1973-06-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I understand there have been discussions with House leaders with regard to the opposition day next week-I am catching up with the facts-and I think there has been agreement that the twelfth opposition day in the present supply period will be next Thursday rather than next Friday. I wanted to make that announcement and to confirm that I understand correctly.


Mr. Baldwin:: That is right, Mr. Speaker.


TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
That the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the House on May 24, 1973, be concurred in.
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move this motion today, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). Perhaps the House would be willing to take it into consideration following the oral question period.


Mr. Speaker:: There is an additional difficulty related to the hon. member's motion. I gather there is some trouble in connection with some procedural aspects of the report. This report raises the same procedural difficulties as others which have come from our estimates committees. The Chair, before allowing debate to proceed, would want to hear argument and perhaps be given an opportunity to review the situation and make a ruling in due course. I have heard that a number of hon. members wish to take part in a procedural debate. If hon. members think that the debate should take place this morning and perhaps continue this afternoon, of course the hon. member has the right at this point to insist on the procedural point being heard, but I am certainly not prepared to allow the motion to be put without hearing argument.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I certainly cannot claim to be as expert on procedure as some hon. members are such as my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). Possibly we could defer the discussion on the point of order until after the question period, if this is agreeable to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council rising on the same point of order?


Mr. Reid:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring to the hon. member's attention Standing Order 58(16) on page 59, which reads as follows:
There shall be no debate on any motion to concur in the report of any standing committee on estimates which have been referred to it except on an allotted day.
It seems to me that any debate on the acceptability of a report on estimates, whether or not substantive reports can be made on estimates, has to be deferred until such a motion be moved on an allocated day according to Standing Order 58(16).


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that when the House changed the rules to send the estimates of the various departments to standing committees we did so because the majority of members of all parties agreed that in this way we could have a more detailed discussion of the matters included in the estimates involving the operations of each department, but that at some point there would be an opportunity for the House to discuss matters which, under the former rules, were discussed in committee of the whole in the House itself. I think that the proposal of the parliamentary secretary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my understanding that the parliamentary secretary has not made his argument and that it would be heard in due course if there is argument to be presented on one side or the other of the matter. I understand that the question now is whether, if there is to be a procedural debate, it should take place at this time, after the oral question period, or on another day.
I cannot agree with the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council that we cannot have a procedural discussion at this time. We would not be discussing the substance of the motion itself but simply whether the substance of the motion can come before the House. The Standing Order certainly would not apply to the extent of preventing or barring a procedural debate at this point.
To come back to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, I understand the question is
4792

June 15, 1973
Transport and Communications the procedural debate, which I gather may take some time judging from the interest of many members who have indicated to the Chair that they would like to take part in such a debate, should take place immediately, later today, or on another day. The Chair would appreciate receiving the guidance of hon. members on this point.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: On this point, Mr. Speaker, as Your Honour has made clear, it is the right of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) to present his motion now and to precipitate the procedural discussion at this point. But it seems to me that his suggestion is a sensible one, that we should defer the presenting of the motion and the consequent procedural debate until after today's question period. At this point I think there is clearly nothing else to discuss and, if there is agreement to do this, let it be so ordered.


Gerald William Baldwin: I concur, Mr. Speaker.


John Mercer Reid: We concur also, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The understanding of the Chair is that there is agreement to postpone the submission of this motion and the hearing of the point of order until after the- the hon. member for Yukon.


Mr. Nielsen:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe the Chair has knowledge of a motion to be made under Standing Order 26. If Your Honour accepts that motion it may well be that it should supersede any debate that may arise on this procedural point after the question period. Therefore, subject to the Chair's ruling on the Standing Order 26 motion, perhaps we might make the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre an order of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously the suggestions that I am hearing now are that we consider all sorts of matters except those that are on the order paper today. In any event, the hon. member for Yukon has to take into account the possibility that, if the Chair accepted the motion to be proposed by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, the debate on that motion would take place this evening. But that is highly hypothetical at this point.

[ Translation]


MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS AND STANDING ORDERS
Mr. Gaston Clermont (for Mr. Duquet) moved: that the first report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders presented to the House on Wednesday, June 13, 1973, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a motion to adjourn the House under the provisions of Standing Order 26 in order to debate a matter of urgent public concern requiring immediate consideration by the House, namely, the action of the executive in subverting the Federal Court to political ends by causing it to invade a matter under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, which action Mr. Justice Morrow has described as an unwarranted attack by the executive of the Canadian government upon the integrity and independence of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has given the Chair notice of her intention to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of considering the matter to which she has just alluded. This has given the Chair ample opportunity to give very serious thought to the several aspects of the matter raised by the hon. member and principally, of course, to the procedural aspect of the matter.
Upon reflection the Chair has very serious doubts whether this is the kind of situation which is contemplated by the Standing Order. Reading very closely and attentively the motion proposed by the hon. member, I have to interpret it more as a motion of censure against the government than as one referring to a situation which requires immediate debate under the terms of Standing Order 26. As I say, having looked at the matter and considered it as sympathetically as I could, I have to suggest to the hon. member that this is more in the nature of a censure motion, the type of motion perhaps which was proposed by the hon. member for Don Valley the other day and which should come to the House under the guise more of a non-confidence motion or censure motion rather than for debate under the provisions of Standing Order 26.
For these reasons I would suggest to the hon. member and to the House that it would not be in order for the Chair to allow an adjournment debate to consider the matter raised by the hon. member.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister who, I presume, is the President of the Treasury Board. Which of the two ministers is stating government
June 15, 1973

policy, the Minister of Finance who yesterday in the House said that it was the policy of the government to attack inflation by increasing the supply of housing, or the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who has said that this is not the best time to introduce a general stimulus to the construction industry because this would lead to a cost-push type of inflationary adjustment resulting from the low levels of unemployment in the building trades and the under-supply of essential building materials? Who is stating government policy, the Minister of Finance or the Minister of State for Urban Affairs?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest that both can and do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In this particular case, if the hon. gentleman examines those two statements he will see that they are readily reconcilable.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, will the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether it is the policy of the government to encourage the expansion of the supply of housing or, on the other hand, is it the intention of the government not to stimulate the construction industry because of the shortage of materials?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think, bearing in mind the statements of the two ministers, it is quite clear that what is needed is an increase in the supply and availability of building materials, which is the current bottleneck. A general stimulus to house building, unless we can at the same time improve the supply of building materials, will not have the required effect.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I gather that it is the policy of the government, as I understand it, to increase the supply of housing and yet not increase the supply of housing. So I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it is the deliberate intention of the government or, at least, perfectly satisfactory to the government to have mortgage rates rising, because this will achieve the effect desired by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and not provide any inappropriate stimulus to the supply of housing. Is it fair to say that the government is perfectly happy to see mortgage rates going up because of this?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance has, on a number of occasions, dealt with the matter of interest rates both on mortgages and in general. He has made it quite clear, I think, that mortgage rates generally must relate to the general pattern of other interest rates.


REPORTED INTENTION TO INCREASE INTEREST RATES FURTHER-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACT TO PREVENT
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is not directed to the Acting Prime Minister, although, as the hon. member for York South indicates, it would be nice to have an "acting" Prime Minister, but to the Minister of Finance. There are some authoritative and rather disturbing press reports
Oral Questions
this morning that the Bank of Canada will increase the bank rate and also increase the prime conventional mortgage rate to 10 per cent. Can the Minister of Finance indicate to the House today any guarantee that the government will not permit this to happen?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that those authoritative press reports to which the hon. gentleman refers are not authoritative.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I have had some indications from my riding late yesterday and today-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might ask his supplementary.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Yes, Sir. As Mr. Leonard Rosenberg, vice-president of CNA Investors Limited, has said that, especially in rural areas, borrowers are already paying 10 per cent, would the Minister of Finance please investigate this and, at the very latest on Monday, make a statement to the House on whether it is government policy to permit this to happen.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is government policy to slow down housing.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, all I can say at this stage is that I think it is a very good idea that the hon. member keeps in close touch with his riding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I will certainly examine the statement of Mr. Rosenberg.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are five or six members who want to ask supplementaries. I would hope an attempt would be made not to spend too long on the very first question that has been asked as this would have the effect of reducing the 40-minute question period to about 20 minutes. For the moment, however, we will have a number of supplementaries with the co-operation of hon. members.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker I will not ask a supplementary. My point is merely that the minister should keep in touch.


RELATION OF MORTGAGE AND OTHER INTEREST RATES- REQUEST THAT BANK ACT BE AMENDED TO CONTROL MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister with reference to his answer a minute ago. Is it government policy that the interest rate on mortgages must remain inextricably connected to other interest rates in the country?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker.
26446-13J

June 15, 1973
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the interesting contradiction the minister has revealed inside of five minutes, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Given the horrendous forecast of rising interest rates in the next couple of months, will the minister take steps to introduce a change in the Bank Act to make it mandatory that banks supply mortgage money at interest rates that do not exceed the prime rate?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member that might not be the way to meet the problem. His suggestion might well have the effect of adversely affecting interest rates in other areas of consumer concern.
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Charlevoix on a supplementary question.


Mr. Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to put a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Then, I will recognize the hon. member for Charlevoix in a moment.
[ English]


GOVERNMENT GUARANTEED BANK LOANS-REQUEST THAT MINISTER TAKE STEPS TO PREVENT HIGHER AND OBTAIN LOWER INTEREST RATES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the warning by the president of the Canadian Bankers Association that there is a possibility that interest rates on government backed loans to farmers, fishermen and small businessmen will go up, will the minister instruct the president of the Canadian Bankers Association and, indeed, the banks, not to raise their interest rates to farmers, fishermen and small businessmen but, indeed, to lower interest rates to these people?


John Napier Turner: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is confusing two subjects. The first is guaranteed loans that are available under various federal statutes. That is the question I believe Mr. Harrison, the current chairman of the Canadian Bankers Association, is concerned about. The other question is availability of primary credit to small businesses, farmers and fishermen. That allocation is receiving priority treatment from the banks, particularly in slower growth areas, and this is reflected in a practical dual rate system.


INFLATION AND SUPPLY OF HOUSING-STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF FINANCE-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the Minister of Finance apologize for saying to the House yesterday that it was the policy of the government to increase the supply of housing? Will he withdraw that statement in view of the statement by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs that it was not the policy of his department, and presumably of the government, to stimulate the construction industry in the supply of housing at this time?
[Mr. Drury.)


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a very serious matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Minister of Finance stood up in the House and said one thing about the policy of the government and the minister directly concerned has said something totally different. I do not think the Minister of Finance should be allowed to get away with making that kind of statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will take my statement yesterday in context, he will see that the analysis of the government of the current cost of living situation is primarily a shortage of supply against an excess in demand. I referred to food, housing and, in directing my attention to housing, made mention of the land assembly problem. On the question of funds I might add I am assured that the chartered banks, the trust companies and the life insurance companies are devoting more funds to the housing market. The bill introduced by my hon. friend, the residential mortgage bill, will have the same effect. So in that respect what I said will, I think, stand up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXPORT CONTROLS ON GASOLINE-DEVELOPMENT OF ADDITIONAL REFINING CAPACITY IN EASTERN CANADA
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: To change the subject, Mr. Speaker, I have one or two questions for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of the disturbing objections on the part of the petroleum industry to the imposition of controls on the export of gasoline which the hon. gentleman announced yesterday. In view of the reference by industry spokesmen to the refineries being built or planned in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, would the minister request his department or the National Energy Board to watch this situation to make sure the corporations will not use the imposition of controls on exports to the United States or elsewhere as an excuse for slowing down the development of additional refining capacity in eastern Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There was quite a range of comment by industry spokesmen, from the independent association in Calgary right through to Mr. John Shaheen. I am therefore not sure to which comments the hon. member is making reference. With regard to the construction of refinery capacity intended for the Canadian market, I have no reason to believe that the proposed new refinery in Ontario or the expansion by BP, Gulf and other companies will in any sense be held back. The question of the expan-
June 15, 1973

sion of refinery capacity designed for the purpose of using overseas oil for refining in Canada and export to the United States is somewhat different. I can see that the companies might have some reason to take a fresh look before determining whether they would go ahead. I think they would want to consider the situation before deciding whether they would want to build that refinery for the use of the Canadian market or whether they would continue with their original plan to build a refinery for export of the finished product.


David Lewis: The minister need not have been so modest about his knowledge of what I had in mind. His answer clearly showed he knew darned well what I was referring to. I am therefore asking him whether he or the National Energy Board will watch this situation to make sure that this additional refining capacity in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces is not slowed down merely because the corporations may not be able to make as much profit by shipping the gasoline or other refined products to the United States, and to make sure that the products of these refineries are made available in eastern Canada at reasonable prices?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am not certain what refinery proposal in the province of Quebec the hon. gentleman has in mind. If he would like to specify, I could comment. With regard to refineries specifically constructed with re-export in mind, I can naturally see why there might be some reason for the companies to take a second look at proposals which, at the moment, are in the project stage, to decide whether they want to put them in. As for refineries which are already in existence, they are covered by Canadian export control. I am thinking particularly about those at Come-by-Chance and Port Hawkesbury. They will be covered by Canadian export control and, if necessary, the product will be available on a priority basis for the Canadian market.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister whether he or the government have considered the establishment of a Canadian or national petroleum corporation so that there would be a Crown corporation to protect the public interest in the production, distribution and pricing of oil products.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The question whether a national petroleum company-this has become a term of art in the oil business-should be set up in Canada is discussed in the energy studies which I expect to be available in the last week of June.
Oral Questions
the St. Lawrence River, can he tell us whether he has received a memorandum listing the advantages which Pointe-au Pic has to offer for the development of such a port?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: I have received a memorandum, Mr. Speaker, about the Pointe-au-Pic wharf, but it is not in reference to a deep-water port. I do not think that the people of Pointe-au-Pic are considering a deep-water port but one that will be more efficient than the existing one.


Gilles Caouette: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Is the development of a port at Pointe-au-Pic foreseeable in the near future?


Jean Marchand: I am about to study the brief that has been submitted to me, Mr. Speaker.


COMBINES
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It deals with gasoline prices and price fixing across Canada. I would refer the hon. gentleman to the question asked by my hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka two weeks ago on this subject, and the answer the minister then gave. In view of the fact that a wide discrepancy exists between retail gasoline prices in Edmonton, Calgary and Regina close to the resource, and retail prices in Winnipeg, far from the resource, has the minister any knowledge of an investigation by the anticombines tribunal into this price fixing at Calgary, Regina and Winnipeg?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: While it is not the practice to refer to any specific inquiry which is being conducted until it has been disposed of in one way or another, I think it is public knowledge that a formal complaint was made to the director of the combines branch by members of the Consumers Association of Canada under section 7 of the Combines Investigation Act with reference to certain practices in the petroleum industry. I can assure the hon. member that the director is carrying out the statutory responsibilities that fall upon him as a result of this formal complaint.
[ Translation]


HARBOURS
Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
Further to the questions put to the hon. minister last week concerning the construction of a supertanker port on


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Would the minister ask the anti-combines branch to take specific note of what I have stated, that there is a big discrepancy between the prices charged in Winnipeg and in Regina, Calgary and Edmonton? Why is it that the people close to the resource have to pay so much more for their gasoline when their taxes at the provincial level are actually lower?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to draw the point raised by the hon. member to the attention of the staff of the combines branch.

June 15, 1973
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT


ALLOCATION OF ROUTE TO MILAN, ITALY-INQUIRY AS TO DECISION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. A couple of weeks ago I asked him in the House whether a decision had been reached whereby Air Canada would be granted the route to Milan. Can the minister tell us what the present position is?


Jean Marchand: Exactly the same position as two years ago-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: -two weeks ago.


An hon. Member:: You were right the first time!


John George Diefenbaker: I realize the minister is in a position where he proves the meaning of inertia on all occasions, but this is the first public admission. Why is the decision being withheld? Why is it not being taken? Is it a fact that as a result of the discomfiture of Air Canada employees, who believe the government is discriminating against them, Mr. Pratte, the Chairman of Air Canada, has threatened to resign unless granted this particular route?


Mr. Marchand (Liangelier):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any threat of resignation on the part of Mr. Pratte. I think Mr. Pratte is interested in having the best airline it is possible to get in the circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: Isn't the minister, too?


Jean Marchand: I share his objectives in that field. We think we have good reason not to designate Milan at this moment because we want to have a broad policy and it will be included in the policy which is to be made known, I hope, in a few weeks.
government was actively assessing the situation, and I hope we will be able to resolve it by next week.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Knowing the government's fervent support for the ideal of academic and intellectual freedom, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the attention of the government has been drawn to the campaign being conducted by certain mining interests and companies against the integrity and honesty of Professor Kierans of McGill University, which obviously reflects a desire on the part of the mining industry unduly to influence academic freedom? If so, does the government intend to make any statement on this matter, especially in view of the provisions of the Bill of Rights that declare for academic freedom?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the only answer is that when members of the academic community become involved in politics, particularly partisan politics, they can expect some kind of response.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: It is easy to see whose side you are on, Bud. May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that this unwarranted attack upon Professor Kierans has come from such sources as John Porteous, president of Chibougamau Mining and Smelting Company, and Alfred Parvis, president of Noranda Mines, and in view of the fact that Noranda Mines and its subsidiary, Gaspe Copper-
* *
*


FINANCE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Finance which is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. In view of the fact small businessmen, fishermen and farmers are not able to get government guaranteed loans at any rate of interest, will the minister suggest specific guidelines to the banks relating to the provision of funds to this particular part of the Canadian economy, and also reprimand the president of the Canadian Bankers Association for threatening to withdraw such loans because they cannot get a higher interest rate?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I informed the House about ten days ago that the


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member might like to ask his question now.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I had just coincidentally reached that point. May I ask the minister whether he will examine the grant program under which these two companies received $6 million in order to see whether any of these funds are being used for the purpose of this attempt to slander an individual?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. According to latest reports there have been 11 cancellations at Toronto International Airport and indica-
June 15, 1973

tions that there will be more today. In light of the fact that the recently appointed mediator has attempted to determine the flexibility of the negotiating parties, can the minister advise whether in fact the parties are flexible and whether there is hope for an early settlement of this strike?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the parties have assured me that they are prepared to adopt flexible positions when they meet with the mediator. He met with them yesterday and they are now reassessing their positions. They are meeting with the mediator again this afternoon, and I am hopeful that this dispute will be resolved.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Keeping in mind what the minister has stated, and in view of the fact that the president of Air Canada, John Baldwin, has said that this strike action is forcing the airline to consider suspending operations, which would certainly be disastrous for the travelling public, as well as for cargo carrying commitments, may I ask the minister whether he has had an opportunity of discussing this statement with the president of Air Canada? If so, what was the result and are any contingency plans being made?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, comments have been made regarding the possibility that Air Canada might have to close down under certain circumstances for some weeks. This is the element that has injected urgency into attempts to try to bring the parties together and find a settlement. Despite that fact, however, we have to adhere to the principle of free collective bargaining and allow the parties to try to reach a settlement. As far as contingency plans are concerned in the event there is a shutdown, I think this part of the question should be directed to the Minister of Transport.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Minister of Labour for his advice and I will direct that question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact the president of Air Canada has indicated that the strikes are forcing the airline to consider suspending operations, is the minister aware of this and has he been in touch with the president of Air Canada? If so, what has been the result of these discussions and, further, are any contingency plans being made in the event Air Canada does shut down?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the very essence of a strike is to shut down operations. I do not know why the matter is so complicated. If the strikes continue and Air Canada has to shut down, at that moment we will have to take the necessary steps.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ROTATING STRIKES BY MACHINISTS-DISCUSSION WITH PARTIES ON INTERPRETATION OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES GUIDELINES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. Has the Minister of Labour or the Prime Minister
Oral Questions
had discussions with both sides in the dispute between Air Canada and the machinists union with respect to the interpretation of the guidelines of the Official Languages Act?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, this subject matter has, of course, been discussed during the course of the collective bargaining sessions that have gone on between management and union representatives. I might say, though, that I do not believe this is a major factor in terms of determining whether there will be a settlement of this dispute.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary for the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appeal to hon. members to try to limit the number of supplementaries. If there are seven or eight supplementaries to each question, again many members will be left by the wayside at the end of the question period.


James Aloysius McGrath: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; this is an important and urgent matter. Has the Minister of Transport or the Prime Minister had discussions with the president and the chairman of the board of Air Canada regarding the interpretation of the guidelines of the Official Languages Act as adopted by the House?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know about the Prime Minister but I do know that I did not have any discussions with the board of Air Canada.


STRIKE BY FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES AT WINNIPEG-PROGRESS TOWARD SETTLEMENT
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister or his department discussed with the president of Air Canada the dispute between Air Canada and the Canadian Airline Employees Association, which has resulted in a strike that has now lasted over a month because of the refusal of Air Canada to come anywhere close to agreeing to the unanimous recommendation made by the conciliation board? Has the minister any hope that this dispute will be settled before the accounts reach the point where they will become impossible to sort out?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have. We have had our mediators in on the situation, as I believe the hon. member is aware, in an endeavour to have this dispute resolved. I am aware, as is the hon. member, of the unanimous report of the conciliation board appointed to try to resolve this dispute. The hon. member asked whether I was hopeful, and I should like to say I am hopeful that this labour dispute will be resolved shortly.

June 15, 1973
Oral Questions


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the fact that the minister expects to table a bill on family allowances, and that young people have to complete their studies at a much later age than before, does the minister intend to include in his bill the provision that the family allowance be paid in respect of any child who is still studying?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker, but the government intends to extend family allowance benefits to all 16 and 17 year olds, whether or not they are students, so that this allowance will be universal for all children up to the age of 17 inclusive.



TRANSPORT


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, on June 5 I asked the Minister of Transport, and would like to ask him again in light of the answer he gave then and the answer he gave the hon. member for Vegreville the other day, whether he intends to refer the reports of Canadian National Railways and Air Canada to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the question was put to me yesterday or the day before. I am having discussions with my colleague, the House leader, and probably some time next week we can give the answer.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I asked the question on June 5 and the minister said referral was automatic. Two days ago he said he was going to discuss it with his colleagues. Surely we can have a yes or no now to a simple question like that.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lambton-Kent.



REQUEST BY NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH FUNDS

Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and is a follow-up of the question I asked

Wednesday regarding the financial crisis of the National Cancer Institute. In view of the fact this institute has been providing excellent research service in the field of cancer with only $250,000 a year in federal grants, and in view of the fact that its present $1 million debt indicates that it is no longer able to provide its services on that budget, can the minister now indicate whether the government intends to extend its financial support to the National Cancer Institute so it will be able to continue its very effective work?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the question concerns extending support. I do not think there has been any question of cancelling the support we have been giving this institute.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the statement made by the minister yesterday, can we now anticipate that the Canadian government will not accept or follow the unreasonably high emission control standards established by the United States which will accomplish very little and will act to the detriment of Canadian consumers?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has been following the lead of the United States up until now. Ministers will be meeting soon to consider where we will go in 1975 and following years.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the suggestion that there are plans available, or shortly to be available for the extension of Terminal No. 2 in Toronto, would the minister advise the House whether he will allow the public and the Standing Committee on Transport to comment on these plans before any further blunders are made in the terminal transportation set-up in Toronto?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as you know, Terminal No. 2 in Toronto was supposed to be built in three phases. Two have been completed and there is a third one. I do not think it would be feasible to change all the plans at this moment. If we ever have a terminal three, at that time maybe we can have the contribution of the hon. gentleman and other people who are interested.
June 15, 1973


Donald Alex Blenkarn: In view of the fact that Terminal No. 2 is a total disaster, will the minister advise if the same people who planned the first two parts of Terminal No. 2 are still in the employ of the ministry and, if so, why?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That supplementary could be placed on the order paper.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the recent statement by the Prime Minister denying that protection of the environment is low on the government's priority list, will the minister inform the House why he now refuses to adopt the more stringent automobile emission standards to be implemented in the United States by 1976 and which were also planned for Canada at the same date?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, that decision will be taken in a few weeks' time.


Randolph Harding: In view of the minister's statement expressing concern for energy losses through stricter controls, would the minister care to comment on the expert opinion of one of his senior officials, made public today on CBC radio, that strict automobile emission controls, if properly used, would not result-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether it is procedurally correct to invite ministers to comment on statements made by officials outside the House.

[ Translation]



TRANSPORT


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the problems caused by the building of giant airports such as that of Pickering and others, can the minister tell us whether or not his department expects that Canada will be provided with rapid train services?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter in which we are greatly interested.
[ English]


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Perth-Wilmot. Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to recognize the hon. member for Charlevoix on a supplementary and then I will call on the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot.
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us whether his department has been in touch with France and Japan with regard to new techniques in the field of rapid trains?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, not only are we consulting France and Japan in this regard, we have also been in touch with Germany.
[ English]



SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO-DECISION ON REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF TRI-LEVEL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE PROBLEMS

Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Minister of Transport. In light of representations made this week to the minister by officials of the Mid-western Development Council who requested that a tri-level committee be established to investigate the severe transportation problems in southwestern Ontario, can the minister now advise the House whether he has acceded to this request and, if so, when will the committee be established?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I received the representation and the delegation yesterday in my office. I think it is a little too soon to answer this question.


William Herbert Jarvis: Assuming, optimistically, that the minister will accede to this request, may I ask whether it will be his intention that the federal government provide the funding for this committee?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Red Deer.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The minister has said he has been in discussion with the provinces to formulate an entirely new plan for the development of industry throughout Canada. Can the minister tell the House when he will be announcing this new proposal?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much if it will be a single or specific proposal for all of Canada. As I indicated to members the other day, working parties are now in fact in negotiation with, for instance, the province of Alberta, and I would hope it would be possible to say something publicly about specific development opportunities within a relatively short time.
4800

June 15, 1973
Oral Questions



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. I should like to ask him why the government has considered it necessary to launch, as Mr. Justice Morrow claims, an unwarranted attack by the executive of the Canadian government upon the integrity and independence of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister made it quite clear yesterday that the government of Canada was not launching an unwarranted attack on the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary. All the Prime Minister said yesterday was that he was going to discuss the matter with the Minister of Justice. If the government feels that there was not such an unwarranted attack on the Supreme Court in the Northwest Territories, why then did the government release the information to the media that writ of prohibition proceedings were going to be taken the day before the judgment of Mr. Justice Morrow was released?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I will have to discuss that with the Minister of Justice.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of statements made by the Minister of Finance both yesterday and today that increased food production is essential to control inflation in Canada, may I ask the minister if he or the government has in hand or under study methods to guarantee prices and forward pricing that will encourage farmers to make long-range plans to increase food production?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, not only have I discussed how to increase agricultural production in Canada with the Minister of Finance but I have discussed it with the whole government. I think some of the things we have done have proven that the farmers are trying to respond. We will also do everything we can to see that the farmers get a proper economic return for their input if they are to be asked to control this terrible thing we all call inflation.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I did not really get the clear answer I was seeking. May I ask the minister whether we can at least have assurances that the government is abandoning or has abandoned its policy of restricting produc-

tion which it followed in the last two or three years and is now at least adopting a policy of all-out production?


Eugene Whelan: Any program of production in this country will be one that is needed here and one that we need for our exports. I am sure that our producers can meet the challenge that is offered to them.



AIRPORTS


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I would refer the minister to the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications with regard to the deferment or elimination of any proposed increase in the landing charges for light aircraft at any airport coming under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport. Would the minister advise what action has been taken and what his intention is with regard to this proposed increase?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think we accepted before the committee that we would delay this increase to October 1 instead of, I believe, July 1, if my memory serves me well. In the meantime, we are ready to receive all representations, and actually many people have come to see me about this.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Last October the minister, in conjunction with his colleague, the then minister of transport, issued a statement that the government would be seeking amendments to the Railway Act to provide funds for the relocation of railway tracks in downtown areas. I would ask the minister whether it is still on the agenda and when the legislation will be introduced in the House?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is very much on the agenda, but we encountered some difficulty in drafting the legislation and that slowed us down. I hope it is produced as soon as possible.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Would the minister advise what reply, other than an acknowledgement, he has made to the official request from the mayor of the city of Moncton about two weeks ago for information on this legislation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: We have had so many requests from so many cities that I would like to look up the specific
June 15, 1973

request and our reply to the mayor of Moncton. It was along the lines I have already given, namely, that I hope to introduce the legislation very early, at the earliest possible time.



EXPORT CONTROLS ON PETROLEUM PRODUCTS- DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS ON EASTERN CANADIAN REFINERIES-REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENTS

Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and refers to previous answers in respect of the petroleum products control regulations. The implication in his remarks was, it seemed to me, that they will discourage investment in the construction of future petroleum industrial structures in eastern Canada. Would the minister adjust the present regulations to remove those aspects which might impede investment in the petroleum industry in the Atlantic area?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the primary purpose of the regulations is to protect refinery output intended primarily for Canadian consumption. Any particular project that might be proposed for re-export of the kind I referred to previously in my answer to the hon. member for York South would have to be considered on an individual basis. Naturally, a new project coming forward would not be affected in the same way that an existing refinery would be.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will appreciate that we have now gone beyond the question period. I apologize to any members who are waiting for an opportunity to ask their questions, but I suggest that when we have so many supplementaries we encounter difficulties. I do not think there was one single question which did not carry two, three or more supplementaries. I think that is not an ideal practice to follow. Having said this, the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte will be recognized, as were other members.


Fred Alward McCain: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. I wonder to what extent the government feels it can continue to impede investment and development opportunities in the Atlantic area in view of the statements of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of the Environment in the last month?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that is argument.
Oral Questions POST OFFICE



ALLEGED MISUSE OF THE MAILS IN RESPECT OF KLONDIKE DAYS

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Is he aware of the fact that the mails are being used for the purpose of disseminating false and misleading information with respect to Klondike Days being designated as located at Edmonton. If so, has he taken the matter up with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and will he also inform all hon. members that the Klondike really is not in Edmonton but 1,500 miles north?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not certain whether the hon. member for Edmonton Centre is rising on a point of order. In any event, perhaps he should be recognized.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should really rise on a question of privilege but I will not until I have an answer to this question. It is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of the fact that there are day-care facilities in Canada for only 4 per cent of the children up to the age of six whose mothers work, and in light of the fact that a significant proportion of federal participation is in the form of LIP grants, would the minister tell the House whether the government has prepared any significant program to provide adequate day-care facilities across Canada and, if so, when will a statement be made?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this subject, as well as several other aspects of social services, was raised and discussed in the working document I tabled in the House on April 18. We are discussing these matters with the provinces. I do not expect to be in a position to make a specific statement on the problem raised by the hon. member in the near future. I think this is a matter that will take several months of discussions with the provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the right hon. member in a moment. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.



GRANTS FOR CANCER RESEARCH

Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National
26446-14J

June 15, 1973
Oral Questions
Health and Welfare to a question asked earlier. In view of the growing problem of cancer throughout Canada, in view of the fact that 30,000 new cases of cancer are predicted in Ontario alone this coming year, and since the government only allots $250,000 to cancer research, is the minister considering increasing the grant the federal government gives for cancer research?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member is not well informed. The amount of $250,000 he alludes to is a direct subsidy paid the National Cancer Institute, but that sum represents only a small part of the amounts assigned by the government to cancer research. The premise of the question being erroneous, the rest of it therefore does not apply.


John George Diefenbaker: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I rise with considerable diffidence because of events that have taken place in the last 24 hours and, in particular, speeches and observations made in the other place concerning an order made by Your Honour refusing to accept a bill which was initiated in the other place on the ground that it dealt with the expenditure of money. Your Honour has no protection. You are unable to speak for yourself. I have been here for a long while, and this is the first time that anything like this has taken place to my knowledge, that a decision made by Mr. Speaker concerning a matter that falls entirely within his jurisdiction and rights has been dealt with in the other place.
Frankly I do not have a solution to the problem. I have not had your consent to bring it up, although I mentioned a moment ago that I intended to do so and you gave no indication as to your attitude. However, I feel that we in this chamber, knowing the contribution you have made, the fairness and the wisdom with which you have presided over this House, would want to tell you that this House stands behind you in your decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: It is very easy to attack when the subject of attack cannot answer. The reception given to my remark indicates that you know where this House stands, Sir.


Mr. Speaker:: On this happy note, perhaps the Chair would be allowed to call orders of the day. Before calling orders of the day, however, I gather we have an interesting point of order to discuss which may take a while.


Mr. Leggatt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on question of privilege. It is one that has been raised by several other members on this side of the House. I seriously submit it is a matter affecting the privileges of the members of this House in that it concerns the inviting of members to events of national importance which are taking place within their own ridings. It concerns not only the Canada summer games but the forthcoming visits of the Queen to Canada.

Does the governor >nt intend to deny to the sitting members of parliament for those constituencies that the Queen will visit an invitation to sit on the platform at the ceremonies? If so, it will be a direct insult to the people who live in those constituencies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the reluctance of the Liberals to invite members of parties other than their own to attend such ceremonies, particularly in view of their shaky position in the province of British Columbia-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is rising on a suggested question of privilege which has been brought to the attention of the House previously. When the hon. member referred to this matter yesterday I suggested that he should give notice of his intention to raise it and he sent a note to the effect that he would do so later that day. Now, the next day, he rises on the same question.
I certainly have no intention of depriving the hon. member of his right to indicate to the House why he thinks there is a question of privilege and what motion he proposes for the consideration of the House at this time or later, but it seems to me that basically what the hon. member has, and others who have spoken in respect of the same problem, is more a grievance than a question of parliamentary privilege. I would doubt that we should have further debate or discussion of the matter. The hon. member may give these considerations some thought as he brings his remarks to a close.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I might say that I did rise yesterday but unfortunately, because of the pressure of business, I was not recognized. I will draw my remarks to a close by saying that I do not raise this subject facetiously. I seriously submit that it is a question of the privileges of members of parliament to be invited properly. I do not know whether this is an appropriate matter on which there should be a ruling, but I certainly think it is a matter that the government should reconsider in the future.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
That the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the House on May 24, 1973, be concurred in-Mr. Orlikow.
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move again, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
June 15, 1973

That the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the House on May 24, 1973, be concurred in.
It has been suggested, Mr. Speaker, that discussion at this time is not in order apparently on the basis that the reference to the committee dealt only with the estimates. Although, I do not have the page number in front of me, I am certain that the estimates referred to that committee included an item, or items, having to do with the improvement of harbour facilities. I am certain also that hon. members, particularly those who are not on the transport committee, who are occupied in other committees and cannot attend its meetings, should have an opportunity at some point to discuss this whole question. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is the time to do that. I submit that today I, and other members from western Canada who have an interest in the subject, should have an opportunity to discuss this matter.
The people of western Canada, through their taxes, have paid substantial amounts of money for the improvement of the harbour in Montreal and for the building of the St. Lawrence Seaway. They do not complain about this. We in western Canada have paid taxes to improve harbours in Halifax and St. John's. We have paid taxes to improve the harbour in Vancouver. I submit that there is only one port which can be used more economically to help move goods into and out of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and there is ample evidence that it is cheaper to move grain from western Canada to European countries through that port-


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman making his speech on the substance of the motion, but it does seem to me that he should be addressing himself to the point of order on whether or not the Chair can receive this motion and report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I assumed the hon. member's remarks were introductory, and that he was going to attempt to guide the Chair on the procedural point, because that is the only thing that is before the House at the moment. I think I should indicate that it is my intention when I have heard argument, either for or against the procedural acceptability of the motion, to reserve my judgment in any event. So, I bring to the attention of hon. members that I do not think it would be possible to proceed with a debate on the substance of the motion at this time.
This is really a very important matter, a substantive matter going to the very essence of the parliamentary system. To my mind, it is that important. It is certainly the most important point of order that has been brought to the attention of the House for a long time. That is why I think that hon. members, as much as possible, should address themselves to this very important, basic point of order, which I will take under consideration, studying the arguments which will be presented for the guidance of the Chair, and delivering my ruling in due course.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I assure you that I will not be very long, and I want to assure the parliamentary secretary that, if and when you rule it is in order to discuss this matter I, and other members, will be making pretty lengthy speeches outlining the problem as we see it. As I
Transport and Communications say, I do not intend, nor should I try to make a long speech now.
I simply want to say briefly that there is ample evidence that grain can be moved from western Canada to European ports much more cheaply than through the Lakehead and by rail. Similarly finished goods, manufactured products such as cars, can be shipped to western Canada much more cheaply through Churchill than by rail. Under those circumstances, I submit that the port of Churchill is crucial to western Canada.
I submit that there must be a time when this matter can be discussed, and I cannot think of a better time, a more appropriate time to debate it than on the report made by the appropriate standing committee, which recommends certain lines of action to the government.
Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I submit that my motion is in order. I hope you will rule that we can take up the motion and the matter can be discussed, so that the government can at least explain why it has not acted along the lines which the transport committee has recommended.


John Mercer Reid: June 15, 1973
Transport and Communications mates. My understanding is that when the committee of supply existed, and when the estimates were discussed there, three options were open to the members of that committee; they could accept the estimates, they could reduce them or they could eliminate them; that and nothing more.
Mr. Speaker, I would, therefore, argue that the reference of the estimates to the standing committee which by the reforms of 1968 merely transferred them from the committee of supply to the standing committees, did not change the nature of the reference even though the nature of the committee was changed. The reference of the estimates is a very stringent one, a very limited one and basically the standing committees have within them only the power to make recommendations on the estimates-that is reduce them, accept them or eliminate them. I do not think there can be much doubt about that.
The powers of the standing committees are set out in Standing Order 65(8) which reads as follows:
Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, and, to report from time to time, and, except when the House otherwise orders, to send for persons, papers and records, to sit while the House is sitting, to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned, to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by them, and to delegate to subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report direct to the House.
The key point here is that standing committees may consider only what has been referred to them. I should like to quote from Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, citation 304 as follows:
(1)	A committee can only consider those matters which have been committed to it by the House.
(2)	A committee is bound by, and not at liberty to depart from, the order of reference. In the case of a select committee upon a bill, the bill committed to it is itself the order of reference to the committee, who must report it with or without amendment to the House.
Notice, Mr. Speaker, there is no reference to making a commentary upon the bill; the committee must report it with or without amendment. The power of the Committee, therefore, is, basically the same as that given by the former reference of the estimates to the committee of supply which now, as it applies to standing committees, is very limited indeed.
I continue to quote:
(3)	When it has been thought desirable to do so, the House has enlarged the order of reference by means of an instruction or in the case of a select committee upon a bill by the committal to it of another bill. Mandatory instructions have also been given to select committees restricting the limits of their powers or prescribing the course of their proceedings, or directing the committee to make a special report upon certain matters.
(4)	Sometimes a committee may have to obtain leave from the House to make a special report when its order of reference is limited in scope.
That sets out the powers of standing committees in conjunction with Standing Order 65(8), which I read before, so I would argue that the restrictions upon committees when they are discussing estimates are strict and most stringent. If a standing committee, for example, desires to travel, then it must come to the House and seek permission. If a committee wishes enlarged terms of refer-

ence, only the House can grant it. When a committee has a reference which it considers to be limited in scope, it must obtain the leave of the House before it can bring in a report which exceeds the scope of its original reference.
I want to deal with the limited scope of a reference and I should like to quote from Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, citation 242. This deals with the powers of the former committee of supply and reads as follows:
(1)	The procedure of the committee of supply follows the ordinary usage of a committee of the whole House. No amendments can be moved which is not relevant to the grant under consideration. The votes should be considered in the order in which they stand on the paper distributed to the members of the House; but any vote may be passed over and not moved. Once it is moved a motion to postpone it cannot be entertained. Each resolution for a grant forms a distinct motion which can only be dealt with by being agreed to, reduced, negatived, superseded or withdrawn. The committee may reduce the amount of a grant by the omission or reduction of the items of expenditure of which the grant is composed. Here the power of the committee ceases.
(2)	The only motion allowed, when a resolution is under consideration in committee of supply is that the amount be reduced or that the chairman leave the chair (either without making a report or to report progress on certain resolutions).
(3)	Each resolution can be dealt with only by being agreed to, reduced, negatived, superseded, or, by leave, withdrawn, and the withdrawal can be made although the decision of the committee has been taken upon amendments proposed to the resolution. Here the power of the committee ceases. It is not allowable to attach a condition or an expression of opinion to a vote or to change a destination of a grant.
Mr. Speaker, these are very stringent restrictions, indeed. However, on several occasions since the abolition of the committee of supply and transferral of its powers to the standing committees of the House, the standing committees have made substantive reports on the basis of estimates referred, similar to the third report of the Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications, the acceptability of which we are debating today. Many of these reports have been requests to travel and several of them have been concurred in by the House. However, more than 20 times since December, 1968, standing committees have used the reference of estimates to make reports of a more substantive nature. The Chair has never had the opportunity to rule on the admissibility of these substantive reports because no motion to concur in such a report has ever been presented. The proper time to object to such a report is the time at which concurrence is sought rather than when the report is presented, so that the contents may be examined before an argument is put forward.
I quote again from Beauchesne's Fourth Edition citation 323(1):
A committee report may be ruled out of order though it has been received by the House, and a motion to concur therein cannot then be entertained.
Mr. Speaker, when the committee of supply was abolished in 1968 and the referral of the estimates was made to the standing committees, it was always assumed that there would be an opportunity to debate the estimates in the House of Commons. There is provision in the standing orders to permit members of the opposition and also members on the government side to move concurrence in committee reports on estimates, so that they can be debated in the whole House. However, this is the first time that a member of the opposition has moved concurrence in a report on estimates. I would argue also that while we can
June 15, 1973

debate the procedural admissibility of the report of the standing committee, concurrence cannot be moved today. It can only be moved on an allocated day, as I said earlier, according to the provisions of Standing Order 58(16).


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is an allotted day.


John Mercer Reid: I should have said allotted day, I beg your pardon. Those provisions in the Standing Orders have not been taken advantage of by members of the opposition and, therefore, we have not had an opportunity to debate reports on estimates in the limited way in which I have described. Even if Your Honour may find that the motion to concur in the third report of the Transport Committee is in order and can be debated, I would argue that it cannot be debated today. According to the Standing Order, that matter should be debated on an allotted day and not on a day set aside for government business. I would even go further. If Your Honour should find, as I would argue, that members cannot, under routine proceedings, move motions to concur in reports of standing committees on estimates, I would argue that that can only be done in accordance with the terms of Standing Order 58 itself.
The third report of the Special Committee on Procedure in 1968 dealt with this matter when it dealt with the proposed reforms in supply procedures. At page 431 of the Journals of the House of Commons for December 6, 1968 one reads as follows:
... It is envisaged that during the latter weeks of a session these days would be used frequently for debating the reports on the departmental estimates presented by the various Standing Committees.
I point out that of the 25 opposition days in a session, five are called in the first term, seven in the second term and the rest in the third term. Spending our time debating matters raised on opposition days has put great pressure on the business of the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What business?


John Mercer Reid: However, the opposition has not, until now, made references to the estimates, as it is perfectly entitled to do and as it was intended by the authors of the report that opposition parties and opposition members should do. I think if opposition parties were to put into operation these particular parts of Standing Order 58 to which I have referred, a great deal of the frustration of hon. members on both sides of the House would, as I think was very well put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), be alleviated since they would have an opportunity to discuss the over-all operation of any particular department. That, as I say, would go some distance to alleviating much of the frustration which members and backbenchers on both sides of the House feel.
I emphasize that Your Honour's ruling on this question will have a great deal to do with the way in which the House will see its way clear to give debating time to opposition members and backbenchers. It will affect the work of the procedure committee on the operation of the question period and other elements of procedure associated with it.
Transport and Communications
Another point which I must raise has to do with the substance of what is contained in the report of the standing committee. I draw to Your Honour's attention the third report of the committee, particularly the substantive matter in that report, as recorded in Votes and Proceedings of May 24, 1973. The substance of the report is as follows:
Your Committee recommends that the Government consider the advisability of making available to this Committee the report on the upgrading of the Port of Churchill.
Your Committee recommends that the Government consider the advisability of undertaking immediately a complete program for improving and upgrading the Port of Churchill including dredging, wharf, grain handling and grain storage facilities.
Speaking as a westerner, I am in sympathy with the point of view that led to the writing of that report. However, we must consider what the effect would be, in a legislative sense, if the House of Commons were to adopt such reports. I think it may be argued that if the House were to adopt such a report, the position would be that the House would be directing the government as to expenditures. It has been the long standing practice of the House of Commons that, before provisions for the expenditures of the people's money are enacted, there must be a royal recommendation and there must be a motion moved by a minister of the Crown.
The other point I wish to make concerns the consideration of these motions under routine proceedings. The number of motions for concurrence in committee reports, as at present on the order paper, has been described as a time bomb ready to go off. If hon. members can stand in their place and, at their leisure, move motions for concurrence of committee reports dealing with estimates, the effect would be that we should take away from the government its proper control over the business of the House and spend our time debating proper recommendations or reports of standing committees. Clearly, in such an event the House of Commons would be bound to deal not with the business of the day as put forward by the government but, rather, with the business of the day as put forward by standing committees, which are subagencies of the House of Commons and subservient to it. This question must also be considered.
Those are the main points I wished to raise. I wish to reserve my right to debate the operation of Standing Order 58, as that affects the reports of standing committees. I suggest to Your Honour again that the referral of estimates to standing committees is a limited matter. Such reference is a very strict reference, and when the consideration of estimates was transferred from the committee of supply to the standing committees, the standing committees were given only the powers formerly belonging to the committee of supply. There is provision in the Standing Orders for debating the reports of standing committees. I am referring to the operation of Standing Order 58(16) of course. The power of committees to make substantive reports on estimates is not well founded in procedure. I submit that that reference of the estimates is limited, and that Your Honour should find that motions for concurrence in committee reports to be considered under routine proceeedings are out of order, on the ground that it is beyond the powers of a committee to make a substantive report on estimates.

June 15, 1973
Transport and Communications


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we are extremely grateful to the parliamentary secretary for his views and his solicitude for members of the opposition. I am certain, after the short period between the present and the time when he will be sitting on the opposition side, he will be able to make great use of his own words.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I think the parliamentary secretary has made his position quite plain. Apparently, he even wanted to estop our right to argue the procedural aspects of the matter. According to the parliamentary secretary, we are here to say, "Nyet" or yes, and any attempt to say anything else is completely wrong. That seems to be the parliamentary secretary's view.
I am not going to address my argument to the question of whether a motion for concurrence should be moved. Nor am I going to address myself to the question of whether or not there should be debate on these matters. I will leave that to one side entirely and leave it for Your Honour to deal with, as Your Honour has the wisdom to deal with such points. However, I want to make some comments about the position argued for by the parliamentary secretary, namely, that the standing committees, when dealing with estimates or, for that matter, anything else, are forbidden-that is virtually what he said-to comment upon and include in their reports issues related to the matters referred to them. That is the position taken by the parliamentary secretary. This is despite the fact this has been done by a great many committees in the past, including one, if I remember correctly, of which he was chairman.


John Mercer Reid: I have sinned.


Gerald William Baldwin: He has sinned. The virtue of the parliamentary secretary does not shine too well today in this regard. That is a different situation entirely, What is the right of a committee with regard to a matter which has been referred to it? What right does the committee have to discuss related aspects of the issue and report upon them? I am not suggesting that under the terms of the Standing Orders and precedents which have been cited that the report can be debated in the House or in respect of which concurrence can be moved. Because the British practice has been referred to, we should go back a little in point of time.
When this committee on procedure returned from overseas, it made recommendations which were contained in proposals brought to the House and generally made Standing Orders or amendments to standing orders. It recommended that we look at the British practice, and parts of the Canadian practice, and marry them in the hope it would be fruitful as far as our debates are concerned.
Among other things, we looked at the practice of the former standing committee on estimates. It was either a standing or special committee established in 1959 or 1960. That was one of the practices of this House. That committee's powers of reference were to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the House and report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, 
papers and records. While Standing Order 65(8) did not go that far, I suggest the special committee on procedure and this House did have that precedent and practice before it.
It also had before it the practice followed by the standing committee on estimates in the United Kingdom. As a matter of fact, the report of the special committee on procedure, presented on March 13, 1968, stated in part:
The British practice, while it avoids discussion of the estimates items, has the great value that it permits the Opposition to explore whatever shortcomings, either small or great, it detects in the policies and conduct of the Ministry before Supply is voted.
That runs directly contrary to what the parliamentary secretary suggested. He indicated that the right of the various committees on estimates shall be rigidly limited. The parliamentary secretary shakes his head. However, he has been converted since he put in a report of this kind. That is the only conclusion to be drawn from his remarks. I suggest that was not the intention.
In so far as opportunities to debate are concerned, Your Honour might be able to find great comfort in the Standing Orders and practice and say they should only be debated on an opposition day. I would not struggle very hard against that proposal. However, a committee must have the right to establish its practice and jurisdiction with regard to what it does within the terms of reference. There must be some allowance to the committee, particularly when we have decided as a matter of practice in order to make more time available for the House, we shall set aside small units of this House and authorize them by terms of reference, the Standing Orders and general practice to conduct examinations which would otherwise be done in the House.
I suggest by inference we should not deprive a standing committee dealing with estimates of its right to go further afield than just saying yes or no. If in the course of its discussions and explorations it finds issues which it deems fit to refer to the House, it should be entitled to do so, but not necessarily to the extent of following them up by a debate and a motion to concur.
I wish to cite one particular case as an illustration. After a great many attempts to obtain the reports of Canadian National Railways and Air Canada from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis) became frustrated. The Minister of Transport said it was automatic that these reports were referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. It is by no means automatic. During the examination of the estimates by the committee, the hon. member for Hastings should be entitled to have the committee support him in his efforts to obtain these documents.
On April 28, 1970, the select committee on procedure presented a detailed report on estimates to the House. It is this same committee, with virtually the same members which recommended the new Standing Orders to the House. That is some evidence that what the committee had in mind was at least the right of the committee to deal in a collateral way with issues and matters which come forward as the result of an examination of the estimates. If the committee has the right to decrease the estimates, I suggest with great respect they should have the right to include them in a report, but not necessarily in a report to be presented to the House with a motion for concurrence
June 15, 1973

or one which can be debated other than on an opposition day.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very keen interest in the matter of moving concurrence in reports. I regret that the chairman of the Standing Committee on Regional Development is not present today because we are of a like mind on this matter. I am sure the chairman of all committees would take a like stand on the matter. On a number of occasions today, the parliamentary secretary alluded to Standing Order 58, and section (16) in particular. I point out to Your Honour that Standing Order 58(16) is there for one purpose, namely moving concurrence in a report.
The parliamentary secretary stated that a motion to concur should not be entertained. Why then do we have Standing Order 58(16)? I think it is clear that if there were no reports, there would be no need for the rule. However, the rule is there and a motion to concur is certainly in order. I do not agree with the parliamentary secretary's suggestion that such a motion should not be entertained. I do not understand how the parliamentary secretary arrives at that interpretation.
The parliamentary secretary spoke about the fact that committees are restricted in the matters upon which they can report. As has been indicated in several procedural rulings of late, precedents play a great role in this House. I remind the parliamentary secretary that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) was present at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Regional Development. He took part in a discussion of many matters not covered according to the interpretation of the parliamentary secretary. The minister in charge of the department saw fit to discuss matters far beyond the restrictions the parliamentary secretary is trying to place on the House today. I think his argument, especially with respect to the Standing Orders, amounts to an abuse, as was indicated by my hon. friend from Peace River a few minutes ago, as well as by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. He himself established a precedent some time ago in this respect.
I repeat, not only has the minister of the department in which I have been rightly interested taken part in going far beyond restrictions of which the hon. member speaks, but evidence from every committee would indicate that this is the case. Again, I regret that committee chairmen are not here today to defeat the argument put forward by the parliamentary secretary on this particular matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I readily agree with Your Honour's statement that in dealing with this point of order we are coming to grips with an important aspect of parliamentary procedure. Before I get to the main points I wish to make, the parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Reid) will forgive me if I seek to correct him with regard to two or three things he said.
First, I refer to his suggestion that the adoption by the House of the third report of the standing committee on Transport and Communications would, in effect, amount to a direction to the government to spend money. The
Transport and Communications words of the report are very clear, namely, that the committee "recommends to the government that it consider the advisability of" doing such and such. I suggest, therefore, that if the House were to agree to concur in that report, the House would be doing the same thing, that is to say, recommending that the government consider the advisability of doing such and such. In other words, we would be doing exactly the same thing as if we were to pass any one of most of the motions under private members' notices of motions that are on the order paper. This is not crucial to the point before us today but I think this opposing point of view might be placed on the record.
The second comment I wish to make is with respect to an obiter dictum of the parliamentary secretary which he gave when he was referring to motions which could be put down for the purpose of discussing estimates on opposition days. He suggested this privilege was not limited to members of the opposition and that supporters of the government in his view, were able to do likewise. I believe the wish was father to the thought. I draw his attention to Standing Order 58(3) which states:
Opposition motions on allotted days may be moved only by members in opposition to the government and may relate to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada and also may be used for the purpose of considering reports of standing committees relating to consideration of estimates therein.
I think that if the parliamentary secretary, as a member of the government side, wants to have one of these motions put down he will have to find a friend in the opposition to do it for him. He should not have too much trouble in that respect.
The third comment the parliamentary secretary made to which I take some exception is his criticism of these motions for concurrence in committee reports being placed on the order paper under Routine Proceedings. I would remind the hon. member that it was as a result of a decision of Your Honour three or four years ago in a particular case which arose because of a motion put down by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) that these motions are placed there in the names of members, whether they are members of the particular committee mentioned or not. If the parliamentary secretary says we have to divide sheep from goats, or apples from oranges, I shall not quarrel with him. Certainly, I have a motion down under Routine Proceedings for concurrence in the report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs; it will be called next week if the government does not keep its commitment. The issue about whether or not the committee exceeded its terms of reference does not, of course, arise in this case at all, because that committee was considering a report of a special joint study group which had been referred to it. It was not a case of estimates at all. So I think the sweeping statement made by the parliamentary secretary that these motions should not appear under the item Routine Proceedings is one which ought to be qualified in the light of Your Honour's ruling and in the light of the facts.
These are the three preliminary comments I wished to make by way of clearing the record. I have a few further observations in mind with regard to the main issue before us; I shall make them briefly but I do not think I can do so in 30 seconds. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might call it one o'clock?
June 15, 1973

Transport and Communications


Mr. Speaker:: If it is the wish of the House that I call it one o'clock, I shall do so. I had been hoping, of course, that we might have ended consideration of the procedural point by then. I did indicate to the House that it was my intention to study all the arguments submitted to me, and take the matter under advisement so that the House will have an opportunity to resume debate on the subject which is scheduled for consideration today under government orders.
However, I assume this can be done some time early this afternoon after we have heard from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre or from any other hon. members who may wish to contribute to this interesting debate. When we have completed the procedural debate, I suggest the matter be held in abeyance and that the House revert to any business which it had agreed to consider at that time.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. When the House rose at one o'clock the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the point of order which we are discussing there are, two main issues. May I first refer to the second of those two main issues because I suspect that there is not much one can do by way of arguing with it. I refer to the point raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council when he suggested that under Standing Order 58(16) it is required that any motion to concur in a committee report, where that report deals only with estimates, has to be made on an allotted day.
I can see problems arising when there are mixed or hybrid reports, but in so far as the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications is a report arising out of that committee's discussion of the estimates that were referred to it, I confess it would be pretty hard to argue against the requirement of Standing Order 58(16) that such a debate take place on an allotted day. In any case Your Honour has indicated, I think wisely, that you are going to reserve judgment on this point of order, so we will not debate the substance of the report today. Therefore, I will spend no more time on that issue.
I think the more fundamental issue, the first one that Your Honour raised, is the question whether or not a report such as the one that is covered by this motion is itself in order. In other words, is it permissible for a standing committee which has had estimates referred to it to do anything other than to report those estimates, either with approbation or disapproval, or by cutting them down? The report under consideration today, and several other reports on the order paper, have in them ancillary comments and recommendations which, although they arise out of matters covered in the estimates, nevertheless are on subjects not referred to the committee for comment

or recommendation. It is pretty hard to argue with the purist position taken by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, namely that the rules are strict; that is, all the committee can do is discuss what is referred to it and if all that is referred to it is the estimates that would seem to end the debate.
However, I think there is a good deal to say in support of the point of view put forward by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who reminded us that standing committees are by Standing Order given the power to discuss and examine matters referred to them. It does seem to be a matter of common sense that if they have a right to examine and discuss such matters they should be able to give the House the benefit of their opinions. I think the hon. member for Peace River stated that very well and there is no need for me to repeat it. I underline the things he said in this respect.
The only other thing I want to say-and I take the time to debate this because I think it is a point not yet made in this debate-is that it seems to me there is a parallel we should look at between what we now do in respect of bills and what we now do in respect of estimates. The Standing Orders that were adopted in 1968 changed our practice with regard to both items of business. We referred all bills, with a few minor exceptions, to standing committees. When we did that, one of the problems we faced was that this wiped out the committee of the whole operation and seemed to deny to members of the House of Commons who are not members of a particular standing committee any chance to get at the details of a bill. We protected that right by establishing the report stage. Therefore, any member of the House of Commons who is not a member of a committee to which a bill has been referred has the right to put down a motion at the report stage and secure discussion on the floor of the House of Commons on aspects of the bill about which he is concerned. I think common sense requires that we parallel that provision with one respecting estimates.
Prior to 1968, and back in years about which some of us could speak, the practice was that all the estimates were dealt with on the floor of this chamber in committee of supply. Every member was here and every member could discuss any item that came up and could discuss matters of policy and make recommendations. In other words, the points of view of members could be presented right here on the floor. Now, however, we have sent the estimates to the committees and, although there may be considerable freedom in those committees to discuss anything arising out of the estimates, that right is more or less denied to members of the House who do not belong to a particular committee.
I think we should have some device with regard to estimates that is parallel to or like unto the report stage of bills. I think the device that is readily available is that of having the right to move a motion concurring in a committee's report so that such matters can be discussed on the floor of this House. Just as in respect of the report stage of bills I accept that there must be limitations. We cannot just return to the procedure in the committee of supply and, with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, spend months and months considering estimates. But where there are par-
June 15, 1973

ticular issues which are highlighted in the report of a committee on estimates, I think there should be a way to discuss those issues on the floor of the House. I support the things the hon. member for Peace River said about the fact that if committees have a right to discuss things they should be able to make their views known to the House in the report. Therefore, I think some way should be found to resolve this issue.
I have already said, Sir, that I wholly approve of your suggestion that you plan not to make a ruling today but that you will take this measure under advisement. I look forward with eager anticipation to the result of the weekend you will spend studying this absorbing, exciting and interesting matter. I hope you did not have other plans for the weekend. I make one plea to you, Sir. Please do not come back and tell us that the matter ought to be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. That committee, bogged down with trivia galore, would never get to this very important issue. I hope you will restrict yourself in your statement to the making of some suggestions to the House concerning how, within the rules as they stand, we might protect the right of members of the House who are not on committees to discuss matters that were discussed in the committee and which the committee felt should be the subject of recommendations back to the House.
I will stop at that, Mr. Speaker. That is my main submission. It is my view that something parallel to the report stage on bills should be available to us with regard to estimates, and I think the device of concurrence in committee reports can well provide that device. I readily agree that abuses must be guarded against, but it does seem to me that at the same time there are rights which ought to be protected.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, unlike my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I would not presume to make any suggestions concerning how you deal with your leisure time this weekend. Seriously, however, this is a matter of great importance because it, in a sense, comes to the heart of what Parliamentary democracy is all about, namely the opportunity for Members of Parliament to inform themselves about specific subjects that come to their attention and thus afford government the opportunity to know what members are thinking about some particular matters so that it would be in a better position to respond to them. The approach used by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was that the strictures on the committee system, namely that it is only possible for the committee to say yes or no or to reduce the amount proposed within the estimates, make the system insufficient for parliamentary purposes.
There is a practice, as Your Honour undoubtedly knows, which has come about through the mechanism of referring estimates to standing committees, a practice which was not permitted to be followed when we had the old Committee of supply. I refer to the practice of cabinet ministers appearing only occasionally before the various committees, leaving matters before the committee in the hands of members of the public service. It is well known that members of the public service, in whatever capacity, are not able to deal with policy questions. When policy mat-
Transport and Communications ters are raised in committees on estimates, and public servants are there, the committee is stymied and not able to find out what the position of the government might be in respect of a particular subject.
This is the case with respect to the item that we are seeking to put forward at the moment. Without getting into the merits of it, let me say that the substance of the question is the study of the Port of Churchill which was made. When that study was before the committee, officials of the National Harbours Board were not able to comment upon the study itself or upon policy matters relating to the government's approach to it. It seems to me that unless we can develop some procedure or mechanism whereby matters such as this can be dealt with, we will be flying in the face of what we expect the House of Commons to try to accomplish.
The suggestion of the parliamentary secretary that this is a matter which involves the expenditure of public funds, I think should not merit more than passing attention. It is obvious on the face of the two recommendations of the committee that the committee was carefully to use the phraseology that usually precedes any resolution that relates to the expenditure of public funds, even in the most remote sense. Those two parts contain the words, that the government consider the advisability of taking those two courses of action, namely, first, to table a particular report and, second, that the government consider the advisability of undertaking a program for upgrading the port. I think that the position advanced by the parliamentary secretary will have no great support in any event.
Mr. Speaker, now I should like to consider with you Standing Order 65 (8) which, I understand, the parliamentary secretary referred to as being the section giving the committees their power. Part of the Standing Order reads that:
Standing committees shall be empowered ... to send for persons, papers and records . . .
Unless the House otherwise orders. In this instance it could not otherwise order, and the committee has the authority to send for persons, papers or records. One of the things sought by way of a recommendation of the committee is a particular document to which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Guay) made reference, namely, a study that exists with respect to the Port of Churchill. The committee thought it more advisable not to exercise that jurisdiction to send for papers within the committee where there was no minister available to respond to that request, and where the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport absolutely refused to make any move to provide the document. The committee felt that the alternative course available to it was to exercise that authority to send for papers by way of making a recommendation to the House, and that the House pass an opinion on whether or not that particular document should be produced.
With respect to Standing Order 58 (16), which I think requires some examination also, I will admit from the outset that the situation becomes somewhat more difficult

June 15, 1973
Transport and Communications
because the Standing Older is written in fairly clear terms. It reads that:
There shall be no debate-
And this is the other part, I gather, about which the parliamentary secretary was arguing.
on any motion to concur in the report of any standing committee on estimates which have been referred to it except on an allotted day.
The motion that is before us is only incidentally a motion relating to the estimates, in this particular case the estimates of the National Harbours Board. Those estimates, as one will see from Votes and Proceedings of May 24, are contained in the third report of the committee. I will not read the whole of the first part of the report relating to the estimates except that part of it which concludes by simply saying "and reports the same", namely, reports the estimates without making any recommendation with respect to them. The substantive part of that report is contained in the two items which are specific recommendations and which relate to subject matters contained within the estimates, namely, port development and the involvement of the National Harbours Board in the Port of Churchill. Those are the subject matters about which the committee has drafted recommendations. All the Committee could do with respect to those estimates would be to reduce them, to recommend that they be opposed, or to delete them. The committee is not doing that. It is dealing with a subject matter subsidiary to the estimates themselves and contained within the estimates.
What is before the House is the recommendation that the government consider the advisability of making available to the committee the report on the upgrading of the Port of Churchill. The second recommendation is that the government consider the advisability of undertaking immediately a complete program for improving and upgrading the Port of Churchill including dredging, wharf, grain handling and grain storage facilities. Taking into account the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with regard to the necessity of having some mechanism whereby the House can express a point of view about a subject such as this, namely a particular aspect of something which flows out of the estimates of a department, I think Your Honour may be able to look at Standing Order 58 (16) in a new light. Your Honour might consider that this is, in fact, not a report of any standing committee on estimates, but a report which flows from the two recommendations made by the committee with respect to something that the department should be doing.


John Mercer Reid: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Speaker:: The parliamentary secretary is seeking the hon. member's permission to ask a question.


Frank Howard: I know of no person in this House who needs that opportunity more than he does, and I am glad to accommodate him.


John Mercer Reid: The hon. member's argument is that this report cannot be considered a report on estimates. If it is not a report on estimates, then under what authority has that committee made a report to the House of Commons?


Frank Howard: I maintain that if a standing committee reports on the estimates, then it is bound only to be able to report them, which is tantamount to saying approve them, or reduce them or it can report that it defeated them, something of that sort. I submit that this is not a question of a specific report on estimates. I realize that this is a very fine point, but I think that it is necessary to look at every fine point that is available to us in order to give the benefit of the doubt to the essence of parliamentary democracy, namely, the right of the House of Commons to express itself about matters of public policy. We should look more precisely at the fine words that are contained within the Standing Orders, so that the ruling may be made on the side of parliamentary democracy, and not on the side of restricting parliamentary democracy. I am saying that, Mr. Speaker, not to you directly in consideration of the way you may rule, but in response to the parliamentary secretary's question.


Mr. Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabour the points that have been raised, but I have been concerned about what has happened to estimates. I am concerned about the factual report which the parliamentary secretary made, which I am sure was prepared by the executive assistant to the government House leader. I think it is unfortumate that the latter is not here to participate in this debate, because I believe the arguments that are being used are not necessarily correct in the light of the previous situation and of practices of the House.
Beauchesne is not necessarily relevant to the new Standing Orders. Fortunately, he died before the changes were made, and anything he wrote, that may be related to them, is not necessarily conducive to assisting Your Honour in reaching a conclusion. In a way I regret Your Honour's personal ability in interpreting the rules of the House. It would be much easier if you did not really look at the problem we are faced with, and allowed parliament to develop a set of rules that would be in keeping with the changes we have made. Your Honour has intervened, and rightly so, with respect to the recommendation preceding government bills. This House, and its committees, in adopting the changes did not take into consideration what was going to develop as a result of the operation of the changed rules. Much the same thing applies to estimates.
Under the previous rules when you could convince a minister that it was to his advantages to make a number of concessions in order to have his estimates passed, he would be willing to make those concessions. I had that experience on numerous occasions. I always felt that during the last two or three days of a session, when estimates were being debated, I had an opportunity to get a bridge built in my riding, or a new dock, or new federal building which the minister in question had no intention of putting there on his own, but which he agreed to in order to have his estimates passed. In effect committee proceedings are not a microcosm of what happens in this House. They are a totally different operation. Your honour has not had the opportunity of seeing the frustration experienced by committee members when dealing with departmental officials, and always being told by a senior civil servant that this or that hinges on ministerial responsibility and therefore he, the official, cannot answer your
June 15, 1973

question. Usually, in such a case the minister does not return to the committee before the item is passed.
All of this may be only academic in terms of the argument with respect to this motion, but it is not really academic in terms of the members of this House. I am surprised that some of the government backbenchers have not been interested in pursuing this matter because it is as important to them as to other members. It is our responsibility, to some extent, to supervise to the best of our ability, in whatever forum is provided, the expenditures of government before those expenditures are made. New members of the House will not be aware that we were able to do that with much greater facility under the old rules, when senior civil servants could not always hide behind the back of ministerial responsibility. The problem is not an easy one. It does not concern just interpretation of the rules. It deals with the essence of how Members of Parliament, through the democratic process, will be able to handle estimates.
Your Honour will recall that debates on estimates in years gone by could drift away from the actual estimate under consideration, merely by a member saying that it was not sufficient to meet the needs of the department, or what he considered to be the needs of the deparment. This was in committee of the whole. As a result, it was possible to get the responsible minister to make a concession that would allow a discussion on a certain proposition.
Committee recommendations are not referred to this House except by majority decision reached by committee members. And when the majority make a decision that a matter should be pursued further, it should be possible for members of this House to pursue it further. I hope that Your Honour will not follow the black and white interpretation set out by the executive assistant to the government House leader and presented by the parliamentary secretary. I suggest that you should consider this problem as serious as that which you are now facing in terms of legislation when committee recommendations exceed the recommendation presented with legislation.
It seems to me unfair that Your Honour should be asked to make this decision. I am entirely in agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in hoping that you do not put it on to the procedural committee because I am sitting on that committee, and I can tell you that we are experiencing a great deal of frustration in it. As I say, I hope you do not refer the matter back to somebody else.
I acknowledge that it will be a difficult decision. It is an unfair responsibility to put on your shoulders, Mr. Speaker, because as I see it what we are really seeking to do is add a further stage to the reports of committees, a stage that I honestly believe we had when estimates were discussed in committee of the whole house. That stage was later lost by backbenchers on both sides of the chamber. It provided them with an opportunity to raise subjects that they thought should be pursued and debated long enough for the responsible minister to recognize that he should decide those matters must be finalized in a satisfactory manner before his estimates could be passed. It is no longer possible to do that. The question Your Honour is being asked to determine is whether or not that right, which was available to backbenchers, should be retained, or whether or not the Standing Orders are so restrictive to
Transport and Communications the extent of having a majority decision of a committee denied the opportunity of being examined by the whole House.
I do not consider myself an expert on procedural matters, but I think hon. members who had experience in this House when estimates were discussed in committee of the whole should participate in this debate, to point out the loss we have suffered, and our inability to provide a substitute for the opportunity we had in committee of the whole.


Mr. Faulkner:: Mr. Speaker, as Acting House Leader I have been following the debate on the procedural question with some interest. I have listened to the parliamentary secretary and the interventions by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and others. I did not feel constrained to enter the debate on the procedural question. Without revealing any particular bias for the case put forward by the parliamentary secretary, I feel that his arguments were compelling and were not really met by the speeches of hon. members opposite.
What has become clear, however, is another point which does not relate to the procedural question. That is the sense of grievance that some hon. members feel towards changes in the rules that took place a few years ago. This grievance may be legitimate but what has inspired me to get to my feet is the suggestion initially put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and subsequently concurred in by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and less so by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) that somehow the remedy for this grievance lies with the Chair.
Having had some experience in that position, I feel now as a member of this House that I must say I do not feel that is where the remedy lies. I think it would be an abdication of our responsibility to even suggest it lies there. If there are expressions of discontent about Standing Orders as they stand, they are clearly the responsibility of members of the Standing Committee on Procedures and Organization to remedy. There is no redress to this sort of grievance through appeals to the Chair, thus trying to accomplish something by way of a ruling that was not set out in Standing Orders.
I feel strongly on this point, Mr. Speaker, and I would not be a bit offended if in your wisdom you saw fit to refer to some of these matters to the Committee on Procedures and Organization. That is where they belong. It is proper for members of this House to decide what the rules are but I think it is not for this House to suggest that the goals we seek should be accomplished by way of rulings of the Chair. It was that point which persuaded me to intercede because I think that on the procedural question the arguments put forward by the hon. parliamentary secretary stand uncontradicted.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair would like to suggest that we have been on this point all day, and I wonder whether it is the wish of the House to spend all day on a procedural point. I bring to the attention of hon. members that there are three members who wish now to take part in the

June 15, 1973
Transport and Communications procedural debate. The Chair can, according to Standing Orders and precedent, suggest that there has been sufficient argument submitted for the guidance of the Chair but I would not want to do this at all if there are other hon. members who want to rise. There is the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Morgan), the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson), the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and others, but I think hon. members should bear in mind that we will have spent the whole of one day in debate on one single procedural point. The hon. member for Laprairie.


Mr. Watson:: Mr. Speaker, I want to make an extremely short point. It seems to me that the direction we have been taking in this House of Commons with regard to the committee system is that we give an expanded role to the committees. If we prevent our committees when they are reporting on estimates from adding to their report then, in a sense, we are abdicating our committee role.
I just want to make the point that I am strongly in favour of expansion of the role of our committees and anything that restricts it is not in the long-term interests of this House or the Canadian people.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to participate in this debate but perhaps I have had some experience in this House beyond my entry on January 4, 1973. When I was attending Carleton University in the 1950's I used to sit up in that place near the attractive lady in the red-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Walter David Baker: I used to watch the debates here in the days when in fact all the debates occurred in the House. I found there was much more participation in those days and attendance was much better than it is today. Perhaps the fact of the present rules has much to do with the attendance. There seems to be no opportunity yet in the House to speak on those things which are only broad principles.
I disagree with my friend, the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) that the remedy ought not to be left to the Chair. I think the remedy is within the province of the Chair, as well as perhaps the committee to which he refers. Very often, the Chair is the unanimous choice of this House, Mr. Speaker, and I think that any input you would like to make with respect to this would be very well received by all members of this House.
As a new Member of Parliament I want to say that I find the committee system extremely frustrating.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I find that most chairmen are quite reasonable and members on all sides of this House are attempting to be quite reasonable, but as a matter of fact when a member is restricted to ten minutes within which to enter into a very important subject, perhaps something that affects the national interest, it is impossible to have a discussion of the very guts of the operation of government, namely the estimates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I say, as a new member who had an opportunity which perhaps some older members who spoke

today did not have, namely to look at the older procedure, that there must be some way found. I suspect that the wisdom of the Chair may be the vehicle by which it can be found that we can marry the goodness of the old, which was participation, with the goodness of the new, which is the moving in on a particular point. Perhaps the suggestions made by the hon. member for Peace River, which I think are supported by my friend and neighbour the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, are the direction we should take.
My intervention in this debate was unexpected, but I have had an opportunity to see the old system work and I think it had more virtue. I do not think we can dispose of the matter as simply as the Secretary of State saw fit to dispose of it this afternoon. I feel the greatest frustrations as a new member of this House and I have never felt so constrained in anything I have ever done as I have as a member of any committee of this House. I do not fault the chairmen, I want to make that clear; I fault the system. I do not think the system we have now is the best that allows the fullest and most complete examination of the estimates.
I apologize for prolonging this debate but I felt that I must intervene in view of what my friend, the Secretary of State had said.


Mr. Morgan:: Mr. Speaker, I shall be extremely short. In making up your mind I think you must take into consideration the frustration of Members of Parliament under the present system. I disagree with the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner). I think this is an evolutionary process, and that, as in our common law system, we should not take the narrow hidebound rules but must move and float along. When parliament is being frustrated, then I suggest we should use the common law approach and let things gradually progress.
I think with all due respect that this is a thought that you can perhaps keep in mind in your deliberations so that everything is done and that the will of parliament is not frustrated as I think it would be if we were to take the very hidebound definition of Standing Orders 65 and 58. I think it can be expanded; language and thought can be melded into those two sections to make it possible for Your Honour to do what parliament wishes to be done.


Mr. Speaker:: I will simply thank all hon. members who took the Chair at its word when the suggestion was made by the Chair this morning that this is an important point of order and that I would welcome the advice of all hon. members, which I received and will certainly consider. There are some thoughts that are coming to my mind at present, and I think it would be unwise to express them without giving the whole matter, in all its aspects, the serious consideration it deserves, which I will do at the first opportunity. Again, I assure all hon. members that I will take into account all the views which have been expressed and perhaps some which have not been expressed today but which I know are in the minds of some hon. members who have spoken to me on past occasions or who have made comments on other occasions about this general problem of reports of committee and the general operation of our committee system under the new
June 15, 1973

rules. That having been said, I think we should at this point call orders of the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And a happy weekend to you, Sir.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, June 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-192, to amend the Income Tax Act (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, as the House will recall, I had been speaking on Bill C-192 last Wednesday and called it six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was a record speech.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My hon. friend says that was a record speech. In the time intervening between last Wednesday and today, the hon. member's party and the government have had the opportunity to express their version of their concern over the sad state of the Canadian economy, with particular reference to the inflationary spiral. As we in this House know, that party and its colleagues on the government side chose again to support the Trudeau government.
It is important to remember that Bill C-192 represents only one aspect of this government's economic approach to the financial problems besetting our country today. Perhaps what bothers us most in the Progressive Conservative Party is that the Trudeau government has no industrial strategy for the country. I know the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) does not like the term "industrial strategy", preferring "industrial policy". At any rate, the government has put forward no industrial strategy or policy for the country.
Instead of dealing simply with percentages and billion dollar terms, I thought it might be helpful if I might relate to members of this House what harm the ineptitude of the Trudeau-Turner government is causing the average wage earner in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Although I hesitate, I think I should warn the hon. member about the well known Standing Order which prevents hon. members from referring to hon. members by name. I do not think we can allow the hon. member to use indirect methods for bypassing this rule which is well known to hon. members. I hope that, by using his imagination, the hon. member can do what he seeks to do without naming hon. members of this House.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am sure hon. members know what I am attempting to convey. To be specific, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), by his address yester-
Income Tax Act
day on this subject, showed that in some ways he has already made the transition from the government benches to the opposition. If you followed his speech you would find that, instead of telling the members of this House-


John Napier Turner: Obviously, the hon. member did not follow the speech.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -why they should have confidence in the government and its policies, he spent three quarters of his time ridiculing the positions and propositions put forth by my party. For example, he pointed out, and took some credit for this, that wage rates in the first quarter of 1973 rose about 7.5 per cent. I take it he obtained that figure from a recent Department of Labour press release which said that, although the increase in the first quarter was 7.5 per cent, the figure for the comparable 1972 quarter, the last quarter, was 6.6 per cent.
Let us consider the Minister of Finance's more optimistic figure, 7.5 per cent. While considering that, let us also consider the degree of inflation that took place in this country in that same quarter. Let me refer the minister to a publication prepared by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, which compares various economic indicators in ten industrial countries, including Canada. That publication says that in the first quarter of 1973 the rate of inflation in Canada was 7.7 per cent. So, why does the Minister of Finance feel that it is creditable to show that wage rates in Canada in the first quarter went up by 7.5 per cent? As I say, inflation went up by 7.7 per cent. It does not take too much mathematical ability to calculate that if the wage of the average Canadian, who earns approximately $8,000, is increased by 7.5 per cent, or $600 approximately, in 1973, his earnings would be increased to the level of $8,600. If we then apply the deflator to that person's income to allow for inflation we will find that, in terms of actual purchasing power, the average wage earner in Canada, in 1973, will have $20 less to spend than he had in 1972. Through their mishandling of the economy and by allowing inflation to assume today's chronic proportions the master minds of the government have actually caused the average wage earner to lose $20 per year in buying power. But that is only part of the story.
Let us look at what the government has done about income tax, and personal income tax in particular. In the last five years, personal income taxes in this country have gone up by 117 per cent. They have risen from $3.3 billion to $7.2 billion. What does this mean for the average wage earner in Canada in human terms? By the end of 1973, the average person, whose spending power during the year will be decreased by $20, will have to pay between $120 and possibly $180 in additional, further taxes before the year ends. So, if you add that amount of taxation to the $20 lost, you will find that the average wage earner in Canada, because of the ineptitude of the Minister of Finance and the government generally, will lose between $140 and $200 in true buying power.
If we look at the United States, and the Minister of Finance liked to compare this country with that country in certain figures he gave yesterday, we will find that in the 20 months since that country invoked its economic policy, which includes the period of wage and price controls of 1971, average disposable income, after inflation has

June 15, 1973
Income Tax Act
been taken into account and after taxation, rose in that country by 7.5 per cent.
Any way you want to look at it, I do not think the performance of our government has been creditable. With that type of record, where federal income tax has risen at the rate of 20 per cent per year over the past five years, and the comment by the Minister of Finance that wages are going up by 7'/2 per cent per year, is it any wonder that during the last election campaign my leader compaigned for an indexing system which would compensate the average wage earner for the inflationary factor in his wages? It is unfortunate that in 1973 the average wage earner in Canada will not receive the benefit of my leader's suggestion. If the legislation which the Minister of Finance has designed-which largely copies our suggestion with regard to indexing-is passed, it is to be hoped that in 1974 the average wage earner will benefit from a compensating factor for inflation, if inflation still exists.
To be specific, when considering the corporate tax measure let there be no doubt that in terms of buying power after taxation this government has caused the average taxpayer in Canada to lose $140 to $180 per year in spending power. Considering that there are 10 million taxpayers, this represents over $1 billion lost in buying power as a result of the government's mishandling of this country.
There is another point that should be brought out in the consideration of Bill C-192. The Minister of Finance referred to this question yesterday. We must not become complacent with the argument that, while we have inflation in this country, compared with other industrialized countries who have inflation we are not doing so badly. I again refer to the publication I mentioned. In the first quarter of this year, Canada's inflationary rate was 7.7 per cent. The United Kingdom, which used to have one of the highest rates of inflation in the world, is now down to 7 per cent. This is at least partly due to the wage and price control policy they have instituted. The rate in the United States is 5.8 per cent, and in France it is 3.5 per cent.
It was unfortunate yesterday that the Minister of Finance made various comparisons, that were mainly out of context, to show that our rate of inflation was not running at a higher rate than that of the United States. The fact is that for the 12 months of 1972 our rate of inflation was 5.1 per cent, compared with 3.4 per cent in the United States. We had a 50 per cent higher rate of inflation than did the United States.
It is interesting to note that in April of this year our inflationary increase was 1.1 per cent, compared with .7 per cent in the United States. The Minister of Finance was very careful yesterday not to touch on this fact. Here we have a contrast between the action of two governments living side by side. Even with an inflationary increase of 1.1 per cent our government still feels there is no need to do anything other than introduce what they call monetary and fiscal measures, whereas the United States, with a .7 per cent increase in the same month, is at least attempting to bring in some controls to take the heat off the spiralling rate of inflation.
I wish to go one step further and translate what I am saying into specifics. This will perhaps make it a little

easier to understand. It has often been stated that food prices are one of the big culprits in our inflationary spiral. This to some degree is true. However, there is another factor in our rate of inflation which has not been touched upon as much as it should have been. I refer to the real estate inflationary spiral. In my own area, for example, the government should accept some responsibility for the fact that in Newmarket-and I have witnessed this- offers for the purchase of homes were signed in the fall of 1972, and this spring those houses were sold for $6,000 more than called for in the offers. I could furnish the Minister of Finance with an offer to purchase a home in Newmarket which was made on April 27, 1973. The purchaser agreed to pay $29,500 for a home which was sold on June 19, 1972, for $24,500. This is an increase of $5,000 in that short period of time.
There was a similar situation in the town of Aurora. A lady purchased a home on March 15 of this year for $30,500, notwithstanding the fact that it was sold October 6 last for $23,900. Homes bought two years ago in Thornhill for $42,000 are now selling for $64,000. A home bought in Markham one year ago for $34,000 sold recently for $61,000. Lots in the town of Cambridge which sold for $9,000 before Christmas are currently in the $14,000 to $16,000 range. In the township of West Gwillimbury in the county of Simcoe, a home which sold on September 28, 1972, for $33,500 was resold on May 30 of this year for $42,000. Surely that type of inflationary spiral needs more action than this government has given it up to this time.
That is just one side of the question. What continually mystifies me is that in committee and in this House the Minister of Finance and his officials have given no evidence that they really understand what they are doing. We have questioned them on whether they intend to rely solely upon monetary and fiscal measures to rectify the economic problems of this country: as far as we can surmise, they do, although they are never too specific. We have attempted to determine the economic thrust of the government; are they moving into a tight money or expensive money policy, or have they in mind a basically expansionary orientation?
Again, I can give specific examples to the minister, but small businessmen have told me they are now required by the chartered banks to pay as much as 10'A per cent interest on their borrowings, yet we were told by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that a dual interest rate is being used by our banks. I suggest that if there is such a dual interest rate, the small businessman is paying the higher rate and the large businessman, presumably, is paying the comparatively lower rate. In looking at these figures we should at least consider the extent to which the government intends to invoke a tight money policy, presumably to correct inflation, without accepting the fact that in an industrial country we must adopt other than monetary and fiscal measures. Our chartered banks have been allowed to accept net deposits from foreign sources to the extent of $1.1 billion, which is $628 million higher than a year ago and higher, in fact, than Canadian chartered banks have held in the aggregate at any time in our history. The figures to which I am referring are those of net foreign assets. I believe they are relevant when we are considering Bill C-192.
June 15, 1973

It is apparent that not only has the government failed to produce an industrial policy but that the actions it has taken are totally inconsistent with each other. For example, I questioned the Prime Minister concerning the loan which the government was instrumental in arranging for Algeria in the amount of $100 million, with an interest rate in the range of 7 per cent. We should ask ourselves whether it is appropriate in a period such as Canada is now entering, when interest rates are rising, for the government in June of 1973 to be extending credit facilities to Algeria so that the money can be paid to Algerian businessmen through their Industrial Development Bank.
Government funds are involved in the sense that $50 million of the amount to which I have referred comes from the Export Development Corporation, but $35 million comes from the Canadian chartered banks which are subsidized by the Canadian government to participate in the loan. Here is a situation where the government is willing to subsidize Canadian banks if they join in a $35 million line of credit to the Algerian Industrial Development Bank enabling Algerians to borrow in the 7 per cent range while the same banks are lending to businessmen in Canada in the 10 per cent range.
We in the Progressive Conservative Party believe that this haphazard approach is not proper. We believe there should be an industrial tax incentive program; that it is wrong to gratuitously extend tax advantages to industry without ensuring that the desired impact of such taxing concessions will be forthcoming. Surely, taxation is an instrument which can be used to encourage industry to increase production and employment, as opposed to simply making arrangements which may or may not bring the desired results.
This brings me to the bill before us in which provision is made for a review program. We are not happy with the review process suggested. We believe it could be tightened up, and that in committee it ought to be tightened up. The government itself has gone a long way to indicate its misgivings as to whether the tax proposals put forward by the Minister of Finance on May 8, 1972, will in fact produce the anticipated result.
Having said this, I believe it is wise for hon. members to allow the bill to go through-give it second reading, get it into committee and see whether it can be improved. The House has surely delayed too long debating various matters. I should like to see the government placed in the position where it can be demonstrated that it does not possess any effective answers to cope with the country's economic position.


Mr. Mather:: Might I ask the hon. member a question? Would he not agree with the theory that whereas two or three years ago the government was seeking to combat inflation by creating unemployment, the reverse is the case today and the government is seeking to combat unemployment by creating inflation?


Mr. Gillies:: Just say yes.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes. How could I disagree with my hon. friend?
Income Tax Act


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) spoke in the debate on Wednesday he said he was presenting the bill for two reasons: first, to protect the millions of jobs presently available in manufacturing and processing and, second, to promote the development of new jobs in those areas. This, according to the minister and according to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was necessary for medium and long-term considerations, including growing protectionism in the United States, the impact of the European Economic Community on trading patterns, and the growing effect of competitive markets.
The party to which I belong has made very clear its position with respect to Bill C-192. We are against a bill which proposes further tax cuts and fast write-offs for corporations. We believe it represents outdated economic thinking. It is the old Santa Claus theory-large gifts are made to the big fellows in the hope that money will be spent in such a way as to benefit the entire society. I do not think this happens. The corporations will not necessarily invest this extra profit in ways which will create more jobs and strengthen the economy. This theory, which amounts to saying that what is good for Imperial is good for Canada, is outdated; it has not worked in the past and it will not work in the future. If this idea were followed to its logical conclusion, the tax rate would be brought down, first to 30 per cent from 40 per cent and eventually down to zero.
What we need is a fundamental change in industrial policy and strategy. If we look at the reality of the situation today, we find that corporations are experiencing the highest increase in profits for the last 12 years. In the first quarter of 1973 the increase in profits amounted to 53 per cent compared with the increase in the same period last year. At the same time we are experiencing the highest unemployment rate of any industrialized country in the world. It is a crime that a country which possesses such wealth and technological resources should be in this position. Regional disparities are as bad today as they were five years ago when the government came to power.
We find that distribution of income in Canada has not narrowed or improved much during the last few years. According to a Statistics Canada report of 1971, the top 20 per cent of the people of Canada earned 50 per cent of the income in this country, whereas the bottom 20 per cent earned only about 2 per cent of the income. You can see there the lack of equitable distribution of wealth to the people of this country no matter what economic class they may be in.
The situation for women in this country is even worse. We all espouse equality of women, and so on, but the fact is that of the 20 per cent of the people at the top or upper income levels, only 8 per cent are women. The opposite is true for the 20 per cent at the bottom income levels of Canada: 64 per cent are women. So there we have real inequity in distribution of income in Canada. I suggest that the traditional ways of looking at our economy through greater incentives to corporations to produce will not help to solve this problem or to develop Canada economically, and I sincerely suggest that this particular tax cut will not help either. I further suggest -that we

June 15, 1973
Income Tax Act
should find different ways of creating jobs and making our industry more competitive internationally. What we need are new policies and an industrial strategy, not further tax cuts to corporations given in a helter-skelter manner, with the government sitting back and hoping for the best.
The second intriguing feature I find in connection with this bill, apart from the continuation of old policies, is the way the bill has been presented to the House of Commons. First it was introduced by the Minister of Finance in May of last year, and we all know the fancy stick-handling he has been exhibiting since then. We also know the interesting response of the Conservative Party, first of all being very critical of it and then withdrawing back into their shells, on the one hand wanting to embarrass the government but on the other hand being afraid to have another election or to alienate their friends in the business community.
This is one of the most interesting pieces of legislation that we have seen in this House in terms of the way it has been introduced by the government and received by the Conservative Party. I suggest that the Conservative Party has created a lot of uncertainty in the business community by the stand they have taken. The position of the New Democratic Party has been very clear: the business community knows where we stand on this bill. It knows where the Liberal Party stands. On this bill, we do not stand with the government. But where does the Conservative Party stand? Their position has been uncertain for many months on this particular bill, as well, but not to the same extent, as on the fast write-off provisions.
The government has now come forward with a new idea. It is going to monitor the effects of the corporate tax cut and fast write-offs. This is going to appease the Conservative Party. First of all, there will be an interim report and then a final report will be brought in next year. It looks as though the Conservatives are going to buy this, even although an agency within the Department of Finance is going to test and review its own policy. Then the government has thrown in another gimmick. The bill is going to be reviewed if 60 members sign a petition. I suggest it would be much safer if this figure were 20 or 25 members; then the government would be sure that next year the bill would be viewed. But I am afraid that the Conservative Party will lack the intestinal fortitude to insist upon a review of these corporate tax cuts next year.
Turning now to the tax cut itself of from 49 per cent to 40 per cent, as I have already said I do not accept this kind of economic thinking. This is the traditional approach, and I do not think it will make Canadian business or manufacturing more competitive or create any more employment than if the tax rate remains the same. Our party suggests that a much wiser approach would be to stimulate the economic activity of people in the lower and middle income brackets. The government should put more money into the hands of consumers. If this were done, consumers would purchase more goods, thus creating more jobs, bringing about additional spin-offs in the economy; the manufacturing community would produce more and the economy would become more healthy.
However, this is not the way the government operates, nor the official opposition for that matter. The govern-

ment continues to operate as it has since 1968, making more and more concessions and giving more and more aid to the corporate sector than to the private sector of the economy. All one has to do, Mr. Speaker, to prove this is the case is to look at the first seven budgets of this government between 1968 and 1972. I have done a few calculations of my own, and I find that in the first seven budgets brought down by this government, at a time when it had an overwhelming majority, taxes for people increased by $1.5 billion whereas taxes on corporations in the same period decreased by $500 million.
Today we have another bill before us that wants to give the corporate sector another $500 million this year. I suggest that this will not solve the problems we are facing. For example, what would happen if the United States took further countermeasures against what we have done? If they lowered the corporate tax rate or took additional protective measures, what would the government of Canada do? Would it again lower the corporate tax rate in Canada from 40 per cent to, say, 30 per cent?
Instead of playing around with the taxation system we should do two or three basic and fundamental things in terms of strengthening the economy. First of all, the government must have an industrial policy which ensures that more manufacturing and processing takes place in Canada for domestic use and, where possible, for export. We import more manufactured goods per capita than any other industrialized country in the world, which itself is largely responsible for our very high rate of unemployment. We must also change our freight rate system so that the outlying areas of this country, not just the golden horseshoe from Montreal through southern Ontario, have a chance to develop economically and to participate in the economic future of this country. These are steps that could make the economy of this country more competitive and create employment in a much more effective way than reducing corporate tax rates and encouraging fast write-offs.
I have already referred to the inequitable distribution of income in Canada, which in turn is spread right throughout the taxation system and the way we judge and evaluate what Canadians do. All we need do is to look at the way we tax a working person compared with an investor or someone who derives his income from stocks and bonds. Let me give one example to illustrate my point. Take a single person with wages of $10,000 a year: under our tax laws this person will pay $2,285 in taxes per annum. On the other hand, if the same person received $10,000 by way of dividends, he would pay tax of only $193 per annum. This is because of the different value that we place on income earned by way of dividends compared with income earned from wages. I suggest that plugging some of these loopholes and reducing the tax paid by people in the lower and middle income brackets would be of greater benefit to the economy, more jobs would be created and production would be stimulated.
Once again, looking at the reduction of corporate income tax from 49 per cent to 40 per cent provided for in this bill a number of other concerns come to my mind which I feel are fairly serious and which all parties should consider. One of these is the fact that 58 per cent of manufacturing and processing in Canada is foreign-owned, according to
June 15, 1973

the latest CALURA figures which were released about six weeks ago. Of that 58 per cent, the overwhelming majority is owned or controlled by United States corporations.
What does this mean in respect of the bill before us today? I think, first of all, whether or not President Nixon's proposals become law, some of the funds that will be lost by this government as a result of reducing the taxes will find their way into the United States treasury. If we follow the argument of the Minister of Finance, the tax reduction will mean greater profits for corporations and some of them will find themselves faced with taxation by the United States authorities. However, even if the Nixon proposals should go through Congress we stand the chance of several million dollars a year of potential taxes in Canada going to the treasury of the United States. Here, of course, I refer to the proposed legislation on runaway plants. Most of the tax cut in respect of this legislation would conceivably go back to the United States treasury. Under that legislation I understand that a United States subsidiary operating in Canada which sells 25 per cent or more of its produce in the United States and makes new investment or expands by 20 per cent, is subject to a tax to be paid in the United States.
We all know that many Canadian manufacturing or processing companies which are American-owned would fall into the category of selling 25 per cent or more of their produce back to the United States. If that were to happen and the effective tax rate in the foreign country, the foreign country being Canada, were less than 80 per cent of the United States tax rate, of course there would be the possibility of having some of these corporations paying taxes in the United States; that is, if our tax rate is less than 80 per cent of the United States tax rate.
At the present time the United States corporate tax rate is 48 per cent. The threshold rate, or 80 per cent of that, would be 38.4 per cent. This proposal in Bill C-192 would lower corporate income taxes to 40 per cent. So on the surface it looks as if we would be all right. But if you add to that the effect of the fast write-offs over a two-year period-50 per cent a year-we find that the effective tax rate for many of these corporations would be under 38.4 per cent, and thus they may well be forced, under the runaway plant scheme as proposed by President Nixon, to pay taxes to the United States treasury. If that happens, what will be the effect of this bill? It will mean that tax money which would have gone into the Canadian treasury will go into the treasury of the United States. I suggest this is one aspect of the bill that the government and Members of Parliament should look at very seriously before passing this bill.
I understand there is a second possibility in the Nixon's new tax proposals which may affect us if this bill is passed. The new proposal would penalize United States corporations operating in foreign countries if the tax concessions are too large in the view of the United States administration. If you add our tax cuts, provide fast writeoffs, and in many cases other concessions as well, you will find that some of the Canadian firms may qualify in the "too large" category of the new proposals put forward by President Nixon. Such firms may be subject to a United States tax as if they were actually operating in the United
Income Tax Act
States. As I understand it, the way this proposal operates is that if the tax concessions are too great, then the United States government will step in and tell these firms that they will be taxed as if they were operating in the United States; they will not be taxed merely on the profits that are remitted to the parent firm in the United States.
If that proposal should go through there would, again, be a good possibility of many funds being diverted from the Canadian treasury to the United States treasury. I think this is another point the House should consider seriously when looking at the corporate tax proposals before us, because what is the sense of cutting taxes for corporations operating in Canada if part of the benefits are to flow, not to Canadians in the form of jobs, and so on, but into the treasury of the United States if the proposals of President Nixon become law?
This is a matter which very seriously concerns me in respect of the bill before us. I think this is one reason, in addition to others put forward, why this bill should not become law but should be defeated or withdrawn from this House of Commons. As I say, there are other reasons why the corporate tax bill should not become law. One of them is the profit situation of corporations in this country. I have already said that corporate profits increased by 53 per cent in the first three months of this year. That is a higher increase than at any time in the past 12 years. We also find that corporate profits in 1972 over 1971 increased by 20 per cent. We find that in 1971 over 1969 they increased by 16 per cent. Also, if you look at a number of industries in this country you find that without the corporate tax cuts they are still making tremendous profits; they are still able to make a good return on their investment; they are still able to expand plants and facilities and in my opinion do not need a further tax cut.
Let me give five or six examples of the profit picture of some of the major manufacturing and processing industries in Canada today. I have taken these examples from the earnings reports of the Financial Post in connection with selected manufacturing and processing companies in Canada. These are first quarter figures comparing 1973 with 1972. They indicate the change in net income, after taxes, with the old tax rate in effect. We find, for example, that Goodyear Tire and Rubber had a profit increase of 15.6 per cent, after taxes, in the first quarter of this year compared to the first quarter of 1972. Burns Foods had a profit increase of 29.7 per cent in the first quarter of this year compared to the first quarter of 1972, and we all know that food prices are going up. Consolidated Bathurst Corporation had a profit increase of 184.2 per cent, after taxes. Fleetwood Corporation had an increase of 218 per cent, and Hawker Siddeley Canada had a 243.7 per cent increase.
I could go on and on, but I think even those few examples, plus the general increase of 53 per cent in the first quarter of this year, indicates to this House and the country that a further reduction in corporate tax is totally unnecessary at this time. It will not necessarily make our industry more competitive. It will not necessarily create more jobs in Canada. Instead, it might result in greater profits for some corporations and greater revenue for the United States treasury. It may result in additional funds for many multinational corporations to invest elsewhere.

June 15, 1973
Income Tax Act
Another point which I believe is worth repeating-I think the hon. member for York Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) referred to this-is that we are concerned about inflation in Canada and we see the mortgage rate going up and interest rates generally going up for consumers and small businessmen. This morning there was talk about the interest rate going up on farm loans'and loans to fishermen. So why on earth, if we are concerned about the effects of inflation on the ordinary citizen, do we not reconsider this proposal to place half a billion dollars in the hands of the large corporations.
It seems to me that if overexpenditure and overheating of the economy are being caused by the ordinary citizen, the effect of putting half a million dollars into the hands of the corporations will also overheat the economy and increase our inflationary spiral. I suggest the huge corporations do not need additional revenue. They reinvest their retained earnings. They have $2 billion of deferred taxes, which are really interest-free loans. They now have fast write-off benefits, again interest-free loans. I suggest we need go no further in providing tax benefits to the large corporations in Canada.
Another argument the Minister of Finance has made for the necessity of a corporate tax cut at this time for manufacturing and processing is that if corporate taxes are cut we will see greater investment by these corporations in the expansion of plant and facilities. I do not think that follows necessarily. I have here, for example, a report on private and public investment in Canada, "Outlook, 1973"-statistics compiled by Statistics Canada and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
I find that despite the increase in profits in 1971 and 1972, investment by manufacturing and processing corporations has actually gone down. For example, in 1970 capital expenditure by manufacturing and processing corporations was $3.22 billion. In 1971, when their profits went up, they did not invest more in capital projects, but less; they invested $2.99 billion. In 1972 there was a further increase in profits, and again the investment by manufacturing and processing industries went down, this time to $2.95 billion.
So the profits have been going up for the last two years but investment by manufacturing and processing industries has been going down. The Minister of Finance uses the argument that if we give them further tax cuts these industries will invest more in plant and facilities and thus create more jobs. I cannot follow that argument at all. I do not think there is an economic factor on which to base the argument. In fact, the very opposite may happen.
There is one other point, namely, the fast write-off provisions that have been discussed in the House as part of the same package. Again I can use the same arguments. The additional benefits to the corporations do not necessarily bring benefits to the Canadian people in terms of the competitiveness of our industry and job creation. I do not think there is any evidence of that. Again, I think these provisions will be used by the corporations to obtain interest-free loans just like retained earnings and deferred taxes. I think there might be one distinct disadvantage in fast write-offs in terms of job creation in Canada, that is,

that they might encourage some manufacturing and processing industries to modernize their equipment, with a resulting loss of jobs. They might prematurely decide that their equipment is obsolete and will spend all kinds of money to take advantage of the fast write-off provisions of the bill. What happens when they modernize and become more capital-intensive? They throw people out of work and they end up with fewer jobs than before modernization. I would like an independent study to be made to see whether there would be more, or fewer, jobs created as a result of the fast write-off provisions. I am afraid we will find that there will not be a net increase in jobs, and there will perhaps even be a decrease as a result of the fast write-off provisions.
The $500 million that will be spent under this bill, as the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) has said many times, could be used in many other, more beneficial ways toward developing this country economically and industrially. I will give three or four examples of how we can use half a billion dollars annually. Hon. members from the Prairies, as well as hon. members from northern Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes, will agree with me that it would be much wiser to put that money into eliminating the anomalies in the freight rate system or into removing some of the inequities in the freight rate system. This would help development of the Prairies, Quebec, the north, and the Maritimes. It would create jobs in much of the so-called hinterland areas of our country, instead of accumulating everything in the golden horseshoe of southern Ontario to Montreal. It would be wiser, both in the long term and the short term, to spend the half billion dollars in getting rid of some of the anomalies in freight rates rather than handing it over to the corporations at the top and hoping that it may trickle down to the individual.
Another area wherein we could wisely spend that amount of money is increasing old age pensions by $20 a month. If pensions were increased there would be more money in the hands of consumers, who would purchase more items, which in turn would create more jobs in processing and manufacturing. With $300 million a year you could increase family allowances by $10 a month; instead of increasing them to $20 a month, family allowances could go up to $30 a month for every child in Canada. Instead of cutting taxes by $100, we could cut taxes by $150 per person, on average, and in this way spend the $500 million rather than giving it to the corporations.
In summary, we could spend the money that will be going into the hands of corporations in a much more efficient, humane and moral manner than by handing it out to huge companies that manufacture and process, 58 per cent of which are foreign-owned and controlled. Where does that money come from? If the corporations are going to pay $500 million less in taxes, it means that the consumers will obviously pay $500 million more in taxes. When you look at the end result you find it is not worth it, and I appeal to hon. members to persuade the government to withdraw the bill. If they will not withdraw it, let us defeat it no matter what the consequences may be. That is the position of our party. Our position has been clear from the outset. The position of the government has been clear, and so has that of the Social Credit party. I suggest that only the Conservative Party is playing games and causing
June 15, 1973

uncertainty across the country with the position they are taking.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, before Bill C-192 is referred to the standing committee, I wish to draw the attention of the House, and thus of the members of the said committee, to certain aspects which leave the public wondering.
After a 13 month wait since it was first introduced in May 1972, at a time when the government had an absolute majority, this bill has now reached second reading, in slightly amended form but, basically, it is still the same.
The government, of course, is much less arrogant this time, since, as the minister himself stated, and I quote:
No tax measure can be considered to be enacted for all time, . . .
Since we have a minority government it has to make use of formulas that are much more popular and less dictatorial.
The purpose of the bill, therefore, is an additional 9 per cent tax reduction for the manufacturing and processing industries, which make profits of up to $100 million, and a reduction of five per cent to the small enterprises which have maximum profits of $50,000.
If we figure out these reductions we see that our small Canadian corporations will get a maximum reduction of $2,500, while the large multinational corporations, which are not necessarily Canadian, may be able to take advantage of a tax reduction that may be as high as $10 million a year.
Is that clear enough for everyone to understand? It is vital for the big financiers to have good friends, I was about to say good and faithful servants, in Parliament.
The purpose of the bill, according to the minister, is to make our large industries competitive on the international market and to protect the millions of jobs which now depend directly or indirectly on these companies.
As far as the creation of jobs is concerned, we agree, Mr. Speaker. However, we are sure that if no amendment is made to that bill, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) will not attain his objective, since evidence shows today that all subsidies and tax reductions granted to large companies have never created a single job. On the contrary, the companies have never created a single job. On the contrary, the companies have used them to modernize their plants and reduce their staff.
Indeed, statistics indicate that large corporations offer fewer new jobs in Canada. Small secondary industries and service industries are better creators of jobs.
Finally, it is at the service level that we find the greater number of new jobs. We are therefore right in saying that the minister is deceiving the people when he refers to things which will be impossible to carry out under that bill.
The minister intends to make Canadian companies more competitive in world markets. We agree with the minister that help should be given not only to manufacturing and
Income Tax Act
processing industries but also to our agricultural, fishing, forest, building, mining and other industries.
To my mind, this bill is so restrictive as to be discriminatory towards all the other sectors of our economy I have always maintained that the main quality of a national act is its universality; as soon as it becomes restrictive, it is automatically discriminatory towards the population as a whole.
Bill C-192 provides for a reduction to 40 per cent, starting at the beginning of 1973, of the tax rate levied on the profits of manufacturing and processing industries, and a reduction to 20 per cent of the rate imposed on Canadian manfacturing and processing industries.
This is, Mr. Speaker, another discriminatory treatment. After dealing a back-handed blow to the other sectors of the economy, we favour even more the multinational corporations under foreign control to the extent of 60 per cent.
We should grant tax cuts to Canadian owned companies and a 9 per cent tax reduction on profits of all Canadian firms, whether they are small or large.
Why, I ask, make this distinction between the first group of companies and the second one that the minister defines as small Canadian businesses to which he allows only a tax cut of 5 per cent instead of 9 per cent?
Yet the minister knows very well that those small Canadian corporations are the ones most in need of tax reduction and help. Of course they are not as profitable as the big ones when it comes to electoral contributions because they cannot put as much in the fund; but they are more profitable for the population as they offer more employment.
Why not give a 9 per cent tax cut to the farmers since, of all industries, it is still agriculture that is offering most jobs? Yet, the minister knows better than anybody else about the financial difficulties agriculture is facing.
Far from granting them tax reduction as will be done thanks to Bill C-192, everything is be done to overtax them and it is the same for all our small Canadian industries.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as soon as a Canadian society, a group of individuals or a citizen makes an effort to spend time and risk money to try improving economic conditions of Canadians, the governments, in turn, try to counter these efforts by taxes of all sorts. And we are astonished when we see the tremendous amount of bankruptcies in tertiary and secondary industries.
Even in the business sector nowadays, as soon as our small businessmen seem to succeed, the federal and provincial tax inspectors get in just like vultures.
Of course, all these small industrialists and businessmen do not have millions of dollars to pay for expert accountants like the big corporations do.
The result is that the poor man is taken to court surrounded by all the provincial and federal collectors. Having no more financial resources nor physical strength, he suffers a break-down and gives up.
That is, Mr. Speaker, the real picture of support given to Canadians who dare going into business. Meanwhile, our governments are looking for new formulas to give more to

June 15, 1973
Income Tax Act
those who do not need it but who are putting money in their electoral funds to reelect those members who served them well.
Those are the governments we have had for one hundred years!
This is the logical consequence of the punitive system under which only big foreign trusts stand to gain in the end.
After small businesses have been crushed by over taxation, further efforts are made to impose still more hardships on Canadian workers. After they have caused the death of Canadian industries, the servants of this puppet government compel workers to part with a portion of their salaries either to pay heavy grants to those big companies or to pay for the administration costs which those companies did not pay thanks to tax exemptions and yearly granted favours. And the government is doing all that under the pretence of creating jobs! Such hypocrisy is beyond words!
If you refer to statistics since 1940 you will find the detrimental consequences of the protection enjoyed by big corporations.
In 1940, big business was supplying 80 per cent of the national budget while workers and small businesses were supplying 20 p. 100.
It is just the contrary in 1972 in that workers and small businessmen are paying 80 per cent of the taxes required for the national budget whereas big corporations are paying only 20 per cent and making ten times more profit than during the 40's.
Under this system the poor is feeding the wealthy. This system is totally illogical. It is about time we bring in the necessary corrective measures so that those who have the money will pay.
That aim would be achieved if we adopted an amendment to widen the scope of the bill and which would read thus:
That a 9 per cent tax reduction be granted all economic groups in all sectors in order to make Canadian production more competitive through a real stimulation of the economy, which would result in ensuring more jobs for Canadians.
But one can read in the newspaper Le Devoir of June 14, 1973 this statement by the Governor of the Bank of Canada, and I quote:
The time has come to tighten bank credit.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe my eyes. Under the pretext of tightening credit, the Bank of Canada authorities are increasing interests. That reminds me of the famous fight we carried against the suppression of the ceiling for banks interests-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, may I call it four o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. 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.

The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on a point of order.


John Napier Turner: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are still debating Bill C-192 and I would suggest to the House that we consider continuing the debate on Monday. If we were, perchance, to complete it during Monday-and I do not in any way suggest limiting the debate-I think there is a feeling that the vote on second reading could be taken after orders of the day are called on Wednesday. So we could proceed with the second reading stage of Bill C-193 if Bill C-192 were concluded on Monday. It might be premature to ask for an order of the House at this time, but I wanted to bring that suggestion to the notice of the House because I think there has been some discussion to that effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that there have been discussions and that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has given the substance of those discussions. We, too, think that it might be too soon to try to adopt a House order this afternoon, but it is the general thinking of the representatives of the parties that the vote on second reading of Bill C-192 could perhaps be taken immediately after orders of the day are called on Wednesday. At least it should be clear that if the debate ends some time on Monday, the vote would not be taken at that time and at that point we would move on to Bill C-193. Let us hope that everybody is here Monday for the debate, but everybody had better be here Wednesday for the vote!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid).


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions through the usual channels and I think there might be agreement to take order No. 19 standing in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give immediate consideration to the provision of free drugs for those Canadians who are eligible for the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement.
June 15, 1973

He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to put a few thoughts on the record this afternoon in regard to a matter which has caused me great concern over a long period, namely, the motion which has been standing in my name since January 12 regarding free drugs for the recipients of the old age pension and guaranteed income supplement.
At this time I should like to express my thanks to the parliamentary secretary to the House leader and his staff for their co-operation in regard to this motion. I would also express my thanks to hon. members who have stayed to either listen to or take part in this debate, because we are running against pretty strong competition: Those who stayed and did not go to the Governor General's garden party can be sure that I appreciate it.
This session of parliament has featured a reawakening of the concern by the government for the disadvantaged of this nation. There can be no doubt that this new thrust in the field of welfare has been inspired by the fact that we are a minority parliament and suddenly everybody's vote, rich or poor, counts for more than it did in the majority Trudeau administration period from 1968 to 1972. It would seem that the disadvantaged are the beneficiaries of minority governments, for their votes are important and the government finally realizes its future existence might well be dependent on their point of view and their problems.
We have already seen increases in both old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. We have also witnessed an improvement in the income available to those on war veterans allowance. We have been told that in the very near future there will be a substantial increase in family allowances. It has also been suggested that some form of a guaranteed annual income may result from federal-provincial negotiations, but the most recent federal-provincial conference of first ministers has made us aware that this panacea of social justice is not as close as some would like us to believe.
But, all in all, this parliament-at least to this point in time-can be proud of the small efforts that have been made to ease the burden of the less fortunate in this nation. Nevertheless, I find it strange that this government, with its preoccupation in the field of social justice, has not moved to introduce a free drug care program-and that is what I mean, a free drug care program-that would lighten the load of our senior citizens whose drug bills siphon off most, if not all, the additional income that has been made available to them. Mr. Speaker, let us face facts. Most of the increases in old age security in recent years have been devoured by increased rents and increased food prices. One of the sad facts of life is that when old age pensioners get an increase, the landlords wait around like vultures to extract their pound of flesh as soon as it is available.
I do not have to tell anyone in this House or in this country what an extreme hardship inflation is to almost everyone, but more particularly to those on fixed incomes whether or not they are senior citizens. My mail tells me that of all the problems facing older Canadians, the problem of keeping well is the most severe from a financial point of view. Medical science has made it possible for us to live longer. However, as we grow older it also means
Health and Welfare
that we must accept dependence on certain drugs and medication to keep us in satisfactory health. This means the greatest drain on income in our later later years comes from the cost of prescription drugs.
During my employment as a coal miner in earlier years I had the misfortune to be injured on a couple of occasions, and I know from personal experience the vital importance that prescription drugs play in maintaining at least somewhat better health. Because of this, I can fully appreciate the extreme problems that poor health creates in so far as draining a person's life savings. Everything else increases in price, and prescription drugs are no exception. Indeed, there are many Canadians with only the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement who must forsake a nutritious diet because they cannot afford both the proper food and drugs. Such situations are nothing short of a national scandal in a country as rich as ours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Muir: In order to maintain their health these people must buy drugs, yet in buying the drugs they must go short of food, which impairs their health and hampers the hoped-for recovery from whatever illness they suffer. So It is a never-ending, vicious circle. As hard as this may be to believe, it does happen. Time and time again, people have brought this problem to my attention. I have no doubt that there is not a member sitting in this House from any party who has not received heavy mail on this question. I should like to quote a passage from a letter which I received:
The last few months we couldn't get our prescriptions filled so I guess we will have to stay away from our doctors, and the house is badly in need of repairs. It's really too cold for anybody in poor health.
There are thousands and thousands of people living under such circumstances and suffering as much as the senior citizens to whom I have referred. There is only one way to put justice into the welfare system of this country. I urge that the government implement a plan so that old age pensioners who qualify for the guaranteed income supplement, or indeed any part of it no matter how small, are assured that the prescription drugs they require will be made available free of charge. This would erase the need for the decision presently forced on them, the toss-up between drugs and food-and they have not nearly enough of either.
At the moment the old age security pension is available to anyone who reaches 65, but the guaranteed income supplement is paid after a means test has been passed- and it is a real means test. The very fact that someone qualifies for the guaranteed income supplement or even a portion of it indicates that that person certainly does not have any spare cash to throw around. Such people should certainly qualify for free drugs. It surprises me that a government that played around with family allowances for three years suddenly was able to discover a formula, soon after the last general election, which would alleviate the problem. Why cannot the government now discover some means of guaranteeing that our senior citizens will have the drugs they require, without draining their limited financial resources? Very little has been said by the

June 15, 1973
Health and Welfare
government in this field. It must be apparent that this situation involves a severe and, I am sure, critical hardship for many Canadians.
The province of Nova Scotia has for some time now made insulin available to those who require it, free of charge, if they meet certain basic requirements. Drugs for our senior citizens could be made available in a similar manner if the government had the desire to meet this chronic problem head-on and show some compassion.
I hope that as a result of this debate the government will accept this matter as one of priority and introduce a program that will solve the problem. Before I resume my seat let me say that I hope those who take part in the debate will not say immediately, "But this is going to cost millions of dollars and we cannot afford it." I hope no member will say that.


Mr. Bell:: They would not dare.


Robert Muir: It seems that governments can find money for almost everything. You name it, and they can find money for it. Apparently there is money for the most unusual and fantastic ideas. If someone asks, "Where are you going to get the money for this program?" let me suggest, as the leader of my party has suggested, that disbanding Information Canada would release $10 million. That is a start. Or look at the Auditor General's reports. They are interesting reading. Over the past ten years you will find that there has been a flagrant waste of millions of dollars which have gone by the wayside without producing results. By eliminating the wastes referred to in those reports we could find additional millions of dollars.
Before I sit down let me say that we send out in the form of loans and grants every year millions and millions of dollars in foreign aid. I hope that no member will immediately throw up his hands in horror and say, "Muir is against foreign aid; isn't that shocking?" Well, it is not so shocking. Let me say immediately that I am not against foreign aid to emerging countries and those who require it. It is not so shocking when you consider the number of senior citizens living in hovels and garrets despite the latest small increase in the old age pension. It is not so shocking when you know that some people are terribly ill and are coming to the end of the road much sooner than they would normally because they cannot buy drugs. I am sure all of us-particularly the medical men who sit in this chamber-know how important drugs are, and their cost escalates all the time.
In the debate that will follow I hope members will put their thoughts on record. I hope the government will reach the point quickly of asking the minister to introduce a bill-and it could be a simple bill-that would provide for free drugs for all those who qualify for the guaranteed income supplement.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this motion and to compliment the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) for voicing such widely held sentiments. I think there is not a member here who does not agree that it would be nice if we could pass immediately the sort of bill the hon. member has proposed. However, there are many matters which must be dis-

cussed. I think we should consider the whole subject of medical aid coming under welfare.
It seems to me that the hon. member's motion is similar to that moved by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). Both motions are dated January 12 and both are along the same lines. The motion of the hon. member who preceded me is pretty well confined to matters involving OAS and GIS, whereas the hon. member for Oxford, when he talked on his motion, tabled about anyone in need. The motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Oxford was debated on April 2 and the whole question of poverty was discussed.
Although there is much repetition in our debates on this subject, and although some may consider this old hat, we must realize that many things have been said about poverty in the last two or three years and that poverty has been defined. Of course, I am referring to the Croll report. The committee, headed by that senator, went all over Canada and arrived at certain conclusions. We know, to make a long story short, that about 25 per cent of the population of Canada, which at present stands at around 22 million, consists of people living on, near or below the poverty line. What is the poverty level? It was defined at that time as the level that applied to anyone who lived at what we would call the minimum level, which is represented by an income of about $4,000 a year. Such income, of course, would not provide for any extras. That definition still applies, I believe, and I think this House still accepts it in its discussions.
I believe parliament thought it had gone a long way when it increased veterans pensions by several hundred dollars per year. The hon. member mentioned the guaranteed income supplement. He was referring, I think, to the guaranteed annual income which in some ways is similar to the concept of the veterans pension. It is interesting to note that many people look on the poor with pity and contempt. A report which was recently issued dealt with poor people, people on welfare and people who have had to accept charity. It has been shown that people in that unfortunate position are not welfare bums. Ninety-eight per cent of them want to work. I think everyone in the country realizes that. Since unemployment insurance was introduced there has been so much talk about people who do not want to work that I am getting sick of it. Most people whom I as a doctor have looked after are not in that category. If people are properly trained, educated and able to find a job, they are eager to work.
Another finding in the study is that children in this group by no means inherit a lazy or inborn welfare attitude. In fact, some of the finest brains and contributors to our society come from that group. First and foremost we must realize that poverty is another disease and we have to do our best to cure it. How many people are in this group? From discussions with those who wrote the report it appears there are approximately 5.5 million.
Another statistic indicates that the annual cost of prescription drugs-this does not include aspirin Lydia Pink-ham and other drugs sold over the counter but only drugs precribed by doctors after examination-amounts to $14.12 for every person in Canada. In another area, we have been
June 15, 1973

told that prescription drugs cost $80 million yearly in Canada. If the poor make up 25 per cent of population, one would think they would be spending $20 million per year. However, that is not true. In this 25 per cent group there are probably one and a half million people over the age of 65. People of that age-I should say "we" people of that age-are prone to more diseases and illness than those in the younger age group. It is a sad fact that people in the poverty group, even those below the age of 65, perhaps because of their diet, worry and vicissitudes of life have more illness. The $20 million to which I referred might pay the cost of prescription drugs for that segment of society, but it is probably about half the amount spent; it is probably closer to $40 million.
Free drugs go to people on municipal welfare. In most cases they are given to people who are handicapped, as well as those with poor incomes, those not on welfare but receiving assistance. There is a definite means test. I do not think that is a wonderful idea, but people with too great an inroad into their income as a result of chronic illness can have drugs provided free.
There is another group of people for whom we feel sorry, those with cancer. In this area I know more about Ontario than anywhere else in Canada. Free clinics and free doctors' prescriptions in Ontario amount to over $150,000. As hon. members know, approximately one quarter of the population in Canada lives in Ontario. Therefore, well over $500,000 is handed out in free drugs to cancer patients. This is just not for the poor and the old; it is through tacit consent between the Cancer Foundation and the doctors involved. It is handed out because we feel sorry for people handicapped by cancer. We know drugs prolong life and make life more livable. We should give them everything they deserve. Something of this nature will gradually have to be done for the poor and those over 65.
When referring to those over age 65, I do not think the hon. member meant everyone who is an old age security recipient. I think he meant those receiving the old age security pension and the guranteed income supplement. In any event, we will not mention the E. P. Taylor crowd. We know that approximately 75 per cent of those receiving the old age security do not need it. However, this pension began 30 years ago at $25 a month and we cannot take it away now. It would be like trying to take something away from a youngster. But there are not a great many people in that income bracket. In fact, those people pay a great deal of it back to the government in income tax. With a combination of the old age security and guranteed income supplement, these people receive a nice income of approximately $4,000 a year.
During the debate in April, it was underlined that we were in the process of holding discussions with the provinces. People who suffer from a chronic illness and have a drain on their resources should take advantage of the Canada Assistance Plan. That was designed to look after precisely these people. If they are not getting that assistance, it is the fault of the provincial health departments. Sometimes the health department does not know or care about it; in some cases, even if they do know about it they choose not to make use of that knowledge.
Health and Welfare
The poeple to whom the hon. member referred do not have to suffer. If the provinces were awake to what they should be doing, they would take advantage of the Canada Assistance Plan and the tab for drugs would be paid. With regard to medical care in general, in most provinces doctors bills, hospitals bills and drugs are paid by the province. What is not covered comes under hospital treatment bills and some hospital diagnostic procedures. At the present time most provinces have coverage for people over 65, but not all have complete medical care. Sometimes it is brought down to an absurd minimum, but they still have to pay something.
Four very important points are laid down by the Dominion Government-I use the term "Dominion" because it is being argued about-and they are: health care should be accessible, people should be able to obtain it in almost any community; it should be comprehensive, that is, it should cover all types of illnesses and accidents as far as possible; it should be portable-a person going from Saskatchewan to the Maritimes for a visit should be entitled to treatment in the other province; and it should be universal-everyone in the country should enjoy the same type of benefits. We are working toward these goals as fast as we can.
I should like to say, for the benefit of the hon. member who proposed this motion, that we have a terrific scheme in operation in this country. No country in the world can come close to it. The great country of the United States to the south looks after the hospital care of people over the age of 65. Doctors' bills and hospital bills in that country are very high indeed, probably three or four times higher than they are here. Thi; imposes a great burden on those who are sick, and the government is only now getting around to thinking about introducing an ordinary hospital and medicare treatment insurance plan.
The situation in the United Kingdom is far worse than it is here as far as the quality of general care is concerned, although hospital care is good. On the other hand, the availability of beds is much lower than it is here. There are fewer doctors because, in consequence of the state medical situation, there is very little room for the scientific expression of a well trained doctor in ordinary GP practice. As a result, interest is flagging and people complain about the care they receive. So although Britain gives drugs, eyeglasses and dentures to everybody who needs them, there is no comparison with the Canadian scheme as far as medical care is concerned.
Getting back to the question of providing free drugs for those who need them, I think the present laws will have to be maintained for a few months. It will only be a short time, I trust, until the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and his provincial confreres have threshed out how much should be given to each province, whether grants should be made on a per capita basis and whether the federal government should have some say as to the quality and uniformity of care.
About a week ago I was in Kingston at the graduation of some ten young men who had received a highly advanced training course as ambulance attendants. They could do a lot of things that anaesthetists and surgical doctors would normally do, for example, carry out blood transfusions
4824

June 15, 1973
Health and Welfare
while taking patients from the scene of an accident. This is a great thing and I should like to see these skills available throughout Canada.
As I say, the objective is to make standards of care as uniform as far as possible. As to the cost of drugs, it would seem to me that though we want to help these people get their drugs, the most the government should do at the present time is assist the provinces in tailoring their plans so that they comply with all four of the criteria I have mentioned. We have told everyone in the clearest terms what they are. In the meantime, about all we can do as a national government is to purchase drugs in bulk. This will certainly bring down the cost of drugs. Then until the federal-provincial conference has concluded we shall have to use the Canada Assistance Plan to pick up the slack whenever the question of need arises.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman accept a question? It has to do with costs. The hon. member mentioned the figure of $80 million, if I remember correctly, as being the cost of prescription drugs across the country at $14.12 per person. Then he brought it down to 25 per cent or so at the age of 65-that would be $20 million-then back up to approximately $40 million as the cost of this proposed program. I should like to ask the good doctor whether this is the over-the-counter cost. What would the wholesale cost be?


Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, that was across-the-counter. Fourteen dollars and 12 cents was the annual cost per capita. One can play around with the millions because the amount would depend on how many were sick in each group, and so on. If you stick to the per capita cost, it is around $20 million for that segment of the population, and for the aged it is probably less than that: maybe, as the hon. gentleman suggested, $5 million or $10 million.


Robert Muir: In other words, if drugs were purchased in bulk they would be much cheaper?


Samuel Victor Railton: I think that is likely to be the case. It would take a lot of arranging, that is all.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, at this time when there is talk that the federal government may be prepared to get out of the whole area of medicare, it is very heartening to hear members from the east coast and from Ontario-and I am from the west coast-talking in terms of the necessity for the federal government to introduce and maintain standards for drug care across the country. This is an important matter and I am pleased that we are thinking in such terms. It is my belief there is not a member of this House who does not recognize the need in his or her constituency for supplying drugs to people who need them, and supplying drugs which meet a uniform standard no matter in which part of Canada a person lives.
It is my belief that the resolution before us is a good one, and I should like to see it go further. I know of many people living on old age security and guaranteed income supplement who need drug care in the form of free drugs. But there are many people who, having reached the pension age of 65, are not receiving the old age supplement. These are people who have just a little more income than

is allowable in order to receive the guaranteed income supplement, and they are equally in need of receiving free drugs. These are the people who are in the taxpaying brackets and have very little money left over to meet other expenses.
I liked what the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) said. He indicated that this question of getting drugs for a lot of elderly people was simply a trade-off-whether they would spend their money on a little more food rather than on drugs-because that is the choice. Unfortunately, this is the choice of a lot of people who do not get the guaranteed income supplement, though their need is basically the same as those who just qualify for it.
We are just beginning to develop a lot of programs that provide free transportation and other services to people on the supplement, whereas people who just fail to qualify for the supplement do not get this kind of assistance. I should like this resolution to recommend that free drugs be supplied to all people over the age of 65 who need those drugs. We would make these free drugs available to these people and then use the income tax system, as in the case of other universal programs, to retrieve the cost from those who do not need the financial-help.
I was glad to hear the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) touch on a point that until then had not been dealt with, namely, the benefit to be derived from buying drugs in bulk. I should like to refer to the situation in my province, though I think it is similar to the situation in some other provinces. At the present time there is a "do-it-yourself" system of drug distribution to the elderly people in my province, except those on social assistance. They have to go to the pharmacy and buy prescription and other drugs over the counter at the regular price. This price is much higher than would be the case if drugs were bought in bulk. In my province people on social assistance are given free drugs. These drugs are purchased in bulk by the provincial government in generic form wherever possible, and consequently the price is much lower. People on social assistance have the advantage of getting these drugs free, and the cost to the government is much lower.
I should like to see drugs that are given free to elderly people over the age of 65 purchased in bulk so that the public does not have to foot the bill for the higher over-the-counter cost of the drugs. Taxpayers should not have to pay for the cost of drugs purchased in the regular way; rather, the provinces and federal authorites should be able to purchase these drugs on a large scale.
Another matter to be considered when we are dealing with old age pensioners, and which lends urgency to such consideration, is the fact that elderly people do not have too long to live. As a result, they cannot wait too long for benefits. I have been working for a long time to try to get one old gentleman a veteran's pension. He is a veteran of the First World War who was disabled, and these disabilities have been worsening. For a long time his pension has been tied up in the great pension log jam, and as the weeks and months roll by I am afraid, as I know he is afraid, that long before the authorities finally get around the breaking
June 15, 1973

to log jam and paying him his pension increase, it will be too late to do him any good.


Robert Muir: Which has happened in some cases.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes, it has happened in many cases. I am worried that this old gentleman may go to his death taking with him a burning sense of injustice over the fact that he could not get the pension to which he was entitled, and which I am sure he will get when finally the authorities get around to authorizing it. He is in his eighties now, so his case is urgent.
I wish similar action could be taken in regard to so many pioneers of this country before it is too late. It is true that owing to poverty, in some cases, disabilities do worsen with age. Also, we have been collectively ignorant as a society in regard to diet and other aspects of keeping people fit and healthy. We have not known how to handle psychiatric troubles and similar problems. We do not know very much about many other diseases, though we know a lot more than we knew half a century ago when these people were relatively young. This is why the elderly people of today cannot wait. They have been pre-aged by a number of factors over which we are just now beginning to have some control. One of these days we will have even more control over disease, nervous disorders, cancer, and so on; but this will be too late for the elderly people of today.
I suggest that all we can do for these people is try to relieve their suffering. A lot of elderly people today are suffering because they cannot afford to buy drugs. Pharmacists have told me that elderly people come in with prescriptions, timidly inquire what the prescription costs to fill, and then sadly turn away because they do not have sufficient money. In many cases these are people who have been suffering miserably for want of the drugs.
I do not think there is any other subject that is discussed in this House that could bring us closer together than the question of trying to get free drugs for elderly people. But we cannot wait until all the angles have been examined by the federal government and the provinces. Although discussions must continue, in the meantime let us see if the federal government cannot produce some kind of plan for co-operative action which it could take to the provinces to bring free drugs to our elderly people.
All of us occasionally go to meetings where we indulge in conversation, discuss an agenda, and do not get very far. But if someone at that meeting has a well thought-out plan and can put forward dollars and cents figures, we can get much further. Therefore I urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to do just this. Let him take the advice of the best people in his department as well as those outside it who know all about drugs and drug prices, and present to the next meeting of premiers a ready-made plan, which will of course be subject to discussion and modification, so we can introduce a program of drug care for the elderly people of this country. Let us make drugs freely available to everyone over 65 years of age, and use the income tax system to retrieve the cost of those drugs from those who do not need the financial help.
Health and Welfare


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, since other members may wish to participate in this debate I shall take only a few moments to indicate support for the very worth-while resolution which has been moved by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir). I think it is very appropriate that the hon. member has placed his motion on the order paper and has had it debated today, because he and the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) know something about personal problems associated with drugs and medical care. Drugs and medical care brought them back along the long road from disability to the point where they can stand in the House and appear to be very hale and hearty and contribute in a very worth-while way.
For members who are not aware of it, may I say that the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys was involved in two very serious mining accidents. In one accident he had a broken back which required spinal fusion. Before that was done he had been confined to a wheelchair. One would not know this today. Today the hon. member appears to be a very hale and hearty fellow. Much of that probably is due to the fact that he was able to obtain the necessary drugs at the time of his disability. On another occasion he was involved in a very bad fire and explosion in a coal mine. Almost all his body was burnt. I am sure the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) will appreciate the importance of drugs to treat the type of burns from which the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys must have suffered.
I know the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, who has always had great concern for the poor and unfortunate people in this country, has herself suffered in a very extreme way from disability but has regained her health. Also I am sure a great deal of that is due to the fact that she received proper drug care.
It is therefore very appropriate that these hon. members have participated in this debate. I think it is also very appropriate that the hon. member for Welland, a member of the medical profession, should participate in this debate because I am sure he sees in his doctor's office the type of people who suffer from the problems we are discussing. He is a very fortunate man in that he is a resident of the province of Ontario. I listened to him talking about the ways and means available to our elderly citizens in need of drugs in order to maintain their health. I must tell him that the welfare system in the province of Ontario is a devil of a lot better than the one which exists in the province of Nova Scotia, because the Canada Assistance Plan does not look after people in Nova Scotia.
If people in Nova Scotia wish to obtain drugs, they must dig into their own pockets and use the money they receive through old age security payments or from the supplement. It is seldom that a welfare officer has time for a person seeking help to purchase drugs if that person qualifies for assistance under those two programs. We have in the province of Nova Scotia the lousiest welfare program in the country. It is a national scandal so far as I am concerned, and I have said this before. I realize that the hon. member, coming from Ontario, would not appreciate what I am saying because his province has a very realistic and helpful welfare program at the present time.
26446-15J

June 15, 1973
Health and Welfare
I think the suggestions made by hon. members in respect of the bulk sale of drugs, and the fact that our older citizens in one form or another should be able to secure prescription drugs which they need, are very worth-while and, if nothing else is accomplished by this debate, should at least indicate to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) that the members of this House are very concerned about this problem and wish him to take steps to guarantee that the people of this country will not lose their lives because of their inability to secure the drugs they need to maintain their health.
That is all I have to contribute to the debate. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys for his interest in this very basic problem which faces so many of our elderly citizens. Also, I congratulate the other members of the House who have participated in this debate up to now.
[ Translation]


Mr. Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member who was good enough to move this motion. It is certainly in order, and it is one of which we approve. We would very much like to see all these things done, particularly to ensure that the most urgent needs of the elderly are met.
The hon. member was inspired to introduce this motion by the great poverty that now exists. We do not have enough time to discuss the causes of this poverty, but we know that our senior citizens have done all they could to bulid an economy to serve their own and future generations.
They were left with nothing as everything they build does not belong to them anymore. They built and developed our country piece by piece but lost everything they had to those who took control over exchange. Those who conceived and implemented our monetary system and who are depriving every Canadian of his property as he builds it up are to blame for the fact that elderly people have nothing left. That is why most of them do not have enough to meet their needs even with higher pensions and welfare allowances because the cost of living is rising. As a matter of fact all those presently on pensions are already asking for pensions increases as they can no longer buy drugs, pay their rent, their food and whatever else they have to pay in order to survive, and most of them are running deeper into debt.
That is one of the reasons why the hon. member brought in this motion and why we second it. Even though I would have many things to say, Mr. Speaker, I will resume my seat before five o'clock so we may have an opportunity to put the motion.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, we must certainly admit that the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) has put forward a valid motion.
In my opinion, governments at whatever level should perhaps stop legislating temporarily on matters such as the one raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, in order to try to improve existing legislation, for the benefit of the entire population and above all for citizens over sixty-five.


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

Monday, June 18, 1973