.
In addition there are special provisions under the Canada Assistance Plan which affect our senior citizens. Those who are in need, whether they are over 65 or under, can be covered. Also those who are senior citizens and live in senior citizens homes in provincial institutions have special comfort allowances as determined by the provinces, which are contributed to on a 50-50 basis by the federal government.
I mention these things not to say that everything we have done is enough, but at least to indicate that the government in the past has been very much concerned with this problem. It has looked at it in its many faceted forms to try to take action to provide a reasonable livelihood for our senior citizens who have contributed so much to the country.
The Department of National Health and Welfare has established the New Horizons Program which recognizes another dimension in the lives of senior citizens, namely that their problems are not all economic. We have got to provide a system, a method, an approach that will make their lives more meaningful. The New Horizons program, which is funded to the tune of $10 million a year, provides funds for programs initiated by senior citizens themselves, giving them a new dimension and making their lives more interesting and more worthwhile. This program has been widely hailed across Ctfnada. Senior citizens from coast to coast are expected to use this particular approach to give a little more flavour to their later years.
Let us have a look at the motion itself for a moment and see what it really means. In spite of the fact that we would all like to do things for senior citizens, and that I expect there is a very understandable inclination to lower the retirement age to 60 years, I do not think this is as simple as it looks on the surface.
First of all, there are many who are under the impression that if you lower the retirement age to 60 years you are in effect going to create more employment and open up
July 13, 1973

many new job opportunities. That has not really been researched adequately in terms of where it is fact or fancy. It has been suggested by many who have looked at this question that the kind of jobs you will open up are those that not really many people in Canada would want to take today.
In addition to this there is the social question whether it should be a voluntary retirement at age 60 or compulsory retirement. I think it is well recognized that after retirement many people age more quickly than if they had remained active in the labour force. We have to look very carefully at the social implications of this suggestion.
Relative to the costs involved I would like to relate some figures. The present old age security program as of January 31, 1973, covered 1,803,378 people, with an expenditure on old age security payments alone of $1,787,196,234. There is no doubt that that is a very significant amount of money. In a moment I will relate that to the costs that would be added if one were to go forward with the kind of proposal that has been presented here today.
In addition to this, of course, GIS recipients in Canada at January 31 numbered 1,046,736, and GIS payments were $738,770,335, making a total expenditure for the OAS and GIS combined of $2,525,966,569.
If one were to look at the costs in terms of reduction in ages, one would find they are very significant. I am not saying that by virtue of their significance we should not do this; I am simply saying that before any parliament would do a thing like this it ought to be aware of the implications and of the possible other priorities that ought to be taken into consideration.
For instance, to extend the OAS-GIS even a year at a time, from 65 years to 64, and the next year to 63, and the next year to 62, and so on, by 1977-78, reducing it on a year by year basis down to age 60, the extra cost would be $1,275,000,000 per year. That is an enormous amount of money. The number of people who would be added, by virtue of that technique, by the year 1977-78 would be 942,375, according to the projections that have been calculated.
In terms of extending OAS-GIS payments to spouses between the ages of 60 and 64, this would cost a total of $86.3 million and would cover 53,728 people by the year 1977-78, again doing it one year at a time. There is no doubt about it that these are very substantial figures, and one would have to look at this question in relation to the over-all priorities for social work in Canada.
As federal parliamentarians we know that social assistance levels are determined by the provincial governments, and through the Canada Assistance Plan the federal government pays half the cost. But when one looks at those levels one finds considerable disparity. For instance, in Newfoundland the social assistance level is $2,340. That relates to the OAS-GIS of $3,895. In Prince Edward Island the level is $2,613, in Nova Scotia $2,700, in New Brunswick $2,124, in Quebec $2,316, in Ontario $2,820, in Manitoba $2,700, in Saskatchewan $2,592, and in British Columbia $3,000. In every single case the social assistance level payable by the province to those in need under age 65 is less than that paid by the OAS and GIS combined. That kind of disparity does not seem to me to be appropriate.
Pensions
In addition to this, let us look at what those on minimum wages earn, people working for a living, often with families, possibly large families, and with the family allowance, which is universal. We find that in these selective provinces-I only have information on six provinces in front of me-again the level is below that which you can get by being retired on OAS and GIS.
For anyone working for minimum wages, plus any family allowance if they are married, the maximum level in British Columbia is $4,160. I apologize to the House; that is slightly more than the OAS and GIS level. In every other case it is lower. In the province of Ontario it is lower by a few hundred dollars a year, and in Prince Edward Island the figure is $2,600.
When one looks at this question in relation to a married couple working for minimum wages with the addition of family allowance, one finds the same kind of problem. In fact, it hardly pays to work for a living when one relates it to what we are paying out senior citizens. I am not saying that means we are paying senior citizens too much; quite the contrary. What I am trying to say is that we have to look at the whole question of social assistance in Canada. There is no doubt that the disparity between what a person can earn for work at minimum or near minimum wages and that which they can get under social assistance or OAS and GIS is too small. It provides a disincentive to work for many people.
This brings to bear the question of priority. Some months ago the Department of National Health and Welfare brought forward a working paper on social security in Canada which outlined the important points in our social security system that need to be resolved. One of course, is the Canada Pension Plan. There is no doubt that significant amendments are required to it. There are amendments before the House now of a more modest nature in respect of the plan, and it is my understanding that more significant amendments will be brought to the House in the fall.
In addition to the proposals relating to the Canada Pension Plan, the proposals that will be put before this House in a matter of days in terms of family allowances is another forward step in this direction. The steps in connection with the OAS and GIS were taken in conjunction with the provinces, upon their insistence that we do not make any significant structural change in that particular program without prior consultation with them.
It is necessary in our federal system that the federal government, in conjunction with the provincial governments, give full and adequate consideration to all sorts of social security plans in Canada. Of course, OAS, GIS and the Canada Pension Plan are among these. I think it would be foolhardy, and the provinces certainly appear to think so, to put forward specific ad hoc solutions in isolation, without taking into consideration all implications of such moves on all aspects of social security in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).

July 13, 1973
Pensions


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my remarks mainly to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Cafik). Before I do so I should like to commend the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latu-lippe) for having placed this motion on the order paper. He was a little luckier in the draw than I; I have a similar motion on the order paper, but mine is No. 70 and his is No. 35. However, I have had previous opportunities, and there will be more, to press the point.
I should also like to say this with respect to the remarks made today by the hon. member for Compton. Although I do not share his economic theories I think he did well to tell this House that we do have the responsibility to order our economy so that the goods and services we produce are distributed on the basis of justice and fair play. There is nothing sacred about the way in which incomes just happen to fall, with some people getting too much and some not getting enough. Indeed, in my view the whole purpose of government, of organized society, is to see that all people get a fair and decent break. I agree with the hon. member for Compton and many others in this House that one of the groups for whom we should work particularly hard to see that they get a decent break is our senior citizens.
I said I should like to comment mainly on the speech just made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I enjoyed it, as I always do when parliamentary secretaries to ministers of national health and welfare give us the history of old age pensions in this country. If I did not know it already, having lived through most of it, I would certainly know it by heart from the number of times it has been given to us.
The member today did not go back to the beginning, as members sometimes do. But I would point out to him that even though we are paying $100 a month today, compared to $40 in the fifties or $20 in 1926, that is beside the point. The question is: What is our total production in Canada today, and what can we afford out of that total production for the well-being and security of our older people?
I also submit that to make comparisons with other countries is beside the point. It is Canada that we are concerned about; it is decency and fair play in Canada that is important. We feel that one of the ways to establish that kind of Canada is to make sure that all our older and retired people have adequate security and justice.
I want to say this to the parliamentary secretary: he was obviously making his speech in the House of Commons, which is where we are between four and five o'clock on a Friday afternoon, but the speech was really directed to members of the Liberal caucus. I think I should say that apart from the zeal with which we press the whole question of making improvements in the old age pension, it is in the Liberal caucus that there is a growing and insistent demand for lowering the pensionable age to 60 and for increasing the amount of the pension. So it is his own colleagues he is going to have to persuade.
I submit that if he had made that speech in caucus and it had been followed by a free vote on the question, he would not have won. The Liberals as a whole still want to see the pensionable age lowered to 60, and they are still not satisfied with the basic pension being only $100. I say to
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger).]
the parliamentary secretary that there is no point in trying to confuse us with figures.
He also begs the question a bit when he talks, as he did the other night and as he has done again today, about the cost of lowering the pensionable age to 60. Because he completely ignores the fact that most of us who advocate lowering the pensionable age to 60 also say that this should be done on a voluntary basis. In other worlds, we propose that the old age security and Canada Pension Plan payments be made to those between 60 and 65 who are either out of or are prepared to leave the labour market. I suggest, on that basis, that the total cost of such a program would be a lot less than he suggested it would be today or, indeed, than he suggested it would be in a late show response of his earlier this week.
The fact of the matter is that we are in the 70s, not in the 60s, 50s, 40s or 30s. We live in a decade when most Canadians feel that, the workaday world being the rat race it is and the problems people face being what they are, it is fair, reasonable and a matter of common sense to make retirement possible at age 60. Some people think that it should be at an even earlier age; no doubt that day will come.
Just saying that this is being considered along with everything else is not good enough. I submit that in the next election campaign all members of parliament who are running will have to face the question if we do not act on this question in the present parliament, "Why did you not bring the pensionable age down to 60?" Therefore I urge upon the parliamentary secretary and upon the government the realization that this issue will not die. There has not been as much talk about it in the last couple of months as there was during the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne or during the time we were considering amendments to the Old Age Security Act, but the issue is there. It is an important one and one that ought to be dealt with in the course of this parliament.
The hon. member for Compton includes in his motion the proposal that this apply both to old age security and to the Canada Pension Plan: That is my position as well. He also argues for a substantial increase in the basic amount of old age security. Some say that we are doing well in this area, that we have got the figure up to the round figure of $100. But it is $100 a month that we are talking about, not $100 per week. People cannot exist on that, as we have recognized with the establishment of the guaranteed income supplement. There are thousands of people in this country-in fact, I figure about 30 per cent of the 1,800,000 who are 65 and over-who are in this in-between area where they have just enough income not to qualify for the guaranteed income supplement, and therefore do not get any of the fringe benefits that go with the guaranteed income supplement, but yet do not have enough to live on in decency and dignity.
In my view, the answer to this is still the answer that we made in 1950, namely that the basic amount of old age security should be paid on a universal basis, and that we should pay across the board now at least $150 a month. I have just looked over the figures that the hon. member for Compton has suggested, and they seem to add up to $200 a
July 13, 1973

month for a person of single status and $350 a month for a married couple. This is no more outrageous or surprising than it was many years ago when we asked that retirement pensions should be increased from $30 to $50, but got only $40. The $100 a month we are now paying to our senior citizens is not good enough in light of today's cost of living and productivity. I support the hon. member for Compton, and urge that we should look at those higher figures.
With respect to the Canada Pension Plan, which is also mentioned in the motion before us, I think it is extremely important that we get the eligible age down to 60, again on a voluntary basis. I think it is extremely important that we get the YMPE-the yearly maximum pensionable earnings figure-to a much higher figure, so that the pension that people will draw under the Canada Pension Plan will be higher.
I also think it is crucial to get that 2 per cent ceiling on the annual escalation under the Canada Pension Plan removed. I thought from the way the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) was talking early in 1973 that there was no question but that that would be done before the end of 1973, so that the escalation could take place in 1974 to equal the actual rise in the cost of living. From the way that minister has been talking lately, there seems to be some doubt about it. Sure, he puts the blame on the provinces and writes letters to the editor of the Globe and Mail to explain the delay; but the fact of the matter is that Canadians who are receiving the Canada Pension Plan were led to believe in the early part of this session that by 1974 the escalation under the Canada Pension Plan would not be limited to 2 per cent but would be equal to the full percentage rise in the cost of living.
This is crucial not only with respect to the Canada Pension Plan itself; it is crucial also in connection with the government's thinking about other pensions that are not already escalating by the full amount of the increase in the cost of living but are geared to this pension.
When we tried to get the pensions of retired public servants increased, we were told no, we will have to wait until this has been done in the Canada Pension Plan. When we asked for this for retired RCMP personnel, we got the same answer. When we asked for this for retired armed forces personnel, we were given the same answer again. When we said that the pensions of Canadian National Railways employees should be escalated at more than 2 per cent a year, we were told it cannot be done because the federal government has laid down a dictum against their doing it. The fact is that this has been done. The government has sneaked into the income tax regulations a provision to the effect that no private pension plan can be registered for income tax purposes unless it limits any escalation to 2 per cent per year.
That may have been all right in a decade when the cost of living did not go up by more than 2 or 3 per cent per year, but it is not good enough when it goes up 4, 5, 6 or 7 per cent per year. Maintaining the 2 per cent ceiling is saying to thousands of our pensioners, "You are doomed to getting less and less as the years go by," instead of saying to them that their pensions will be allowed to go up so that they can enjoy an improvement in their standard of living.
Pensions
I regard all these measures as very important. If I may summarize, they come under three or four headings. First, the pensionable age should be lowered with respect both to old age security and the Canada Pension Plan. I also think that this should be done on a voluntary basis. Second, there must be a substantial increase in the amounts paid under old age security, and the same applies to the Canada Pension Plan. This can be achieved by raising the level of the yearly maximum pensionable earnings. Finally, there is an urgent need to remove the 2 per cent ceiling, wherever it exists, so that all our people who are on pensions of any kind, anywhere in Canada, can enjoy each year an escalation that is at least equal to the increase in the cost of living.


Mr. Denis Ethier (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly share the views of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has shown concern for the elderly people of this country. I am sure that every member of this House who shares his views also shares his concern about our senior citizens.
[ Transla tion]
Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe), one wonders whether he is really serious. On the one hand, he talks very logically about bringing the pension age down to 60 but, at the same time, he forsakes all logic in his suggestion that old age pensions be paid to the wives of retired persons, whatever their age.

July 13, 1973
Pensions
country. I understand the reasons for elderly people living in urban centres. Quick access to doctors, hospitals, churches, grocery stores and transportation are more reasons why senior citizens, choose to live the remainder of their lives in urban areas. However, the cost of living is higher. As the vast majority of our elderly citizens elect to live in urban centres, the argument to increase their revenue becomes stronger.
I do not want to leave the impression that I am criticizing our government. I feel the government should be congratulated for increasing the old age security pension to the present level. I remind the hon. member who presented this motion that the government not only increased the old age security pension to help our senior citizen, but also increased the basic personal exemption from $1,000 to $1,500. This removed no less than 130,000 pensioners from the tax roll. In addition, the special exemption for old age persons was raised from $500 to $600 and is available at age 65 rather than 70. This removed another 150,000 pensioners from the tax roll. We should be grateful to former Liberal governments for the old age security we enjoy today. This was not initiated by any opposition party; it was introduced by a Liberal government.
Returning to this motion, I am not altogether convinced that we should pay the maximum old age security on a universal basis; rather I am in favour of granting the maximum pension and guaranteed income supplement to those who require it. I understand from discussions with elderly people that they are in favour of the minimum pension being paid to those with revenue from investments or to those who still operate a business, but those without any revenue should receive the maximum. According to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), this is what is being done. We would be grateful if the minister would consider the advisability of lowering the retirement age from 65 to 60.
In his motion the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latu-lippe) suggests that old age security pensions be paid to the spouse, notwithstanding her age. I suggest this has no logic. Knowing the pride of the opposite sex and their efforts to stay young, I would not even suggest offering them an old age security cheque.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) is suggesting that we should consider all
women as being old, because the wording of his notice of motion says that we should grant old age security pensions to the wives of retired persons, whatever their age.
I think the hon. member is suggesting to this House and to the Canadian people that all women are old, whatever may be their age, and I certainly do not have that opinion.


Henry P. Latulippe: Even if they are married!


Denis Éthier: Even if they are married! The hon. member for Compton says that, even if they are married, they are old, even at 20. Once again, I disagree.
Furthermore, I wonder if we would be in agreement with those in favour women's liberation in considering them as retired persons, whatever their age. I certainly do not approve of this.
In conclusion, I would like to remind the hon. member who has given this notice of motion that in my first speech here in this House, I said I hoped the government would lower the pension age from 65 to 60, but at this stage, I would insist that retirement at 60 be on a voluntary basis and not mandatory so that only those in need would take advantage of it.
Mr. Speaker, I am ready to reconsider my position if this motion is of particular interest to my good friend the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe); if, for example, he intends to remarry eventually with a younger woman.


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that each member of the House would be in favour of another increase of the old age pension. There is no doubt that all hon. members would agree to grant a pension to even younger people or to lower the retirement age to 60 or even less in some cases, but we must also consider the positive aspect of that issue. It is never enough. The pension has just been increased to $100 but of course it is not enough because we would like to do more.
I remember that my mother did not have all the facilities available to the aged today and I would have liked her to enjoy such things as senior citizens homes for the aged and all the other advantages they enjoy today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hour appointed for consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, July 16, 1973