1975-02-11

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF CONSULTATIVE ASSEMBLY OF EUROPE, AND CANADIAN AMBASSADOR TO BELGIUM

Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before commencing today's proceedings, I have the honour and the pleasure to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in our gallery of a most distinguished visitor with whom we had some very productive and, I think, very interesting discussions this morning about the future of interparliamentary relations between Canada and the Consultative Assembly of Europe. I refer, of course, to the president of that very important body, the distinguished Senator Guiseppe Vedovato, President of the Consultative Assembly of Europe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The warmth of the reception makes me sure that I speak on behalf of all hon. members in extending to Senator Vedovato very best wishes for his comfort and enjoyment while in Canada, as well as for the fruitfulness of the discussions we shall be carrying on throughout his week-long visit here.
Hon. members will also note that perhaps as an indication of our esteem for our relationship with this very important Consultative Assembly, the hon. senator is accompanied by someone who needs no introduction to the hon. members of this chamber. I welcome him not only as he would be welcomed in our midst as my predecessor, but I should like to give hon. members the opportunity to wish him well on his first official visit, since it is within his new responsibilities that our relationship with the Consultative Assembly falls. We therefore know it is in the very best of hands, because this matter is being taken care of by our Ambassador to Belgium, His Excellency the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Come back: we need you.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I think I quite properly refrained from adding the comment that there have already been occasions on which I might happily have changed places with His Excellency.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
e (1410)



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. McRae.

Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the unemployment figures released this morning, figures which reveal that the government has allowed unemployment in this country to reach the scandalous level of 817,000 persons, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That the Minister of Finance be instructed to appear immediately before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to give a detailed explanation of what actions, if any, he proposes to take to reduce unemployment in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the proposed motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, it cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be debated at this time.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an urgent matter calling for immediate consideration.
Since inflation keeps on eroding the purchasing power of Canadian citizens, that all Canadians need a minimum
28626-61'/2


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the dramatic rise in unemployment, and in view of the principle inherent in the statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) that the Syncrude project was exempted from the 1974 budget measures because it was unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That the Minister of Finance be instructed to appear immediately before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to explain what further plans he has to limit his capacity to amend the income tax law and to frustrate its uniform application, and what effect such limitations and the resultant revenue loss will have on the minister's ability to deal with such economic problems as the disastrously high unemployment rate.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the proposed motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, it cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be debated at this time.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move an important and very urgent motion.
Since the 1976 Olympic Games which will be held in Montreal, the metropolis of Canada, and which will serve to put not only the province of Quebec but also the whole of Canada in the forefront of the world, may very likely result in a deficit of several hundred million, a deficit which should be assumed by all Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That this House consider the possibility for the federal government of making sure that all deficits incurred for the 1976 Olympic Games and consistent with sound administration will be shared equally by all Canadians, since the whole of Canada will eventually benefit from the publicity and the international prestige of the Olympic Games.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance arising from the forecasts in his budget speech of November 18 last in which he predicted that 250,000 new jobs would be created in 1975 and that there would be a growth rate of 4 per cent, assuming no unforeseen deterioration of the economic environment at home or abroad. Are these the forecasts of the minister on the basis of the measures he took in his budget?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, because of the continuing deterioration of the United States economy our forecasts for growth have been shaded down, as I have indicated in several forums. Also, in terms of employment growth, despite the disturbing figures today our employment growth month over month-that is to say, January, 1975, over January, 1974- is still 2.5 per cent compared to the figure for the United States of minus 1.4 per cent.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister could now give us his revised estimates as to the number of jobs he expects to be created during 1975 on the basis of his November budget, and also the rate of growth he now anticipates. These are the sort of estimates the Minister of Finance has always been prepared to give in the past.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that will depend very much on how the budgetary measures proposed by the President of the United States to the United States Congress affect the growth in the United States and the employment figures there. I might say to the hon. gentleman that in the budget of November, 1974, we anticipated a decline in the growth of the United States economy and a flattening of the European economy. It was in anticipation of this situation that we injected the stimulus that we did in the budget of November, 1974. That stimulus is starting to bite in terms of-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Starting to bite whom?


John Napier Turner: It is starting to bite in terms of the monthly pay cheques which reflect the minimizing adjustments for income tax for the 1974 and 1975 years. We want to analyse just what the evolving United States policy will mean in terms of stimulus in the United States as it affects exports from Canada. We will also want to examine the effect that the stimulus injected in November, 1974, has on our own economy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I realize that our economy depends to some extent upon development elsewhere, but I should like to ask the minister whether it is his policy to let the United States solve this problem for us, or does he intend to behave as the Minister of Finance of an independent country and put forward independent Canadian policies?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman may take some self-satisfaction from that bit of sophistry, but he knows as well as I do that since Canada is the largest trading nation, in terms of man, woman and child, in what we sell to other countries and buy from other countries, the health of the world economy is absolutely crucial to the Canadian economy. So the strength of the United States economy has a good deal to do with the strength of our exports, which represent about 25 per cent of our gross national product. What I am saying to the hon. gentleman is that we anticipated the decline of the United States economy as long ago as November, and the stimulus injected by the budget into the economy has started to bite since January 1.


An hon. Member:: It is biting the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: And it has rabies.


John Napier Turner: Despite the hon. gentleman's insular feeling, Canada depends very much on the strength of that economy.
Oral Questions


INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER OF FINANCE ANTICIPATED PRESENT UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES WHEN BUDGET INTRODUCED
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance and it follows my leader's questions. In view of today's unemployment figure of 6.7 per cent, compared with the unemployment figure of 5.5 per cent last November, the date of the budget, would the Minister of Finance indicate whether he anticipated a 6.7 per cent unemployment rate in January when he brought down his budget?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Hees:: Come out fighting, John.


John Napier Turner: The projections affecting our exports upon which the budget was based took into account the declining American economy and the flattened European and Japanese economies, representing our major customers and affecting the strength of our exports. I think it is important to concede that the depth of the recession in the American economy at the moment has exceeded our expectation.


FINANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A further supplementary to the Minister of Finance. In view of the uncertainties outlined by the Minister of Finance today, and in view of the deterioration in the economic climate of this country, would the minister indicate whether he is now in a position to announce who will be the new deputy minister of finance and, if not, when will such announcement be made, in view of the very uncertain times in which we find ourselves?


John Napier Turner: The question has nothing to do with the preamble. The appointment of the next deputy minister of finance lies within the prerogative of the Prime Minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AMOUNT OF TAX LIABILITY REDUCTION IN 1975 DUE TO INDEXING
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My final supplementary is also directed to the Minister of Finance who in his November 18 budget speech stated that the tax liability reduction due to indexing would be $950 million in 1975, whereas yesterday he told the House that such a tax indexing reduction would be $750 million this year. Would the minister indicate which figure is correct, the one he gave us yesterday or the one he gave us on November 18?

February 11, 1975
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: This is a great game of selective statistics again advanced by my hon. friend.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Answer.


John Napier Turner: One figure applies to the calendar year, and the other applies to the fiscal year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: You have your skates on today, John.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF EXPANSIONARY BUDGET
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Since the budget which he introduced last fall has already bitten into the lives of the 817,000 Canadians who are unemployed now, I wonder if the minister would seriously consider introducing a new budget in this House within a couple of weeks which would take into account the fact that we are involved in the most serious recession in the Canadian economy since the 1930s. Also, would he include in that budget such measures as a $400 tax credit for all taxpayers, and for those who do not pay taxes in Canada, programs including massive expenditures for housing and massive public works projects so that in effect it would be an expansionary budget? Would he consider doing that soon?


John Napier Turner: The description in the preamble advanced by the hon. member may describe the United States economy but it does not describe the Canadian economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The stimulus injected by the November budget took effect as of January 1 in the reductions affecting the 1974 and 1975 tax rates. If the House would see fit to pass the budget bill now before it-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: -we could reinject into the economy the refunds for which Canadian taxpayers are waiting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since the increase in unemployment in the province of Ontario between December, 1974, and January, 1975, was a full 100,000-probably the largest increase, on a monthly basis, for any province

in the history of this country-much of it due to the recession in the automotive industry, could the minister inform the House what specifically the government plans to do to deal with the recession in that industry, apart from waiting to see what happens in the United States?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we have been in very close touch with the industry. In particular, we are trying to assist the parts industry which suffered the greatest slowdown last year. The hon. member should know that the strength of the Canadian automobile industry depends now, and will in the long run, on the strength of the United States market. Very close to 80 per cent of the production of Canadian auto plants goes to the United States. When that market is weak, it has an effect on the Canadian auto industry.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since the major reason that 80 per cent of production goes to the United States is that cars produced here are sold $400 or $500 cheaper in the United States than they are in Canada-hence the lower percentage of sales in Canada-I ask the minister if he will consider removing the 12 per cent federal tax on automobiles in Canada on condition that the automotive industry in this country brings down prices to Canadians to at least the American level, which kind of action is about ten years overdue.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, any reduction with respect to sales tax would have no effect on the major part of our market; that is to say, the 80 per cent of the output which goes to the U.S. market.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a question.
Since railways have decided to apply the new freight rates, could the minister tell the House whether the Transport Commission will be or has been called upon to modify the subventions granted for transportation of goods in the area east of Levis towards the Gaspe peninsula, and whether this review will also apply to trucking?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to the second part of the question is no. As for the first part, I know this problem is still discussed between railway companies, the Canadian Transport Commission and the courts. So it will be a few weeks before we know exactly what the situation is.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Art Lee (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, today is Chinese New Year's for Canadians of Chinese ancestry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Therefore, I feel it is fitting that I wish you and all hon. members "gong hing fat choy". This New Year, by the Chinese lunar calendar, is 4673 and is the year of the hare.


An hon. Member:: Is the hare going to get you?


Mr. Nielsen:: The hair of the dog that bit you.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: In view of the fact that the hare symbolizes a good year for production, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he believes that all Canadians, particularly those of Chinese ancestry, will have a productive year.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all very much appreciate the comments made by one of the most distinguished representatives of the Canadian Chinese family.


John Napier Turner: Hear, hear!


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to second the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East and hope they are true.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question which is based on recent statistics which show a rise in violence and crime in Canada, is directed to the Solicitor General. In so far as many experts attribute this rapid rise in violence and crime in Canada in part to a faulty classification system which oft times puts maximum offenders in medium security institutions, what action is the minister contemplating to upgrade and improve the classification system relating to inmates?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the classification system is under review. I should point out to the House that it is the other way around in many cases-we have medium security inmates in maximum security institutions when they should be in their own type of institution.
Oral Questions


INCREASE IN CRIME-DATE OF PRESENTATION OF NEW BAIL ACT
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that some national newspapers are now endorsing what I said a few days ago about the increase in violent crime across the country, and the fact that much of the crime is being committed when people are out on bail, can the minister tell the House when the new Bail Act will be presented?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is drawing a conclusion from statistics which most people consider do not really support any such conclusion at this particular point in time. The fact of the matter is, as a study recently released reveals, that at this time statistics are not complete or adequate enough to show exactly the extent to which persons on bail commit crimes. The point of our changes in the Criminal Code with regard to bail some time ago was to ensure that those who are accused but not yet found guilty are not needlessly detained in prison. It is proposed to make certain changes to carry out the original spirit and purpose of the changes we made several years ago, and not to move away from the basic principle that people who are not convicted ought not to be detained unnecessarily. These changes will be contained in Criminal Code amendments which are in the process of preparation and which I should like to see in the House before very long.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that the minister is contemplating a change to this particular section of the legislation which has put the onus on the Crown to prove certain things, why is he changing the Bail Act? If what I have said, what the national newspapers believe and what judges and magistrates accept, is true, why is the minister bringing in a change to the Bail Act? Why fool around?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the exact purpose will become perfectly clear as the amendments come forward, but I would say in a general way that it is to ensure that the original intent is carried out. Since the act was passed we have gained additional experience in its operation which has allowed us to look at areas where there may be doubt and dispute, and to clarify this. It has allowed us, as well, to make sure that any impediment or difficulty that magistrates may have experienced in applying the law is removed. I want to emphasize that it is not the government's intention to move away from the general principle that persons should be presumed innocent until proven guilty and not failed unnecessarily in the process.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister tell the House what possible justification he

February 11, 1975
Oral Questions
can have for the selection of the oldest military band in Canada, the Royal Canadian Regiment band, located at the Canadian forces base at Gagetown-Canada's largest armed forces base-as one of the four band units to be disbanded, in face of strong representations from citizens and leaders at every level of government in New Brunswick? Will the minister review this decision?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is very concerned about his own location, but the Chief of the Defence Staff has made an announcement which involves the phasing out of four bands. I should like the hon. member to be aware that in the wider context there are over 100 authorized military bands in Canada at the present time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is not quite accurate.


James Armstrong Richardson: There are 66 in the reserves, some 39 volunteer bands, and 9 permanent forces bands. Within the wider context, we are continuing to have many personnel involved in making music in the armed forces, but we cannot maintain every band and I regret very much that the one the hon. member has referred to is to be phased out within the course of the year.


REQUEST FOR RETENTION OF AIR TRANSPORT COMMAND BAND AT KINGSTON, ONT.
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. Given that the minister single-mindedly insists on computing the value of the Air Transport Command band in dollar terms only, and refuses to take into consideration the intangible but significant contribution of these great military bands to the culture, history and educational development of Canada, will he reconsider his shortsighted decision to phase out the Air Transport Command band-I would remind the minister that this is a command band-based in Kingston, knowing that the retention of this band has been urged upon him by thousands of people in eastern Ontario?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I would say essentially the same thing to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I acknowledge what the hon. member has said about the merit of the Air Transport Command band but, in the wider context we find it necessary to phase out 160 positions in four bands and that is one of the four that will be phased out.


REMOVAL OF &quot;ROYAL&quot; DESIGNATION FROM MILITARY BANDS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaher (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of National Defence, so that we will know the actual situation regarding the music to which the minister refers, will he tell the House why four of the bands being phased out are "royal" bands? I mention, of course, the Royal Canadian Air Force band, the Royal Canadian Regiment band, the Princess Patricia's Light Infantry band, and the Royal Canadian Artillery band. By his action the minister

knocks out 60 per cent of the bands in Canada that are "royal."


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that merely coincidence? The minister can certainly get assistance from the Acting Prime Minister, whose participation in this surprises me. Is this part of the erosive principle that this government has followed, under the Prime Minister, of removing "royal" as far as it is possible to do so?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, even after the four bands that were referred to have been phased out, there will be more than 90 bands playing in the Canadian armed forces, and I am certain they will be playing in a royal way.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, frivolity of that kind is no answer. I ask the minister, now that only two "royal" bands will be permitted to live, is this part and parcel of the policy that this government, under the present Prime Minister, has carried into effect since first it endeavoured to get rid of the "Royal" Canadian Mounted Police and then had to retreat in the face of national criticism? Why pick on these bands that are entitled-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Some of these people were not alive when these regiments were born.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet asked the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understood the right hon. member to ask whether it was the policy, and why pick on these bands.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know how the minister can answer when I have not asked the question. I ask him, why get rid of the Princess Patricia's band which goes back to 1919? Why get rid of bands like this which carry part of Canada's tradition? Why do this? Don't try to fool me by saying there will be a lot of other bands. Those bands do not have "royal" before their names. Is this part and parcel of the erosive principle in which I never expected the minister to be a participant?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, there is no policy of the kind to which the right hon. member has referred.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I could not hear that answer because the government members were yelling too loudly.
February 11, 1975


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat it for the right hon. member. There is no government policy of the kind to which the right hon. member has referred. Therefore, the phasing out of these bands is not related to a wider policy such as the right hon. member has inferred.


John George Diefenbaker: You are trying to get rid of the "royal". You are the last person I thought would do that.


James Armstrong Richardson: What we are doing is making the Canadian armed forces still more efficient. We are answering a lot of requests for patrol flights over the Atlantic, for protecting fishing fleets, and finding other ways to really make our armed forces effective.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Now we have the answer why this is being done.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the right hon. member would be permitted to put his final supplementary and then I will recognize the hon. member for Brant on his point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Now we have the answer, that this was done for the purpose of making the Canadian armed forces efficient. I ask the minister whether it will add to efficiency to knock out the Royal Air Force band, the Royal Canadian Regiment band, the Princess Patricia's Light Infantry band, and the Royal Canadian Artillery band. The Acting Prime Minister does not know anything about these things.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Brant.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, we have now wasted seven, eight or possibly ten minutes talking about something that is almost irrelevant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: There are more important things in this country which is approaching having one million people out of work. That is a hell of a lot more important than whether a band is going to be disbanded or is "royal" or not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: I would also like to get away from "royal" bands in view of the statistics released this morning that nearly one million people in this country are out of work.


An hon. Member:: There will be 200 more when these bands are disbanded.
Oral Questions


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: They will find jobs, or they can line up with the rest of the unemployed. My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that there are 38,000 fewer jobs this year than there were last year, and the fact that we are quite clearly getting into a recession and maybe even a depression; and, by the way, in British Columbia we now have a rate of unemployment-


An hon. Member:: Get Barrett.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A good many of those who are unemployed are Chinese: I hope we will all consider that, in view of the fact this is the Chinese new year. In view of these facts, will the minister advise whether he has any contingency plan with regard to providing some kind of emergency winter works program this year, or even a summer works program, in view of projections that this high rate of unemployment may continue because of the downturn in the United States economy?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we will be watching the American situation and the relationship between the United States administration and the United States congress. At the same time, we will be watching how the stimulus injected into our own economy by the November budget takes effect this month and in ensuing months. As for the British Columbia economy, I suggest to the hon. member that he might have regard to his own friends and how they treated the resource and mining industries-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: -and the woodworking industry in British Columbia.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In view of the fact that the largest increase in unemployment in this country is in Ontario, and not in British Columbia, will the minister advise if his reasoning is the same, namely, that the way the resource sector has been treated in Ontario is one of the reasons for their high jump in unemployment there? Will he also advise whether the unemployment in the British Columbia woodworking industry is in any way related to this government's housing policy?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. As provinces which have the misfortune to be under the control of NDP governments are particularly hard hit because their economies are so badly handled, will the minister make special provision for those provinces under NDP control as they do not have the same chance in the economy as other provinces?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are only ten minutes remaining in the question period. Perhaps the hon. member for Victoria will be permitted to ask a question.
3106

February 11, 1975
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


INQUIRY WHETHER CANADA NEGOTIATING WITH BRAZIL IN PURCHASE OF ARMOURED CARS
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a seven-day old question for the Minister of National Defence. In light of the fact that a Brazilian-produced armoured car is now being tested at Camp Wainwright, can the minister now tell the House whether Canada has entered into negotiations with Brazil for these cars, and whether the cars are to be used for riot control or replacement for the Centurion, the Ferret or our armoured personnel carriers?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that we are testing armoured cars at Wainwright. One of them is from Brazil. There are other cars from Sweden and the United States. We have not made any decision, and we certainly have not entered into any negotiations with Brazil.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I understood the other car was from Switzerland, not Sweden; but I will let that go. Have the negotiations reached the stage where the minister has consulted his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to determine if that minister may have reservations about a $200 million arms deal between Canada and Brazil?


James Armstrong Richardson: I have already indicated to the hon. member that we have not entered negotiations for any arms purchase from Brazil.


NATIONAL DISASTERS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who is responsible for housing.
As a result of the disastrous landslide which occurred some time ago at Asbestos, in the province of Quebec, and since about 100 families are still living in hotel rooms or in the apartments of relatives or friends, could the minister give the House and the citizens concerned the assurance that, at the formal request to that effect of his opposite number in the Quebec government, the federal government will agree to finance up to 50 per cent of a relocation and housing improvement program at Asbestos, the balance to be shared equally by the Quebec government on the one hand, and by the municipality and the Johns-Man-ville Company on the other?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I have not been approached by either the Government of Quebec or the Quebec housing authority with regard to the situation in Asbestos. I would be sympathetic to any proposals they might make. However, I would suggest that the company has a major area of responsibility; we would look at the situation in the light of our responsibility and theirs.


Claude Wagner: I thank the minister for his answer. I would have put a supplementary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion but, in view of his absence, I shall direct it to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
As a result of the damages suffered by the asbestos mine at Asbestos at the time of the last landslides, work has naturally slowed down and, the job security of some employees having become precarious, some 100 of them have been laid off. Is the minister willing to intervene without delay, and to grant a subsidy to the Johns-Man-ville Company on the express condition that the subsidy be used to work in the buffer zone of the mines, all this to avoid further layoffs?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Departmental officials are attempting to get employees' and employer's representatives and all involved together to enter into a manpower assessment and mobility incentive agreement. We are giving consideration to a number of measures. However, I shall take account of the hon. member's representations and explore them to determine what benefit they may bring. The door is open for consideration of such a move and it will be taken into account.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
On February 6, 1975, several ministers met with the main economic agents of the country to discuss inflation and the cost of living. Can the minister inform the House of the results of these meetings?


Alastair William Gillespie: If the hon. member is referring to the meetings we held with the textile workers and with the leaders of the textile industry, I can only tell him I expect to receive a report from the Textile and Clothing Board within a week or two and that I shall make a report to the House after it has been received.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-EFFECT ON INVESTMENT COMMUNITY AND EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the dramatic increase in unemployment in Ontario, which rose from 4.4 per cent in December to 7.1 per cent in January, and in view of statements by Premier Davis that the Syncrude project will create jobs with Ontario equipment and contracting companies, can the minister explain how Syncrude will promote any significant investment and job creation in Canada when only 22 per cent of the engineering work is being done by Canadians, and when Bechtel is buying most of the heavy equipment and components from United States firms?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I would be glad to investigate the matter.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Now that the government is a partner in Syncrude, and since unemployment is on the rise in Canada, will the government insist that the majority of the engineering and contracting work for Syncrude go to Canadian and not United States firms?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We would not insist upon any such requirement if the result were to further escalate the cost of the project.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that all strikes by public servants are fought on the back of a defenceless public, may I ask what progress has been made with regard to the strike in the Mint which is causing severe inconvenience to business people and the general public?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the employees are on strike, but since the Royal Canadian Mint is a Crown corporation, this part of the negotiation is not my responsibility, but that of my colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I, then, direct my question to the other minister?

I would ask the minister what progress has been made toward the settlement of the dispute between the Royal Mint and its employees, since all strikes in the civil service or within Crown corporations are made "on the back", and I repeat, "on the back" of the public which is defenceless.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Minister of Labour, the parties met yesterday with a mediator and are
Oral Questions
meeting again today. I have already indicated that we were ready to go ahead, providing the union shows willingness to do the same. What we need is two-way-not one-way-negotiations and I hope that some progress can be made today.


POSSIBLE STRIKE OF AIRPORT EMPLOYEES-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO AVERT
Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board with respect to the imminent possibility of airports across the country closing by midnight on Friday in consequence of the parties not agreeing on the report of the conciliation board. What steps are being taken by the minister to see that the parties get back to the bargaining table as soon as possible, in order to avert strike action?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I know that yesterday, leaders of the Public Service Alliance got in touch with my officials. They were supposed to have further talks today. I think the situation now is as follows: the alliance is waiting for the final report on the employees' votes. Afterwards, we will try to avoid a strike, but in any case, as of Friday, the employees will have the right to go on strike and, as Parliament intended it, we must respect that right.


MANPOWER
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration arising from the fact that unemployment in now running at the rate of 6.7 per cent, an unacceptable rate, affecting some 817,000 people. Since it would appear that our Manpower services are becoming less and less effective and that employers, particularly in the construction industry, are finding it increasingly difficult to get workers with the required skills, I ask the minister what bold, imaginative, new steps he is contemplating for immediate introduction which would made the Manpower office more effective and better able to undertake the retraining which is necessary?


Robert Knight Andras: If the hon. member would like to spend an hour or two with me, I would review all the measures which have been taken and which I described to him in the course of many meetings of the standing committee. We could start with the total reconversion of Manpower offices into job information centres; we could talk about the total reorganization of the Manpower Department; we could talk about the Newfoundland-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
28626-62)4

February 11, 1975
Income Tax


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am sure the minister has not been advised of the facts. Does he not know that the employers are refusing referrals? The minister is talking about new incentives regarding retraining. What steps does the minister intend to take immediately to ensure that many unemployed workers are retrained so as to take up the jobs which are available? The need is becoming increasingly apparent in times of high unemployment due to government fiscal and monetary policies. What is the minister doing in order to retrain Canadians; that is what I am trying to ask?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is of such a general nature that if the minister were prepared to give a full answer he would be here for quite some time. I do not know if the minister feels he can answer briefly before we call orders of the day.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, in response I would simply say that there are many measures. It is an ongoing process. If the hon. member is looking for dramatic miracles such as he and his party often try to suggest are possible, then I say that neither the Canadian public nor Canadian employers and employees will be fooled by that sort of nonsense.


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would allow me to table correspondence relating to the Syncrude agreement which was requested from me by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). I think in tabling it I can clear up some of the confusion which I may inadvertently have left in some quarters of the House as to the extent of the so-called tax concessions made to that consortium.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree that the minister shall have leave to table the document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, February 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-49, to amend the statute law relating to income tax, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lawrence (p. 2977).
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, let me make one comment, in view of what the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) said this afternoon about unemployment in the B.C. lumber indus-

try. I suppose, as we see it, British Columbia will have to grin and bear it.
As you are aware, federal money is being used to finance the Syncrude project, as well as money of the governments of Alberta and Ontario. In my opinion the step taken by the government is a step in the right direction. After all, in the next ten years we shall need to spend $107 billion to develop our natural resources in Canada, and we shall need to involve private companies and the federal government, as well as provincial governments, if we are to make a reality of what may be our greatest dream in the twentieth century. What has happened is just a beginning.
I do not think that, in order to participate in the venture, it is necessary for the government to control the entire industry. We have a part to play, just as the provinces have. Ultimately even provinces such as British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba will participate in natural resource development in Canada.
Last night the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) said that we should follow the examples of Britain, Italy and France, countries which have nationalized their oil industries, and nationalize our own industry. The hon. member forgot that Britain, Italy and France possess insignificant oil resources; therefore, in their cases, perhaps they were right in nationalizing them. Our situation is different. Our country has been built on free enterprise, not on welfare or the socialist system.
In our country a man has always been free to set up business and provide jobs and money for the economy. And, not only the person owning the business has made money. Therefore, I think the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie ought to agree that we cannot compare the economy of Canada with the economies of England, France and Italy. As I said, conditions here are entirely different and, hopefully, they will continue to remain different. On the other hand, governments will participate in certain ventures which require huge amounts of money. But it should not be our philosophy that we will only participate if we can control the entire industry. There is room for private industry in Canada.
I agree that the Syncrude project is a marginal enterprise. Yes, there are risks involved; yes, there are no guarantees regarding the price of oil in ten years. We do not know how much it will actually cost to produce Syncrude oil. Some estimate the cost will be $11 per barrel. But it could be $10 or $12. Until production begins, we will not know. Hence we cannot give guarantees. Similarly we cannot guarantee what conditions in the world will be in 1978, when this oil is due to come on stream. We cannot say if the price of international oil will be $4 or $5 per barrel, so the government would be foolish to guarantee that the price of Syncrude oil will be $11 per barrel as other suppliers may produce it for much less.
By the same token, just as we cannot guarantee what the price of oil will be in 1978, or that there will be adequate supplies in 1978, we cannot guarantee that there will be peace in the Middle East and that oil will flow to Canada and other industrialized nations from that part of the world. In other words, I think it is the government's duty to encourage the development of oil resources in Canada, and to encourage especially the development of our largest known oil resource, the Athabasca oil sands.
February 11, 1975

Although Syncrude has great potential we have not, in my opinion, the technology to exploit our resource fully. Nevertheless, it is highly necessary for the industry and the government, indeed for all the sectors of our economy, to put forth their best efforts and develop this resource so that in the end we can find a way to produce cheaper oil from the tar sands.
The government cannot do this job alone. The government can help. Vast amounts of money will be required, and the federal and the provincial governments will be called on to make vast expenditures. But this is not an evil thing. Common sense dictates that they should participate. There is enough room in our economy for both government and private industry. They can work together as friends, not necessarily as enemies. Companies are not necessarily exploiters. Governments are not necessarily inefficient. For too long have such myths been perpetrated.
Surely it is the job of the government to provide the nucleus for an enterprise such as the one we are embarked upon. It is the job of the government, in conjunction with provincial governments, to bring forth a national policy and provide the oil we will require in the future.


An hon. Member:: Why doesn't the government do that, then?


Hugh Alan Anderson: I am sure that members of the House, especially my hon. friend directly across from me, believe that if we are to err, we should err on the side of having too much oil rather than too little. Some five or 10 years from now I do not think rhetoric will heat the houses of the nation, nor will rhetoric or political ideology provide oil or gas for our vehicles. The only way this will be done is by providing the technology, the money and the work needed now to get this project off the ground.
If we do have a situation 10 years from now when the world price of oil is $4 per barrel and we have oil up to our necks from Syncrude at $11 a barrel, I think that will be fine, because some day we will require that oil. Some day someone will look back and say that this House made the right and correct decision by making sure that for the next year, the next 10 years, or 20 years from now, there will be oil for Canadian industries as well as Canadian consumers.
I should like to conclude by saying that this strikes me as a parallel to the decision taken in the last century to build a railroad across this country which then had very few people. If that railroad had not been built we would still have very few people. If we had a government composed of some of the members of the opposition I would suggest, with all respect, we would still be talking about the national dream; we would still be using canoes and portages, and the national dream would have become a nightmare.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Madam Speaker, it was very interesting to hear the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) endorse the building of the CPR. I do not want to go back too far, like my hon. friends opposite, but it is worthy of note in
Income Tax
passing just how difficult the predecessors of those in the Liberal party tried to make the building of the CPR with the number of roadblocks they put in the way.
Having said that, I want to agree with the hon. member in respect of the government's investment in the Syncrude project, along with Alberta and the province of Ontario. Our oil reserves are precarious and it would be tragic, in my judgment, if the Syncrude project were allowed to fall to the ground without the utmost effort being made to move it forward, even though it certainly does involve risks. It involves real risks, but presumably risks that are shared by private companies as well as by the governments involved.
Although it is not my purpose today to pick a fight with my friends in the NDP, I have to say that one of the most absurd things I have heard suggested in this House was the suggestion that the government of Canada and the provinces of this country should attempt to put up all the money, some $2 billion or whatever is involved, to finance Syncrude, rather than allow some of the multinational companies to share some of the risks. I have seldom heard a suggestion, even from my hon. friends in that party, that was quite as fantastic or as foolish as that one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should now like to direct some of my remarks to those in positions of authority and responsibility in this country as I comment on the amendment standing in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence).
I realize that we may not win the vote on the amendment, which I expect will probably take place in a few hours. However, we are pleased that those members of this House who stand four-square for unprecedented increases in government revenues as extracted through personal income taxes will have an opportunity to make themselves known to the House and the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is worth noting in passing that when the minister talks about reducing taxes he does not reduce them, he just takes a little less than he would otherwise. If you allow for all the personal income tax cuts he has boasted about, the figures which are attached to the budget he presented in November show that, according to his forecast, he will be extracting from the personal income taxpayers of this country some $1,215 million more than they have to pay in the current fiscal year. So we are also pleased that all those who subscribe to the doctrine of government spending, or government spending restraint if absolutely necessary, but who apparently see no necessity for restraint now, will also have a chance to vote against the amendment.
As for my party, which will be supporting the amendment, we are attempting to accomplish three objectives; one, to protest the government's continued lack of leadership and the growing lack of credibility in the face of severe economic and social problems in our country; two, to draw attention to the unconscionable increase in personal income tax revenues we have been subjected to during the last recent period; and three, to focus attention

February 11, 1975
Income Tax
on the need for concepts such as restraint and decline in government spending, and for such concepts to be taken seriously by the government.
On the first point, the government's unwillingness to assume leadership and its growing credibility gap, I think that is self-evident. It has become virtually impossible to have confidence in anything the government does, or really to believe in anything it says it is going to do. I think we are into an era of new speaking, double-thinking and gobbledygook to an extent never before seen in the national political affairs of this country. Let us just take a moment to consider some recent examples.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) campaigned during the recent election, of which my friends opposite are very proud, on the slogan "leadership is the issue, inflation is the problem". Speaking on January 31, I think in Montreal, the Prime Minister was still pursuing the importance of leadership when he said:
You asked us to take leadership-
I do not know whether anybody asked him. I thought he was asking for the right to take leadership. In any event, the Prime Minister said:
You asked us to take leadership, and leadership we are taking.
The rest of his speech on that occasion was very interesting. It was a catalogue of clear and present blue ruin spreading over the country. The curious logic of that speech seemed to be that the government wanted to lead at sometime in the future, after all the ruin had passed. The Prime Minister blamed the unrest in our society on Watergate, on the press, and on a weak opposition.


An hon. Member:: And on the weather.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I don't know whether he was talking about the weather that night, but pretty soon-


An hon. Member:: He was under the weather.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But pretty soon he will be blaming the jobless for unemployment because, after all, if they had jobs they would not be unemployed, and if prices were not so high inflation would not be such a problem.
In Montreal the Prime Minister said the following about the press:
They too don't have solutions.
I do not know whether "they too" referred to us or to the government, but at any rate that is what he said. He said: They can write an editorial one day giving a solution and they contradict it the week after-nobody remembers. They don't have to be consistent.
So one has the impression that the Prime Minister does not suffer inconsistency gladly. But on closer examination it becomes very clear that it is only somebody else's inconsistency, real or presumed, which nettles the right hon. gentleman, because if inconsistency in general caused him to suffer he would by now be wracked by unendurable pain as the result of his own record and the record of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).
I will not ask the House to suffer through a detailed resume of the minister's entire record of reversibility. Just

consider, for example, very briefly how in the campaign of 1972 the tax cut we were proposing was going to bankrupt and ruin the country, how the modest increase in old pensions we were proposing to provide for some adjustment for the cost of living was going to ruin the country also, and as for indexing in income taxes, the country would never survive that. Within a matter of a very few months the Minister of Finance was introducing all those measures in the House himself, and boasting about how timely they were and what wonderful advances they represented.


John Napier Turner: We did it in a way that worked.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It worked politically. I do not want to be offensive to my hon. friend, but let me say simply that that is the only test they apply, whether it will work politically.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If they think it will work politically, they will say anything. The Prime Minister, during the campaign, with the endorsement of the Minister of Finance, said the Conservatives do not even have the patience to wait a few more weeks until they, the Liberals, can demonstrate clearly that they have inflation under control and that they will wrestle it down to the ground. Think of all the fun they made during the campaign about our emphasis upon the need for a shared attack on inflation. How long was it after the campaign was over that the Minister of Finance, I think he was out in Vancouver, spoke about the need to establish a consensus? They were not even waiting for the Year of the Hare to make this kind of adjustment!
The inconsistencies of the minister, of the Prime Minister and the government surely surpass any examples in the press which the Prime Minister may have had selectively drawn to his attention, and it should be noted as well-and this is the important point-that nobody elects the press, nobody elects an editor of a newspaper on the basis of any editorial to do anything about conditions in the country except to talk or write about them. But, I must admit, the people of Canada did elect this government.
Precious little is being done today by the government, or is even appearing to be done, and people in Canada are realizing that they were sold a bill of goods. I say to you that in three or four years' time people may have forgotten the breach of faith of the government. I am not talking about the next election, but I do say that if the Prime Minister wants to be concerned about disillusionment, if he wants to be concerned about social disorder, it is this realization by the Canadian people that the government of Canada today is isolated, complacent and arrogant-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -it is this realization more than Watergate, or the opposition, or the press, more than anything else, that is causing unease in the country. The Prime Minister and the government are living in some other universe if they are unable to see that.
February 11, 1975

Another factor contributing to unease is the obvious dishonesty in so much that the government says and does, even in its day-to-day operations. Even people who can tolerate a good deal of the truth-stretching that is being done in an election campaign are having some difficulty in understanding why a government with a fresh majority mandate cannot and will not level with them. Take the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald).


An hon. Member:: You take him.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On Friday he said that by 1985 the country will have a surplus of petroleum. Then, when he was pressed on the matter on Monday, he conceded that by "surplus" he meant only surplus so far as the area of Canada served by Canadian petroleum plus 250,000 barrels a day going to Montreal was concerned. When he watched over the weekend, as he must have, that this was interpreted by the press as indicating that Canada was going to have self sufficiency by 1985, did he come clean with the Canadian people and did he say "you misunderstood me"? No, he basked in all the glory of that self sufficiency by 1985.
Reading the Prime Minister's speech one comes away with the impression that he believes that somehow things are out of sorts because the country and the world have let him down-poor fellow. I suggest that he pull himself together and face up to the reality that a lot of the problem in the Canadian context today is generated by the wanton let down at the government end of the bargain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is over seven months since the government has had its mandate renewed and given a fresh chance to show what it meant by leadership. Even given the absurdities of the reversal by the Minister of Finance of his position-of course he changes his position completely after each election-and I do not want to be offensive, but he is like a snake changing its skin-


John Napier Turner: How about changing the metaphor?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will change the metaphor.


An hon. Member:: How about a silver fox changing its colour?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I ask the minister through you, Madam Speaker, where is there some demonstration of leadership? I am sorry if I upset my friends in the NDP by talking frankly about their proposal with regard to Syncrude, but I think one has to be frank in opposition, just as I expect the government to be frank in government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Let me be completely frank with the minister. I do not really have very much faith that voluntary guidelines will ever be made to work in this country, but I have been prepared to support the Minister of Finance in some honest effort towards that goal, if that is what he is trying to accomplish.
Income Tax
I cannot even find out what the minister is trying to do, but if he is trying to reach some consensus on guidelines in this country in terms of profits, in terms of interest, in terms of incomes generally-if he is trying to get a consensus on incomes policy in this country, I have been prepared to support him. I will still support him. I wish him luck, and I will do anything I can in this House and in this country to help him achieve that consensus, if he really makes an honest effort to achieve this.
But I must say to the minister through you, Madam Speaker, that I do not think we are getting an honest effort. If the minister were taking an honest approach why, for example, would he talk about the evils of high profits to a labour group, and talk about the evils of high wage and salary settlements to a predominantly business group?


An hon. Member:: Shame!


John Napier Turner: That is not what I said.


George Harris Hees: That is known as the Liberal way.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If the minister is making an honest effort and trying to get support from the principal elements in this country-I suppose it is not too conceited to think that my party is one of the principal elements in this country which should be in the picture and part of the consensus process-why is he being so secret? Above all, why is he being so slow?


An hon. Member:: That is his nature. He can't help it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He began talking about this, I think, in late August or very early September. Then it was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, and when we questioned him he said that it was really the Prime Minister's responsibility as far as the program was concerned, but the exploratory process would not get started until after Christmas, and that we would have a report before the end of February. Before Christmas I could not understand why we had to wait until after Christmas to get this exploratory process started.


An hon. Member:: He is still on safari.


An hon. Member:: It takes time to clear it through the "Group of Seven".


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why, in the first place, did he wait until after Christmas to begin the exploratory process? Why can the minister not bring in a report before the end of February, which he promised, unless the whole thing is just an exercise to chew up some time hoping that somehow the Americans or somebody else will bail them out or the problem will somehow disappear? But I want to say to my hon. friend through you, Madam Speaker, that if he demonstrates that he is sincere in his attempt to achieve a consensus and will give us some indication of what he is trying to do, we think the problem of fighting inflation in a manner which will not create future unemployment but rather reduce it is so important that I assure him that not only will I support him in his efforts but the members of my party will also support him.

February 11, 1975
Income Tax


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Despite what may have happened in Great Britain today, I still speak for my party for a little while yet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: You are not worried about the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), are you, Bob?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Not for a few months. If I think that the Minister of Finance is sincere in his effort and he goes ahead with obtaining a consensus, I will have an opportunity to support him.


George Harris Hees: I will gladly do it if you will give us a chance.


John Edward Broadbent: It takes a Tory to recognize one.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would like to think that my friends in the NDP would support a genuine effort to reach a consensus to fight inflation and to establish a framework which would enable us to fight unemployment. This consensus would involve fair rules for all elements of the economy- business, investors, labour, salaried people. I would like to think the members of the New Democratic Party consider it sufficiently important that they too would back a really honest, sincere effort.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Some honesty and some leadership and some credibility are needed. I repeat that the first objective of those in the opposition who support this amendment is to protest the government's continued lack of leadership and growing lack of credibility in the face of severe economic and social problems. Our second stated objective is to draw attention to the unconscionable increase in personal income tax revenue, which we have all seen. The history of so-called tax reform is littered with the assurances of successive ministers of national revenue and ministers of finance that the new schedule of rates and exemptions adopted under closure, I think in 1971, would not gouge the individual taxpayer.
I use the word littered in the sense that all those assurances were just so much garbage. The former minister of finance, Mr. Benson, got caught out early in the game to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in excess revenues which would have come into the federal treasury using the tables first proposed. But of course the government did not like to be embarrassed this way, and its attitude hardened during the debate. The all wise and omnipotent Liberals had a majority in those days, too. They used closure to flee from the embarrassment caused by the opposition. As a last word the government said that if it turned out that too much money came in via personal income tax, it would adjust things to give it back. I suggest that there could be no more appropriate time than now for the government to put its excess revenue where its mouth is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), and others who have participated in this debate have pointed out the extent to which the federal treasury has wallowed in wealth, and how dramatically revenue from personal income taxation has been climbing since the Liberals closed off by closure debate on their idea of tax reform. The figures are startling, and the facts are clear. I repeat that the minister, when he talks about cutting taxes, is not cutting personal income taxes at all. He is just not taking quite as much as he would otherwise take additionally without some adjustment in the schedules or some other process.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Precisely.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Surely there is no one around here, even those in economic circles perhaps credited by the Minister of Finance-and I hear this charge made-


George Harris Hees: The "Group of Seven" feel that way.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am sure even they would not argue against an additional tax cut now. That would be a shot in the arm and would be helpful both in easing the burden which Canadians bear as a result of prolonged two-figure inflation and in the sustained creation of jobs as we move into a year which looks as if it is going to be a year of terrible stagflation. Whether such additional rebate goes into investment or into goods consumption would make much difference, either way it would be helpful, and it would certainly be helpful psychologically. But the government members will vote against it, and they support very lavish programs within the government service itself even while the minister talks about the need for us to be prepared to share with the rest of the world and to accept less. I see no sign of government economy, no sign of that attitude in the ranks of the treasury benches at all.
Our second objective is to point up this double standard, and our third objective is to focus attention on the need for concepts like restraint and discipline in spending to be taken seriously by the government. I must confess that I cannot really tell whether the government takes anything seriously any more, except staying in office. I know its members are serious about that. I do not know whether they will take anything else seriously, because they might very well, and if anyone were to predict this on the basis of the Minister of Finance's record, perhaps, it would not be a bad prediction in terms of what is likely to happen. After opposing these tax cuts today they might very well be back in the House with a tax cut of their own in a matter of weeks.
The Minister of Finance in his latest budget says in effect that nothing really effective can be done to achieve stable growth and job production unless inflation is under control to the extent that it is not undermining confidence in the economy. In the same budget-as in previous ones- he pledges restraint by the government. Both of these-the assertion and the pledge-are worthy in what they say. But where is appropriate action to back them up?
Instead of action we see the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister simply betraying the worthiness of any words spoken in the budget address or the Speech from
February 11, 1975

the Throne. The pursuit of consensus seems to have taken on the same kind of timetable as the pursuit of a national energy policy-if you can imagine anything as slow as that in the Year of the Hare!
And the world restraint, or the understanding of what makes up restraint on the part of the government establishment, seems to be totally confused in the mind of the minister. Here is something else the minister said on January 27, and if this statement does not demonstrate confusion then it can only be another example of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the minister.


John Napier Turner: That is a great option you have given me.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am very glad to give the minister a little leeway, but I will remind him of what he said, about next May, and then perhaps he will not think I was too niggardly in the options I gave him. In Toronto the minister said:
I notice, incidentally, that Mr. Stanfield recently suggested we should provide still further stimulus by yet a further cut in taxes. That represents something of a conversion on his part, since during the election campaign last summer he also was preaching the old time religion-tight fiscal and monetary policies, budget balance, consumer credit controls and, of course, wage and price controls.
Is the minister confused, or what? During the election campaign I proposed specific tax cuts. I outlined how money for such cuts and other expenditures could be provided by some discipline in government spending- particularly a serious program to cut waste. In terms of expenditure, however, I was a piker compared to the Minister of Finance. I should like to hear him defend his party's indefensible election promises, particularly in this atmosphere of restraint we have heard so much about. That would be a real lesson in adroitness in the Year of the Hare.
I think it is very interesting and significant that the Minister of Finance continues to misrepresent my position. I do not know why he bothers. After all, they won the election. Why does he continue to misrepresent my position during the campaign? It is true that I proposed a balanced budget-a balance to be achieved basically by the government getting its own spending in order. I did mention the possibility of credit controls on the basis of something that we would consider-as something that would be involved in monetary restraint.
I certainly promoted the need for comprehensive price and income controls. Of course the minister referred to price and wage controls because that suits his purpose, but it was price and income control just as he is, now trying to achieve consensus in this country. I guess I was even trying to preach old time religion, but not the way the minister defined it.
At no time, however, did I advocate tight fiscal and monetary measures as a cure for inflation. As a matter of fact the entire premise of our program-and I think the minister understood this-was that although it would be a tough program it was the only way to attack inflation which would not have to involve highly restrictive fiscal and monetary approaches and massive unemployment in Canada. I put that program forward-and the minister well knows it-as a framework in which we could fight
Income Tax
inflation and, at the same time, continue a policy of reasonable expansion of our economy. I certainly spoke a good deal about the government's inane monetary policy over a number of years and how much this had contributed to inflation, but I never preached a tight money policy and higher income taxes as the minister suggests I did.
Why does the minister feel it necessary at this stage in his career-and mine-to misrepresent a position I took in the past? The only excuse I can think of is the feeling of insecurity he has about his position. I am not referring to his position as Minister of Finance but the position of his policies as Minister of Finance. It is only because of the lack of confidence that he has in the policies he is advocating that he feels it necessary to continue to misrepresent the policies I advocated.
I do not know what the government takes seriously aside from its own perpetuation in power, and I am certainly not prepared to believe that it is serious about discipline and restraint, or even elimination of wasteful practices in the expenditure of public funds. It will have to go a long way to make me change my assessment on that score.
I repeat our three objectives in putting forward this amendment: first, to protest the government's continued lack of leadership and growing lack of credibility in the face of severe economic and social problems; second, to draw attention to the unconscionable increase in personal income tax revenues; and third, to focus attention on the need for concepts like restraint and discipline in spending to be taken seriously by the government.
Members of the Official Opposition will support the amendment for the reasons which I have outlined and we would welcome the support of members of other parties in the House who consider these objectives to be worth-while.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent).


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Madam Speaker, on a question of privilege I should like to withdraw a reference I made which was not intended to be as offensive as it sounded- associating the minister with a snake changing its skin. I do not think that was appropriate. I should like to apologize and withdraw the remark.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it would have been very enlightening for the
817,000	Canadians who are unemployed today to have witnessed this afternoon's question period in the House of Commons. On the one hand they would have seen the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) smiling his way through the worst economic situation in Canadian history since the depression and, on the other, they would have seen the Conservative Party in the guise of a military band whistling its way through the same economic situation. Of course, the tune they were playing would have had some specific reference to the royalty. On neither side of the House was there any serious attempt to recognize or deal with the kind of economic situation we are faced with in Canada, which is comparable to that in most countries in

February 11, 1975
Income Tax
the western world. In stating that, I am also asserting that it is extremely serious-


John Napier Turner: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. There may have been occasion during the full hour of the question period when, because of other subjects that came up, I was smiling. I was not smiling because of the plight of the unemployed. I say to the hon. member he has no monopoly on concern for people who work in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: If I in any way left the impression that we have a monopoly on concern for the issue, I apologize. However, I do not withdraw the comment I made earlier that throughout a good part of the question period the Minister of Finance was smiling, and the Conservative party wasted, in my judgment, a good part of the time of this House dealing with military bands. That is a question of judgment, and I do not retract one bit from that.
To complete the reference to the government, this country is self sufficient in mineral resources, petroleum in particular, as are few other countries in the world. If we had half the competence in managing our economy which West Germany has, we would be going somewhere. West Germany imports virtually all its petroleum, has the lowest rate of inflation in the world and the fullest employment. However, this government with all our resources manages to maximize the worst of both evils. We have high inflation and virtually full unemployment.
What do the ministers who have official responsibility say? The Minister of Finance-and he can again correct me if he thinks I am incorrect-says in effect that. the Canadian economy really cannot do much in the way of improvement until the American economy improves. I think that is a reasonable summary of his defensive reaction in the House this afternoon. I see he is rising to his feet again.


John Napier Turner: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the hon. member wishes to assume my acquiescence in everything he says is agreement, he does not have that assumption. That is not what I said. That is not the way I put it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: That is precisely the conclusion I drew from the minister's answers this afternoon. It is the same conclusion I drew from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) when he was asked about the 100,000 increase in unemployment in the province of Ontario. He clearly said with regard to the automotive industry in this country, which is in a depression and not a recession, that nothing could be done by the government until the situation in the United States improved. Surely that is a perfect example of the bankruptcy of years of government by the Liberal party. The Minister of Finance says he cannot do anything about the general economy until the American economy in general improves. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce says he cannot

do anything about the automotive industry until the American automotive climate improves.
With today's unemployment statistics the Minister of Finance has reached the culminating point in the series of ad hoc approaches and speeches he has made, the tentative gestures he has made since the throne speech of last fall. In both the throne speech and the budget which followed it, the Minister of Finance and the government tried to play it safe. They did not reach the conclusion that the real problem in the economy would be a recession. Nor did they say the real problem would be inflation. They recognized there were both aspects. They were right in that. However, instead of coming forward with a program intended to deal with either in a significant way, or hopefully both in a major way, they opted out completely from dealing with either situation. They tried to play it safe. As a result we have had both escalating inflation and escalating unemployment.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was correct when he stated that all the Minister of Finance has done in the past few months is go around the country and talk about building some kind of consensus instead of giving us definitive programs, whether in the business, labour, agricultural or fishing sectors. Instead of making specific proposals, the Minister of Finance has simply been listening. That is really an excuse for no action at all.
Instead of showing leadership with regard to the problems of the Canadian economy, the Liberal party holds seminars. We are right back to the days of the 1968-72 government when the Liberals sat out and indeed exacerbated an economic crisis situation, hoping that it would go away.
On behalf of my party I wish to make four concrete proposals that even this government would not foul up if it considered implementing them. Before doing that, however, I want to put something on record about the unemployment situation. There are 817,000 unemployed Canadians, the highest number since the depression. A few years ago in this House we talked about 3 per cent unemployment being the crisis point beyond which we should not permit our economy to go. We have not had 3 per cent unemployment for years.
We now have a real rate of unemployment, that is the unadjusted rate, of over 8 per cent. Where is the expression of concern for those 817,000 Canadians? In this House it is virtually non-existent. In terms of those figures there is an increase in unemployment in nine of our ten provinces. This is not simply a regional consideration.
One of the most decisive and negative indicators about where our economy is going is the province of Ontario. We ought to note that with great seriousness. When there is an increase in unemployment in Ontario of 100,000 in one month, the whole country had better take note. In terms of our productive capacity of goods and services, as well as in terms of consumption of goods and services produced in other provinces, this is extremely important. This is possibly the most alarming statistic that has come out in terms of unemployment figures in the past dozen years.
An acquiescent Minister of Finance who can accept that statistic complacently is a disgrace to this parliament. That is certainly the attitude we got this afternoon.
February 11, 1975


An hon. Member:: What is the solution?


John Edward Broadbent: A Conservative member asks what is the solution? On behalf of my party I will make specific proposals. I do not suggest they will remove all the problems. However, they are a recognition on our part that the Canadian economy is in a major recession. It is in the worst position it has been since the thirties.
The Leader of the Opposition made a serious speech this afternoon. I give him credit for that, but I think his judgment is 100 per cent wrong. The only interpretation that could be made of that speech is that he put all the stress on the problem of inflation. However, that is not the crucial problem in the Canadian economy right now. The crucial problem, and it is one that will increase in the next few months, is unemployment. That is what I am going to deal with primarily in the proposals I will make on behalf of my party.
I want to say in advance that in 1975 both the Liberals and Conservatives are still primarily waiting for the private sector to bail them out of this serious situation. The same speeches were made in the 'thirties. And I say this with care-a little tinkering, playing it safe in terms of conventional economic wisdom and reliance upon the private sector would, it was thought, lead to an improvement in the economy. It did not happen then, and it will not happen now. The government must recognize that the only way we shall get out of the situation is by significantly expanding the government's role in the economy.


Mr. Reynolds:: Ask Dave Barrett. He is doing a good job.


John Edward Broadbent: The hon. member refers to the premier of British Columbia. I ask him to check the record in terms of job creation since that government came to office. It compares favourably with that of the government of any province in Canada.
Two of the three provinces with the best employment record have NDP governments-I refer to Saskatchewan and Manitoba. And if the Liberal government here had not fouled up the housing program, the lumber industry would not be in such a depressed position in British Columbia; if the Minister of Finance had not brought in his taxation measures affecting the resource sector, then industry in the resource sector in B.C. would not be in its present state.
To get back to my theme, I should like first of all to propose on behalf of my party that instead of the tax cut across the board that the government has proposed, a measure which will benefit upper income groups out of all proportion to lower income groups, and instead of the amendment proposed by the Conservative party advising a 5 per cent tax cut, the government should introduce right away a $400 tax credit. This would work in the following way-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Copycat.


John Edward Broadbent: The hon. member says we are copying. Well, we were the first government in Canada at the provincial level to bring in a tax credit some years ago. We are proposing one now. Let me describe what the effect
Income Tax
would be. First, a family with two children and an income of $3,000, paying no tax, would, under our proposal, get a cheque from the government for $400. All income taxpayers would get the full $400 benefit, either in the form of a tax cut or in the form of a cheque for the difference if their tax payment did not amount to $400.
Under our proposal Canadian families with two children, earning up to $10,000, would receive a benefit exceeding that proposed by the Conservatives. For example, a family earning $6,000 would get $400 under our proposal; under the Conservative proposal it would only be getting $158. A family earning $8,000 would get $114 under the Conservative proposal as compared with $400 under ours; a family earning $10,000 would get $64 under the Conservative plan and $400 under ours.
Of course when you get to the upper end of the income tax scale you find across-the-board tax cuts, as proposed by both the Conservatives and the Liberals, would give substantial tax benefits to upper income people, benefits well in excess of the $400 we advocate. On the basis of fairness on one hand and as a stimulant on the other, by getting the $400 out to the people who need it most, and making sure they get a minimum of $400, you deal both with the equity aspect of taxation and with the need to stimulate the economy. This is taken care of because people on low and average incomes spend a much higher percentage of their total income than do people in the upper income brackets.
The second proposal I should like to make to deal with the immediate unemployment situation is that the government should announce its intention to add millions of dollars to its public works program. It should offer to pay 100 per cent of all labour costs to municipalities as long as high unemployment continues. This would apply to needed municipal works-sewers, urban transit systems, public buildings and so on. One hundred per cent of the labour costs should be taken over by the federal government as an important means of stimulating activity in every town and city across the country. Most cities and towns already have projects on their books. They just need the financing. If the government were to move decisively in this direction a great deal of employment, as well as needed services, could be provided quickly.
The third proposal I wish to make on behalf of my party has to do with the automotive industry, but before I proceed further there are a few facts which I believe are worth putting on record.
About 25,000 people normally engaged in the automotive industry are unemployed at the present time. This compares with a figure of about 250,000 in the United States. We are not at the end of the road in terms of unemployment. The situation will get worse. The industry has stockpiled at least a 60-day supply of cars in both countries, and I envisage further massive lay-offs both here and in the United States. The situation will get worse before it gets better.
I want to stress the importance of the automotive industry to the whole economy. It is estimated that one out of six jobs in Canada is tied directly or indirectly to the automotive business. What happens in the automotive industry affects those who produce steel, plastics, textiles; it affects every service station in every town and village

February 11, 1975
Income Tax
throughout the country; it affects the insurance industry; it affects all the merchants who sell to those who work directly or indirectly in the automotive field, and, thus, all those who produce various consumer goods. I realize I am saying something which is possibly well understood at an unconscious level in Canada. However, it is not well known in terms of statistical awareness.
The major industry in both Canada and the United States in terms of its impact upon the economy is the automotive industry, and it is crucial in the short run if the government is to improve the general economy that it should deal with the growing crisis in the automotive industry. The benefits which would follow would not be confined to that industry alone. They would not be confined to Oakville, Windsor, Brampton and Oshawa. They would extend to Canadians from coast to coast.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has a clear course before him. He should bring the heads of the industry to Ottawa for a tough and serious talk. He should tell them they are now ten years late in terms of removing the price differential from cars produced in Canada and sold in the United States and in Canada. He should tell the companies he expects them to bring down their prices in this country to the level of prices in the United States, within 48 hours.
If the minister gets such an assurance, and he should insist on it, the federal government should then remove the 12 per cent sales tax. The collective effect would be to bring down the price of the average car in Canada by some 19 per cent. I have a few examples of what this would mean to prices of a number of cars currently being produced. A Chrysler Cordoba 2-door hardtop, with no accessories, would go down in price by some $868. One Ford model would be reduced by $721; two other Ford models would be reduced-one by $676 and another by $603, when purchased in this country.
The kinds of price reductions I am talking about are major reductions, and increased sales which would result from lower prices would be substantial. Lower prices would be a tremendous incentive for people in Canada to purchase cars produced in Canada.
In passing let me comment on an answer the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce gave to me today. Replying to my question he said that we must wait for the American economy to improve as 80 per cent of our cars are exported to the United States. That answer begs the question. I suggest that 80 per cent of our production is exported to the United States precisely because we overcharge Canadian consumers. If the price were to come down on our side of the border, I suggest that within two or three years 50 per cent of Canadian production might be purchased by people in Canada. So long as cars made in this country are overpriced, it makes good economic sense for Canadians to buy Toyotas, Volkswagens, Datsuns, Renaults or other cars produced in other countries.
If the minister wants Canadians to buy more Canadian made cars, he must get tough with the automotive industry and make sure it lives up to the commitment it made in 1965, namely, that there would be price parity on both sides of the border. If he gets tough with it, not only will

justice be done for the Canadian consumer of automobiles but we shall provide thousands of additional jobs for men and women who work in the automotive industry.
In addition, the minister must take important steps to change the composition of what is actually produced by our automotive companies. In the years ahead we shall use fewer automobiles in Canada and the United States. That makes sense. In major urban areas particularly we shall develop more rapid transit systems, which also makes good social sense if our cities are to develop sensibly. We should begin insisting on certain structural steps to be taken within the automotive industry, as we begin to prepare for the coming transition in urban life in Canada.
There is every reason why General Motors, Ford and Chrysler should logically become the producers of urban transit vehicles which will be needed in our cities in future. Now is the time, while the industry is experiencing an internal crisis, for it to begin the structural change which will lead to continuing employment in that sector. That change will mean a marginal shift away from the exclusive production of automobiles to the production of all kinds of public transport vehicles. This, again, makes good economic and social sense. In addition to dealing with the short run economic proposals which I outlined, the government should move quickly if it wants to improve both the automotive economy and our economy in general, and bring about the sort of structural changes in the industry to which I have referred.
My fourth proposal is that the government should do something in a significant and not in a piddling way about housing. Four days before the last election the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), speaking in Vancouver, described our housing situation as being a national crisis. About three weeks into the first session of the new parliament he said, in reply to a question of mine, that he had four years to deal with the crisis. So far the record of the government in matters of housing has been nothing short of deplorable. Fewer housing units were constructed in 1974 than in any of the preceding four years. Actually production of new housing last month was down 49 per cent from the level of January, 1974. If there is a crisis in the automotive industry it is equally certain that there is a grave crisis in our housing industry. We need a commitment by the government that it will infuse enough capital into the economy to allow for the building of 400,000 new housing units each year.
We need 400,000 new units, instead of the 200,000, which the present minister sees as an outside goal. If we built
400,000	new homes, we could meet real housing needs in Canada-these needs are by no means centered exclusively in our urban areas-and, second, we could thereby provide countless thousands of jobs.
Finally, it is the firm belief of the NDP that the crucial problem in our economy is that of unemployment; but we do not, at the same time, suggest that nothing should be done about inflation. Let me make what I describe as two matched proposals in this area.
First, the government should take steps to see that our pensioners have adequate pensions. That means it should increase the basic old age security pension and the Canada Pension Plan Superannuation. It also means that such pensions should escalate regularly, to take into account
February 11, 1975

not only rises in the cost of living but also increases in productivity in the economy.
Secondly, in terms of wage proposals the government should set an example with its own employees, by offering them-not waiting until there is a strike-a wage package which will include as a minimum an increase equivalent to the full increase in the cost of living since the last contract was negotiated. The package should also include a provision saying that future increases during the life of the contract will take into account increases in the cost of living, plus increases in the growth of the economy. That is the general rule which should be followed, and I think it is a good one. There should also be catching up in sectors of the economy where some people are grotesquely underpaid. I think that kind of approach to wages and salaries makes good economic sense in these days of inflation and would provide justice to our working men and women.
Let me conclude with a brief observation. The government does not give the impression that it recognizes the seriousness of our economic position. It is time it did so. Only if there is massive federal government involvement and intervention in the economy can we head off the sort of situation which we ran into in the 1930s. The government must face this fact.
Before sitting down, may I move a subamendment to the main amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom the words "a further 5 per cent reduction" and by substituting therefor the words "a $400 tax credit".


Mr. Ritchie:: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member who has just spoken permit a question?


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


William Gordon Ritchie: The hon. member's subamendment provides for a $400 tax credit. Has he worked out how much money, in total, it involves? Has he estimated the total cost of his proposal, and how much his public works proposals, and so on, will cost?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we do not have any precise figure for that, nor I am sure does the Conservative party have a precise figure in respect of the 5 per cent tax deduction. I can say with reasonably good authority, from a number of economists, that the total impact of this on the situation we are headed toward, would result in a very significant deficit in terms of the federal budget for the coming year. There is no doubt about that, but it is this kind of deficit in our current economic situation we think is not only justified but is required.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member has stated that we do not have an estimate in respect of our 5 per cent tax deduction proposal. From the time we suggested it we estimated it would be a $500 million proposal. I suggest it is irresponsible for the hon. member to propose his $400 program without even giving an estimate of the amount of money about which he is talking.
Income Tax


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would not want it taken that we did not object to the admissibility of this sub-amendment, although I recognize the Chair might be in a difficult position in view of the fact that an amendment has already been received. In any event, we would argue that this sub-amendment again anticipates a clause in the bill, and for that reason is inadmissible, apart from the fact that the leader of the NDP has no idea what the amendment would cost the people of Canada nor, I venture to say, did he even consider that feature in the purview of his argument.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I assume, the point of order having been raised by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), that you will have to rule on it at some point. The main weakness of the argument put forward by the Minister of Finance is in his admission that there is already an amendment before the House which has been accepted by the Chair. I would say that if this were an amendment de novo we might have to go through all the various arguments, but the Chair has already accepted the proposition that it is appropriate on second reading of this income tax bill to propose, as a reasoned amendment, that there be certain further tax rebates or tax cuts.
I submit that what is proposed now by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) is a modification of the form in which the tax reduction already proposed has been made. As I said, Mr. Speaker, you have an amendment in the name of the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), which has been allowed. This one simply deletes five words of that amendment and substitutes four words. Actually we are saving a word, as well as some other things. Therefore I would contend that, the amendment having been allowed, this modification of the amendment should also be allowed.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks on the bill which has now been before the House for several days, Bill C-49, and which implements the ways and means motion of November 18 last.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in introducing his ways and means motion was launching a plan of action to fight inflation and help certain categories of taxpayers. Indeed, the principles that prompt the Minister of Finance and prompted the different successive ministers of finance over the last decades are still the same. You may change finance ministers, you may change your experts, you may change your economic advisors, you may change governments, but history shows that we are always back in the same position. As has been often heard, as the popular saying goes, changes only bring more of the same.
In face of the economic situation that existed a few years ago some said we were living in an inflationary period and judging from what members opposite were saying inflation in Canada was nothing to be overly concerned about, there was no cause to be unduly alarmed since in the end Canada was a privileged country with enough production, adequately trained manpower, and in the final analysis inflation was more of an international

February 11, 1975
Income Tax
phenomenon. If we had problems in Canada at that time- two, three, four or five years ago-we were told during the question period and in committee of the whole that the economic situation was not all that serious since everything was under control in Canada, and what we could not control was of course somebody else's fault-Britain, France, the United States, or any other country of the European Economic Community.
Mr. Speaker, I think at that time the government itself was making a mistake in assessment. I think that on November 18 last when the Minister of Finance introduced his ways and means motion, he too was making a mistake in assessment.


John Napier Turner: Please forgive me, Mr. Speaker, but I do not know whether the hon. member is rising on a point of order or whether he is speaking in committee of the whole. I wonder whether the Chair has decided to accept the sub-amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I thank the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) for the point he has raised. The sub-amendment is now in the hands of the Chair for consideration. The Chair is having some difficulty as to whether in fact we have another proposition. That being so, there is a question as to whether there can be a sub-amendment if a new proposition is introduced, or whether in fact an entirely different amendment would have to be moved. That point is now being considered, and the Chair will make a decision very shortly.


John Napier Turner: Thank you.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, from out point of view, an error was made in assessing the economic situation.
A few years ago, it sounded good in speeches, it was easy to say that one did not have the answer; it was good enough to adopt a superficial attitude towards the economy and say: "It is an international phenomenon; it is the international spiral of inflation; no one can escape it and let us thank the Lord it is not more serious in Canada".
Mr. Speaker, there is now talk of a recession, but even now, the views are not very enlightened. No one will commit himself by admitting it, but everyone can see in what economic situation we are now living. What has the solid, liberal majority government proposed since the last election, to check that inflation? As we all know, it has introduced bills which I would call of secondary importance, although they are not bad bills, but bills that only plug holes and given no read leadership to our economy.
Mr. Speaker, the first bill of significance in this Parliament is in my view the one now before us, Bill C-49 or the Income Tax Act. Now this bill, although extensive, and dealing with fiscal matters and the people's income problems, has put limited effects, since it does very little for those who are most in need of help, the underprivileged in our society.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw what some members may think is a dark picture to explain what is felt at home, in Montreal, in Quebec City, in the province of Quebec and in the country generally. First, all Canadians are hurt by the depreciation of the dollar. The same work hour does not produce the same amount, and even assuming the nominal revenue per hour remains the same, the worker gets less because his dollar is depreciating. What is done about this? Absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing is done to try and prevent our dollar from depreciating, let alone increasing its value. Nothing is done. This means first that the Canadian worker has less and less purchasing power, because of the increasing cost of food and the essentials of life. We have there a first gap, about which we did nothing but establish the Food Prices Review Board, the so-called Plumptre Commission. The same worker already penalized by insufficient income relative to consumer prices is penalized by the depreciation of his dollar. This is turn entails depreciation of his work, and decreasing work stimulus.
At the same time, industries at home, truly French-Canadian, launched and maintained with Canadian money, are facing foreign competition through either imports or certain forms of dumping from the United States, especially in the furniture industry. Mr. Speaker, the core of the furniture industry in Canada is in our areas, in Daveluyville, Princeville, Arthabaska and Warwick.
This is an industry of our own which provides a few hundred or thousand workers and labourers with employment. The salaries paid are not higher than necessary. These workers, Mr. Speaker, are already having difficulty balancing their budgets, because of the spiralling increase in the cost of living. Like all other workers, they have been victimized by the devaluation of the Canadian dollar. The purchasing power they get now for one hour of work is therefore smaller than it was six months, one year or two years ago. That is why these workers are rightfully fighting for the escalation of their wages in line with the cost of living increase. This, Mr. Speaker, is a situation we are living on a day-to-day basis.
While workers on the one hand are less motivated to work, are getting now for one hour of work less than six months ago, and can hardly support themselves and their families, company owners are faced with unrestrained foreign competition, especially from the United States.
Mr. Speaker, it is a form of dumping. If we look at what happened in Toronto, during the Canadian National Exhibition, the minister will appreciate, if he is serious and if he wants to inquire and verify what I have said, that most manufacturers who exhibited in Toronto have experienced a decline in their sales. Why? It is not because the furniture lacked quality or because the workers have not worked enough, but it is primarily because we suffer that competition which is now beyond our control.
The textile business is another industry which is part of the backbone of our economy in Quebec and which employs thousands of workers. According to an answer from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), an inquiry on polyester and imports from Korea is in progress. The employees work in generally unsanitary and hard conditions. The work is done on a
February 11, 1975

chain principle, some even do piece work. It is a production that is man-ruining. Those industries, Mr. Speaker, are now faced with extraordinary competition from other countries.
These people demonstrated in front of Parliament last week. They are justified to do so and they are more that patient to have suffered for so long a situation as rotten as that in which they live every day.
Mr. Speaker, now and again some of us attack labour leaders. I would say that they often use the situation and their position to take advantage of the worker by forcing him into useless strikes. However, Mr. Speaker, not all the blame should be placed on the same shoulders. There is also the fact that some governments have not taken their responsibilities and have encouraged, for instance, textile imports, since this look good, you export so much and import so much and quote figures from time to time, but finally, Mr. Speaker, what happens? These industries are now in a very serious situation. Let us hope that the textile industry will not have the same fate as the footwear industry in Canada, and especially in Quebec, which was simply allowed to disappear before the flow of imports by a strong majority government.
Mr. Speaker, we live in a working and disturbed world. By introducing Bill C-49 to bring a bit more justice in wealth distribution through taxation, what does the government want to do? According to the minister, the government wants to encourage the worker, and especially the low income earner. This means, Mr. Speaker, that the government recognizes that those are the people who suffer more from inflation or recession. This depends on how you look at it.
Second this means the government recognizes there is inadequate purchasing power in lower income group to buy the products they sweated on.
This reminds me of one thing. When I first spoke of Social Credit and began to understand it, people answered, probably joking but maybe seriously, that Social Credit was dangerous in the first place and utopic in the second place. They said Social Credit would generate inflation, reduce the value of money.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we now live in 1975, at a time when money has lost its value: the dollar is worth approximately 50 cents now. We live in a situation where unemployment is still on the upswing. Just at noon today the Federal Bureau of Statistics released figures far from encouraging. This may show the government erred in its strategy, in its approach, in its evaluation, although the Social Credit is not in government and neither is the country run by a minority government to manage the country.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the time has come for members to stop rejecting solutions. If someone told me the Liberals on the other side of the House are wisdom itself, I would require they prove it. Liberal members are applauding, but I suggest they err just as everyone else. They are not the perfect managers they believe they are. I am not saying they are bad managers either. I am taking a positive attitude. I am looking for solutions, and I do not believe the sum total of absurdity is on my side because I am Social Crediter. I do not believe because I am a Social
Income Tax
Credit member I err every time I deal with economics. I believe, Mr. Speaker, there are good elements in our requests and our position.
For years, the Leader of the Social Credit repeated at length that products have no value unless they reach their destination, which is the consumer. People thought that was funny. But today, everyone realizes that the problem lies there. The problem lies with consumption. The problem is no longer one of production; we have automation, we have machines, we have a perfect production system. The problem is not there; it lies with the distribution of the wealth, with the purchasing power.
Mr. Speaker, in the same constructive spirit with which I should like to participate in the debate this afternoon, I would ask the Minister of Finance to be equally receptive to our suggestions, and to agree to consider seriously what we are suggesting to him.
Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister of Finance to study the compensated discount. I quite agreed with the Liberals during the last election, when the Progressive Conservatives recommended freezing wages and prices. We saw what the Canadian people did with their suggestion: they rejected it. What would a wage and price freeze have accomplished? It would have frozen a rotten situation, nothing else.
Mr. Speaker, it is not by freezing something that is spoiled that we are going to improve it. The Canadian people have rejected that proposed solution. On the other hand, the Liberals do not have a better one. They merely created a Food Prices Review Board, which can only note that prices are rising. The chairman of that board receives $40,000 a year just to note that prices are going up. The Social Credit Party does have a solution. It is not perfect, but our party has a solution, Mr. Speaker. It is nothing fantastic, and it is not a panacea.
Instead of shouting "the Bank of Canada" as members opposite are doing, just listen to what I have to say. What does compensated discount mean? It does not mean a price freeze. It means encouraging consumers, by encouraging the vendor not to raise his price without reason, and it means above all giving a compensation to our producers, who are the vendors, so that they do not raise their prices and so that the consumer can buy the product he needs without suffering from an exaggerated, unwarranted or unacceptable rise.
We have often suggested this global solution. Some find it funny. Mr. Speaker, there are people who are finding it increasingly less funny when they go shopping and suddenly realize that prices are still higher than the previous week. The government is saying: We are not responsible for that. Food liners like Steinberg's Limited and Dominion Stores Limited are saying: Neither are we. Finally, it is the small wage earner, the labourer who must foot the bill for these increases. I feel it is the duty of the House to examine all proposals, wherever they may come from, and I say this is indeed a good one.
Moreover, we have a negative approach in this country. We hope we can build a country with ineffective social legislations. Our unemployment rate has reached an all time high. We are paying over $1.5 billion a year in unemployment benefits. We are about to give $100 a week to

February 11, 1975
Income Tax
people who are not contributing anything to the community.
The proposal I am about to make, one which is not necessarily supported by the Social Credit Party of Canada, but in which I, as elected member for Lotbiniere riding, strongly believe, is very likely to raise a general outcry. My purpose is this. I am aware that Canadians, but more specifically young Canadians, are anxious to work. Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on behalf of those I know within my constituency who are shocked by the huge amounts of money which are being wasted.
The Unemployment Insurance Commission is now paying benefits. We also have investigators on the road who are bothering the unemployed receiving those benefits and sometimes they even force them-and I can prove it-to make disqualifying statements.
Officials make it their specialty to bother our fellow-citizens even if they have contributed to unemployment insurance. This year alone, unemployment insurance, not in administration but in benefits, will amount to $1.3 billion. The Unemployment Insurance Commission is centralized in Montreal. If only it worked! If only it paid benefits efficiently! But it does not, everything is centralized in Montreal, everything is stored in an electronic computer that pays the benefits. The regional office in Drummondville will tell you: Sir, your record is in order and the Victoriaville local office will tell you: Sir, your record is in order. But you do not receive your benefits. I know cases where the unemployed have not received one cent in benefits since November, December 5, December 7, 10 or 15.
Mr. Speaker, the situation seems urgent to me. If the government can help low-income earners through taxation, let us first make civil servants respect legislation passed by Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, the situation is ridiculous. Last Saturday, I was at my office in Sainte-Croix de Lotbiniere. I was called on by 42 fellow citizens having problems with the administration. I do not ask them if they are Liberals, Progressive Conservatives or Social Crediters. They all are my fellow citizens. Yesterday in Victoriaville I was at my office all day and I could not come to the House as I had too much work because of the civil servants not doing theirs. They bother people receiving benefits instead of processing payments. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, at least 10 cases of that type were submitted to me at my Victoriaville office, 551 Blvd. Bois-Franc-sud. I can give the names and addresses of those people. Those families have an average of three children and they have not received any unemployment benefits for one month and a half. How do they live?
These people are sent back to welfare. There they are required to sign a paper: "Here you are, Sir, sign here that you will give us the money back when you get paid by the federal government". The poor man, because he has no choice, because he has to put some food on his table, signs this acknowledgement of debt over to the welfare office and comes to his representative. One man came to me and said this: "Mr. Fortin, how do you explain that I do not get my cards? I am willing to work. I wrote to the manpower centre, I try to find employment, I want to work, I want to build my country and nevertheless, in Drummondville,

they tell me I do not want to work, that I am not looking for employment, and in Montreal they say they cannot pay me because everything is frozen. Your case is under study".
Mr. Speaker, that citizen, a man with a family, is now disgusted. I see in the House the hon. member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Corriveau) who represents the riding next to mine. Plessisville is in his riding. I am looking after several Plessisville cases in that predicament. I call upon the hon. member for Frontenac to join with the other members from the Eastern Townships to give the Unemployment Insurance Commission a damn good ride so the recipients can get justice.
Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Ask the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), ask most members from Quebec who pays for the whole of the province. It is as stuck as stuck can be. The office in Drummondville even suggested to me no longer answering our letters because they cannot keep up, yet we know the problem lies in Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, I say quite humbly that if the minister in his ways and means motion of November 18 really wants to give this country leadership through Bill C-49, if he really wants Canadians to be encouraged to work and pay the taxes set out in Bill C-49, let us start at least by showing leadership in respect of our crown corporations, our departments, to get the public service going and have the legislation implemented so those for whom the legislation was voted can benefit from it.
Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, our work in this House is useless. We can vote all the legislation we want here, however perfect it may be, if the public service is not equipped, if it does not have the necessary tools or personnel to implement that legislation so it can really benefit the interests of our fellow citizens, you and I, Mr. Speaker, have lost our time in this House.
I think that is the basic problem. People are having problems with unemployment insurance. Let us face it, local initiatives will not solve the manpower and unemployment problem in Canada. Let us start, Mr. Speaker, by setting that commission straight.
There is another thing I would also like to say about the economic situation. Suppose the Unemployment Insurance Commission does its work. The fact still remains that those who are out of work in my area are not happy about being unemployed. My constituents want to work. They have their house.
Victoriaville is one of the cities in Quebec with the greatest number of families in single family units. Our people are proud of their property. They want to work because they need to work. They believe in work because men assert themselves through work, not unemployment. It is a shame today to enter the unemployment insurance office in Sherbrooke, in Levis, in Trois-Rivieres, and see 40, 50, 60 young men 25, 30 or 35 years old filling in little unemployment insurance cards. That, Mr. Speaker, is some future for a country!
Of course we need social security, but we Canadians have a negative attitude. I was listening moments ago to a
February 11, 1975

speech by one of the members opposite which I really appreciated. He was saying that a great railway was built to unite this country. Mr. Speaker, people used to work then. If we want to build this country, we must provide incentives to work. Canadians do not lack imagination.
As I was saying, $1.3 billion is going to be spent in unemployment insurance benefits to unemployed workers who will do nothing for their country in return. I am not talking about attempts to find work, I am talking about work.
Every municipality in Quebec is stark indebted; they have no money to pay the workers needed to implement community or other particular projects, for instance developing a park, retimbering, developing the neighbourhood of a river, or cleaning the city. Canadians have plenty of imagination, especially young ones. Just read every proposal coming from our respective constituencies under a local initiative or opportunities for youth program. That means that young people want to create something in Canada, it means that money, not needs, is missing. Now $1.3 billion are literally wasted out on unemployment, and produce nothing.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat this is not a proposal of the Social Credit Party of Canada. Neither is my proposal outside the realm of possibility, but I will certainly fight for quite a while to have it accepted. Let us go to our unemployed who are out of work not because they are sick, but because they cannot find any work or because they gave up their job voluntarily because of bad working conditions! Mr. Speaker, these people are not happy about the situation. They are ready to roll up their sleeves and work for the community. We should use some method to ask these unemployed to report either to the municipal manager or another organization, and in return for 10, 15 or 20 hours of work a week, these once more proud people will have the feeling that they have earned their benefits, that they have contributed to improve the community through work where they can use their minds. In return, Mr. Speaker, our society, starting with me, will be happy to give them their benefits because they will have earned them.
Mr. Speaker, this is the spirit in which we should work in this House, a positive spirit. And if we want our Canadian workers and unemployed to have a positive spirit, we must have the courage to get up in this House and to let this spirit show; there should be an overflow of positive spirit.
In Lotbiniere, I had on my desk local initiative projects for more than $2 million last season. We received $288,000. Therefore, we accepted only a few projects, which were very good since we used the consultation system, but there were few of them. Why? Because we did not have enough money. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of dollars were paid out in my constituency for unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Speaker, the unemployed want to work. It is up to the government, it is up to the opposition, it is up to all of us to get together and develop a mechanism to put to good use our workers, and I do not say our unemployed but our workers because these are people who want to work; only a very small minority benefits from the system, Mr. Speaker, because the workers need to work in view of the increase in the cost of living.
Income Tax
Even though the Unemployment Insurance Commission would come and tell me that there is a lot of cheating, Mr. Speaker, I would say they have lied in a royal way, if I may use a word of which the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is fond. Only a minority, a very small minority, cheats the Unemployment Insurance Act, the others want to work, they find it very hard to draw benefits and are in a hurry to go back to the labour market. At the same time, there is not enough money in our cities and our municipalities to build up and realize projects.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I say that taxpayers' revenues would find their full use in those projects. It is all very well to tax people through Bill C-49, as they want to do, but what are we going to do with all that money? Is it going to help us build our country or resettle some or hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens?
Such are, Mr. Speaker, the questions I wanted to put in this debate. I hope that they will not fall into deaf ears, but on good ground so that they may bear fruit.
I know that I am the real spokesman for my fellow citizens, when I speak of this. I repeated it at five various places in my constituency, at social clubs, to workers and unemployed people, during the Christmas recess. I spoke to them about it and, Mr. Speaker, they were unanimous in finding the idea terrific. The people from my area are prepared to come forward, to work for their community, to imagine projects, because we have our needs, in our area as everywhere else. They are prepared to roll up their sleeves and to work, to make efforts for their community. However, they want to be respected by the system.
They want respect from governments, from departments and, above all, from officials. They do not want officials to welcome them like a bull in a China shop. They want to be respected, and I think that they are right when they want to be respected by officials, because, after all, these are only employees who are there to serve and enforce the law.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest the Minister of Finance has a highly prominent part to take in that matter. We are living in an inflationary situation where prices are out of control. We are living in an economic situation full of uncertainties, where labour is generally upset and where some people take advantage of it. We are living in an economic system where we are overburdened with imports.
Mr. Speaker, let us set our economy in order, let us give priority to Canadians, let us first foster Canadian industry before fostering others', and let us encourage our Canadian labour to get to work. Then, Mr. Speaker, Canadians will not feel reluctant to pay income tax, for they will know that we will get results in return. Right now, a Canadian who pays income tax to the government has the deep feeling of giving it away and never getting anything in return.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The Chair has given consideration to the subamendment moved in the name of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whit-by (Mr. Broadbent). As I indicated earlier to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and other hon. members there was a difficulty which the Chair thought could be in the

February 11, 1975
Adjournment Motion
amendment, but there has now been an opportunity to consider its procedural acceptability more carefully.
It is quite clear that very good arguments can be made on both sides as to whether there is, in fact, a different proposition being proposed in the amendment, that is, an alternative proposal. That argument can be established on the one hand. On the other hand, the view might be put forward that the subamendment meets the rule of relevancy.
Having considered both sides of the question and taking into account-and it is rather important to the Chair- that there is a reasoned amendment now before the House, the Chair should accept the subamendment as moved. Accordingly, it is moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) and seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom the words "a further 5 per cent reduction" and by substituting therefor the words "a $400 tax credit".



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen)- Manpower-Local initiatives programs-Request for independent inquiry into method of allocating funds; the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-Conflict of Interest-Use of Seagrams jet by Minister of National Health and Welfare.
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, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be general agreement that item No. 20, Bill C-220, in the name of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), be called.


Mr. McKinley:: That is agreed, Mr. Speaker, and the others will stand.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North) moved: that Bill C-220, to amend the Criminal Records Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I brought this bill to the attention of the House in July, 1973, almost two years ago. I thank my fellow parliamentarians for the support they gave me at that time.
This bill concerns young people who have been convicted of a minor offence such as smoking marijuana, stealing a minor item such as a bicycle, a practical joke or an over-zealous reaction to an incident, and have gone on to lead useful lives. These are minor offences in no way related to violence.
There are several times the number caught who have committed the same offences and have never been caught. This goes without saying. Yet these minor offences have resulted in charges and convictions, and have kept many young people out of positions they could very well have filled. In other words, they have a deterrent in going as far as their capabilities would carry them otherwise.
Since 1945 there has grown up a great deal of permissiveness in our society which previously would have been severely frowned upon as being morally and socially wrong. Many of these young offenders are a product of this era. Many of them are disadvantaged youngsters who come from broken homes where parental guidance has been little or non-existent. Some of them are the product of schools where no attention at all was paid to the homes or the environment from whence they came. Society just could not care less.
I think that it is fair to remember that 6 per cent or more of all urban families provide 60 per cent of all welfare cases, and that adolescence is a time when youth begins to tussle with many difficult problems. Some are school drop-outs, dissatisfied with school and their teachers, and many have I.Q.'s as high or higher than some who are quite successful academically.
There are, of course, high spirited individuals who are inclined to carry their enthusiasm a little too far and end up in trouble. All of us as youngsters may do things, and statistics prove it so, that we would not do at age 20, and things at 20 which we would not do at 30.
Churchill was an example of a high spirited youth who was always having problems but, being raised with a lot of good family connections, came through those years and was one of the world's greatest statesmen. What I am saying is that some people develop wisdom a little later than others.
In spite of this permissive era, we have seen fit to lower the age of drinking and open up more temptations. We are living in a world where there is more moral delinquency and divorce than ever before. We have all of these problems in this permissive age many times greater than the

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner).]
February 11, 1975

youth of 40 years ago. It is only fair to say that there are disadvantaged young people who have not been fortunate enough to have parents with the wisdom to establish a suitable environment in which to grow. One or both of the parents may be alcoholic, mentally retarded, or the mother may be forced to work to support the home. There may be very poor economic conditions.
I became interested in this matter in the early sixties when a man of 40 years of age came to see me. This man had committed a minor offence while a young boy in his home town where he had been raised under poor economic conditions. The father was a bit of an alcoholic and the mother had to go out to work. He had stolen a radio and was convicted of the charge. He went to a large city, started a business, married and made a success of his life. He raised three children all of whom attended university in the sixties. This man became active in church work. He worked with boys, helping those who were disadvantaged like he himself had been.
His business grew and he became quite a financial success. He found it necessary to go south of the border to join with another firm. What happened? The RCMP had a record on him. He had been married for over 20 years, had been a pillar in his community, and now was faced with shame and disgrace before his wife and three boys. This man had given far more that he had taken away because he had been a disadvantaged boy. This man told me he had forgotten the incident until this situation arose. I can understand that.
Another case involves an 18 year old grade 13 high school student who had tried a marijuana cigarette. He was caught and charged. His father, a veteran of World War II, had a lung tumor. His mother worked to keep things going. In spite of this the boy passed his exams and went through university. When applying for a job, he made the mistake of giving the names of the high school and the university he had attended. The recommendation from the university was excellent. Although the high school recommendation stated he had been an excellent student and came from a very good, hard-working family, it also stated he had been charged with smoking marijuana. That finished it; he did not get the job. After two or three more attempts, he obtained a job.
I know of a case of another 18 year old grade 13 student. I am deliberately bringing these cases to the attention of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) who has a great spirit with regard to the reform of boys. He went out with other boys one night after a hockey game. They had a few beers. There was a teacher with them. This young person had only two beers; the rest had more. When it came time to drive home, because he had only had two beers the others said, "You drive, Jack, you are all right."
As hon. members know, a breathalyser test depends on what is in the stomach and the rate of absorption. The police followed the car, pulled it over and asked the 18 year old driver to come for a breathalyser test. Because he was just a fraction over, he was convicted. I want to point out there was no charge from the standpoint of faulty driving. They were stopped by the police because they were said to have been driving too close to the centre line. I repeat that there was no charge from the standpoint of faulty driving.
Criminal Records Act
The point was the police felt that some of the same high school students had thrown a stone through the police cruiser and broken the windshield glass, so they were out to get them. I also found out, because I had a kindly friend investigate the case, that the young fellow concerned was a good athlete, and that the constable who pulled him up was having trouble in his own home. I have cited this case to bring it to the attention of hon. members.
The young fellow I am telling you about went on to get his grade 13 and then decided to go into law. He had the novel idea of wanting to go into the police force to learn it from that angle first. He would then go to law school later. He applied to go into the police force-he was a good athlete, as I have said, physically fit in every way-and he told them about this conviction.
I thought it was interesting and decided to speak to the minister about the matter. The young man had told the police about the conviction, and I wondered how this would work. I spoke to the minister and he said "Oh, he told them the truth. That won't be held against him."
Two or three months later I saw the young fellow and he told me he had been rejected out of hand. He said he had received a letter from the man in charge, and had been told he could not get on the force because of the one charge against him-it had involved just a few points over on one breathalyzer test. He wasn't a drinker in any way and yet, by the very province that makes the law and tries to dispense humanity and fairness to all the people, that fellow was rejected. This is the kind of disgraceful thing that governments do. I have the original letter, and if the Solicitor General wants to see it I think I could let him look at it, just to show him how those things operate.
The same thing applies, I understand, to the RCMP. I am advised that the same thing would happen right here in Ottawa if a fellow applied under the same conditions, although I have not seen any letters in that connection.
I would like, now, to compare the case of that young man, who was driving the car correctly except that he was told that he was perhaps a little close to the middle line, with another case. The officer knew he had had a drink because he had been at the hockey game policing it. I want to compare that case with the case of some students who took a car after a football game-after they had been drinking, obviously. Those high school students took this car after the game-they won the game by the way-and drove it right through a farmer's field, through his fence. His cattle all got out and took off up the road, endangering the lives of many people. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker,' that there was no charge whatsoever laid in that case. That is the dispensing of justice in this country.
I remember a time when perhaps we had better ways of doing things. Maybe they weren't better, but I remember a time at Queen's University, when I once went there. A few fellers were celebrating after a game and they shot up one of the places and wrecked it. Those fellers were all up on the carpet, but not in police court. They went before the university; the damage was all paid for. So I am making this appeal to the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker, to ask that justice be done to all.

February 11, 1975
Criminal Records Act
There seems to be an attitude that if we let things go on, offenders can get parole and it's O.K. But it isn't. Most people want to forget the things they do. I bet there are a lot of people in this House who would not want to have some of the things they have done in the past brought up now.
I am asking the minister that in cases of minor offences, where a culprit has an otherwise clear record without trace of any other offences, after two years the conviction be automatically wiped from the record. Surely the present act is most unfair. It bears heavily on those who have been disadvantaged. This is why I am asking the minister to agree to have this bill sent before the committee to consider the necessary reform. It would free these people from the mark of Cain.
I remind the House that when I spoke here a year and a half ago-on July 20, 1973, I think it was-we were promised that within six months the matter would be looked after, the amendments would come in, and the necessary reform would be carried out. I see some of those very fellows here who spoke on it at that time.
Knowing the minister as I do I am sure he is very sympathetic and does understand the plight of these people. I remind him of the saying of the Master: Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) for bringing forward this bill a second time in an effort to persuade the government to introduce the necessary amendments to the Criminal Records Act.
Back in 1965 when I was first elected, the Liberal member for Welland, Don Tolmie, sponsored a bill which incorporated many of the ideas which are contained in the Criminal Records Act. He obtained the support of most hon. members, more especially of the members of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee.
I recall the history of that legislation. One of the former solicitors general brought forward a bill which did not agree in substance with what the hon. member for Welland at that time was trying to do. Members of the justice committee from the Liberal, Conservative and New Democratic parties got together and moved amendments which the minister had to accept in order to get the present Criminal Records Act through. It is a credit to members in all parts of the House that they recognize there is a social issue here which has to be met.
I think I need take only ten minutes of my time today, because either the bill should be accepted and the amendments incorporated into the Criminal Records Act or it should be referred to the committee for study, and possible expansion with regard to the specified categories, or the minister should get up and say, "I am bringing forward legislation which in substance is the same as this proposal, or even an improvement on it."
As the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has suggested, he should also tell us something about the time frame in which it is to be brought forward. I agree with the hon. member for Simcoe North that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) is anxious to bring forward amendments dealing with the Criminal Records Act. I

hope he can persuade the members of the cabinet that this should be given top priority.
I note that the hon. member for Simcoe North, in an explanatory note, says the bill is aimed particularly at young offenders who have been convicted once of an offence such as possession of marijuana. I agree with the sentiments expressed in that explanatory note, but it should cover all people, not merely the young. Many people in middle life or old age are tagged with a conviction with which they must be burdened all their lives.
This subject was dealt with in 1969 by the Ouimet commission. If the government had accepted the recommendations of that commission, the bill of the hon. member for Simcoe North would not be necessary. The report recommended at page 409 that offences should be divided into categories, minor and serious. Minor offences are defined as offences punishable with summary conviction. The report recommended that if a person who has been convicted of a summary conviction offence lives for two years without committing an offence and rehabilitates himself, he should be eligible for a pardon respecting that offence for which he was convicted. Logically, the pardon would have the effect of giving him a crime free record. If the government had accepted that recommendation, we would not be in our present difficulties and as I said, the hon. member's private bill would not be necessary.
From my experience with pardon applications only four adjectives apply: slow, cumbersome, embarrassing, and unnecessary. These adjectives apply particularly to offences punishable by summary conviction.
I speak from experience when I suggest that the average time for an application to be processed under the Criminal Records Act is 18 months. That has been my experience from helping people in my constituency who have tried to take advantage of the Criminal Records Act. These applications, as I say, are slow.
They are cumbersome in that applicants are asked for names and references. This procedure tends to be cumbersome. I hope the Solicitor General will study this aspect closely. The applications, as well, are embarrassing because the applicant must furnish the names of six persons of good standing in the community who may be contacted about his character. The applicant is embarrassed by this procedure, by furnishing the names of these people who may be contacted, as often such people do not know the applicant has committed an offence or been convicted. The hon. member for Simcoe North related his experiences with people in his riding who have run afoul of the law, and what he said could probably be echoed by any member of the House. The hon. member talked persuasively about the effects which a conviction can have on a person for the rest of his life.
I commend the government for the amendments it made to the Criminal Code.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: Now after a person commits an offence and is tried, he may apply to the court for an absolute or conditional discharge. That this step is possible shows
February 11, 1975

what a great step forward criminal law has taken in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: I give the government credit for this. Nevertheless, we should take the extra step proposed by the bill of the hon. member for Simcoe North, and give hope and the prospect of happiness to people who have been convicted, especially of summary conviction offences, and who carry with them the burden of such conviction.
There are three ways in which a conviction can have serious consequences. First, it can affect the prospects of a person looking for a job in which he is required to be bonded. I am sure the Solicitor General will say that the government has helped those who have been convicted of criminal offences and who now wish to be bonded for the purpose of employment. Nevertheless, it is still difficult for a convicted person to get a job in which he must be bonded. It is difficult for him to find employment.
Here, again I give the federal government credit. It has attempted to have omitted from employment applications the question: "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence?" But the government's jurisdiction is limited to federal enterprises. I suggest that the provinces should provide for the removal of this question from employment applications which involve provincial employment. To my knowledge not one province has done this. The provinces' record is poor on this question. I hope that they will all see to it that the question "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence?" is removed from employment application forms. I will make certain that New Democratic governments of the provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are reminded of the necessity for removing this question. I hope that other members, including those who have applauded, will bring this matter to the attention of other provincial governments. I am referring to the governments of Ontario, Quebec, the maritimes and so on. The law about employment applications should be uniform across the country.
Lastly, and here I am about to put the Solicitor General on the spot, a criminal record makes travel difficult. People in Canada who have been convicted of a criminal offence and who wish to go to the United States or other countries are stopped by officials at the border and asked: "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence?" If the answer is in the affirmative they are turned back, even though the offence may have been relatively minor, that is to say, of a summary conviction nature.
The Ouimet commission, as well as members who have spoken on this subject in the past, urged the government to make reciprocal agreements with other governments about these types of criminal offences. The government has not acted so far. I hope that the Solicitor General can stand up and say that the government has made an agreement with the United States, so that a person who has been convicted, but pardoned, can say "No" in reply to the question, "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence?" and be supported by the federal government in so saying.
I recall arguing with a former solicitor general about this matter. I tried to persuade him to get in touch with
Criminal Records Act
other governments and make reciprocal agreements concerning travel. A criminal conviction affects a person's life in matters of bonding, travel and employment, and these are three mighty important areas.
The most important thing is to avoid the delay and embarrassment in respect of a summary conviction offence by implementing the bill of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) and by accepting the recommendation of the Ouimet Commission, that if a person who is convicted of a summary conviction offence has led a crime-free life for a period of two years he may apply for and be given an automatic pardon without the necessity of all the investigation that is now required.
I am sure the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) at this time in history needs some legislation that will boost his morale, because there is an awful trend or tide within certain groups in the community concerning capital and corporal punishment.


Mr. Robinson:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Gilbert: I will in a minute. I think the Solicitor General has the right attitudes, the right principles and the right programs, but it is going to take a little bit of time to implement them as well as a little patience and understanding on the part of the Canadian people. This would be a feather in his cap.


An hon. Member:: Give him help.


John Gilbert: Somebody suggests that we should give him help. We are always anxious to help in respect of legislation that is forward looking. That is one thing you will find about members of the NDP. They believe that the dignity of the individual is important and that social justice should be measured in full.
Mr. Speaker, I said I would only take a few minutes. May I suggest that the Solicitor General would be given credit if he stands and says he intends to bring this legislation forward. I am sure he will get the support of all parties in respect of such an amendment. I look forward to thumping my desk in support of the Solicitor General when he brings forth that legislation.


William Kenneth Robinson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Gilbert: Yes, certainly.


William Kenneth Robinson: Would the hon. member be satisfied if the act was amended so that the question asked about a previous record was: "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence within the past two years?"


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I am not one who is going to accept this legislation. That question should be directed to my friend the Solicitor General. I would be inclined to accept that wording if the hon. member is talking about the wording on employment applications.


William Kenneth Robinson: Yes.

February 11, 1975
Criminal Records Act


John Gilbert: Perhaps the hon. member should read it again so I get the full impact.


William Kenneth Robinson: The question would be: "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence within the past two years?"


John Gilbert: There are certain dangers in that question. I think we should take the position the federal government has taken; that is, to not even ask that question in respect of an employment application. I think it should be taken to that extent rather than the inclusion of that type of question. I would take it the full length and not permit that question on employment applications.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as the minister responsible for the administration of the Criminal Records Act I want to agree with the hon. members for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) and Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) that this law has been inadequate and that amendments are necessary.
When this law was passed on June 11, 1970 it was the first occasion that a Canadian parliament had passed a law to grant a pardon or erase the record of a person who had been convicted of a criminal offence. It was also recognized that this law, like most new laws, would meet unforeseen difficulties and contain unforeseen deficiencies which would only come to light with practical experience. Many of these difficulties and deficiencies have now been identified, and members opposite have mentioned some of them.
For the past year the Department of the Solicitor General has been conducting a complete review of this legislation and working on amendments to the act. Furthermore, for the last several months we have been discussing these proposals with the provinces, as they do affect the provinces very closely. We hope very shortly to have our proposals in respect of the legislation finalized, with a bill to be introduced into this House later this year. I want to assure hon. members that their suggestions and comments here this afternoon will be examined and will prove useful in preparing that bill.
Our experience with this law during the four years since its passage has indicated the following deficiencies. First of all, a pardon granted under the act has not been effective, as we had hoped, in protecting an ex-inmate from discrimination, and in helping him to reintegrate into society. That was the principal goal of the bill.
One of the principal challenges facing an ex-inmate is in finding a job. Very often he is faced with closed doors due to his criminal record. While the law that is in force now provides help to the ex-inmate in respect of employment by the federal government and employment in areas which fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government, it does not help in areas that fall within the jurisdiction of provincial governments. As most of you know, the greater proportion of jobs and employment in this country fall within the jurisdictions of provincial governments' labour legislation and general legislation.
When the present statute was passed in 1970 it was hoped the provinces would follow our example by passing similar laws to protect ex-inmates, but so far none of them has done so. As a result, under the amendments we are

preparing now we hope to make pardons applicable at all jurisdictional levels, federal and provincial. So far we have put proposals to the provinces and they are in agreement.
Another deficiency found in the present legislation is also in respect of its effectiveness. While a pardon in accordance with the act renders a conviction of no force, or void, and while it deprives the conviction of those affected in society and that is what the statute says, it does not prevent groups such as credit agencies and so on from revealing the fact of the conviction. Nor does it help the person who has received the pardon to deny the conviction. He cannot say he was not convicted of a criminal offence. The present legislation cannot stop a credit agency, a newspaper or anybody else from saying he has a criminal record. In that respect the law is deficient, and the amendment I will bring forward will deal with that deficiency.
Another deficiency mentioned by both hon. members on the other side is the long period of time and all the red tape involved in granting a pardon. There are just too many steps involved in the process at the present time. First a man makes an application which comes to the Solicitor General. It then goes to the Parole Board. The Parole Board then refers it to the RCMP for investigation, and that is a long investigation. It then goes back to the Parole Board, then to the Solicitor General and finally to the Governor General. This is a long process. I am advised that at the present time this takes between six months and a year from the beginning to the end. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) said it took about 18 months, and he may be right. It is too long even if it takes just six months.
Very often the man will apply for a job and be told he cannot have it unless he receives a pardon. He then files an application, but before he gets the pardon the job is given to another person. The process takes too long and we hope to shorten that procedure.
Another aspect that has been really counter-productive is investigation by the RCMP and other police forces. When the Parole Board transfers the application to the RCMP or the police force involved to check on the applicant to see if he has been free of criminal behaviour and to ensure that he has been behaving himself, the police approach those who are listed on the application, people in the applicant's community, and right away people become suspicious of the man. They may not have known about the criminal record, but when the police visit the neighbours, the employer, and so on, of the man applying for the pardon, they wonder what this man has done. When they hear in some cases that the man is applying for a pardon because he committed a criminal offence 15 or 20 years ago, right away a certain prejudice arises with respect to that man. We will try to deal with that in our amendments also. We do not want this counter-productive police investigation which does not help the applicant. As a matter of fact, many people told me they will not apply for a pardon because they do not want the police snooping around telling everyone about their criminal record of many years ago. So we hope to deal with that as well.
February 11, 1975

Another deficiency in the legislation is that the Parole Board-and it is the Parole Board that makes the recommendation to the Solicitor General and the Governor General-as well as the police who make the investigation must determine whether an applicant has demonstrated good behaviour since he has completed his sentence.
This requirement to determine whether there has been good behaviour is open to many interpretations. We have found that in some cases the police making the investigation as well as the Parole Board have interpreted it in terms of life styles. There might be a man who once may have committed a criminal offence, has gone to work and is rehabilitating himself, but who might have a life style which is quite different from that of the majority of people in Canada or the life style adopted by the police. For example, he might have long hair and a beard, he might belong to some minority religious group, or he might even live in a common law relationship, which is not a criminal offence but which is often interpreted as bad behaviour by the police or by the Parole Board. As a result, the man may be refused his pardon even though he had not involved himself in any criminal activities since his offence and conviction.
We hope to change that criterion from a determination of good behaviour to something that would relate to criminal behaviour or an association with criminal elements or behaviour similar to that which first got him into trouble under the criminal law. We think that in doing that we will eliminate judgments which relate to a man's personal morals or his personal life style.
This law, despite its deficiencies, has done much good since 1970. In those four years nearly 4,000 pardons have been granted. Many people are grateful for the fact that they have received a pardon. Some men applying for these pardons in their late years had been convicted when they were 19 or 20 years old and think that before they die they should receive a pardon. They apply for it and get it, and they feel good. I had the case of a man who was convicted when he was young. He had a couple of sons, one in medical school and one in law school, and he did not want his former criminal record to affect his children. So he applied for a pardon and got it.
There are many people who have benefited from the legislation, but I must admit to hon. members that there are still some serious deficiencies which we hope to correct in the bill that I will bring to the House later this year. Unfortunately, I cannot reveal the details of the bill at present; I am still discussing it with the provinces. I have revealed to the House the principal areas in which we are working, but I want to assure the House that some of the comments made here today will be taken into consideration, because they will help us improve the bill.
With respect to the bill of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), I think he moved in the right direction but he only dealt with one or two matters. I think there are several matters with which we have to deal when we amend this piece of legislation. The principal effect of his bill is to make a pardon automatic for offences on summary conviction. That proposal had been made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) when this question was before the House in 1970. He
Criminal Records Act
proposed that that should be the basis of the legislation when the bill was brought before the committee. This recommendation was also made in the Ouimet report, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). However, that proposal was turned down by the Solicitor General at the time because he said that in an average year there are over 100,000 summary convictions under the Criminal Code, that it would be impossible to identify these 100,000 people and issue them with a pardon for their offences if they had not committed any offences in the two years since they had served their sentence.
So while we want to accomplish the same end as the hon. member for Simcoe North, we hope to use another procedure. We feel we should still use the application approach, because when a man makes an application, his name and address and where he can be found become known and his pardon, therefore, can be sent to him and he has a certificate indicating that he is pardoned. We hope to deal with that problem and accomplish the same result, but we will probably use another means of doing it.
In conclusion, I want to tell hon. members that we agree that the Criminal Records Act needs amendment. I identified several areas where the law is deficient and amendments will be made in these areas. We have prepared a draft bill which is now being discussed with the provinces. It should be introduced later this year in the House. I would like to repeat that nothing has been finalized, and I think we might pick up some good ideas which were put forward in this debate.
I congratulate the hon. member for Simcoe North for introducing his bill because it has given us an opportunity to discuss this subject before we introduce the government's bill and, as I said, many good ideas have come forward. My only reservation is that this bill covers only one or two deficiencies which I see in the present law. When we amend the law we should deal with all deficiencies at one time. I want to thank the House for the attention they have given this matter.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in the few moments left I want to say how pleased I am to be associated once again with the hon. member for Simcoe North on this bill. When this matter came before the House on July 20, 1973 I spoke in support of the bill and urged it upon the government. At that time they saw fit not to accept it. When reading the debate on that day I find that the representations that were made on behalf of the government were not the same as those made today. I think I share in a very small way with the hon. member for Simcoe North the good feeling that the very frank and forthright statement of the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) has engendered with respect to this piece of legislation.
I want to point out one thing to the Solicitor General- other hon. members have spoken of some other details- and that is that he should not reject too quickly the provisions of the bill with respect to the automatic expunging of the criminal record in the circumstances set forth in the bill.
The minister has told us that there are 100,000 summary convictions a year. This is a tremendous load. It seems to me that it is not outside the realm of possibility for the

February 11, 1975
Criminal Records Act
automatic provision to be used to provide, in any legislation that is brought forward, the right of the person convicted to apply for his certificate, so that the records of the department keep moving. Then the investigations are short. It seems to me that if that did occur, there would be the man years among the personnel of the Parole Board released for some of the other things that I think quite frankly are lacking.
I say this with respect to the minister. The difficulty in investigating parole in very serious cases is due to the tremendous work load the Parole Board has to bear and the great responsibility which it has. Then the government, which is also loaded with work, must consider the recommendations of that board. If there is any possible way, whether through this piece of legislation, the legislation the minister is talking about, or in any other reasonable way, of lessening the tremendous load on that board so that it can better do its job, then I think the government ought not to dismiss out of hand the automatic aspect of the proposed bill.
There has been a tremendous amount of criticism in this context of the system of parole in Canada, and I do not mean this as a criticism of the minister, though that happens from time to time. This tremendous criticism is a result of the failures, in some instances the apparent, blatant, headline making failures, of some parolees. Part of these failures must be considered due to the fact that there has not been sufficient investigation. I think all of us should be striving to assist that board in doing its very important work. I now commend that to the minister, with respect.
I wish to say that we have travelled a long way in the criminal law of Canada and in the keeping of records of criminals. At one time, if I understand the situation correctly, the only thing a man could have was a pardon. That was even more cumbersome than it is today. We have now moved in the direction of giving the offender who has shown that he can live within the guidelines of society a second chance, and I think that is important to us as a civilized country. But I think it is also important that we consider any program or piece of legislation or any idea which will lessen the purely paper moving, investigative work of that very important board. As a result the Parole Board could direct its attention to problems which have been plaguing Canada and worrying Canadians, and occupying the time of this House, namely, the fact that in some very flagrant instances in terms of subsequent events the people who have had the privilege of parole given to them have breached it, thus resulting in a hardening of attitude. The minister knows of what I speak.
I am very honoured to support the principle of the bill advanced by my colleague, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard). He has been a crusader in this field and has carried into the public life of this country the concern for his fellow human beings which he has exhibited as a physician and surgeon, and I think all hon. members of this House are honoured to be associated with him. I am happy to see that there seems to be general approval with respect to the principles set forth in this bill.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, let me first of all congratulate the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) who has shown leadership in this instance.

Before I go into the nub of the problem which the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) was dealing with, I would like simply also to commend the minister for indicating that he is going substantially to amend the existing legislation. While he is doing so I might suggest to him that he look at the possibility of requiring that a record be kept of the hearing or hearings before the members of the Parole Board. I do not have personal knowledge, but I know of an unfortunate experience where the members of the Parole Board somewhat abused their privileges to the detriment of the parties appearing before them, and unfortunately we were unable to obtain any verification of that fact due to the very informal nature of the hearing, as I was told, no records being kept, I am sure that one of the aspects of the granting of a pardon is making sure that justice is done, that it appears to be done, and that it appears to be done in retrospect by having some access to the records which should be kept during those deliberations.
Coming back to what the hon. member for Simcoe North indicated, in the few minutes left I would like to draw the attention of the hon. member to a document recently issued by the Law Reform Commission of Canada, which he will find of considerable interest. It is entitled "Working Paper 7-Diversion". In French it is la dejudiciarisa-tion, which I think is a very exact term to indicate how young offenders or elderly offenders, of which the hon. member spoke, are taken out of the judicial process either at the stage of initial investigation or at the screening stage by police officers, or at a pretrial stage, or, indeed, at the trial itself.
The Law Reform Commission, I might suggest, has done a marvellous job with this diversionary process, which is now in practice. Having been a practising member of the criminal bar for some years, I can indicate that it has been my very pleasant experience on a number of occasions to have succeeded in having a diversion created, so that an accused who might otherwise have been dealt with before the courts and given a criminal record was diverted at one stage or another from that process. In effect, society dealt with him, but in such a way that that individual was not harmed and his future was not affected unduly by that particular process.
The Law Reform Commission on page 7 of this document gives some ideas as to the criteria or the types of incidents which might be included: for example, incidents involving juveniles or the elderly, which is directly what the member for Simcoe North was indicating; family disputes; misuse of alcohol or drugs, which is again something the hon. member was indicating; incidents involving mental illness or physical disability; nuisance-type incidents, and so on. All these are very indicative of the nature of the problems we are facing today in the criminal process. We are no longer dealing with just a different class where the police would clamp down on the lower masses with whom the legislators had really no contact. We are dealing now with the application of our criminal
February 11, 1975

laws to a massive middle class, and at this stage we are experiencing more community involvement in dealing with these particular individuals.
I see that is is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you forbearance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the Chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock 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. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-49, to amend the statute law relating to income tax, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole, the amendment thereto of Mr. Lawrence (p. 2977) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Broadbent (p 3117).
Mr. Peter P. Masniuk (Portage):: Madam Speaker, as members of this House know, I am not one to make many speeches but I feel I should enter this debate particularly in support of the amendment moved by my colleague from Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) which calls for a 5 per cent further tax reduction for Canadians.
With unemployment in the country now at 6.7 per cent and forecast to go higher, and with inflation in excess of 12 per cent, the fact is that we are in trouble. It is time that every member of this House let his voice be heard. Tens of thousands of people are being hurt and will be hurt even more if this government persists in backing an economic policy that is obviously not working. I am no economist, but it does not take a financial wizard to realize that business in this country is faltering. I have watched this Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in action and the truth is that his words are better than his results.
Our Minister of Finance likes to speak of tax reductions, yet I find in my riding that individuals are being taxed more every year. When I checked nationally, I found, for example, that individuals paid income tax to a total of $5.2 billion in 1968; by 1972, they had paid $10.1 billion; and now I find that our Minister of Finance has forecast that they will be paying $15.9 billion beginning in the fiscal year April 1, 1975.
Madam Speaker, there has got to be a halt to this unnecessary taxation. A tax reduction is long overdue for Canadian taxpayers and certainly long overdue for the people in my riding of Portage. Now that unemployment is getting out of control, such a tax reduction would be
Income Tax
doubly helpful. Not only would it relieve the onerous tax burden felt by many, but it would put buying power back into the hands of the people which in turn will increase business and create jobs for Canadians. I believe the average Canadian can spend his money better than any government can and I certainly believe they can spend it better than the Trudeau government.
As I have said, I am not an economist but I can read what economists are saying. In the "C. D. Howe Research Institute Policy Review and Outlook, 1975" it is stated at page 54:
Our analysis suggests that a sizable portion of federal spending is controllable-approximately 42 per cent-but that the degree of controllability is diminishing and that at the moment there is not a strong economic incentive compelling the federal government to try to exercise more control over spending. The recent outcry against the growth in government has probably created a greater political incentive to control spending. If spending is to be controlled in future, it will have to be done through some self-imposed discipline which would prevent the government from increasing tax rates and which would encourage it to reduce taxes rather than raise spending.
On November 18, the Minister of Finance said:
In our present circumstances, we should moderate government expenditures so as not to add to the pressure on available resources.
Earlier the minister said:
The fiscal stimulus should come primarily from a further cut in taxes, rather than an additional increase in expenditures. I believe that tax cuts can help to reduce prices and costs directly or indirectly and thus slow down the upward momentum of inflation. An indiscriminate or excessive increase in expenditures would exacerbate the pace of inflation.
But, Mr. Speaker, the man speaks with a forked tongue. When we turn to his accounts, on page 35 in his budget speech, we find that he shows government expenditures jumping 47 per cent, from $23.7 billion in 1974 to $34.9 billion in 1976. Guess who pays for his big spending? Madam Speaker, you and I. Under "revenues" on the same page, direct personal taxes are shown to jump from $11 billion to $15.9 billion, a 44 per cent increase in two years.
That is why, Madam Speaker, I intend to urge the other members to vote for the amendment now before us calling for a 5 per cent reduction in personal income tax. That would put $500 million back into the hands of the taxpayers. It would mean about $60 to $150 extra spending money for the average Canadian in 1975. The government can well afford to give taxpayers such a break. They certainly deserve it.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the reasoned amendment proposed by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) on February 6, 1975 which reads as follows:
this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-49 because it fails to provide for a further 5 per cent reduction in personal income tax in 1975 and subsequent taxation years despite unprecedented government revenues and the resulting overtaxation by the government.
Madam Speaker, before dealing with the reasoned amendment I wish to speak briefly to the subamendment moved this afternoon by the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). This subamendment calls for a $400 tax credit with no explanation as to who would be eligible to receive it. When my colleague the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) asked the leader of the NDP for
3130

February 11, 1975
Income Tax
an estimate of the cost to the government of this proposal, he said he was not in a position to give an estimate. The leader of the New Democratic Party, therefore, has left the House and the country with no idea of the magnitude or cost of the subamendment which he proposes. In our opinion, this is a somewhat reckless and irresponsible stand, a spur of the moment proposal which has not been thoroughly researched. Therefore, we in the Progressive Conservative party have no choice but to vote against this subamendment.
We are talking about the Income Tax Act. Those of us in the Progressive Conservative party believe that the people of Canada are being overtaxed by the federal government.
I say this because of figures which are available to all members of parliament, figures which clearly substantiate my claim.
It is interesting to compare the performance record of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) with his predecessor, Mr. Benson, who by no stretch of the imagination could be considered an outstanding finance minister. For example, let us look at the consumer price index for the financial years 1969, 1970 and 1971 and compare the average percentage change with the present finance minister's record.
In 1969, the consumer price index average percentage change was 4.5. In 1970, it was 3.4 and in 1971, 2.9, for a three year average of 3.6. Under the present Minister of Finance, in 1972 it was 4.8, in 1973, 7.6, and in 1974, 10.9, for a three year average of 7.8 per cent.
Let us take a look at government expenditures. According to the booklet "1974-75, How Your Tax Dollar is Spent", it required $10,767 million in 1968 to look after the needs of 20,644,000 Canadians. For 1974, government expenditures are proposed at $26,316 million, an increase of $15,549 million. However, the population in Canada as of October 1, 1974, is only listed at 22,574,000, an increase over 1968 of only 1,873,000. There has been an increase of less than two million people since the present government under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office, but an increase in expenditures of $15,549 million. Is it any wonder our taxes are high? Is it any wonder that we in the Progressive Conservative party claim that the Canadian people are overtaxed by this government? It is this excess taxation which has led directly to our present runaway inflation which is troubling everyone.
Two very interesting speeches were made recently, one by the Minister of Finance to the Canadian Club in Toronto and the other by the Prime Minister to the faithful at a $100 a plate dinner in Montreal. There was quite a difference between the tone of those two speeches of gloom and doom compared with the speeches delivered by these hon. gentlemen prior to the 1974 election.
In their recent speeches, both gentlemen were agreed on one point at least; 1974 was not, and 1975 will not be, a good year. The Minister of Finance spoke of recession with rising unemployment, inflation and rising prices. He said at page 8 of his speech that these problems were compounded by the fourfold increase in price imposed by the oil producing countries. On page 10 he stated words which

lead me to believe even he might support our recent amendment. I quote from page 10 of his speech:
We in this country have the potential to maintain and even improve our standard of living during this same period. But we are only likely to realize this potential if we are able to exercise enough self-discipline to avoid trying to take out of the economy more than it is capable of producing. If we can reach mutual understanding about the claims of each group on the economy, then it will be possible not only to maintain and improve our standard of living, but also to bring about a steady decline in inflation. No one is being asked to accept a self-imposed hardship. What I am saying is that collectively we will be a lot better off, not worse off, if we co-operate together to moderate our demands on the economy.
This is what we as Conservatives are saying; we should all co-operate to moderate our demands on the economy. It is vitally important that the government at this crucial time in our history give leadership to Canadians by cutting down its demands on individual Canadians. At page 11, the minister states:
As I indicated earlier, real growth of the Canadian economy in 1975 is likely to be somewhat below potential.
On page 12 he stated:
We are counting heavily on continued strong expansion of private capital investment to provide a strong impetus to the Canadian economy throughout the course of this year and beyond. It is important that Canadian businessmen-
Here he waxes poetically.
-look beyond the valley through which we are passing to the peaks that lie ahead.
Again, this is what we are saying. This government has not provided leadership to Canadians. However, we agree with the finance minister when he calls for a strong expansion for private capital investment. We say, give Canadians, and through them our Canadian companies, the financial tools and they will do the job. The finance minister again underlined the theme of his entire speech when he said on page 13:
There is little doubt that 1975 is going to be a less robust year.
This masterpiece of grave digging was followed by the Prime Minister speaking to the faithful in Montreal, where he is reported as saying:
Violence is coming to our land. The opposition parties, divided and lacking leadership, are encouraging discontent. There are no easy solutions, so those who want to attack the government are posing other problems. They are looking for something-scandals. They are probing. The atmosphere of Watergate has polluted the atmosphere of all democratic countries.
This is our Prime Minister talking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Members opposite have obviously heard the speech so they do not want to hear it repeated.
Suspicion-everybody is living in a glass bowl. Suspicion-nobody trusts anybody any more in government.
I wonder why. Why does no one trust anybody in government any more? I wonder if the Liberal party ever asks itself why nobody trusts them any more. That is what their leader is saying.
The civil climate in our society is beginning to weaken.


An hon. Member:: We counted the returns.
February 11, 1975


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Someone opposite says they counted the returns. If I ever heard of anything that smacks of Liberal arrogance, that is certainly it. The Prime Minister continued:
The media, they are adding to the worry and the uneasiness in our country.
He concluded by saying:
It is not a good year.
This certainly does not sound like the man who in the Chronicle-Herald, of June 29, 1974, promised:
Every action taken and program initiated by the Atlantic Province Liberal candidates and Prime Minister Trudeau will ensure that the complex fabric of our economic, social and cultural life developed over generations in the Atlantic Provinces will be preserved and strengthened for the people of this region. Our efforts must maintain strong rural communities, strengthen and expand local industries, improve family farm operations, revitalize our fisheries and continue and increase social improvement within the Atlantic environment.
Those are fine words but the government and its supporters have a long way to go before any of those fine promises are implemented, especially as they relate to the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada. I would say that the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in Montreal is a serious indictment of the Liberal government and of the party he leads, a party which has been in charge of Canada's affairs since 1963 and which obviously has not led us onward and upward but which rather has led us downward and out.
Whenever we move a motion of this type there are always members on the government benches who accuse us of playing politics. I wonder how desperate economic conditions could become before those who support the government and those who sit on the treasury benches say: "Maybe the opposition has a point; maybe we should listen to them."
In support of our amendment I should like to quote the headline in the Labour News put out by the Department of Labour-"Canada's Strike Record one of the world's worst". The text reads:
Figures due to be released by the federal labour department within the next week will show 1974 was Canada's worst year ever for labour relations with the number of man-days lost through strikes rising to 9.5 million-67 per cent higher than in 1973 ... Canada lost more days through labour disputes than any major industrialized country with the exception of Italy.
That, gentlemen, is something of which I suppose you are proud. We, as Conservatives, certainly do not share that pride. When we read statistics like this we must ask ourselves why so many workers are striking. The answer is that the labouring man cannot get ahead of inflation. High taxes, which contribute to high prices, have caused him to rebel against the system. In effect, he is saying: "The check-off from my pay due to taxes is too high; I need more money to take home so as to provide for my family."
Again, when we move a motion of this type we are sometimes asked: "Where would you like us to make the cuts? Would you like us to reduce pensions for veterans, for example?" We know this is a cynical and facetious response by supporters of the government. Nevertheless
Income Tax
there are areas of government spending in which cuts could be made.
All that members of the cabinet need do is to look at the booklet put out in 1974 by the Treasury Board showing how the tax dollar is spent. If they do so they will find many places in which cuts could be made. I refer the Minister of Finance-I am sorry he is not in his place tonight-to page 27 where the heading "General Government Services" appears. There are at least four items on that page dealing with Information Canada, Justice, National Revenue and correctional services, with respect to which expenditures have gone into orbit. The budget for Information Canada, for example, is $8 million. We said during the election campaign in 1974 that Information Canada could be abolished in its entirety. We said this could be done without the Canadian public suffering any loss of information. The information bureau in all the departments of government continue to exist. They have not been cut and they are still capable of furnishing whatever information the public requires.
In 1973-74 the Department of National Revenue cost the Canadian people $275 million. In 1974-75 it is costing $308.5 million, an increase in one year of $33.5 million. Does anyone on the government benches ask why there should be an increase of this order in one year? Has the cost of printing income tax forms gone up by so much? This is something I urge the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) to investigate.
The Department of Justice is listed as having cost $29.6 million in 1973-74. For 1974-75 it is listed at $43.6 million, an increase of $14 million. I know the government has increased the salaries of judges but it is surely hard to justify an increase of $14 million in one year.
The cost of correctional services is listed at $141 million for 1973-74. For 1974-75 the figure is $177.3 million, an increase of $33.2 million in one year. Surely this causes the treasury benches some concern. Have our morals degenerated to such an extent that we are obliged to increase expenditure on correctional services to the tune of $33 million in one year?
There are further examples on the next page under the item "Internal Overhead Expenses". Here we find the cost of accommodation for government support services, rent, maintenance and new buildings. In 1973-74 the amount listed is $394.8 million, but for 1974-75 the cost is given as $436 million, an increase of $42.1 million in one year. Surely some cuts could be made in this type of expenditure.
There is another interesting item at the top of the page. The heading is "Other Administrative Costs Including Contingencies". The amount arrived at for 1973-74 is $145.6 million, but for 1974-75 the proposal is $246 million. This represents an increase of $100.8 million in one year. Madam Speaker, I ask you: What is this for? I ask the treasury benches: For what? I ask any Member of Parliament who represents 65,000 or more people here: For what? I ask them if, when I am finished, they can get up and tell me why the government needs $100 million more for "other administrative costs and contingencies". What a kitty, Madam Speaker! What a pork barrel!


An hon. Member:: What baloney!
28626 - 63)4

February 11, 1975
Income Tax


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: An hon. member says "What baloney!". That is indicative of the depth of his concern for the taxpayer and for the people who sent him here to represent them. He has the same opportunity as I have to get up and make representation on behalf of his constituents but, as usual, he prefers to make his observations from his seat.
At page 29 we see the figure representing expenditure by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in 1973/74- $238.8 million. For 1974/75 it is $298.8 million. Madam Speaker, that is almost $6 million a week. When I was first elected and came to this House on June 10, 1957, I remember making a speech around about that time. I had found, to my amazement, that the CBC estimates in 1957 amounted to $52 million. I was concerned about that and made a speech. I said, "Why, that is $1 million a week". In the 18 years I have represented the South Shore constituency in Nova Scotia in this House, that figure has risen from $1 million a week to almost $6 million a week. Yet government supporters show no concern. They say they cannot cut taxes.
Something else needs to be investigated. According to a return tabled in this House, in the last six years there has been a 1,300 per cent rise in the pay of upper echelon civil servants. Yes, Madam Speaker, their pay has increased by 1,300 per cent in the last six years. There were only 1,225 federal civil servants in the big income brackets, in the $20,000 a year and up bracket, in the 1968-69 fiscal year. Then, after the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to power, the number of civil servants earning these salaries increased to 16,863. Do not government supporters ask why? Do none of them express concern about these rising expenditures? According to a return tabled in the House, in the Prime Minister's office there was only one man who earned over $20,000. Now there are 20, headed by the principal secretary, Jack Austin, who rates between $50,000 and $55,000 per year. It is expenditures like these which have created the inflationary spiral, and they trouble all the people of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
We in the Conservative party have proposed a tax cut for one reason only.


An hon. Member:: Which Conservative party?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The Progressive Conservative party, thank you. As I say, we proposed a tax cut for one reason only, namely, to strengthen the private sector of our economy and to restore investor confidence in our economy. In my opinion, investor confidence means growth; it is more than just a phrase. It is a fact of economic life for every nation, except those under communist type governments. If investor confidence is strong, there will be capital investment, growth and jobs; and, for governments, federal as well as provincial, there will be the wherewithal to pay for social and other services expected by Canadians. But if investor confidence lags or disappears, a nation cannot help but be in deep trouble for many years, and so are its citizens. A case in point is energy development, including the development of oil, gas, coal, hydro, nuclear power and tidal power, to name a few of the areas in which Canada has a tremendous potential.

We will have an energy shortage within a few years unless many tens of billions of dollars are invested in exploration, development, transportation systems and in additional means of processing and distribution. Without a greater degree of investor confidence than now exists, capital will not be available and Canada will face energy shortages in the midst of plenty. As a result of the policies of this government, Canada and Canadians will pay a very high price, both in terms of lost economic development and in dependence on foreign energy sources, at costs which foreign nations will set.
This loss of investor confidence all began when the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) introduced his budget last spring; it dealt a death blow to Canada's energy development. Exploration came to a halt in many areas, including Atlantic Canada, where we were entertaining high hopes of becoming self-sufficient in oil and gas. Those of us who live in the area still have hopes for offshore mineral development, but it is up to the federal government to get its energy house in order and establish workable arrangements with the drilling companies and provincial governments in Atlantic Canada if any meaningful development is to take place.
Speaking of Atlantic Canada, the Special Report of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council of January, 1975, states among other things that if the region is to get start up commitments for some of the power, mining, refining, port, shipyard and manufacturing developments that are pending, it will need to find between $5 billion and $10 billion of development capital over a relatively short period. We need help and co-operation on power development, on solutions to fisheries problems and on industrial development in order to take care of our rising unemployment.
The report concludes by stating that the economic outlook for the Atlantic region is for a possible recession lasting throughout 1975. Here, then, is an area that requires still further consideration from this government. A cut in personal income tax of 5 per cent, as proposed in the reasoned amendment before the House, would go a long way to providing additional funds for Atlantic Canada. Such an action would, of course, improve the minister's track record. After all, a Minister of Finance who has presided over a 97 per cent increase in federal spending in four fiscal years certainly needs to do something which will make him credible when he preaches restraint.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The views we have put forward are not ours alone. They are endorsed by leading financial newspapers. Actually, on February 10 the Financial Times, in bold headlines, stated that, in matters of fiscal policy, "It's time for Mr. Turner to give us a real boost". Even last fall, at budget time, finance officials said that there was a 50-50 chance a new budget would be needed in 1975. The Minister of Finance covered that possibility by saying in his speech that the situation may change and, if so, he will not hesitate to recommend a change in course. Here he was using a nautical term; those of us who have spent some time at sea have often had to change course. I say to the minister, in the three months which have passed since he
February 11, 1975

made that statement, the situation has changed. If the first six months of 1975 show as little real growth as the last nine months of 1974 showed, it will take a really large surge in the economy to provide 1 per cent or 2 per cent average real growth for this year. The income tax cut proposed would help to provide that boost.
The minister has the money with which to cover this income tax cut. He got it from income tax as well from the enormous sale of Canada savings bonds last fall. Actually, he has nearly $5 billion in the bank, as compared with $1 billion only four years ago. The minister may be concerned about over-stimulating the economy and thereby firing a fresh burst of inflation. But the universe is not unfolding as it should, for a stagnant economy and rising unemployment are unacceptable in a nation like Canada which is rich in natural resources.
In conclusion, I hope that my thoughts will be helpful to the government and to the minister when the time comes for us to vote on this important amendment.


Eudore Allard: Madam Speaker, everyone knows that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) holds very great powers over all types and systems of taxation aimed at creating a better balance among all the taxpayers who must pay taxes to maintain society.
Why then, Madam Speaker, does our entire country have so many problems concerning inflation, unemployment and poverty, so that everyone is dissatisfied, some because they pay too many taxes, others because they do not have enough money to live adequately, let alone to pay their taxes.
Madam Speaker, if all the citizens are dissatisfied, why do our great banks and companies make so much profits compared with previous years? Some make twice as much profits, others three times as much.
I think that the Minister of Finance, who is not listening to me but talking with someone else, could dip into those pockets to get the funds required to better administer the budget of the government, which is forced to finance itself repeatedly with increasingly important and cumbersome annual deficits.
We always wonder, Madam Speaker, why companies make so much profits and pay so little taxes compared with individuals because of the privileges granted to companies.
I believe that a part of the answer is given at page 113 of volume I of the Carter report on the taxation enquiry which was carried out from 1962 to 1966 and which brought about the so-called taxation reform of these last few years, which has given nothing useful since the proportion between consumption and capitalization of each fiscal year has remained the same.
This page is a continuous blame of the chairman himself of the Royal Commission on taxation, the late Mr. Carter, who used his authority as chairman of the commission to underline his absolute refusal to agree with the opinion of the Institute of Chartered Accountants on the way the companies calculate their profits for income tax purposes, and especially on the provisions concerning capital cost allowances.
Income Tax
Madam Speaker, that page we owe the chairman should be meditated by the Minister of Finance as well as by all chairmen of banks, companies, government institutions, universities and their accountants and graduate administrators.
It is probably behind that well known or ill-known accounting procedure that all those profits hide which escape taxes and ensure the success of big companies, under the guise of exaggerated amortizement, internal reserves, which are not unacknowledged, unackowledge-able and not taxed.
Madam Speaker, in spite of all the advice given by the Royal Commission on Taxation, by the chairman himself whose opinion differed from that of the commission, how is it that no one has called attention to that personal and conflicting statement of the chairman of the Royal Commission on Taxation?
Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Finance tell us that has not been done since 1966? Is it not high time to see to it now? He probably did not hear me because he does not listen to what I have to say. Is the minister not interested?


An hon. Member:: He will read it tomorrow.


Eudore Allard: Most probably.
In that 2,600 page report of a royal enquiry which took 4 years to complete, how come there is no mention of any way of wrestling inflation to the ground, of shedding more light on our government financing methods, and on the situation of our population, whereby some are progressing so much and others have ever more reasons to complain? Will we have to go over it all again? It will be time instead to implement new methods that would help us restore and maintain the economic balance between people, families and companies, corporations or societies of every kind, private or public, national or multinational.
Is not everyone ready to co-operate in the House of Commons? Do we have to go on for ever kowtowing to taxpayers and telling them over and over again that nothing can be done, that the Minister of Finance cannot help it, that nobody can do anything except endure and let things alone? I for one am still willing to hope and help as well as I can, but shall I be listened to and heard? That is the question.
Madam Speaker, I submit that, if we really want to wrestle inflation to the ground, we should allow the Bank of Canada to issue money and provide for credit. Canada should regain control over its money and its credit instead of borrowing from banks.
This would simply require that we pass adequate legislation. The Bank of Canada would then fund public works instead of forcing people to borrow from banks, and provincial branches of the Bank of Canada would also be in a position to finance public works for provinces, municipalities and school boards. This would have the effect of stopping the present system whereby everybody is in the hands of money-makers and destroyers.

February 11, 1975
Income Tax


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Madam Speaker, I listened with some interest to the remarks of the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) who, when looking in this direction, suggested the amendment proposed by this party qualified for three charges. First, he said it was irresponsible. Then, secondly, he said it was not researched; and thirdly, he might as well have said it was stupid.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: He also said something else about us. He said we should exercise some caution. He asked why these fellows over here do not exercise some caution, because restraint is what we need. I would ask whether restraint is what we need in this country when we now have just under one million people unemployed, according to today's statistics.
The response by the Tory party to that situation is an amendment which would plough back about $500 million at 5 per cent into the economy. That was their measured and cautious response. I suggest it is a response which will not have the effect needed in this country.
Make no mistake about it, this is a rich man's budget. This government operates on the old trickle down theory; if you put enough in at the top it will trickle down through all the layers and finally get to the bottom, where somebody will have some purchasing power and we can start the wheels rolling again. I suggest things do not work that way.
What is needed in the present situation, with the whole western world in a state of real economic uncertainty, with the United States experiencing something more than 8 per cent unemployment and it is still rising, is a one-shot, massive infusion of capital at the bottom level of the economy; and that is what the amendment proposed by this party will do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is sitting near me-


An hon. Member:: With all the other Tories.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Yes, he is sitting with all the other Tories and looks as though he is in the process of developing another Alberta alliance. If this House sees fit to accept our amendment, this will mean that something like $4 billion will be put back into the bottom level of the economy, on a one-shot basis, to get this thing back on the rails. On the basis of there being 10 million taxpayers in Canada, this $4 billion would regenerate about $1.5 billion in taxes; so the actual cost of the proposal of this party would be $2.5 billion. I suggest that is the sensible thing to do at a time of crisis. There is only one party in this House tonight that realizes we are living now in a time of real crisis and uncertainty; this is the only party in this House with the guts to adopt this kind of response to that kind of uncertainty.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: What the government has done in this budget in respect to housing is insignificant. We need some 400,000 housing starts this year.
I suppose we could call this budget an incentive budget, a typical free enterprise budget, a budget that will make the rich richer and hopefully will allow them to take that money and stop buying yachts and Cadillacs, the sales of which continue to rise while sales of low cost cars are down. The budget will steer priorities away from those items, we hope, and put them back into the economy. I just do not find that life works that way and I do not think that it has worked that way, as will be realized by anyone who has studied the economic history of this country over the past ten years.
What we need is some real tax and income relief at the bottom level. What this budget does is to count on the private sector to pick up the slack. But it is the private sector that has been failing this country, not the public sector. Now that the private sector is failing this country, the response of the government is to prop it up. Apparently what we have to do is to prop these fellows up, because if we do not, we will all go down the tubes. I do not buy this philosophy. I think that this country can stand a little more socialism and a little more public ownership.


Mr. Peters:: A little less socialism for the capitalists.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It is very interesting to look at the response of the minister recently with regard to wages. We are really worried this year that the wage earners in this country will make excessive demands. It is a funny thing that in 1972, 1973 and 1974 corporate profits in this country were at an all time high, but where was the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) then? Where were all those crocodile tears concerning restraint? They said: Hold back, you fellows are taking far too much of the section of the gross national product which is going to the corporate sector. I did not hear any cries of anguish, but suddenly when there is a real possibility that the wage earners in this country will seek to have a larger share of the pie, we all start talking about restraint, we will have a national consensus, we will have a social contract.
I would have liked to hear that four or five years ago, not this year. That is one of the reasons there is real concern whether this government is serious at all, in view of its record over the past three years.
Let us look at some of the corporate profits. In 1971 the net profit of International Nickel after taxes and expenses was $94 million. In 1972, it went to $109 million. In 1973, it went to $226 million. Imperial Oil in 1971 had a profit of $141 million. In 1972 it was $157 million, and in 1973, $228 million. MacMillan Bloedel had a net profit of $22 million in 1971. In 1972 it was $37 million and in 1973, $81 million. That happened under that terrible socialist government. I do not know what happened to MacMillan Bloedel. It must have been part of the resource industry which the Minister of Finance told me today was so hard done by by that socialist government of British Columbia. I think that MacMillan Bloedel and other major corporations in B.C. have done very well indeed under the NDP government,
February 11, 1975

and that kind of propaganda is not going over any more. The province is finally smartening up.
I really enjoy these free enterprise arguments, because when we finally come to the point of doing something, we get to Syncrude. I look at the Syncrude project-I do not have a very complicated mind, that is fairly obvious-and I say-


John Napier Turner: Indeed, you have a very simple mind.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I do not think that people who are complicated are necessarily right. But when I look at the Syncrude project, I remember that I used to represent small business when I practised law. I say that this must be like the corner drugstore. The guy is having trouble, he is bankrupt, what is he going to do? He does not seem to be able to sell his product. First of all, his product being drugs, it is harder to make and more expensive. The first thing he must do is to find a partner before he goes out of business. Whom should he find? What he needs is a government. The government is the best partner. But he does not want to sell his partner 50 per cent of the business. He wants control. So he sells him 15 per cent.


John Napier Turner: Which side are you representing?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: There are certain conditions that this druggist really wants to impose. First of all, the other guys are charging a certain price for the product. What he says is: I need the government to make sure that I get a better price. That is easy to work out. We guarantee his price. Then he says: Those taxes are killing me, I cannot pay them. The response of the Minister of Finance and his friends is: "That is okay, we will fix you up on these taxes. All the other fellows will have to pay those taxes, but you will not need to pay them." The last thing he has to worry about is price. What will I sell this drugstore for, he asks. He says: "Look at my appraisal, John, and you will be fine." "Accept my price," he says. That is exactly what this government did. That is really the free enterprise situation.
Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, that that development is not free enterprise. It is the best demonstration you can find in this country of the bankruptcy of free enterprise. In five years' time we will look back at the Syncrude project and say: Gee, that is a lot like the Columbia River Treaty. Do hon. members remember the Columbia River Treaty when the Liberal government sat back idly in quiet consent while the government of B.C. went down the tubes for $600 million? That is exactly the cost of that deal to the people of B.C., negotiated by a Social Credit and a Liberal government at that time.
There is a company now called the Great Canadian Oil Sands. They should retain their initials GCOS and call it the Great Canadian Oil Sell-Out, because that is what it is going to be.
There is one question we should ask ourselves about the tar sands. There is no question about the position of this party. If they are to be developed, they should be developed publicly. But I still think we should ask ourselves whether the tar sands should be developed at all. I do not
Income Tax
think enough members in this House have really taken a hard look at the question of the tar sands development in terms of the environmental effect that it will have. I remember very well the words in the Speech from the Throne, words which impressed me greatly:
Stemming the despoliation of our planet and returning our water, air and land to a more natural state are urgent and challenging goals.
How do you put those words into the context of the Syncrude development? The Syncrude development will be the largest strip mine in the world. It will create 13,000 tons of tar sand per hour. It will work on a hot water process creating 750 tons annually, twice as much as all the waste produced by all the mines in Canada. The tailing pond, as it is euphemistically called, is 9.3 square miles. We should call it a tailing ocean. The water in it will be highly toxic and covered with oil.
This project is going to create a serious threat to millions of waterfowl in the Peace-Athabasca delta. It has already been reported in a provincial civil service report that the sulphur dioxide can form a killer fog similar to the London fog which killed about 3,500 people.


Mr. Benjamin:: How about Liberal fog?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Not only would the miners and workers be affected, but airborne S02 combining with surface water will form a lethal acid adversely affecting vegetation as far away as Saskatchewan. Anti-pollution technology is clearly not available for that project, and yet we are rushing ahead in a mad desire for another project, a mad desire for another development, and a mad desire for Liberal credibility in the province of Alberta where they have none.
It is interesting to look at the letter of the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) regarding this matter.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Madam Speaker, may I address a question to the hon. member?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Will the hon. member allow a question?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member is concerned about pollution and about the environment, is it true that on the Qualicum River on Vancouver Island in British Columbia the NDP government is considering the building of a steel mill, on a river that is known for its salmon fishing and for salmon reproduction? Can the hon. member, although he is not a member of the provincial government, reply to the question regarding pollution in an area which will employ 5,000 people, which will bring in 30,000 people, and which will completely destroy the Qualicum River?


John Napier Turner: Shame.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I will think about it, but I must say I cannot see how it is related to the subject, nor quite frankly, do I know the answer to the hon. gentleman's question. I do know that charges laid under the pollution laws of British Columbia have tripled since the present

February 11, 1975
Income Tax
provincial government came to power, that there have been more charges laid in co-operation with the Liberal government than ever before, and more convictions obtained than ever before in our province.
In any event I did want to refer to a letter the Minister of the Environment wrote to the minister of the environment for Alberta directly relating to the Syncrude project. I quote:
It does appear ... from an examination of the available information, that Syncrude has failed to appreciate the real scope of environmental concerns and has also failed to address the question of environmental protection in either a realistic or an adequate manner.
That is a letter from the Minister of the Environment expressing her very serious concern about the whole project, and people on the other side of the House have been screaming across, "Are you for it or against it?" I am asking that question of the Minister of the Environment because she has raised some very interesting questions about whether this project should proceed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but we are discussing Bill C-49, and perhaps the hon. member would now like to speak on the amendment.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Madam Speaker, I think I am entitled to speak on the bill generally even though we are discussing a specific amendment. Second, I recall that this bill provides for tax exemption with regard to the Syncrude consortium, and therefore comments concerning the Syncrude project are completely in order, I would submit, with the greatest respect. They are completely in order because of the tax concessions granted and because this bill refers specifically to the taxability of royalties.
I would relate my comments to the bill that way, and I hope, Madam Speaker, that you will accept the explanation that my discussion of the environment is in fact related to the tax bill before us.
I do want to get back to what is really going to happen to the environment. It is very interesting that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), on a program called "Question Period" last Sunday, in answer to a question from David Ablett of the Vancouver Sun when he discussed the environmental aspect of the Syncrude project, responded as follows:
This presents the classic conundrum that a decision maker always has that there is the environmental tradeoff against the oil supply tradeoff ...
That is exactly what we are facing with the Syncrude project-a trade off in terms of the environment-and clearly the evidence is beginning to mount overwhelmingly that the environment is going to suffer drastically as a result of this project.
It is also interesting that the federal government's own environmental assessment of the Syncrude project was highly critical indeed, and I now quote from a memorandum to the minister. In that particular critical statement given to her by her own officials dealing with waste water management-


Mr. Blais:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the Chair has ruled that discussion of the environment by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) was out

of order. Notwithstanding that ruling, the hon. member persists in discussing a matter which the Chair has deemed not to be relevant. I suggest that the hon. member should be reminded that if he does not abide by the rulings of the Chair, there are certain disciplines called for by the rules.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: If I may respond to the hon. member's point of order, I did not hear Madam Speaker make the ruling that my comments were out of order. Certainly I would respect Madam Speaker's rulings and would abide by them. If the hon. member had been listening carefully, since I was proceeding on exactly the same subject, it was clear that I was in order. I would appreciate it if the hon. member would listen, because I think he may learn something about this particular project. I think there is hope for that hon. member. He is far enough back that he may be capable of thinking a little bit.
Mr. Speaker, I did want to deal with the whole problem of the environment and the report given to the minister regarding the Syncrude project by her own officials. Dealing with the water waste management concept, the following was said:
We feel that Syncrude's stated water balance for the project is incorrect, based on our present knowledge including data from the Great Canadian Oil Sands operation. If this is the case, deleterious discharges to the environment may result because of dam instability, percolation or through direct deposits. Another major concern is that the disposal of large quantities of saline mine water may have a serious environmental impact.
In other words, the Athabasca delta is about to get a shot in the head; that is what is going to happen with this project if we do not take a very careful look and proceed on the basis of the environmental studies we have.
In terms of the air pollution problem, this again was stated by the minister's own officials:
Syncrude's assessment of environmental effects from sulphur dioxide emissions was to predict ground level concentrations based on a single stack and ideal weather conditions.
This is a simplistic approach because it does not consider total emissions of SO2, adverse dispersion conditions nor the effect from other operating plants in the area. In addition the long-term potential problem of cumulative deposition of sulphur emissions in regional and transboundary sites was not reviewed by Syncrude. The effect of heavy metal emissions in the plant fuel combustion gases should also be assessed properly.
In other words, there was an attempt by Syncrude to "con" both the federal government and the provincial government in their impact studies, and that is the kind of partner this government has decided to play footsie with. If they are going to misrepresent the pollution position on that site, we had better have a look at the whole deal. We had better consider carefully the whole deal, if they conduct pollution studies based on something like 10 per cent ideal weather conditions and try to fob them off as accurate and scientific studies. That is exactly what has been done in this case.
The last point I wanted to raise, and certainly not the least, in this same study by officials of this government which was directed to the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve), deals with migratory birds. The tar sands area is overflown by a high percentage of the total migra-
February 11, 1975

tory waterfowl population of North America. The management and protection of this resource is assigned by international treaty jointly to Canada and the United States. The very existence of extensive tailings ponds, particularly if they harbour contaminants, can constitute a serious problem which Syncrude has not adequately addressed. These are not matters that we can take lightly, Mr. Speaker. A few million waterfowl may mean the end of a good part of the hunting reserves in that area. The whooping crane happens to find its habitat in that area, and I think there are only about 40 of them left.
When we talk about the environment we find that the subject is suddenly uninteresting and unimportant. But when there is economic distress there is an immediate search for a quick solution. I would suggest that in the long run the country is going to suffer a great deal.


An hon. Member:: That is what we are doing now.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: If we move ahead with projects such as Syncrude without the careful assessment that is necessary, we will certainly suffer. The information we have now on the effect on the environment should certainly say: Do not go ahead.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the budget and the tax bill, that ours is the only party with the courage to recognize that the only way we are going to get this country back on the road is to start putting some money in at the bottom instead of the top for a change. If we do that, then maybe we will survive.


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be brief and I am afraid what I say may not be too popular. The budget was presented only three months ago. By this time everybody in this House should have had time to consider it, do their homework and be ready to vote the way they see fit. We have been debating Bill C-49 and the amendments to the income tax law long enough, I believe, indeed for several weeks. We have a motion, an amendment and a subamendment before the House. I suggest we get on with the detailed business of the House immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Right on!


Leonard C. Jones: Every member of the House knows or should know how he intends to vote. Therefore I move:
That this House continue to sit beyond the hour of daily adjournment today for the purpose of considering the motion, the amendments and subamendments presently before the House on Bill C-49.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The Chair has received the motion from the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones). I am not clear whether the hon. member has a seconder for the motion.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to second that motion.
Income Tax


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I would refer hon. members to Standing Order 6(5)(b), which reads as follows:
When Mr. Speaker puts the question on such motion, he shall ask those members who object to rise in their places. If ten or more members then rise, the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, otherwise, the motion shall have been adopted.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. Because of the nature of the motion, Mr. Speaker, could I ask you to read
it?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It was the intention of the Chair to read the motion.


Some hon. Members:: En frantjais.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Moved by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones), seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House continue to sit beyond the hour of daily adjournment today for the purpose of considering the motion, the amendment and the subamendment presently before the House on Bill C-49.
Is the motion carried?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those who object to the motion please rise.
And nine members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Nine members having risen in their places, the motion is carried. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost. The question is now on the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the Chair.
Gérald Laniel: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill C-49, to amend the statute law relating to income tax.
It being after ten o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak in the adjournment debate this evening on the question of conflict of interest involving the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and his unfortunate trip on the Seagram jet. For some time we on this side of the House have pressed for a full explanation concerning this trip which is certainly greatly misunderstood and has brought the government into contempt in this House.
Adjournment Debate
I refer to a fact that is well established in precedent and in particular in a letter dated November 30, 1964 signed by the then prime minister of this country, the Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, about what is the proper standard of conduct for a minister of the Crown. In that letter it is stated:
There is an obligation not simply to observe the law but to act in a manner so scrupulous that it will bear the closest public scrutiny. The conduct of public business must be beyond question in terms of moral standards, objectivity and equality of treatment.
It is also stated:
There can be no special treatment on the ground of personal acquaintance, sympathy or anything of that kind. Least of all must there be any suspicion of special treatment when there is cause to believe that a violation or evasion of law may be in issue.
Again, it is stated:
The essential thing is to ensure that all appreciate the grave responsibility, not only that we have but that the members of our staffs and others in positions of authority have, to maintain the confidence of the people of Canada in the probity of government in this country.
I would suggest that these guidelines, laid down by the then prime minister, have been breached by the Minister of National Health and Welfare; and I believe it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has not seen fit to rebuke the minister for the fact that he has broken the guidelines established over ten years ago.
On November 8, I put on the order paper starred question No. 788 in which I asked the government to identify what in fact are the standards with respect to the conduct of ministers of the Crown at the present time. In my question I basically recited the highlights of the Pearson letter to which I have referred. Specifically in my question I asked if there is any standard which calls upon a minister to:
. .. refrain from placing himself in a position where he is under obligation to any person who might profit from special consideration or favour on the part of the minister or ministerial colleague or who might seek in any way to gain special treatment from the minister or ministerial colleague ...
That question has not yet been answered. I have asked the Prime Minister if he intends to answer it and on all occasions he has been evasive both within this House and outside this House. I would remind hon. members of what transpired.
We learned that the Minister of National Health and Welfare had chosen to take a trip to Israel. We learned that he had chosen to travel on board a Seagram's jet owned by Seagram's of New York.
He travelled for free. We learned this when the minister was in Israel. At that time we suggested he return by some other means, presumably some other aircraft owned by the Canadian government.
The first response of the Prime Minister was to treat it in jest. When the Minister of National Health and Welfare was approached by the press in Israel concerning this trip, he tried to pass it off lightly.
When the minister returned to this House, we pressed him as to who in fact invited him to take the trip. First there was some evasion. The impression was left that somehow it was a trip arranged by the ambassador from Israel. It then transpired that the trip had in fact been arranged between Mr. Bronfman and the Minister of Na-
28626-64'/2

February 11, 1975
Adjournment Debate
tional Health and Welfare. The ambassador from Israel had been brought in at a later stage.
We are entitled to an explanation. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has made speeches concerning the advertising advantage now held by brewing companies in this country to the disadvantage of distillers. This minister has general supervision over drugs in this country. He has publicly stated that he now has under consideration the entire question of what should or should not be the type of advertising permitted over television and radio by liquor companies and breweries.
Why would the minister not feel there was a conflict of interest in the sense that Mr. Pearson spoke about ten years ago when he chose to accept that free trip to Israel? Why would he not feel that on his return he should at least give an explanation to the Prime Minister, the cabinet and members of this House as to why he chose to take a free trip, possibly showing a conflict of interest in the terms that I have now stated, and which I stated more fully in November of last year? I hope somebody on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare will give those answers tonight.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I have not discussed the matter with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) today. By coincidence, I happened to be in the House when the hon, member raised the issue. I do know there is a green paper on conflict of interest before the appropriate committee of the House.
I suppose it is possible the Minister of National Health and Welfare did not consider this a conflict of interest because there are some of us who can regard the Bronfman family in a proper perspective, as a good Canadian group of people who are not out to bribe, intimidate, coerce or seduce ministers of the Crown or anyone in the House of Commons. There is no family in Canada that has done more for Canada in general than the Bronfman family.
Surely every minister and every member of parliament has enough integrity to determine what is going to influence that minister or member to be dishonest, if he is apt to be dishonest. A free trip to Israel today or a free trip across the street tomorrow makes little difference. I am appalled at this attack on the integrity of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I listened attentively to the hon. member, for whom I have had a lot of respect and whom I have known for a number of years. He did not say one word which linked the minister with the slightest dishonesty in his trip to Israel.
The minister made it abundantly clear why he visited Israel at the invitation of the Ambassador. If the word of a gentleman cannot be accepted in the House of Commons, we shall have to establish a different code for people who see dirt behind every corner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I can remember the former prime minister saying to a member: "Get your mind out of the gutter."
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.23 p.m.

Wednesday, February 12, 1975