1975-11-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: -to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. This is a motion which is self-explanatory. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Prime Minister advise the House whether or not the government has information in its possession that Senator Louis Giguere disposed of approximately $95,000 received from the sale of stock in Sky Shops Export Limited by passing on, after deducting expenses-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, if the trained seals will stop talking so loudly I might be able to read my motion.


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I do submit that a member of the opposition is entitled to read a motion without members on the government side of the House interfering with that right of free speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I would like to finish my motion if I may, Sir.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: The motion continues as follows:
-by passing on, after deducting expenses and making possible payment of capital gains tax, the balance of the remaining'moneys to the campaign funds of the Liberal Party of Canada and, if so, whether the government will therefore consider this further reason for a full judicial inquiry into the entire situation with the terms of reference for such an inquiry to include complete examination of all donations received by the Liberal Party of Canada in the months preceding and following the federal election of October 30, 1972.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HIGHWAY SAFETY
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since a very high percentage of traffic accidents are due to reckless drivers who regularly violate the highway code and since Ontario Solicitor General Roy McMurtry has already made representations to have the federal government impose stricter penalties to drivers who are regularly guilty of serious motoring offences, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That this House consider the opportunity of imposing stricter penalties for drivers who are regularly guilty of serious driving violations and that these penalties include the suspension of the driving permit for periods up to a life term for drivers who are particularly careless.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such a consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the hon. member's motion therefore cannot be put.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise to propose a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the fact that there exists a very likely possibility that the major facilities for the Olympic games in Montreal will not be completed in time. In view of the fact that the
8902

November 6, 1975
Misleading Statements
President of the International Olympic Committee, Lord Killanin, has indicated a willingness for partial decentralization of the games and because of the fact that Mayor Juba of Winnipeg today reaffirmed his offer to make the world's largest swimming and diving facilities in Winnipeg available to the organizing committee, it is obvious that the time has come for us to concern ourselves not only with the integrity of the mayor of Montreal but the integrity of Canada as a whole. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That this government, in order to safeguard its already vast financial and moral commitments to the games, request the Olympic organizing committee to move the swimming and diving events to Winnipeg in order that COJO then may concentrate their construction efforts on the main stadium complex.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSED COMMITTEE STUDY OF ALLEGED MISLEADING
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise on a question of utmost urgency and importance. The matter relates to a statement made by a leader of the committee representing the Government of Canada in the State of Alaska. The statement by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) was made in reference to hearings held in the State of Alaska on the trans-Canada pipeline route. The hon. member defended a Canadian route to the press which quoted him in a front page report in the Daily News Miner of Fairbanks, Alaska on October 11, 1975 as saying, and I quote:
The native rights have been extinguished in the Northwest Territories;
And further that:
the provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia are not controlled by socialist governments;
And that:
foreign investment legislation is not enforced in Canada ...


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member wishes to put a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 he can do it forthwith.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, in light of these misleading statements by the hon. member on behalf of the government, I move seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the government be required to issue a reference immediately to the appropriate committee of Parliament to inquire into the circumstances leading to these statements.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A motion under Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General about the state of negotiations with the Post Office employees, whether the negotiations have broken off and what progress he can report to the House.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the right hon. gentleman for the opportunity. Talks broke off about twelve o'clock at my insistence in my capacity as delegate of the Treasury Board. They broke off because all non-monetary items of substance had been resolved and initialled. I had offered a mandate which I felt was very fair, equitable and equal to that of the letter carriers and recommended by the conciliation board chairman of $1.70 over a period of 30 months plus a COLA clause, plus a weekend premium, plus shift differentials. I have no intention of recommending to my colleagues that that mandate be exceeded, a mandate which will have to eventually, if accepted by the union, be approved by the Anti-Inflation Board.
I feel morally that I have bargained in good conscience and that every copper within that mandate is now on the table for the union's acceptance. I gather they are meeting this evening to see whether to accept or reject it. I hope they will act in a democratic manner and place the package before their membership from one end of the country to the other so that the membership may have the opportunity of expressing itself democratically and without coercion on whether or not this is a satisfactory settlement in the light of the present conditions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the Postmaster General for his reply. There are many questions that I would ask him but I would not wish to ask any that might prejudice a resolution of the issue, so I will leave it at that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON USE OF PART-TIME EMPLOYEES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question also for the Postmaster General. The minister said to the House that all non-monetary matters were settled. I should like to ask if what he said pertains also to the issue of part-time employees.

November 6, 1975


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, questions relating to part-time employees and their participation in weekend premiums and shift differentials was not even the subject of negotiations because, in my opinion, if it is socially unacceptable for regular workers to work on weekends, it is socially unacceptable for part-time workers to do so also. That and the clause on automation was accepted some considerable time ago, and the only issue that remained was whether or not we are to exceed the recommendations of the independent chairman of the conciliation board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be perfectly clear on this. At this point that is what I really want to do. It is my understanding-and will the minister correct me if I am wrong because I suspect it is very important in the negotiations-that in fact there has not been agreement achieved pertaining to part-time employees and, more specifically, concerning a formula that they have been discussing with the government representatives. As I understand it, their urging is that the government come forward with some specific formula pertaining to part-time employees, and this has not been done.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I must point out to the hon. gentleman that even if we were agreed on the formula this would not bring an end to the strike, which is significant. What is significant is that the strike will end only, in the opinion of the union, when we provide them with a 35 hour work week and a sum of money between 38 per cent and 52 per cent, which is completely irresponsible on the part of the union negotiators.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-REASON GOVERNMENT OPPOSED TO LIFTING CEILING ON COLA CLAUSE
John Edward Broadbent: I conclude from what the minister said that the issue of part-time workers has not been settled, contrary to what he said earlier. Since one of the points the postal workers are asking the government to comply with is to lift the ceiling on the COLA clause, and in view of the fact that if the government's own anti-inflation program is successful next year, it need not worry from a financial point of view about lifting the ceiling on the COLA clause-and if its program is not successful, all the more reason for the workers directly affected to get the benefit of an increase, which would make up for the increase in the cost of living-why, in terms of this side of the monetary issue, will the government not agree to that?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, at the moment there is only one bargaining unit with any COLA clause in the public service, and that is the letter carriers.


John Edward Broadbent: There should be more.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Don't brag about it.
Oral Questions


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The only other was an arbitration award which would provide a sum of wages equal to the cost of living. If CUPW were to accept a COLA clause similar to the letter carriers, it would then be the second bargaining unit. This COLA clause is capped, but conceivably at the end of the contract, and since it is a cumulative feature, adjusted quarterly, it could result in an extra 60 cents an hour on top of the 30 cents extra which prevails at the time. That is much more generous than the COLA clauses which exists in the socialistic provinces of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF INTERVALS AT WHICH SALARY INCREASES EFFECTIVE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just pointed out that the increase offered to letter carriers is $1.70 an hour, over a period of 30 months. Could he advise this House at what intervals the increase will be paid? Will there also be a raise geared to the cost of living index?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, it is not a collective agreement with letter carriers but with postal workers. I would prefer that the unions explain themselves to their members at what dates this increase of $1.70 will be distributed. I think it is the right of the union to tell its members the conditions of the agreement. I hope it will clearly explain our proposal to the membership across Canada.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport arising out of the replies he has given in this House in respect of the lease extension granted Sky Shops Export Limited at Dorval.
In view of his remarks in the House, can the minister confirm for us that Mr. Eric Winsor of his department was correct in stating, as he did in his letter of March 17, 1970 to Mr. Lapointe, that, and I quote:
-it has always been the policy of the Department of Transport to invite general public tenderson such leases and lease extensions?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, that is, no doubt, an accurate statement of general policy, but in the case of any specific circumstances changes do occur.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: It has indeed been the specific policy to take into consideration special circumstances.


An hon. Member:: What are those?
8904

November 6, 1975
Oral Questions


Mr. Mazankowski:: Don't try to cover up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: In the case of Dorval, certain extensions to leases without tender have been granted to bring them into line with a particular joint termination date. In the case of the Sky Shops lease in particular-a duty shop operation which was completely dependent upon international traffic for its viability-the decision to allow for an extension, which then had three years and seven months to go before the termination of the existing lease, permitted the construction of appropriate facilities far more suitable for the operation and was considered one of the circumstances which allowed for an extension without tender.


DORVAL-INQUIRY WHETHER LESSEE AT MALTON OFFERED EXTENSION SIMILAR TO SKY SHOPS WITHOUT COMPETITIVE BIDS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I find that answer very interesting. The minister has placed emphasis on the gradual transfer of the duty free business from Dorval to Mirabel as a reason for this unusual lease extension to Sky Shops. Since during the same period this government was also proposing a new international airport at Pickering, can the minister tell the House whether the lessee at Malton was offered or given a similar extension without any opportunity for competitive bids?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member may have missed a rather key point. There was in the proposal for Dorval a proposal for some important capital reconstruction. I do not know whether any similar situation existed in the case of Malton. In any case, the date of transfer of traffic was rather further away, if not, as it turned out, more hypothetical.


DORVAL-ALLEGED DEPARTMENTAL CONCERN ABOUT SPREAD IN RATES BETWEEN SKY SHOPS AND MALTON LESSEE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary. Can the minister explain the apparent contradiction between his statement yesterday that the rates in the Sky Shop lease compare "very directly" with rates charged at Malton when Mr. Winsor in the letter I referred to previously, stated at that time that he was concerned about the spread between the two and the fact that the lessee at Malton was paying 15 per cent even then in 1970 for a franchise which was not as all embracing as the one held by Sky Shops?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it would be helpful if we tried to be a little more careful about what our references-


An hon. Member:: Right on!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I thank hon. members most sincerely for their support of that proposition. The hon. member for Central Nova I think is one of the more responsible members in the opposition and I wish-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I, of course, do not have the particular letter in my hand, but I believe in fact there was no particular reference to the 15 per cent in it but that it was an addendum from other sources. That is one problem of accuracy which I know was unintentional. Secondly, the fact of the matter as I understand it at that particular point in time was that the Malton lease was on the basis of 15 per cent up to a particular level, namely, $150,000 in sales and then 5 per cent thereafter and was subsequently renegotiated to a figure of 15 per cent and 8 per cent after the $150,000 maximum. At the time in question, of course, the Dorval lease was very much out of line because that lease, having been entered into in 1964, was running at a 5 per cent level. In the letter from Mr. Winsor there was reference to the fact that certainly something closer to the Toronto level would be expected. In his letter he did not in fact go on to refer to the 15 per cent, if I am looking at the same letter or thinking of the letter to which the hon. member referred, although I know the hon. member added the 15 per cent in his own hand subsequently to that letter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice arising out of the information contained in the petition that has now been circulated, I understand, and is within the purvue of the minister, the petition signed and filed by the hon. member for Central Nova. Can the minister tell the House whether he and his advisers have reviewed this material in terms of the possible legal implication to the events involved and have they reached any conclusion or initiated any action as a result of that review? Particularly, I should like to ask whether the minister has conferred with the Solicitor General with respect to a possible RCMP investigation of this matter or whether he can inform the House if the RCMP is already on the case?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to all the questions, we are reviewing the material which was submitted to see whether there is appropriate action for the law officers of the Crown.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF PAROLE OF CLAUDE PITRE
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Solicitor General.
In view of the criminal kidnapping of a nine-year old child and extortion attemps committed yesterday in Montreal by four bandits, two of whom were on parole, under surveillance or not, and one of them Claude Pitre against whom I had asked for and obtained a 25-year imprisonment sentence in 1961 and whom I had called the Hold-up King, could the Solicitor General let the House know the
November 6, 1975

circumstances of their release on parole and what new steps he intends to take without any further delay to ensure the greater peace and security to which all the citizens of this country are entitled?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, Claude Pitre had been sentenced to 25 years in 1961, as the hon. member pointed out. He served 14 years before being granted parole. He was granted day parole on November 4, 1974, and that seemed to work well. He had a job outside prison and worked steadily. On June 6, 1975, he was granted full parole and continued to work regularly. He was last seen by the parole supervisor on October 14, and November 4, and everything seemed to be going well until the unfortunate event of yesterday. I can only tell the hon. member that we have checked with the parole board. Seemingly, they had checked this matter thoroughly. They checked with the community authorities, and the police. The man had seemed to be working out all right after a long term of imprisonment. Despite all this, we are still looking for ways to make the parole system more secure. The Minister of Justice and I will shortly introduce such measures in this House.


SUGGESTED SUSPENSION OF ALL PAROLE TO PERMIT STUDY OF SYSTEM
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Pending the introduction for review in the House of the new program the government has elaborated to fight against crime and violence, and as a means to improve the safety of the Canadian public, would the Prime Minister accept the following recommendation, namely that any parole under surveillance or otherwise and the related program be discontinued immediately for a period of some 90 days to give the House sufficient time to examine the government program and make sure the new legislation is enforced?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I must say first of all that, not having examined the hon. member's proposition, I do not know if we could legally discontinue this program under the act. The National Parole Board has powers, and I do not think the government could automatically tell it what to do. On the other hand, as far as the basic problem is concerned, I do not believe the hon. member's proposition is especially humanitarian and progress-oriented, because it would apply indiscriminately to the deserving and the undeserving.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a last supplementary for the right hon. Prime Minister following the answer he has just given.
Considering that in the past, the government had recourse to and implemented the War Measures Act and also that they did not hesitate to implement controls, and that these measures can momentarily affect the liberty of
Oral Questions
some citizens, does not the Prime Minister believe that, as far as the security of citizens in general is concerned, a temporary parliamentary measure like the one I am suggesting, could be at least examined by the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the hon member's reasoning, he would suggest that we should put aside the normal process of law to invoke the War Measures Act, which would grant us the power to do that.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Those were your words!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I beg your pardon, those were not my words, Mr. Speaker. I indicated to the hon. member that under the act the Parole Board had some powers and that I did not know whether we could intervene in spite of this act. The hon. member is also asking us to take arbitrary powers, since in my hypothesis the act does not allow us to do so, and he is suggesting that this should be done under the War Measures Act. I think he is going a little too far.


TRANSPORT
Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I have given him notice. It has to do with the intention of the railways to raise freight rates on live cattle on November 14, despite the specific reference on page 19 of the anti-inflation guidelines to regulated industry using their powers over prices and quality of service in order to ensure conformity with the guidelines. As the proposed increases are 15 per cent on single deck and 25 per cent on double deck cars and exceed the guidelines, which means, if the increase is implemented, that the cumulative increase imposed since January 1 of this year would amount to 64 per cent on single deck and 87 per cent on double deck cars, will the minister give assurance that he will take this matter under immediate consideration and do everything in his power to stop this unwarranted, undeserved and inflationary increase?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the BC Telephone decision showed how regulatory agencies can adjust their decisions to the guidelines. We intend, in relation to freight rates, to ask the Canadian Transport Commission to give a similar assurance that any changes in rates shall come within the guidelines.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It has to do with a price monitoring committee which has been formed, of course with no official status, on a voluntary basis in the constituency of Nickel Belt. This committee has monitored

November 6, 1975
Oral Questions
increases in food costs since Thanksgiving Day. As our committee has received over 30 telephone calls a day reporting price increases on some items of up to 50 per cent, within as short a period as one hour, is the minister prepared to establish, or have the Anti-Inflation Board establish, in each population centre of Canada price monitoring committees which would make price increases public, accept complaints from citizens and file reports with the anti-inflation tribunal for investigation?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the first thought which comes to mind is the speech of the hon. gentleman's leader, who complained about the vast bureaucracy this would create. I think it would be more helpful if the hon. member would bring together those significant statistics and give them either to me or to the Anti-Inflation Board. I will be pleased and happy to consider them.


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING CONSERVATION MEASURES
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and follows on my motion of yesterday about the report of the International Energy Agency which was critical of steps our government has taken concerning energy conservation. Has the minister replied to this report which was published a few weeks ago? Also, will he ask the office of energy conservation to report on any follow-up measures which may be taken shortly?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think the report to which the hon. member alluded created some misapprehensions. The point is that it compared the 1974 over 1973 performance of Canada and other countries. It did not point out that the economies of the other countries did not perform as actively as ours, and that their growth rates were slower than Canada's. Nor did it point out that prices increased more in those countries than in Canada. The comparisons, for these reasons, I do not think are fair to Canada. I agree with the hon. member, that there is a real need for energy conservation. I believe that the program we launched and announced this past year, the information program of which, indeed, was commented on by the International Energy Agency as one of the best of its kind so far as its information program is concerned. It is an important start. I urge the hon. member to make clear to the provinces that they have a part to play in this as well.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Some ten days ago I asked him a question

concerning Canada being invited to the economic summit conference in Paris. At that time he said the matter had been brought to the attention of the president, or government, of France. What progress has been made since his last report to the House?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in a sense, we have not progressed to the point at which Canada has been invited to attend the economic summit. We have been supported in our wish to be present at that summit by the President of the United States, the Chancellor of West Germany, the Prime Minister of Britain and the Prime Minister of Japan. They understand the arguments we have made, to the effect that Canada has a contribution to make at that conference, that we are economically important and that no other country can speak for Canada at that conference table. We still hope that the president of France will be persuaded that these are valid arguments which justify our presence at that summit.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is the same argument we have heard for weeks. I ask the minister whether representations had been made through the ambassador in Paris to the president of France about the humiliating position in which that country has placed Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: -at the same time pretending that Canada is deserving of at least some consideration. Has that been made clear to the president of France? If not, I then ask the alternative. Is it not about time that we told them where they can go for placing Canada in that humiliating position of being on bended knee, asking France to permit Canada, whose contribution to France has been tremendous? Surely this country should receive at least reasonable consideration.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the right hon. gentleman that that is one posture Canada will not take in order to be represented at the conference, namely to go on bended knees for any purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear,, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We are not going on our knees at all. We believe we have strong arguments for our presence. We hope they will convince the French president. I think it is quite clear that if the president of France continues to prevent our attendance at that conference, it will not be helpful in terms of our bilateral relations. However, for our part, we would not want that eventuality to occur.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister and I hope I might be permitted a short supplementary. Arising out of the manner in which
November 6, 1975

the Prime Minister has just today disposed of Pierre Juneau, the defeated Liberal candidate in Hochelaga, will he tell the House the details of the appointment of Pierre Juneau as a special assistant to his office-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: -and specifically what duties Mr. Juneau will perform that are not now being performed by his already overly large staff?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Juneau will be filling the position of policy adviser.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, is this an extension, continuation or indication that government policy will continue to be appointing defeated Liberal candidates rejected by the people to high paying positions in the public service?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Thank you for your recognition, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Transport. There are still shrieks and squeals at the CNR humpyard in Edmonton. They are having a deleterious effect on the health of ten to 15,000 people. Little action has been taken lately to rectify this condition. Will the minister take it upon himself to intervene on behalf of these worthy citizens?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be glad to see whether I can ease the pain of any of the people in that neighbourhood. I know that CN has some plans to extend yard service in order to improve service out of Edmonton. However, I will check into the exact details in relation to the hump.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question.
Since Canada agreed last Thursday to co-sponsor a resolution put forward before the United Nations Special Political Commission censuring the restrictive practices by the Republic of South Africa in the selection of its athletes who are to take part in international sport competitions, and asked the member states to bar the South African athletes from those international competitions, has Canada considered the possibility, should the South African Republic change its selection policy, that our country would feel bound by this resolution and that as the host country for the 1976 Olympic Games we could not respect
Oral Questions
both the universality of the participation of athletes in the games and the recommendation expressed in the last part of the U.N. resolution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as regards the rule, the hon. member is well aware of it. The athletes participating in the Olympic Games are the guests of the International Olympic Committee, and in the present circumstances, this committee has excluded the South African Republic from these games. The question is therefore not at issue. But the hon. member asked a supplementary question and I must say, Mr. Speaker, that it is hyothetical. What would happen if the South African Republic were to change its practices? I must say categorically to the hon. member that the International Committee would then have to revise its position. I think the best answer I can give the hon. member at the present time is the following: this assumption seems to me somewhat improbable until the next games, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps then, Mr. Speaker, I will be allowed to take the question as notice, to examine it, but for the time being, to consider it as purely hypothetical.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It has come to my attention that there is a serious cutback in the staff at terminals one and two at the Toronto airport for the clearing of immigrants coming into Canada. Has the minister given approval to reduce the department there by 1,400 man-years in order to help Treasury Board to re-allocate those man-years to fill the new department responsible for administering the wage and price controls?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Definitely not, Mr. Speaker.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the minister's announced program of reviewing all aspects of air transportation in Canada, is the minister giving consideration to the removal or modification of existing restrictive regulations to allow a greater degree of competition in the interests of the travelling consumer, by airlines such as CP Air, and regional carriers and possibly having the additional benefit of tightening the Air Canada operation as well?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question of how much additional competition can be

November 6, 1975
Oral Questions
brought into the system will certainly be a concern of mine.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that the draft agreement of settlement with the native people in the James Bay area is being considered by a standing committee of the Quebec assembly, in view of the fact the hearings will continue until at least the end of this week in order to deal with the matter, and in view of the fact that meaningful negotiations cannot take place during that period of time, will the minister now consider extending the time to enable the Inuit people to complete their negotiations?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that negotiations will be conducted again tomorrow and over the weekend with the Inuit people. That was my information as late as yesterday. I think we may really find a way to accommodate the concern that they secure some additional time.


AGRICULTURE
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
To encourage cheese production and enable Canada to resume its place on European markets, especially the English market, is the minister considering either the revival of the quality premium for cheese, or possibly an export premium to allow us to compete with English cheese imports in Canada?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: We are
certainly concerned about dairy production in Canada, including cheese production. As I told the dairy farmers yesterday, we have six months in which to work out a proper program of cheese production in Canada, covering imports and so on.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Because of the huge quantity of French cheeses imported into Canada, as a result of the grants the French government gives its producers, which results in what one could almost call dumping in Canada, has the minister considered doing the same thing in Canada by giving the

producers grants to encourage them to export their cheese to Europe?


Eugene Whelan: I have no evidence of cheese being dumped into Canada by any country at the present time. However, some Canadian consumers appear to be willing to pay as much as $4 a pound for certain of the imported cheeses; they do not seem to be aware that we make high quality cheese in Canada-as many as 60 varieties-and that there is no need for us to import cheese as far as I am concerned. We are concerned about developing a proper program. For instance, we in Canada spend $50 million advertising liquor and other beverages and only $8 million advertising dairy products.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-REASON FOR FAILURE TO FORMALIZE AGREEMENT AND APPOINT GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES TO BOARD
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns the Syncrude project. In view of the fact that an agreement in principle was reached in Winnipeg last February 3 in connection with the project and in view of the fact that public money to the extent of $100 million has been invested in it, will the minister advise the House why no government appointments have been made to the board of directors and will he also tell us why the agreement has not yet been formally incorporated into a legal document which the House might examine to determine whether the public interest is protected.


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member has himself given the answer to the first part of the question. It is because there is no agreement yet that we have not appointed a director to the board. As to the reason for the lack of an agreement at this time, all I can say is that negotiations are proceeding with the province of Alberta and we are hopeful there will be a successful conclusion in the very near future.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The minister uses the phrase "in the very near future". Could he be more specific? Can he give us an outside date by which the House will have an opportunity of looking into an agreement and considering the appointees to the board so that we shall be in a position to protect the $100 million of public money invested in that project in the absence of any legal agreement?


Alastair William Gillespie: We are confident that an agreement will be concluded very shortly. As to the reasons for which an agreement has not yet been signed, there is a difficulty with the province of Alberta over certain of the principles which were agreed to in Winnipeg, and with respect to the price of certain utilities which would be supplied to the over-all project.
November 6, 1975


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. May I ask the minister whether, since he assumed his new responsibilities, he has had the opportunity to study the portion of Bill C-72 which relates to privacy and, if so, is he giving consideration to withdrawing that portion of the bill on the grounds that, while it provides for broad exemptions that can be used to legitimize the development of secret files on individuals, it does absolutely nothing to prevent invasions of individual privacy by the federal government?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I recognize the concern expressed in the hon. member's question. I have not had a chance to read the bill, simply because it is not coming before the House in the immediate future. Obviously, I intend to do so and, of course, the bill will ultimately come before the committee of the House where all comments and suggestions made about it can be considered.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs. In view of the fact that the federal department of health declines to conduct appropriate testing of the health of native peoples on the Mistassini and Mattagami rivers until the Department of the Environment has surveyed the mercury content of fish in the affected areas, and since many of these people are suspected to be suffering from, or do suffer from, mercury poisoning, will the minister urge immediate action by the department of health and the Department of the Environment before acts of civil disobedience by these native people take place?


J. Judd Buchanan: It is my understanding that these tests are already being conducted. In fact, several of the individuals involved have been flown to Montreal Neurological Institute for further testing. I am somewhat puzzled by the suggestion that there is a refusal to test.


Robert Hylton Brisco: According to Chief Otter Eyes of the grand council of the Cree, that is not in accordance with the facts. The principal concern of the Indians relates to the fact that they have lost their fish production; they are living on welfare and the government has done nothing to enable them to supplement their incomes with any other means of livelihood.


J. Judd Buchanan: There is no question there is a very genuine problem as far as normal activities are concerned, but I think Mr. Otter Eyes was himself one of the individuals flown to the Montreal Neurological Institute.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


REDUCTION IN VOLUME OF INDUSTRIAL MILK TO BE SUBSIDIZED-REASON FOR FAILURE TO CONSULT CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Agriculture? It relates to the announcement made by the minister last Tuesday in which he told us there was to be a reduction to the extent of about 5 per cent in the volume of industrial milk to be subsidized. This will result in a decrease amounting to some $13 million for the dairy year 1976-77 which will commence on April 1 next? Can the minister tell the House why he took this action without first of all consulting the supply and management committee of the Canadian Dairy Commission established in 1970 primarily for such purposes?


Eugene Whelan: The consultative committee with which the Canadian Dairy Commission meets were fully aware of the reduction in subsidy to take place next year. Their main concern when they met with me yesterday related to the proposal for the importation of specialty and other cheeses from other parts of the world-that they had to share this market. They were fully aware that when I said last April that I had enough money for 100 million hundredweight of milk they had to live within that quota. This allowed for a 5 per cent increase. They are above that level; they know it, and I have only so much money for this program.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
As an agreement in principle has been reached a few months ago between the federal government, the Quebec government and the City of Montreal, under which federal funds will be allocated to Quebec under the Neighbourhood Improvement Program and in view of the fact, particularly, that in spite of the agreement those programs are not yet effective in the Montreal area, can the minister tell the House what prevents those programs from working at this moment, and what action he intends to undertake with the provincial and municipal authorities to make these funds available as soon as possible?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: We have been concerned about the delay. We are waiting for an agreement with Quebec on the rehabilitation program. I spoke to the minister responsible and to the president of the Quebec Housing Corporation on Monday. I understand there is a letter on my desk-I haven't seen it-which indicates that we do not need an agreement now, and that they will allow us to go ahead directly with the city of Montreal immediately.

November 6, 1975
Presence of Brigadiers Don Holmes and Clay Beattie TRANSPORT


LACK OF STOCK CARS IN WESTERN CANADA-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask the minister why, when the cattlemen of Canada have been going through a period of depression, the railways are adding to their problem by failing to provide stock cars for eastern buyers who consequently bid lower, taking into account the added cost of having to keep cattle in the yard after purchasing them.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there was an exchange in the House on this subject the other day. I have subsequently determined that there are cars in every region of the country and not just six west of Moose Jaw as earlier reported. CP alone had 100 in Alberta a day or two ago on the day of my report. As I indicated in the House, there is no way in which the railways can be expected to provide all the double decked or single decked cars required for the movement of cattle all over the prairies. If all the movement occurs within a short one or two-week period this is a physical impossibility which I do not think any of us should expect the railways to meet.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that these figures would indicate there are cars in western Canada sitting on sidings which are required at the stockyards why does it seem to be taking as long as three weeks for the return of these cars from eastern Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member is suggesting that there is a longer return than usual, but both the railways have reported that they are keeping up with the handling and the return of the cars at a very good rate. If the hon. member has heard something specific about cars standing at sidings, I would be glad to chase down that particular story for him in order to determine why they were there for any length of time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call attention to the presence in the gallery of two distinguished members of the Canadian armed forces. One is Brigadier General Don Holmes who returned recently to Canada after commanding our peacekeeping forces in the Middle East for the past two years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: With him is Brigadier General Clay Beattie who has commanded our peacekeeping forces on

Cyprus for the past three years and continues in that capacity as well as being Chief of Staff for the entire United Nations' force in Cyprus.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the government House leader will tell us what he has in store for us for the rest of this week and for next week. Also, is he able to tell us what restraints he is going to place on the time of the House?


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, today we will take second reading and, hopefully, committee of the whole stage of Bill C-65. This will be followed not later than as the first business tomorrow by second reading of Bill C-52. On Monday and Tuesday, as hon. members know, the House will not be sitting. On Wednesday we will resume second reading of Bill C-58.


An hon. Member:: Hurrah!


Mitchell William Sharp: Second reading of Bill C-58 has already been discussed for four or five days in the House and I wish to discuss with the House leaders the possibility of getting an allocation of time to complete second reading so that the bill may be referred to the committee, where I think it deserves most careful consideration. As long as it is at second reading stage, as it has been for five days, very little progress can be made. I think the House should make the decision to refer the bill to committee, and I hope I receive the co-operation of the other House leaders in this respect.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw the bill.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I also take the opportunity to announce the allotted days for the balance of the period ending December 10. These allotted days will be Friday, November 14; Thursday, November 20; Monday, November 24; Friday, December 5; and Tuesday, December 9.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the point raised by the government House leader, according to past practice the decision of this party will be made known in due course with regard to Bill C-58. In the event that the bill is completed before the end of next week, can the government House leader tell us what else he has in store for us?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the next order of business I would like to call is Bill C-20, the Citizenship Act.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I put my two Thursday questions to the government House leader? They relate to House business. In view of the promise on several occasions that we would soon have the bill to amend the Government Annuities Act, can we be assured that we will have it in time to deal with it before Christmas? My second question relates to the bill
November 6, 1975

regarding Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war. Has that bill yet been approved by the cabinet?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer to the first question is yes; and to the second question, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is the bill respecting prisoners of war still under consideration?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, as a suitable gesture of some significance, in view of the fact that within a few days we will be celebrating Remembrance Day, and in view of a number of answers we have received which have been negative or evasive in respect of prisoners of war legislation, will the government House leader assure the House that we will indeed see that legislation before the Christmas recess?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot commit my colleagues. I can only repeat what I have already said in reply to the question put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that the matter is under active consideration by the cabinet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If there are no other members who want to contribute to the discussion of this matter raised by the hon. member for Peace River-


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question has reference to item No. 17 under government business, namely, the motion regarding the broadcasting and telecasting of this House and its committees which has been on the order paper since June 11. Can the minister assure us that action will be taken on this matter before we recess for Christmas?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would inform the House, as I informed the House leaders of the various parties, that the government is preparing material in answer to the kind of questions to which we know members of the House would like answers, so that when we do discuss this matter we will be discussing it on the basis of full knowledge of the implications.


An hon. Member:: Before Christmas?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure whether we will be able to call this item before December 19, but I assure the hon. member that it is a project still very much in my mind.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
MR. BROADBENT; MR. RODRIGUEZ; MR. COSSITT-SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Yesterday a question of privilege was raised by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whit-by (Mr. Broadbent) and a related question of privilege was raised by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). On the previous day a point of order was raised by the hon.
Privilege-Ruling
member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) during the period set aside for responding to questions on the order paper.
Having regard to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Leeds, as I indicated at the time I have some concern about it in view of the fact that the hon. member was basically complaining about the fact that, in response to a question he had placed on the order paper, the reply by the government suggested that reference should be made to a certain citation in Beauchesne's which would indicate that the question was clearly out of order. The point of order raised by the hon. member for Leeds can easily be set aside directly, in the sense that, since there is no obligation on the part of the government to answer questions, there can be no point of order by an hon. member who has received an answer which is unsatisfactory to him. However, the matter is not quite so simple.
The point of order raised by the hon. member for Leeds two days ago raises a very important question. Since there is no obligation on the ministry to answer questions which are placed on the order paper, it has been the attitude of the Chair and the administration here that the Chair should not unnecessarily interpose itself between the question on the order paper and the response or lack thereof, as the case may be. That is to say, it has not been looked upon by the Chair as its obligation to examine with great scrutiny or great care the procedural regularity of questions put on the order paper. This is not to say that the Chair does not intervene; there have been many occasions when the Chair has intervened and suggested to hon. members that a question is clearly out of order and ought not to be put forward. However, that is about the limit of the intervention.
If it is seen that answers may be made with reference to the procedural regularity of the question, and that this in turn will cause a grievance or a point of order on the part of the hon. member who has put the question on the order paper, it certainly is not the intention of the Chair to change the practice of intervening or establishing a more substantial presence between the questioner and the person to whom the question is put. Therefore, I say at this point that the point of order is set aside but I propose to ask the House leaders and perhaps the procedure committee whether it is time for some organization, whether it be composed of administrative officials of the House, members of the Chair staff and/or members of the House of Commons, to formulate the responsibility of scrutinizing and intervening in respect of questions which are put on the order paper, so that those which are not in order will not proceed and, therefore, the situation cannot arise again. Again I say it is not the intention of the Chair to take that step, but I propose to ask the House leaders and, perhaps, in turn the procedure committee whether that might be a desirable development.
The point of order, as I say, is officially set aside on the ground that, since there is no obligation to answer a question, no point of order lies if an improper or unsatisfactory answer is made. But I will ask for advice as to whether something should now be done to determine whether some scrutiny should be made of questions put on the order paper, from the procedural point of view.

November 6, 1975
Privilege-Ruling
I now turn to the questions of privilege raised by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and the hon. member for Nickel Belt concerning the proceedings of the Royal Commission on the Concentration of Corporate Power. These questions involve the availability of, and charge for, minutes of proceedings of that royal commission to hon. members of this House. Both hon. members have raised a very legitimate and important grievance about a source of irritation affecting them in their work as members of the House.
Parliamentary privilege, of course, has very narrow scope, but I am sure hon. members are unanimous that it ought to remain that way. In effect, I suppose everything that affects the disposition of a member in his attitude toward his work, or the facility with which he is able to carry out his duties, could be construed in the widest possible sense as influencing or affecting his ability to perform as a member. However, that has never been the interpretation. In fact, the interpretation has been narrowed to almost physical resistance which prevents a member actually carrying out his ability to speak in the House or his ability physically to fulfil his duties as a member. I am sure I am on safe ground in saying that we would be unwilling to extend the privileges of Parliament to include complaints about the proper attitude or service, particularly of bodies that lie outside the parliamentary scope and in the area of a royal commission.
I say, again, that both hon. members have brought to the attention of the House-I hope with some effect-the practice of a royal commission in making available its proceedings to members of the House. I hope the point has not gone unheeded, but I must say that under the strict technical interpretation and very tight definition of a question of privilege that has been respected by this House for so long, in neither case does a prima facie question of privilege lie.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question I answered that $50 million was spent on whisky advertising. I should have said all alcoholic beverages and soft drinks.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question of privilege. I am concerned about a possible ambiguity or misinterpretation between the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and myself this afternoon. We have already worked it out between us, but I hope the minister will agree he was not inferring that any of the information I filed would constitute editorializing with regard to the information I gave him.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would confirm that I was not suggesting any improper additions, certainly not by the hon. member. I was referring to the fact that the letter from Mr. Winsor in no way stated that it was 50 per cent, which would have been an inaccuracy on his part. The reference to the "15" and "5" in the letter which was supplied to me by the hon. member is in handwriting and was apparently added at a subsequent time.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, in my point of order I should like to refer to a supplementary question I asked a short while ago of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about whether the appointment of Pierre Juneau to his office as a special assistant indicated continuation of government

policy to appoint defeated Liberals to high office in the public service. I realize, Mr. Speaker, as you have pointed out on a number of occasions and did so a few moments ago, that no minister, including the Prime Minister, is obliged to answer any question. I therefore understand the embarrassed silence when the Prime Minister did not answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would feel it unjust to allow the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) to continue giving the impression that it was a choice of the Prime Minister whether to make an answer to the question. It was, in fact, a ruling by the Chair that the question was not in order.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in a way this matter is related to the ruling you have made on the point of order. It relates to the oral question period. It is a well known rule, and Your Honour just referred to it, that ministers are not obliged to give answers to any questions put to them. However, this afternoon, in respect of the question I put to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), I very clearly stated my question and the minister gave a very long answer which bore no relationship to the question. This created difficulties for yourself and for other hon. members and took up valuable time of the House. It did not permit ample time, either, for me to ask a supplementary or to pursue the specifics of the question of energy conservation. I think it should be made clear to ministers that if they are not willing to answer questions, they should remain silent rather than take up the valuable time of the House with non-answers.


IMMIGRATION POLICY
[Stage Direction]
Third report of Special Joint Committee on Immigration Policy-Mr. O'Connell.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table copies in both official languages of the letters I have sent to the various premiers-

-on the subject of foreign ownership of land, and I hope to table shortly the report of the federal-provincial committee on ownership of land.
November 6, 1975


INDIAN AFFAIRS
J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), copies in both official languages of a draft of the text of an agreement reached between the Government of Canada, the Government of Quebec and its agencies, the Grand Council of the Crees and the Northern Quebec Inuit Association.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 2,530, 2,935, 3,005, 3,125, 3,152, 3,176, 3,177, 3,189, 3,199 and 3,239.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,295 which stated in part: "it has not been customary to require the C.B.C. to supply such details of its internal management and administration" (a) on what date and by whom was such a policy arrived at (b) what are all the reasons justifying such a decision (c) will the government agree to a change in this policy by making available to Parliament answers to all requests for legitimate information concerning CBC and its operations and (i) if so, on what date (ii) if not, for what reason?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: In reply to parts (a) and (b), I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: (a) and (b) parliament has not, as a matter of custom since the corporation's creation in 1936, required CBC to supply, in answering parliamentary questions, certain details of its internal management and administration. It is understood that parliament has had two reasons for following this custom: first, the independence of the CBC as a Crown corporation, established for the purpose of producing and broadcasting, independently of political or commercial interference, programs for a national program service; and, secondly, the competitive nature of many of CBC's activities. The appropriateness of the CBC providing certain categories of information has been considered on many occasions by various parliamentary committees and when the CBC has suggested that such information should not be made a matter of public record, its views have been accepted by them. Names of staff members and their functions in relation to specific programs and the costs related to such assignments, as requested in question No. 2,295, are examples of details which it has not been customary to require the CBC to supply. It is open to parliament to discuss the policies it and the CBC have followed in this regard and it would be appropriate to
Order Paper Questions
review them when the CBC's estimates are before the House of Commons Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, (c) No. The government makes available all information requested by members except where publication would be inconsistent with the mandate given to the corporation by parliament. This principle is well established and accepted with respect to information about government agencies and Crown corporations which are in competition with the private sector.


Mr. Friesen: With reference to the answer to Part 1 of Question No. 2,412, of the films underwritten in whole or in part by the Canadian Film Development Corporation (a) how many were X rated (b) which ones were actually completed?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation as follows: (a) Film classification is under provincial jurisdiction and varies in form from one province to another, (b) As of November 1, 1975, "Jos Carbone", "M'en revenant par les epinettes", and "The Far Shore" (1974-75) are in the final stages of production. "The Beast", "Floralie ou es-tu?" (1972-73), and "Moss Tarts" (1973-74) are not completed.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,412, how many persons who received grants from the Canadian Film Development Corporation were Canadian citizens?
2.	What is the percentage relationship of citizens to non-citizens receiving such grants?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation as follows: 1. The answer to question No. 2,412 listed production companies which received assistance in the form of investments from the Canadian Film Development Corporation. All these companies are incorporated under the laws of Canada or a province.
2. See answer to part 1.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Department of National Health and Welfare issue a booklet entitled Official Languages Policy and subtitled Promulgated July 31, 1975 and, if so (a) how many copies were printed (b) what was the total cost of such printing (c) how many persons have received or will receive the booklet?
2.	Who are all those involved in writing the booklet along with their job designations?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes. (a) 12,000 copies, (b) $2,926.50. (c) All
9,000	departmental employees have received the booklet and all new incoming employees will receive it.
2. The director, Official Languages Program, in the Department of National Health and Welfare.

Order Paper Questions


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Since the inception of the New Horizons programme, how much money has been granted to the Constituency of Richmond?
2.	For each project approved, what are the (a) titles (b) amounts allocated (c) years (d) municipalities concerned (e) number of pensioners concerned?


Marc Lalonde: 1.	$70,710.
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)Club d'Age d'Or	$1,950.	1972-1973	Ham-Nord	75Club d'Age d'Or Tingwick	$5,541.	1972-1973	Tingwick	86Club d'Age d'Or de South Durham $4,070.	1973-1974	South Durham	70Club d'Age d'Or de Disraeli	$1,916.	1973-1974	Disraeli	125Club Age d'Or Weedon Inc.	$3,673.	1973-1974	Weedon	95Les Retraites de St-Georges de Windsor	$2,482.	1973-1974	St-Georges de Windsor	170Club Nouveaux Horizons	$1,310.	1973-1974	Ham-Nord	80Club de l'Age d'Or	$4,000.	1974-1975	Bischopton	60Club de l'Age d'Or	$3,654.	1974-1975	St-Andrien de Ham	37Mouvement des femmes chre-tiennes et foyers Chretiens	$3,500.	1974-1975	Asbestos	45Fraternite 50 Ans et plus	$4,904.	1975-1976	Windsor	158Le Club Joyeux de l'Age d'Or	$5,551.	1975-1976	Richmond Nord	80Qub Age d'Or	$4,084.	1975-1976	Tingwick	177Centre commu-nautaire du 3e Age	$5,665.	1975-1976	St-Fortunat	63Qub de l'Age d'Or de Notre-Dame de Ham	$3,299.	1975-1976	Notre-Dame de Ham	32Les "Amis de Beaulac"	$7,656.	1975-1976	Garthby	60Qub de l'Amitie	$7,455.	1975-1976	St-Paul-de- Chester	63


Mr. Reynolds: Do the international airports at Montreal and Toronto have indoor car parking and did the Department of Transport recently close the indoor parking at the Vancouver International Airport and, if so, are there any future plans for indoor parking at the Vancouver International Airport in Richmond, British Columbia?


Otto Emil Lang: At Montreal International Airport no indoor parking is provided. At Toronto International Airport indoor parking is available at Terminal 1, but not at Terminal 2. At Vancouver International Airport, the indoor parking area will be converted to an international arrivals area and alternate parking facilities have been provided. The feasibility of a parking structure is being studied.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Under the Northern Roads Policy requesting Yukon and Northwest Territories communities and industry to help formulate a northern roads programme for the next ten years, has any consideration been given by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the inclusion of all of Canada especially the areas of Northern Newfoundland and Labrador and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Does the government agree that these areas have been neglected, and, if so, what is its intention to compensate for this neglect?


J. Judd Buchanan: 1. No. Responsibility for roads policy development within a province rests with the respective provincial governments. Only in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories is road development policy under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
2. See Beauchesne, (Chapter V, Section 171(bb)).


Mr. Orlihow: 1.	How much was collected in unemployment insurance premiums in each province and territory for the years 1973, 1974 and 1975?
2.	How much was paid in unemployment insurance claims in each province and territory for the years 1973, 1974 and 1975?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Department of National Revenue and the Unemployment Insurance Commission as follows: 1. See Table 5, line 35, of the 1975 edition of "Taxation Statistics", available at Information Canada. This information pertains only to 1973 as 1974 data is not tabulated until all returns have been filed and 1975 data will not be accumulated until 1976. This item (unemployment insurance premiums) is the amount deducted for premiums paid for unemployment insurance and withheld by the employer less any overpayment of premiums to be refunded.
2. See Statistics Canada Publication 73-001 entitled "Statistical Report on the Operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act."
November 6, 1975


Mr. Howie: How much money was (a) requested by the bands (b) granted by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for housing (i) construction (ii) renovation (iii) repairs (iv) maintenance on the Indian Reserves in St. Mary's, Kingsclear and Oromocto, New Brunswick?


J. Judd Buchanan: Reserve	Amount requested Amount granted
St. Mary's (i)	$	70,000	$30,000(ii)	-	$ 8,000(iii)	$	70,500	$ 5,000
(iv)
Kingsclear (i) $120,000	$20,000
(ii)	-	$13,198(iii)	$ 20,000	-(iv)	-	-Oromocto (i)	$	50,000	$10,000(ii)	-	$ 5,000(iii)	$	10,000	$ 7,430(iv)	-	-


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Since March 30, 1975, how many letters, telegrams or other messages from groups and individuals has the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development received in opposition to the imposition of entrance fees to the Prince Edward Island National Park?
2.	For the same period, how many messages have been received favoring such imposition?
3.	What expenditures have already been made in erecting toll houses or otherwise preparing for the imposition of entrance fees for the Park?
4.	How many visitors entered the National Parks of the Atlantic provinces in the summer seasons of (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (f) 1975?


J. Judd Buchanan: 1. Forty-nine. In addition, a telegram bearing 4,000 names, addressed to the Prime Minister was referred to the department.
2.	None.
3.	$73,840.
4.	(a) 3,907,800. (b) 3,707,000. (c) 2,925,800. (d) 3,147,500. (e) 3,680,600. (f) 3,360,700.
Income Tax Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill C-65, to amend the statute law relating to income tax (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-65 is now before us for second reading. It contains important measures designed to promote the growth of investment to sustain the needs of the Canadian economy. Specifically, there are three measures related to investment. The first is a tax credit for investment purposes in production facilities. The second is a withholding tax for long-term corporate borrowings. The third is a resource allowance and change in tax rate for mining and petroleum.
There are also two other points I should like to cover. One is related to a reduction in tax credit for high income individuals and the second is certain technical amendments. Respecting the first amendment which I mentioned, an investment tax credit, as the House is aware, this government has in the past introduced tax incentives to promote the growth of a strong manufacturing sector in the Canadian economy. The high level of business investment which has been experienced in Canada in recent years is ample evidence of the success of this policy. Nevertheless, as I need hardly point out, new conditions have been thrust upon us and it cannot be assumed that the existing incentives are sufficient to sustain the necessary level of investment. Uncertain economic conditions erode business confidence and high financing costs jeopardize investment projects. Furthermore, competitive pressures from abroad are increasing and _we will need to remain competitive as other economies recover. It is, therefore, essential that Canada should do everything possible, within revenue constraints, to provide extra support to sustain investment until current inflationary pressures are brought under control.
Accordingly, this bill introduces an investment tax credit as a temporary, extra incentive for investment in a wide range of new productive facilities. The rate of the credit will be 5 per cent of the taxpayer's investment in eligible property; that is to say, the cost of his investment would be reduced by 5 per cent and his rate of return thereby improved. Eligible assets would include new machinery and equipment, as well as new buildings, which are to be used primarily for manufacturing or processing in Canada. In addition, new equipment and new buildings to be used in the primary industries of mining, petroleum, logging, farming and fishing would also be eligible. This temporary incentive will remain in effect until June, 1977. The cost of the credit, which would be borne entirely by the federal treasury, will be about $200 million in this fiscal year.

November 6, 1975
Income Tax Act
I should like to make a few remarks on the second point which I mentioned earlier, namely, exceptions from withholding tax. The bill before the House will also relieve the difficulties being encountered by corporations in financing their capital investment. In recent years, an undue proportion of corporate borrowing has been of a short-term nature, and with the pressure on domestic financial markets it would be desirable to facilitate long-term borrowing from abroad. The application of withholding tax can be an impediment to borrowing funds from abroad; accordingly, this bill provides temporary exemption from the non-resident withholding tax for long-term corporate debt which is issued before 1979. This temporary exemption parallels that which is provided for government securities. There is already evidence that this amendment will have its desired effect.
The third point concerns resource allowance. Another important component of this bill is a fiscal program which will promote the adequate development of our resources. The resource allowance, which is a new concept introduced in this bill, will provide a more efficient way to encourage exploration and development for petroleum and minerals and, at the same time, recognize a provincial request for recognition of their resource levies. The resource allowance will be a deduction in computing the corporation's taxable income and will be equal to 25 per cent of its resource profits before the deduction of exploration and development expenditures, interest and depletion allowances. At the same time, the regular corporate tax rate would in the future apply to petroleum and mineral profits.
The combined effect of these two measures is that exploration and development expenditures and depletion allowances would become deductible against the full corporate tax rate, thereby decreasing the after-tax costs of such activity and increasing the effectiveness of these incentives. With these changes, I believe we will have a better system for taxing these resource industries and, at the same time, one which will maintain a fair share of revenue for the benefit of all of Canada. It is estimated that federal tax revenues for the balance of this decade will be reduced slightly, by some $40 million annually. However, with the change proposed in the federal tax structure, more tax will be collected from corporations which do little exploration and less from those which have extensive exploration programs.
The relative sharing of revenues between the federal and provincial governments and industry is substantially unchanged. Since the federal government will still have only a modest share of resource production revenue, the portion of revenues accruing to industry depends primarily on provincial action. In this respect, I am encouraged by the further adjustments which have been made by some of the provinces and we can hopefully look forward to greater stability in the fiscal arrangements for these industries. In this connection, it is often contended in some quarters that the gradual increase in the Canadian price of crude oil does little to increase the development of reserves, since it is claimed that hardly any of the price increase is available for industry. I would like to make it quite clear to the House that this is not so. Under the revised tax and royalty arrangements there is still plenty of incentive for those corporations that wish to explore.

According to our estimates, based on information representative of the industry as a whole, the portion of the recent price increase of $1.50 which can be retained by the industry in 1976 will be 28 cents even without further exploration; with maximum exploration the funds reinvested could be as high as 71 cents out of the $1.50. Surely this will provide the appropriate fiscal climate for the industry's future exploration program, yet at the same time retain adequate government revenues.
I will be very brief on the fourth point, namely, personal tax credit. Clause 3 of this bill reduces the maximum federal tax credit from $750 to $500. This reduction increases taxes only for taxpayers who have taxable income in excess of $22,973, to be exact. All other taxpayers will continue to receive a tax credit of 8 per cent, with a minimum credit of $200. This measure, which does not affect provincial taxes, will generate an extra $50 million of revenue in a full year.
The next point is on technical amendments. There are three other technical amendments to which I would draw the attention of the House. First, the amendment contained in clause 2 creates a more generous mechanism to transfer the benefit of the interest and dividend deduction as between spouses. As the transfer provision now stands, it ensures that if a supporting spouse's claim for his dependent spouse has been reduced because the dependent spouse has received dividend or interest income, the marital exemption may be restored by the amount of the spouse's interest or dividend deduction that would otherwise be lost. This meant that in 1975 the most that could be transferred was $666. The new mechanism would simply transfer all the unused benefit from the dependent spouse to the supporting spouse. In consequence, a maximum transfer of $1,000 could be made.
Second, clause 9 of the bill requires that in order to be eligible for the credit for contributions to registered parties and candidates, the donation must be in the form of cash or a cheque. This amendment, which was agreed to by representatives of all parties, ensures that no deduction will be given for the donation of time and services. In this regard it provides rules parallel to those which are applied to charitable donations.
Third, clause 10 of the bill sets out more effective contribution limits for registered retirement savings plans. It has been discovered that it was possible, with the co-operation of employers, for many employees to obtain the full deduction of pension plan contributions, plus the full deduction of registered retirement savings plans contributions in respect of the same year. This meant that instead of employees getting a maximum yearly deduction of $2,500 in respect of the combined contributions to a registered retirement savings plan and to a pension plan, as contemplated by parliament, some were able to get deductions of up to $5,000. Clause 10 will close this loophole.
In conclusion, this bill contains four important fiscal measures. First, the tax credit for investment in productive facilities; second, an exemption from withholding tax for long-term corporate borrowings; third, a more efficient system for taxing resource industries; and fourth, a reduction in tax credit for high income individuals. I believe these measures will make an important contribution to expanding the productive capacity of this country to
November 6, 1975

ensure adequate growth during the time when the program to combat inflation begins to take hold, and I urge all hon. members of this House support the bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the first words which must be pronounced in this debate, following those of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Trudel), are words of congratulation to an old friend who has finally made it to, shall I say, a very prestigious post.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We have known him from old as a very capable, very congenial and co-operative chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and I am very pleased that he has now come to the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. After all, one could speculate in this regard, looking at the members on the treasury benches and seeing how many of them have been parliamentary secretaries to ministers of finance, and I immediately look around and see the new Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) who was the hon. member's immediate predecessor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Having said that, I now turn to the bill because, as someone has said, to every flower there must be tied a brick. I am not going to fix the parliamentary secretary with any responsibility for the contents of this bill, and I am not going to fix the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) with responsibility for its contents except to the extent that he was a member of the ministry which presented the budget on June 23 last.
It is very anti-climactic today to become overly excited about Bill C-65 which deals with a number of budget proposals touching on income tax. Some of them are of a remedial or tidying-up nature and some are of a corrective nature in that the government is trying to undo some of the horrible mischief and havoc which was created before by the 1974 budgets, especially among the resource industries; however, my colleague the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour) will deal with that subject much more adequately than I can. The hon. member for Halton-Went-worth (Mr. Kempling) will deal with investment credits, manufacturing, processing and that sort of thing. My chief concern this afternoon is to see that, hopefully, this debate will take a reasonable time. I do not think it should last the whole day in committee of the whole House and I hope we can deal with this matter expeditiously and get on with other matters.
First, I should like to take issue with the parliamentary secretary and the ministry in dealing with the last point raised by the parliamentary secretary. That is the move by the tax department-I should be talking to the Minister of National Revenue, because this is the sort of thing which is inspired down in his department-to plug the loophole, so-called, between registered retirement savings plans and registered pension plans, and saying that an individual cannot avail himself of the two provisions. I want to know why. If an individual is in a position or in employment
Income Tax Act
where a condition of the employment is that there is a registered retirement plan, why on earth discourage him from going as well into a registered retirement savings plan? The savings plan is an investment plan.
We hear exhortations from one side to the other from the government about saving and investing but right away, on the other hand, comes a disincentive to do it, a prohibition. As a matter of fact, this point came up during the course of last winter. A delegation of railroad men visited me. They had heard about this move. It is a condition-I want the Minister of National Revenue to ponder upon this-of employment with the railroaders that they have a registered retirement plan to which they make no contribution. This is done by the employer. These individuals want to participate in a registered retirement savings plan because they do not want to reach age 65 and say, "Here I am; support me", as far too many people in this country are induced to do. They are induced to think that the state will support them with the old age pension, but the old age pension was never designed for total support.
However, here an individual, through an RRSP, may make provision for himself and his wife in the event of his decease is to be precluded from providing a comfortable retirement for his widow unless he pays the full shot. Why this discouragement? As far as I am concerned, this is a retrograde step. It may be all very nice from an administrative point of view-but why do it? Why not encourage people to invest on both sides? In the same way, why is it not possible, for example, for a member of parliament to enter into a registered retirement savings plan? Everything is taken up by his retirement pension; the whole allowance is taken up and there is no possibility of getting into a registered retirement savings plan.
Why should an individual not be allowed to do that? There is no favouritism shown to any individual when he is encouraged to save. It would be far better for Canadian businesses if they could have access to funds saved by Canadians. Then we would not have to have all sorts of artificial rules with regard to Canadianization of Canadian corporations. We would not get into the nonsense we will be getting into with Bill C-58, where we have artificial rules simply because people do not have money to invest. It is difficult to get at Canadian money, because we have a savage tax system. Our income tax system is one of the most savage in the world when we compare ourselves with countries with whom we compete. I am not talking about the type of tax system they have in Britain. We know where Britain is going; it is going down. Far too many good Brits come to Canada-true, to our advantage-and those who remain are being bled, bled, bled to the point where there is no longer any initiative, no encouragement.
Why do we have to try to do that to Canadians as well? The government has plenty of other revenue. Surely we have to stop this madness and let people benefit from the fruits of their labour, their initiative and their thrift. I know I am making a Conservative speech and hon. members of the party to my left who are egalitarian and say, "To each his own. Take what you want, but put back as little as you"-


Mr. Cullen:: You are leaving yourself open.

November 6, 1975
Income Tax Act


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They did yesterday. The hon. member for New Westminister (Mr. Leggatt) yesterday expounded on that theme.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: From each, according to his abilities.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is, put in what you care to; take out what you want.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is a Conservative interpretation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is everybody's interpretation of it. I think I have made the point and I will not belabour it. It was a good move to consider the spouse where both spouses are taxpayers. If the unused portion of the investment credit, whether interest or grossed up dividends, was unused by one spouse it could be used by the other in whole or part and an appropriate portion could be transferred. This applies to a taxpaying couple who have investment income to a potential of $2,000, because if there are dividends from Canadian corporations it is not that much. I think that is a step in the right direction.
As far as a tax cut is concerned, it would only apply to plumbers, electricians or mechanical engineers in the metro area. I think it is beginning to include some electricians and carpenters in the province of Alberta who will have up to and over the $22,000 income referred to by the parliamentary secretary in order to come within the reduced ceiling of the tax cut. In the lexicon of the New Democratic Party in the last year we have seen a new term, those people called the middle income people. Most of their people are middle income. Teachers certainly-some university professors are higher income people-and tradesmen too. Those are the categories of people who will be affected. On the basis of one set of expenditures there need not have been any change in the tax cut. We know the minister said in June that there would be a budgetary deficit of about $3*/2 billion, but it is now likely to be $5'/2 billion or nearer $7 billion. The $5 Vi billion stuck in my memory as the cash requirement for this year. I am not going to object to this change and I do not think my colleagues will.
There are some changes with regard to political donations that I think are of a very technical nature, but they have not caused us any problems. Having covered the high points of this bill, I would recommend to my colleagues that we give it second reading and move as quickly as possible, after the other second reading speeches, to consider the bill clause by clause.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, I should like to join all members of the House in congratulating the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa (Mr. Trudel), the hon. parliamentary secretary. We are delighted to see him back in the House and on his feet after his serious accident.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: All his friends are most pleased with his excellent reading of the speech. In some ways, it may even be an improvement over what we had a right to expect.

The hon. member is a man of good and common sense, but as I listened to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) suggesting he might become minister of finance some day, I was rather appalled because it seems the minute one becomes minister of finance, no matter how much common sense one has, it leaves him.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That is only in NDP governments.


Max Saltsman: I am not going to be quite as accommodating on this bill as the hon. member for Edmonton West. I think it is a thoroughly bad kind of budget, not so much in what it does, because it does not do a great deal, but in what it does not do. If we needed any further convincing that we are dealing with a government that in many ways seems devoid of common sense, we have the evidence of Bill C-65 before us to confirm that view. Whatever rationale these budget measures may have had when they were originally introduced, that rationale has disappeared with the introduction of the government restraint measures. Now those restraint measures are a central policy set of measures; they are virtually the cornerstone, from here on, of all government policies. For the next three years all government policies will have to revolve around about those measures.
In looking at the various other things that come before this House, we have to ask ourselves to what extent, whether it is a budgetary measure, a monetary measure or an industrial development measure, it fits in with the government's avowed intention on the restraint program. The restraint program is important to the government to the extent that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has staked the life of his government on making it work. Many of the people in the government are staking their reputations on making it work. It is in that context that we have to look at this particular budget.
We are told that other policy measures that have come before the House will be judged by the restraint program. For instance, yesterday we were debating the unemployment insurance amendments. The argument made for some of the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act was that they tied in with the government's policy of restraint. I am surprised that in presenting this measure to the House so little has been said. I do not recall anything being said about the way these budget measures are going to tie in with the restraint program.
I am sorry that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) is not in the House. I understand that he has important business to attend to and could not be here. In his wrestling inflation to the ground, the minister often looks as though his shorts are coming down and this leaves him in a rather vulnerable and ridiculous position. By whatever logic one wants to look at the government's restraint program, it is quite clear that the only effective restraint in that program at the moment is restraint on wages. In the other elements that it is supposed to restrain, profits, dividends, professional incomes and interest rates, the government realizes-as I think most people do-that it cannot be done. These things can only be restrained directly in a minor way. It is difficult to come to grips with profits by setting margins. Margins over what? Over when? How do you measure profits? To what extent do you
November 6, 1975

want to work directly on profits because of the consequences such work would have on them?
For obvious reasons, the government has backed off dividends. It could not make dividend controls stick. Even if it could, it is not sure it wants to. As for rents, the government was to set up some rental review boards but this, again, will be an imperfect attack. As for professional incomes, the government itself acknowledges that there is no way to restrain professional incomes. Speaker after speaker from both sides of the House pointed out that controlling professional incomes is all but impossible. The argument about interest rates is that no one can control interest rates; they are part of an international phenomenon and we must live with them as best we can.
Therefore we come to the central part of the government's incomes policy, the restraint of wages alone. This has brought on, justifiably I think, much bitterness in this country, and not because Canadians generally, or those in the trade union movement, oppose an incomes policy. Probably, most in this country support an incomes policy. Most in this country feel that an incomes policy is necessary. The question is, will the incomes policy treat all forms of income alike, or will it take the short cut and control only salaries and wages? That is the thrust of the present policy.
The government argues-with merit, I think-that it is difficult to control all elements of society directly with an incomes policy. Probably they are right. As the government sees it, they can control directly with ceilings and guidelines, wages and salaries. If that is right, it is vital to make our income tax system more fair. Increments in profits, dividends, rents, professional income and interest income should be taxed away under the Income Tax Act; but that will not be done. This bill goes in the opposite direction. I leave aside the treatment of income over $22,000 and other minor provisions affecting income at that level. Other provisions governing resource taxation, the 5 per cent investment tax credit, and the removal of the withholding tax on interest on long-term corporate bonds all make it easier for capital to work profitably. Actually, capital is treated better than some of the other elements of society.
What has been this country's tax policy? Let us go back a number of years. We will find that the thrust of our income tax policy has been to place the greater part of the tax burden on the middle income earner and a smaller part on the corporate sector. The corporate sector has been largely relieved of its responsibility to contribute to society. A succession of tax measures increased depreciation allowances and therefore improved the profit potential of the businesses concerned. This was done deliberately and consciously. Recently the government lowered the proportion of total taxes corporations must pay. This bill rescinds none of these measures. There is no gesture to restore corporate taxes to previous levels. Present levels are scarcely in harmony with legislation which seeks to be fair, which seeks to implement an incomes policy.
If the government expects confidence, and expects people to co-operate willingly on any policy of restraint, it will need to bring in a new budget which will cancel some
Income Tax Act
of the measures I have mentioned. In addition, this bill ought to be withdrawn. It does not fit the times. If anything, it will exacerbate our present condition, not improve it. I suggest that the government should withdraw this bill and introduce a new budget which should contain measures which will make it possible for all Canadians to live with an incomes policy.
What should the new budget do? First, it should provide for a sharply progressive rate of income tax because, admittedly, incomes other than straight wages and salaries will escape the restraint program. We should introduce a sharply graduated income tax, or a surtax, with which to recover excess income and make it less desirable for certain people to push up their incomes. At present, many areas of the economy are not covered effectively by the restraint policy and the government cannot recapture a substantial proportion of additional incomes exceeding the guidelines which certain people are earning. The guy who works in the factory is not happy to see his wages controlled, particularly after he has tried to catch up for three years in which corporate profits have soared. He will not be content to see his wages restrained while people better able to pay taxes escape paying their fair share. If you are to make any incomes policy work, you must make the tax system more progressive. In addition, the new budget should provide for tax credits for those unable to pay taxes.
The government argues that we need the restraint program in order to help those whose bargaining position is weak. Well, let us help them-not with talk, not with rhetoric, but with concrete action. Let us give the poor tax credits and so improve their bargaining power. The poor should be compensated for their lack of bargaining power. A properly structured tax system, that is, a sharply graduated tax system, will tax more heavily those with high incomes and give tax credits to those whose incomes are low. Further, the budget should restore the balance between what the corporate sector pays and what individuals pay by way of income tax. This restoration is long overdue and is necessary if the government wants to retain credibility. If the restraint program is to be credible, surely the government must collect more taxes from corporations. But it is not doing this. If anything, the thrust of government policy has relieved the corporations of their obligation to pay their fair share.
Obviously, some people will say I am advocating socialism. They will say, "You want to take from the rich and give to the poor. That is nothing less than income redistribution." I admit that that is part of socialist policy. Of course, socialism is more than that. But my suggested program is a necessary concomitant to any incomes policy because the minute you bring in an incomes policy you move in the socialist direction. The minute the government says, "No longer will we let the free market decide how much any individual or group is to get", it denies the validity of the so-called free enterprise system and says that it is not working, is not functioning properly, is not fair and the public must intervene in the setting of incomes.
On what rationale can you intervene in the setting of incomes? How are you to do it? How are you to decide how much "A" is to get and how much "B" is to get? It is

November 6, 1975
Income Tax Act
impossible. Ultimately, society concludes-whether it be capitalist or socialist-that we must move in the direction of egalitarianism. You must move to sit on those whose incomes are high, restraining them more than those at the bottom. More than that, you have to take from those whose incomes are high and bring up those at the bottom. This means that the only kind of incomes policy that has any chance of working in the long run is one that moves in the direction of egalitarianism or equalization of income.
I see that my friends in the Conservative party are slightly appalled at that suggestion. They should have thought of that when they started talking about wage and price controls. It cannot work. It cannot be acceptable in any other form. Any kind of policy-setting by public design that does not move in the direction of egalitarianism will not be acceptable to society. Those who bring it in without understanding the consequences are making a terrible error in judgment. It does not mean that when you get through with this exercise, everyone's income will be the same. No one knows at what point society will say it has had enough egalitarianism and we must stop. Whether there should be a ratio of 1 to 3 for those at the top, 1 to 2, or 1 to 1 is a decision that society has to make.
What I am arguing is that any incomes policy must be seen to be moving in that direction in order to have any hope of success. As far as the tax bill before us is concerned, there is very little beyond the one measure that moves in that direction. Quite the contrary; it moves in the opposite direction, with those who get their income by profits and dividends being more favoured.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Because they saved.


Max Saltsman: The hon. member for Edmonton West says it is because they saved. I am sure it is because they saved. Obviously, you cannot take taxes from those who do not have any money. However, it must also be said that the poor would love to save. The poor do not have anything against saving. They would love to save if only they had enough money to save. In order to save, you need to have some kind of surplus.
Surely the hon. member is not going back to the sixteenth or seventeenth century where saving was a sign of virtue and all people had an equal opportunity to save. The way to have money today is by denying yourself; all you have to do is look around society and you will see how true that is. I know that those who deny themselves the least are the ones who save the most. They have enough to live on, as well as enough to save. Those who deny themselves the most are the ones who cannot save anything. They do not have enough to live on, let alone to save. The idea of saving being a Calvinist virtue and rewarding beyond measure those that save is not supported by either the facts or the logic of the situation.
We are looking at an inflation policy and budgetary measures that really have to deal with all sorts of problems in our society. I am sure that when he has an opportunity, the parliamentary secretary will tell me that this budget and this bill were not designed to do those things I am talking about but to stimulate investment, and for no other purpose. If he says that, I will be inclined to agree with

him. That is certainly the purpose of this budget. What I am saying is that that kind of budget is out of whack with other things the government is trying to do.
We in Canada have far more than an inflation problem. At the moment, we are all very much concerned about inflation. We should be concerned. It is a serious problem, something that must be dealt with by public policy. However, in the course of dealing with inflation we should not lose sight of two other important measures. One I have referred to is the need for egalitarianism, equality in a democratic society, and the need to use the tax system for that purpose. The other important point is that at the same time as we are moving in the direction of equality and controlling inflation we must be doing something about unemployment. Unemployment is a serious problem. It may not be quite the personal tragedy it was before we had unemployment insurance and other social welfare measures; however, it is a national tragedy of the greatest importance.
It has been estimated that every 1 per cent of unemployment results in a loss to the gross national product of between $2 billion and $3 billion a year. We pay out almost $4 billion a year on unemployment insurance. That probably results in a loss to our gross national product of upward of $10 billion. Statisticians deplore the fact that our gross national product is not growing. They say this is because people are not working hard, or something else is happening. They ignore the fact that it is not growing because of the enormous level of unemployment we have in this country. You cannot expect the gross national product to grow under those circumstances.
I do not think the gross national product is everything. It is not the end of life. However, it is important for many reasons. It is important because we have many problems in our society and we need wealth to solve them. Also, we have a responsibility to other parts of the world which desperately need our help and resources. When we waste our resources and talents, and mismanage our economy, we are short-changing the hungry and desperate of the world who need our help. It is immoral not to give help and it is immoral to destroy the basis on which that help could be based. Therefore, it is important that we get back to full employment as soon as possible. I want to discuss that question in conjunction with the kind of stimulation that is needed in the budget.
The rationale for an incomes policy is this: if you do not have an incomes policy and you stimulate the economy to full employment, you get an unacceptable level of inflation. Therefore, a restraint policy is brought in for the purpose of containing inflation while at the same time moving to full employment. A restraint program cannot be justified on any other basis except that you are using it as a way of moving toward full employment.
There is virtually nothing in the budget measures before us to give anyone any degree of confidence that we are moving toward full employment. In view of this restraint program, what we should be doing in budgetary measures is stimulating the economy by increase purchasing power. We can do that by providing purchasing power at the lowest end of the income scale, to those who need to spend, to those who want to spend and to those who have the greatest need. We do not need to do that by stimulating

savings. Savings are important, but we have learned that savings in themselves do not serve any useful purpose. Savings are only important when they become investment. There is no necessary connection between savings and investment. Those who have studied Keynes and have worked with that theory have been rather convincing in demonstrating that saving can just as soon put you into a depression as into anything else. The important thing is investment.
The question arises: how is this investment to be encouraged? Until now, the policy of the government, of which this budget measure is an extension, has been to stimulate business investment directly by increasing capital cost allowances, reducing corporate taxation, allowing a 5 per cent investment tax credit, and so on. Mr. Speaker, we have passed through a period of years during which there has probably never been a greater stimulus to investment in this country. I am referring to the last three or four years. What has been the result? Despite the fact that the climate for investment has been most favourable, by and large investors have not responded. The government has fallen over itself to make sure that conditions here are among the most favourable in the world.
When the United States brought in the DISC program, the rationale for moving to take measures in the taxation field was to offset the effects of that program in order to make investment as attractive here as it is in the United States. What has been the result? We still find unemployment running at 8 per cent. So where is the stimulation? The point is that unemployment in Canada is not related to investment. The nation has enormous unused capacity. Given confidence in the economy and purchasing power in the hands of the people, there would be no problem. The machinery is sitting around idle. It is under-used. Without providing any additional investment, we could easily put hundreds of thousands of people back to work.
The problem is not lack of investment. It is under-consumption and lack of confidence in the future of our economy.. If a situation is conducive to profitability, a businessman does not need to be stimulated to invest. In these conditions, you cannot stop them investing. If there is purchasing power around, and if a prospect of profit exists, a businessman will find ways of investing without regard to government stimulation or lack of it. In the long run, the most effective way of encouraging investment or the employment which goes with that kind of investment is by increasing purchasing power, and there is nothing in the budget which moves in that direction.
This budget really comes from another age. One might have thought the government would have anticipated some of the views which have been recently expressed. After all, hon. gentlemen opposite always talk about a contingency plan which is lying around somewhere. There were all kinds of things they could do. But somehow or other nothing effective emerged, and every time and emergency was discovered it was dealt with in one way or another. Well, the last emergency was the resignation'of the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) as minister of finance. The hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton may have left the treasury benches, but the melody lingers on. This is his budget. This is his idea, brought in in another age,
Income Tax Act
under another set of circumstances, and being brought before the House for approval although, in fact, it should have been withdrawn and new budget measures placed before the House, measures which would harmonize with the new objectives of the government.
I am not saying that a budget of itself would bail us out of the mess in which we find ourselves. I do not think that can be said. Nor can an incomes policy of itself prove to be of any significant value. But if there is to be hope in this country, any kind of confidence in our economy, the various measures brought forward must mesh with each other and make sense. It is on this basis we reject the bill before us and the measures it contains. It does not make sense. It does not meet the problems we are facing today. The sooner the government withdraws it and replaces it with something intelligent, the better off the country will be.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief because, like hon. members who spoke before me, I hope this bill will be referred as soon as possible to the Committee of the Whole.
First, I wish to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister (Mr. Trudel) for introducing this bill and I welcome him back to this House after his serious accident. When I heard about it I told myself: I think his political life is finished. But I realize that there are miracles and we are very happy today to see the parliamentary secretary back in the House discharging his new duties. We wish him a fast recovery.
Mr. Speaker, this government is a past master at presenting bills like the one before us. It concerns tax credits promoting investments by big corporations first and to encourage to a lesser degree medium size companies and not at all the individuals.
I think that is the extent of the bill. We are very satisfied with the encouragement given in the fields of mines, oil and gas because, necessarily, the government must do something in that respect if we want to meet our needs in the years to come. I hope that some day Canada will cease to depend on foreign countries because a country becomes independent to the extent where it can be self-sufficient. I believe that the encouragement in those fields is a step in the right direction. However, I believe that the government should keep its eye open.
We always speak about granting funds to big corporations for exploration, drillings, and mineral exploration. In some other fields we have also been granting funds for research. However, I think that the government has no way of knowing if those amounts paid by taxpayers are really spent for exploration and if they really meet their objective.
Now, I understand part of it is actually spent on research, but when you examine the budget of those companies you often realize that only 30 or 35 per cent of federal grants do go into research. There are so many accounting tricks and those companies have such expertise in rigging books that research value in the end is minute. This does not mean we should stop granting tax credit as a form of incentive to those companies exploring for raw

November 6, 1975
Income Tax Act
materials. But I just wanted to insist on those remarks for everyone nowadays in aware of shameful abuses in that respect, and I meant to bring that matter to the government's attention, hoping they will keep a closer watch in the future.
As regards small savers, again I think little effort is made. They are asked and urged to invest. In my opinion, if the government were serious, they actually would provide incentives for small savers to invest. I believe our economy as a whole would benefit from that. People think there is no capital available. Well, there is, and I think the government would progress tremendously if for two years they stopped taxing new capital entering the market as an incentive to new investors. There is so much money hidden today, which people cannot take out, because the government is there like an ogre, ready to lay hands on everything and empty all chests through all sorts of taxes.
If ever the day comes when government will not tolerate tax relief, will not even grant tax exemptions to have hidden moneys unfrozen, we shall be left without investments. You know that everyday we meet people who do not look rich. I meet farmers in the country and some of them who do not look rich at all ask us to try and hide $50,000, $60,000 or $75,000 they do not want to declare because they would be crushed by taxes. That is when you realize that if one day the government decided to let that money which could help the economy come out I think it would be helping first the whole country by allowing those people to invest money that they cannot bring out because they will have to give up 50 per cent or 60 per cent in taxes. I do not blame them. Indeed, I do not blame them at all. I simply say to them, you are doing the right thing, keep it in your wool sock, because you are going to get about 30 per cent or 35 per cent that will give you a return.
I think that the effort is not great enough in that direction. It is all very well for the government to say we need investment, we need small investors, but the only way is, as I suggested earlier, to give a special exemption for a new capital that would come on the market. It is understood, as the speaker of the New Democratic Party suggested earlier, that a small businessman, a small industrialist invests to meet consumer needs. That's the snag because until the government decides to encourage consumers many small investors will be forced to practice restriction like now.
We have to use restraint because of consumers' lack of purchasing power. In turn, they cannot pay because workers are overtaxed. In other words, their basic exemption is too low. If the government decided tomorrow that the basic exemption for single people were to be $4,000 instead of $1,800, and $7,000 for couples, buying potential would increase. This would spur our secondary industry, our small industry. Large manufacturers would profit thereby. This would boost the economy. Our Canadian economy cannot reasonably be revived without first increasing buying power. And the only way to do that today is to increase basic exemptions.
Labour leaders cry for higher salaries. We are all running like mad after salaries. Fatter pay cheques are not the solution. As one farmer put it: It does not matter what amounts of money we are getting all year long. What counts is what is left over come year end. As I said, the

important thing is what is left over. The rest, the amount of money earned, is relative.
A worker may earn $5, $6 or $7 an hour. With today's inflation, a $7,000 basic exemption for man and wife, and $1,000 per child, that makes for basic guaranteed income. Without that, he will find his buying power does not balance his expenses. It does not even balance his debts, because prices rise too fast. Things are going so fast now that we realize salaries cannot match price levels. Because for the last four or five years, every big corporation, every manufacturer has been increasing production by 30, 40 or 50 per cent, while salaries have been tending to catch up for a few years at most, for 18 months.
I think that if the unions worked together they would be strong enough to say: To begin with, we will ask a reasonable basic allowance. And then, we will try to have wages equalized. I think that from that point of view, an actual promotion of investment would be undertaken, because he who has the means will encourage those who want to reinvest in his trade or industry. I think that it is a step forward to develop our economy.
Finally, I will dwell on that later, the bill refers to gifts to political parties. I think that explanations are in order because some difficulties have been encountered. Those who have not experienced any have often been encouraged and protected by politicians. There have been some difficulties, because when we consider both acts, the Income Tax Act and the Canada Elections Act, we note that some provisions are contradictory. Besides, this was confirmed the other day by senior officials.
The two acts are in contradiction. I believe that the act must be clear and precise because people have faith in it. They are told: Your receipts are not valid. They are made up in accordance with the Income Tax Act, but not with the regulations established by the chief electoral officer. This is where we need some clarification, in my opinion. We can try all we want to play on words today, but I believe that we should be discussing the legislation which was implemented in 1974. It is not really the people who have been trapped between the two acts. I look forward to the discussion in committee of the whole because we shall certainly ask for some precisions on this point.


Mr. Guay (Levis):: Right now!


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: The hon. member for Levis said: Right now. We shall do so in two or three minutes if there are no other speakers. For my part, Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly not delay the discussion.
Now, there is no mention of the interest rates. The first point, in my opinion, if we sincerely wish to slow down the economy, is the basic exemption, and the second point is the freeze on interest rates. Before freezing anything else, including wages, prices and incomes, we should first of all freeze the interest rates. I cannot forgive the government for not having done so. I was on the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs when the ceiling on bank interests was removed. This was done by an irresponsible government, Mr. Speaker. I strongly objected to this and I will never forgive the government for having removed the ceiling.
November 6, 1975

Today, a bank or any individual can lend money at an interest of 10, 15, 20, 30 or 200 per cent. The legislation on usurious practices no longer applies. This is why inflation increases, Mr. Speaker. If an individual is in trouble with the bank over an 11 or 11 Vi per cent interest rate, to get out of trouble, to pay the bank, he goes to a certain finance company which shall remain nameless, which will lend him money at the rate 24, 28, or 30 per cent, with a bonus of 15 per cent, so that he may reimburse the bank temporarily. This is what happens. The worker is caught in between and he must pay, but he realizes it. I checked the finance company account of a man who owed them $250 and at the end of two years, he was late in his payments, had renewed his loan and in refinancing, the company had added the interests and figured interests anew for another two years and that went on for two years; he owed $750. What can you do? I went to the finance company, I made a scene and told them that it did not make sense. They replied; That is our way of doing business. If that is their way, it is the way of thieves. Here in Parliament we favour thieves because every ceiling of interest rates has been removed. When the interest rate was 7 or 7Vi per cent and a man lended money at 10 or 12 per cent, he was considered a usurer; he paid a fine and went to jail. Today, the man who lends you money at 200 per cent is not a thief but a financier! Can you imagine that? That is the dilemma we are in today. The problem was created by the government. We shall have to be more serious, Mr. Speaker, and I hope this bill is a foretaste of a forthcoming reform, that it is the beginning of the end, and that we shall have at last a tax law which is tailored to the workers' ability to pay and limit somewhat the thirst for money of finance companies.


Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) both on his appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and the rapid recovery from his brush with disaster a few months ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Balfour: This afternoon I should like to offer a few brief comments on the taxation amendments put forth in Bill C-65 which relate to the mineral exploration and resource development industries in Canada. May I first identify some of the main elements of this section of the act. I regret that the June 23 budget retained the most regressive measures of the budgets of May 6, 1974, and November 18, 1974, namely, the denial of a deduction from income of provincial royalties, mining taxes and similar charges, the implementation of the earned depletion scheme effective May 6, 1974, with the maximum claim limited to the lesser of 25 per cent of production profits or one-third of eligible expenditures, and the 30 per cent declining balance limitation in respect of development expenses.
In effect, Mr. Speaker, the retention of these provisions indicates that the government feels that federal-provincial wrangling for bigger pieces of the resources pie is more
Income Tax Act
important than the well-being and economic stability of the resources industry.
It is now obvious that such measures were introduced with one aim in mind, namely, to force the provinces to back down on their royalties regime and allow the federal government to appropriate a bigger share of revenues from resource income. To the industry caught in the middle it simply amounts to paying tax twice on the same income. It is now proposed that the special basic corporation tax of 50 per cent and the 15 per cent resource profit abatement of federal tax will be withdrawn effective December 31, 1975, so that the net federal corporate tax rate will be 46 per cent for mining and oil and gas income, the same as the general corporate tax rate, and the abatement privilege will increase to 25 per cent.
For this purpose, production income is to be calculated after operating expenses and capital cost allowances, but before interest, exploration and development expense and earned depletion. The amount of the deduction is not dependent upon the actual level of provincial royalties and taxes, so that the federal tax base will continue to be insulated from changes in such levies. The new allowance is to be available to all taxpayers. The 15 per cent resource profit abatement was restricted to corporations, and since exploration and development expenses will not reduce the 25 per cent deduction the new rules will reduce the effective after-tax cost of such expenses.
The proposed 5 per cent investment tax credit for new machinery, equipment and buildings acquired after June 23, 1975, and before July 1, 1977, is to apply to such assets acquired for the purpose of exploration and development, operation of mines and oil and gas wells, and processing ore to the prime metal stage.
Mr. Speaker, in so far as these measures at least make a modest attempt to rectify the injustices I have referred to, we support them. Unfortunately, they do not go far enough and certain contentious measures which still remain in the budget proposals can only further curtail badly needed exploration activity for hydrocarbon reserves. Vast amounts of capital are required to be invested to seek out new energy sources. No one seriously questions that proposition. However, under the existing tax regime of the federal government, what is required will not occur. Instead of encouragement, investors are offered disincentives to take risks, and in the end the people of Canada will be the losers.


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, one of the major provisions of this bill is the reduction in the maximum amount of the 8 per cent tax credit from $750 to $500. The effect will be a very slight tax increase for taxpayers with incomes above $25,000. It is expected to increase federal tax revenues by about $50 million in a full year. It seems to me, from my experience in this House in the past year, that whenever this government uses fiscal policy, the result is always distribution of income that leaves the top 20 per cent of the Canadian population in its relative income position, while reducing the income of the lower income groups.
In order to back up that statement, let us look at the distribution of income, by income groups, for the years 1965, 1969, 1970 and 1974. In 1965, the bottom 20 per cent of

November 6, 1975
Income Tax Act
Canadian businesses received 4.4 per cent of the total income; in 1969, 4.3 per cent; in 1973, 3.9 per cent; and by 1974, 4 per cent. So that from 1965 to 1974, despite the so-called transfer of payments that are supposed to have gone to the lower income groups in this country, we have had a diminution of income in those groups.
As a matter of fact, in 1974 not only were the bottom 20 per cent receiving only 4 per cent of the total income, but the second lowest fifth of the population, according to a recent Statistics Canada release, received only 10.8 per cent. So what we have here is a very unequal distribution of income in the Canadian economy. In other words, 40 per cent of Canadians are receiving only 14.8 per cent of the total income. When you look at the people at the top of the income bracket in this country, you find that in 1965 the top 20 per cent, or one-fifth, were receiving 41.4 per cent of all the income; in 1969 they were receiving 42.6 per cent; in 1973, 42.7 per cent; and the latest statistics available from Statistics Canada show that in 1974 they were receiving 42.4 per cent. So the top 20 per cent received 42.4 per cent, while the lowest 20 per cent received only 4 per cent. When you take the lowest 40 per cent, you find that they received only 14.8 per cent, while the top 20 per cent received 42.4 per cent.
We can praise the system under which we live as much as we want, and we can say that we have made great efforts through transfer of payments in the so-called welfare state which this party helped to initiate in this country, both at the provincial level and in fighting for it in this House. But again we are left with this enormous problem in Canada, and although we in the House often seem to feel for people in the lower income brackets, we are so taken up with our own positions and our relative prosperity-because many people work for this government-that we forget that the statistics I have read are symbolic of the suffering of 20 per cent of Canadians who are only receiving 4 per cent of the income, while in 1965 they received at least 4.4 per cent.
Where is this progressive and just society that we talk about? Why is it that we, as representatives of the Canadian people in parliament, cannot find a way to alter our tax system and our fiscal policy so that the people at the low income level in the country cannot be helped more? Why is it that we cannot make certain types of sacrifices which we know are necessary in order for these people to improve their lot? This is something that I think concerns many individual members of parliament. But we are caught up in the system because we are all part of it, and we lie back and say that it has its faults but that by and large the system is working. But who is it working for? It is mainly working for the top 20 per cent in this country who are getting 42 per cent and 43 per cent of the total income. We do not seem to have the will-despite the fact that they call themselves Liberals over there-to change tax policy in this country so as to distribute income justly.
I mentioned in the House previously my views on the other place called the Senate which is set up under our constitution, even though many of us think it is nonsensical because it is composed of people who are not elected but are appointed by the government of the day. Senators have all kinds of directorships and are on boards of various
[Mr. Hogan.)
companies, so that by and large they make up part of the top 20 per cent and, together with a number of members of parliament, they do everything possible in order to maintain the status quo. Their humanitarian and Christian feelings, I am sure, tell them that there is something radically wrong in a country like ours where 20 per cent of the lower income group consistently get as little as 4 per cent of the income. Then we introduce a measure like this.
Somebody might say, "Look at what we did recently with the income restraint program." As a result of complaints, we increased the minimum of $6,000 to $7,280 and we have made it possible for people to receive $3.50 an hour. However, these are all possibilities; there is nothing there. An interesting exchange took place in the House yesterday with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). His comments give us an indication of his type of philosophy, when he spoke about lifting the minimum wage in the country which, as he mentioned, is largely under provincial jurisdiction. He said that roughly 10 per cent of Canadian workers come under federal jurisdiction. I remember when the Secretary of the State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), at the time when I was teaching at university, introduced the Canada Labour Code at the federal level. He was then minister of labour. I was sorry for him recently because he was humiliated by France.
I remember reading one of his speeches in which he said it is not the fact that there are relatively few workers under federal jurisdiction that makes the federal minimum wage so important but, rather, the symbolic effect of giving an indication to the provinces that they have to do better. Yesterday the minister, instead of replying as he did, that the labour unions should organize the unorganized workers, as a member of the government should have given the lead in raising the federal minimum income as a further inducement and an example to the provinces. We cannot let this go on.
I should like to digress a little and return to the point I was making about the Senate and speak about Senator Croll who headed the study on poverty in 1971. Some of us obviously have friends there who are outstanding Canadians. Senator Croll is one of them, as anyone who has read that report would know. In spite of everything we have claimed, the fact is that the relative position of the lower 20 per cent group in Canadian society is worse now than it was ten years ago. That should make every parliamentarian thoroughly ashamed. It means that we have not really tackled the problem of income distribution. It means that we are not prepared, ourselves, to make sacrifices and to call upon others in our society to make the necessary sacrifices so as to enable a just distribution of income to be brought about, so that people in the lower income brackets can have the food, clothing and shelter that is necessary in the Canadian context instead of having to spend-as so many of them have to-40 per cent to 50 per cent of their income on housing and, in the case of some pensioners, as much as 60 per cent on food.
In 1973, the last figures I have show that more than half a million old age pensioners were living alone in Canada, and that 60 per cent had an annual income of below $3,000. We suggest that we should be increasing pensions for these old people because they are a good part of the lower income
November 6, 1975

group, as well as for those women who are heads of families left to fend for themselves in a very unequal society with regard to employment opportunities and the further handicap of lack of day-care centres. Regardless of our individual beliefs, we parliamentarians will at some time have to tackle the problem of poverty. Senator Croll put his finger on an important part of this problem when he said that much of the taxes the poor have to pay are regressive forms of taxation, which therefore do not aid transfer payments or change relative positions because poor people have to pay property taxes, excise taxes and indirect sales taxes, all of which fall upon them proportionately more heavily and hurt them proportionately more than higher income people. Poor people are thus kept at a perpetually low level, which is a terrible situation.
The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Salts-man) spoke about the problem of unemployment, as have others on this side of the House. We do not dismiss the difficulty of having a stable price level and full employment at the same time, but we have seen the government using unemployment insurance to introduce regressive taxation once again. Proportionately, a person making $19,000 and a person making $7,000 will pay the same amount of unemployment insurance premiums. That is a regressive form of taxation which falls on lower income groups and keeps them down.
We will either have to introduce a negative income tax or some form of payments which will hurt those of us who are in a relatively comfortable position, if we are really sincere about wanting to improve the lot of the poverty-stricken in this country. We have been very lucky because they are spread over a wide geographical area in various provinces and do not have much of a political voice. Native people who have been traditionally kept in a low income and social position have recently been showing a militancy at which some of us are very much surprised. But the essence of their militancy and distrust is that they are suffering because of this terrible poverty and all that it entails: the undereducation, disease, malnutrition, unequal opportunities to improve themselves and the declining morale of families which all the sociologists have been writing about.
We in parliament are the only people who have the power to do something about this if we really want to. But we have not had the political will to change the tax structure, change the relative positions to which I have referred, because we have been saying that if we touch the 20 per cent who consistently earn 42 per cent or 43 per cent of the nation's income, we will somehow affect their incentive to work. As members, all of us have been employers, teachers, university professors of one category or another, and of course for the extra effort and training we have put in it is only human to want a good share of the the income of the country in which we have been raised.
However, the fact is that as parliamentarians, schoolteachers, lawyers or university professors we receive a certain satisfaction from our jobs which is called psychic income. Even if our income was reduced, with some exceptions we would go on doing the same kinds of jobs; and I am not referring to any special sacrifices because one is a clergyman and has accepted that role in life. I am just talking about the ordinary satisfaction which comes with
Message from the Senate
professional life, whether it be in medicine, law, or teaching.
Despite all the transfer payments and expenditures of government, it seems to me we can only change the situation for poor people if we convince ourselves as parliamentarians of the need to really do something about it. We have not yet changed the situation although we have had some clues as to how to go about it. But surely this type of income tax which was introduced by the former minister of finance will not really change anything. Are we going to be satisfied, as members of this House of Commons, if we are re-elected or stick to politics, to return here ten years from now and find that the lowest 20 per cent of the population is still only receiving 4 per cent of the total national income? Surely not. Surely we take our positions more seriously than that, and surely we can affect our parties so that they will bring in policies which will change the relative tax structure in this country. If not, we ought to give up completely and resign ourselves to the status quo. We might as well keep having the lower 40 per cent of the population receiving 14.8 per cent of the nation's income, or thereabouts, and the upper 20 per cent receiving 42 per cent while we talk about how much we love the poor. No, more than that is demanded of us and our political parties must give a lead.
The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge has already said that this tax is largely useless in terms of the income restraint program which has been introduced by the government. I refer to the investment tax credit which is intended as a temporary, extra incentive for investment. As we understand it, the credit will be 5 per cent of the taxpayer's investment in new buildings, machinery and equipment for use in Canada in manufacturing, in processing, in petroleum or mineral production. The previous speaker referred to this in connection with mineral production, farming and fishing. We must keep in mind that this is in addition to what was in the budget as a reduced tax rate which now totals 40 per cent, and also there is the two-year write off for manufacturers and processors. The point I wish to make is that at the present time we do not hear very much opposition from the business community to this restraint program, called the anti-inflationary program, because, although there has been a little bitching by them on certain things, they well know that as it is written now, by and large there are certain qualifications.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) said not only is it possible that we will roll back dividends as long as they are going back into investment, but we might also put all forms of control on the investment sector as long as it can be shown to increase productivity. On the face of it, that sounds a bit as if we will make jobs for everybody. They seem to forget, however, that at the present time unemployment in this country stands at 7.2 per cent or 7.3 per cent.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: have the honour to inform the House that a message thas
8926

Northland Bank
been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-29, an act to enable the Eastern Canada Savings and Loan Company and Central and Nova Scotia Trust Company to amalgamate, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: It is
my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Alleged surveillance of certain Canadians of Arab descent-Request for report; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Veterans Affairs- Projects and allowances; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-The Canadian Economy-Anti-inflation program-Proposed establishment of price monitoring committee.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills.


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface) moved: that Bill C-1002, to incorporate Northland Bank, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. On the order of the day for second reading of Bill C-1002, I notice a discrepancy on page 2 of the bill, clause 5, which is an amendment to schedule A of the Bank Act. The English version shows authorized capital stock of $20 million. The French version, showing authorized capital stock of $20,000, is a typographical error and should read $20 million, as is clear on both versions of clause 3 of the bill.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, the idea of a new chartered bank established in Canada's three prairie provinces was born in the minds of a small group of western Canadians a number of years ago.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This will be an emotional speech.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased indeed that I have in my audience this evening, in the five
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)).]
o'clock show, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). It is not very often I have that honour when I am speaking, and I thought I would just mention the fact that he is here at the moment.
This group is now expanded to include citizens' representative of the social and business community of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. They wish to create a new financial institution to assist in the provision of the credit which the nation requires for expansion of its economy, with special emphasis on the rapidly growing needs in the prairie provinces. The feasibility of such an institution has been confirmed through a series of commissioned and private individual studies over a number of years.
The names of the bank, "Northland Bank" in English and "Norbanque" in French, were chosen as being indicative of Canada's geographic position in the world. It will identify for many people in many lands its general area of activity and origin. The authorized capital will be $20 million, divided into two million shares of a par value of $10. The initial capital subscription will be a minimum of $10 million. Firm commitments to subscribe are already in hand for more than 50 per cent of this amount.
The co-operative and credit union societies which are initiating the bank are independent companies operating in many different fields in western Canada. Their contracts with several hundred thousand Canadian citizens throughout the three provinces made these companies aware of the need for a new bank as a supplement to existing banking services in the expanding western economy. The head office of the bank will be in Winnipeg, Manitoba, with executive offices located in Calgary. Offices will be opened in Winnipeg, Regina and Edmonton, concurrent with the establishment of the branch in Calgary. These offices will be low in overhead but will project the essence of premier quality and integrity-the foundation upon which the bank will be built.
Imaginative and innovative approaches to the financial aspect of the expanding economic development in the prairie provinces will be paramount in the thinking and operational activities of all personnel.
The provisional directors are: Ronald Thomas Curtis, Manager, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Henry George DeCuypere, Manager, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Richard Earl Foster, Manager, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Donald Victor Larson, Executive, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Philip Duncan Sampson, Director, Regina, Saskatchewan; Alan William Scarth, Barrister, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Gordon, Maxwell Sinclair, Executive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; George Robert Vie-reck, Manager, Prince Rupert, British Columbia; Robert Alan Willson, Consultant, Calgary, Alberta; Hugh Malcolm Wilson, Banker, Calgary, Alberta. All directors are Canadian citizens and are committed to subscribing for shareholdings in accordance with the requirements of the Bank Act. Mr. Hugh Malcolm Wilson, the provisional president and chief executive officer of the new bank has 27 years of domestic and international banking experience, eminently qualifying him for the leadership position.
Mr. Wilson has travelled extensively, particularly in North and South America, Europe and the Far East. With the wealth of varied experience and exposure, the applicants are confident that Mr. Wilson and the qualified staff he will employ can bring the new bank to a position of
November 6, 1975

early achievement, always with the safety and security of the shareholders and customers in the forefront of his and the management team's thinking and action.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about this private bill. The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) listed the people involved. I think this is a step which is very much in the interests of western Canada, where in the past we have suffered severely from lack of financial institution. Winnipeg was a sizeable finance and banking centre at one time but in the last 25 years the pattern of the country's economy changed and much of this business went to the east. I cannot help remembering in my own case about 20 years ago asking my bank manager for a loan of $2,000. I went back to see him a month later and he told me he had to write to Winnipeg. Then I found that Winnipeg had to write to Montreal to find out if I could have the loan. It was obvious then that as the head offices of the bank were concentrated in the east, the banks were unaware of western needs. The incorporation of Northland Bank will go some way to rectifying this situation.
The proposal for incorporating the bank has been studied for a number of years, I understand, and the concept of the bank has undergone change. It is not to be mainly a Manitoba bank. It has graduated, so to speak, and will serve all three western provinces. This is good, as it is better for the prairie regions and western provinces to rely on each other. The credit union movement will participate in this bank and is to be congratulated. The credit unions represent the grass roots of our communities and their involvement in the formation of the new bank is extremely significant.
That is all I shall say, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the formation of the new bank. It will give western Canadians a western-based financial house and lessen the dominance of eastern-based financial houses. I think it will make our region of the country more stable and self-reliant.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words in support of the bill to incorporate Northland Bank, a new bank in western Canada. As the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) said when presenting the bill, the co-operatives and credit union societies of western Canada are behind this bank. Credit unions and co-operatives have long played a vital role in developing western Canada. In Saskatchewan, particularly, they operated during the depression years on the principle of lending a hand to their neighbours. They began with minimal capital. Over the years they grew rapidly, to become large institutions. Credit unions in particular have served areas not served by the ordinary chartered banks. Although initially credit unions were viewed with suspicion by the chartered banks, a good relationship has grown up between them and now it is not uncommon for a bank manager to refer a customer to a credit union for a loan to cover something for which the banks are not able to grant credit.
The flexibility of credit unions has been somewhat limited, and the rate at which the western Canadian economy increased in the past few years, make it necessary for the
Northland Bank
credit unions to enter the banking field. It is fair to say that over the years a certain amount of criticism has been levelled at chartered banks operating in the west. Basically, they are eastern-oriented and tend to shift the savings of westerners to central Canada. It is said that this activity in the past limited the growth of the economy of western Canada. I do not suggest that that statement is necessarily true. But it can be said, I think, that when banks have their head offices in eastern Canada they are more apt to be in tune with the needs of the east than with those of the west.
The provisional directors and shareholders of Northland Bank are to be individuals and organizations who have had an extensive background involving the finances and economy of western Canada, particularly the prairie regions. I believe this new bank will become a valuable asset for western Canada in particular and for the whole of Canada in general, and I have no hesitation in lending this bill my support.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I speak for just a moment. We welcome the extent to which credit unions and co-operative societies and associations are to participate in this bank. Mind you, I also join the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) in welcoming the fact that the head office is to be in our city of Winnipeg. Perhaps some questions need to be asked, but they can be asked in committee. We are therefore happy to let the Bill C-1002 go to committee.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I should like, first of all, to say a few words and congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Boniface (Mr. Guay) for having introduced this small bill: it may seem small but it may grow big.
I feel that a new bank in Manitoba can only be of advantage to the population of that province, all the more so because we are advised that the promoters of this bank are in the main co-operatives and associations.
To my mind, in accepting this bank, the government is taking one step towards freeing itself from the traditional chartered banks, something all Canadians also wish. One need only glance at the difficulties experienced by co-operatives, such as the caisses populaires, the credit unions out west, in trying to create the financial credit they need to operate, because of constant obstruction from chartered banks. I myself am a founding-member of a caisse populate, and if we have managed to make some way in the world of finance only through agreements with the banks.
We can see here that the shareholders are big bankers. They form a special group. That is all very well and I congratulate the people in Manitoba. But when one realizes the importance of credit unions in the province of Quebec and that they have not succeeded yet, Mr. Speaker, in getting a bank charter-


An hon. Member:: They never asked for one.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I think that if credit unions had the same charter and the same powers as chartered banks, there would be stiff competition. We would have real shareholders, real owners of the bank. We often hear today: It is the people who own the bank. That is not true!
29956- 1314

Income Tax Act
The owners of chartered banks are the big shots of finance and the individuals who hold shares in them are practically forgotten. It is to these big financiers that the chartered banks which are commonly known today belong. Indeed, I do hope from the bottom of my heart that our caisses populaires and credit unions will some day be able, like chartered banks today, to create credit. Then you will see that these chartered banks will not have long to live.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 5.22 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-65, to amend the statute law relating to income tax, (No. 2), be read the second time referred to committee of the whole.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order please. I must advise the House that if the minister speaks at this time he will close the debate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Speaker, there is really very little I can add to the able presentation made this afternoon on behalf of the government. I would say, however, that since the bill was given first reading in the House a number of amendments have been suggested to the government which we have

agreed to accept. Therefore, when we go into the clause by clause study, my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan), will be glad to put these amendments on our behalf.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Morin in the chair.
On Clause 1.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Chairman, I wish to ask the minister whether, with regard to the amendments in clause 1, subclauses (1) and (2), the comments of the resource producing provinces have been favourable. May I assume what his predecessor told me, that these amendments were being made as a result of negotiations between the Government of Canada and the province of Alberta and others in order to soften the impossible position taken by the two sides as the result of budgets last year?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Madam Chairman. I think it is fair to characterize the clause as put before the committee this evening as distilling the discussions and- agreement may be too strong a word-understanding arrived at as a result of several federal-provincial conferences. In effect the changes will not result in any very substantial diminution of provincial revenue, although the province has made it clear and has since announced certain changes in its own royalty system and its drilling incentive system, which will make for a more favourable regime within the province of Alberta in particular.
I suppose that putting this into its most meaningful context, looking at the new tax system and taking into account the royalty changes and the drilling incentives, at the very minimum, for the additional $1.50 a barrel which the firms will get from drilling, they can expect a minimum of 28 cents. Assuming that they take full advantage of the exploration and development possibilities, of the $1.50 the company can retain 71 cents. Therefore it does provide a very substantial incentive for a firm that is prepared to engage in exploration in Canada. As a corollary, for a firm that is not prepared to continue exploration in Canada it is rather a disincentive. I think it is fair to say in general terms that as a result of this amendment alone the provincial share of the revenue is no less. However, the province of Alberta has made certain decisions itself that will have shifted a number of percentage points from its own account into that of the corporations.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2.
November 6, 1975
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Chairman, may I make one comment. While it is very much appreciated that there has been this expansion to cover taxpayer spouses mutually, I suppose it is up to the Minister of National Revenue to educate the public further on this grossed-up dividend provision. It was announced that the benefit of the $1,000 would apply to both parties. Since this was an income provision before to which are added dividends, but on a grossed-up basis, to the value of $1,000, it becomes pretty hard for a lot of people to understand. They ask why they should be limited to $650 when it comes to dividends. An educational program has to be carried out, but the sooner the minister can find a way of getting rid of this I think the better it will be.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: All I can say is that I will take that under consideration for a future budgetary statement.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On clause 4.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, as the result of further study it has occurred to us that it would be more appropriate to change subclause (4) of clause 4 of the bill, particularly with reference to the final line of the subclause, which reads "1976 and subsequent taxation years". The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been somewhat exercised on this question. He has pointed out to me, with some justification, that the final line of the subclause should read "1977 and subsequent taxation years". I understand that in his rather forceful way he is putting forward this amendment to the statute.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: It is moved by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development:
That Bill C-65 be amended by striking out line 12 on page 3 and substituting the following:
"1977 and subsequent taxation years."
Amendment (Mr. Buchanan) agreed to.
Clause 4 as amended agreed to.
On clause 5.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Chairman, I have one question for clarification purposes. I take it this is consequential, or shall I say part of the package of changes that are being made as a result of changes in the oil and gas taxation? Section 123.3 is one of those provisions that deal with that subject.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, that is precisely correct. It is consequential upon the first amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 9.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, we now move into another area, and we are here dealing with the election expenses arrangements. Here again further reflection upon this area indicates that it would be most approincome Tax Act
priate to amend clause 9(1) by moving two amendments. I have reason to believe that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development might be prepared to amend the clause in the following manner, (a): by striking out line 2 on page 10 and substituting the following: "property acquired by him in the year, determined without reference to sub-section 13(7.1),"


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Session (4.1) on page 7 is the end of the election expenses, and there is an investment tax credit provision right in the middle.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am obliged to the hon. member. Indeed there are three amendments here. If I may continue, (b):
by striking out line 8 on page 10 and substituting the following: "years, determined without reference to subsection 13(7.1),"
If the committee wishes I can go through them all now or take them seriatim.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Put them all in now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The next amendment is (c): by striking out line 24 on page 12 and substituting the following:
"of finished goods,";
Then (d):
by adding thereto, immediately after line 32 on page 12 thereof, the following:
"(12) For the purposes of subsection 13(7.1), where, pursuant to a designation or an allocation from a trust or partnership, an amount is required by subsection (7) or (8) to be added in computing the investment tax credit of a taxpayer at the end of his taxation year, such amount shall be deemed to have been received at the end of its fiscal period in respect of which the designation or allocation was made by the trust or partnership, as the case may be, as assistance from a government for the acquisition of depreciable property."
Then (e):
by striking out line 36 on page 12 and substituting the following:
"23, 1975 and subsections 127(5) to (12) of"
Again my colleague will move the amendments on my behalf, Madam Chairman.


J. Judd Buchanan: I so move.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Chairman, there is a little difficulty here. In preparation of the drafting of this particular clause 9 we drifted all the way across election expenses and the aggregation thereof, which continues to the foot of page 7, and then moved into an entirely new concept, this investment tax credit. The amendments that the minister has been reading, as I apprised them, and having seen them earlier today, deal with what are qualified properties. We are into two different subjects here.
With the permission of the Chair perhaps I could direct the minister's attention to the first part dealing with election expenses and get from him the purpose of the changes, which seem to be somewhat grammatical for purposes of clarification, so that a number of small donations to a political party in amounts up to $100 can be aggregated. The original intention of applying the 75 per cent credit is not limited to the first such donation in the aggregates, which I suspect was the interpretation that could be placed upon the legislation as originally drafted.

Income Tax Act


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I understand it, Madam Chairman, the amendments in question arise from a discussion that took place between representatives of all four parties and the chief electoral officer on April 14, 1975, concerning certain unanticipated consequences of the new political contribution provision. The amendment was drafted to reflect the consensus obtained at that meeting.
I suppose the most important and substantive provision in the amendment, which also makes certain clarifying and technical changes, is that with respect to the definition in Section 127(4.1), referring to all amounts contributed to be cash or a cheque. This definition operates in conjunction with the provisions of 127(3.1), which refers to receipts being issued by parties and candidates to persons for services rendered. Section 127(3.2) provides that the amounts contributed must, of course, be deposited by the official agent of the candidate forthwith in a bank, credit union or trust company, and official candidates in northern isolated constituencies are excluded from this particular requirement for obvious reasons.
As a consequence of this there are three consequential amendments. The amendment to Section 231 of the act and Clause 12 of this bill provides that duplicates must be kept of receipts issued for amounts contributed, referring to "amounts contributed", taking the term of the art rather than the contribution.
The amendment also establishes a standard of verification to which registered parties and official agents of candidates must keep their records or books. The amendment in 12(2) of the bill changes the reference in 231(4) of the act from contributions to the newly defined term "amounts contributed", and the amendment to 13(1) of this bill brings this within the purview of the penalty provision. Under Section 238(2) of the act we cover persons contravening the provisions of the new Section 127(3.1) and (3.2).
I would have to acknowledge the fact that that particular section of the bill is a potpourri, but I am advised that the reason for two dissimilar amendments being put in together is basically for structural purposes in the act itself, and in particular so as not to disarrange the provincial tax credit. Perhaps in terms of presenting the legislation logically that might not meet such a standard, but I am advised that within the broader context of the bill there is certain logic to it, though not readily apparent.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I guess we will have to take the minister's word for it. The problem that arises is precisely a result of the fact that the minister has finished his answer in that regard to Clause 9 and now we come into the tax credits.
While I have not given the consideration in depth that one would require to become an expert, I find some confusion in respect of the investment for the purposes of manufacturing and processing. While this does allow manufacturing and processing on their own there is a disqualification in respect of property in Clause 12(b), line 22. So one still cannot invest in a building which is used for storing, shipping, selling or the leasing of finished goods.

If an investor were going to put money into a building for manufacturing or processing, how is it that that part of the building which might be used for warehousing of the finished products cannot be included? If the building were to be used for the purpose of storing raw materials it would be included, but that portion of the building used for administration, including clerical and personnel activities, would not. Am I correct, or am I making a wrong assumption and that these uses must be exclusive to the building? In other words, the building must be used exclusively for the storing of raw materials, and a building used exclusively for the storing of finished products will be disqualified, but if those portions of the building form a manufacturing unit there would be a qualification?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, the understanding expressed by the hon. member for Edmonton West is substantially correct. The purpose of the exclusion here was to make it clear that the government's tax credit is made available basically for productive or processing facilities as opposed to those further down the stream in the distribution section. It could well be argued logically that storing facilities of a manufacturer at the very end of the process might be included in that regard. I think the feeling of my advisers is basically that it is very difficult to include that particular storage without raising questions about storage for the distribution sector.
Going to the hon. member's final question, the storing of raw materials as an integral part of the productive or processing operations would indeed be included. The raw material at the beginning part of the whole mill operation would be included, even if there were storing facilities, but the facilities in which the product is stored preparatory to shipment would not be included.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, but then we come to the next one which refers to facilities for employees, including cafeterias, clinics, and recreational facilities. I find it extraordinary that while the manufacturing and processing part which has facilities for the storing of raw materials would qualify as an investment, that part of the building for administration and clerical activities would not. The cafeterias and other staff buildings for employees in the manufacturing and processing operations are part and parcel, particularly the cafeteria, but would be excluded. I find that somewhat difficult. Would the minister comment?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think it is fair to comment that if it were all part of an entirely new installation these facilities for the storage of raw materials would be an addition to the productive capacity and in that case would be included. Desirable an objective as it might be to upgrade the facilities for the working force by some addition in the way of an investment in these facilities, which would not result in an addition to the productive capacity, it would not be regarded as being within the terms of the amendment.
In other words, we are looking for additional processing or productive capacity, which we know is going to result in larger throughput as opposed to ameliorating the circumstances of an already existing plant.
November 6, 1975


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: For clarification, I take it that if the taxpayer were to invest in the total package of production and processing, that is, starting with the raw material, storage, cafeteria and everything, there would be a totally new complex and these would qualify, but if there were an existing complex and an upgrading by way of a new cafeteria, or a new staff recreational room, these would not qualify in the same way as a new office section attached to an existing plant?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If it is all in one building or all in one continuous process the answer is yes. If, of course, it is split up in any way that it can be regarded as being an amelioration of existing facilities, it would not be covered. Obviously this is going to be a question of factual determination, and not an easy one in many cases.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 9 as amended agreed to.
On Clause 10.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Chairman, this is the one the parliamentary secretary and I had some discussion about in principle this afternoon. I take it this is the attempt by the Department of National Revenue to plug what they see as a loophole which allows employees to take the benefit of both a registered retirement savings plan and a registered pension plan. I will not repeat the argument I made this afternoon in principle. I think it is reprehensible to try to lump them together, particularly where an employee has no choice. The employer pays right into the pension plan without any consultation with the employee. They control the pension plan as in the case of the railways. An employee is not allowed to participate in any registered retirement savings plan, and this to me creates a disincentive to saving. Frankly I think this is counter productive to what we should have in our taxation system.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, basically it is a question of fairness between employees of one employer and employees of another employer. There may be some circumstances in which the former would be entitled to deductions but the latter would not. This is to provide a little equity between different employees or taxpayers.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall clause 10 carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.
Clause 10 agreed to.
On Clause 11.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This again is to repair some of the ravages of the tax reform of 1971-72 where there was a desire by FISC to lay its hands on every conceivable split penny. First of all, government obligations had to be exempt from the withholding tax because that would hurt the government's position in its sales of government obligations or holdings of government obligations by taxpayers offshore. Now we are coming back to a more original position where Canadian business can finance on a long-term basis, and the withholding tax as it
Income Tax Act
now applies will more or less preclude Canadian businesses getting more advantageous financing, and will place them in a very difficult position competitively with other interests abroad. Perhaps a little more sanity in this connection is being restored to the corporate tax in this very narrow sector.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, the amendment really reflects in many cases the current state of the world capital market. I think it is fair to say that since my predecessor's introduction of this proposal earlier in the year a number of substantial placements have been made by Canadian corporations and other borrowers in foreign markets in longer term securities. Perhaps the temporary or occasional quality of this particular amendment is recognized by the fact that it is applicable up to the end of 1978. Obviously the government will have to have under scrutiny the capital markets at that time, and the necessity at that time of considering this particular exemption. As the House knows, there are certain opportunities for funded debt placement overseas of which we have taken advantage and which we feel can be taken advantage of, in effect placing further Canadian financing in a longer term debt form rather than shorter term or equity.
Clause 11 agreed to.
On Clause 12.


Mr. Peters:: Madam Chairman, I am curious why there is a legal difference in the words "amount contributed" and the previous words "contributions made". This would seem to be more of a grammatical than a fiscal change, but I should like to know the reason for it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, this really is consequential on the earlier amendment, as the hon. member for Edmonton West pointed out. "Contributions" is capable of being interpreted as either contributions in cash or contributions as services. This is to make clear that we are talking about contributions by cheque or cash payment as opposed to contributions of time donated by people.


William Arnold Peters: Do 1 take it then that the minister is saying that only cash or cheque contributions now will be considered? As I understand it this would be a contradiction to the electoral act where one of the major purposes is that the total cost of an election is to be recorded and in this case we consider only cash donations. I am sometimes confused between the act in the province of Ontario and the federal act. However, it seems to me we are saying that they can only be contributions by cheque or cash.
This could represent a major change so far as the electoral act is concerned and the ability of contributors to make contributions in kind, in time, or whatever it may be. Surely the minister is well aware of the fact that what this means is more transactions because if the person wishes to donate services, the services are paid for, he is given a cheque and makes the contribution. It seems to me if this does not mean that and that is not the purpose of it, we are making a major change in the reporting of electoral expenditures. I think this is why I am confused by the words "contribution made" which includes a number of things and the new words "amounts contributed". In my English I would consider them both to mean the same thing, but I

November 6, 1975
Income Tax Act
gather technically there is quite a difference. If we accept it as the minister says it is, then it can only be a straight donation recorded by a cheque. It seems to me we are making a major change in the electoral act.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think it is fair to observe that to a substantial degree the election expenses regime contains a recognition of the difference between services and money contributions, whether they be by cash or cheque. There are a number of exceptions to this general statement I will make, but in general terms when people work on behalf of a candidate in an election campaign that kind of contribution of individual effort is not the subject matter of restraint or restriction. What is involved here rather is an attempt to get out of the area of uncertainty the Chief Electoral Officer has in respect of claims of tax deduction for service.
As I mentioned earlier, the amendment here is one that was drafted to reflect the consensus of all the parties represented in the House. On April 14 members from all four parties in the House met with representatives of the Chief Electoral Officer and representatives of Revenue Canada concerning the payment consequences of the election expenses bill.
I do not pretend to be an expert on the Elections Expenses Act, not yet any way, but as I understand it, his colleagues along with mine and those from other parties were represented at the meeting and this was agreed as being a fair change in the way in which election contributions will be treated for tax purposes. This does not impair the ability to make services available under the Elections Expenses Act.


William Arnold Peters: Madam Chairman, the minister has just uttered the magic words which will get my support, that my party and their representatives along with representatives of other parties have decided this. Looking at the act, I will be damned if I can agree with many things they did which they have not been able to explain. This is total confusion, but I sincerely hope the minister is not trying to overcome another problem with which I am familiar by making this change. I am not referring to those expenses to which the minister referred but rather to the expenses incurred by people who supply goods and services, such as conference rooms, printing facilities, or whatever it may be. They should be considered as legitimate expenditures in the calculation of the over-all election expenses, and there is a price for them before even the transaction is made. It will have to be made in the form of a bill, someone will get a cheque, and the cheque will be donated. It seems to me that this is not the way to solve the problem which the minister had in mind and which affects another matter altogether. I hope this is not really the result of it.
I am certainly expressing an opinion on behalf of no one but myself, but it seems to me that most of us have had difficulty in understanding the legal jargon in the elections expenses legislation. I think it has been fair and reasonable and I would not like to get it to the point where cheques are exchanged for the sake of having a legitimate contribution recorded.
(Mr. Peters.]


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member really speaks for me as well in his expression of concern about the complexity of the elections expenses mechanism and I cannot make any further or very detailed comments about that. What we are really considering here is to have the tax benefit contribution made in the form of money, using the word in the broader sense to mean either cash or a cheque.


Mr. Jones:: Madam Chairman, in all fairness I wonder if the minister and his department will be prepared to give further consideration to the Income Tax Act and corresponding statutes in view of the fact that the Canada Elections Act does provide for the election of independents to this House. As the statutes are presently prepared and enacted they are discriminatory, inequitable, and unfair to those who find themselves in the position of independents or are not affiliated with any political party. Because of this the legislation should be extended in some way to organizations of independent members of parliament. Now it extends to them only during an election campaign. I think this is most unfair and inequitable, and it is something of which this House should be darned ashamed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I was looking to see whether the President of the Privy Council was with us this evening and I find he is not. However, I will be prepared to make the hon. member's representation to him that, as a candidate like any other candidate he has certain benefits at election time but that his basic point is that between elections he does not have the same basis of recognition. It seems to me that that is a valid question for the minister and for representatives of other parties to consider in this context.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Madam Chairman, we were anxious to read the amendments brought in. We thought that this would really shed some light on the act but I realize that the more amendments we have, the more obscure the act is.
It is true. There was a problem. But I think the previous act was much clearer than the amendments we are voting this evening, because the problem had to do mainly with receipts. According to this legislation receipts for services will not be accepted any more. It will be necessary to produce cheques or even banknotes I think. I do not know if I understand well correctly but if an individual, an ordinary worker who does not even have a bank account gives us $20, we will not be able to accept his gift. How are we going to register his $20 with the cheque system? It is easy for a major party which sponsors banquets at $200 a plate to "play" with cheques but it is not so easy for a minor party which has to rely on $5, $10 and $20 notes. The trouble with cheques is that in order to write out a cheque, one must have a bank account, and if one has not, what happens then?
From what I can see, even a $100 bank note is not accepted.
You have to give a cheque.
The act should be made clear. We have trouble understanding the act, and the chief electoral officer says: "There is a discrepancy between the Election Expenses Act and the Income Tax Act. He is the one who says that. We

try to make sense out of it and get more confused than ever.
If someone-I would like to have an answer on this point first of all-gives us, say, $20 or $25 cash, a bank note bearing the royal effigy, can we at least issue a receipt and register it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, I must admit that I do not fully understand the position of each party in the House. But I think it should be pointed out at this time that it is the result of an agreement concluded between the four parties of the House, including the Social Credit Party of Canada. I think that this is entirely possible and that the hon. member is right, but the present discussion represents an agreement, a compromise to which the four parties agreed. For that reason, I presume that it is just enough for the hon. member.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Chairman, if I could draw the attention of our colleague for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) to page 7 of the bill, subclause (4.1) of the French version, the member will read as follows:
... [DOT]contribution* signifie un montant verse a un parti enregistre ou a un candidat sous forme d'argent liquide ou au moyen d'un effet negociable . ..
That means a cheque. Then the cash or the cheque represents an amount contributed.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Madam Chairman, we of the Social Credit are told that cash deposits are no good any more.


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. Shall clause 12 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


William Arnold Peters: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated the next sitting of the House, and that is mandatory.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But there is no need to do it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I am sorry. I did not hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
State Pensions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made it clear to me that he would not agree to third reading this evening, so under the circumstances we agree that it should be considered at the next sitting, and perhaps we could go on to other business at this point.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that third reading be delayed until the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


STATUTE LAW (SUPERANNUATION) AMENDMENT ACT MEASURE TO AMEND VARIOUS STATUTES TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGES IN PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS, BENEFITS, ETC.
Hon. C. M. Drury (for the President of Treasury Board) moved: that Bill C-52, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, the Governor General's Retiring Annuity Act, the Judges Act, the Tax Review Board Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that hon. members on the treasury benches will recall that earlier this session the government House leader agreed that after this bill had been given second reading it would go to the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service rather than to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. That has been confirmed by the government House leader in meetings of House leaders several times. I wonder if that understanding could be included in the motion.


Mr. Blais:: Madam Speaker, the statement made by the House leader of the New Democratic Party is accurate. I recall that statement having been made by the government House leader-


An hon. Member:: And you have no objection?


Jean-Jacques Blais: And we have no objection.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, I should like to have clarification of the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It is my recollection that the Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations was a special committee set up to discuss the Finkelman Report, and that once that committee has reported it is defunctus, and there would have to be a special resolution to set it up again in order to deal with this legislation.
8934

November 6, 1975
State Pensions
I have no preference as to which committee deals with this legislation, but I think there may be a procedural difficulty facing the House in trying to send a second piece of legislation to a committee which was originally set up with the limited power of considering a report dealing with staff. If we can continue on the present basis for tonight, and if that can be negotiated-and it will be agreed that there will not be a long debate on a motion to refer this particular legislation to the same joint committee-that would be fine, but at the moment I think it is impossible to accede to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, first I assure the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that that committee is not yet defunctus. It will be around quite a while. In other words, the committee does exist, and this bill could be referred to it, but as I pointed out earlier when there was a motion before this House to set up that committee, the government House leader said that that committee would also deal with this bill. He has been asked about it several times, in public and in meetings of the House leaders. It has been agreed, and it is agreed tonight. If there needs to be another term of reference to satisfy the hon. member, perhaps that can be obtained, but I trust that the understanding we have had from the government all along will prevail.
The point is that the other committee is busy already and will be terribly busy when supplementary estimates are tabled, but the special joint committee on employer-employee relations is seized of problems relating to public servants, and I think we were all agreed that that was the place for this bill to go.


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Speaker, I would just like to confirm that it was our understanding, in agreement with the House leaders of the various parties, that this bill could be referred to the joint committee. However, in order not to cause any interruption in the debate tonight, I would be quite happy to confirm this with the other House leaders, and I suggest that the debate continue this evening.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is a minister not going to speak on this bill?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The bill contains amendments concerning the effect on pension entitlements of pensioners from one plan who become members under a different pension plan in some other service of the Government of Canada. These amendments relate to the report made by the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates to this House on November 6, 1973, that the various restrictions and limitations on the receipt of pensions should be removed in these circumstances.
In the light of this motion and report, the government undertook to conduct a complete review of the principles which should govern the pension plans for which it is responsible. As a result of this study the government has concluded that one of the basic principles under these pension plans should be that a person appointed to a position under a different plan should not forgo his pension entitlement. Another principle which was confirmed by this study as still being appropriate was that provisions of pension plans may vary for groups within the federal service. As a result, amendments are being introduced in the various acts where a restriction exists to permit a pensioner who is re-employed to receive his or her pension unless he or she again becomes subject to the same pension plan under which that pension was paid.
Provisions are also included to permit the transfer of pension credits from one government plan to another in certain situations where such transfer provisions do not already exist.
Those are the principal amendments of broadest application to several of these acts. In addition, there are numerous amendments consequential upon new provisions in other legislation or designed to remove anomalies in the interest of greater consistency, deal with problem cases and a variety of matters which have arisen in the course of administering the various acts to which this bill applies.
The bill proposes the introduction of contributions to the Judges Act, a feature which is common to most of the pension plans covering the federal public service. As hon. members will have noted, members of the judiciary appointed before February 17, 1975, will be required by this bill to contribute lVi per cent of their salaries toward the cost of the improved level of judges' widows' benefits proposed under Bill C-47. Judges appointed after February 16 will contribute 6V2 per cent of their salaries toward the cost of their own and their survivors' pensions.
This rate is the contribution rate also proposed under Bill C-23 for the new superannuation plan for Lieutenant Governors and is the same rate as is paid by Senators under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. Similarly, another amendment to the parliamentary pension plan will increase the rate of contribution to 6V2 per cent of the Prime Minister's salary in respect of the Prime Minister's pension. At the same time the minimum age at which a former Prime Minister can draw his pension will be reduced from 70 to 65, which is now a more normal age for the commencement of retirement pensions than when the higher age was introduced in 1963.
The increase proposed in the level of the pensions of the widows of former Prime Ministers from one-third to one-half of a former Prime Minister's pension corresponds to the increase proposed under Bill C-47 in the level of pensions for the widows of judges.
State Pensions
This completes my description of the substance of the most important of the 106 clauses in this bill. Clearly it would not be possible to explain all of them today, but there will be ample opportunity to do so when the bill is before the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service, or the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates depending on the resolution of the matter referred to earlier this evening. Mr. Speaker, I recommended to the House second reading and passage of this bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, seeing me rise again on this occasion one might be inclined to say this is my day in the House, but I certainly do not want to give that impression.
It affords me a great deal of personal pleasure and satisfaction to speak on second reading of this bill. It is the culmination of many resolutions and private members' motions. We have seen them lauded sometimes and other times criticized, but eventually always ending up down at the very bottom of the list. When the subject matter of the motion I had put forward was accepted in the House I was very pleased. It was sent to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates where we heard witnesses from the armed services, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Treasury Board and others. That committee unanimously recommended the contents of that motion to this House and, hopefully, to the government.
On page 1, clause 2, under the heading Public Service Superannuation Act there appears this title "Equality of Status" and it is precisely that at which I have been driving. In many ways there was an inequality of status. In the present year, International Women's Year, I suppose many people think I am referring to inequality of status as between females and males. Yes, that did exist, but that is not with what my motion deals. It is not its purpose.
I felt for years that there was an incredible inequality of status affecting public service personnel such as members of the armed services, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, members of parliament and senators, in that they did not enjoy equality of status with regard to their superannuations. I do not know; I suppose it goes back to old General Lafleche, or to the mid 1930s, when it was deemed wrong for public servants to draw two salaries or benefits from the Crown. For example, on appointment to the position of deputy minister of national defence, the public service salary of the general and his pension entitlement were fused into the one salary, because it was deemed wrong at that time that he should draw two benefits.
As I have explained previously, people who have served in the armed forces originally were completely prohibited from joining the Public Service of Canada and drawing superannuation while serving with the public service. It was held at that time that no double benefit should be paid to any public servant.
The principle was set aside when members of the armed services, and of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police up to and including the rank, or its equivalent, of warrant officer class 1 were allowed to retire on full pension and enter the service of the Government of Canada without any
29956-14)4

November 6, 1975
State Pensions
diminution or merging of pensions. But this did not apply to those of commissioned rank in either of the forces who wished to serve in the Public Service of Canada. If the position taken in the public service meant that the pay in the public service was more than the pay applicable to the rank of the employee at the time of retirement, a formula for the diminution of the superannuation allowance was applied.
Strangely enough, although it applied to the Queen's service in the right of Canada, it did not apply to the Queen's service in the right of a province. Therefore a great number of highly trained people, trained at the expense of the Government of Canada, were forcibly diverted into the service of provincial governments. I do not say that the provincial governments lost thereby or that the people of Canada necessarily lost. But I do say that the Government of Canada by so applying the formula prevented many superannuates from the armed services and the RCMP from working for the Government of Canada.
Of course we could not have a member of the Public service of Canada drawing a pension if he gained employment in the armed services. No, that could not happen. The position was even more anomalous with regard to members of the House of Commons and the Senate who, because they were entitled to pension by virtue of service in this House or the other place, could not take employment in the service of the Crown of Canada without losing their pension entirely. Mr. Speaker, they lost it. I think there was a return of contributions when they died, although at one time the contributions were lost. That is how brutal it was at the beginning.
This provision was modified slightly. Strangely enough, a member of the Public Service of Canada could, on retiring and enjoying either a whole or partial pension, be elected to the House of Commons and maintain his pension, which would be paid over and above his parliamentary or senatorial salary-the latter case applying if he were appointed to the Senate. Is that equality of status? Hardly. There was no equality.
I should mention that many members of this place, being qualifed as lawyers, over the years were appointed to the bench and, with great distinction, carried out the duties of the justices of Canada in all courts under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice. Strangely, even though they might have served here for 200 years and built a pension entitlement, when they went to the bench the pension entitlement was gone. They could not draw the pension. Actually only in recent years were their contributions allowed as an asset to their estates. I tell hon. members that this, in recent years, has served to the grave disadvantage of many members of this House who accepted court appointments.
On the other hand, lawyers who were practising in the provinces, who were members of the law societies of the provinces and who were appointed directly to the bench had, in many cases while in practice built up a pension entitlement, annuity or additional income which allowed them to enjoy their position on the bench, when pay for the bench was not too generous, with a degree of ease which made them completely independent. They were completely independent and above temptation. But the member of parliament who went to the bench without any

pension had a hard time. I have heard many members of the bench complain that, frankly, on their salaries they could not afford to live at the level at which judges are expected to live. They had no accumulated pensions. They had accumulated a pension while serving this House, but they had not had the opportunity to practice while serving as a member of parliament, and that was that.
I am looking for equality of status, Mr. Speaker. This bill will allow members of parliament, or of the other place, if they have entitlement to pension to merge it into the superannuation scheme of the public service if they join the public service.
I do not suppose that we shall frequently see a member of parliament joining the armed services on retirement from this House, although of course, there may be wartime situations, in which case this possibility would arise. I think it is highly unlikely, but there is always the possibility.
I am not sure that this act now provides for a member of parliament to go to the bench, take his pension with him and receive it, which he would do if he were to become a provincial judge. Remember, the levels of pay of provincial judges in some provinces are the equivalent of county court judges under the federal act. There would be a terrible anomaly created there. A member of parliament, highly suited to go to a district court, might say that because he is going to be limited to salary he will become a provincial judge rather than a federally appointed district court judge. There again I want to obtain an equality status in so far as those positions and the entitlements under the pension plans are concerned.
I have not been able to examine the detail of the Superannuation Act. However, in so far as it applies to females, when in practice I came across a provision which I called the gold-digger clause and I think it should be severely modified if not totally eliminated.
A member of the Public Service of Canada may in his senior years marry a second, third, fourth time or whatever it may be. He may marry a woman more than 20 years his junior. At the time of his demise, he may be retired, still married and cohabiting with his last wife. At the time of the death, because the wife is more than 20 years his junior, the superannuation she would receive under the present act would stand abated under a formula of so much for each year.
I have seen cases where in middle years a man marries a woman more than 20 years younger than he. They are married for 30 years. The second wife is a mother to the children of the first family. I know of one case where the children and husband say that the second wife was a far better mother and wife than the first. The man died at the age of 85. His widow was age 61. Under the Superannuation Act she was not entitled to the full widows' entitlement.


An hon. Member:: Why?
November 6, 1975


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Because of the gold-digger clause. The marriage took place before retirement. Had the marriage taken place after retirement there would be no survivor entitlement. That is what might be called the ultimate anti-gold-digger clause. The other one is unfair. If the parties, regardless of the age difference, have been married for ten or 15 yea#s and at the time of death they were cohabiting together, living as man and wife, the widow should receive the full entitlement of the pension.
I have also had drawn to my attention something that I trust will be caught here by reason of a combination of the Income Tax Act and the Superannuation Act.
At the time of the tax reform in 1971 the then minister of finance indicated that through tax treaties there would be an elimination of any advantage then existing whereby a public servant retiring to another country for reasons of health or domestic felicity would not have any tax withheld. Because of the tax treaty in existence there was no withholding tax of 25 per cent. Mr. Benson indicated that this would be wiped out. I remember him telling me that any public servant who had worked for Canada, retires, receives a pension and lives in the Virgin Islands or the Bahamas will have 25 per cent deducted from his pension. That was it. That is under way at the present time.
I want to find out from the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) whether that philosophy is still applicable. Will a public servant of Canada, or a member of the armed services or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who is living offshore be immediately penalized by having 25 per cent of his superannuation held back regardless of the amount of tax that he is paying in the country of residence? That 25 per cent would certainly not be refunded to him even if he paid a further 25 per cent in the country of residence. He would be paying 50 per cent of his pension for income tax. That was not only a foolish, but a prejudicial and improper proposal by the government with regard to former public servants.
There are many other details in this bill. One could go through them almost like prayer beads because they are very detailed. However, the explanations will come about in committee. As the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, the appropriate agreements can be reached so that this bill will go to a staff relations oriented committee where the necessary studies can be made and then have the bill referred back to this House and passed during this session of this parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out, this is a bill of 89 pages and 106 clauses. Therefore we are hardly going to deal with it in detail at this second reading stage.
I am glad that the earlier commitment to let this bill go to the special joint committee that is dealing with public service matters is going to be honoured. That committee has held many sittings. It is seized of problems in the public service. I think that it is the proper body to deal with this legislation, much of which does relate to public servants.
State Pensions
In introducing the bill the parliamentary secretary pointed out that in some respects it is a housekeeping bill, a bill which includes many technical changes, the purpose of which is to correct anomalies that inevitably occur in the various pieces of pension legislation on our statute books. Although I shall have some critical things to say when I point out certain anomalies that have not been corrected, and even though I shall object to some of the things that are being done in the bill, I say that, on the whole, a good job has been done in making progress in our superannuation legislation, having regard to the various pensions that come under the aegis of the federal government.
I think it is appropriate that in this year that has been identified so often as International Women's Year special emphasis is being put on establishing equality of status between men and women. I am glad that the bill not only asserts that in fine rhetoric but also carries the principle forward in certain precise situations. I shall come in a moment to one or two instances in which equality has not yet been established as between men and women, but I suppose it is still a cardinal rule around this place that if we make progress at all, even though it be slow, this is something to be welcomed.
I am glad that the parliamentary secretary was able to report on the extensive consultations that have taken place with those who represent public servants, and that to a large extent the provisions in this bill have their support even if the bill does not carry out all of their wishes.
It may be just pointing to a small detail or two, but while I am noting what is good in the bill I welcome the fact that we are at the end of non-contributory pensions for judges and also that we are at the end of non-contributory pensions for retired prime ministers. As hon. members are aware, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) as a member of parliament contributes to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, but up until the present time he has made no contribution to the extra pension that he will get for being a retired prime minister.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And I do not think he should either.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend from Edmonton West says that he does not think he should.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Not the Prime
Minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think that if a judge is expected to make a contribution to the generous pension that he gets, then the Prime Minister should do the same, and I am glad this requirement is in this bill. As a matter of fact, as the hon. member for Edmonton West knows, when the parliamentary secretary was speaking- or perhaps it was when the hon. member was speaking, I forget which-I made one of those suggestions that did not get on the record. Sometimes I think that what we should have in this place, at least for a day, is not a record of what is heard by the Hansard reporters but a record of what is said and not heard. At any rate, there was some suggestion

November 6, 1975
State Pensions
made about lowering the age at which a retiring prime minister can draw his pension. So far as the present Prime Minister is concerned, I suggested that we could bring the age down to 50.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Careful, your slip is showing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think my hon. friend from Edmonton West agrees with me.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Philosophically speaking, of course.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, philosophically speaking. We are not dealing in personalities at all. In any case, those are the points I wanted to make by way of stating my approval of the bill. As I say, I think those who have done the technical work on the bill have produced an excellent job, and that all of the various pension and superannuation statutes that will be amended by the bill will be in better shape when this process is over.
Since a good deal of what the parliamentary secretary had to say and a good deal of the emphasis in the bill deal with equality of status between male and female persons, I should like to say a few words about this particular aspect of the matter. It is true that there is to be equality on the contribution side, and I welcome this. Female employees in the public service will pay the same contribution as male employees, just as female members of parliament have been paying the same contribution as male members of parliament. There is also an attempt to establish equality on the benefit side, and I believe the details that have been announced go a long way in this direction.
I realize that when we are dealing with language, whether English or French, we have trouble with the use of the words "he" and "she". So we usually provide a general covering sentence or paragraph that says that when the act refers to "he" it can mean "she", that when it refers to "him" it can mean "her". I also note that although in most cases the language goes even further and accepts the fact that there will be female public servants who leave widowers, and that there will be female members of parliament who will leave widowers, when it comes to two offices in this country, that of the Prime Minister and the Governor General, as I read the legislation it is not anticipated that any woman will ever make it. I am really surprised that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) is not here to object.
On page 76 of the bill there is reference to the possible death of a prime minister. I am not predicting it; I am just saying there is reference to it. Clause 88(2) provides:
There shall be paid to any person who, on or after the coming into force of this subsection, is widow of a person described in subsection (1), if she was the wife of that person at the time he held office of Prime Minister-
There is no recognition that the Prime Minister might be a woman and might leave as a survivor a widower.
Then on page 81 of the bill we find the same thing with respect to the office of the Governor General. The possibility of a woman being governor general is not far fetched. A woman is Her Majesty's representative in the province of Ontario. Yet on page 81 we read this provision:
(2) Where a Governor General dies while holding office as such, there shall be paid to his widow an annuity equal to one-half of the annuity that would have been paid to her husband if he had retired on the day on which he died.


Walter David Baker: This is covered in the interpretations section.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know that if we do have a female prime minister or a female governor general and one of them dies, the surviving widower will be covered by the interpretation section and by the rhetoric that is in this legislation. But since we found it possible to go further in all other cases and admit that there are going to be women public servants and women members of parliament, I think we might also admit that some day we might have a woman prime minister as well as a woman governor general in this country.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We have males and females enjoying equality of status and human rights.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend is quite right. The rhetoric is there. Legally the point is covered, there is no question. If we have a female prime minister who dies and leaves a widower, he will be covered. But the very capable persons who drafted this bill and do such a good job on these things just seem to have fallen into the expectation in this country that the Prime Minister will always be a man. I would gladly trade the man we now have as Prime Minister for a woman.


An hon. Member:: How about Beryl?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us not be
too specific. I am speaking philosophically.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That puts a low value on woman, though.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The more serious ways in which equality has not been achieved are perhaps two, and one of them is the point the hon. member for Edmonton West has already referred to, namely, in what he calls the "gold-digger" clause. I dislike using that phrase because it suggests right away that someone is trying to get something, but the hon. member is perfectly right in his contention that the provision we are talking about should be changed.
I am going to refer not just to a second wife who became a wife before the employee retired, such as the example already cited. I know of a case of a woman whose husband died just recently. They had been married for over 25 years after the husband had retired from the public service. There was no widow's pension for her because she married him after his retirement. To me, this is most unfair.
This situation runs through all our pension legislation including the Public Service Superannuation Act, retirement acts for personnel of the armed forces or the RCMP, members of parliament and so on. The only place that I know where a person having gone on pension and, marrying thereafter, leaves a pension to the widow is the veteran who gets a pension under the Pension Act. If that veteran's pension is 48 per cent or more, when he dies his widow gets a widow's pension under that legislation. The hon. member for Edmonton West suggested some things tonight that he knows I would not agree with, but on this point he was

November 6, 1975

right, and I hope this can be looked at carefully in the committee to which this bill will be referred.
I would not want to open the door wide and make it possible for some lively young person to marry a retired public servant who is on a very high pension because she knows he is going to die within a few months. I do not mind establishing some time limit, but to make it law that there can be no pension if the marriage took place after the retirement, especially when we are moving toward early retirement, and especially now when so many public servants at high levels can retire at age 55 on full pension, if they have 30 years of service, and when members of the RCMP and the Canadian armed forces can retire in earlier years, I think the present practice is wrong, and thjit the provision needs to be looked at very carefully. I hope we shall do so in the committee.
The most serious violation of the equality of status as between men and women is one I have left to the last. I mean I have left this to the last of this part of what I am saying, and not to the end of my speech, so do not be misled.
This part of my speech relates to unfairness to women and to a piece of discrimination I think is the worst. I know it may take us a while yet to win this change, not only in respect of government pensions but in all pensions, but I think it is something that has to come.
I just cannot see the sense, the fair play, the decency or the equality of status in an arrangement under which you have a man and wife who have worked together, and I do not care which one has been in the home or which one has been out working, or whether it is both, building up a pension which happens to be in his name, and when he dies first her pension is cut to 50 per cent, but if she dies he gets the full pension.
I suppose there was a notion once upon a time that a widow could find another husband but that a husband perhaps needed a full pension so he could finance another wife, but this is not equality. I suggest very strongly that this has to be looked at, and it is time the government gave a lead in this matter in our own pension arrangements.
The members of parliament plan lets us do a little better for our widows than we have done for public servants' widows. We provide that their pensions will be 60 per cent, but the same story applies. A person can be a member of parliament for many years and build up one of these pensions, and he finally quits or gets defeated and together he and his wife have the joint pension. If the wife dies first he has the pension in full for the rest of his life, but if he dies first, despite all that she may have suffered because he was an MP, she gets only 60 per cent of the pension.
I have no illusions about the difficulty of winning the change I am seeking. I have no notion that this committee is going to solve this problem in the period between now and Christmas when I hope we will deal with this bill, but I think we have to start doing some work on it in respect of all of the pension plans over which the federal government has jurisdiction, and that applies to the pensions in the public service, the armed forces, the RCMP, diplomats, Prime Ministers, Governors General, judges, tax review board members, members of parliament and everybody else. I want to see the same thing in respect of private
State Pensions
pensions too. I want to see the Canadian National Railways and the CPR start on this as well. I want this for pension plans generally.
The fact of the matter is that there are still quite a few pension plans around that do not have any widows provisions. This is really antediluvian, but there are still such plans, and there are plans with even less than 50 per cent for the widow's pension. But any difference at all is no longer valid.
Someone might want to suggest that this calls for more money on an actuarial basis. All right, let us put more money in. Let us not deny fairness because it would cost something to achieve fairness. Maybe someone will want to say that it would be a bit expensive to go for 100 per cent in either case. All right, let us settle for 85 per cent or 90 per cent. Let us provide that so long as the husband and wife are both alive the pension will be 100 per cent, but if one of them dies, no matter which one, the survivor draws 85 per cent or 90 per cent, instead of it being 100 per cent for the man and only 50 per cent for the woman. So long as we have that bit of gross inequality, and I think it is the worst one in the whole picture, we can hardly say we have implemented the fine rhetoric that is in this bill in respect of equality of status as between men and women.
Let me now move to some other things I hope we will look at in the committee. There are still a good many veterans around, certainly of World War II, and there might still be some around from World War I, who would still like to buy back their armed service pension credit for the purpose of their service in the public service. They were not able to do it at the time for financial reasons or- let us face the facts-these persons were in their late twenties or early thirties and not as conscious of pension requirements as they were a decade or two later.
The right is in existence, but what it cost now to buy back a pension credit for wartime service, and I am talking about veterans who served in the war and are now in the public service, is so astronomical they just cannot afford it. I hope this will be looked at. I think that is more important than some of the other things which have been dealt with in this legislation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is a toughie.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Edmonton West says this is a toughie, and I agree with him. In my view one of the issues he complained about and fought for was also a toughie, but he has won it. I did not agree with what he wanted, but this is his night to rejoice and not mine in that particular respect. I think that this right of the veteran with regard to his wartime service for pension purposes should be given a thorough review.
While I am speaking about veterans may I speak about Canadian armed forces personnel and Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel who have the privilege of retiring-in fact it is not just a privilege but is compulsory-at a fairly young age of 55, 50, or even in the late forties. When they have completed their tour of duty by compulsion they retire. Their pension arrangement at the point of retirement is not bad. At least it does not seem bad cur-

November 6, 1975
State Pensions
rently, but those who have been retired for a number of years think the present arrangements look pretty good compared with what it was at the time they retired.
However, retired RCMP and retired armed forces personnel have to wait until they are 60 years of age to get the benefit of the escalation of federal government pensions which is generally available. When that was introduced in the first place it was fixed at age 60 because that was the normal retirement age in the public service. Many public servants now can retire on full pension at age 55 and receive the escalation immediately. Some public servants retire at even a younger age. If it is for medical reasons they receive the escalation. But quite a few persons in the RCMP or in the armed forces who retire at age 48, age 50, age 53 or what have you must wait until age 60 before they can receive the escalation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If they retire on medical grounds they receive the escalation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said that. If a man can get sick the day before he plans to retire, he can receive it in that way. He cannot get it after he has retired unless it can be shown that he was incapacitated due to service. My hon. friend from Grenville-Carleton asks whether that applies to members of parliament. Yes.


Walter David Baker: And judges.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not sure about judges, but certainly members of parliament. It is a pretty general rule that the escalation does not begin until age 60. When one reaches age 60 he receives the full benefit of the percentage points accumulated over the years. If a person has been out for ten years and the cost of living has gone up by 50 per cent, then at age 60 he receives a 50 per cent increase in his pension that year, but he does not get anything back for the years in which he had to cope with the rising cost of living. There is no escalation in that case. I think this should be reviewed.
It is not unusual for me to raise this. I have raised it repeatedly with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson), and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), and have received dozens of responses to the effect that the matter would be given consideration, but it never seems to get any further than that.
With regard to escalation which is covered under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act which is being amended in some respects by this bill, I think the same arguments apply that apply in respect of the escalation of other pensions. I was not one of those who carried on or played any great part in the question of whether the escalation should be quarterly rather than annually. I felt that a few cents or a few dollars now or then really did not solve the problem but that the need was for more substantial increases in the basic amounts. However, once it has been established that some pensions are escalated quarterly then the persons who would get escalation only once a year feel there is discrimination and unfairness against them, and they are right.
The only pensions that are escalated quarterly now are the old age security pension, the guaranteed income sup-

plement, the Canada Pension Plan and war veterans allowances. The disability pension for veterans is not escalated. None of the pensions for public servants, the RCMP, or the armed forces is escalated quarterly whereas that is the rule, as I say, with regard to certain others. I think that should be changed.
Again, in relation to the whole gambit of pensions there is always a lag in respect of escalation. If you get an increase in January 1976 of 10.1 per cent, which is what retired public servants will get a couple of months from now, how is that 10.1 per cent arrived at? It is arrived at by comparing the average cost of living for the 12 months which ended on September 20, 1975, with the 12 months which ended on September 30, 1974. The cost of living in the later 12-month period is 10.1 per cent more than in the former period, so you get a 10.1 per cent increase in the pension in January 1976. But we are talking about a cost of living increase which took place in a period right back into 1974. In other words the formula that we now have means that we are always behind in the escalation of pensions.
This might not apply as much in this area as in respect of senior citizens-and I have in mind the old age security pension-but it still applies here. There also should be a special cost of living index that measures the actual cost of living experience of retired persons. The consumer price index now used, as put out by Statistics Canada, is a general one which covers the whole gambit of living costs, including many items that retired persons do not buy. We have been told from time to time that Statistics Canada is working on a special index. I think there should be one, certainly in respect of the old age pensioners. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge that some of these matters I have been speaking about be looked at in the committee. I have a few more suggestions but perhaps they had better wait until tomorrow morning. May I call it ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, on October 30 when I asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) about the surveillance of Canadians of Arab descent it was against a background of great concern about the inequity, if not iniquity, in having decent Canadian citizens smeared.
The outrageous and harmful article in the Globe and Mail on October 27 is but one of the efforts to malign the record and impugn the motives of one group of Canadians, namely, those who came themselves, or whose ancestors came from the Arab countries. The article itself was suf-
November 6, 1975

ficiently disturbing, but the contradictory statements following it muddied the waters further. After discovering who Mr. Toupin was, the Solicitor General declared that the Arabs were not under surveillance, while security director Toupin was quoted in the same news item as saying they were. I am glad the minister reiterated his own view when he answered my question. Yet there is far from sufficient reassurance on this matter.
Four days after my question a young Canadian of Arab descent gave information on the CBC to the effect that he is being questioned by the RCMP. This young man, Ismail Munder of Winnipeg, declared that he was being interrogated about the PLO, the Montreal Olympics, and the Arab community. Mr. Munder claimed that he was being treated as a potential subversive. These are the young man's words. He is, I am sure, only one of many Canadians in this category. Therefore I am less than satisfied with what is going on. For many months I have heard of Canadians of Arab descent being watched, interrogated, and generally made to feel like second class citizens.
A good government in a good democracy must be ever zealous of the rights of the citizens and concerned lest the individual be made to suffer because of his membership in any linguistic, ethnic or social group.
Canadians of Arab descent, like all other Canadians have the right to be considered innocent unless and until they are proven guilty.
There is a far too prevalent tendency in this country and in the United States to degrade the word Arab and Arab peoples. It is subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, suggested that all PLO are terrorists. All Palestinians are PLO, so before long you get to the nasty implication that all Arabs are seen to be terrorists.
How many times, when the increase in the price of oil is discussed in the media, does one hear the expression "the Arab states have again hiked the price of oil"? Often this is followed by the use of the expression blackmail. Of course in OPEC are such prominent non-Arab states as Nigeria, Venezuela, Iran, Indonesia and Ecuador.
This same tendency to stigmatize and suspect whole groups is revealed in our government's immigration department. Time and time again when Palestinian leaders are invited to address perfectly reputable and respected organizations they are harassed, delayed, and made totally unwelcome at immigration centres and borders of this country. I spoke in the House some months ago about the treatment accorded Dr. Fayez Sayegh, a distinguished scholar and statesman, who was guest speaker at the annual meeting of the Canadian Arab Federation. This was as unnecessary as it was deplorable.
Of course any government has the right, indeed the obligation, to give thought to national security. In a world where terrorism is tragically too common there is a special problem. But it is wrong to assume that terrorism is unique to some frustrated Palestinian people. We know that there is much violence, and even in the Middle East it is not confined to Palestinians or Arabs. It is wrong to be snooping on decent Canadian citizens because their people came from an Arab country. Are our security people checking up on all Irish societies in this country because there is terror-
Adjournment Motion
ism in Ireland? Surely not. But there is much snooping into Arab organizations in this country, which is reprehensible and indecent.
The Globe and Mail's sensationalist article has been injurious to many of the 90,000 Canadians of Arab origin with its reference to conspiracy, and students plotting this, and others scheming that. The minister, of course, is not responsible for the press, and the bias of the Globe and Mail on the Middle East crisis is too well known to warrant discussion. But I do call on the minister who, while often wrong, is still, I think, a well-intentioned man, to be just and fair in his treatment of Arab Canadians. I ask him to see that his security people do not trespass on the rights of decent Canadians because they happen to be related to people from the Arab world.


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) may I say that I know that he has stated in his concluding remarks that the sensational article which appeared in the Globe and Mail is not the responsibility of the minister.
In response to the hon. gentleman's question I must repeat what the minister has already said, that is, that the RCMP has indicated that there is no plot among Arab Canadians such as imputed in the Globe and Mail last week. I repeat this, for I wish to make it very clear that I believe Canadians of Arab background are honest, hard working citizens, and their integrity and honesty should not be questioned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Doubts of this nature cast upon any group in Canada because of ethnic background are most unfair and unjust.
However, as I am sure this House is aware, there has been an increasing amount of terrorist activity in recent years. This activity has not been limited to any one country. Indeed it would appear that no country is immune from these attacks. I am sure that this is of concern to all members of this House, and likewise to all Canadians.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has an obligation, through the RCMP, to ensure the security and safety of Canadians from these terrorist activities. The RCMP security service is in communication with all ethnic communities in Canada in an attempt to ensure that terrorist activity may be discovered before it can harm any citizen. It is part of the ongoing dialogue with people in Canada who may have information or who are prepared to co-operate in ensuring that terrorist elements are not successful in carrying out their acts in this country.
Although terrorist activity is not limited to any one particular time or location, the incident at the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich shows clearly that individuals or groups who favour these methods endeavour to select times and places which provide the greatest amount of publicity for their cause.
The RCMP security service is concerned about the possibility of terrorist activity at the Montreal Olympics, and therefore is taking every precaution to ensure that there are no such occurrences. They would be derelict in their

November 6, 1975
Adjournment Motion
duty as security officers, as would the Solicitor General, the minister responsible for the RCMP, if they did not proceed in this fashion.
The Solicitor General has stated publicly that the RCMP are aware of the existence of many individuals and groups who are sympathizers on both sides of the Palestinian conflict. As I have stated, the RCMP are always on guard against terrorism of any kind, and in this respect become aware of groups and individuals who are sympathizers to one side or the other/This is not limited to this conflict alone.
Once again I think it is most unfair and most regrettable if this story has cast a shadow of subversion, as has been described by the hon. member, on the many thousands of decent, law abiding Canadians of Arab descent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VETERANS AFFAIRS-PROJECTS AND ALLOWANCES
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I think I may be setting a precedent tonight because I am bringing to the attention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), through his very capable parliamentary secretary, a double barrelled question with regard to two matters of concern. One is the veterans housing program, and the second is a problem with regard to the disparity which exists between the war veterans, civilian war allowances and the disability pensions as they exist at present.
I wish I had time to bring forward a third question which relates to an editorial in the Globe and Mail. Some young whippersnapper had occasion to say that if the government was looking for restraint there are many areas under the Department of Veterans Affairs which could be curtailed.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Jack Marshall: At some time in the future I would certainly like to be able to deal with that young whippersnapper and teach him what Canada is all about.
However, I wish to refer to the fact that as a result of the discontinuance of the Veterans' Land Act the government introduced two programs under veterans housing legislation, one as it applies to non profit housing, and one as it applies to some additions under the Assisted Home Ownership Program. As I have said many times before in the House, one of the things which is missing which I cannot understand is the availability of rehabilitation assistance for all Canadians. Whether veterans or not, all Canadians should be able to apply for loans and grants to rehabilitate their homes which are deteriorating because under fixed incomes they cannot keep up with the maintenance of those homes.
I hope that the parliamentary secretary will remind the minister, although I am sure he is aware of it, that somewhere along the line we have to influence the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson). We must convince him that it is a simple matter to introduce a rehabilitation

program which would give veterans the chance to bring their homes up to a reasonable standard.
I see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) is in the House tonight. I am sure he will recognize that when he was minister of energy, mines and resources we could have saved millions of dollars worth of fuel through good insulation for those homes throughout the country that had deteriorated. It would also have been a conservation measure.
I commend the government for bringing in improvements to the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act which mean that those veterans who are burned out and pre-aged have surpassed the disability pensions of those who were wounded and are receiving pensions under that criteria.
For example, a disability pensioner who is married and getting 75 per cent pension who has no other income gets $509.43, whereas his counterpart under the War Veterans Allowance Act gets $548.05. Besides that, the war veterans allowance recipient can get drugs for any disability, while the disability pensioner can only get drugs for the particular wound from which he suffers. In addition, the income of the WVA recipient is indexed quarterly while the income of the disability pensioner is indexed annually.
I have no quarrel with the Minister of Veterans Affairs or the government, but this points out that as a result of the amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act, for these men who have surpassed disability pension there has to be some way of resolving both pensions. The disability pensioner who has no other income has fallen behind and must be brought up, particularly today when inflation is hurting every fixed income pensioner in the country.
I appeal to the minister to have the Canadian Pension Commission and the War Veterans Allowance Board look into this matter. A disability pensioner who is receiving a pension from 5 per cent to 75 per cent and has no other income can qualify for a higher rate, but because he does not know this he is losing hundreds of dollars per year. I think the department and the minister should bring this fact to the attention of all disability pensioners in that category so that they may take advantage of what is available to them.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in replying on behalf of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). First may I deal with the question concerning the WVA group. I shall deal with disability pensioners and war veterans allowances. Actually, the hon. member raised two questions. I shall try to answer both.
I think the hon. member knows that the minister has held discussions with the officials of the commission, and a stuffer will be placed in the envelope with the monthly pension cheque in the very near future. This stuffer will advise that the quarterly adjustment affecting income ceilings for war veterans allowance may make possible increased WVA payments if application therefor is made. I think that is clear.
Canadian pension commission officials feel that all pensioners should be advised of these changes so that they can contact the Department of Veterans Affairs to determine if they are in receipt of maximum benefits. The minister
November 6, 1975

would like to make it clear, in the circumstances outlined, that pension rates are based on the statute and not subject to change. Certain pensioners, however, if they have no other income may seek to have their pensions supplemented by WVA.
The hon. member gave notice of his concerns for people on war veterans allowance. I shall certainly be glad to bring his new ideas to the minister's attention. The hon. member should be congratulated on his concern for veterans.
The second part of the answer has to do with housing. I shall do my best to satisfy the hon. member. The question of adding to the veterans housing program a provision which would permit veterans, irrespective of their province or location within that province, to apply for assistance to rehabilitate their houses has already been brought to the minister's attention. I hope the hon. member will pardon me for going slowly. In a sense I am translating the document in front of me which is written in the first person.
The minister has stated that he will give the question his serious consideration. He would, however, like to add that in terms of priorities he believes he must delay consideration until such time as his recently announced program of
Adjournment Motion
special housing assistance for veterans is well established and he is certain that the machinery is operating effectively, to the benefit of those veterans concerned. In other words, he believes that consideration must await the time until he is able to assess the success of the special housing assistance for veterans program.
I may say to the hon. member that I myself have discussed this question with the director general of the veterans' land administration, who explained what is in the program. I think what he said would have pleased the hon. member. The minister wishes to add that such assistance as he has been asked to consider is of concern to his colleagues as well, especially as it would affect Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Such assistance goes beyond the provisions of existing legislation; therefore he will have to discuss the matter with his colleagues.
In summary, I can only reiterate that this matter will be given the minister's fullest consideration when he is certain that the present housing assistance program for veterans is fully and successfully operating.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House now being deemed to have been adopted, this House accordingly stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.21 p.m.

Friday, November 7, 1975