1973-06-18

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order. On Friday last the hon. member for Winnipeg North sought to move concurrence in the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. On a point of order some doubt was cast on the procedural acceptability of the report and, more particularly, on the hon. member's right to move concurrence in that report. A number of members took part in a procedural discussion, at the end of which it was agreed that the Chair should be given an opportunity to study the arguments advanced, both in support of and in opposition to the procedural acceptability of the hon. member's motion.
There is little doubt that only the functions and powers of the Committee of Supply were transferred to the standing committees in relation to the estimates when the Standing Orders were amended in 1968. Section 14 of Standing Order 58 reads as follows:
In every session the main estimates to cover the incoming fiscal year for every department of government shall be referred to standing committees on or before March 1 of the then expiring fiscal year. Each such committee shall consider and shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported, the same back to the House not later than May 31 in the then current fiscal year.
Standing Order 59 reads as follows:
A motion, to be decided without debate, or amendment, may be moved during routine proceedings by a minister of the Crown to refer any item or items in the main estimates or in supplementary estimates to any standing committee or committees and, upon report from any such committees, the same shall lie upon the table of the House.
The old standing order 57, which preceded the present Standing Order 59, reads as follows:
A motion, to be decided without debate or amendment, may be made without notice during routine proceedings by a minister of the Crown withdrawing any item or items in the estimates from the Committee of Supply and referring the same to any standing or special committee and, upon report from any such committee, the said item or items shall stand referred to the Committee of Supply.
Prior to 1968 the Committee of Supply could consider, reject, reduce and adopt estimates, but the ultimate concurrence in the estimates rested in the House after report from the Committee of Supply. In like fashion, standing committees may now consider, adopt, reject, reduce and report to the House on estimates but, as was the case with the Committee of Supply, the ultimate concurrence in the estimates still rests with the House.
It will be noted that there was no enlargement of the powers of standing committees on estimates by virtue of
the new Standing Order 58. The only alteration was that which was necessary in House procedure by the abolition of the Committee of Supply.
There can be no doubt that standing committees are empowered to make reports in relation to their study of estimates. The first example of such a report was that of the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates made February 28, 1969, concerning the use of one-dollar items for the purpose of legislating. That report followed upon the adoption of the revised rules in December, 1968.
It is interesting to comment here that that report is the only instance of a committee report on estimates being brought into consideration under the provisions of Standing Order 58.
The fundamental question to be considered is whether the House or the standing committee is to remain paramount. Will the committees direct the House by virtue of their reports or will the House direct the committees by means of orders of reference?
If a standing committee is permitted to make reports of a substantive nature when considering the estimates of a department, it would follow that no limit could be placed on the number of reports from a committee. Surely the House would be hard pressed to consider all of such reports on motions during the daily routine of business.
It has been suggested that the powers and scope of committees should be and have been enlarged under the recently adopted procedure, but surely it cannot be contended that the committees have powers which exceed those of the House.
It could be said that the "report of a committee, both in its form and as to its substance, ought to correspond with the authority with which the committee is invested".
To illustrate what the Chair has in mind, it is suggested that reference be made to the comments by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in the discussion which arose on April 10. The hon. gentleman in particular then referred to a report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in relation to a document known as the Woods Report, which report, in the hon. gentleman's own words, contained "literally scores of recommendations which, if they were implemented, would involve the expenditure of money". That report was the order of reference to the committee and as such the committee could do nothing except to consider and recommend on the desirability of making such payments. The form and substance of the report could not be otherwise. It should be also noted that the committee recommended that certain proposals be implemented; in other words, a direct order to the government was not involved.

June 18, 1973
Tributes to Member for Winnipeg North Centre
That is an excellent example of where a standing committee considered and reported to the letter within the four corners of its order of reference.
It would be an exceedingly hazardous exercise on the part of the Chair to undertake, in general terms, a delineation or a description of the acceptable form and content of a report of a standing committee on estimates, but in the debate which occurred on Friday last it is safe to say that no member contended that the content of the several reports referred to were in accordance with the form and content of the orders of reference to the several standing committees.
However, let it be assumed that one or more of those reports were founded on the estimates which form the orders of reference to the committees. Is the Chair able to set aside the procedural machinery provided for the consideration of reports from committees on estimates? Section 16 of Standing Order 58 is so clear and direct on that point that the answer cannot be otherwise. It 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.
In the argument submitted to the House last Friday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and by the hon. member for Peace River it was recognized, I suggest, at least tacitly, that in view of the terms of Standing Order 58(16) the proposed motion in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North could not be moved in those terms and at that time.
It is not my intention to deal specifically at this time with any of the reports for which motions to concur therein have been filed, but it is my feeling that an opportunity should be provided to have these notices of motions withdrawn as necessary and arrangements might be made to have the subject matter of the report brought under consideration on allotted days. It must be admitted that little time remains for that purpose, but it seems to me that no other alternative is apparent.


TRIBUTES TO MEMBER FOR WINNIPEG NORTH CENTRE ON SIXTY-FIFTH BIRTHDAY
Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This House has heard several references in recent weeks to conflict of interest on the part of its members. I should like to draw to the attention of the House at this time that there exists one form of conflict of interest created by circumstances over which hon. members have no control.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) finds himself in just such a position today. We know that he has long been an upholder of the interests of Canadian old age pensioners, and I am happy to learn that today, Mr. Speaker, he joins their ranks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has personally assured me that his application for a pension has been approved and he can look forward to receiving his first cheque next month.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In extending sincerest good wishes for many happy returns, I am sure on behalf of all hon. members, I trust, Mr. Speaker, that any further requests for increases in old age security, which I am sure the hon. member will make, will be seen in the light of his new found conflict of interest.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, as the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) has just stolen my lines about conflict of interest, I can only suggest that the House give consideration to passing a motion under Standing Order 43 excluding the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) from any suggestion of a conflict of interest on the basis of his receiving old age pension cheques. However, I thought that possibly I had better wait and discuss the matters with him and wait until the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) introduces his legislation with regard to family welfare to see if the hon. member can be excluded under that as well.
I join with the President of the Treasury Board in congratulating the hon. member. I think members of all parties will be glad to know that he has arrived at his present age. I do not know whether the hon. member is dedicated to the principle of retirement, compulsory or otherwise, but I doubt it, Mr. Speaker. I do know that sometimes, when issues arise in debate and members of my party come to me and say, "What do you think about this," I have to say I am not sure and they ask, "What did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre think"? So we refer to the debates. I do not mind having them say to me, what did the hon. member say during the course of the reciprocity debate, but when they ask me what the hon. member said during the confederation debates I must say I do worry.
I understand the hon. member is also softening in his attitude to another venerable institution in this building.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Two years ago, when talking about the other place, the hon. member quoted Beckett and said, "Will no one rid me of this other place?" I understand now that, on those rare occasions when he is in the pulpit, he misquotes scripture, sometimes quite unconsciously, and says, "Has no one gone to prepare a place for me in the other House?"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: We welcome this day. We pay tribute to the hon. member who has done what most of us have found difficult. He has surmounted the apparently irreconcilable difficulties of being a constituency member, a party member and a member who has a view to the national interest. My experience with the hon. member enables me to say, as will others who come after us, that he was a man of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the same question of privilege introduced by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). On behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party I wish to extend special greeting to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has been a member of this House for every parliament, except for one aberration in 1958, since 1942.
It has been appropriately said of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that he is the dean of the House of Commons. It seems to me, and to many hon. members who reflect upon that judgment, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can be said to hold that position because of two important facts. First, perhaps more than most members of the House the present member for Winnipeg North Centre has recognized the central importance of parliament to Canadian democracy, of parliament both as a vehicle for changing laws and as a vehicle for redressing immediate grievances. Perhaps more than any other member of the House in this century, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has called this central fact to the attention of Canadians from one coast to the other. However, I think it would be a disservice to the hon. member to say that he has focused exclusively on this House. He has recognized that what takes place in the House of Commons must yield in priority to concern to what transpires outside.
We pay him tribute today for his role in the House but, in particular, for those causes for which he has fought in the House since 1942, for increases in pensions, for a guaranteed income for all, and for improvement of the position of those who are without substantial income, power or influence in Canadian society. In short, he has worked on behalf of those in Canada who most need someone to work on their behalf.
I join with the President of the Treasury Board and the hon. member for Peace River in extending our best wishes to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I conclude on this note. It was suggested a while ago that perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would not like it pointed out that he is 65 today. I have it on very good authority that he indicated some desire about an expression, not in this House which he of course knew nothing about, to a private gathering later. He is said to have expressed the view that a lot of people in Canada will be surprised to learn that he is 65 today and not 75.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, it gives me great pleasure to join with my colleagues of the other parties to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday.
A new member is always specially impressed by certain other members, no matter to what party they belong. I must confess in all sincerity that the knowledge of House
Tributes to Member for Winnipeg North Centre procedure shown by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has greatly impressed me, as it continues to impress all other hon. members.
It is thus with pleasure that the members of the Social Credit Party of Canada take this opportunity to wish the hon. member a happy birthday and to express the wish that he will be with us in the House for as long as possible.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as one who is concerned that things that are done in this chamber be done in accordance with the rules, I am wondering under what Standing Order the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) got the floor. I can only assume that Your Honour gave it to him under the provisions of Standing Order 117.
Speaking of Standing Orders and citations, I confess that when the President of the Treasury Board entered upon his remarks I wondered whether he was going to make a serious charge against me under the heading of "conflict of interest". That led me to look at citation 66 in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition. If I were as able today as I used to be to take a long time to debate a point of order, I could defend myself against that charge, but it really is not necessary. As a matter of fact, I had planned, when I came into the House, that during the question period I would put a question regarding old age pensions to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I may say that if I am able to get the floor during the question period I still intend to do so.
I wish to express my warmest thanks to the President of the Treasury Board, to my friend the hon. member for Peace River, to my colleague from Oshawa-Whitby and to my newfound friend, the hon. member for Charlevoix, for the very kind things they have said about me. It has been a real experience to have been here, but for one short absence, since I was a youngster of 34. In those days when you came to this House at 34 you were a young man, but nowadays when you come here at that age you are getting on. As I say, it has been a wonderful experience to have been here through several decades. It has been a real thrill to engage in some of the battles in which I have been involved; it has been a particular thrill to win a good many of them, and to feel that one has served the people who sent him here. It has also been a tremendous experience to feel the warmth and friendship of colleagues on all sides of the House. I am most grateful to all those who have taken note of this day. I intend to try to find out later who organized it. In any case, I express my warmest thanks.
The hon. member for Peace River said I had been around for a long time but that I was not here for the debate on reciprocity. Nor was I here at the beginning of time. But I should like hon. members to know that I have been here longer than some of them may think. Sixty-five years ago today, the day I was born, the House of Commons of Canada gave second reading to the first bill which had anything to do with the provision of pensions for the general public of Canada. It is true that prior to that time provision had been made for pensions to civil servants, and so on. But on June 18, 1908, the House gave second reading to the Government Annuities Act and dealt with it in committee. So, Mr. Speaker, I was here. They tell me I kicked up quite a fuss because I did not want that debate

June 18, 1973
Federal-Provincial Affairs
to be extended; I wanted the bill passed so we could get on with the job, in the next 65 years, of making things even better not only for our senior citizens but for all the people of Canada.


THE LATE HONOURABLE H. H. STEVENS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to crave the indulgence of the House on a question of privilege to take note of a distinguished Canadian, one who was here for the reciprocity debate, the Hon. H. H. Stevens, a senior Privy Councillor, a distinguished, very progressive political leader, who has passed away. I can remember, as a young man of 11 years of age, attending a political meeting which he addressed with great vigour and incisiveness, and I think it would be timely, in this political assemblage, to pay tribute to the memory of a very great man.
Privy councillor, distinguished statesman, outstanding politician, he was also a teetotaller who brought the liquor laws to British Columbia, but that is not the most important reason for remembering him. I believe we should honour distinguished men who have carved paths of greatness, and I should therefore like to pay tribute to the late H. H. Stevens of British Columbia, who was a distinguished Privy Councillor, a distinguished politician and a member of this House.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Vancouver Centre I endorse the observations the hon. member for Hillsborough has made. The Hon. H. H. Stevens was a former member for Vancouver Centre who in his lifetime represented all that was admirable in politics. He brought great honour and credit to his constituency and to the city of Vancouver. As a Vancouverite and British Columbian he will be very sorely missed indeed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as one who had the privilege of having met Mr. Stevens and having had correspondence with him, and recalling in particular that the first time I ran was the last time he ran, I am glad to join in this tribute to the memory of one who served this parliament and this nation well.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the alleged statement made on June 15 in Winnipeg by the Minister of Justice to

the effect that the four western premiers are adopting shortsighted policies vis-a-vis the federal government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House instructs the federal government to start treating western Canada as a full-fledged member of confederation and that the federal government present at the July conference with the four western premiers policies which would offer solutions to the numerous problems which alienate western Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-197, to amend the Immigration Appeal Board Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Towers: In view of the Canadian component in "Sesame Street", is CRTC reviewing its decision not to grant this educational program a special category so that it can be broadcast without affecting the Canadian content regulation?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Canadian Radio-Television commission that the commission does not presently intend to review its decision on the establishment of a special category exempting superior educational programming like "Sesame Street" from relevant program content regulations. The Canadian component in "Sesame Street" will, however, be taken into account as complying with the Canadian content regulation requirements.
The commission has indicated that if a non-Canadian program such as "Sesame Street" were granted special status, then the requirement that television stations balance foreign programs with a greater percentage of Canadian programming would be unduly distorted, to the detriment of the Canadian content portion of the television schedule.
June 18, 1973

The commission believes that there is room in the nonCanadian portion of the television schedule for recognized, quality, educational programs, and it is their expectation that Canadian broadcasters should develop and present far more Canadian educational programs of high quality. If, however, special status is accorded to nonCanadian educational programming, then the commission feels that Canadian broadcasters will be encouraged to import more of such programs without developing Canadian programs of comparable quality.


Mr. Latulippe: How many LIP projects were approved for the Northwest Territories and what was the total amount granted for such projects as of March 13, 1973?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 41 for


Mr. Latulippe: How many LIP projects were approved for the Yukon Territory and what was the total amount granted for such projects as of March 13, 1973?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 34 for $654,229.
LIP PROJECT No. H-3656


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-3656?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
LIP PROJECT No. H-3657


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-3657?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
Order Paper Questions LIP PROJECT No. H-3937


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-3937?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic	and	identifiable	contribution	to	community
betterment.
LIP PROJECT No. H-3943


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-3943?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic	and	identifiable	contribution	to	community
betterment.
LIP PROJECT No. H-4068


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-4068?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
LIP PROJECT No. H-4493


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-4493?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
LIP PROJECT No. H-4725


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-4725?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a
4832

June 18, 1973
Order Paper Questions
realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
LIP PROJECT No. H-4727


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-4727?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
LIP PROJECT No. H-4822


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-4822?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it is one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
LIP PROJECT No. H-6099


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-6099?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-6256


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-6256?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
LIP PROJECT No. H-5658


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-5658?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a

realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
LIP PROJECT No. H-3426


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-3426?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
LIP PROJECT No. H-6379


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-6379?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
LIP PROJECT No. H-6378


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-6378?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
LIP PROJECT No. H-3370


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-3370?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
LIP PROJECT No. H-1021


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-1021?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was rejected because the Department received a far great-
June 18, 1973

er number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-1024


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-1024?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications then funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-1343


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-1343?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-1361


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-1361?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-1549


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-1549?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-1553


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-1553?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project
Order Paper Questions
was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. K-2454


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what date was Local Initiative Program project No. K-2454, in the name of the Township of Elizabethtown, received by the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
2.	Was this application rejected and, if so, for what reason?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 13, 1972.
2.	Yes. The department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. K-3411


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what date was Local Initiative Program project No. K-3411, in the name of the Township of Bastard and South Burgess, received by the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
2.	Was this application rejected and, if so, for what reason?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 10, 1973.
2.	Yes. The department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. K-2784


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what date was Local Initiative Program project No. K-2784, in the name of the Brockville Yacht Club, received by the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
2.	Was this application rejected and, if so, for what reason?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 29, 1972.
2.	Yes. The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. K-2221


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what date was Local Initiative Program project No. K-2221, in the name of the Town of Smiths Falls, received by the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
2.	Was this application rejected and, if so, for what reason?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 4, 1972.
26446-16j

June 18, 1973
Order Paper Questions
2. Yes. The department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. K-3094


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what date was Local Initiative Program project No. K-3094, in the name of the Gananoque Cemetery Company, received by the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
2.	Was this application rejected and, if so, for what reason?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 29, 1972.
2. Yes. The department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How much money has been paid by the government, before any deductions at source, in the nature of salary honorarium or retainers to Mr. Robert Borrie between October 30, 1972 and up to and including March 31, 1973?
2.	Has any money been paid to Mr. Robert Borrie as an expense allowance of any kind whatsover and, if so (a) what is the total amount of such expenses paid (b) what is the exact description of each expense and the amount involved in each case?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. Mr. Robert Borrie received a salary from January 9, 1973 to April 6, 1973 based on an annual salary of $12,500 to $15,000.
2. (a) $108.99; (b) travel to and attendance at the conference of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada in Toronto, January 27, 1973.


Mr. Allard: 1.	What is the present amount of the CNR debt?
2.	What percentage is attributable to sources outside Canada?
3.	What was the amount paid as interest since 1919, the year in which the Railway Act came into force?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
Management of Canadian National advises: 1. Canadian National's long-term debt as at December 31, 1972 was as follows: Bonds, $811,555,764; Government of Canada Loans, $1,082,452,857; Total Long Term Debt. $1,894,008,621.
2.	The percentage of CN's long-term debt at December 31, 1972 which was raised in currencies other than Canadian dollars was 0.4 per cent.
3.	The annual amounts of interest paid by Canadian National to the government of Canada; the interest on the funded and unfunded debt, and the amortization of discount on the funded debt are published by Statistics Canada in Catalogue 52-201 Canadian National Railways for each of the years 1923 to 1971 inclusive. The published

figures for 1971 were: Interest paid to government of Canada, $42,740,982; Interest on funded and unfunded debt, $47,030,552; Amortization of discount on funded debt, $946,023.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): 1.	To what extent is the National Harbours Board responsible for the policing and security of the Port of Vancouver?
2.	How many personnel, including civilian employees, are employed?
3.	What ranks and classifications are employed, and what are the salary ranges attached to each?
4.	How many employees are there in each rank and classification?
5.	How many vehicles are assigned to this operation?
6.	What was the total annual cost for this service for each year in which this service has been provided?
7.	Are any properties owned by NHB in Vancouver Harbour area currently leased out, and, if so (a) which properties are leased (b) to whom are they leased (c) on what terms are they leased (d) were all leases sold as a result of bidding competitions and, if so, were all leases sold to the highest bidder (e) what policing and security services does NHB provide to leased-out properties (f) are lessees required to pay any amounts in addition to their rent to cover policing and security services?


Jean Marchand: The
National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. To the extent provided under Section 5 of the National Harbours Board Act.
2. Thirty-four.
3 and 4.
Rank		Salary Range Number	
Superintendent	$17,548-19,941	1Inspector	14,609-16,600	1Lieutenant	12,503-14,207	1Sergeant	12,756-14,740	4Corporal	11,136-12,869	3Constable I	10,644-12,301	11Constable II	9,720-11,233	1Constable III	8,880-10,261	7Probationary 6-12	months	8,262- 9,548	-Probationary 1-6 months	7,962- 9,201	2Civilian C5	6,708- 7,372	1Civilian C4	6,058- 6,658	25. Five.	6. 1969, $199,062	(unit commenced operating	July 1,
1969); 1970, $317,188; 1971, $436,158; 1972, $534,148.
7. Board property within the jurisdictional limits of the port of Vancouver is, to the greatest possible extent, either used for board controlled cargo handling facilities or leased to private interests: (a) Properties are leased to those whose business is port oriented and at standard rates based on current market values; (b) there are approximately 600 such leases; (c) terms vary in length depending on needs of tenants and the capital investment

that tenants put into their operations; (d) generally speaking, with exception of board's deepsea cargo handling facilities, no bidding for leases is considered necessary in view of standard rates established through the fair market value of property; (e) preventive patrolling and investigations; (f) no.


Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	What methods are used in arriving at contract terms between the Canadian Merchant Service Guild and the Treasury Board?
2.	Within the past five years, has any action been taken by the government which has resulted in a reduction of pensions of officers working on Canadian government ships?
3.	Are officers working on Canadian Merchant ships paid overtime and, if not, for what reasons?
4.	Are salaries paid and working conditions, as well as other terms of contract, between the government and officers of the Canadian government ships in the Canadian Merchant Service similar to those of employees working for the Northern Transportation Commission and, if not, what are the differences?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. By collective bargaining between the Treasury Board and the Canadian Merchant Service Guild, carried out under the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
2.	No.
3.	Most collective agreements affecting ships' officers employed by shipping firms in Canada stipulate that officers be paid for overtime worked or be given time off in lieu or provide for a combination of overtime pay and time off.
4.	Because the operations carried out by government vessels under the authority of the departments are more varied and are carried out in a greater number of different circumstances than those under the authority of Northern Transportation Company Limited, meaningful comparisons are difficult to make, In addition, job classification plans differ in the two jurisdictions rendering salary comparisons unreliable. Generally speaking, however, the terms and conditions of employment are similar.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What were the names of all those who tendered on the renovations presently being performed inside the federal building at Brockville, Ontario and what were the amounts of each tender?
2.	On what date was each tender received by the Department of Public Works?
3.	In what location, at what time and on what date were tenders opened?
4.	What were the names and positions held of all persons present when tenders received were opened?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Normand-Fleming Ltd., 214 Laurier Ave. W, Ottawa, Ontario; $18,890; Peke Bangma Contracting Co. Ltd., 30 Delhi Street, Brockville, Ontario, $23,950; Dodge Construction Co. Ltd., Bridge Street, Cardinal, Ontario, $24,000; I. H. Bradley Construction Ltd., Prescott, Ontario. $27,700.
Order Paper Questions
2.	Normand-Fleming Ltd., April 12, 1973, 2:52 p.m.; Peke Bangma Contracting Co. Ltd., April 12, 1973, 1:41 p.m.; Dodge Construction Co. Ltd., April 12, 1973, 2:08 p.m.; I. H. Bradley Construction Ltd., April 12, 1973, 2:00 p.m.
3.	In Ottawa, Bonaventure Building, 301 Elgin Street, Room 134. Tender Opening at 3:00 p.m. on April 12, 1973.
4.	These tenders were opened in public and as a register is not maintained of those who attended from either the private or public sector as interested parties it is only possible to provide the names and positions of the departmental officials who were directly involved in the opening of tenders: D. G. Gibson, Head, Administrative Services. Mrs. A. M. Lavigne, Tenders Clerk. Ms. S. MacRae, Tender Records Clerk.


Mr. Allard: What was the exact amount of the grant to Atlantic Dry Kiln Ltd. in Rimouski?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: At the time the development incentive was originally offered to this company, it was calculated at $90,800 based on the estimates then available of capital investment and jobs to be created. However, revised estimates available when the Department inspected the facility after commercial production had been achieved indicated that an incentive of $95,924 would be justified and an initial payment of 80% of this amount has been made. It should be noted that the exact amount of the incentive will not be known until the Department has made its final inspection (which cannot be made until 36 months have expired after the start of commercial production) because the incentive is, in part, based on the average employment during the second and third year following commercial production.


Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands): 1.	(a) What was the purpose of the recent trip of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to Peru (b) was the trip government business?
2.	How many persons accompanied the Minister and who were they?
3.	Were all expenses paid by the government?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. (a) The Minister made an official trip to Peru from April 26 to 30 at which time he met with various government officials. Among these were meetings with the Minister of Education and with senior officials of the Department of Planning to discuss matters of mutual interest such as minority education and teaching of a second language to native groups. The minister also met with native groups and visited native centres active in education and recreation; (b) Yes.
2. The minister was accompanied by Mr. Irvin Goodleaf.

June 18, 1973
Order Paper Questions
3. Yes.


Mr. Schumacher: X. On what date was the Bryden Report commissioned and when did work actually commence?
2.	On what date was the Report finalized and passed to the government?
3.	What was the total cost involved?


John Mercer Reid: 1. A preliminary analysis was begun November 13, 1970. The actual report was commissioned February 12, 1971.
2.	June 18, 1971.
3.	$39,894.61.


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant in the amount of $61,000 to Magline of Canada Limited of Renfrew, announced by the Minister of Regional economic Expansion on November 17, 1972 and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much money has been given to the company, to date, in what months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who are the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of May 1, 1973 (h) how many employees were there on the company payroll as of May 1, 1973 (i) how much was the initial capitalization of the project (j) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the company a going concern, in receivership, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, an offer of incentive assistance in the amount of $61,500 was announced on November 17, 1972: (a) An Agreement was entered into pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 (now known as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion Act) between the government of Canada and the applicant on August 1, 1972 for a facility which is situated in the Special Area of Renfrew-Pem-broke, Ontario; (b) nil; (c) Directors of the company are: J. E. Lindsay, C. F. Schilling, D. A. Tetu, D. C. Law; (d) under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, the names of the shareholders of a corporation are not public information; (e) N/A; (f) 18; (g) not yet certified as being in commercial production; (h) the department's primary concern, for grant purposes, is related to the employment created by a particular project, rather than to total employment in the company concerned. Consequently, no accurate records are kept in this regard; (i) and (j) information on total capitalization of the project and the applicant's share of that capitalization cannot be provided without releasing information given by the applicant on a confidential basis. However, the eligible capital costs on which the grant offer was based are $130,000 and the applicant's equity is in all cases at least 20 percent of that amount as provided in the Regional Development Incentives Regulations; (k) a going concern; (1) March 13, 1972.


Mr. Bawden: Has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development issued or sold over 140 million acres in the off-shore Mackenzie Delta and Arctic island areas, which carry an obligation to spend millions of dollars on geophysics as well as giving the right to test these areas by exploratory wells and, if so, will the Minister advise on what date the Department will be concluding its deliberations on the Off-Shore Conference, which was held in Ottawa during December, and advising industry of its intentions and regulations for Arctic off-shore drilling?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The department has issued exploratory permits on some 220,000,000 acres in the Arctic Offshore including the Beaufort Sea adjoining the Mackenzie Delta and the sea bed adjacent to the Arctic Islands and Baffin Island. These permits require an average expenditure of $2.65 per acre if the permit is held for its full life of 12 to 14 years. Although the right of entry to Canada lands for the purpose of conducting exploratory work is included in the permit, that right is modified by legislation designed to protect the environment. The matters discussed during the Northern Canada Offshore Drilling meeting are under consideration with the view to establishing a workable regulatory basis for Arctic offshore drilling at an early date.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	By what postal facilities is Winfield, Alberta currently served?
2.	Does the government intend to construct new facilities or add to the existing service at Winfield and (a) if so, on what date and what will be the nature of the new or improved services (b) if not, for what reason?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: 1. The post office at Winfield is located leased premises.
2. No; (a) not applicable; (b) existing premises are satisfactory.
 * *



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Department of National Revenue on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.
June 18, 1973



FRAUDULENT UIC CLAIMS

Mr. Hueglin: 1.	What, if any, method has been devised to eliminate fraudulent UIC claims?
2.	How many claims, if any, were disallowed, by month (a) during the calendar year 1971 (b) since January 1, 1972 up to the latest month for which statistics are available?
3.	Of the claims disallowed during (a) 1972 (b) 1971 how many, by month, were (i) initial (ii) renewal claims?
Return tabled.



LIP-APPLICATIONS FROM INDIAN ORGANIZATIONS OR INDIVIDUALS ON RESERVATIONS

Mr. Korchinski: 1.	How many applications were received for LIP grants from Indian organizations or individuals on reservations?
2.	Which reservations received LIP grants, for what amount and for what purpose?
Return tabled.



LIP-NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS APPROVED IN NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Muir: 1.	How many applications were approved and awarded in Nova Scotia under the Local Initiatives Program?
2.	How many applications were approved for each of the federal constituencies in Nova Scotia and, in each case, how much money was involved and what was the name of the project?
3.	How many applications were submitted from each of the federal constituencies in Nova Scotia?
Return tabled.



INPORTATION OF GRANITE STONES

Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has Canada imported granite stones for multiple uses since January 1, 1971 and, if so, from which countries?
2.	Do the non-Canadian firms exporting granite to Canada have to pay customs duties or other charges and, if so, what are such charges?
3.	Since January 1, 1971, has the government provided financial assistance, by way of loans or gifts, to Canadian firms specializing in granite quarrying and, if so, what are the names of such firms and what was the nature of such aid?
Return tabled.



CANADIAN COAST GUARD

Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What are the names, construction dates, vessel types and estimated service life expectancy of vessels of the Canadian Coast Guard?
2.	Is it the intention of government to institute a program of specific replacement and modernization for the Canadian Coast Guard and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not this year, for what reason?
Return tabled.
Oral Questions



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCES HELD SINCE 1936

Mr. Matte: 1.	(a) How many federal-provincial conferences have been held since 1936 (b) on what date, in each case (c) what was the nature of each?
2.	During each conference was the Canadian constitution discussed and, if so, on what date?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State responsible for multicul-turalism. In view of the fact that the advertising campaign sponsored by the minister a couple of months ago seemed designed predominantly to sell and to serve the minister and the Prime Minister rather than the multicultural program itself, and in view of the memo of February 21 by the Assistant Undersecretary of State for Citizenship, would the minister explain to the House why $230,000 was allocated for this advertising campaign?


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, I did answer a similar question in the House previously. In short, may I repeat that in view of the wide demand for information about the very popular multiculturalism program adopted as the official policy of the government I asked for a special four page information bulletin to be prepared on a comprehensive basis and distributed to as many people interested in the program as possible.


Paul Yewchuk: It was pointed out in the February 21 memo that the program already had no shortage of grants requests and that a massive advertising campaign would only lead to demands that could not possibly be met, a situation that would reinforce the view that this program is merely tokenism. Would the minister tell the House whether there was a lack of requests for funds when the advertising campaign was initiated, and if there was no such shortage why was this campaign proceeded with?


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, may I reiterate that in view of the widespread demand for information about this program from interested people all across the country, this type of campaign was necessary to inform the public of the various features of the program. I should especially like to draw to the attention of the hon. member the fact that the right hon. member for Prince Albert also wanted the ethnic press to be fully informed, certainly to a greater extent than was the case in previous years.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that part of the agreement between the minister and the ethnic

June 18, 1973
Oral Questions
press was that advertising would be followed by a certain amount of free editorial page writing can the Minister of Justice indicate whether he feels this is an impingement upon freedom of the press?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that he is inviting the minister to express a legal opinion, and certainly a question asked in those terms is hardly in order.


METHOD OF SELECTING ADVERTISER FOR CAMPAIGN
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State in charge of multiculturalism. Rather than calling for tenders for the advertising contract, which is the normal practice, did the minister exercise his ministerial prerogative in picking advertisers, and had the minister in fact promised the contract to Outreach Incorporated of Toronto as early as last December?


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any tendering procedure for advertising programs of the federal government.


METHOD OF PROVIDING FUNDS FOR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, having in mind recent criticisms by the Auditor General of the transfer of public funds without parliamentary approval, will the minister indicate if and why this was done, as indicated in this case by a senior civil servant?


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the hon. member that I presented my request to Treasury Board after consultation with the Undersecretary of State and Treasury Board approved my submission.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statements made about this situation, both in regard to the placing of advertising and the use of public funds, will the minister consider making a full statement on motions soon regarding this whole matter?


Stanley Haidasz: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING POLICY DECISIONS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Secretary of State I should like to address my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the reported putdown of the Minister of State in charge of multiculturalism by the Assistant Undersecretary of State, Bernard Ostry, over the advertising budget for multiculturalism, can the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether or not it is now the policy of the government for a bureaucrat to make policy decisions rather than decisions being made by the minister in charge?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any evidence of a policy decision being made by the bureaucracy rather than by the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see four hon. members wishing to ask supplementary questions. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville for the moment.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I should again like to direct my supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of a recent statement by the Secretary of the Treasury Board as reported in the press to the effect that as far as business is concerned the best approach to shaping government policy is through the bureaucrats, can the minister explain whether this means that ministerial responsibilities are now taking second place to those of the bureaucrats?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are obviously becoming involved in a debate. I will recognize the hon. member for Lambton-Kent on a last supplementary question, and then the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the minister of state in charge of multiculturalism. Will he tell the House whether he has agreed to the instruction of Mr. Ostry that "in substantive policy areas, you or your executive assistant should deal with me or with the new Undersecretary of State, Mr. Jean Boucher"?


Stanley Haidasz: No comment, Mr. Speaker.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS ALLEGED STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF JUSTICE REGARDING ATTITUDE OF FOUR WESTERN PREMIERS- GOVERNMENT POLICY
William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact the Minister of Justice is reported to have stated that the four western premiers were looking with pipeline vision at federal policy and were primarily interested in their provincial kingdoms, particularly in light of the upcoming conference on western economic matters can the Acting Prime Minister inform the House whether the Minister of Justice was stating government policy?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I was not able to detect in that particular statement quoted any government policy at all.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister has stated very well the non-policy of the government. I have
June 18, 1973

one or perhaps two supplementary questions. Can the Acting Prime Minister inform the House whether he has received a telegram from Victoria today from the four western premiers outlining their deep concern about the statement of the Minister of Justice just before the western economic conference, suggesting that they have pipeline vision and are not taking into account the interests of Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen such a telegram but I will be glad to make inquiries.


Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will perhaps allow me to recognize the hon. member for Assiniboia on a supplementary question, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Compton.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, can the Acting Prime Minister inform the House whether or not the federal government is taking seriously the western economic conference to be held in July?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the House is well aware that the government is not only taking it very seriously but intends to make it a meaningful conference.



AIRPORTS


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would he inform this House if he is considering coming back on a decision taken recently to levy a $5 fee each time an aircraft lands at airports maintained by the federal government?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, in this connection, there is a draft regulation that was to be effective as of July 1, but it will be postponed until October 1.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
Would the minister also say if he intends to lower the annual fixed rate of $100 that every aircraft owner must pay to use airports?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions



AIR CANADA


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In light of a recent statement by an Air Canada spokesman that the supervisory personnel are getting tired maintaining the planes, can the minister assure the House that an adequate level of safety for those who can still travel by Air Canada is being maintained?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the department is doing all it can in order to assure that the safety standards are respected by Air Canada.


Duncan M. Beattie: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House how regularly he receives safety reports concerning Air Canada, and when he received the latest one?


Jean Marchand: They are received on a daily basis, Mr. Speaker.



ROTATING STRIKES BY MACHINISTS-REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF FLIGHTS-POSITION OF NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour concerning the labour dispute involving Air Canada. In light of the fact the situation is being drastically changed in that, in addition to being faced with rotating strikes, Air Canada is cutting back the 550 flights for tomorrow by 30 per cent, and keeping in mind that the minister said on Friday the parties were getting closer to an agreement, can the minister now advise whether in fact the parties are closer to an agreement and, if not, what are the obstacles that are separating the parties?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that I was in touch with the mediator, Mr. Bernard Wilson, a few hours ago. The report is quite encouraging and I am hoping, as I indicated on Friday, that this dispute will soon be resolved. On the basis of his report I think there is a basis for such encouragement.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am not overly optimistic, but the preamble to my question still stands. In view of the fact the chairman of the board, Mr. Pratte, has indicated that if strikes are going to continue it may be necessary for Air Canada to shut down its services completely, a statement which is certainly verified by Mr. Baldwin, is the minister prepared to allow this to happen and, if not, what does he intend to do in order to avert such action?


John Carr Munro: As I indicated earlier, this party, as is the Official Opposition, I understand, is in favour of the process of free collective bargaining, and that is what is going on at present. If we do not leave it to

June 18, 1973
Oral Questions
the parties to resolve this dispute, with all the assistance that we can afford them, then there is only one other recourse and the hon. member is aware of that. I do not believe that forcing any type of settlement at this stage is warranted, especially in view of the encouraging reports I am now receiving.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton West, the hon. member for Trinity, and then the hon. member for Timiskaming on a supplementary to a previous question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have one last supplementary question. The minister can be assured that we on this side of the House do believe in collective bargaining, but at this time would the minister not agree that it is time he took a personal interest in this matter and intervened in order to prevent a disaster from occurring? Summer is just around the corner, and we have commitments with respect to cargo and with respect to passengers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a speech.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister agree that members of the government should voluntarily cease the use of Department of Transport aircraft during the duration of the strike in order to heighten the government's awareness of the inconvenience to the travelling public?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, one airline is on strike. If it is a new principle that the hon. member wants to establish, perhaps we will have to sell all the aircraft because there is always a strike somewhere in Canada.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the changes being contemplated in the $5 landing fee and the suggestion of a $100 annual fee for landing at Department of Transport airports, will the minister consider combining the payment of the $100 with the fee for the certificate of airworthiness so that only one collection will have to be made a year, thus making a saving for all concerned?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is something I might take under consideration.
[La ter:]



SUGGESTED EXEMPTION OF STUDENT PILOTS FROM PAYMENT OF LANDING FEES

Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact

that student pilots are required in training to touch down many times at airports, will the minister's new regulations concerning landing fees exempt student pilots?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think this is provided for in the regulations for one reason, namely, that there is an annual fee of $100 for those pilots who are in training. That means that even if they land 50 times a day it does not cost them more.



MULTICULTURALISM


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether to address my question to the President of the Treasury Board, who has been recently reduced from the rank of Acting Prime Minister, or to the Prime Minister who might wish to answer the question as it is important enough. In light of the fact that the payments referred to previously for advertising made under the responsibility of the Minister of State in charge of mul-ticulturalism appear to have been quite improperly made under questionable devices, and in light of the fact that they follow the ten pages in the last three years detailed by the Auditor General regarding similar payments, will the Prime Minister instruct his ministers and the President of the Treasury Board that the cabinet is not to frustrate and defeat the wishes of parliament and lessen parliamentary control, and that payments must be made in accordance with the proper principle of parliamentary control of finance?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to give them that instruction. Every minister exercises his function in conformity with the will of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



SOCIAL SECURITY


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the discussions that took place earlier in this session, but which were never finalized, concerning the possibility of lowering the pensionable age under the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan to age 60, will the minister before the end of this session be making a statement on this matter?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I must advise my hon. friend and client that the answer is no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this issue and the concern there

is about it in all parts of the House, especially among the younger members, will the minister give consideration to this as a priority measure during the life of this parliament?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it was suggested that I should appear before the standing committee to discuss this matter when the estimates were considered. I agreed to do so and I appeared several times but the committee decided in its own wisdom not to raise this issue again. This question is one that is being considered with all the other issues concerning the review of social security that is taking place with the provinces at the present time.


Gerald William Baldwin: What is the life of this parliament?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In view of the Prime Minister's commitment last week to discuss with the Minister of Justice the application for a writ of prohibition against proceedings being conducted by Mr. Justice Morrow, would the minister say whether or not the government has reconsidered its decision to intervene in the judicial processes of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we have not changed our view that the appropriate proceeding in connection with those proceedings is in fact our application in the Federal Court.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Since the government apparently feels that the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories is not competent to handle this matter and since this action could be interpreted as restricting the jurisdiction of the court, would the minister be prepared to delineate those areas which the government still feels are within the competence of the court?


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member may be using the word "competence" in a strictly technical, legal sense. There is no suggestion at all that the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories has any different jurisdiction or different competence than the equivalent courts of any of the provinces in this country. The exact question before the court involves several issues including the matter of a caveat which the judge of the court was hearing as a person designated in the statute to hear it. The question of whether or not a particular claim against the federal Crown exists is clearly stipulated under the law passed by this parliament to be within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, and in that sense no other court in Canada is competent. It has nothing to do with the particular court of the Northwest Territories.
Oral Questions
[ Translation]



INDUSTRY


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the difficulties small and average-size industries are having in eastern Quebec in facing competition and developing more rapidly to create additional jobs, can the minister tell the House whether he intends to set up departmental regional offices with a view to promoting further the development of small industries in that part of Quebec?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be making an announcement with respect to an additional regional office in the province of Quebec very shortly.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As it has been reported by Patrick Best in the Ottawa Citizen of June 13 that Dr. W. G. Phillips, Dean of the Faculty of Political Science at the University of Windsor and special advisor to the president of Zambia for seven years, was the government envoy to Zambia, can the government advise the House if indeed Dr. Phillips was the envoy, has he returned and, if so, when did he return?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows it is not competent upon him to ask a minister to confirm or deny a statement made in the press. Perhaps we can assume that the hon. member asked the question directly and the minister might wish to reply in those jerms.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it was a condition of the acceptance of the envoy I sent to Zambia that his anonymity should be respected, and I intend to abide by that condition.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Why has he not made a full and complete report to the House on this tragic situation, and why have the families of these two girls been denied a full report of the facts gathered by the envoy and by our High Commissioner in Zambia?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have given to the House all the relevant facts that are available. I did indicate, when I spoke about the report made to us by Mr. Leith, the nature of his disagreement with the explanations that had been

Oral Questions
given by the Zambian government. I am still not satisfied with those explanations. I have also reported to the House fully on the action taken by President Kaunda. I have tabled in the House, with the permission of Mr. Sinclair, the letter written by the president to him. I do not know what it is I have withheld from the House, but if the hon. gentleman could put another question to me on another day, or today, I will try to answer.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I would like to ask the minister if the envoy has returned, if he has reported, and why has his report not been made public to the House, since we are entitled to have it, and also to the families of these girls?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I said in the House of Commons that I asked the envoy to go to Zambia to explain to the President of Zambia the depth of Canada's concern in this matter. He did so, and that was the extent of his task.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the serious collision which occurred last Thursday in Halifax harbour between HMCS Margaree, a Canadian forces helicopter destroyer, and the Canadian Fisheries Vessel Cygnus, is the minister giving any consideration to establishing a shore-based, minimum 50-mile radius radar monitoring service at Halifax and other busy Atlantic coast ports to provide marine traffic control similar to air traffic control in order to prevent, as much as possible, this type of accident occurring in the future?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for a report on this accident. After receiving it perhaps I may consider at the same time the proposal made by the hon. gentleman.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS WESTERN CONFERENCE-CONCERN OF WESTERN PREMIERS OVER REMARKS ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER OF JUSTICE-REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION OF MINISTER FROM CONFERENCE

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister which I think was directed to the Acting Prime Minister a few moments ago. Has he received a telegram from the four western premiers expressing concern about remarks attributed to the Minister of Justice with regard to the upcoming western premiers' conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I see no record of such a telegram in my own notes. I certainly will inquire and see if such a telegram has arrived on my desk before reaching the desk of the Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In order to make certain that the conference gets off to a good start, will the Prime Minister assure the western premiers that the Minister of Justice was not really speaking for the government in any way and that he will be excluded from the conference?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this western conference was a federal initiative. It is being co-ordinated essentially by the Minister of Justice. I in no way would contemplate his exclusion. I will inquire into the grievance that the Leader of the Opposition seems to be echoing. I cannot conceive that it would be a serious one.



AVAILABILITY OF STUDIES BEFORE SUMMER RECESS-POSSIBLE REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE OR HOLDING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of his statement last Friday in the House that he expects the energy studies to be available by the last week of June, is he in a position to assure the House that the studies will become available before the parliamentary recess?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that my expectation is that they will be ready the last week of this month. If the House decides to adjourn before that, of course I cannot give an undertaking.


Randolph Harding: In view of the urgency of the whole energy problem, does the minister plan on public hearings throughout Canada on the matter and, if so, on what basis? Will these studies also be referred to the appropriate standing committee so that it may deal with them both before and during the parliamentary recess?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the last part of the question first, I think they would provide a better order of reference for consideration than the current reference we have, so I would seek from the House leader a reference which would enable the committee to carry on the studies. I would also seek from him the opportunity for the committee to carry on its work during the parliamentary recess, perhaps with the opportunity for the committee to travel if it so wishes. With regard to the first part of the question, the problem is not easily solved of providing an effective forum so that all people can participate directly. I have not the exact details as to how these discussions would take place, but if the hon. member and others have suggestions I would be glad to hear from them in this regard.
June 18, 1973



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In light of the formal announcement of the cancellation of plans to buy the Scorpion light tank, can the minister tell us whether in fact the department has diverted any of the allocated funds for the purchase of other capital equipment for the armed forces and, if so, give us an indication of what purchases may have been made?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. We have cancelled the order, or possible order to buy the Scorpion and we are extending the life of the Centurion for two years, but there has been no reallocation of the funds.


J. Michael Forrestall: I wonder if we can take it as an assurance from the Minister of National Defence that the decision to extend the life of the Centurion for two years is that only, and that at the end of that period appropriate consideration will be given to follow-on equipment, if the mutual balanced force reductions arms talks have not created another situation?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give that assurance. We have no intention of carrying the service life of the Centurion beyond 1976.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to indicate the date when his department will announce the long and impatiently awaited independent inquiry respecting Pickering airport and the other transportation needs of the Toronto-centred region?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can publish the terms of reference of the board of examination tomorrow or the day after, but surely some time this week.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Would the minister be prepared to make a statement on motions explaining the program of storefront
Oral Questions
offices for consumers which he casually announced to the press last week, and could he indicate in such a statement where the offices will be located, when they will be in operation, and the qualifications of the personnel who will be manning them?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have given information about this program, which is being worked on in the department, in other discussions with journalists in the past. I appreciate the hon. member's interest, and when final decisions are taken about the details of the program I will be happy to inform him of them.


Ronald George Atkey: Did the minister consult with the appropriate provincial ministers or officials of provincial governments before making this important announcement and, if not, on what basis is he asserting a paramount jurisdiction for the federal government in the field of consumer affairs, which can only lead toward a collision course with the provinces in the absence of consultation?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have had informal discussions about some matters of concurrent interest with some of my provincial counterparts. My aim is to have the highest degree of co-operation in a constructive way. Certainly I think it will be possible to continue this co-operation in a way that is beneficial to Canadians generally.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I seek the co-operation of hon. members to limit the number of supplementaries between now and the end of the question period. I will recognize the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Hillsborough.



LOCALLY OPERATED CONSUMER PROTECTION OFFICES- POSSIBLE FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Would the minister inform the House and the country whether the government is prepared to make financial assistance available for municipalities, like Nepean Township in the national capital, for the operation of consumer protection offices as an adjunct to this program?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, one of the aspects to be considered in working out the final details of the program is the practicability of making grants of that type. I should add that I have already answered a written question from another member by saying that if the Nepean bureau made a formal request for a grant we would be happy to consider it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member and the minister that perhaps a question of this nature ought to be put on the order paper. The hon. member for Skeena.

June 18, 1973
Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS



ABORIGINAL, RIGHTS-DATE OF STATEMENT BY MINISTER

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Inasmuch as it is well over four months since the Prime Minister indicated that a statement would be forthcoming with respect to Indian affairs, can the minister tell the House when he will be in a position to make that statement, especially with reference to the question of aboriginal rights?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Soon, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received from the Premier of Prince Edward Island and/or the other Atlantic premiers protests against the outrageous increase in freight rates announced by the CNR and, if so, what was his response to these hon. gentlemen?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember having received any telegram worded in the way the hon. gentleman mentioned.



INCREASE IN FREIGHT RATES IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES- POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT ACTION TO OFFSET SERIOUS EFFECTS

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and is with respect to the previous question put to him by my colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough. In light of the meeting that took place earlier this year between the minister and the Atlantic premiers over reinstituting some effective reduction of the freight rates in the Atlantic provinces, would the minister be prepared to make an announcement in this regard shortly to offset the very serious implications of the Canadian National move that will be implemented shortly?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am very anxious to do that, and I hope all those in this House who have influence will incite the Atlantic premiers to answer the proposals we have made.



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. the Prime Minister. Since the

Postmaster General refuses to relieve the weekly and periodical press from harmful postage rate increases, and to avoid the kind of selective back-door subsidies we have had disguised as a multicultural program, will the government introduce a regular program to assist the ethnic and other periodical press in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there are many ways in which we attempt to assist the periodical and ethnic press of Canada.



RESEARCH ON CONTRACEPTIVE PILL-POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENT IN AVAILABILITY

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that nine children of every 100 born in Canada are illegitimate, representing a hazardous future for themselves and a burden for the taxpayer, and as many women are reluctant to use the contraceptive pill because of its possibly dangerous side effects, could the minister tell the House what resources his department is devoting to research specifically in regard to the contraceptive pill?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that a question of this kind ought normally to be placed on the order paper, but the minister may reply briefly. Perhaps I should put it another way: normally, a question of this kind is answered by way of a statement on motions, and the minister might indicate whether he proposes to make such a statement.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will have to go back and look at the estimates of my department to find the exact figure.


Winona Grace MacInnis: May I ask
whether the minister is considering improving the availability of the pill as recommended by the head of the Family Planning Association of Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the pill, like any other drug, comes under provincial administration in terms of dispensing. This is a matter that should properly be addressed to the local druggist and to the minister of health in each province.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In response to letters and questions in the House the minister has stated that representations on behalf of rural mail contractors have been under active consideration. May I ask if the studies to which the minister referred
June 18, 1973

have been completed and when an announcement of policy will be made to parliament?


André Ouellet: Very soon, Mr. Speaker. We are waiting to take a decision on this important matter to complete current negotiations going on with the Postmasters' Association.

[ Translation]



FINANCE


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Finance.
Can he tell us why it has become necessary for the Bank of Canada to increase its interest rate, and what the consequences will be of the economic slowdown that will result?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that question has been asked on other occasions. It is rather technical and would require an appropriate debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Central Nova and then the hon. member for Battle River. I was under the impression that the hon. member for Central Nova wanted to ask a question but I certainly do not want to impose a question upon him.


Mr. MacKay:: Mr. Speaker, I was looking behind me for my colleague.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Harry Kuntz (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. On May 29 last I asked a question of the minister pertaining to automobile safety measures, more specfically the rupture of gasoline tanks involved in motor vehicle accidents. Would the minister tell the House if he has any further information on this problem at the present time?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker. I think I answered at the time that this is something that was checked by the safety branch of the department and that tests are being conducted. I have no further information to supply to the House.
Oral Questions



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is the minister able to indicate now or can he give some indication of when the Atlantic Development Council will be brought up to strength and when a president is likely to be appointed to replace Mr. William Smith whose term expired several months ago? I realize that the minister has had this under active consideration for some time.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the hon. member and the House that a new chairman of the Atlantic Development Council has in fact been appointed and the formal announcement should be made perhaps within 24 hours.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS CONFERENCE WITH WESTERN PREMIERS-PRESENTATION BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF FREIGHT RATES EQUALIZATION POLICY

Mr. Harry Olaussen (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the coming federal-provincial conference is a federal initiative, can the minister inform the House if he intends to bring in a policy whereby British Columbia and western Canada as a whole can benefit from an equalization of freight rates that will enable the western provinces to trade competitively with the rest of the nation east of the Prairies?


Jean Marchand: I think, Mr. Speaker, that this question will be studied during the conference based on the document which is being prepared in the department.

[ Transla tion]



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Can he enlighten the House with regard to the government international airline policy which was in the limelight last week? In particular, is the air transport policy of the government, with regard to the allocation of the Milan route to one of our Canadian carriers, related in any way to the government's air policy with regard to Central Africa, or perhaps, South Africa?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help from congratulating the hon. member for his wonderful use of French.

June 18, 1973
Oral Questions
I think I said to the House a few weeks ago that we were trying to define a general policy concerning the international field. I hope to be able within a few weeks, as soon as the cabinet will have taken a decision, to give satisfaction to the hon. member.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary and then call orders of the day.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Transport if this general policy includes the allocation of the Milan route?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I hope that at the same time we will be able to assign the Milan route to one of the two Canadian carriers, and maybe before that, if possible.



TRANSPORT


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if the House agrees, I would like to clarify an answer which I gave to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East last week, and which has created some confusion.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree to give the minister a few minutes in order to clarify an answer given last week?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean Marchand: I had indicated, Mr. Speaker,-and I shall be very brief-that the Travetal would have a crew of Commonwealth officers and also an ordinary non-Commonwealth certified crew in two years time.
My answer was correct concerning the officers. It is not concerning the rest of the crew. It may very well remain Spanish, and there is no provision in the Canada Shipping Act to prevent this situation from occurring.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I would have raised this matter as a question of privilege to give the minister the opportunity to correct it. I wonder if the minister can reassure the Canadian people and particularly Canadian seamen that there is no infringement of the law in the use of non-Canadians on ships moving between one Canadian port and another port or with respect to Canadian work permits?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think you know what the situation will be up to August 11 because the permit was extended for two months. As far as the

officers are concerned, they have to be certified officers under the Canada Shipping Act, but as far as the rest of the crew is concerned this is not necessary. Of course, in the light of this some workers might become frustrated, since the Spanish crew will remain on the Travetal if we extend the permit.


Harry Magnus Olaussen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is seeking to ask a supplementary. I suggest to hon. members that we have now gone some minutes beyond the end of the question period. Perhaps the hon. member might be recognized tomorrow for that purpose, unless there is agreement on the part of the House to allow the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin to ask his supplementary.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harry Magnus Olaussen: Mr. Speaker, further to these questions asked of the Minister of Transport, I would ask the minister, how does the Immigration Act relate to this particular question of the Travetal so far as foreign crewmen are concerned?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it has any effect.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs rising on a point of order?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. May I have the permission of the House to revert to motions for the purpose of tabling a document?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table in both languages the text of 'the communique issued by the North Atlantic Council of NATO following the council's meetings which I attended in Copenhagen on June 14 and 15.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: Before calling orders of the day, may I be allowed to make the following brief statement. As hon. members are aware, the House will be honoured tomorrow
June 18, 1973

by the visit of the Prime Minister of India, Madam Gandhi. May I remind hon. members that it is proposed that the bells will ring for a ten minute period, commencing at 10.50 a.m., and that the ceremonies will commence at eleven o'clock. At the conclusion of the proceedings in the chamber, I might remind hon. members that a reception for the purpose of welcoming Madam Gandhi is being offered by the Speakers of both Houses to members and their wives in the railway committee room, and I would be grateful if members would proceed directly to that room.
Order of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
f Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, June 15, 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.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, to carry on with my speech of last Friday, when I was recalling the famous struggle that we had waged to keep this government from removing any ceiling on bank interest rates, I will say that we were defeated as usual since both old parties, which are financed by the same interests, voted against our motion.
From then on, interest rates have been rising steeply as indicated in an article published in the Journal de Montreal and intitled: GOVERNMENT MUST STOP INTEREST RATES CLIMB. According to this article, the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) has stated, and I quote:
It is the contention of the leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr. David Lewis, that the government should act to prevent an increase in the interest rates.
Mr. Speaker, the government dares complain about inflation and pretend to hunt about for the cause of it. When one reads statements made by the leader of the New Democratic Party, one cannot help establish a relationship with the significant fact that his party is supporting this government.
The minister will even try to suggest to the people that this bill aims at reducing world-wide inflationary pressures on our economy.
First of all, what is inflation? In my opinion, it is the superabundance of money in relation to the limited amount of available products.
Is this our situation today? Quite the contrary. We have products and we could increase our production ten-fold if only we had the money. That is the truth. We have a super production. Ours is not a problem of production, but of consumption.
Why is it, then, that we rack our brains into subsidizing only production? It is merely like applying a catasplasm until the true remedy is found. We are not against emer-
Income Tax Act
gency palliatives necessary to stop the hemorrhage, but we are eager for the government to make use at least of the only effective remedy likely to cure the organ which is truly ill, namely, consumption.
But what is this remedy? We keep on repeating over and over again that the compensated discount is what will permit consumers to buy the products which are deteriorating inside warehouses and which are the main reason why plants are closing, thereby weakening our economy.
The Bank of Canada should serve all Canadians as a whole and consumers in particular, and cease to be the preserve of bankers, chartered banks and trusts.
Pending such a reform we would ask the committee members who will consider this bill to at least extend the suggested tax reductions to all our economy sectors, as a temporary solution, in order to help our wholly-owned Canadian companies.
I was always shocked by the pleading tone used by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) when talking to banks or important financiers. This altar-boy's shyness in front of multinational companies simply disgusts me.
Somebody wants a proof of that? We have only to read page 4726 of Hansard where the minister states, and I quote for the information of hon. members:
I am confident that Canadian manufacturers and processors will make use of these measures in a way that serves our national objectives. I am sure they are all too well aware of the multiple threats confronting them-
We can imagine how fearful it is for large companies-
-and of the essential need to strengthen their position in order to survive and prosper in an increasingly competitive world. At the same time, however, I expect that the manufacturing and processing companies will recognize that an added onus is placed on them by the monitoring process and the provision establishing the opportunity for parliamentary review. The Canadian people and the Canadian parliament are going to be watching closely. They will want to be satisfied that these companies are making good use of the improvement in their financial resources to strengthen their competitive position, to increase capital investment and, above all, to create new employment opportunities.
And the minister insists on pleading with large companies, hoping that they will be willing to make good use of these favours, that those they have got elected are giving them a little attention.
All the same, Mr. Speaker, we have to stop taking all Canadians for idiots, as today everyone knows what the large corporations have done and will do with the money saved from tax cuts and they also know that was done with the exemptions granted on the purchase of new machinery.
What was the result, Mr. Speaker? Lay-offs. That is why we in the Social Credit Party of Canada are asking that this bill be applied to all sectors of the Canadian economy and not just to the large corporations which, I believe, will gain more from this bill. As for the so-called small industries that will benefit, they will still be overlooked, with the benefits quite simply going to the large corporations.
Mr. Speaker, I wished to make my remarks in this House, as a warning to the committee that is should stop

June 18, 1973
Income Tax Act
playing along with the large corporations and consider industries that are 100 per cent Canadian.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Bigger):: Mr. Speaker, what surprises me is that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has persisted in this policy, despite the fact the past 12 or 13 months have proven th'at it is invalid and not needed, even if it could have been justified in the first place. As far as my party is concerned, it could not have been justified.
The minister and the government have persisted in this policy, despite the fact that during the intervening period there has been an upward trend in the economy. The profits of the corporations which this bill is supposed to help, the very corporations that are supposed to be in difficulty, increased in the first quarter of this year. They were the highest on record for the past 12 years. If this trend continues, the profits this year will increase by 50 per cent over last year. In the face of this profit upsurge, the government still proposes to reduce the rate of taxation from 49 to 40 per cent and provide accelerated writeoffs. The record speaks for itself. Profits, compared to the total national income, have reached their highest peak in eight years while the labour income, including salaries, is the lowest in four years. The concessions are being given to the wrong people.
The real purchasing power of wage and salary earners increased by 1.7 per cent per person employed over the past year. This is not a very considerable margin in view of the increased cost of living. The situation is clear. The rise in labour productivity has been the major factor contributing to these profits. The wage and salary earners did not share in the increased earnings resulting from this increased productivity. With the full knowledge of these circumstances, the federal government is still going to grant tax reductions to the corporations. We are told that the rationale behind this move is to enable the corporations to expand, to increase production facilities and thereby increase employment. In view of the huge profits they are now making, why is there a need to increase these profits by further tax cuts at the expense of the ordinary taxpayers in this country? In addition, what assurance do we have that these tax cuts will be ploughed back into expansion and more jobs?
We have relied on the corporate sector to provide jobs and growth. However, the unemployment rate has continued to be 53A per cent, 6 per cent and 7 per cent. Under the present policies of this government, it will probably remain at that level. The government has no guarantee the corporations will plough back their tax free gains into production and jobs. In fact, at the present time the government is tightening the money supply and attempting to slow down the economy. This is a contradiction with which we in Saskatchewan and the rest of Canada have to live. It is not working.
I wish to paraphrase what the minister said when bringing this policy into being on June 23. He said that, according to an article which recently appeared in the Toronto press, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) had suggested that when the full impact of the European Common Market and United States DISC program became apparent, we would need stronger and better

measures than those being considered by the House today to assist Canadian manufacturers and producers. The minister went on to say:
I hasten to acknowledge at the outset of my remarks that the Leader of the Opposition may very well be right.
All this indicates we are being geared to a threat of competition from the European Common Market. The minister went on, in a further statement, to tell us that Japan was also a great threat. I want to tell the minister this. A week ago I attended the opening display of a farm machinery distributor in my constituency. This distributor has been importing tractors and combines from the Common Market. Changes in the values of currency and in variation in the United States dollar have meant that the cost of these machines has increased by approximately 18 per cent. So it is utter nonsense for the Leader of the Opposition or the Minister of Finance to say at this point in time that imports from the Common Market are a threat to our manufacturers. The devaluation of the United States dollar will make it difficult, if not impossible, for certain products to be imported from countries such as Germany, France, and, eventually, Britain, when Britain becomes a full partner in the Common Market. Indeed, that time has already arrived.
I do not know what is the purpose of making statements of the kind I have quoted unless the government and the minister are back on one of the most vicious and deliberate protectionist trips Canada has seen since the days of John A. Macdonald. They are just about back at that point. On the same page, the minister is reported as saying:
The recent enlargement of the European Common Market has added to the competitive threat both at home and abroad which faces Canadian manufacturers and producers.
Not now, Mr. Speaker-not in present circumstances. The minister added that a further challenge is presented by the emergence of Japan as one of the world's industrial giants. Mr. Speaker, it was not yesterday that Japan emerged as an industrial giant. It was not in 1972. Why has such emphasis been suddenly placed on Japanese industry except to justify the Minister of Finance in making one of the biggest tax give-aways which has been proposed to the House in a very long time? The reason, obviously, is that he is trying to justify a policy which was established a year ago and which is no longer justifiable on reasonable grounds.
At least some of the manufacturers in this country are facing a bonanza, and they are not stretching themselves to earn it. Let me quote from the Budget a publication of the Alberta Wheat Pool for May 18, 1973. The article drew attention to the increase in farm implement sales in January and February of 1973-and these are not two months in which the real surge of purchasing power is felt in the west, at least, though in other parts of the country the circumstances may be different. Compared with a year earlier, the average increase in Canada in sales of farm equipment was 44.2 per cent. In the Atlantic provinces, the increase was 78.2 per cent. In Quebec, it was 64.6 per cent; in Ontario 41.3 per cent; in Manitoba, 65.8 per cent; in Saskatchewan, 33.6 per cent; in Alberta 32.8 per cent and in British Columbia, 41 per cent. This is the kind of market which is waiting for farm machinery manufactur-
June 18, 1973

ers in Canada and, of course, since there is more or less a North American common market for farm machinery, for American manufacturers as well.
The Common Market is not a threat. Japan is not a threat. Their exports are largely excluded by the nature of the monetary policy pursued by the government, deliberately, I am sure. For the government, or for the Leader of the Opposition, to try to sell the idea to the House that Canadian manufacturers need aid from the taxpayer is utter nonsense in the circumstances today.
Consider what is happening in the automobile industry. Prices of certain Japanese cars have increased by $300, which is more than 10 per cent of the former price-I do not know what the exact percentage would be. Two days ago the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) asked why the price of Canadian cars had increased by a similar amount, and what the government proposed to do about it. He got no satisfactory explanation from the other side. The reason the price of Canadian cars went up by a similar amount was this-Japanese prices had gone up, and the manufacturers were taking advantage of the shelter which was available to them as a result. And the government does nothing to protect the interest of Canadian consumers. Quite the contrary-it proposes to take action which will make the situation worse. It proposes to hand feed industries which publicly threatened the Leader of the Opposition, industries which told him, by means of a letter from the Canada Chamber of Commerce, that he had better get in line and support the infamous bill which is now before the House. The announcement was then made that he would do so. Mr. Speaker, this is a dagger aimed at the heart of maritime and western Canada. It will aid Western fertilizer companies which are presently under investigation in connection with monopoly practices and price fixing.
The price of fuel supplied to farmers, an indispensable part of their operation, has increased by between 8 and 10 per cent. On what basis have prices risen by such an amount? On the same basis as the price of cars went up. It is because the price differential has increased outside Canada and the Petroleum producers feel able to charge the Canadian consumer more. The wages of the people in these plants have not gone up, or if they have the manufacturers have not said so. But the result is that the primary producers are facing increased costs in buying some of their basic commodities. The minister has said that he is concerned for our primary producers. If that is the case, why does he not do something for them?
The minister told the House what was at stake here. As reported at page 4727 of Hansard he repeated what he said during his last budget speech. He said:
What is at stake is not the welfare of the corporations and their shareholders. At stake is the welfare of every Canadian. At stake are hundreds of thousands of jobs that today depend on our manufacturers staying in business and retaining their workers. At stake also are hundreds of thousands of good steady jobs in the manufacturing sector and supporting industries that will be required in future across Canada for our new workers. It is critical that we should all have a clear understanding of what is at issue. That is why I am committed and the government is committed to these measures.
I question seriously whether that is what is at stake, Mr. Income Tax Act
Speaker, but if it is, then the government is meeting the need for jobs in the wrong way. The way to keep people at work in the farm machinery manufacturing industry is for the plants at Brantford, Hamilton and Toronto to produce agricultural machinery and ship it to the farmers who want to buy. There are farmers in my province who want to buy machinery but cannot get it, and I am sure the same situation must prevail in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and other provinces. Surely, Saskatchewan is not the only province whose farmers cannot buy machines because they are not available.
I see the minister is smiling. He changed the tariff on cattle imported from the United States. Perhaps he would care to read or have one of his assistants read the Cattlemen magazine, which reports that this action has resulted in a larger flow of feeder cattle to the United States with a heavier flow of butcher cattle from the United States into Canada. As a result of government policies, our processing industries in western Canada are likely to be less busy, not more busy, than they were before. According to this magazine, we are experiencing record heavy levels of carcass beef imports from the U.S.A., and Canadian cattle feeders are buying fewer replacements because of competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis U.S. feeders. As the magazine says: "Strike two against the feeder".
I suggest in all seriousness that the minister should examine the results of his policy. One of the main basic concessions cattlemen had, the basic herd, has now been removed because the minister assured us at the time that this concession was unnecessary. However, he has failed to convince the Cattlemen magazine, because they present the following bill of goods with which they are charging the government:
1.	Early 1972, cow-calf operator at bat. The federal government in new tax laws took away the basic herd provision from purebred and commercial breeders . . .
2.	The federal government health authorities suspended DES usage while American cattle feeders continued use . . .
3.	The federal government. . . removes the tariff on beef imports from the U.S.
That, Mr. Speaker, is how the government is treating agriculture, one of the biggest job producers in the nation. While the federal government is acting in this way, the provincial government of Saskatchewan has to buy an interest in a packing plant to ensure it will continue to operate in that province. In his speech on June 14, the minister expressed great concern about the food industry. As reported at page 4763 he said:
By far the greater inflationary pressures confronting us in Canada today are worldwide in their origin. The major upward thrust here and abroad has come from a sharp rise in food prices.
Magnificent! Wonderful! The point is, it is only partly true; it is not entirely in accord with the facts of life. I have just put on the record what has happened to the beef industry which will result in slowing down beef production in Canada. There are other prize examples. One of the most recent is the decision, taken over a year ago by the government, to slaughter two million hens and to compensate producers for that slaughter. What has been the result? Fewer eggs, fewer broilers, or both? Poultry products have reflected one of the sharpest increases in price. Why did the government take such action? They took it because they had two alternatives. They had the choice

June 18, 1973
Income Tax Act
either of reducing the supply and forcing up the market price, or of paying support prices to the producers so the producers would not suffer a complete loss and possibly bankruptcy. The government took the first course and the Canadian consumer is now footing the bill, which would not have been the case had the government adequately supported the market.
Instead of making gifts to corporations the government should do something for taxpayers. If the government were to pay support prices to the primary producers, they could then safely produce food for the nation in quantity. But the government is guided in this area by the same policies it has adopted to deal with unemployment. The government wants to squeeze the guy at the bottom, and it is doing so. The government is adopting the policy of scarcity planning, which means someone at the bottom is continually being squeezed, which is the very essence of an economy that is planned on scarcity. This is the case in the beef and poultry industries. This is the policy we had in the grain industry under the Lift program, the policy of making food scarce so that the price rises. How ridiculous!
The government then set up a prices review committee to examine the situation. What happened was that a few years back we set up a task force on agriculture, and then there were people in government foolish enough to follow their advice. As a result we had poor planning in respect of agriculture.
I suggest at this point of time the government is putting its money on the wrong horse; it is giving assistance to the wrong people. It is of interest to note the amount of time the minister devoted to the subject of food in his address on June 14. He said:
This is essentially a demand situation involving an imbalance in supply and demand of agricultural products and of world products.
That is quite so and that is a fairly good assessment of the situation, but what were the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the minister in charge of the wheat board, the three men who could do something to bring that imbalance into balance, doing about the situation?
I have carefully read the speeches of the Minister of Agriculture, yet I have looked in vain to see one bit of hope for the Canadian farmer and the Canadian people. He tells the Canadian consumer that food is a bargain, but I do not know that he has convinced the Canadian consumer of that as yet. They are hopefully awaiting the farmer getting into full production in order that food will become plentiful and prices will again take a nosedive and I suggest that then the farmer will be picking himself off the floor as he was in 1969-70. Why have those on that side of the House not the decency to say to the farmers that if they produce the government will guarantee a price? I am sure if they did that the farmers would maintain the required production, and that such a program would cost much less than is being contributed to the coffers of the corporations as a result of this bill, if it is ever passed.
There are many things we need in this country today, and there are many ways we could use this money to

better advantage. The Congress of Canadian Women wrote a letter recently to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in which they described some of the circumstances affecting the Indians in northern Ontario. The letter is signed by Hilda Murray, National Secretary for the Congress of Canadian Women. If 75 per cent of the things stated there are true, the situation is a disgrace to the Canadian people. It is stated in this letter:
Most of the reserves and settlements I have visited have a very poor quality of drinking water. These waters are contaminated with various pollutants and impurities. They are usually advised to boil the drinking water or else add bleach to it.
I wonder how the ordinary Canadian would like to throw some bleach into his drinking water to give it flavour? The letter further states:
They live in sub-standard housing, which is not suitable for the harsh, northern sub-zero temperatures. The houses are in very bad repair, leaking roofs, poor insulation .. . log foundations.
I am sure these Indians did not live under these conditions before we developed the area, and I am sure they were not living in these conditions before the mining companies got there. We have created these conditions, yet we are now giving benefits to the wrong people. These are the people who need the benefits, and they are Canadians because we made them Canadians. The letter goes on to state:
Another locality has a nurse and doctor only every six months. A 77 year old veteran gets $15 a month. Another 72 old age pensioner has additional $16.
The letter further describes the fact that babies are born who are not registered and that transportation by air is so expensive that patients are only flown out if they are deathly ill. The letter states that these are only a few of the problems which face these people. These are the people who should be getting benefits, and these are the things about which we, as Canadians, should be concerned.
We could improve transportation into northern Ontario, northern Alberta, northern Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories. We could make transportation cheap and economic if we wanted to do so. We could use some of the people who are not working to carry out some of these things. If a mining company requires a road, we find some way of providing one. If a company wants to move in a string of bulldozers to tear up one side of a mountain we find the money to build that road. The only thing I can say to the Minister of Finance and this government is that they are putting their money on the wrong horse. There will be a day of reckoning for Canadians because of this kind of decision.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, for the most part when dealing with legislation in the House of Commons one tends to be, and in fact should be, critical only of the policies, portions of the legislation or of the government for bringing forward such legislation. However, in this case it is almost impossible not to be genuinely critical of the man behind the legislation, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). One tends to be critical because it is quite obvious this legislation is his personal handiwork, and in many areas he does not have the confidence of many members of Cabinet, and certainly many backbenchers of the party opposite. They will vote for it as they are a well-disciplined group of followers, but what
June 18, 1973

this country could use is a few more leaders. I intend to deal for a moment with some of the statements made by the Minister of Finance during his introduction of the bill, and during the many months of gesticulating, posturing, ranting and generally sounding-off when he could and should have actually been presenting this bill to the House.
The minister claims this is the first step taken by the government to develop a coherent set of new industrial policies, but certainly not the last. If this is the first step, I suggest that none of us who have already reached the ripe old age of 40 will be around to see the last. Those poor chaps who have already reached the advanced age of 50 may not be around to see the second step. As for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), at the rate we are going he may not see the completion of this first step.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


John Raymond Ellis: Does the minister not realize that decisions and actions in respect of industrial strategy must move more quickly, and that frequently a decision not taken today cannot be taken tomorrow? Our competitors in the industrial world make decisions quickly and the results are known long before the minister has made up his mind. We need a new industrial policy. We certainly do not have an industrial policy now, much less a confident, cohesive strategy. The lack of such a strategy becomes more and more evident as the days go by and we drift aimlessly from crisis to crisis.
The country with probably the greatest resource wealth in the world, the greatest potential for developing that resource wealth into a livelihood for all our citizens now and for growth in the years to come, is overshadowed by other countries who drain off our resources with the willing assistance of this government. They then peddle the finished goods back to Canada, again with the assistance of the government under the guise of keeping a balance of trade, a balance against those raw materials which we just exported.
The minister talks of protecting millions of jobs and developing many more new jobs. Yes, an industrial strategy well thought out and properly applied would do just that, but this sham that has been presented to us is not an industrial strategy; it is merely a reduction in a percentage rate of taxation which will benefit a small portion of the economy, while at the same time adding to the taxation of the balance of the economy, because the over-all cost of government is not going to go down as a result of this measure. If the minister had brought in a recommendation or a proposal that would have reduced the cost of government by 9 per cent, then every single person, every single manufacturing industry, every single service industry, every business of every type would have benefited equally. The minister talks of making more secure another two million jobs. Are these extra jobs not equally important and should not the service industries of which he speaks be granted equal relief from the onerous tax burden that they bear? Frequently the service industries employ, relatively speaking, per dollar invested and dollar turnover
Income Tax Act
more people than do the manufacturers and processors. Despite what the minister said, in my opinion they are more vulnerable.
Look for a moment if you will, Mr. Speaker, at the situation described in the House by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) a short while ago. He said that hundreds of small businessmen in the tobacco and confectionery wholesale field were, in a very carefully planned manner, being forced into bankruptcy by giants in the field who, because of vertical integration, are also manufacturers and processors and who will benefit by this legislation.
The minister blames the monetary problems around the globe for this situation. Does he not believe that this country could finally come of age and handle its own problems, without worrying quite so much about the monetary problems around the globe? Could we not for a change be leaders in this field? Could we not for a change determine our own destination, or would that require too much leadership, something which this government lacks?
We have been promised this legislation since May, 1972, with all the promises of extra jobs, and so on. We have been told on not one but dozens of occasions that this legislation had top priority. After two budget speeches, and uncounted speeches in between, we now know how long this has taken to come to pass. In addition, the minister has promised an examination of capital cost allowances by 1974. I appeared before the then minister of finance, the Hon. Edgar Benson, in 1969, representing an industry and asking for a review of capital cost allowances. I was promised by Mr. Benson at that time that the following year would produce such a review. I am not about to compare the two ministers of finance. I, person-nally, do not think there is much to choose between them. I suppose that the report and review, having been as long as it has in coming and likely to take a good deal longer to arrive than the promised date of 1974, when it does appear will probably be heralded as the second step of this promised industrial strategy.
The minister promised, in addition to many other things, a review of the Industrial Development Bank. This, by itself, would help in great measure to bring about an industrial strategy which would provide Canadians with jobs in Canadian industries. What is really needed is help in the financing of new business in Canada, help in providing incentives for Canadian ownership of existing businesses, help in making sure that businesses presently Canadian-owned do not become foreign owned. Special consideration should be given to measures to promote industrial growth in the Maritimes and in the western provinces, where much of our resource wealth is found and little is being done to create secondary industry. We need a recognition of the service industries.
In order to achieve some of these things, the policies presented by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) should be adopted. We need an honest approach to these problems. Our position has been clearly stated on many occasions. The Minister of Finance has indicated his willingness to co-operate by providing a meaningful review procedure. I hope that this promise will be carried out. Like many of my colleagues, I have been active in municipal politics before entering this House. I was, among other

June 18, 1973
Income Tax Act
things, the charter president of the Belleville Industrial Commission, which has been very successful. It and other similar bodies would have been more successful if the minister had carried out his promises over a year ago. We did not need a continual dragging out in the press of the stated and restated position. We did not need any more rhetoric. What we needed, and what we must have now, is action, the type of action that will bring the Canadian industrial community to a realization of its own destiny.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to speak on bill C-192 entitled "an Act to amend the Income Tax Act (No. 2)". Much has been said about this bill, of course, which has led to strange positions being taken in this House. In order to remove any doubt, I want to speak on this bill in order to make our views known on this subject, and mine in particular.
Mr. Speaker, I refer to the excellent speech delivered by my colleague from Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), who dealt with some essential aspects of this bill. He stated very properly, and I quote:
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.
So, Mr. Speaker, those are the main purposes of this bill. As my colleague from Roberval said, let us express these percentages in terms of dollars; this means that the small businesses will get a maximum reduction of $2,500, while the large multinational corporations, 60 per cent of which are foreign-owned, will get a maximum reduction of $10 million a year.
Mr. Speaker, such is the scope of this bill. What are the government, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) aiming at?
First of all, to create and maintain jobs as the hon. minister said; secondly, to make our industries more competitive. The question we should put to him is whether he is thinking of foreign or Canadian enterprises, when we know that the tax cut granted to the large corporations is intended for the multinational corporations whose capital is 60 per cent foreign-owned. At this stage, therefore, it is important to decide whether we wish to make foreign industry competitive on the Canadian market or Canadian industry competitive on the foreign market.
Finally, the third aim of this bill is to fight that villain, inflation.
I shall also refer, Mr. Speaker, to the figures so aptly cited by the hon. member for Roberval, to situate us in the context of this bill. In 1940, large Canadian companies provided 80 per cent of the national budget in taxes, while the workers, the day labourers, provided a maximum of 20 per cent in income tax. In 1972, 32 years later, after watching a succession of Conservative and Liberal governments pass the buck between them, we now see that the situation is exactly the reverse, that is to say, the workers, the small businessmen and the day labourers now pay more than 80 per cent in income tax, while the large corporations' share amounts to less than 20 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, the last point I would like to make concerning this bill, before making some other comments, is that clause 1(3) provides that 60 members are required to bring back this bill before the House within a certain time, so that it can be considered once more by the House in order to decide whether it should be amended or rejected. Mr. Speaker, 60 Liberal or Progressive Conservative members could at that time-and it is not certain that this would happen-ask for the bill to be reviewed.
I charge the Minister of Finance with the worst kind of politicking and with not knowing how this House operates. Since he is here and can hear me, I want to ask him to take it upon himself to amend this part of the bill, so that 10 or 15 members from the New Democratic party, from the Social Credit party or from any other party may ask for a review of this bill. This means that if the Minister of Finance maintains this stand, the New Democratic party-supposing that the present minority situation lasts one year or two-could not possibly bring back this bill before the House any more than our party.
I would remind the Minister of Finance that there are four political parties in this House and that it is our privilege not only to speak on the bill before us, but also to bring it back if it fails to meet the commitments make by the Minister of Finance on its introduction. I suggest it is a most serious anomaly which is contrary to democracy in this House and, of course, the Minister of Finance would prove that he understands something about the Commons if he agreed to amend his bill and to replace the magic figure of 60 by 10 or 15 members.
The Minister of Finance is quite aware that the Conservative party which could bring this bill back before Parliament will not do so, because like the party in office, they toady to big business to obtain its support, not only electoral but mainly financial support.
Surely the members of the Progressive Conservative party cannot express their views on this question at the moment. But I think that by acting as he does, the Minister of Finance is being anti-democratic. I therefore insist that he amend clause 1(3).
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I should like to come back to a very particular point. This bill provides a tax reduction up to 5 per cent for small businesses in Canada when a 10 per cent reduction is allowed to big corporations.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is putting the cart before the horse or encouraging a system that is already sick, already upside down. Here is what I mean. Many small industries do not have the necessary capital to apply for grants under the act governing the Department of Regional Economic Expansion because a corporation must invest at least $52,000 if it is to benefit from a grant to create jobs.
Consequently, the small business which represents the backbone of your economy, particularly in Quebec, is denied direct financial help from the federal government even it is heavily taxed, bothered every day by inspectors from National Revenue, from the Unemployment Insurance Commission, from the Canada Pension Plan and so on and it has not the means to absorb such administrative costs.
June 18, 1973

However, Mr. Speaker, statistics show that most jobs in Canada are at the small business level. I wonder why this government-as others before-does not help directly small businesses through financial assistance, tax abatements or similar measures instead of encouraging big corporations through tax reductions and many other hidden favours.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues from the Social Credit and myself strongly believe in private enterprise. I have confidence in private industry because its economic characteristic takes into account the wish of everybody to develop freely according to his capacity, his feelings and his objectives.
Mr. Speaker, private industry meets a basic need of man who after his birth tries to improve his lot during his lifetime. In many cases, Mr. Speaker, private industry has been nationalized, has become public business; then the efficiency of that industry was reduced, also declined as did the participation not only of workers but of the public and of the authorities.
We note, Mr. Speaker, that generally speaking, those public industries operate in the red; we note the difficulties they have to meet. Those results urge me to continue to favour private industry in Canada and-I want to be clear-in view of the present economic situation, to favour the small business.
For instance, the owner of the corner grocery on Jutras Boulevard in Victoriaville cannot improve the rental value of his business because he lacks the required capital. Then he goes to see the Industrial Development Bank which refuses to grant him a loan. He cannot get a grant from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion because he is not in a position to make a capital investment of $52,000. That business, Mr. Speaker, knowingly held in a marginal situation by the present and previous governments, has to face inflation, rising cost of living and does not profit by any government assistance. After it will be easy to say that the small business cannot stand on its own. This is an entirely unfair situation for the workers and the small business owners.
Mr. Speaker, let us talk also about businesses which were established by our fathers 20, 25 or 30 years ago and which lasted year in and year out despite many difficulties. When the father wanted to retire and asked his son to take over, he was in an impossible financial situation. He was unable to invest because of his low income. He would like to modernize the family concern, to develop, rejuvenate and automatize it further, but he is discouraged when he applies to the Industrial Development Bank which refuses to grant him loans when he must discharge his income tax and protect himself against the officials or when he is denied a grant by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
What happens? If a truly Canadian business which has been in operation for 25, 30 or 35 years and which has had 15, 20, 25, 50 sometimes 100 or 200 full-time employees on the payroll must tackle huge financial problems, the son practically refuses to take over from his father.
Some time ago, when I was elected to this House, western and eastern members referred to the succession prob-
Income Tax Act
lem but today we should increasingly speak about the succession problem in the small industry.
We must recognize the basic economic role of small businesses which are well established among us, because they are the mainsty of our economy and because they are truly Canadian. Such is not the case of large multinational industries and it seems logical to me to urge the minister to consider the matter and to introduce bills aimed at reducing income Tax or other provisions in order to stimulate small industries and bring in essential improvements which are long overdue.
Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important point of our economy, especially in Quebec and in the constituency of Lobtiniere among others. Indeed, I know dozens of industrialists contending with those problems who are more or less welcomed by the Industrial Development Bank in Trois-Rivieres and who are denied funds by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion because their business is too small. They are penalized because they are too small. The official bill say; Unfortunately, Sir, we cannot help you, for your firm is too small. The owner will answer; Sir, this is why I am here; I should like to expand. As a rule, the official answers on behalf of the minister because he has reached the point where he has more power than the minister himself. The industrialist returns home empty-handed; his application for assistance has been turned down because he is too small. This is the rationale behind this system which is being encouraged and maintained by such bills as Bill C-192.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this most ridiculous concept of administration. For instance, when the Manic people in Granby went bankrupt a few months after having been subsidized, the minister responsible came up with all sorts of excuses.
When I see that millions upon millions of dollars are being granted to IBM, I am pleased for them, but quite unhappy for all the small bussinesses which are not even entitled to enter the Department of Regional Economic Expansion Building through the front door and are constantly pestered by income tax officials.
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance is logical-as I have always held him to be-I am anxious to hear what he will have to say about this.
Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance rids himself of the domination of his advisers, American or otherwise, no longer tolerates being led by the nose by the larger corporations and listens attentively to the small businesses, he will have saved a great part of the Canadian economy.
Let us consider, just for one moment, the shoe industry in Canada, for instance. While the federal government was systematically allowing small shoe manufactures to die out in Quebec, it was encouraging massive imports of shoes from other countries where labour was cheaper; and that is how jobs disappeared in the shoe industry. The government could not help the smaller manufacturers because they were too small.
But the government is pouring millions of dollars into other sectors under the pretext of creating new jobs. It goes to the people at election time, saying; Our govern-

June 18, 1973
Income Tax Act
ment created 230,000 jobs; it will create 250,000 new jobs; it promises 100,000 jobs.
The Minister of Finance does not know what it is to create jobs. Let him come to Quebec! We have a premier who specializes in that. When the going gets tough, he promises jobs.
Mr. Speaker, the people are scoffed at, the citizens are manipulated. I remember the last electoral campaign when my riding of Lotbiniere was visited. It was a great honour; for once, at long last, the riding of Lotbiniere had visitors. When that riding was represented by a liberal member, we never heard of it; but now that a Creditiste represents it, the riding has become an extraordinary attraction for visitors, especially ministers. That proves we are on the map. The ministers who came in our constituency boasted of the jobs they has created. Well, I will say that-and he that hath ears to hear, let him hear, as it is said in the Holy Scripture-without the drive of local industrialists, their imagination, their enterprise, the federal government could have done absolutely nothing from their ivory tower in order to create employment. It is about time for the government to understand that they are not the ones who create employment, but Canadian industrialists and businessmen who invest money. Canadian businessmen are the ones who take risks.
Mr. Speaker, if that is true, one should be logical and conclude that the main role of the government should be to support, to encourage, to urge industrialists to keep on with their development, their investments, though tax credits, fiscal incentives, grants or any other means. If one wants to remain logical-which is not this parliament's panacea-one should think that company directors who come to Ottawa to get thousands of dollars in order to create employment, modernize their operations and establish automation in their plants go back home where they invest, enlarge their business and buy new equipment. Their plants are automatized, modernized, but while this is done, which is very normal-remember we are in 1973, not in 1920,-the worker is being replaced by machines.
Consequently, to make the economic wheel turn so that investment made with public money-one must not forget it-create employment, develop concerns, make them more competitive, the government must make up their mind to increase the consumers' purchasing power if they want them to benefit from the government's grants.
Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) or the Minister of Finance, on the pretext of creating jobs, are scattering subsidies right and left-and more often to the left than to the right-in order to create employment, at the very same time, on the very street where the industry has gone up, one sees families dependent on welfare awaiting their pittance from the public purse, on bended knee before some civil servant. One sees families dependent on unemployment insurance waiting for two or two and a half months for their first cheque. One sees pensioners awaiting their tiny old age pension cheques, because today it is the government which decides who is to live or die. In Quebec, for example, a work permit is required. The government, while investing to create more jobs is telling the workers: "You can't work if you don't have a permit."

Mr. Speaker, this shows the stupidity of this harebrained system. I haven't named any names, but they are looking at me.
Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues I say that the government must take the steps required to increase the purchasing power of those taxpayers who have been replaced by machines, or who are unable to work because of their age. Those people, Mr. Speaker, have a right to benefit from the tremendous wealth of our country. Those people have a right to enjoy their fair share of national production without taking anything from others so that they can live decently.
There was a time when our leader, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) and all the Creditist members talked about the guaranteed minimum income for all Canadians, regardless of their race, their language, their religion, or the thickness of their wallet-we can trust the Department of National Revenue to tax the biggest ones; let us trust it, it is not bad at this, it is its specialty-and urged the establishment of the guaranteed annual income. All other members-and I ask my colleagues to think about it for a minute-found this amusing. They laughed at the guaranteed minimum income advocated by the Social Credit and aimed at giving each Canadian citizen his share of national production in order to struggle against poverty and regional disparities for which millions of dollars have been invested. Hon. members were laughing; they found this amusing. They said these were wantom proposals from the members of the Social Credit.
Since then hon. members were forced to follow the way we showed them. It is perhaps the only pride we can afford as Creditist members but I swear that I am proud to stand today and to say it in the face of all my colleagues because when we were laughed at, the same politicians who are listening to me were, under the pressure of public opinion, forced to order the establishment of a royal commission. The senators woke up to create a royal commission on poverty. They spent millions of dollars to find out that there is still poverty in Canada despite the enormous amounts invested to create jobs.
And after all that, during the last election campaign, the Liberals sang out to whoever wanted to hear it, in the hope of getting votes: We are in favour of a kind of guaranteed annual income. And the Progressive Conservatives-they can offer as good a tune as the Liberals but they sang in busses-said: We are also in favour of the guaranteed annual income. And finally, our friends from the NDP also said: We are all for the guaranteed annual income.
Now, Bill C-192 is absolutely inefficient even if it reduces the corporate income tax because it does not tackle the real source of evil which is the lack of purchasing power in the hands of Canadians in order to buy the production that the large corporations are going to turn out with the support of governments.
Mr. Speaker, if this government wants to be logical, it will have to think, it will have to develop a policy of economic participation for each Canadian, whether in the east or in the west, whether very old or very young. This government will have to develop viable programs to enable each Canadian to share in the national production in the same way it is now doing for large corporations. Let
June 18, 1973

us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that 80 per cent of the taxes collected by the federal government come from the pockets of small taxpayers. Therefore, sooner or later we must get back to the small taxpayer, the small businessman, and tell them: Small Canadian businessmen or citizens, from now on you will be recognized by your government like the big firms. And then, Mr. Speaker, we will be talking of a truly just society.
I am puzzled to find out that when the bills were introduced, no minister talked about a just society. And yet, this was the Liberal slogan when they won a majority election in 1968. We have seen what did come out of this in 1972. Mr. Speaker, if this government does not come alive, this will mean that the gap will keep on widening between the rich and the poor. The poor will keep on decrying the rich and vice versa, and in between, this government will keep on giving the poor a song and dance routine while serving the rich.
The role of the government is not to do either of those things, but to put everything in its place, not to take away from Peter to give to Paul, and to give equal opportunity to all citizens.
That is what I think of Bill C-192 and I hope that these well-intentioned and frank remarks will be considered. The mandate I received from my fellow citizens of Lot-biniere was so clear that it is impossible for me not to be clear in this House. I ask the Minister of Finance to think twice about that; we congratulate him for encouraging large companies, but we would equally like him to have the same courage when it comes to supporting small enterprise before this House. Finally, I would like him to change willingly that magic number 60, which denies us the right to amend this bill after adoption.
[ English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister speaks, he will close the debate.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will not speak at length, because we will be able to deal with these matters in committee. I have listened carefully to the speeches and look forward to bringing forward at the committee stage some amendments to the parliamentary review provision which will, in my opinion, make it meaningful along lines suggested by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).
[ Transla tion]
As always I have listened with great interest to the very honest speech made by my friend the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin).
I must point out that one of this government's objectives is to support private enterprise, particularly small enterprise. If the Creditists consider the provisions of this bill relating to small enterprise, they will realize that the 25 per cent tax rate on small enterprise under the Income Tax Act will be lowered to 20 per cent in order to stimulate small businesses, small manufacturers and small industrialists. That is included in the bill now before the House.
I have to agree with him that as far as employment is concerned in Canada, 60 per cent of labour is employed by
Income Tax Act
small enterprises with fewer than 100 workers. I understand very well that it is most important, particularly in the interest of small communities in our country, to decentralize the economic effects. Then, in principle, I agree with the general theme of the hon. member's speech, but at the same time I disagree of course with his general criticism of the government and its alleged lack of appeal.


André-Gilles Fortin: Talk about the 60 members.


John Napier Turner: We will talk about that later.


André-Gilles Fortin: Right now.


John Napier Turner: We will talk about that later. Mr. Speaker, I believe there is an agreement whereby if a given number of members demand a vote, it will be deferred until Wednesday, after orders of the day have been called. In any event, I leave it to the discretion of the Chair and to the order of the House in relation to the vote.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that the same point is in the mind of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I think it might be better if there were to be an order of the House at this time. I think there has been general consent on the part of all parties, in view of the wide interest in this bill and the vote and in view of the difficulty that hon. members may experience at present with air transport, for the vote to be held immediately after orders of the day are called on Wednesday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was about to make the same point. On Friday we agreed in general terms to the suggestion that has now teen made, but we did not incorporate that in an order of the House. I suggest, therefore, that after Your Honour puts the question and after five of us have stood, calling for a vote, it then be made an order of the House that the vote shall take place immediately after the calling of orders of the day on Wednesday.
[ Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we were party to this agreement, and we keep to it. Under the rules, five members will have to rise and call for the vote. It seems logical to me that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) should think about it and also agree now to reduce the number in the bill, in order to be able to bring back the legislation if it should not produce the effects promised by the Minister of Finance.
Only five members have to rise and call for the vote, and I find it absurd that 60 are needed to bring back the bill before the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There has been agreement in unequivocal terms and it is so ordered. The hon. member for Compton rises on a point of order.
[ Transla tion]


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
4856

June 18, 1973
Income Tax Act
I wish to direct a question to the minister. Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Henry P. Latulippe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister stated that he will reduce taxes so as not to create more unemployment and to keep people at work.
Inversely, interest rates are going up and will cause high unemployment in Canada. Would the minister tell us what steps he intends to take in order to deal with unemployment once and for all, because the tax exemption that will be granted to industry will not settle the problem, while higher interest rates will cause more unemployment?
We would like the minister to tell us where we are heading for, in view of the fact that higher interest rates will certainly increase unemployment.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite aware that current interest rates are in keeping with the tremendous economic expansion. Moreover, the latest statistics show that the number of jobs in May 1973 compared to May 1972 increased by 497,000, 30 per cent of which in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It appears that the House is ready for the question. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to order made earlier, the recorded division on this motion stands deferred until Wednesday, June 20, to be taken immediately after the reading of the order of the day for resuming debate on the said motion.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House, I will call it five o'clock. I just want to say, if I might, that it was my understanding the vote was going to be called for by my friends in the New Democratic Party, but their voices were in good form. Therefore, the appearances are the reverse of the effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I on a point of order confirm your judgment that the nays had it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I take it the House is really not in the mood to debate Bill C-193 at this particular time. Perhaps we could proceed as if it were five o'clock. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn)-Manpower-Suggested combining of Manpower and Unemployment Insurance offices-Government position; the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)-National Defence-Suggested recommissioning of certain destroyers for use in protecting fishermen-Government position; the hon. member for York East (Mr. Arrol)-Unemployment Insurance-Request that Commission make early decisions on benefit eligibility to avoid overpayment claims.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
[ English]


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: That, in the opinion ol this House, the government should consider revising the Unemployment Insurance Act to remove those provisions which discourage the incentive to work and, as well, those provisions which are based upon the principle of social welfare and not upon the principle of social insurance.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion was placed on the order paper at the beginning of this session because, during the election campaign last fall, the Unemployment Insurance Commission and its effects on labour were one of the paramount issues in the area I represent. The second reason is that it is still a very topical issue. A committee composed of the Norfolk county council pointed out the need for revision or amendments in a brief relating to the agricultural labour shortage. I will refer to
June 18, 1973

that more specifically later in my remarks. The third reason is that this government stubbornly refuses to recognize any deficiencies in the Unemployment Insurance Act or any need for amendment. Fourth, the interim report of the Unemployment Insurance Advisory Committee points out the need for some changes.
I wish to quote from the bottom of page 2 of the interim Unemployment Insurance Advisory Committee report of April 16 of this year:
-the Committee strongly recommends that the Unemployment Insurance Commission pursue vigorously closer cooperation and coordination with all other manpower placement agencies.
I will refer to that later. Finally, from the large number of complaints I have received, I would say this is an important issue. I have received complaints from farmers in my area, groups of farmers, organizations, tobacco farmers, orchard owners, berry growers, asparagus and tomato growers, all employers who consistently employ seasonal agricultural labour.
My experience in this field as an owner and, therefore, employer of this type of labour, leads me to one conclusion, namely that there are many serious deficiencies in the Unemployment Insurance Act as it now stands. I wish to examine in some detail the defects that I see in the unemployment insurance program. First, I think there is a built-in dis-incentive to work. I think I can best illustrate that by quoting from the brief to which I have referred. It was prepared by members of the Norfolk County Council and is entitled, "Agricultural Labour Shortage". Persons and organizations which contributed to this brief give it considerable merit and importance. They are as follows: Norfolk Federation of Agriculture, Norfolk Milk Committee, Norfolk Fruit Growers Association, Norfolk Canning " Crop Growers, Norfolk Soil and Crop Improvement Association, Strawberry Growers Association and Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board. I think their remarks and suggestions deserve attention. With regard to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, we find this on page 2 of their brief:
It has filled a real need in the past and continues to do so.
This indicates they do not condemn it out of hand.
But there are serious faults with the system. The first is the short qualifying period of eight weeks. In our interviews we found time after time that workers would only put in eight weeks of labour at any one place, to satisfy the qualification required by the Unemployment Insurance Act, after which they seem to have no difficulty in obtaining their unemployment insurance allotments.
Therefore we find it absolutely expedient to increase this qualification period to as much as 30 weeks. Labour in the agricultural community generally starts in mid-April and continues until the end of November. Any able-bodied worker would have no problem in accumulating the required number of work weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance, to which we feel an agricultural worker has a right, just like any other worker, but it should only be a right, not a way of life.
I am not inflexible as to the number of weeks they should work. The question is open to discussion. The brief suggests 30 weeks; others think it should be 20 weeks. I agree we should not take as a criterion one local area where seasonal agricultural labour is perhaps used to a maximum extent. The period should be based on experience across the country. But I still feel eight weeks is far
Unemployment Insurance
too short a period, for the reasons I have stated. When this bill was being considered in the standing committee our party asserted strongly that the qualifying period was too short, and that it would constitute a disincentive to Canadians. We were laughed out of countenance and told we were casting aspersions upon Canadian workmen who would not act in this manner. However, experience has proven we were right, and this is one of the things which needs to be changed in the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Another factor which has brought the act into question in the area I represent is the mass disentitlement of seasonal agricultural workers on the somewhat flimsy ground that they were not actively seeking work. At the time this allegation was levelled against them there simply was no work available in the area, so it was nonsense to say they were not seeking work. I have argued this question before, in debate and during the question period. People were disqualified on a mass scale at the time the numbers of benefit control officers was so greatly increased; they seemed to descend most heavily on areas in which a great deal of seasonal agricultural work was carried on. This has been responsible for a string of letters, telephone calls and personal calls to me. The workers resent the treatment accorded to them. They feel that since deductions were taken from their pay they were entitled to benefit. One can try to explain why such is not necessarily the case, but that is the attitude the workers take. They go further. They say that if no benefits are paid them after they have contributed to the scheme, they will work no more at seasonal work. This may be a wrong stand to take, but it is a fact of life. This is what the farmers are being told in my area when they try to recruit labour, and the effect on agriculture is serious.
Another problem arises from the over-payment of benefits and a method by which the Commission recovers overpayments. In almost all cases, overpayments occur through an error on the part of the Commission itself, that is, by officials who administer the scheme. This, they frankly admit. First, the recipient of benefit gets a yellow slip from the Commission to the effect that his claim has been examined and he is entitled to benefit for a certain number of weeks at a certain number of dollars a week. Then, at the end of a further period, a letter may come from the Commission saying, in effect: We are sorry, but we made a mistake; you are retroactively disqualified from benefit and you owe us X dollars.
In many cases, of course, the cheques have already been cashed and spent on the necessities of life. The recipient may then be called upon to repay as much as $500, $600, or even, in one case which has come to my notice, $1600. The Commission has, of course, the right in law to recover this money, despite the fact that payments may have been made in error. Most of the people concerned are able, eventually, to repay the money. Others are unable to pay the money back. All this has created a bad impression as to the way in which the Act is administered, and it is a further disincentive to work in the type of occupation I am describing.
To add insult to injury, the UIC not only demands repayment of benefits, but it also asks the recipients to pay back the equivalent of the income tax which was deducted on behalf of the Department of National Reve-
4858

June 18, 1973
Unemployment Insurance
nue. This leaves a very bad taste in the mouths of people, who feel they have been taken for a ride, in one instance a man asked the Commission how he could recover the amount of the tax deducted. He was told he would have to get it from the Department of National Revenue. He then applied to the Department of National Revenue, and officials there told him the only way in which he could recover it was to apply for a refund when he next made an income tax declaration-a year ahead, in most instances. In one case it worked out to two years, because the overpayment was made in 1972 but the repayment to the Commission was not completed until January of 1973. So the man concerned will not get back his money until he files his next tax return in 1974. Surely, a simple act of book-keeping between the two departments of government could remove this irritant. These may appear to be isolated and picayune complaints about the Unemployment Insurance Commission, but they all add up to disincentives to work. Unless we can bring about major amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, or, at least, improve the way in which it is administered, the present situation will continue.
There is one other aspect I should like to discuss; it involves students, who, if they work for eight weeks and pay into the fund, are also entitled to benefits. Unscrupulous students have been tempted to deceive the Commission as a result of the way in which the scheme is administered. Having paid into the fund for eight weeks, they were able, until the tightening up of controls, or even after, to obtain benefits even though they were really not available for work because they were attending school or university. In some cases they lied and said they were available for work, but in any event it did lead to fraudulent practice. What it added up to was that unemployment insurance left a bad taste in the mouths of students and perhaps it did not make them very much inclined to seek this kind of work.
I should just like to quote the Ottawa Citizen "Action Line" in its Wednesday, June 13 issue. A senior official of the UIC, who wishes to remain unnamed, suggested that the Unemployment Insurance Act be changed to eliminate the irritant of which I have been speaking. This is in connection with students who work in order to qualify:
These parts of the Unemployment Insurance Act are silly. Students are not members of the permanent labour force. They shouldn't have insurance coverage and they shouldn't be charged premiums.
I can see only one way to stop this unfairness to students and block attempts to retaliate by abusing the unemployment insurance fund.
When a person under 21 enters the work force, charge no premiums and provide no coverage for six months.


An hon. Member:: Why six months?


William David Knowles: I continue:
A person still employed after half a year is probably a permanent worker . ..
This might not stop all abuse, but I believe it would eliminate a great deal. Students would not be charged for coverage they'll never get. And very few students could try to use the unemployment insurance fund to finance their education.

Those are the words of a senior official of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I heard one member ask, "Why six months?" I do not think there is any magic about six months, but it is a period which would give an indication perhaps whether or not a person would become a permanent member of the work force. At the end of that time, he would certainly be paying into the fund and would expect benefits from it.
In summary I would say this: Unless we can remedy these abuses and the disaffection that seasonal agricultural workers have for the plan, then let us go back to the old system of providing them with a form on which they can choose to opt out of unemployment insurance. This was the form which people simply had to sign and give to their employer if they did not wish to be covered by unemployment insurance. This would apply only to a very small group of people working for very short periods during the year, such as seasonal agricultural workers. Surely, there would be no detrimental effect on the total financing of the fund if this were done since these people, as I have said, do not represent a very significant portion of the labour force.
Another suggestion that would help to improve the current situation is the one I have already referred to, namely that students not be covered for unemployment insurance until they have worked for a six-month period. The other point that I dwelt on in some detail related to increasing the length of the qualifying period. These, then, are some of the reasons I feel there are abuses of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The effect of the provisions of the act, which I have elaborated on in detail, do, I maintain, amount to a disincentive to work, for a large group of seasonal workers in the Canadian labour force.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with my usual attention to the contribution made by the hon. member. He and I have sat on committees together for a number of years and he always advances his arguments in a very moderate and objective fashion. I am sure he will forgive me, though, if I say that in this case I am a little confused and unable to follow his logic, possibly because I missed the first two or three minutes of his speech, arriving a little late in the chamber.
May I remind him that it was only a few years ago when, at the request of the agricultural community, the farmers unions and agricultural spokesmen, we paid unemployment insurance benefits to agricultural workers because farmers were having difficulty attracting agricultural workers to their farms. Their complaint was that because agricultural workers were not given the privilege of qualifying for unemployment insurance, everything else being equal, they could not attract agricultural workers to their farms.
In those days seasonal agricultural workers who worked in a cannery or on a fruit farm wanted to be able to accumulate sufficient unemployment stamps to provide them with a source of income if they were unable to find work during the wintertime. At that time, it was becoming obvious that agriculture was being disadvantaged in its efforts to attract part time help. The hon. member is now suggesting that we return to that system, which was introduced a few years ago under the old act for the very purpose of alleviating what appeared to be an anomaly
June 18, 1973

and, in a sense, a handicap to the hard pressed farmer who required part time assistance.
I agree that it is far more difficult for the farming community to get the kind of help needed during summer months. This has been the topic of much conversation in recent months, and perhaps the main reason is that our young people today are highly educated, as are all Canadians, and are not prone to stay on farms. Marginal farming is becoming more and more difficult, and farmers are getting older and older. In addition to that, there are the problems associated with the transfer of a farm to younger members of the family. In general, there is a smaller pool of people available to work on farms during the summer months.
Certainly, this problem is aggravated if a person is denied the right to pay unemployment insurance contributions and accumulate benefits over the summer months in order to qualify for some form of income during the winter months if perchance he is unable to obtain work in the wintertime. This is equally true in regard to other types of casual labour. Therefore, I think the suggestion of the hon. member would be a retrograde step because it would work very much against the interests of the farming community. Studies have indicated that young people do come from our cities to work on farms not far away for 8, 10, 12 or 16 weeks when work is available, or for even as much as 20 weeks, but not if they find at the end of that period that they cannot qualify for unemployment insurance.


William David Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would consider the other suggestion of opting out, giving people the choice of being covered or not being covered.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: That is not a new feature, Mr. Speaker, because that provision was in the old act. Unfortunately, it did create certain hardships, especially for small employers. We tend to forget that most of the employment in this country is provided by small employers of labour.
Another example would be people who work in the bindery in the printing industry. The printing industry usually depends on housewives and people from nearby neighbourhoods to work in the bindery. In the old days, these people were not always aware of the need to sign a waiver form, and if for one reason or another exemption forms were not signed, it was not unusual, when an inspector came around some two or three years after the event, for the employer to find himself responsible for payment of all the unemployment insurance contributions that he failed to collect as a result of not having his employees sign the waiver. During the last five years, the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), who I hope soon regains his health, made it a personal crusade to have the very principle that the hon. member has endorsed rescinded and eliminated from the act. That is one of the reasons it was eliminated from the present act.
The hon. member for Oxford spoke on behalf of a half a dozen small businessmen in his community who were, in some cases, responsible for about $3,000 in uncollected unemployment insurance contributions from people who
Unemployment Insurance
worked in small industries in his community, because the employers forgot to have these forms filled out. When we realize that the contributions today are very nominal, 90 cents or $1 as compared to $1.40 or more, there is not really any advantage in a person opting out. However, opting out in the sense that an individual does not want to collect or apply for unemployment insurance is an entirely different thing. The point raised by the hon. member in respect of students is not borne out by the facts. Our study in 1972 indicated that less than 3 per cent of students eligible for unemployment insurance bothered to collect. This was the situation last summer, and indications are that the situation will be the same this summer as jobs will be more plentiful.
The idea that students can collect unemployment insurance when they go back to high school and university is wrong. This is not only an abuse, it is fraud. What the hon. member is suggesting is that the quickest way to prevent this is to eliminate unemployment insurance. We could carry that to the extreme and eliminate unemployment insurance entirely. In that way, we would eliminate the possibility of fraud on the part of anyone. I do not think that is what the hon. member wants.
I do not think we should select the category of students as a specific example. As a general rule, students are no more dishonest than any other segment of society. If they work 10 or 15 weeks, as many of them do, and the following summer they are unable to find work, there is no reason they should be discriminated against in respect of drawing unemployment insurance. If they then go back to high school or university, they must drop from the unemployment insurance rolls. If they continue to draw benefits while they are in high school or university they run the risk of not only a severe penalty, but of having to repay the benefits. Under the old act, for years and years students paid unemployment insurance and never drew a penny. I suggest that was a much more unfair form of discrimination against one particular group of Canadian citizens.
The hon. gentleman will be pleased to know that an intensive study of the pattern of people who drew unemployment insurance in 1972, a study which is now available, indicates that there was no particular abuse percentagewise among students over and above the average abuse in all categories, and perhaps only half the percentage of abuse among doctors in Ontario in respect of medicare.
When you get into the question of paying back benefits that you over-drew, I can understand that many people may have received $8 or $9 a week more than they were entitled to, as a result of some miscalculation. However, people who are drawing unemployment insurance unlawfully for six, eight, 10 or 12 months, certainly know they are not entitled to those benefits. The simple thing for them to do is to inform the unemployment insurance office that, through some mistake, they are getting unemployment insurance benefits to which they are not entitled.


William David Knowles: They receive slips which show that they are entitled to so much a week, and that is why they feel justified in continuing to accept benefits.

June 18, 1973
Unemployment Insurance


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There may be exceptions where people are over-paid to that extent, but repayment is worked out so there is the least hardship possible. I want to make it very clear that I have never had any sympathy for people who intentionally defraud the Unemployment Insurance Act.
About two years ago, the Unemployment Insurance Commission won a national award for a series of ads on this particular subject. At the same time the commission was criticized for this blitz because some people considered that the ads were designed to frighten people. Really, they were meant to prevent people from bowing to the temptation of falsifying forms, but there is no evidence of more abuse today than there was five, 10 or 20 years ago.
I think the hon. gentleman is one of the few who has used the right terminology, in that he talks about disenti-tlement. We have heard a lot about the 40,000 people in Toronto who have been disqualified. I am sure when the second report of the advisory committee comes out, if it ever does, it will lay to rest the publicity to the effect that
40.000	out of 60,000 people in Toronto were disqualified. That is not the case, as the hon. gentleman knows. Under the system of benefit control officers the blitz has resulted in disentitlement. You can or could be disentitled simply because you were unable to provide a certain bit of information required at the particular moment the officer called; you could be disentitled if you were not at home or if the officer was unable to get the information. You could be disentitled and reinstated 20 minutes later by supplying that information. So, it is very wrong to suggest that
40.000	out of 60,000 were disqualified.
Disqualification under the act relates to specific things
such as fraud, refusing a job or a training program or getting fired in order to draw unemployment insurance. It is to these things that disqualification relates. As the hon. gentleman has pointed out, disentitlement is something entirely different. There are 29 different ways in which you can be disentitled under the regulations. Perhaps the regulations go beyond the intent of the act and should be reviewed by the legal authorities. Although I brought in the regulations, I am not overly proud of them as I think they probably go beyond the intent of the act. I am anxious to see this second report of the commission to find out what it offers in respect of this particular point.
The hon. gentleman raised the question about students, but I am sorry that I cannot share his opinion. I think students should be able to qualify like anybody else. If a student works the full summer and pays unemployment insurance, he should be entitled to draw benefits. There is no assurance that when September or October rolls around he will be going back to school or university. As the hon. gentleman knows, sometimes for reasons that cannot be predicted in June a student will have to continue to look for work or continue as a member of the work force.
As far as farm workers are concerned, I think if you were to give them the option of contributing or not contributing there would be added forms to fill out, and farmers would be running the risk of losing whatever scarce farm help is now available. As the hon. member knows, farm help like help in woods operations and that type of work, is getting more and more scarce because there are fewer youngsters on the farm today to help out.

I have just taken note of a few of the things the hon. member has covered. I repeat that the hon. gentleman and I share the same opinion about disentitlement and the way in which this can be abused by well-meaning benefit-control officers. I hope when the second report comes out the minister and the Cabinet will look at the whole concept of benefit-control officers. They should concentrate on seeking out those who deliberately defraud the act. They should, at the same time, seek out the employer who permits this fraud through collusion. There are many employers today who pay cash in order that individuals can continue to draw unemployment insurance benefits, while at the same time the employer gets cheap labour. This means not only that the employer is not contributing his share to unemployment insurance, the employee is not contributing toward income tax and other things to which the average law-abiding citizen contributes. Certainly, the overwhelming number of employers are honest.
The hon. gentleman raised another matter which has bothered a lot of people. This relates to the definition of a bona fide member of the work force. Should one be eligible after making contributions for eight weeks, 12 weeks, 16 weeks or 20 weeks? We had very little to go on in deciding, other than that the old act stated 30 weeks over a two year period. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will recall that act better than I do, but eight weeks of that 30-week period had to be within the last 52 weeks. I think anyone who knows the old act as well as the hon. gentleman will agree that when the winter months came one could qualify under the old act for benefits with only one week, two weeks or three weeks. This is now impossible.
Consequently, last year there were hundreds of thousands of people who were ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits but who would have qualified under the old act by simply saying that it was the middle of December and they would like to draw eight-week unemployment insurance until May. They are not now qualified by reason of having an eight-week work attachment.
We did remove many welfare aspects of the program under the new act by increasing the waiting period to two weeks, thus providing a better chance to screen applicants. We had intended to reduce or eliminate benefits for fishermen. Many of the old welfare connotations are gone under the present act. I think that the Unemployment Insurance Commission can now get down to the main problem, which is the tightening up of administration. But once again I must point out that statistics indicate that minor attachments, that is, those who qualify with 20 weeks and under, return to work faster than is the case with people with over 20 weeks attachment.
The last time I saw the study, a major attachment was for 17 weeks on unemployment insurance at $67 a week; the man who qualifed for 20 weeks unemployment insurance benefits was going back to work after 14 or 15 weeks. We can understand this because usually a minor attachment is nothing more than casual labour and those jobs have become more plentiful. The aircraft worker, the skilled machinist, people making $5 or $6 an hour cannot find a job even for $3 or $4.50 an hour.
June 18, 1973

In conclusion, the Unemployment Insurance Act now needs some respite from publicity of any kind so that officials can get down to doing the things that are obvious, such as the elimination of abuse. No one in the House is in favour of abuse. I am not saying this for the benefit of the hon. gentleman, for whom I have great respect, but the approach to unemployment insurance should be a philosophical one. If we start with the concept that goes back to biblical days, that everyone must work by the sweat of his brow, and accept the argument that the measure of success of any government must be the number of people who are working and the number of jobs created-in other words, quantity rather than quality-then we will be in a bind to force industry to create jobs for the sake of creating jobs. If we could only understand that sometimes people cannot have jobs because it might not be in the interest of the community to create jobs for the sake of creating jobs, at least we can, through these types of enlightened programs, provide income until jobs are created.
Let us stop worrying about somebody getting something for nothing. We have to go back to the 1930s in Manitoba to realize that when one was drawing welfare one was not allowed to have, for example, a driver's licence in case one spent money on gasoline; in another province one was not allowed to have a radio licence in case one wasted time listening to the radio; in still another province one was not allowed to have a liquor licence in case one spent a few cents on a case of beer.
Most people would rather work than be on unemployment insurance. Everybody would rather make $150 working, the average income, than $66 from unemployment insurance and perhaps be subjected to a degree of unintentional harassment by the control officer as well. If we would look at it from that aspect, and give the Unemployment Insurance Commission an opportunity to tighten up its regulations and to adopt some of the suggestions which the hon. member and others have made in order to improve its efficiency and make sure that people who are not entitled do not receive benefit cheques, all would be for the better.
Let us allow the commission to proceed with these interviews spelt out in the white paper which have yet to be carried on in great numbers or with any consistency. People should sit down with an insurance officer not once but twice when unemployed so that they can see what can be done to upgrade their skills. Then, with respect to the farming community, we should see what can be done to open the door to immigration and bring in people who are willing to work. Having been the minister of manpower and immigration, I am aware of one of the paradoxes in this country, namely, that in times of high unemployment there are many jobs vacant with no source of unskilled, uneducated people to fill them. If our immigration policy were reversed we could have thousands of people who would be willing to take jobs on the farms, in the bush and in other unskilled occupations.


William David Knowles: May I ask the hon. member a question, Mr. Speaker? Does he realize that one of the major irritants among farmers who try to employ seasonal labourers is that once a labourer has worked eight weeks and has qualified, he would rather stay home and collect unemployment insurance than take a job?
Unemployment Insurance
Before you can catch up with that man the harvest is over, and it does not matter whether or not he works so far as the farmer is concerned.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. gentleman would be doing the farm community a great service if he would accept my assurance that there is no evidence of this. People cannot work eight weeks, quit and then draw unemployment insurance unless the farmer supplies the person with a form for unemployment insurance. He must bring from that farmer a form indicating he has been laid off because of lack of work. He cannot draw unemployment insurance without that particular form.


William David Knowles: Unfortunately, it does not work that way.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: But the law says it should.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to associate myself with and to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles). I have known my colleague since he came to this House, and he has always impressed me as one of the very thoughtful, well briefed and conscientious members who serve their constituencies well and who, without bombast and vain glory make a great impression on the House. They are good, conscientious and perceptive Canadians. I think he has produced an extremely valuable and interesting motion, and I congratulate him for it.
The matter is one of great detail, as the hon. member has pointed out. The hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) has dwelt upon that. There are many very serious aspects of this question where the law and the regulations impinge upon the citizen, very often unhelpfully. But there is something much more profound in this motion. It strikes me that the hon. member has invited us for this hour-and perhaps one hour is far too short a time-to question, examine and discuss the whole concept of the work ethic. I think that one of the fundamental questions in this age of automation and cybernation is the suggestion that to work is to be a softie, that you do not really have to work; and when the state, through any of its emanations, makes it inviting for the citizen to choose a life of leisure rather than a life of labour, then we are in trouble.
A great man said a long time ago-in the course of human history it may not seem long, but for us it is a long time ago-"If any one will not work, let him not eat". Some might think that I am quoting Karl Marx, Chairman Mao, or Lenin: I am in fact quoting St. Paul. Those of us who were tagged with a Presbyterian heritage have oft been accused of dragging the work ethic all about the place. Calvin was accused of suggesting that if you wanted to prove your calling and election to the next world, the only way to do it is to so prosper in this world that anyone would know that you were clearly tapped to go up aloft in a radiant glow of materialistic splendour. That is quite an oversimplification of what Calvin meant. But I wonder if in our society, where so much can be done mechanistically, if we are not lacking in thoughtfulness if we deliberately denigrate, degrade and belittle the work ethic.

June 18, 1973
Unemployment Insurance
I am often appalled when I look at some of the Opportunities for Youth programs. I had a case brought to my attention some weeks ago where students were employed in measuring the cubic feet capacity of all the stone or brick buildings in a certain city, I presume in case of an eventual emergency. The students were going all over the buildings measuring the height, width, depth, and so on. The manager of one building said to them, "If you go down to the office of the secretary-treasurer he will give you the blueprints of the building; they show the exact measurements". One of the students replied, "But, Sir, this project is supposed to last for 12 weeks. If we did that, it wouldn't last so long". That is one example, Mr. Speaker. There are some splendid Opportunities for Youth programs, but some have been utter nonsense. Too often in our society we tend to lose sight of all the good ones, and maybe I am guilty of that at the moment in recalling this preposterous one.
The hon. member for Verdun is a man for whom I have high regard. Indeed, he is such a champion of labour that I think he should be in the party which was founded by Sir John A. Macdonald who legalized trade unions in this country. But I do not quite think he grasped the problem with which the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) was dealing, and that was the unjust infliction on students when they must contribute to unemployment insurance at a time and under conditions where they are ineligible to draw benefits from unemployment insurance.
Anyone who has students of university age in his family knows how great is the need for these young people to find meaningful work. And we know how hard they are having it in obtaining summer employment this year. In fact, I believe that this year, despite what Statistics Canada says, young people are finding it more difficult than ever before. There is not a day that I do not receive letters from young people who are trying desperately to get jobs. Then you have this injustice, this taking of contributions from people who can never collect any benefit.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? With respect to the student who cannot possibly find a job and who paid 12 weeks' contributions last summer, would you deny him unemployment insurance on the basis of his contributions last summer?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I am thinking of the fortunate little lad or little girl who has got a job.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I did not ask about them. I am asking about the one who cannot find a job, the one you describe so eloquently.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I hope, despite my eloquence, that that young girl is not going to be forced out of university next year. I want her to go to university next year also. We can argue back and forth about a particular student, but the issue is that the benefits, the payments will not be paid to these young people. Contributions are being lifted from people to whom, in the main, benefits will never be paid.
The temptation to deception is there and I am afraid, as with a great many of us, great Christians, there is a yielding to temptation. This is not very helpful. In fact,

one of the things that has troubled me most about unemployment insurance is that there always has been a built-in temptation to finagle around.
I think, and I have said it for ten years-in fact, for 20 years-that unemployment insurance has been a God's blessing to thousands and thousands of Canadians. There are many people in my province who can pay their bills in wintertime because of unemployment insurance. But when it loses the concept of an insurance scheme and becomes a welfare scheme, then we are in trouble. That is why I was so disturbed last March when the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), who is my "shadow", speaking in Montreal talked about social welfare programs and he mentioned unemployment insurance. I never did get his text, but I do not think that was wise. We must stick by the concept of insurance.
Another thing that struck me, and either member has mentioned it, is that when we find in society that literally dollar for dollar it is more profitable for a man to be on unemployment insurance than to be working, then I say the attack should not be made on the man or on the unemployment insurance system but on the wage scale. Unfortunately, there are places in Canada where it is more profitable to draw the dole than it is to work, because the wage rate is too low. It should never be easier, in financial terms, for a man to draw unemployment insurance. As I have said more than once, I think the question of how unemployment insurance is handled is important. It deserves examination and sometimes criticism. But the essence is that the problem is unemployment rather than unemployment insurance.
Despite the denigration of the work ethic, I think that in a country such as ours, still a young country, possessed of vast riches untapped and unexplored, we should be able to find meaningful work for our people. Sometimes there are those who laugh and sneer at the work ethic. Mr. Speaker, we are being pushed out of the markets of the world by some countries where the work ethic is still important. Don't tell me the work ethic does not mean anything to the Japanese, does not mean anything to the West Germans, or does not mean anything to that tremendous nation of 800 millions people, the Chinese. These people still believe work is important and that work is valuable. It is up to us to make sure in our society that work is meaningful and available.
That is why I always thought it was a matter of profound good judgment when the leader of my party long ago zeroed in on unemployment as one of the real social curses afflicting the country. Certainly we must look at these things which the the mover of the motion has mentioned so well and so thoughtfully. We must always examine the unemployment insurance inequities, and perhaps iniquities, without abandoning that very useful part of our society. But surely we must not discard the work ethic. I think it is the job of government, of parliamentarians, to bring about a society in which the people do work and in which it does not benefit one to linger, to leisure, to languor and to idle.
[ Translation]


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to what my colleagues have had to say and I am astonished that all three speakers seem to lay
June 18, 1973

the blame for fraud and abuses on individuals. Yet we know that in a great many cases abuses are the fault of the Unemployment Insurance Commissioner's employees in various regions.
Attempts have been made to correct some of the abuses by laying down strict or unjustified regulations which have in fact resulted in further abuses by the government against individuals.
Earlier I heard mention of unemployed persons on farms, who have to pay unemployment insurance premiums but who are not eligible for benefits. Thus, in many cases in Quebec, as a result of the governments' antiquated measures, some farmers are unable to earn a decent living and are forced to seek work off their farms in order to meet their operating expenses.
When they go out to work, they are forced to pay unemployment insurance premiums, but when they leave their winter jobs, or if they lose them because they have to work on forest concessions in the winter, if they then apply for unemployment insurance benefits, the next summer they are turned down because they are agricultural workers or farmers. There are many such cases when on the one hand the government takes advantage of individuals while on the other hon. members become civil servants claiming justice for these same individuals.
The same thing applies in the case of students: they are compelled to pay contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Act, but when it is time to receive unemployment insurance benefits they are refused for several reasons, real or fictional. In fact, we found out last winter that the minister had somehow sent a note or a letter to his office managers everywhere in Canada. Two days later, he denied this in another communication and finally wrote a third one to contradict the first two. So there were abuses on the part of the government in this field. Abuses were also noticed in the publicity made by the department regarding unemployment insurance benefits. We can see advertising television which continuously tell people: $100 a week, that is the unemployment insurance benefit you will receive. They forget to explain the facts as they really are. Students are told: If you contribute under the Unemployment Insurance Act, you will qualify for benefits. As a result of its misleading advertising, this government forgets to mention small and hidden regulations which cancel the eligibility for benefits.
The unemployed are disqualified; every day, new statistics on the reduction of regional unemployment are published and we realize that this reduction is not due to an upsurge of employment but mainly, in particular in eastern Quebec regions, to the disentitlement of unemployed people or of those who are receiving unemployment insurance benefits. All reasons are good for disqualification and yet, through discussions with managers of offices, we can find regulations which might perhaps enable these people to be eligible again for unemployment insurance.
All kinds of abuses have been made by officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. They keep on saying that someone has been disqualified because he refused a job, but they often forget to question the other party, that of manpower and employment: Did you offer a
Unemployment Insurance
job to this guy in this region? You then get the following answer: We have not offered any since none is available! Those are the answers we get.
On the other hand, they are ready to disqualify someone because he did not find a job, because he did not take the necessary steps while the Department of Manpower and Immigration is perfectly aware that there is no employment available in such or such region. People are disqualified because they did not search for work or because they cannot prove they did. Then, officials should first offer jobs to the claimants and if an individual refused a good job, as prescribed in the act, then he would be disqualified, but they must offer him something before disqualifying him.
But no, as I was saying earlier, these are abuses committed by the department, abuses that the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), consciously or not, has failed to mention earlier, simply to try and excuse this government and condemn individuals rather than something else.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I shall say that the second report of the investigation on unemployment insurance will recognize that the abuses are not committed only by individuals, but are caused, in several cases, by this government through some ridiculous regulations, by roundabout regulations which force the individual to have a battle of wits with the government and to seek roundabout ways of obtaining government assistance. In fact, we should not delude ourselves. It is not the government which has encouraged development in the disadvantaged regions. We can be sure that it is not making much progress in this area. I heard the hon. member for Verdun say earlier that the department of Regional Economic Expansion was encouraging development in the so-called "under-developed" regions. I am the member for such a region, and all requests for loans made by small industries to the department of Regional Economic Expansion have been refused, with the result that we have a 20 per cent unemployment rate, while they play around at disqualifying unemployed persons. Of course, the statistics show that in the North Shore region the unemployment rate is a mere 10 or 12 per cent, but in fact-and the Manpower and Immigration department employees in the North Shore region tell us so themselves-the unemployment rate in the region is still 21 per cent. But once again, nothing effective or tangible is being done to create jobs, and there are complaints that people are trying to survive by getting around the poorly designed regulations.
I have no wish to defend dishonest people, but I do wish to warn the government that before it tries to lower or punish human beings, it should begin to create jobs, by investing in these regions enough money to create employment, and then the unemployed will no longer resort to fraud to obtain unemployment insurance benefits. They will go to work because it will be more profitable for them to work than to rely only on unemployment insurance as is the case at present.
The government should proceed gradually. Instead of being negative, it should begin to be positive, because people are fed up with delays and reasons such as those given a while ago by the member for Verdun.
4864

June 18, 1973
Income Tax Law (No. 3)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m. At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-193, to amend the statute law relating to income tax (No. 3), be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we are now dealing with Bill C-193 which involves many important matters relating to personal income tax and a good many corporate tax items and I should like to comment on some of the highlights of the bill for the benefit of the House. There are many proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act in this particular bill which will be of major significance to individual taxpayers in this country. Indeed, every person who has taxable income in Canada will benefit by the changes contained in this bill.

First of all, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the proposed increases in personal exemptions: the basic exemptions for single persons will be increased from $1500 to $1600, and for married persons, from $2850 to $3,000. This will mean, therefore, that single persons who earn less than $1700 a year, or in the case of married persons, $3,100, will have no income tax to pay. The benefits of these higher exemptions would apply to all ratepayers. In addition to higher exemptions, the bill contains provision providing for a 5 per cent decrease in the basic federal income tax which will not be less than $100 and more than $500. This provision will not only reduce income tax; it will also concentrate the reduction where there is greater need for it, that is for the small or medium wage earner.

The combined effect of these two proposals is to relieve every low and middle income taxpayer of any increase in his income tax due to inflation which has occurred since the introduction of tax reform. This, as I have said a number of times in the House, corresponds to the thrust of the government in attempting to meet the rise in the cost of living, where the primary factor is an imbalance between the supply of agricultural commodities and other world commodities and the very strong worldwide demand. The government seeks to increase the supply of these commodities and at the same time increase the disposable income of the average Canadian by proposing a

reduction in his personal income tax, by raising exemptions, raising the old age pension, proposing the raising of family allowances, eliminating the sales tax on all food and drink except alcohol, eliminating sales tax on children's clothing and children's footwear, and reducing tariffs on about $1,400 million worth of manufactured and agricultural products.
Let me illustrate how some typical Canadian families will benefit by these two measures. For a married couple with two young children, with the breadwinner earning $5,000, the total tax will be reduced by $137. This represents a 47 per cent reduction in the tax which would otherwise have been payable this year. This is equivalent to the taxpayer having received a wage increase of 3.6 per cent. If the same family had earned $8,000, the total tax reduction will be $141, equivalent to a 2.4 per cent annual increase in wages. If this same taxpayer had an income of less than $4,438, he will pay no federal income tax whatsoever. These computations have been made for residents of provinces having the lowest provincial rate of tax. For other taxpayers there would be minor differences in the calculations.
These measures will leave in the hands of Canadians an additional $1,300 million, of which about $900 million, or 70 per cent, will be concentrated in the hands of people with incomes of less than $10,000. Over 750,000 Canadians will pay no federal basic income tax this year as a result of these proposals. I should like to point out also that these provisions take effect from January 1, 1973, and continue indefinitely; that is to say, they will remain features of our income tax law unless parliament sees fit to make changes.
The second matter I wish to mention is one of great personal concern and one which touches every Canadian, the matter of the cost of living. I dealt with this earlier today. Our tax system is based on a progressive rate schedule. This means that as a person's taxable income increases, he pays a greater percentage of his income in taxes. This is basically a fair system and one which is used in most advanced countries. However, inflation causes a nominal increase in wages without there being a real or true increase in purchasing power. Hence, the interaction of inflation and the progressive rate schedule may cause a person to pay an increasingly larger percentage of his income in taxes even though his real income has not increased.
-
Over the years, parliament has raised the basic exemption for individuals on several occasions, often in response to the fact that any amount of inflation, be the rate great or small, erodes the value of the dollar. But changes in the level of exemptions are only a partial answer to this problem even if those changes are kept current. This is so because inflation hurts not only the taxpayers at the lower end of the economic scale but also those who are in the middle and upper income ranges. For this latter group of taxpayers, inflation can sweep an individual's income up into a higher tax bracket, which means that a higher marginal rate of tax will be applicable. Therefore, in order to alleviate fully the problem of inflation and the progressive rate schedule it is necessary not only to raise the level
June 18, 1973

of exemptions but also to adjust the rate brackets by a factor related to the inflationary increase.
This bill contains a measure which will eliminate permanently the need to have parliament act to alleviate taxation of inflationary gains. Effective January 1, 1974, there will be an index applied to the basic personal deductions which will automatically increase these deductions by the amount of the rate of inflation. In addition, the tax brackets will be enlarged by the same factor.
The starting point for measuring the rate of inflation will be the cost of living index, which is the best known and most widely accepted of the inflationary indices. The change in the cost of living index over a period from October 1 to September 30 of the preceding year will be the basis for establishing the increase in the basic personal deductions, the exemptions for the aged, the blind and the disabled and the rate brackets. Thus, for instance, once the rate of inflation has been determined for the period October 1, 1972, to September 30, 1973, the basic deductions for single individuals, married couples and for dependents, as well as the rate brackets, will be increased by the same percentage.
In an inflationary situation this is equivalent to giving a tax decrease to persons who have fixed incomes, retaining the same percentage of tax on persons whose incomes rise by the same percentage as the cost of living and increasing taxes only for those whose real income increases. I would like to say in passing that if we achieve that happy time when the cost of living actually decreases, there is no provision to reduce either the standard deductions or the brackets accordingly.
An example may be helpful. Suppose that in a particular year the rate of inflation was determined to be 4 per cent, although I do not accept that as a predictable rate for the future; even that is too high. In that case, each of the principal exemptions would be increased by 4 per cent and each bracket of taxable income would be adjusted upward by the same percentage. Thus, if the first bracket of income is $500, taxed at 15 per cent, once the inflation factor was allowed for the bracket would be moved to $520. By so doing, a taxpayer whose own income rose by 4 per cent would pay exactly the same percentage of his income in taxes in the second year as he did in the first year.
For example, let us look at a taxpayer who is married, with two children under the age of 16 and with $8,000 of salary income. In 1973 he would have had deductions totalling $3,850. His total tax in 1973 would have been $939, assuming he lived in a province with the lowest rate of provincial taxes. On his first $500 of taxable income this year he pays a federal rate or 15 per cent, on the next $500 a rate of 18 per cent, and progressively higher rates up the income scale. His marginal rate, the rate he pays on taxable income in the last bracket he reaches, would be 21 per cent. When he determines his basic tax in this manner, he computes his provincial tax by multiplying his basic tax by the appropriate provincial rate. Finally, he deducts $100 from his federal tax, the minimum amount of the new tax reduction. His combined federal and provincial tax for 1973 would be $939.
Let us now assume that his income increased 4 per cent in 1974 and the inflation factor was 4 per cent. The follow-
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
ing would occur because of the indexing proposal. His married exemption would increase to $3,120 from $3,000. His deductions, with two children, would go to $624 from $600. With standard optional deductions, his total exemptions would come to $3,994 instead of $3,850. His first bracket of taxable income would be $520 instead of $500, and each of the following brackets would also increase by 4 per cent. The cumulative effect of these changes would be a combined federal and provincial tax of $984. Without indexing, his tax would have been $1,027. Note that though the actual number of dollars which he pays in tax will go up, his tax as a percentage of income will be virtually the same. This means that his purchasing power has remained exactly constant notwithstanding the rate of inflation.
For those who are concerned about the effect of inflation on capital gains, I would like to point out that for individuals the indexing proposal also has the effect of reducing some of the negative effects caused by the interaction of inflation and the progressive rate system as they relate to capital in much the same manner as the system applies to wages and salaries.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Did you send a copy of that to Truro?


John Napier Turner: Yes, and I will make another speech there but only if you bring your family. The only problem is that hon. member had a good theory which he borrowed from Europe. I might say that he was adjusting income instead of adjusting brackets, and I have found a way to make it work for him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Members may wonder why we are proposing to delay this system until next year. There are three reasons. First, the changes proposed by this bill for the year 1973 are greater in magnitude than would be the effect of the indexing system if applied for 1973. Second, though the proposal is not complex it does represent a major innovation in tax policy and philosophy and it will take some time for both taxpayers and governments to adjust to it. Third, I wanted an opportunity to discuss this proposal with the provinces because the indexing system not only affects directly provincial revenues but also it has applications in connection with the revenue guarantee. Given these factors, it appears to be the wiser course to delay the introduction of the system by one year.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the minister permit a question? With the inauguration of the indexing system does the minister propose to reopen negotiations on the tax-sharing arrangements with the provinces?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, at the last meeting of ministers of finance we not only had on the agenda health cost financing and post-secondary education financing but the effect of the indexing proposal on the revenue guarantee. Of course, the fiscal arrangements act has until 1977 to run. We have taken the position that, strictly speaking, the indexing proposal does not affect the revenue guarantee. We have laid that position before the provinces and sent studies to them. We will have to meet again toward the end of the year to review the situation. The provinces did not give me a specific reaction as to how
26446-18|

June 18, 1973
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
they feel about it. However, it is a dollars and cents proposition and they will want to get back to me on it.
There are other amendments contained in this bill which will also be helpful to individual taxpayers. Authority is given by this bill to the Minister of National Revenue to allow reduced deductions at source in situations where he is satisfied that there would be undue hardship in maintaining such deductions at normal rates. While I should not like to speculate about specific situations, let me say that at the present time the Minister of National Revenue does not have this power and there have been instances in which it might have been useful if he could have used this authority to assist a taxpayer.
Another amendment proposes that a taxpayer shall have the right to elect to have more than the usual amounts deducted at source from receipts. Taxpayers often face a situation where withholding payments are at a rate lower than the rate at which they normally pay tax. This means that when they ultimately file their returns they are faced with finding the extra money to pay their tax. Many taxpayers would prefer to have more money withheld at source to avoid tax liability on April 30, and the bill will provide this opportunity on an elective basis. These two amendments give taxpayers a flexibility which they have never had previously in respect of deductions at source, and this new flexibility will undoubtedly be welcomed by many in this country.
Another proposed amendment would authorize an increase in the tax tables from $12,000 to $24,000. As hon. members are aware, many taxpayers are entitled quickly to determine their tax payable, once they have determined what their taxable income is, by using the tax tables. In 1972 this table covered tax payable on amounts of $12,000. The new tables will obviate the need for the taxpayer to work out in detail the various figures and percentages necessary to determine his tax liability.
This increase in the tables will become more important and helpful in 1974 once the indexing system starts. One result of indexing will be that the numbers at the beginning of the tax brackets, and the range of the brackets, will not be round, that is, taxpayers may find that the numbers they have to deal with may become complex. The tax table makes this calculation very easy. By extending it to the $24,000 of taxable income range, it ensures that the vast majority of individual taxpayers will be able to utilize the tax table, rather than figure out their taxable income with pencil and paper.
Before leaving the individual taxpayer, I should like to draw the attention of the House to a relieving amendment proposed with respect to insurance. As hon. members will recall, no income tax is imposed on the proceeds received by a beneficiary from a life insurance policy when payment is made a result of death. This exemption is now being extended to include payments made to a beneficiary in the event of a total and permanent disability. The purpose is to recognize that under such circumstances a taxpayer should be given all reasonable relief from taxation.
In addition to the foregoing provisions which I have mentioned, there are a number of technical changes pro-

posed in the bill arising out of tax reform. Most of these are relieving in nature, responding to requests which have been received from taxpayers. Some make technical changes to clarify the original intention of the reform bill; a few close so-called loopholes in the Income Tax Act which would have allowed taxpayers to minimize their tax in a manner which I believe would have been unacceptable to the members of this House and to the public at large.
Mr. Speaker, time does not permit at this stage of the debate, nor do the rules, a full explanation of all the amendments to the Income Tax Act which are contained in Bill C-193. I have had to limit myself to mentioning some of the more significant matters contained in the bill, primarily those items which will affect the individual taxpayer. I trust that what I have had to say will have been helpful to the members of this House, and I look forward to being able to give a more detailed explanation of specific proposals if and when the bill goes into committee.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the debate tonight on this bill seems anti-climactic in so far as so much of this stuff has been around for a long time. It is difficult, unless one studies Bill C-192 and Bill C-193 very carefully, to see what has not been swept out of the corner from the May 8, 1972, and February 19 budget. These are amendments of a minor nature.
We are dealing tonight with many aspects of the minister's budget. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) twitted the minister a few moments ago about what he said last October or September and what he said in Toronto after the election about proposals put forward by the Conservative Party for personal tax cuts. Of course, the proposals of the Leader of the Opposition were, in general terms, with regard to the necessity of establishing a personal income tax system based on a constant dollar or some sort of constant. After all, the present administration and its predecessor was aware of this need; it was pointed out to them again and again. Certainly, I availed myself of every opportunity to draw attention to the fact that the administration had a built-in interest in inflation; it desired inflation because its revenues went up correspondingly. Our tax system is so devised. A lot of it has not been changed since anno Domini. But we are saddled with a progressive rate income tax. I say "saddled" advisedly, because I am expressing the reaction of the average taxpayer.
There are arguments about this or that way of taxing personal income. One could go to Hong Kong, for instance, and find a flat rate. Then there are progressive rates with varying degrees of acuteness-some are sharper than others. We had a complicated rate to contend with before Bill C-259. But there is one thing about the rate before Bill C-259, the so-called reform bill; it did not gouge the taxpayer as much as the present schedule. The minister has now recognized that this is so by giving money back in the form of increased exemptions for various categories of taxpayer, and giving back a 5 per cent cut in the basic tax with a minimum deduction of $100 and a maximum of $500. This can amount to quite a percentage decrease for individuals at the lower level, and this is the category in which a large number of taxpayers fall. The minister
June 18, 1973

prides himself that this move was beneficent, taking some
750,000	people off the tax rolls. I am thinking also of the increase in personal exemptions.
The trouble is, of course, that with inflation running at a rate unchecked by the government over the past years, most of those people found themselves back on the tax rolls. So what had been given on the one hand had been allowed to slide out on the other. Now we are getting this corrective measure. I must say that what was a policy of bankruptcy for Canada last October has now become economic soundness. After all, one could not, surely, accuse the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) of advocating anything that was not sound; so now this policy of personal income tax cuts has, over a matter of a few months, become sanctified: from utter folly it has become the greatest of wisdom.
I am sure that no one will object to the $100 increase in personal exemptions for single people and $150 for married couples. This only takes up the slack of inflation since Bill C-259 was proposed, and will be effective this year.
I now come to my second point which has to do with the personal income tax system and indexing. The minister explained this in some detail and I think members of the House are quite grateful to him for reminding them of the proposal being put forward. We will certainly examine it in much greater detail in committee of the whole and obtain a fuller explanation. But one must remember that this does not apply to 1973; it comes into effect only in 1974. The minister explained that, having made this proposal, he now has to conduct negotiations with the provinces, and there may be some tough bargaining ahead if the provinces are to accept it as a matter of course.
It is not only the income tax system that is predicated upon the advantage for government of constant and steady inflation. It can be somewhat disconcerting at times when inflation is high for the government to find that the revenues predicted in the budget of February last were exceeded, not by $100 million but by $900 million. What was a clearcut, precise and even dogmatic assertion by the minister as to the state of the national finances turned out to be incorrect to the tune of $900 million. That being the case, how sure can the minister be of his predictions in other sectors?
With regard to personal income tax indexing, the minister can dolly it up all he wants but this is the basic idea that was espoused by the Leader of the Opposition for many months in 1972 leading up to the election. Perhaps not all of the details were there, but the idea is the same. It was said this was part of the Progressive Conservative policy of bankruptcy, of utter economy folly for Canada. It is strange that it took as long as it did to convert the minister to this idea and for him to clasp it to his bosom. But the minister is not the only one who has picked up ideas from the opposition during the last election campaign. There are many things which the Trudeau administration has suddenly discovered are not after all heresy but the most acceptable form of dogma. Now these items are being presented to the House.
One thing that bothers me a little about the constant dollar idea and about personal income tax indexing is the
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
necessity for a highly accurate consumer price index. If the objective is sound, then let us achieve it by using sound tools and building a sound framework within our income tax system. If the consumer price index is unsound, then the changes that are effected in the income tax framework are just as unsound as the tools that fashion it. Therefore, I hope that when we reach this point the minister will be prepared to discuss with us what he is doing, in conjunction with his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) and the director of Statistics Canada, to see whether we can improve the consumer price index system of recording.
When I was a university student many years ago, one of the ways I used to supplement my income was by being a CPI observer for the dominion bureau of statistics. I visited 20 or 25 both large and small grocery stores in the city of Edmonton and took a survey of the prices of food items. I thought at that time that a rather hit or miss approach was used to measure a great variety of qualities and sizes of fruits, vegetables, meats and so on. If you went to a particular little store one week that did not have a particular size or type of orange which was used as the standard measure, then some sort of rough gauge was applied to establish the true price. And there were many other similar items. I do not know what changes have been made in recording statistics establishing the consumer price index, but I hope we can be assured we have the best possible form of recording.
As a consequence of this, I think the increase in inflation will have a different impact in various regions of the country. Certain people in certain circumstances may get a greater net gain, but I suppose that this is part and parcel of the whole system and one cannot necessarily object to it. However, I point that out. I do not know what reaction the minister has had so far from the provinces. I am sure that when this proposal was announced the eyebrows of some provincial governments must have gone right up when they computed the impact it might have on their future revenues. It is true there are revenue guarantees under Bill C-259, but these are based on the personal income tax schedule as formulated by either section 117 or section 118 of the act; I am afraid my memory of the particular section is not clear.
Let me just recall the background of the revenue guarantees given the provinces. These were to permit the then minister of finance, as a result of his quarrel with officials of the province of Ontario, to propose in August of 1971 a reducing scale of personal income tax rates over a period of five years. But in order to satisfy the provinces, he offered revenue guarantees. I do not want to refer to the exact formula, but a basic guarantee was given to the provinces that they would not receive less in a subsequent year than they did in the base year, using the higher rates in the formula.


John Napier Turner: As against tax reform, not as against subsequent changes in the legislation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, as against tax reform. The question then arises, is this 5 per cent cut subject to the revenue guarantees? This is a matter about which the provinces may have something to say. Most of

June 18, 1973
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
the provincial premiers are faced with inflationary costs and do not like to impose additional taxes, particularly those who are experiencing election programming, and so on. They all want more money. Along with that desire for more money I wish some of them would exhibit as great a desire for economy in provincial expenditures. This is true in respect of the federal government as well. A good deal of economy could be practised, or at least more of the spirit of economy should prevail. In any event, this is one point on which I hope the minister will elaborate when we reach the next stage of the bill.
We will also have to deal with a number of miscellaneous provisions when we come to the clause by clause study. There are such things as taxes on profits paid to foreign governments, the extension of allowances for oil and gas wells, mines and timber limits, the processing of ore and the question of payment of damages arising out of an award for injury. This latter category has always been a difficult one. I hope its application will not be limited simply to lump sum payments. I have not seen the actual wording, but in essence I think it should be spread over as an annuity rather than as a lump sum payment, so that as such it will not be taxable.
I am wondering, also, if the minister has considered the point I have raised on previous occasions in respect of awards made to widows of police constables or security officers who are killed in the course of their duty. This presents some rather difficult problems in respect of equity. There should be equity not only in respect of recipients under the form of pension granted but equity in respect of other taxpayers. If a constable is wounded, left crippled for life and receives an award for damages, there is to be no tax; but if he is killed, his widow has to pay tax. In other words, in some ways it would be better for the individual to live out his life as a basket case than to die. Surely equity has to be considered in this field. I hope we can sit down some day soon and consider these problems.
It is not my intention to engage in a lengthy debate at this time.


An hon. Member:: Good.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would participate in the debate some time so that we may hear his type of contribution. I do not know who the individual was, but he clearly indicated that his strength comes from the seat of his trousers. In any event, it is not the intention of the opposition to engage in any lengthy discussion of this bill. It deals also with retirement savings plans with further amendments and refinements which are welcomed. Some time soon I hope we will find time for detailed consideration of this bill. That time might have been earlier had it not been for the semantics in respect of an associated measure which provides for corporate tax cuts. The matters before us are straightforward and are well received by the opposition. It is unfortunate they had to be delayed since February, when they were first presented, as a result of other considerations.
Perhaps I might make a personal plea to the minister at this stage of this low-key debate. During the last three budgets, debates on the measures proposed have taken place so long after the budget presentation that many people concerned lost any degree of continuity of interest.

I suggest that we should resort to the practice what applied when the rules were a little more stringent and the House applied itself with greater assiduity to debates on budget measures. In those circumstances we had a budget package, and the people understood what was happening. I am not sure that the minister and the government are not now trying to get these measures through on the basis of the least possible public interest. However, perhaps the minister would try to put his house in better order so that we can debate such measures after the budget presentation and following on right through.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has already indicated that Bill C-193 deals with individual tax cuts, as announced by the minister in his recent budget, by increasing income tax exemptions and by initiating for the first time a 5 per cent tax cut on a progressive basis with a minimum of $100 and a maximum of $500. This is to be effective next year. There is also provision for indexing taxes about which I will comment later.
That part of the measure now before us is wholeheartedly welcomed by members of this party. I refer to the $100 tax cut based on a progressive formula. The tax cut of $100 as a minimum will mean quite a bit more to those in low income groups. The minister has given us one or two examples of this fact in his remarks today. The ceiling of $500 is a good step in our taxation system. I think this system, once initiated by parliament, should be seen as an example for the future when we are talking about tax reform in this country. Because of this, the NDP will support the bill before us and will not hold it up in any way.
I think this party deserves some of the credit for this progresive step. Hon. members will recall that back in November and December when we were talking about making this parliament work, one of the things we wanted was tax reform in a way which would allow the low and middle income people to receive a bit of a tax break from the federal government. This is one of the measures members of this party welcome; we are happy it is now being presented to the House and will soon be law. This should be the vanguard of a complete reform of the taxation system in Canada. 1 think we still have a very unfair taxation system which places a heavier tax burden on low and middle income earners than on the wealthy and privileged people in our society. Our system allows the wealthy and privileged to take advantage of many tax loopholes so as not to pay their fair share. I should like to give one or two examples of what I mean.
In many cases, the lower and middle income taxpayer pays a higher percentage of his income in taxation than some people in the higher tax brackets. The bill before us today will correct this situation to some extent. I think this is only a small step in the right direction and for that reason I think it only right to put some of our viewpoints on record at this time. For example, let us take some figures from the Federation of Labour In Ontario, some 1970 statistics about a family of four and the amount of income they pay in taxes. This is both hidden and direct taxes, both federal and provincial; in other words, all the taxes that a family of four in the province of Ontario
June 18, 1973

would pay. I will give two or three examples of families with different amounts of income.
First of all, there is the family with an annual income of $5,200. In 1970 they paid 37.8 per cent of their income in taxation, that is, federal and provincial taxes as well as hidden taxes such as in food and gasoline, across the board. A family of four in Ontario with an income of $10,400 paid 37.6 per cent of their income in taxes. In other words, they paid a slightly smaller percentage of their income in taxes despite the fact that they had twice as much income, at $10,400, compared with $5,200.1 think that is one very good indication of an example where a family with a smaller income pays a greater percentage of their total income in taxes than a family with a higher income.
Another example I have here is a chart taken from the report on poverty by the Senate last year or the year before. It is based on Statistics Canada figures. Unfortunately, these figures are about 12 years old, but I am told that they are the most recent on the percentage of income that certain families pay in taxes. Again, this is total taxation both direct and indirect. According to these statistics, people earning under $2,000 a year in 1961 paid some 60 per cent of their income in taxation. If they went up from $2,000 to $3,000 a year, they paid 32.9 per cent of their income in taxes. If they earned between $3,000 and $4,000, they paid 32.2 per cent of their income in taxes. If they earned between $5,000 and $6,000, they paid 32.8 per cent of their income in taxes. Those with $10,000 a year and up paid 38.4 per cent of their income in taxes.
I think that some of these basic statistics from Statistics Canada, from the Senate report on poverty and from the Ontario Federation of Labour indicate the reasons why we should be more progressive in the taxation laws of this country, and I commend the government for the one step forward they have made today of the $100 tax cut as the minimum. I think that is progressive and that is the way we should go when we talk about reform of the taxation system across the board, because taxes, as I have already indicated, often hit the working classes hardest. They hit the low income person much more than the middle or high income person. For example, everybody, regardless of income, has to buy bread. The Economic Council of Canada says that in a loaf of bread you may have as many as 150 indirect or hidden taxes. You can see here that when you have hidden taxes of this sort there is bound to be a regressive taxation system that will hit the lower income person harder than the one with a higher income. That is the type of system we must try to change as rapidly as possible.
The second point I want to make tonight-and I will ask a few questions on this when we reach committee of the whole stage-concerns the new system that the minister has introduced, of indexing our income tax system. As I understand it, it will be the type of system according to which if a person pays 20 per cent of his income in taxes this year, his taxes next year, taking inflation into consideration, will be adjusted or indexed so that 20 per cent of his income next year will also be paid in taxes. One of the things that worries me, if my interpretation of the indexing system is correct, is that the system may not be very progressive; that a person who is earning a higher income
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
will be gaining more from that type of system. I think it works that way because it follows the general idea or rule which our tax exemption system follows now. When there is a tax exemption of, say, $100 or $200 for everyone across the board, it is the person earning the higher income who benefits most.
I will give the House a couple of examples of what I mean by the tax exemption system, under our law, assisting most the higher income people. Our party says that instead of an exemption system we should have a tax credit system which would help the lower income people to a greater degree than do exemptions. I have here figures that I have worked out based on last year's legislation when exemptions for a single person went up to $1,500. One can see here how the increase of $500 has assisted, in this taxation year, those with a higher income more than those who have less.
Take, for example, a person with a gross income of $2,000. If he was a single person with no dependants and had a $1,000 exemption, he was paying $109 in taxes. Last year, when that exemption was increased to $1,500, his tax bill went down to $75. In other words, this person saved some $33 because the tax exemption was increased from $1,000 to $1,500. consider a person with no dependants earnings $4,000 a year and taking advantage of the same tax exemption. His tax bill went down from $707 to $547, a net saving of $160. A person earning $8,000 a year saves $195; a person earning $25,000 a year saves, because of the increased exemption, $297. You can see the inequity in this type of system.
I suggest that instead of a tax exemption system, we should have in this country a tax credit system which would help the low income people more. We have an example of that in the bill before us, in the clause that provides for a 5 per cent income tax cut across the board, with a guaranteed minimum of a $100 tax cut for every citizen regardless of income and a maximum tax cut of $500. That is the type of system we should adopt in Canada; It would be much more equitable.
The third point that I want to make in this debate is that we should be striving as hard as possible to make our taxation laws more progressive in terms of what the ordinary people pay compared with the wealthy people or compared with some of the corporations in this country. If you look at the statistics, you find that the amount of revenue the federal and provincial governments have collected over the past 10 or 12 years from individuals, compared with those collected from corporations, indicates a developing trend which I and my party do not like at all.
I have here some figures from Statistics Canada which indicate that governments, both federal and provincial, are collecting less and less of their taxes from corporations as compared with individuals. To the federal income tax in 1962. 11 years ago, corporations contributed 38 per cent while individuals contributed 62 per cent. In 1970, corporations contributed 26 per cent, and individuals 74 per cent. You can see the tremendous increase in the tax burden on individuals as compared with the corporate sector. These, I may remind the House, are figures compiled before the corporate tax bill which we were debating previously was brought forward.

June 18, 1973
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
The same thing is true of the taxes collected by our provincial governments. It is true to an even more startling degree than the taxes collected by the federal government. In 1962, for example, 57 per cent of the taxes collected by provincial governments came from corporations, and 43 per cent from individuals. By 1970, only 22 per cent of the taxes collected by provincial governments came from corporations, and 78 per cent came from individuals. This is a trend that must be stopped, that must be reversed in terms of our economy in general, in terms of producing jobs and wealth and in terms of a more equalized taxation system where people pay taxes on their ability to pay, and where income will be taxed no matter where it is derived, whether from work in a factory, from clipping coupons or, indeed, from capital gains.
The taxation system in this country, as has been pointed out by our party and by Eric Kierans, both when he was a member of this House and after leaving it, has a very unfair and discriminating feature when it comes to dealing with industries. The gas and oil companies, as the House well knows, over the past ten years have paid taxes on only 5 per cent to 7 per cent of their book profits, and the mining companies have paid taxes on only 13 per cent of their book profits. A waitress in a cafe, a single person with no dependants, earning the minimum wage, is probably paying a higher rate of tax than the gas and oil companies. Why am I so concerned about that? I am concerned because we have a very unfair taxation system. But even greater than that, when you give that type of incentive to the extractive industries-and they are the capital-intensive industries-very few jobs are created.
Canada has a very high unemployment rate. This should be a central consideration in our tax laws. We should have an industrial policy to cope with this problem. I am told that the Iron Ore Company of Canada will invest some $900,000 for every job it creates. That is a tremendous amount of money to create one job. You can see right there the tremendous incentive we are giving to the extractive and resource industries and the type of economy and unemployment situation that results therefrom.
There are one or two other points of concern that I and my party want to raise in this debate. We are concerned that all income in this country is not treated the same way. If you are a worker in a factory, a nurse or a teacher, you will find that your wages are taxed pretty well to the last dollar. But if you are fortunate enough to possess a large amount of money, it does not matter where you get that money from-it could be from hard work, from investments, from a windfall gain or through inheritance-you are taxed in a different way.
In this country we have only a 50 per cent capital gains tax. We have a dividend tax credit for those who accumulate income from corporations and the clipping of coupons. This difference represents a very dangerous feature in our taxation system. It represents an important value judgment which our country has made about where your money comes from. In essence, we are saying you are more important if your income is derived from the clipping of coupons. This is a very bad principle upon which to start. It is a very discriminating feature in terms of the develop-

ment of our country. In effect, our tax system is based on inequity.
Just a few days ago, when I was speaking in this House on the corporate tax bill, I gave an example of what I meant by different taxes being applied to similar amounts of money. I believe the fundamental principle should again be drawn to the attention of the House. Here I take the example of three single people, male or female, each earning $10,000 per annum. The first person earns that amount of money as a worker in a factory, as a teacher or as a nurse. On that $10,000 he or she is taxed at $2,285 per annum. This person has a friend who earns $10,000 through capital gains. Because we have only a 50 per cent capital gains tax, the friend will pay only $844 tax. A third person also makes $10,000 a year on dividends from corporations, and he will pay only $193 tax.
That is a damning indictment of the type of taxation system we have in Canada, of the type of value judgment we have in this country where we place great value on persons who have a lot of money. We worship these people by giving applying a different taxation system and different rates of taxation. Both in the long run and in the short run, I think that type of system is not good for the country. It is a system that discourages the average worker, the average citizen. Of course, the philosophy of the Department of Finance and of the two old-line political parties is that the person who makes his money through capital gains or dividends will reinvest in the economy, thereby creating jobs and benefiting society as a whole. Mr. Speaker, this is not the most effective way of achieving that end. If you want to stimulate the economy and create jobs, you should be going about it the opposite way; you should be giving a tax break to the small man, putting more money into the pocket of the average citizen. He in turn will purchase more, this in turn will stimulate the economy and encourage more development and more job creation.
I am sure that if the average citizen, the low income person, had enough money to purchase a car, General Motors could still survive and still make a profit. I am sure this is also true of the furniture companies and food processing companies, because then the low income people would have enough money to purchase better quality food and furniture.
That is the philosophy of our party, Mr. Speaker, that we start at the bottom rather than at the top. Nothing can kill the initiative of people who work with their hands and their brains more than to know they are confronted with a tax penalty, to know that they are taxed in a different way from someone who may be fortunate enough to clip coupons or make his income from capital gains. If we could plug those tax loopholes in our taxation system, we would have more productivity; we would the type of economy that would be better for all Canadians, the small businessman, the working man, the farmer.
We need a fair taxation system, a system that uses the tax credit system rather than exemptions. We need a system that will tax all income equally no matter where it comes from, on the theory put forward by the Carter commission that a buck is a buck. We should not differentiate with respect to the type of occupation in which the dollar is earned. We need a full capital gains tax, exclud-
June 18, 1973

ing of course the exceptions that this party has always advocated, the family farm, the homes in which people live, and the small family business. These are some of the steps necessary for our society and economy to prosper. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would much prefer the extractive industries and the resource industries to be taxed in the way that we tax other industries in this country, so that they would bear their fair share of the tax burden.
I say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) through you, Mr. Speaker, that we in this party support the bill. I hope the progressive $100 minimum tax cut is a feature that we will see a lot of in the future. This, indeed, could be the beginning of a new taxation system in Canada that would give the average and low income earner a break.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-193 includes numerous amendments to the Income Tax Act. The purpose of the bill is therefore to implement the provisions of the motion concerning income tax of which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) gave notice on May 29, 1973.
One provision of the bill is designed to increase the basic exemption for single persons and married couples.
Mr. Speaker, I will say at the outset that the basic exemption is clearly inadequate, because in my opinion, with the present high cost of living, it would be unfair to levy income tax on individuals who have not even managed to go beyond the poverty line.
The report of the Senate Committee on Poverty says this:
The popular notion that our tax system takes from the rich to give to the poor is a myth.
Mr. Speaker, I know that all the hon. members are convinced of the truth of this statement, because even if we have been working at it for many years, we have not yet succeeded in correcting a situation which is worsening every day.
I keep on quoting:
Fifty six per cent of the income of those earning less than $2,000 (before transfer payments) goes to paying taxes. If social security contributions are included, this becomes 60 per cent of their income. By comparison, those with incomes over $10,000 pay only about 37 per cent in taxes.
And that is still too much, because I know a great number of heads of family with dependents who earn $10,000 a year and yet find it very hard to make both ends meet. Sometimes, they do not manage even if they are thrifty and lead a human, normal and sensible life, without any extravagance.
The committee goes on, and I quote:
Income tax exemption levels must be raised to the level of the appropriate "poverty line" for family units.
This is a problem which has been the subject of special studies by a Senate Committee on Poverty which has attracted the attention of members of the Economic Council of Canada who have very seriously considered this problem and made some recommendations, which this government is very slow in accepting and applying.
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
Among other things, it is strongly recommended as an immediate solution that the income tax be reduced by increasing the basic exemption level in order that taxpayers may have a minimum tax-free income and in order to ensure above all the satisfaction of the needs of individuals and their dependents.
If it is right to believe, on the one hand, that a reduction of the income tax in favour of big corporations will result in increasing the number of jobs in Canada, why on the other hand would a reduction of personal income tax not produce the same results?
If we are justified in hoping, thanks to the previous measure presented to the House, that by granting tax cuts to the large corporations we will stimulate the economy and create jobs, as a result of the increased revenues to these corporations, then I feel that the same results should be obtained by granting income tax cuts to individuals.
If the large corporations benefit from tax cuts, then it is only logical to leave the individual with a greater proportion of his income so that he can have greater purchasing power, in order to obtain more of the items produced by the large corporations.
The corporations might produce more, thanks to an income tax cut. And if we want to be realistic and take things to their logical conclusion, I think that it is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure that the individual's income is also increased, thus enabling him to buy what the large corporations can produce, to encourage increased production and to ensure that economic activity is pursued at full capacity.
In my constituency, a great many factory workers and farmers earn less than $100 a week, or less than $5,000 a year. I know these people. I meet them very often. Last weekend I even met some of them who told me of their problems and their worries.
There is another troubling fact that must be stressed: the Canadian Bill of Rights makes no mention of the economic rights of Canadians. Therefore, I believe there is a gap there. Surely, Canadian citizens have economic rights and the most essential is to be able to have an adequate income allowing individuals, family heads, to discharge their responsibilities in a dignified way, which is possible in 1973 in a country as great and as rich as ours, well provided for in all kinds of natural resources.
The concept of human rights goes back mostly to the Magna Charta, a latin expression which regained currency during consideration of the Bill of Rights. The Magna Charta was granted to England in 1215 by King John. Prior to that, English people were the king's things. There was no fair provision governing the rights of these citizens in order to ensure to all and each of them the equal recognition of their rights.
The Magna Charta sanctioned the political emancipation of the English and proclaimed the following freedoms: personal freedom, inviolability of the individual, alleged innocence till evidence of guilt, inviolability of the domicile, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Income Tax Law (No. 3)
These are therefore important rights. The Magna Charta had a serious deficiency, because it did not refer to the economic rights of the individual and the same thing has been done in Canada. For example, if any individual has the right to live, he is consequently entitled to the necessaries of life. In the past, the family could produce almost everything to satisfy its needs ob could, through barter, obtain goods which it lacked. Then, the workers could expect to produce more than they needed and barter their surplus for other products. Those who, for one reason or another, had no means of living were dependent on social welfare or the co-operative to which they belonged. It was then difficult to do better. Today however, the economy is quite different, the occupations being quite diversified and well classified. Some individuals, for example, will spend their entire lifetime screwing bolts onto automobile chassis; others will do the same casting all year long; that is chain production. Evidently, those people cannot eat or wear bolts or castings, but they exchange the value of their work for wages or money which will enable them to buy what they need.
But if the state, through its income tax laws, deprives them of a certain amount of their money, this keeps them automatically from spending a similar amount on providing for their needs. That is what we are now witnessing. I am not the one who discovered this state of affairs; persons who were paid by the Canadians, through some law or other, to study the problem throughout Canada, did so and suggested means to remedy the situation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, production has become like a giant co-operative to which each producer contributes; the collective production is then offered the Canadian consumers, and each is invited to choose whatever he finds suitable.
Obviously, if I need a tractor I will not buy a horse. So you must choose what you need. It is a free choice. Each individual is entitled to choose what he needs.
This way of producing, mainly with the assistance of science and machinery, is quite effective in achieving a high rate of production and a higher abundance of products for consumers. But then all consumers should be able to enjoy this abundance!
It seems that the time has come in Canada to complete the great Bill of Rights by adding to it a Proclamation of the Economical Rights of the Citizens, which would guarantee to everyone his share of this abundance and I think that even the Minister of Finance fully agrees with me since, when he introduced the motion which preceded Bill C-193, he said that such was the objective. We advocate slightly different ways of achieving it but we have the same objective. To reach this objective we shall eventually have to agree on the way to reach it in the most efficient way possible and to the advantage of the largest possible number of people.
In Canada, everyone is producing; everyone can produce enough goods to meet everyone's needs. Everybody knows that even though Canada is not currently producing enough of those goods, she could do it immediately by simply providing work to thousands of unemployed and by ordering from our industries which at present are operating at half their capacity.

I am convinced of one thing, Mr. Speaker. All hon. members receive each weekend numerous requests of all kinds from young men and young girls or from older people. Their assistance is requested to find a job. These people absolutely want to contribute to the greatness of their country, through their work, to produce something which the Canadian people may need and which are necessary to mankind, and they are available.
Mr. Speaker, I am sometimes angered when I hear people criticize youth saying; young people are lazy, they do not want to work anymore. Such assertions make no sense. I myself know large families with 10, 12, 16, 17 or 18 children, and I have always noted that in these large families, all the children look for a job after completing their studies in order to earn a living.
Last weekend, I met a few graduates from Laval University who asked me if I could help them to find some work. They searched for a job but they cannot find any. They are ready to go to James Bay, in the North in a word, anywhere, to serve their country. I even contacted the minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) to offer him these people's services. This means that young Canadians are available and ready to do something for the development of their country, to produce more in order to meet everybody's needs.
It is therefore our duty, as the elder and responsible people, to do our best to ensure that our laws enable those who still have some initiative to undertake something which might prove successful, in order to create jobs.
I listened this afternoon to the minister of Finance who spoke of 497,000 jobs being created. I believed him. I take his word but that is not enough. Our labour force is growing at a faster rate.
One must go faster than that in order to allow our country to change its method of recording statistics.
Statistics on unemployment are compiled, while statistics on the lack of manpower should also be compiled. An employment insurance act should be passed, instead of an unemployment insurance act-that is the whole difference, Mr. Speaker-in order to be able to work efficiently towards the progress of our country. I would like us to serve our country, to continue its development and to bring more and more Canadians to like their country, to find opportunities enabling them to live in it, and for that purpose very thorough reforms of our financial and monetary systems will have to be brought forth. I am convinced that the hon. Minister of Finance agrees with that. But he is caught in a mesh of circumstances, he must serve a system which refuses to serve in 1973. That is why we want to help him with all our strength. He can rest assured that he will receive our support when he wants to reform our system for financing the public sector.
When we look at statistics and realize that, each morning before the sun rises, we must dig into our pockets and come up, all of us, with $7 million to pay the interests on our public debt, this is preposterous. If we multiply this amount by 365 days, the result is $2 billion. How many things we could do with $2 billion!

Last week, when I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) whether he intended to ask the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) for additional funds so that he might authorize a greater number of projects under the Opportunities for Youth Program, he simply replied: I did not make such a request and have no intention of making any either. Mr. Speaker, this is disappointing for our young people who have submitted worthy projects. We should study these projects drawn up by responsible young people eager to accept, in their country, the invitation of the government which had told them: Prepare projects and submit them to us; then, we shall grant you subsidies which will enable you to do something positive. The budget of the Secretary of State is limited; he can do no more.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), who is now in his place, is aware of many problems with regard to the administration of LIP.
For my part, I feel I have done my duty by making honest and positive suggestions to the minister and the government to help them make a better selection amongst the LIP projects proposed to them, which are prepared, thought out and put down on paper by responsible individuals, but three quarters of which are turned down for lack of money. If it isn't for lack of money, I wonder if it isn't for lack of water; and if that is the case, we should have no problem this year because it rains every day. But that we know: there is no shortage of water, but of money!
With regard to financing the public sector, the Minister of Finance collects income tax by virtue of the Income Tax Act that applies to both individuals and companies, in order to have enough revenue to meet the financial needs of all the departments.
And so, the Minister of Finance is at the very centre of the whole federal administration.
That is why I am confident-and I say this to my country-as I am aware of the sincerity and honesty of the Minister of Finance, that before long he will consider seriously the proposals that have been made to him in order to correct the situation. We should stop financing the public sector of the Canadian administration, and thus bring about a release and enable Canadians to use the savings of individuals. Our private financial institutions could finance more efficiently the private sector and the private sector would become more effective because the money it needs to operate normally would be available.
I believe that Bill C-193 somewhat alleviates personal income taxes. I recognize that and I thank the minister for having done something. But that is not enough. More should be done more quickly so as to change our accounting methods when it comes to our human force, our work force.
Recently I was reading in a magazine published in a European country twice devastated by war, that it is a countdown that it is being done over there. Instead of having statistics on unemployment, they compile statistics on the lack of manpower, and that country, twice devastated, is lending money now to Allied countries, to Canada as well as others. And if there has been a transformation in its financing system, it is because satisfaction
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
was installed in the hearts of those people who served their country well and did their best.
It is distressing to see that young husky and healthy people, whose parents did everything to bring them up decently, have them educated so that they would get the diplomas they needed to earn a living and help their country, are lying sunk in sloth. There is no one to offer them a job when others have not enough time. And yet there are people who, like myself, work 15, 16 or 18 hours a day. We do our utmost to manage the country efficiently using old blunt tools. No matter the worker's ability, if he works with a blunt planer all the wood will be jagged. And yet he has been working very hard.
And this is what is done here. Then, let us manage to change the cylinder while it is still time because as I already read somewhere, our economic system will be reformed by orderly men with us and for us or by disorderly men against us and without us.
We know that nothing but bad can germinate in the mind of those young people who are head over heels in debt. I have been 20 years old once and it would not have been good to let me unoccupied. I worked for 5 cents an hour to sustain myself, but I worked. Nowadays, however, too many people cannot exchange their work for their sustainance.
This situation is difficult to accept in 1973 and Canada cannot afford it and this is why I urge the Minister of Finance to present to the committee, after second reading, amendments improving his bill to make it more generous for the individuals, and the workers to let them enjoy a larger part of the outcome of their work.
If there is anything more needed for administration purposes in the public sector let us get it from the Bank of Canada.
That is just an empty word, it is a meaningless institution.
I remember, Mr. Speaker, that when my leader, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) brought in a measure last winter to amend the Bank of Canada Act, the minister of Finance was in his seat listening attentively; he seemed to say that it would be logical to amend two sections in the Act to enable this institution to grant loans, not for six months, but for 60 years, as is done for certain European or Asian countries.
We may note in passing that even though evil tongues have said that we were against these loans which we grant abroad, that this is completely false. We have said, and 1 say it again, that if loans can be granted to others on such a long-term basis, and at the cost of administering them, why can this not be done in Canada, for the provinces and the municipalities? If the recipe is good abroad, it should also be good in our own country.
Mr. Speaker, the day is not too far off when all Canadians will ask the government, whatever it may be, to do something; its political affiliation is of no importance, what counts is its effectiveness, and more and more Canadians are discovering that a minority government is not such a bad thing for a country, because being in a minority makes the government less deaf, and causes it to

June 18, 1973
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
listen more attentively to the people's suggestions and demands.
We have witnessed this, we have proof of it, and I say that openly. The people whom we meet every weekend say it to us openly: Carry on as you are doing, we want to have a good administration; the government does not matter much, we do not care about that, as long as we are properly administered.
Over the past few months of this 29th Parliament during which we have been sitting, we have passed several good bills which Canada might have missed with a majority government. This means that this assembly of representatives of the nation, Parliament, is the supreme authority. If we assume our responsibilities and pass the best legislation possible, with the intelligence the Creator has endowed us with, we can give our country the best and most up-to-date legislation, while at the same time getting the executive to carry out the wishes of Parliament by administering in an objective and most efficient way possible the acts of Parliament.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, may I assure the Minister of Finance that, if he comes up with amendments likely to improve Bill C-193, even in limited way, we shall do the utmost to facilitate his task, in order that this bill may be adopted as quickly as possible. We are not eager for power or domination, but as Canadians, we make it our ambition to serve as effectively as possible those who are paying us to do so.

Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-193, to amend the Income Tax Act. I note that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is in the House and I would like to welcome him to the city of Sault Ste. Marie; I understand he is travelling there to address some dispirited Liberals.
We must have an equitable tax system; this is necessary for economic and social justice. But an equitable tax system is not in itself sufficient to achieve this goal because if the pattern of government expenditure is unjust, what is to be gained? However, there is no time to go into the question of government expenditure. I should like to deal with this bill in terms of just how equitable it is. There are three major ends accomplished by taxation. It provides goods and services, it seeks to distribute wealth among various groups in the economy, and it stabilizes the economy. It is true the bill before us attempts to redistribute wealth more fairly. It contains provisions to provide for tax credits and to index the tax rate taking into account the cost of living. How does Bill C-193 live up to the principle of equitable taxation? We notice that the personal income tax exemption has been raised. Before, it was $1,000 and it has been raised to $1,500 for a single person and $2,850 for a married couple. But it is important to remember that the $1,000 exemption was based on the cost of living in 1949, and if we are to comply with the principle of fairness we should take into account the cost of living today and apply it to the exemption. If we did so, the personal exemption would not be $1,500, as the government proposes, but at least $1,650 for a single person and $3,280 for a married couple, taking into account the rate of inflation since 1949. The government has at least made a

step but, as is typical of Liberal governments, it has not gone all the way to live up to the idea of fairness.
I think we should take as our guiding principles some of the recommendations of the Carter Commission on Tax Reform. That commission recommended that every citizen should assume his fair share of the total tax burden, that there should be a comprehensive tax base, and that no type of income should be excepted. If we compare this ideal with the realities of today, we find we are confronted with a very serious situation. The Senate report on poverty concluded that those in the lower income groups are still paying more taxes because of our system of hidden taxation. If we look at the figures for 1961 contained in the Senate report, which they are the latest figures available, we find that if a person's income is less than $2,000, taxation amounts to 60 per cent of that income. A person earning between $5,000 and $7,000 pays 32 per cent in tax, and a person making $10,000 and upward pays about 38 per cent of his income in tax.


Mr. Paproski:: Shame!


Mr. Symes:: There are basic injustices in the system, despite talk of reform which the Minister of Finance is so fond of repeating. Moreover, there are built into our tax system some frightening loopholes. I wonder how many people realize that in 1969 the following people paid no income tax whatsoever because of these loopholes: One person made $600,000 and paid not one cent in income tax in 1969. In the income group between $100,000 and $200,000 there were seven people who got away without paying income tax. In the $25,000 to $50,000 range, 98 people were able to escape payment of taxes. Breaking this down into professions, the figures are even more revealing. Two hundred and thirty-four doctors paid no income tax, neither did 128 dentists nor 237 lawyers. So there still remain, in our system, injustices and these must be righted if the government is to be taken seriously on the issue of tax reform.
There are some of the loopholes for individuals, but far greater are the loopholes that exist for corporations. Our party has stressed again and again that we will continue to seek justice for all taxpayers. In 1951, 29 per cent of government revenue was derived from corporations and 27 per cent from individuals. At the end of the fiscal year 1973, it is estimated that corporate income tax as a percentage of government revenue will decline to 16 per cent, whereas individual income tax will account for 43 per cent of government revenue. In other words, over the years corporations have been paying less and less tax and carrying less and less of the tax burden, and individuals have been paying more tax.
In light of this, what is the Minister of Finance proposing to do? He now proposes to reduce corporations taxes even further, from a theoretical percentage rate of 49 per cent to 40 per cent. The Conservatives, of course, support him despite the fact that for the first quarter of this year corporate profits increased by 53 per cent. The NDP say that it is time to give the individual taxpayer a break, and we can do this by making corporations start to pay their fair share. Remember that in 1969, 49 per cent of Canadian
June 18, 1973

corporations avoided paying any federal income tax. In 1973, corporate income taxes are going to decline by some $60 million while personal income taxes will account for $1,125 million additional federal government revenue. Surely there is need for reform in this area.
Another provision of the bill proposes to index income tax so we keep in step with the cost of living. In other words, someone paying 20 per cent of his income in taxes this year will pay the same percentage next year even if inflation increases. This is a good idea so long as the basic tax system is a fair one. If it is not, as I have suggested, then we are merely perpetuating the inequities of the system despite the indexing approach. The poor will still be discriminated against, and the middle income group in this country, not the corporations, will bear the brunt of the burden of taxation.
What we have been proposing over the years is the idea of a tax credit as the best way of overcoming inequities in our taxation system. I am pleased to see that a beginning is being made in the bill in this regard and that the minimum tax credit will be $100, which may rise to $500. This is the fairest way to bring about tax reform in Canada, and it is one of the recommendations of the Carter commission.
The progress that has so far been made in the area of personal income tax is the result of the minority position in which the government now finds itself. Last November, the New Democratic Party produced a shopping list and stated that if the Liberal government wanted our support, one of the top priorities of the government must be a reduction in personal income tax. This the government has done but only, as I have explained, to a certain degree; many inequities in the system still remain. We in our party will not be satisfied until we have a truly fair and equitable system of taxation in Canada, and we shall continue to press for reform in the months and years to come.
I see it is approaching ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, so I shall resume my seat in order that we may proceed with this tax bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to call it ten o'clock? Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is not agreed.


John Napier Turner: I think there is a misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker.


Reginald Cyril Symes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was not calling it ten. o'clock; I said I was resuming my seat.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry; I misunderstood the hon. member. I take it that the hon. member has now concluded his speech. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We could go into committee of the whole at this time without, however, obligating any member to rise and commence the debate. This might be
Adjournment Debate
the more convenient course, if the House would permit me to do this.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 54, I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole on the said bill.
House in committee on Bill C-193, to amend the statute law relating to income tax (No. 3)-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. McCleave in the chair.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill C-193, to amend the statute law relating to income tax (No. 3). It being ten o'clock p.m. it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to consider the bill again at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, on March 29 last, as reported at page 2729 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) whether he was proposing to introduce legislation to combine Manpower offices and Unemployment Insurance Commission offices. The minister replied that he was examining the relationship between the UIC and Manpower with a view to providing greater co-operation. Later in reply to a supplementary question he said he was examining the whole question in light of current conditions and situations, despite the fact the UIC and Manpower began to operate separately some six or seven years ago.
I am raising this matter in view of a questionnaire that was sent out in my riding. My riding is such that I have to send out at least 57,000 questionnaires to cover all householders, and I have been able to get an 18 to 20 per cent return on those questionnaires. One part of my questionnaire whether Manpower and UIC offices should be combined. Should all federal employment services be under one roof? Should offices be local in each community, and should they have full or at least part-time services? My constituents replied, 90.50 per cent in favour of these changes being made, and 4.29 per cent against.
Another part of the questionnaire asked whether persons qualifying for UIC payments should attend at manpower offices to collect their cheques and get assistance on

June 18, 1973
Adjournment Debate
job applications. Should the computer be dropped and should unemployment counsellors be responsible to issue UIC cheques? To that 75.50 per cent replied yes, while 17 per cent were against.
It has become clear to me as a result of talking with a number of my constituents that by and large Canadians are totally fed up with this mish-mash of Unemployment Insurance offices in one building and UIC offices somewhere else. This House also should be fed up with this situation. We are spending approximately $2 billion per year in unemployment insurance and an additional $500 million this year in Manpower services. We have in this country two agencies separate and distinct, both dealing with the employment situation. One agency is called Manpower and is supposed to look for jobs for people, and the other agency is the Unemployment Insurance Commission which is paying out money to the jobless.
Surely it is time for a rethinking of this situation. It is time this government related jobs to the jobless. We should have a new employment policy rather than an unemployment policy. The philosophy of this government is an unemployment philosophy. We need a new thrust, a new policy; an employment policy. We should relate our search for jobs to the jobless. We must go out and find work for those who want work, and that can only be done by combining these employment agencies under one roof.
The Unemployment Insurance Commission is a remote commission. It concerns itself with sending out forms and computerized cheques. When it discovers on occasion that people are cheating, it sends out its super cops known as benefit-control officers. It is not really concerned one iota with finding work for those who want work. Surely the purpose of an employment agency is to go out into the marketplace and help those who seriously and honestly want work, to find work. The Unemployment Insurance Commission does nothing of the kind; it operates on the philosophy of mailing out cheques, keeping the unemployed happy so they will not bother the commission. In effect, it says, "Don't phone; we will get in touch with you".
Let us consider our Manpower service. It operates with a bunch of schemes. It has a retraining scheme in respect of which it makes payments to those it deems retrainable. Again, it makes those payments without any real reference to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Today we have two arms of the same ministry making payments to people who are unemployed. This is absolutely ridiculous. We have a similar situation in respect of moving allowances. Officers of the Manpower service will suggest to an individual there is not an employment opportunity in one community but there is an opportunity in another, and will pay a moving allowance; yet there is no reference to the Unemployment Insurance Commission in this regard.
We have the problem of temporary work, the situation where there are many jobs in the community that are of a temporary nature. But, unfortunately, if a person on unemployment insurance accepts one of these jobs, in many cases he jeopardizes his claim to unemployment insurance. So we have the unemployment insurance system working against a person legitimately out of work who wants to help himself. A member of the House said

that he cannot get help in the sugar bush. The reason is clear; a job in the sugar bush lasts maybe two or three weeks, and to take that job makes you fully employed. But then you are back in the system and you may have to wait two or three weeks or more to get the unemployment insurance cheque. So we have all sorts of problems of people who could work-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I do not share the view of the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) that integration of Manpower and Unemployment Insurance offices is essential to achieve effective co-ordination between the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the UIC. The fullest degree of coordination and co-operation is needed to ensure that the unemployed get all the services of both organizations, but that does not necessarily require organizational integration. There is, in fact, a high degree of co-ordination and co-operation at present and interagency committees are actively at work to further strengthen this co-ordination and co-operation.
I might suggest to the hon. member for Peel South that if he wishes to obtain a valid response from his constituents he should put before them the reasons on both sides of the question that he is asking them. I would also suggest that he should put forward, on the side of the argument that he was making, factual claims that are somewhat more accurate. Unfortunately, I do not have time to deal with that this evening.
The reasons for organizational separation of the National Employment Service from the UIC in 1965 and the establishment of the Department of Manpower and Immigration in 1966 are still valid. The reasons were several and I will not go into them in detail here, but I want to mention that the separation was recommended by the committee of inquiry into the Unemployment Insurance Act-the Gill committee-and was supported by the Economic Council of Canada. The basic purposes for that recommendation and for the establishment of the Department of Manpower and Immigration included bringing together the various federal elements concerned with manpower policies and programs in order to develop an integrated approach to the development and implementation of such policies and programs, and to more effectively co-ordinate these with immigration policies and programs.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-SUGGESTED RECOMMISSIONING OF CERTAIN DESTROYERS FOR USE IN PROTECTING FISHERMEN-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid this is going to be another Hansard reporter's nightmare tonight, because I have many things to say and very little time in which to say them. On June 1, 1973, I asked the following question of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson):
-in view of the fact that it would cost about $1.6 million a year to put the four destroyers to sea-we are talking about a total
June 18, 1973

investment in those ships lying alongside amounting to $160 million, so here we are talking about 1 per cent of that investment- and in light of the fact we could probably draw 700 men from the National Defence headquarters and never feel it... will the minister reconsider his decision to let the ships lie alongside and put them back to sea where they could at least assist our fishermen in avoiding the kind of harassment they sometimes experience from larger ships of other nations?
The minister's reply was:
Mr. Speaker, I am certain the hon. member knows that we have recently commissioned three new DDH destroyers which have a much greater capability than the ones to which he is referring.
Put in its most polite form, the answer can only be described as nonsense based upon a massive lack of comprehension of the problem. My impression that the minister's response is based upon misapprehension of Canada's maritime needs is reinforced by the even more fantastic suggestion which he tossed off in response to one of my questions when he appeared before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, that he might sell four destroyers currently lying inactive or, more properly, four of our destroyers so that none would remain inactive.
These replies are so removed from reality that one scarcely knows where to begin to criticize them. First consider the fact that one government department, the Department of the Environment, has caused legislation to be passed in this House extending Canadian fishing limits to 12 miles, based on the straight baseline principle. Further, it has presented legislation asserting Canada's right to exercise control with respect to the potential to pollute over vessels in waters many miles distant from our coast, legislation designed to ensure that our Arctic waters are pollution-free, and now, in co-operation with the Department of External Affairs, is preparing to argue that the International Law of the Sea conference that Canada and other maritime nations should have jurisdiction over fishing and the sea lanes out to the limits of their continental shelves, in Canada's case a distance of approximately 200 miles. That means that the area of the sea, over which Canada legitimately wishes to exert some control with respect to fishing and pollution prevention, might be conservatively estimated at 700,000 to three-quarters of a million square miles.
Second, consider that in order to enforce its wishes out to the limits of the continental shelf, Canada has at its behest the following equipment capable of operating out to 200 miles from the coast or beyond that distance. In the Department of National Defence there are somewhat in excess of 50 aging Argus and Tracker maritime patrol aircraft, both in need of replacement shortly, and any of which, if they observe a violation of our laws, are incapable of effective action to prevent its continuance. The Department of National Defence also has at its disposal three support vessels which are not designed for such tasks, four submarines which can be considered to be only marginally effective in such a role, and 24 destroyers. Of the destroyers, two are not yet in commission, that is, they have not yet left the hands of the builders. I am speaking of the DDH 280 class destroyers. Two others, while in commission, are not expected to achieve operational readiness for another one to one and a half years. All of which
Adjournment Debate
leaves us with 20 destroyers, two or three of which will be under refit at any given time and four of which, I have been informed in answer to order paper questions, at any given time will be incapable of going to sea because they are inadequately manned. Thus, the Department of National Defence at the present time, at any given time, has available for use 13 to 15 vessels capable of enforcing the laws of the land now in effect or contemplated for over three-quarters of a million square miles of ocean.
The Department of Transport has 43 vessels capable of operating as far out as 200 miles from the coast. However, to utilize them in the capacity I am suggesting tonight is necessary would involve abandoning or neglecting such essential services as icebreaking, northern escort service, northern resupply, maintenance of navigational aids such as buoys, weather reporting, and search and rescue. Each of these DOT vessels is already overemployed, so they can be eliminated from our calculations of what is necessary to enforce the laws about which I am speaking this evening.
The RCMP have no vessels capable of operating as far as 200 miles from the coast. The Fisheries Protection Service has five such vessels, four on the east coast and one on the west coast. To exert effective control over the three-quarter million square miles of ocean over which we wish to exert control we would have to have a vessel within 12 hours steaming time of any reported incident. This means approximately 30 vessels ready for sea, or at sea, at any given time. Presently, as I have demonstrated, we may have as many as 19 available for such duties, taking into account all marine services.
Why then, in heaven's name, are we allowing four first-rate destroyers, whose average projected useful life would be ten years and which represent a minimum capital investment of $160 million to $200 million, to lie idle when for a cost of less than 1 per cent per annum of the total capital investment involved, over and above the moneys currently being spent on maintaining them, these vessels could be at sea, being useful? Why are we even considering selling them, when they could be so eminently useful, and their sale would recover only a fraction of their value? Our maritime commanders, east and west, are crying out for more vessels to carry out their assigned tasks, yet at any given time four remain idle for lack of expenditure of an infinitesimal portion of the total defence budget.
For too long DND, largely because of lack of effective political leadership and continuity in political leadership, has been penny wise an pound foolish.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I say that it is very seldom we on this side of the House accept a "conservative" estimate from a New Democratic Party member. Leaving out his unrealistic comments regarding National Defence headquarters, the hon. member from Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) will recall that on 1 June when he raised this matter in the House the minister replied:
-we have recently commissioned there new DDH destroyers

June 18, 1973
Adjournment Debate
which have a much greater capability than the ones to which he is referring.
There can be no doubt that a ship equipped with two helicopters will provide a substantially improved capability, in terms of time and space, do carry out surveillance and sovereignty activities when compared to ships that do not have a helicopter capability. The primary responsibility for the regulation and protection of our fishing fleets remains with the Department of the Environment. In addition to this, the Department of Transport operates vessels also employed on regulatory duties.
If anyone in this House is aware of ships, operating costs, the hon. member should certainly be aware that destroyers with their complex design and specialized capabilities are relatively expensive to operate in comparison with patrol vessels. Another factor to be considered is the seasonal nature of the fishery and the relatively short period of the fisheries patrol requirement in relation to a 12-month period. The department is right now providing support to the fisheries protection responsibilities of the Department of the Environment with both Argus and Tracker aircraft. As a result of recent discussions with the Department of the Environment, the Canadian forces aircraft flying hours in support of these operations have been increased from 2,200 hours annually in 1972-73 to 2,440 hours in 1973-74.
In economic terms, therefore, because of (a) relatively high operating costs of destroyers, (b) the seasonal nature of the requirement, and (c) the flexibility provided by aircraft in terms of time and space, it would be uneconomic to employ destroyers on fishery patrol duties.
The basic position is that traditionally Canada has not employed warships for fisheries protection. Warships should only be used as patrol vessels in the event of major encroachments and fisheries patrol vessels are unable to deal with the situation. If it should be decided that circumstances required the presence of warships, we already have sufficient destroyers in operation on both coasts to carry out this role.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-REQUEST THAT COMMISSION MAKE EARLY DECISIONS ON BENEFIT ELIGIBILITY TO AVOID OVERPAYMENT CLAIMS
Mr. Ian Arrol (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks are related to a question I asked in the House of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) on May 22, 1973, which appears at page 3596 of Hansard as follows:
In view of the fact that thousands of people who have been receiving and thought they were entitled to unemployment insurance benefits are now being assessed overpayment bills-one of my constituents was recently assessed $2,600 as an overpayment- would the minister instruct that if a person is not entitled to the payments he should be informed sooner than is now the practice in place of the current cruel practice of making payments month after month, leading the recipient to believe he is entitled to the money and then billing the recipient for everything he has received.
I imagine the simple answer from the standpoint of the government is that the recipient should not have applied for unemployment insurance in the first place if he was not entitled to receive benefits. But I would suggest that the way in which unemployment insurance benefits have

been given out in the past tends to lead the general public into believing that they are suckers if, during a period when they are not working for whatever reason, they do not apply.
Benefits have been handed out so loosely that if, for instance, a housewife intends to work during a holiday season for eight weeks, and only eight weeks, her friends are shocked to learn that at the end of her period of employment she has not applied for unemployment insurance. Her friends will point out instance after instance of people on benefit who do not need the money and who do not want a job. Rare would be the resident of Canada who does not know of at least one person who has had or is receiving benefits to which they are not strictly entitled.
The way in which benefits have been passed out has led to demoralization, to a feeling that if everyone else is ripping-off the government, "Why not me", to a feeling that honesty does not pay. The overpayment situation is a reflection of the confusions and misunderstandings associated with unemployment insurance, confusions and misunderstandings shared both by the general public and the administrators. How are the administrators supposed to administrate, and how is the general public supposed to respond when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of the country has said that anyone may apply? The Prime Minister was quoted in the Toronto Star of March 11, 1972, as saying: "You know there are people on unemployment insurance who prefer not to work and they have a perfect right to make that decision ... there should be no stigma attached to that. They paid their unemployment insurance premiums."
Many Canadians have been conditioned to feel that their unemployment insurance payments are like money in the bank, to be drawn out at a high rate of interest at any time the move so strikes them. The government should emphasize that unemployment insurance is just that, insurance against unemployment; just as, for instance, fire insurance is insurance against fire. A person who has insured his house against fire would not consider that all the money he has paid into the policy should be his when he moves out of the house unless, of course, his house has been burned down. Yet thousands of Canadians have been conditioned to feel that somehow they are being cheated unless they get back a bonus from the UIC.
The regulations in the past have been so loosely administered that many people do not in fact know whether or not they are entitled to benefits; so they apply, believing the government will let them know whether or not they are eligible. They will ask questions, and be told that their application will be considered. They will phone, and get different answers from different people. They will write, and receive no answer other than a repetition of a form letter previously sent. Finally, payments arrive. The recipient feels all is well. Months later he gets a visit from an official of the UIC; then, weeks or months later he receives an assessment for an overpayment and often he will owe everything he has received.
The government should bring forward Bill C-175 which is designed to clarify and, when needed, tighten the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. We need new legislation to end the confusions and misunderstandings
June 18, 1973

associated with the policies and administration of the unemployment insurance program.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, overpayments arise from different sources, but mainly from lack of information or incorrect information given to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. If the commission is not made aware of the facts for an extended period of time, the overpayment could amount to a substantial amount. Regrettable as the circumstances may be in particular cases, the act is very specific in that benefits incorrectly paid must be repaid to the commission. There is an obligation to repay this money to the Crown regardless of who is in error. I would point out that the commission is always disposed to discuss suitable terms of repayment.
As the hon. member opposite pointed out, there are many confusions and misunderstandings about this program, confusions and misunderstandings which, I might point out, are not helped by his quoting the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) out of context. The hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) at five o'clock this afternoon perpetuated another confusion and misunderstanding when he suggested that those who receive overpayments are asked by the UIC to pay back tax payments
Adjournment Debate
which they have not even received but which have been paid by the UIC directly to the Department of National Revenue. The hon. member is six months out of date, because although that did happen for part of last year the problem has been straightened out this year and no longer occurs.
I might also point out that there are provisions in the unemployment insurance regulations which can be employed to erase an overpayment when it would cause undue financial hardship. I refer to regulation 175, subsection (1), which provides that amounts owing may be declared by the commission to be no longer due and owing in certain cases. Most of these are fairly narrow cases, but the broadest of them is where the commission considers that, having regard to all the circumstances, the sums are uncollectable or the repayment of the sums would result in undue hardship to the claimant. Obviously, the Unemployment Insurance Commission would want to use such discretionary power in very, very limited circumstances. However, the fact is that it does exist in those rare circumstances to which it ought to be applied.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before adjourning, I should point out to hon. members that both Houses will meet in this chamber at 11 a.m. to hear the Prime Minister of India.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:28 p.m.

Tuesday, June 19, 1973