1976-12-17

THE LATE REAL CAOUETTE


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have, of course, expressed the desire to take a moment to pay tribute to the late Real Caouette and it is certainly appropriate that that be done forthwith. Perhaps I can then attempt to exercise some discretion in safeguarding the ordinary routine proceedings after such tributes have been paid.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the House is mourning one of its most remarkable and most respected members, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). The news of his death has, I am sure, spread general consternation among us.
The name of Real Caouette will always be associated with the Social Credit Party of Canada which he inspired and led until failing health forced him to resign his post, barely a few months ago. We knew he was seriously ill, but because we remembered his astonishing energy, because we had grown used to his extraordinary vitality, we hardly believed his absence was final.
Mr. Speaker, the House will no longer have the pleasure or the benefit of the so colourful, so stirring, and at times so disarming interventions of Real Caouette. But under the sprightliness, the wit, the jest of his repartees, and throughout full-bodied and lusty speech, he remained imperturbably serious. It was the seriousness of his political convictions, that of the commitment he had made, once and for all, towards the people in the days when, without resources other than heroic energy and contagious enthusiasm, he was building a party that would play a considerable role on the federal political scene.
The representative value of his opinions can hardly be doubted: a whole sector of the working classes saw themselves in him as in a mirror at once faithful, ardent, and generator of hope and enthusiasm.

Thus, Mr. Speaker, the late member for Temiscamingue linked himself very closely to the people he strived so hard to serve, according to his interpretation of their aspirations. Thus was he deeply and solidly rooted in his province. Real Caouette's attachment for his region and for Quebec was embedded in the broader context of our country as a whole. Everywhere in Canada, which he dreamed of as a bilingual country, he had friends and was cordially received. Despite his
unswerving personal orthodoxy, he was open-minded. He was very much alive to every dimension of Canada, including of course the political dimensions of parliamentarianism and federalism. I wish here to pay a warm tribute to an authentic Canadian, Real Caouette.

Mr. Speaker, I invite hon. members to join me in extending the sincere condolences of the House to Mr. Caouette's family.


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join in and associate myself and my party with the tribute just offered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). [Translation]
The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) passed away after a long illness. To us his departure means the loss of a colleague and a friend, and to Canada as a whole the loss of a great political leader. Driven by dynamism, the hon. member for Temiscamingue had been able to renew the vitality of his party. He always worked to strengthen Canadian unity.

I think that one of the qualities of Real Caouette which was most evident to those of us who were privileged to know and to work with him was his remarkable ability to recognize and respond to the needs and hopes of Canadians who perhaps had some sense of feeling, at least, outside the systems and institutions of the government of Canada. He brought that firm commitment to their interests and their hopes into this Chamber, served it in the best traditions of parliamentary democracy, and established a standard of responsiveness to the people he served that is a model to all of us.
[DOT] (DIO)

In my own name and on behalf of my colleagues, I would like to extend our most sincere condolences to his family and his relatives.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I should like to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in paying tribute to the memory of Real Caouette, and in extending our deepest sympathy to the members of his party and, particularly, to his family.
Like my friend, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), I remember when Real Caouette first came into this House following a byelection in 1946 and took

December 17, 1976
The Late Real Caouette
his place in the back rows of the Social Credit Party. At that time his message was a rather strong one. We wondered about it in this House, and we wondered if even the Social Credit Party of that day could take it, but history has proven that not only could his party take that message, but that he had what it took to become the leader of that movement. I know from personal conversation with him that, although his parliamentary career is best known for the years since 1962, he was always very happy about the three years he was here back in the 1940's because they enabled him to know what this place was all about.
As others have said, we are aware of his deep commitment to the social, economic and, particularly, monetary views he held. We know of his effort to speak for the underprivileged and the little people of this country in all parts of Canada, and we remember that with deep appreciation. We are also conscious of the fact that in more recent years he became an outspoken advocate of one Canada and of federalism. In particular, we appreciate the leadership he gave in his own province of Quebec. He will, indeed, be missed and we are pleased to join with others in paying our tribute to him today. We think of him also, at least those of us who are in this House, as a very warmhearted personal friend. Indeed, we shall miss him.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I wish to extend our most sincere condolences to the Caouette family.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, because the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) is on tour and was unable to come to the House this morning, he has asked me to act on his behalf to pay tribute to the man who was our leader for a very long time and to tell all my colleagues of the House how touched he was to receive the messages of all his colleagues who were able to reach him by phone or otherwise.
First, I would like to thank the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who, after learning about the death of Mr. Caouette last evening, asked for the proceedings of the House to be adjourned at eight o'clock as a sign of mourning. He should be thanked for this action, and I do so on behalf of my party and the Caouette family.
Mr. Speaker, what has just been said by the right hon. Prime Minister and the spokesmen for the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party about Mr. Caouette has profoundly touched me. These words were obviously spoken sincerely. Of course, throughout his political life, Mr. Caouette always fought for an ideal. He wanted to bring about changes in Canadian society by proposing economic and monetary formulas in which he truly believed. I was associated with Mr. Caouette for many years. We knew each other since 1941, when he and I took part together in activities to promote Social Credit and convince the greatest possible number of people throughout Canada, to explain this transformation and propose it to Parliament.

It is rather rare that a political party is able to achieve its objectives under the same leader, but we must recognize that Mr. Caouette never gave up. The last time I visited him in hospital, he gave me this message as I left him: Continue to work in the same direction and for the same ideal. He also said: The Social Credit Party of Canada is not Real Caouette, it is a doctrine, it is a political philosophy. Continue to be faithful to this philosophy and to defend it as best you can. Of course, Mr. Caouette certainly did not please everyone. Like all politicians, he fought some rather hard battles. He had a colourful way of speaking and was outspoken, as the right hon. Prime Minister said a while ago. Mr. Caouette spoke his mind simply and frankly, and said the same things all over the country. This is why, today, people recognize that Mr. Caouette, by his activities and his thoughts, was a great Canadian, a man who worked with all his heart for Canadian unity.
Is it with a lot of emotion that I speak from the very same place as Mr. Caouette did when he spoke for the last time in the House last July when he took part in a very important debate. Once again, he had put his finger on what Canadians expect from Parliament, and we could say that he knew that it was his last speech in the House of Commons, because his message showed the experience of a man who had a very great vision of what our country must be.
Mr. Speaker, First of all I want to thank you for your kindness towards our leader and his family and I also want to thank the government and all my colleagues in the House for the tribute they paid to this great Canadian figure.
In conclusion, I should like to extend our heartfelt sympathy to Mrs. Caouette and to her children, and also to Mr. Caouette's brothers and sisters with whom I have close ties, and I know to what extent this family was united. I do hope that Mr. Caouette's example will be followed because he always endeavoured to defend the rights of the family and those of low income people. We were convinced of his vocation because he was himself convinced of what he said and he took the means to reach his objective. The thing we will recall about his life is that he was a hard worker, a man who understood that work is a tool to be used to fulfill one's objectives. He gave us this example, and I am convinced that my colleagues will join me in saying and repeating to all the people we shall meet: follow the example of Real Caouette by working and courageously defending your positions and your ideas, and you cannot go wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before pursuing the business of the House, I should like to extend my personal sympathy to Mr. Caouette's family, even if in such circumstances it is always difficult to add to what has already been said by the leaders of the parties in the House.

Like many others, I am able to recall a personal relationship with this great Canadian beginning with my first days in the House and on through various responsibilities to the day when
December 17, 1976

I was elected to this position. In any exchanges, even in his formal remarks which were most kind, the attitude always adopted and expressed by this great veteran of the House of Commons was that, since he and I were northerners, we had to work together. That was a great compliment to me from a man who had been here for so many years and had such a brilliant career when I was a new member of the House. No matter how sparkling or spectacular his career became, he always identified himself with all members of the House regardless of their rank, which speaks of his brilliance and of his kindness at the same time.
I think, when paying tribute to a man of this sort, that there are occasions when nice things are said about someone only after he has passed away, but in this case it should be remembered that all during his career and during his lifetime, regardless of disagreements on theories and political philosophies which he espoused so dearly and kept so close to his heart, there was never a time when anyone had anything unkind to say about him. Not only for his oratory and spectacular political career, but for the kind of gentleman he always was, he will be sorely missed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: With the permission of the House, and time being short so far as the session is concerned, knowing there are some hon. members who would not want to be deprived of even a limited opportunity to present motions pursuant to Standing Order 43, perhaps the House will agree if I allow hon. members to put motions under Standing Order 43 until 11.30 a.m. but no later, followed by the question period to be terminated at 12.15 p.m.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing importance. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather):
That this House expresses its deep concern at the further efforts by the Prime Minister to manage the news and to limit legitimate inquiry into the public business of Canada, and asks the Prime Minister to immediately withdraw the so-called guidelines issued by his office, and to enter instead into genuine negotiations with the officers of this House and the Parliamentary Press Gallery to provide facilities and procedures to improve, rather than to restrict, the accessibility which is a basic requirement of his office.
Development Corporation Investment


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion cannot be presented to the House without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED RESTRICTION OF SALARY INCREASE TO AMOUNT
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the shortness of the session and the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act as they apply to certain members of the House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), the following motion under Standing Order 43:
That, in the opinion of this House the government should take immediate steps to restrict the annual salary increase of the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers, party leaders, parliamentary secretaries, the Speaker, whips and House leaders to the $2,400 permitted by the AIB guidelines.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion can be presented for debate under Standing Order 43 only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. As the people of Canada have invested over $300 million in the Canadian Development Corporation, and as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) holds on behalf of the people of Canada virtually all the voting shares of CDC and has the right to appoint four directors to the CDC board, yet we were told yesterday by the minister that our participation, including knowledge of the corporation's activities, should be through the general shareholders' meeting of CDC, as is the case with other shareholders, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner):
That this House request the Minister of Finance to make an immediate statement on motions concerning the activities of CDC, with particular reference to a proposed transaction which may close this month involving the formation of a new venture to be headed by Mr. Israel Asper, former Liberal leader of the province of Manitoba.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House.

CRTC Member


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


AIRPORT
[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR IMPROVEMENT OF FACILITIES IN GASPE AND iLES-DE-LA-MADELEINE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr.   Albert@: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a very important motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, a motion which hopefully will not be opposed by any hon. member.
Considering that regular air transportation is of paramount importance for the economic development of both the Gaspe and Iles-de-la-Madeleine areas, but especially for the latter where it is the one and only means of transportation in winter, considering also that the many representations which have been made since 1968 for the improvement of facilities at the lles-de-la-Madeleine, Gaspe and Bonaventure airports have not brought about any concrete results, and in view of the many studies carried out by the Department of Transport since 1968, as well as the full data collected to date, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr):
That studies come to an end, and that the Department of Transport provide, in respect of fiscal year 1977-78, the necessary funds for the construction of extensions to the landing strips and the provision of 1LS navigational air instruments at both Gaspe and iles-de-la-Madeleine airports, as well as the construction of adequate air terminal facilities at the latter airport, and proceeds immediately with discussions with the Quebec authorities concerning the development of the Bonaventure airport.


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.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION COMMISSION PROPOSED INVESTIGATION OF JEAN-LOUIS GAGNON'S ALLEGED COMMUNIST AFFILIATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that this past summer Jean-Louis Gagnon was appointed a commissioner of the CRTC through an order in council, and considering that Mr. Gagnon, who has been appointed to a very sensitive

position, is alleged to have a long record of communist affiliation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


A. Daniel McKenzie: -and activity, including being a card-carrying communist for over 20 years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington):
That this House direct the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to investigate Jean-Louis Gagnon's communist affiliations to determine whether or not he is suitable to be a commissioner of the CRTC.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion cannot be presented to the House without its unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise an issue of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has been quoted as saying that the underworld is involved in Montreal wholesale and brokerage houses which import cheap Australian and New Zealand beef, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That the minister speak on motions today to explain what knowledge he has of such activities and, further, to assure the meat industry in Canada that he is in the process of taking constructive action to assure Canadians that any underworld involvement in the marketing of meat ceases forthwith.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be presented to the House only with its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that he has made an announcement outside the House that the swine 'flu vaccination program is temporarily suspended, I wonder whether he would care to inform the House what scientific evidence he had to back up his decision to take that action.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the action we have taken in Canada results from the decision in the United States which was based on concern about complications resulting from their vaccination program. In Canada there has been no reported case of neurological complication arising out of the Canadian vaccination program. However, we consulted with all the members of the National Advisory Committee on Immunizing Agents who could be reached and with Dr. Rhodes, who may be termed the dean emeritus of public health in Canada, and received their unanimous recommendation for the following proposal, that is, to proceed with vaccination only of people over 65 and of those with chronic diseases only for the time being and to suspend vaccination of other citizens until we get further information and reports from the analysis made in the United States.


Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House what measures he intends to take to clarify the question of whether there is any danger of Guillain-Barre syndrome being contracted by Canadians who underwent the vaccination against swine flu? In other words, do we have an epidemiological team of some kind investigating this or are we simply waiting for the results of the United States study?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker. Right after launching the vaccination program, we asked all the provinces to establish a detailed examination and reporting system concerning any complications which might result from the vaccination. I must say that up to now, we did not receive any report in Canada concerning the disease called Guillain-Barre syndrome. This is the present situation. I repeat that a monitoring system has been established since the beginning of the vaccination program and so far no case of this syndrome has been reported.


INCIDENCE OF GUILLAIN-BARRE SYNDROME AMONGST VACCINATED POPULATION OF UNITED STATES
Paul Yewchuk: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. From his knowledge of the findings in
Oral Questions
the United States could the minister tell the House whether there was a greater incidence of Guillain-Barre syndrome amongst the vaccinated population than the normal occurrence in the population at large?


Marc Lalonde: According to the information I got, 51 cases of the Guillain-Barre syndrome were reported as of yesterday among the 40 million persons vaccinated up to now. It seems that the incidence represents a ratio of 3 to 6 of the normal occurrence within the population in general. But even there, those are preliminary data and we must wait for the results of a more thorough survey from the American experts before drawing definite conclusions.


REASON FOR CONTINUED USE OF BIVALENT INFLUENZA VACCINE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the alleged possible dangers inherent in this monovalent swine flu vaccine, why does the department continue to condone the inconsistency of allowing the use of the bivalent vaccine? Is the reason in part that the government failed to make provision for production of the monovalent type?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, once again I must remind the hon. member that the Canadian vaccine supply is not the same as in United States. Our vaccine was not produced in the U.S.A. Secondly, no case of Guillain-Barre syndrome has been reported in Canada. Moreover, the Victoria flu has already appeared in North America this season and, as the hon. member knows, last spring over 3,000 Canadian citizens died from this type of flu within six weeks. Experts therefore concluded that the death hazard was much higher with the Victoria flu than with the possible effect of Guillain-Barre syndrome complications.


OPINION OF DR. LERICHE ON SWINE INFLUENZA VACCINATION PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Bruce Halliday: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think the minister has scarcely answered the question about why we have no monovalent Victoria A strain vaccine. Dr. Harding LeRiche, who is one of the noted epidemiologists in Canada and has been for many years, said months ago this whole matter was a non-issue and he said that again this morning on television. How much credence does the minister and his department give to the wisdom and opinion of Dr. Harding LeRiche?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, no doubt that Dr. LeRiche is very

December 17, 1976
Oral Questions
qualified, but he is one of many in Canada. We have a group of experts made up of about ten of the most famous epidemiologists in Canada and, as I said earlier, we have also sought the advice of Dr. Rhode in Toronto, who is also a very famous expert, and all of them have backed my recommendations to the provinces. So I think that, in the scientific field, you will always find people with divergent opinions; there is nothing new and nothing surprising in that. Once again, we rely on the advice of the best experts we have in this country.


FINANCE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance? It concerns the announcement of a majority of the OPEC countries to the effect that they intend to raise the price of oil by 10 per cent in the early part of next year and another 5 per cent later in the year. In view of the fact that a 10 per cent increase in the price of petroleum in this country would cost consumers an additional $700 million per year, and in view of the fact that the minister is reported as saying that "this is an increase we can manage; that the Canadian economy can handle it and that for us it is not a life or death situation", may I ask him what steps the government proposes to take to meet this situation which could have a depressing effect on the economy and result in a further slowdown in any economic recovery?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would just point out to the hon. gentleman that the passage he quoted was in a passage which referred to the impact on the non-oil-producing, less-developing countries about whom I said this was literally a matter of life and death and this was the reason for opposing the increase. I would remind him that the OPEC oil increase of itself will not have an impact upon petroleum users in Canada in the near future. The price within Canada is set in accordance with the Petroleum Administration Act. The additional costs of oil being delivered principally to the eastern Canadian market, while they will increase for the refineries, will be cushioned by the subvention the government pays in order to keep down the Canadian price. I should note at the same time that by the agreement established earlier this year there will be an oil price increase in Canada as of January 1, but it will not be caused by OPEC action.


EXTENT OF OIL PRICE INCREASE DURING 1977
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that for the month of December our imports have exceeded our exports by 165,000 barrels per day and the estimate for the year 1977 is that imports will exceed exports by 300,000 barrels per day, is the minister assuring the House that the 70

cent per barrel increase on January 1 when the price goes from $9.05 per barrel to $9.75, is the only increase which consumers of Canada will be subjected to during 1977?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I can give the assurance that it is the only increase they will be subjected to as of January 1. As the hon. member knows, it has been the custom in the last several years for the energy ministers and the first ministers to get together to agree on any further escalation. Of course, an escalation later in the year, perhaps on July 1 or later, would be subject to whatever discussions there are with the provinces.


POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE IN PRICE OF OIL-MEASURES TO ALLEVIATE IMPACT ON COST OF ELECTRICITY IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the 70 cents per barrel increase commencing January 1, 1977 and in view of the minister's statement just now that by July 1, 1977, as a result of consultation with the provincial governments it may be necessary to increase the price still further, may I ask the minister if he is working out any plans for subsidies to those areas of Canada, particularly the Atlantic provinces, where the price of imported oil, even with the subsidy, has resulted in exorbitant prices for electricity produced from petroleum products?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to answer that question. I have indicated in the House that a great deal of work has been done on this important matter. I will be making an announcement some time before Christmas and hope to make it next week.


HOUSING
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Since the RRAP is temporarily stopped due to lack of funds, could the minister tell the House whether he expects additional funds to resume the program and to hire workers who would certainly profit by it, since housing rehabilitation work can be done even in winter?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member asked me this question, because RRAP is certainly one of the best programs
December 17, 1976

of the government in this area. We owe it to my predecessor. 1 issued very recently a press release, which I will be happy to send to the hon. member, announcing a substantial increase in the funding of that program for 1977. I remind the hon. member that additional funds were granted for this program in 1976, and I hope we will be able, in the next few days or weeks, to inform municipalities of the availability of funds, so that this program can continue to be as useful as it was in the past.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. This information will certainly please a lot of people.
Since municipalities are designated by provincial authorities, could the minister tell the House whether he had discussions with the new Quebec minister responsible for this program, and will other municipalities be designated shortly?


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, 1 do intend to meet my provincial counterpart early next year, and this matter will certainly be on the agenda.


POSSIBILITY OF CANCELLATION OF SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECISION TO SELL REACTOR
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is there any substance to reports now coming out of Argentina that there may be a cancellation of the agreement between Canada and the Argentine for the building of a nuclear reactor in that country?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope there is no substance to that report. I have not heard that there is but must agree that there has been a delay on the part of the Argentinians in signing the renegotiated agreement. That renegotiated agreement was signed by Canada and Italimpianti. I do not know if it has been signed by the Argentinians; we have not been advised yet that it has been signed.


James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House who had final responsibility for deciding that Canada should enter into that agreement with Argentina? Was it a cabinet decision or the decision of AECL?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Or do you remember?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we shall have to review the record. Clearly, officers of AECL negotiated the commercial agreement with the Italian partner and the Argentinian agency. They did so under the general policy of the govern-
Oral Questions
ment with respect to the export of nuclear reactors. If the hon. member is asking whether the commercial contract was placed before cabinet for approval, the answer is no, it was not.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my final supplementary question to the Prime Minister? Given that the export of nuclear reactors is a matter of grave concern to all Canadians, and that the public accounts committee has demonstrated that this decision seems to have been made without records having been kept, can the Prime Minister comment on his view of cabinet responsibility for decisions of this magnitude, in relation to what happens to the Canadian people?


Mr. Horner:: Put out more guidelines.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Crowfoot says, we need more guidelines. We seem to be coming out with them all the time. Obviously, the new society and the new economic circumstances are forcing upon parliament and the people questions-


Charles Joseph Clark: In the new year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -which were not as actual and pressing in the past. The problem we face is the one I was alluding to several times in the past few weeks.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is one of your own making.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is a question of Crown corporations being set up deliberately by parliament to be at arm's length from the cabinet, ministers or ministerial influence. We have been following this, as I know the opposition would want us to, because if we began giving orders and second guessing Crown corporations I am sure they would be waxing indignant.


Charles Joseph Clark: Ask Air Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Shut up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: You must think I am a journalist.


Mr. Fairweather:: Here we go; it's Friday again.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I really wanted to say, shut up and a Merry Christmas to you, Joe. If you want to ask questions, stand up and ask them.


Charles Joseph Clark: I look forward to a Happy New Year, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the cabinet has been worried about this for at least two years. We have been

December 17, 1976
Oral Questions
studying the whole problem of Crown corporations and their independence from the government of the day. I plan to put a proposal before parliament in the future whereby the government would have more power to direct a Crown corporation and give it orders. I hope we will have the support of members of the opposition on this important matter.


AIRPORTS
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister had the opportunity to read the memo sent to him by the hon. member for Ontario on December 9 regarding his views on the Department of Transport's application of the car rental tendering policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have received that memo from the hon. member for Ontario and have had discussions with him. He also raised the matter with other ministers. I think the hon. member for Ontario has a very serious point of view; it has been discussed between him and ministers, also between the Minister of Transport and me.


REASON FOR DELAY OF MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON TENDERING FOR CAR RENTAL CONCESSIONS-MINISTER'S VIEW OF LETTER FROM MEMBER FOR ONTARIO
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in the memo alluded to the hon. member says that he believes the position he has taken has substantial support among colleagues on his side. Let me tell the Prime Minister that it has substantial support among colleagues on my side, too. May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport? On November 19 the Minister of Transport said in this House that he would give a statement, and analysis, of the nature of the bids and the bid process. On December 7 the minister said that the reason for the delay in making his statement had to do with the complications and implications of certain matters which were before the courts. Has the minister now solved it out and is he in a position to make that statement to the House?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would want to wait before making any statement or comment on the bids until further studies have been undertaken in relation to the legal questions.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a quick supplementary question to the Minister of Transport? Has the minister read the memorandum submitted to the Prime Minister concerning the Department of Transport's handling of the bid tendering process, and is he in agreement with it?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not in agreement with it entirely by any means.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Have you read it?


Otto Emil Lang: I have looked at it carefully.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister with respect to the handling of sales of CANDU reactors both to Argentina and to South Korea. Despite the Prime Minister's comments about the arm's length situation of Crown corporations, I think he would acknowledge that there is a major question of government responsibility concerning government policy for something as sensitive as the export of nuclear technology and materials. I should therefore like to ask the government what criteria were used in identifying likely customers and encouraging AECL to pursue same with respect to the use of agents and other activities in order to further the sale of nuclear reactors. Perhaps the Prime Minister would indicate what instructions were given to AECL with respect to the precipitation of these sales to Argentina and South Korea.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There were a whole host of reasons, of course, in our minds as we looked at the general question of sales. Some were commercial in nature, others had very much to do with safeguards. They had to do, as I have indicated in the House on previous occasions, with the desire of Canada not to be a dog-in-the-manger with its technology but to be prepared to share it with more or less developed countries which need sources of energy which they do not possess-


An hon. Member:: Argentina!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, I have heard of Argentina. It was this desire to try to share our technology with other countries in a way which would still be compatible with the maximum degree of safeguard.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Can the Prime Minister, in view of the general nature of his answer, tell us whether specific instructions were given to AECL with respect to the criteria they should use in identifying customers who would be able to honour and enforce the safeguard agreements and whether there were additional instructions as to the way in which sales should proceed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would have to inquire. I presume there were. This matter was discussed in a general way in cabinet. We tried to establish criteria for selling CANDU reactors abroad and certain conclusions were reached which I have every reason to believe were communicated to the people at AECL and who acted then in good faith.
December 17, 1976


THE MINISTRY
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question is to a Prime Minister who inspired the creation of Information Canada, who has been leading a stone-walling action with respect to inquiries in this House-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Charles Joseph Clark: -who tells the Leader of the Opposition to shut up-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -and is now trying to limit access to the office of prime minister by the press. I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether his new policy of limiting to press conferences the ordinary access of journalists to himself also applies to other ministers of the Crown.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I want to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that I was not really asking him to shut up here. I was asking him to shut up for a merry Christmas. The point of my remarks-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Get Coutts to write you some better jokes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was making the point that the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to ask questions, but all he has to do is stand up, and catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I find he has considerably more courage in shouting across the aisle than in asking questions himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He was very anxious the other day to press me to make a statement, and then he had no answer to that statement. He got the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands to make it.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What was the question?


Charles Joseph Clark: Without prejudice to my further supplementar-ies as a result of that deliberate digression by the Prime Minister-and I should indicate our understanding that while he might have said "stand up" it definitely sounded like "shut up" to members on this side of the House.


An hon. Member:: You are paranoid, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: To refresh the memory of the Prime Minister, the question was whether or not the principle of restricting access to the Prime Minister on an ordinary basis to press conferences is also to be applied to the access of journalists in the press gallery to other ministers of the Crown.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The discussions between my press secretary and the press gallery has been initiated on my behalf not on behalf of the other ministers. They can conduct themselves as they wish in their relations with the press. I think the House is aware that we have been attempting to find a more orderly way of having access to the press. The press gallery has been invited to discuss with us this new procedure which we shall attempt for a few months to find out whether it works well. The principle of access is obviously not restricted if I am proposing a weekly press conference, a weekly meeting with the press.
I should add that this proposal was made to the executive of the press gallery a few years ago but they did not care to take it up. However, I am making it again and I am deciding that if they want to meet with me once a week I will hold that meeting. This does not mean that occasionally I shall not see them in other circumstances but I think that even the Leader of the Opposition can understand that it was not conductive to good relations to have a lot of shoving and pushing in the corridors.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We believe that improvement of the dignity of the office of the Prime Minister can be better achieved through a change in practices of people other than those in the press gallery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I should like to register, also, very real alarm at the suggestion by the Prime Minister that he is establishing a set of standards for himself different from those he proposes should be followed by his colleagues. It used to be, under this system, before we began-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the Leader of the Opposition has a question will be please put it?


REASON FOR FAILURE OF PRIME MINISTER TO RESPOND TO PRESS GALLERY FOR IMPROVED ACCESS FOR JOURNALISTS
Charles Joseph Clark: My question to the Prime Minister, who is moving further and further away from the model of "first among equals" and increasingly toward the model of a presidential system, is this: Why did he not respond more positively and directly to the proposals by the Parliamentary Press Gallery which were designed to improve the access of the media to the Prime Minister rather than sending forward this proposal of his own whose net effect will be to limit the access of the journalists of the country and of the gallery to the Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I must confess I do not know what proposals the press gallery has made. If the Leader of the Opposition will send me a copy, I will look at it. But I have to point out that I am in the House practically every day parliament sits, that I answer questions every day, the press is up there they can hear

December 17, 1976
Oral Questions
the answers I give. If only the Leader of the Opposition would take his courage in his hands and concur with me that we should have television in the House-
Some bon. Members: Hear, hear!


HIGH RADIATION LEVELS IN WATER AT SERPENT RIVER INDIAN RESERVE-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that radiation levels in river water at the Serpent River Indian Reserve near Elliot Lake are more than double the safe standard set by Ontario, will the minister put an immediate end to the federal government's policy which tolerates this double standard, namely allowing native people to drink water which is declared unsafe for whites?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to tell the hon. member that apparently only two families in that area take their water from the river. In their particular case, my department officials are taking the necessary steps so both families can get their water supply from wells. As for the standard set up by the government of Canada, it is the one adopted by a competent international organization, the International Commission on Radiological Protection. However, these matters are being reviewed on a permanent basis. The government of Ontario has decided to set up a lower standard. It is up to it to do so but for the time being I have no intention of amending this standard.


Reginald Cyril Symes: I am amazed that the minister should have tolerated such a situation for so many years. The fact that only two families are affected is no excuse.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Reginald Cyril Symes: I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of the Environment.
In view of the fact that federal officials are now sending letters, many years after the fact, warning natives not to eat the fish from the Serpent River because of dangerous levels of mercury and unknown effects of radiation, would the minister undertake a study to determine the cause of the pollution and compel the polluters to take remedial action as well as pay compensation to residents whose health and livehoods have been put in jeopardy?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly check into the facts of the situation. The hon. member knows that where mercury pollution has been identified the source has been eliminated. As far as the commercial use of fish is concerned, the inspection branch has prohibited the sale of fish which was contaminated.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the possibility of a strike by employees of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, would the Prime Minister indicate that it is the wish of the government of Canada that the company negotiate a settlement with its employees within the guidelines of the Anti-Inflation Board, and that its application for a rate increase be decided upon the basis of actual wage settlements negotiated and not inflated estimates of the possible cost of such settlements?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a clear representation as opposed to a question.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but since he is not here I understand the President of the Treasury Board will handle it. Given the fact that the minister of manpower on December 9 indicated that organizations must guard against the fraudulent use, either internally or externally, of social insurance numbers, would the minister assure the House that all UIC computer data input files, when no longer required, are completely destroyed, thus removing any chance to misuse social insurance numbers? The minister having had experience, I know he will be able to answer that question.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to disappoint the hon. member but my experience does not give me the detailed knowledge whether certain files are or are not destroyed. I will refer the matter to my colleague and see that the hon. member gets a detailed answer at the first possible opportunity. If it is not before the break, I will ask him to send a letter.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I tell the minister that I have such files. They are dated
December 17, 1976

September 21, 1976, some 99 pages, allegedly thrown into the garbage can, thus making public personal data on UIC claimants affecting some 5,000 people in Nova Scotia. Such action increases the chance of misuse of social insurance numbers. This is not the type of public disclosure for which this side has been asking. I would therefore ask the minister to see to it that in future such files are completely destroyed. The present practice is completely unacceptable.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly try to eliminate that kind of leak, as well as others.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport, notice of which I gave him this morning. My question is asked in light of disturbing reports to the effect that the construction schedule for the Charlottetown airport, so long sought by our people, has been further delayed. Can the minister advise the cause of this delay? Does it stem from the action of the provincial authorities, or are there other reasons?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. There have been some delays in the development work and planning of the new airport in order to put in particular features which will be especially useful to Charlottetown and Prince Edward Island. These have been largely resolved and we now foresee a meeting with provincial officials in the middle of January, and hopefully then the final stage of the design can be completed and we can move on to the tendering process.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION COMMISSION LACK OF REPRESENTATION FROM THE WEST-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. In view of the fact that the CRTC is charged with the execution of a national communications policy affecting FM, telephone service and microwave, and since there is not one permanent member on that board from west of the Lakehead, would the minister take it upon herself to correct this lack of western representation as soon as possible?


Hon. Jeanne Sauv6 (Minister of Communications):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are already two persons from the west on the board, but as vacancies occur on the CRTC, I will make an effort to try to make the representation as wide as possible.
Oral Questions


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that a replacement was made very recently, why did the government not take the opportunity at that time?
Mrs. Sauvk Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what exact replacement the hon. member refers, but my policy in that case was to replace someone from the region in which the vacancy occurred because that region was not represented.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the mounting controversy and criticism surrounding the federal civil service indexed pension plan, I would like to ask the minister what measures he is now taking to assure the taxpayers of Canada that the plan will not impose an undue burden on them, but can, in fact, be entirely self-financing?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I want to give the hon. member and the House the assurance that it is our determined intention to examine this plan. When we complete the final review of it, we will make sure that there is no taxpayer subsidy to cover excessive payroll costs of the pension plan. I would refer the hon. member to the document I tabled in the House, I believe on October 18, the "Basic Facts about Pensions in the Public Service of Canada", which indicated that if the long-term relationship between wages, interest and inflation is maintained, payroll costs through to the year 2025 would in fact be similar to what they have been in the last several years.
I want to assure the House that those payroll costs, projected and experienced in this plan, very favourably compare with those of pension plans in the private sector; nevertheless we are reviewing the situation thoroughly. In the course of that review I am very interested in getting an independent actuarial analysis of the plan to test, check and confirm the assumptions and calculations that went into the document which has been circulated.


SYNCRUDE-GOVERNMENT INSTRUCTIONS ON AWARDING OF PIPELINE CONTRACT
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the minister is aware, Syncrude has asked for and received bids for the construction of pipelines associated with its tar sands plan. Evidently the lowest bid was received from the Canadian-owned company Henuset Brothers. Apparently, the fact that this company uses non-union labour has resulted in some delay in the awarding of this contract. Would the

December 17, 1976
Oral Questions
minister inform the House what instructions he has given to the Canadian government's representatives on the Syncrude board, or the Syncrude management team, respecting the awarding of this contract?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, this particular problem was brought to my attention only this morning when I had a very brief discussion with my colleague the Minister of Labour. He might be in a position to add further information for the hon. member.


Harvie Andre: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister would inform the House whether, as a matter of principle, the federal government, as substantial owners in Syncrude, is prepared to consider dismissing the low bid submitted by a respected Canadian-owned company in favour of a bid several million dollars higher submitted by an American-owned company?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very good example of the kind of thing we were talking about earlier. Here you have a corporation in which the government is a shareholder. The corporation was set up as a separate entity from the government. The hon. member is now asking me to interfere with a corporation that was set up specifically to deal with development of the tar sands. I think hon. members have to make up their minds which way they want it.

LABOUR CONDITIONS *


GOVERNMENT POLICY IN AWARDING CONTRACTS TO EMPLOYERS OF UNION AND NON-UNION LABOUR
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour following on the questions that have just been asked. What is the federal policy in such matters where some bidders employ union labour and others employ non-union labour? What is the federal policy in areas that are under federal jurisdiction?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member asks a question which is defeated by its very terms. The hon. member is asking a direct question of the minister, asking him to declare a policy in the House. Some specific aspect will have to be dealt with.


John Allen Fraser: Then may I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, whether he can tell the House what the federal government is doing, in cases where it has control over the awarding of contracts in areas clearly within its jurisdiction, so far as labour is concerned?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, may I indicate to the hon. member for Vancouver South that, having looked into this situation, it now appears that this very labour problem, if I can put it in that way, falls within provincial jurisdiction. It may have implications later on that
[Mr. Andre.)
involve the federal government. I have examined the situation and I am certainly prepared to assist if required by the Alberta government or the Minister of Labour, my colleague Mr. Crawford, if he sees any role that we can beneficially play in this particular situation.


FINANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the minister told the first ministers' conference that "neither the provincial finance ministers nor I are yet in a position to come to definitive views on an appropriate fiscal stance for 1977-78", and that they "expect to discuss these matters further at the regular meeting of federal-provincial finance ministers around the end of January" will the Minister of Finance indicate if this means there is no hope of a new budget, which is obviously needed, before sometime in February or even later?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's "even later" goes a long way. There will be a budget in the first six months of 1977.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as the current Royal Bank trendicator adds further evidence that the economy is faltering and that unemployment will probably rise in 1977, would the Minister of Finance indicate whether he will reconsider his adamant refusal to give a personal income tax cut to Canadians to help spur the economy, bearing in mind Robert Bagu-ley-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


TRANSPORT
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I should like to ask whether it is his intention to announce the terms of reference of the royal commission into CN operations in Newfoundland before the end of the year and, if it is, is it his intention to extend the jurisdiction of the commission to cover areas in the Atlantic provinces other than Newfoundland?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should make clear to the hon. member that no formal decisions have been taken by this government and the government of Newfoundland in connection with the commission. We have had preliminary discussions about the possibilities, and they
December 17, 1976

were fairly positive discussions, arising out of this. We will explore the framework and the possibility of accomplishing something in a fairly short period of time. We have been considering these informally with the government, so I do not foresee an announcement until January.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, would the minister answer that part of my question which deals with extending jurisdiction of the commission beyond Newfoundland to the Atlantic provinces?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in our preliminary discussions the program was meant to centre on transportation in relation to Newfoundland. Of course, there are implications beyond Newfoundland inevitably in that, and that is one of the things we will be taking into account.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE TO ONTARIO OF AID FOR URBAN AND COMMUTER SYSTEMS
Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the allegation made yesterday in the Ontario legislature by the provincial minister of transport and communications that the federal government has reneged on an agreement to pay $32 million toward renovation of the Toronto Union station, will the minister assure the House and the residents of the metropolitan Toronto region who depend on commuter and intercity rail service that this allegation is false and that the federal government will, bearing in mind the problems of financial restraint, live up to its promises made in the 1974 election campaign in respect of federal assistance to urban and commuter transportation systems?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have not to my knowledge made a firm commitment in relation to the Toronto metro station. At the same time, I should say we have not said a final no either to the question from Ontario about financial assistance. The Minister of Finance and myself met with our counterpart colleagues from Ontario a couple of weeks ago. We indicated then that we were further reviewing the possibility of assistance and the form of that assistance within our financial fiscal restraints, and also as part of our over-all development of urban transportation policy, and that I would try to have an answer for them before the end of the year, but that it might well be in January.


DATE OF DECISION ON LEASE OF PRINCE RUPERT TERMINAL
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the date for tenders to lease the grain terminal at Prince Rupert expired November 30, and I believe there were four tenders in that regard, will the minister
Oral Questions
advise who tendered to lease the terminal, whether he has made a decision as to who gets the contract, and if he has not made that decision when will he be making it? Will he assure the House that the lease will not go to the Carghill Grain Company?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how many different companies tendered. I believe there were four but I am not positive of that. I am meeting with Canadian grain commission officials next week to discuss the situation and a decision will be made soon after that.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board concerning a matter I raised with him on December 15, this week. He indicated at the time that he was seeking an answer in respect of the position of about 400 veterinarians who have been promised, but who I understand at the time of the question had not received, interim payments pursuant to some collective agreement and discussion they had with the government of Canada. Is the minister in a position to report on that matter today?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have the information but I must say I am not totally satisfied with it yet. As the hon. member knows, the situation is that this increase was subject to Anti-Inflation Board approval. There was an interim agreement by both parties to pay up to the maximum allowable in the interim. The complication arose from the fact that the Manitoba and Saskatchewan employees, 50 or 60 of them, were under a regionalized pay system, and the 500 were under the central pay system here in Ottawa, which is within the Department of Supply and Services, and they have run into some volume problems. It looks at the moment as if that payment for the Ottawa group will not be forthcoming until early January. The hon. member has drawn this to my attention, and I want to talk to my colleagues to see if by a little pressure here and there we might improve on that, but that is the information we have at the moment.


REQUEST FOR ACTION TO ALLEVIATE PROBLEMS IF INTERIM
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if the payments should come forth by the first of January, as I am sure the hon. minister is aware, this could cause some superannuation difficulties on the one hand, and income tax problems on the other for the 400 or so professional public servants. In that event would the minister undertake that if mechanically

December 17, 1976
Parliamentary Accommodation the cheques cannot be produced he will consult with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, or whoever he would have to consult with, to see if those problems could be alleviated, because these really are not problems caused by the veterinarians?


Robert Knight Andras: I will certainly undertake to raise the issue with my colleague, the Minister of Finance, who is so far away right now. I am not sure it would be possible to make that deviation. The better solution would be to bring every possible effort to bear on getting them under the wire by December 31.


Walter David Baker: I agree with that.


Robert Knight Andras: I must admit to the hon. member that I cannot guarantee that. I will simply do my best to see what can be done.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, some months ago the government undertook to consider the formulation of guidelines respecting the commercial activities of former holders of federal public offices. I have communicated this policy to my cabinet colleagues and I would like to table a copy of one of those letters, all of which are the same, under Standing Order 41(2).


PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table, in both official languages, copies of the report of the advisory commission on parliamentary accommodation. I know members on both sides of the House would wish me to express my gratitude to the Hon. Douglas Abbott and the other commissioners for their efforts in preparing this study, which forms an excellent framework for planning the development of the Parliament Hill area over the next 25 years.


WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the previous practice of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table the third report of the Metric Commission.


INTERPRETATION ACT
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-389, to amend the Interpretation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce to this House the first bill of my young political career-which I hope will be long-and that much more because it is seconded by my colleague from Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance). I thank him for it.
The purpose of this bill is to prevent any discrimination between legitimate and illegitimate children.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 84, 86, 145, 583, 618, 658, 755, 760, 969, 989, 1,047, 1,048, 1,069 and 1,157.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were there 16,993 overpayments of Unemployment Insurance claims during 1975 in the Ontario Region and, if not, how many were there?
2.	Did these overpayments amount to $3,373,344 and, if not, what was the exact figure?
3.	As of the date the answer to this question is prepared what is the amount collected by the Unemployment Commission from those who received overpayments in 1975?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned. 1. No, 103,713.
December 17, 1976

2.	No, $12,657,000.
3.	The statistics maintained by the commission regarding the collection of overpayments do not reflect the year in which the overpayments occurred.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were there 7,256 overpayments of Unemployment Insurance claims between January 1 and April 30, 1976 in the Ontario Region and, if not. how many were there?
2.	Did these overpayments amount to $1,583,070 and. if not, what was the exact figure?
3.	As of the date the answer to this question is prepared, what is the amount collected by the Unemployment Insurance Commission from those who received overpayments between January 1 and April 30, 1976?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned. 1. No, 38,358.
2.	No, $5,175,000.
3.	The statistics maintained by the commission regarding the collection of overpayments do not reflect the year in which the overpayments occurred.



DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the fiscal year 1975-1976. what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable figures for the fiscal year 1973-1974?


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The following are contracts for professional services during the 1975-1976 fiscal year for studies, surveys and analyses etc. into the internal operation of the department:
1. Date	Purpose	2. Consultant	Cost(1) June 2, 1975	Organization and Management	R. Gencorek	$	1,300.00(2) June 24, 1975	To review the role, organization and demand for statistical services and establish operational requirement	Bureau of Management Consulting Services	527,000.00	(3) July 1, 1975	Management Operations	J. F. Hatley	5	3,000.00(4) July 2, 1975	Consulting advice in re-organization period	Bureau of Management Consulting Services	$	7,500.00(5) July 2, 1975	Financial Management	K. H. Bishop & $ Assoc.	5,000.00(6) July 5, 1975	Organization	K. P. Regier	$	1,400.00
Order Paper Questions
(7) July 7, 1975	Review McBee Accounting System	W. M. Reid	$ 1,500.00(8) July 15, 1975	Study departmental capital management system	Bureau of Management Consulting Services	$18,000.00(9) Oct. 20, 1975	Organization	R. Weitzel	$ 5,000.00(10) Nov. 4, 1975	Works Study	G. Lathlin	$ 4,000.00(11) March 5, 1976	Report and analysis of public reaction to native land settlement week	Canadian Assoc, in support of Native People	$10,000.00(12) March 16, 1976	Goals and objectives-Parks Canada	Southam Marketing Research Service	$ 3,960.00(13) March 31, 1976	Works Study	P. M. Associates	$ 5,000.00(14) March 31, 1976	Accounting and bookkeeping	Burch, Findlay, McFarlane and Co.	3 contracts totalling $ 6,500.00
3. This information is not available as records of this nature were not maintained in 1973-1974.



BRITISH COLUMBIA PENITENTIARY-HOSTAGE TAKING EVENT

Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	How many of the British Columbia Penitentiary inmates involved in the recent hostage event in the east wing, have been (or arc to be) transferred to William Head Penitentiary on Vancouver Island and on what date?
2.	What are their names and for what crimes were they sentenced?
3.	How long has each to serve before being eligible for (a) day passes (b) parole (c) release?
4.	What extra security precautions were taken, or are to be taken, at William Head to strengthen the physical arrangements and to increase custodial personnel?
5.	Is William Head being upgraded to a maximum security institution in order to deal with this new situation?
6.	Was notice or information given to the residents in the neighbourhood of William Head to prepare them for this change in their residential environment and. if so, in what form?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: 1. There have been no inmates who have been involved in the hostage taking incident of September 27, 1976, in the East Wing of the British Columbia Penitentiary, transferred to William Head Institution.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.
6.	Not applicable.
2106

December 17, 1976
Order Paper Questions



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION-BENEFITS, SAVINGS, PREMIUMS

Mr. Alexander: 1.	What was the revenue, by province and territory, from employer-employee premiums under the Unemployment Insurance Act for the years (a) 1974 (b)
1975	(c) 1976 to date?
2.	What was the amount of the benefits paid in each province and territory under the Unemployment Insurance Act for the years (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c)
1976	to date?
3.	What was the average benefit paid in (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 to date to claimants, by province and territory, and by sex, under the Unemployment Insurance Act?
4.	By province and territory, what are the savings it is estimated will be realized by the proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act as set out in the May 1976 Budget and in what way will such savings be made?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned breakdowns of revenue collected, by province and territory from employer-employee premiums under the Unemployment Act for the years 1975, 1976 to date are unavailable at this time. The information for 1974 follows: 1. Revenue distribution by province and territory based on a percent distribution of U.I. premiums by province. 1974: Newfoundland, $27,412,757.27; Prince Edward Island, $5,514,992.59; Nova Scotia, $50,121,550.27; New Brunswick, $38,767,153.77; Quebec, $432,602,506.69; Ontario, $628,709,154.83; Manitoba, $69,910,641.31; Saskatchewan, $44,282,146.35; Alberta, $125,384,978.50; British Columbia, $191,078,272.54; Northwest Territories, $3,406,318.95; Yukon, $2,270,879.30; Outside Canada, $2,595,290.63; Total, $1,622,056,643.00.
2.	See Statistics Canada publication no. 73-001 entitled "Statistical Report on the Operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act."
3.	See 2.
4.	Assumptions underlying the following estimates of savings from UI amendments are that they would be fully implemented and mature in 1976. On this basis it is estimated that approximately $275 to $325 million would have been saved in that year. The respective estimated provincial impacts in 1976 would have been as follows:
Estimates of Provincial Impact of Three Phase Benefit Structure and Increased Entrance Requirement
(in 1976 dollars)
Province	Savings Per cent	($-M)Newfoundland	13-15	24- 28Prince Edward Island	12-15	4- 5Nova Scotia	6- 8	9- 11New Brunswick	11-13	19- 22Quebec	8- 9	93-109Ontario	9-11	85-101Manitoba	10-11	7- 8Saskatchewan	10-12	8- 10Alberta	8- 9	7- 8British Columbia Northwest	4- 5	18- 21Territory/Yukon	12-15	1- 2Canada	8-10	275-325



MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION-NUMBER OF HIRINGS, DISMISSALS OR TRANSFERS OF EMPLOYEES

Mr. Lachance: Between the date of the presentation of the last budget May 25, 1976 and October 12, 1976, did the Department of Manpower and Immigration, Immigration Appeal Board and Unemployment Insurance Commission hire, dismiss or transfer employees to other departments and, if so, how many?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned, the reply is: Number of hirings: 497; Number of dismissals: 5; Number of transfers to other departments: 61.
In so far as the Immigration Appeal Board is concerned, the reply is: Number of hirings: 1; Number of dismissals: Nil; Number of transfers to other departments: 1.
In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 63 employees hired. 5 employees dismissed. 72 employees transferred to other departments.



PEACE AND SECURITY BROCHURE

Mr. Brisco: 1.	Was a brochure entitled "Peace and Security", a statement on Bill C-83 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, from the Department of Justice and Solicitor General's Office distributed to Members of Parliament and, if so (a) to whom was it distributed, excluding Members of Parliament (b) how many were printed and at what cost (c) what was the cost of circulation or mailing?
2.	Was a revised copy of the brochure containing updated questions and answers on gun control distributed to Members of Parliament and, if so (a) to whom was it distributed, excluding Members of Parliament (b) how many were printed and at what cost (c) what was the cost of circulation or mailing?


Francis Fox: 1. Yes, but it was
entitled "The Highlights of the Peace and Security Program", and was distributed with accompanying explanatory notes, (a) Gun clubs, police associations, etc., as well as the general public, on request; (b) 142,300 copies, for a total cost of $61,793; (c) The average cost of mailing per copy was 13c.
2. Yes, a booklet entitled "Revised and Updated Questions and Answers on Gun Control" was published and distributed but this booklet was not a revised copy of "The Highlights of the Peace and Security Program", (a) Any group or individual on request; (b) 7,000 copies were printed at a cost of $3,936.40 and were available to the public on request; (c) Cost of mailing was 32c. a copy.



EXPORT TAX ON OIL PRODUCED BY INDIAN BANDS

Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	Are monies collected from the export tax on oil produced by Indian bands and, if so (a) how much is presently held by the Treasury (b) was any money collected after April 1, 1974?
2.	Will the government return all funds collected from the export tax on oil produced by Indian bands to the producers and, if so, is it prepared to pay interest on the money collected should there be a delay in returning such funds?
(Mr. Fox.l
December 17, 1976


Alastair William Gillespie: The National Energy Board reports as follows: 1. The government requires that exporters of oil pay the appropriate level of charges on all oil that leaves Canada. The exporter is not required to indicate the origin of the oil. (a) Not known, in relation to 1. (b) Not known, in relation to 1.
2. Not known, in relation to 1.



TAXES ON OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AT WELLHEAD

Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total amount per barrel of oil at the wellhead price the government (a) collected in taxes in 1975 (b) anticipates collecting in 1976?
2.	What is the total amount in tax revenue on barrelled oil at the wellhead price that the government (a) collected in 1975 (b) anticipates collecting in 1976?
3.	What is the detailed breakdown showing how the amount from federal taxes on barrelled oil at the wellhead price that the government (a) collected in 1975 was dispersed (b) anticipates collecting in 1976 will be dispersed?


Alastair William Gillespie: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1, 2 and 3. The federal government does not collect taxes on oil and gas production at the wellhead. Any revenue, the federal government receives is in the form of corporate income tax based on profits derived from production, refining, marketing and other activities in which a petroleum company may be engaged.



HOUSING ON INDIAN RESERVES

Mr. Howie: 1.	What amount was (a) requested (b) allotted for (i) housing construction (ii) housing repair at each Indian Reserve located at Oromocto, St. Mary's Reserve, Fredericton, and Kingsclear Reserve, Kingsclcar, York County, .New Brunswick?
2.	Has any study been done of the housing needs on these Reserves and, if so (a) by whom (b) on what date (c) will it be made public?


B. Keith Penner: In so far as the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned, the answer is: 1.
(a)(i)	Amount Requested for Housing Construction	(b)(i)	Amount ApprovedOromocto	$ 60,000	$10,000St. Mary's	$100,000	$30,000Kingsclear	$100,000	$20,000(a)(ii)	Amount Requested for Housing Repair	(b)(ii)	Amount ApprovedOromocto	$ 20,000	$12,000St. Mary's	$ 60,000	$10,000Kingsclear	$ 20,000	$14,3322. (a)	and (b) A housing study	was done this past	summer
by the summer student program of the Indian Affairs and Northern Development Department, (c) The results of the
Order Paper Questions
study will be made available to the chief and band council of each reserve by the department. It will be the decision of the bands as to whether or not they wish to make this information public.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION -BENEFIT PAID TO VARIOUS INCOME CLASSES

Mr. Lawrence: For the 1973 taxation year, how many persons in Canada with a taxable income of (a) $20,000 to $25,000 (b) $25,000 to $50,000 (c) $50,000 to $100,000 (d) $100,000 and over, received unemployment insurance benefits and, in each income class, what was the total amount paid?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned statistics indicating the number of beneficiaries in various taxable income brackets are not maintained.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION- BENEFITS PAID TO VARIOUS INCOME CLASSES

Mr. Lawrence: For the 1974 taxation year, how many persons in Canada with a taxable income of (a) $20,000 to $25,000 (b) $25,000 to $50,000 (c) $50,000 to $100,000 (d) $100,000 and over, received unemployment insurance benefits and, in each income class, what was the total amount paid?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned statistics indicating the number of beneficiaries in various taxable income brackets are not maintained.



LAND FILL SITE-JACK'S LAKE. NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. McCleave: Has the Department of the Environment carried out studies with regard to the proposed dump/land fill site at or near Jack's Lake. Halifax County, Nova Scotia and, if so, with what results and recommendations as to the public interest?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: The Department of the Environment has not carried out studies with regard to the proposed sanitary landfill at or near Jack's Lake, Halifax county, Nova Scotia. The Department of Environment has had access to all the environmental studies including background information and site selection procedures, conducted by the province of Nova Scotia and the metropolitan area planning commission (or their consultants). The above information has been evaluated and the required additional information identified. The selected site has been found acceptable provided the additional information is obtained to confirm acceptability and also provided the necessary engineering requirements are instituted to ensure protection of the environment.
80005-6S'/2

December 17, 1976
Order Paper Questions



REFIT OF FOUR MARITIME COMMAND HELICOPTER DESTROYERS

Mr. McCleave: 1.	What were the shipyards and their respective tenders in connection with the refits of the four Maritime Command helicopter destroyers?
2.	Where are the vessels based?
3.	What, if any, were the geographical restrictions relating to such tenders?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. The shipyards and their respective tenders are as follows: (a) Canadian Vickers Limited, Montreal, Quebec, tendered a firm price of $13,622,000.53 for refit of the four vessels, (b) Davie Shipbuilding Limited, Levis, Quebec, tendered a basic price of $11,118,781.00 for the four vessels, subject to an unlimited escalation formula, (c) Hawker Siddeley Canada Limited, Halifax Shipyards Division, Halifax, Nova Scotia, tendered a firm price of $11,286,882.00 for refit of two vessels only.
2.	The vessels are based at Halifax, Nova Scotia.
3.	Bidding was restricted to interested and competent Canadian companies located in the St. Lawrence River and Atlantic areas.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 1,079 and 1,080 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.



WHARFINGERS IN EASTERN CANADA

Mr. McCain: 1.	Is a wharfinger appointed to each small craft facility in Eastern Canada and, if not (a) which facilities have individual wharfingers (b) does a wharfinger serve more than one facility (c) on what basis is a decision made with respect to whether or not a wharfinger is appointed to a small craft facility or a group of small craft facilities (d) how many small craft facilities have no wharfinger service and, in each case, what is its name?
2.	What is the procedure involved in the appointment of wharfingers?
3.	(a) What is their rate of pay (b) are all wharfingers paid at the same rate and, if not, what are the different methods and rates of pay?
4.	What responsibilities do the wharfingers have other than the collection of wharfage fees?
Return tabled.



WHARFAGE FEE STRUCTURE IN EASTERN CANADA

Mr. McCain: 1.	Is there a standard wharfage fee structure in Eastern Canada and (a) if so, what is the amount and what is the method of payment (b) if not, how are present wharfage fees being assessed and what is the method of payment?
2.	What is the revenue from fees charged fishermen for each small craft facility in Eastern Canada?
(Mr. Fleming.]
3.	Is such revenue paid to the Department of the Environment or to the accounts of Canada?
Return tabled.


Ralph Goodale: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wesdnesday, December 15, consideration in committee of Bill C-22, to amend the statute law relating to income tax-Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale)-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the House rose on Wednesday, December 15, clause 1 of the bill was under consideration.
On clause 1.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Chairman, I want to reinforce very briefly the point that was made by the hon. member for Red Deer on Wednesday. I draw particular attention to a problem that affects many members in the federal House and provincial legislatures where there are changes in what is the equivalent to retirement savings plans. Some are also registered pension plans. The same principle applies. It applies particularly to the registered retirement savings plan. Under the legislation which affects the pension plans, they are changed from time to time; they are upgraded. It is a requirement that full participation shall bring in a considerable amount of arrears. We saw this with the increase in the level from $2,500 to $3,500. There was the current instalment plus the allocated portion of arrears up to $2,500 or, at present $3,500. There was some ambivalence in the tax department with regard to that. It resulted in some hardships. I know I was caught in it. One year we were allowed an excess. As I pointed out, it was a requirement of law to make this payment and we were paying toward arrears. The following year the then minister of national revenue denied the claim and taxed on the excess over $2,500, now over $3,500. Not only that, he had the gall to reassess for one year with interest and penalties. Although the information was volunteered, and the tax authorities re-examined their previous decision, I can say that I know it also happened to some of my colleagues. This happens across the country.
If there is an overpayment, it is a requirement of the plan, by law, that the excess shall be subject to tax. When either the
December 17, 1976

registered retirement savings plan or the pension plan comes into play, that same money is again taxed. It is taxed twice. I agree that it is a matter of policy that contributions to pension plans shall be limited. However, a person who has a higher income may certainly have earned it and earned it very well, just as capably as the man who only has a $10,000 salary. Just because he has a salary of $75,000 and works twice as hard, he is penalized.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Half as hard.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In many cases he works twice or three times as hard, but suffers the penalty, for being industrious. There is this limit for both the retirement pension plan and the registered retirement savings plan. There should be a change in order to avoid this anomaly of double-taxation. I admit there is a provision where there is fluctuating income and that any excess in one year can be carried forward to fill the void of some deficiencies in the limit in subsequent years. However, that never happens under the plans about which I am speaking. I would like to hear from the minister the justification for the double-taxation on these excess contributions which, incidentally, are made under law and are not a matter of individual choice.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member knows, the law provides for a certain maximum on contributions to a program. Where an individual's program is enriched, either voluntarily or involuntarily, it is suggested he be allowed to claim the additional payment against his income in the year of paying back for previous years. That, in effect, would allow him to have a greater tax exemption than would have been possible in those past years. In other words, by paying up for years past he would be able to get a better tax break than if he had been paying on the higher level all the way through. In that sense it would be inequitable to other taxpayers. It is inherent in a certain amount being deductible from tax income for this purpose.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, when we were interrupted in our discussion on clause 1 by three knocks on the door on Wednesday afternoon, I believe I was discussing this matter and putting a particular question to the Minister of Finance. The discussion on clause 1 of this bill, which has to do with RRSPs, has not only ranged all over the lot but has gone from one extreme to the other. There are those who seem to think that RRSPs are the answer to inadequate retirement income and that the conditions pertaining to them should be improved. There are others who think that RRSPs are mainly a bonanza to those in the upper income brackets and hardly worth all the time we are giving them.
The minister, in response to some of the questions that have been put to him, has referred to an over-all study of pensions being made by a special committee on which, I believe, three departments are represented, the Department of Finance, the Department of National Health and Welfare, and the Trea-
Income Tax
sury Board. It is good to know that such an over-all study is being made, but there is a point I should like to make as I put my question, namely, that there is a particular view about pensions which I think should now be considered very seriously. It is a point of view which says that RRSPs are not the answer to the problem and that certain other things are not the answer either. That point of view is that when retired persons receive pensions, they are not really living on their savings- they are not living on food, clothing, shelter and other services which they have saved. They are living by consuming things that are currently produced.
In other words, pensions, in the final analysis, are paid, at the time they are paid, out of the wealth that is produced at that time. This being the case, I should like to make the point that more consideration should be given to pay-as-you-go pension plans and that consideration be given to doing away with pension funds or so-called pension accounts.
I said the other day that I would call the hon. member for Eglinton as a witness-he was in the House at the time-and I said that because back in the days when he was minister of finance and I was making this point he expressed agreement with me that funds are somewhat of a delusion, or at least a fiction, and I think I am fair to him when I say that.
Let me cite the government's experience. When we first adopted old age security which became effective in 1952, since it was a new, grand scheme, so much better than the old age pensions which we had had for many years before that, it was established on the basis of a fund, and we carried on that fund for a number of years. We had special taxes, the revenues from which went into that fund. In the meantime, having raised those taxes by several percentage points, after a while we did away with those special taxes but provided for a transfer from general tax revenue to the old age security fund. But later we did away with that arrangement altogether. We now admit that the money that is paid to senior citizens as old age security is strictly on a pay as you go basis; it is money or wealth that is created today paid to people who are now retired. I suggest that it is the best and most logical form of pension payments.
You get the other extreme by looking at the government operation in plans such as the public service superannuation plan or the others that are paid under the Department of National Defence, by the RCMP, or even our own plan as members of parliament. In all these cases, nominally we have funds but in actual fact in the legislation we do not call them funds; we call them accounts, because we all know no money is put into any fund-it is simply a bookkeeping matter. We have legislation which says that those who are now working as public servants or as National Defence, or RCMP personnel, or as members of parliament pay something into the treasury by means of a deduction from their salaries. They pay it now in the knowledge that those who are now retired draw pensions. We who are now working know that when our time comes, we will live not on what we save, not on actual food, clothing, shelter and services which we put aside, but because in that day there will be persons who will be working and

December 17, 1976
Income Tax
producing goods and services, a portion of which will be allotted to us.
I submit that that is the realistic fact about pensions. It is not an idea that is unique to me or that only I happen to have. Some very learned people in the pension field, especially in the academic world, have written a good many documents on this question. Some of them have been prompted to do so because they see pension plans getting into trouble. A great many of them in the United States have got into trouble, private plans and public plans, such as the plan for the city of New York, and so on.
I think a lot of agitation in this country today by certain groups against the nature of public service pensions is the result of the fact that private pension people are afraid they will not be able to match what is being done in the public service, and they are probably right. My contention is that all is not perfect in the pension field in what we have done now and there could be trouble ahead, but the whole thing could be greatly improved if we would move more and more into public pension plans and into plans that are honest and realistic in the sense that they are pay as you go plans.
In point of fact, I think that this is how the Canada Pension Plan works. In that case, again, there is a so-called fund or account, unlike the situation with respect to old age security, but still the money is not there. It is not in a sock, a bag or a bank somewhere-it is figures on the books. By means of figures on the books we lend money to the provinces which they get at a low rate of interest. But I suggest that this whole composite pension complex that we have built up is not the simple, direct, honest kind of pension arrangement that we could have. All these funds to which people contribute, and the credits they get, are really just a means whereby it will be decided what each person's pension will be when he retires; but if you have a million dollars a year to your credit as a pension, and if there is not a society at that time producing wealth on a current basis, your million dollars will be of no use to you.
As I say, I think that private pension plans in this country will not solve the problem in the future, nor do I think RRSPs will solve it. I think a great deal larger old age security pension and a great deal larger Canada Pension Plan will solve these problems, and my hope is that the retirement pension committee, or whatever it is that the minister refers to, the committee which represents three departments, is studying this whole question.
My question, therefore, to the minister is in two parts. On the one hand, is the committee studying the idea of a greater use of public pension plans and a greater use of the pay as you go principle; and, secondly, what are the minister's comments on the views I have been expressing?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the committee for the study of retirement income is doing so in the broadest sense, so that its terms of reference are not limited; but, very obviously, the future expansion of public as opposed to private pension plans is central to its study.

I suppose the most difficult question hon. members have had to deal with in this pension debate has been the question of the indexing of public service pensions. I am inclined to say to the critics that it seems to me that their objections fail to come to terms with a rather more fundamental issue in our community; that rather than taking away the opportunity to keep the pension in real terms to wherever the economy takes it, we should be concerned about the fact that many private plans do not have this, so that private plans being sold now will not yield in real terms what the participant is expecting. This is a matter of real concern.
Conversely, another matter of concern is that a very substantial part of the investment capital which is made available for private investment in Canada is produced by an aggregation of different kinds of private plans, and in that sense to move it all into the public area would deprive the private sector of investment capital in the future.


Mr. Saltsman:: They can always borrow from a public bank.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member says that the great, all-seeing government could lend them the money.


John R. Rodriguez: They could borrow it from a bank.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My preference would be to leave a maximum amount of enterprise in private hands.


Mr. Bawden:: That is a change.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On the question of accounts in terms of private funds, I take it the comments of the hon. member are really about public funds, but in terms of private funds the private firm does not have the expectation-I was going to say "assurance"-of continuity that a government has. It does not have the expectation that in 30 years, when a person retires, it will still be there and will be in a position to pay, as the government does. Therefore, it is to give security to the participants in the private sector that the funding requirement has been imposed.
I think it is artificial to talk about the public service superannuation fund as a fund. It really is an account, and I think there is a basic value to having a separate account because it can be better known how much of the federal government's over-all operations are devoted to retirement payments to its employees. I concede to the hon. gentleman that this is on a pay as you go basis. The specific term of it is that the participants, as they may be from time to time, are going to have to increase their contributions to have funds available, but I think it still is valuable. I have to confess that since the hon. member opened the discussion the other day I have not reread the exchanges between himself and the hon. member for Eglinton, but it seems to me that these are the principles which apply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, first I should like to welcome the words used by the Minister of Finance when he defended the public service superannuation
December 17, 1976

plan, and in particular when he defended the escalation features which have been built into that plan. I hope I do not twist what he said when I say that I think what he was saying was that if there is a difference between public plans and private plans, the thing to do is not to take escalation away from the public plan but to build escalation into the private plans.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If it can be done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The implication in that answer is that it is very difficult, and I am prepared to admit it is difficult. That is why my colleagues and I think we should move still further in the direction of public plans. The vehicles are there. The two main acts, so far as the general public is concerned, the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan, are right there waiting for a government with progressive ideas to move forward. I see the minister smiling at the suggestion of a government with progressive ideas. I suppose he realizes that that refers to somebody other than himself and his colleagues.
The minister said that to move more into public pensions is to deny the private sector the use it makes of the funds which are accumulated by private pension plans. Well, that is exactly what we think ought to be done. We think that if there are to be accumulated savings in terms of dollars or figures by the people of this country, the use of those accumulated savings should be for social purposes, and it should be decided by the people through their government rather than by private interests. So, in my view, on all counts we should be moving in this direction, but I stress again what I said a moment ago, without standing here and indulging in criticisms of the private sector, which we can do at the drop of a hat.


Mr. Kempling:: You have been criticizing it for years.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You can do that with the public sector, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We can do better in the public sector, too. I want the public sector to do better, and I want the public sector to provide most of the pension security. There are plenty of articles being written, not just by writers who think as I do, but by persons concerned about pension plans who are afraid that down the road the pensions will not be there or that they will not meet the needs. I can see private plans in trouble simply because they try to operate on the basis of funding and on the basis of irsing those pension contributions to make money, and so on. Whether they are contributions or deductions, they should be for the purpose of building up pensions and should not be simply a vehicle which financial manipulators can use to make money. Because of the problems down the way, I really think changes should be made.
I am glad there is this interdepartmental committee. I think we in this country have done much better in the pension area than has been done, for example, in the United States. I am not going to make the speech I make fairly often about who
Income Tax
pressed for these things to be done, but the fact is that the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan are good legislation. However, the fact that they are good just invites the government to move forward and to increase the amounts under the Old Age Security Act, to increase the amounts provided under the Canada Pension Plan and to let the dependence on private funds that cannot meet the bill wither away, if you will.
So it is my plea that this matter be given very thorough study. I am glad that the terms of reference of that interdepartmental committee are very wide, but I suggest that there is urgency to the matter, and when we are discussing RRSPs on clause 1, they are not the answer. Neither are private pension funds the answer. What is the answer is a greatly extended use of public plans and more of a realization that pensions really are on a pay as you go basis.
The minister said that a private firm cannot be sure that 30 years down road it will be able to pay the pensions in the way a government can be sure that 30 years down the road there will still be a government. I like to think that not only governments will still exist 30 years down the road but also society. This is a country and, after all, the production of wealth is a social process. It is done on a current basis, and if we face up to these facts we can have real improvements in what is now a pretty good pension scheme but which could be a lot better in terms of improvements both in the amount paid under the Old Age Security Act and in the proportion that the Canada Pension Plan is of the total retirement income of our people. However, I welcome the one or two good things the minister said. I hope the views which have been expressed today and the views expressed by the hon. member for Eglinton will be studied very carefully by the interdepartmental committee and that before very long its recommendations will be reported to us.


William James Kempling: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the minister a question as a result of some representations which have been made to me by individuals who purchased annuities with tax paid income. They are now collecting on those annuities and are being taxed again on the principal and interest which is, in effect, double-taxation. My understanding is that the trust companies they are dealing with informed them that the Department of Finance insists that this be done. Can the minister advise me on this matter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that in the case of a purchased annuity the capital portion of the payment is tax-free.


William James Kempling: Is there any instruction to that effect? These people have had information from the trust companies involved that this is not so. I always understood it was so.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, section 60(a) of the Income Tax Act covers this.


Mr. Neil:: Mr. Chairman, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Edmonton West regarding

December 17, 1976
Income Tax
double-taxation in cases where in any year individual taxpayers have paid an excess into their RRSPs. 1 have letters from several people; as a matter of fact, I received one this morning referring to the matter. As I understand it, if you make an overpayment into the plan, the tax department adds the excess on to your taxable income for the year and you pay tax on that amount. If, and when, you withdraw it you are taxed a second time; in other words, double-taxation.
According to a letter I received this morning, the gentleman had an overpayment of $1,014.76 and his total tax was $880.70. He went to court about the matter and writes that it was admitted in court by the tax representative that this a problem of several hundred taxpayers and he comments that they are still required to pay it. In the past I have written to the minister's predecessor, but I have not had a satisfactory answer. It seems to me a very unfair situation where an individual is taxed doubly on the same amount of money.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the basic principle is the one I cited in response to the hon. member for Edmonton West. In effect, inherent in the program is the provision that you should not be able to subtract from your taxable income an amount in excess of the maximum. I should say a more particular aspect of this program is dealt with under clause 56 of the bill which will change the situation in the past where if a contribution is made to an RRSP which exceeds the amount which can be deducted from the taxpayer's income, there is no way the overpayment could be returned to the taxpayer without destroying the plan. Clause 56 gives relief from that so that subject to limits it may be returned to the taxpayer.


Douglas Charles Neil: Will this be retroactive?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It will be applicable to the 1976 tax year and thereafter.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I should like to address myself to clause 1 which relates to the fact that the increase to $3,500 and $5,500 will create a windfall reserve of investment capital which will be in the hands of banks, trust companies, insurance companies and credit unions. I am not opposed to that; I think it is necessary in our economy. If the private sector is to operate properly, it must do so with the help given by the investment market.
I am concerned, however, that the same kind of consideration is not given to charitable organizations. There seems to be a general attack on the virtue of charitable donations. I recognize that the Income Tax Act increases the deductibility, and that is good; but there seems to be a growing campaign to make the government responsible for all the humanitarian services that are necessary in this country. Just last weekend a former premier of British Columbia said that the united good neighbour fund ought to be disbanded. I think that is ridiculous. If people no longer have the opportunity to donate on a humanitarian impulse, then we have become completely computerized and dehumanized.

I should like to ask the minister whether the opportunities could not be broadened so that other reputable and established organizations could take part in this windfall reserve of investment capital that will come to the private sector as a result of these funds. I am thinking of the established religious denominations, established missionary organizations and established private educational institutions. Is there any reason why such organizations could not participate in RRSP programs and become beneficiaries of this pool of capital? This would accomplish two things. On the one hand, many people would like to invest in a retirement program which has been very helpful to a lot of people.


John R. Rodriguez: To the wealthy.


Benno Friesen: I wish my socialist friend would listen to everything. I know he listens in a hyphenated way. There are people who would like to invest in a retirement plan but object to reinvestment. They do not like it when a bank takes their money and reinvests it in Labatt's breweries or some such institution. They would like to see their money invested directly in the capital programs of their church organization or missionary organization or educational institution. Why should they not have that opportunity and continue their charitable programs through their retirement program?
Second, when the institutions I have mentioned embark on a capital building program, they have to go to the lending institution and borrow the money at 1 per cent, 2 per cent or 3 per cent higher than they would pay if they could participate in the RRSP program. Why should they have to pay those extra percentage points to the large banking institutions?
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Gérald Laniel: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
Benno Friesen: Mr. Chairman, just before one o'clock I was saying that when institutions like those of private education, churches or missionary societies want capital for expansion, they must borrow money from banks, trust companies or credit unions at interest rates 1 per cent or 2 per cent above the prime lending rate. Moneys which lending institutions lend are partly acquired from registered retirement savings plans.
My point is that, sad to say, since governments are impinging more and more on the operations of these institutions, it is becoming increasingly difficult for charitable and similar organizations to borrow the money they need. Since charitable and church institutions ought to be, and are, the means for maintaining a high moral and ethical tone in society, I say we should help, rather than hinder them. Obviously, if such institutions are to be given the right to participate in the
December 17, 1976

RRSP program, the provisions governing them must be the same as those governing other institutions and ought to include actuarial safeguards.
I know the Minister of Finance has worked for some time to establish new guidelines for charitable organizations and trusts. They are long overdue. Unscrupulous people were taking advantage of loopholes to abuse the government's generosity in this regard. Therefore, as I say, new guidelines closing such loopholes were long overdue. The very fact that these controls have been tightened should assure the minister that institutions such as I have mentioned will be responsible and credible stewards of capital entrusted to them by those investing in RRSPs.
In the minister's absence, may I ask the parliamentary secretary if the government can see its way clear to permitting such institutions as I have mentioned to become, under proper actuarial guidelines, the beneficiaries of the capital invested in RRSPs, since that would comfort both investors who would want to see their money go to such institutions, and the institutions themselves. Some investors would prefer to see their money go to such charitable institutions rather than to lending institutions or other corporations which might not be sympathetic to charitable and other institutions and not provide them with the capital they deserve. Such investment will also help to preserve the high moral tone of the country.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: That is an excellent suggestion.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, we have some difficulty with the hon. member's suggestion. Certainly, a charitable organization, university or other body of that kind can be a good, solid institution. That is not the issue. But the idea that they might be the vehicle of RRSP investment strikes me as being totally outside the purpose of such organizations. But people who put money into an RRSP can have it invested, for example, in debentures or bonds issued by a university or some other organization and it can be used for charitable purposes in that way. Unfortunately, I find it difficult to comprehend how one can invest through charitable institutions, or how the object of an RRSP can be a charitable institution directly. Certainly, there are ways of using such savings for the benefit of charitable institutions, and I outlined one of them. I do not see how we can come closer to permitting savings for retirement to go more directly to those institutions.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I think the parliamentary secretary would concede that there are two purposes to this plan. One is for the benefit of the person wanting a retirement income. That is what gives viability to the program. The second purpose is to provide a pool of capital which would be useful to the investment community. I am not criticizing that aspect. The private sector needs this capital if we are to enjoy a healthy and growing economy.
At the same time, we have to admit that as soon as a participant of a retirement program invests his money in a
Income Tax
scheme, whether he goes to the Royal Trust, the Montreal Trust or to the local credit union-it doesn't matter-he loses control of his investment. He cannot decide on behalf of the board of directors where that money is going. I am not finding fault with that arrangement. Of course, the board cannot go to the investor all the time and ask him where he wants his money invested. All I am saying is that the investor has no option if he buys an annuity through a bank or a credit union. What I am saying is this: at least give him an option so that he might know exactly where the money is going, perhaps to a research foundation, or a church, a hospital or a missionary organization. Then, at least, he would know that his money was not going, say, to Labbatt's breweries or to any other organization which he might not, in a particular case, be inclined to support. It would help the investors, and it would help such institutions to carry out the programs of expansion which they find so necessary.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am glad the hon. member has raised this question again. I think I now understand it better than I did before. The issue is the terms which apply to the investment in an RRSP. There is nothing which prevents a registered retirement plan from providing for investment in any of those institutions, for example, a Canadian university. If a Canadian university offers securities which are available on the market, such as debentures or mortgages, it would be quite possible for the plan to be conditioned to assure that the funds invested would be used for the purchase of securities of that institution. So the goal the hon. member would like to achieve can be met under the present law and is not affected by this amendment. It depends entirely on the terms of trust which apply to the RRSP.


Benno Friesen: Am I to understand, then, that if an institution such as Trinity Western College or the Sudan Interior Mission or the Baptist Church wish, they could establish their own RRSP arrangements and as long as they met the actuarial guidelines set up by the department, which are sound and reasonable, they could become part of this system?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, depending upon their corporate powers and depending upon the law in a particular province regarding the trusteeship of investments. If they had the power to do that, and if the local superintending officer were prepared to permit it, they could establish their own trusteeship plans.


Mr. Orlikow:: Would the parliamentary secretary tell us how much money went into RRSPs last year and what the estimate is for the coming year, savings which would not have been made if the government had not established such a plan?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: These are approximate figures. Total net personal savings in 1975 were estimated at $11 billion. Of these, approximately 30 per cent were accounted for by non-government pension plans and registered savings plans. Including the contributions to government superannuation plans, the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan, the total percentage of savings would be 42 per cent.
2114

Income Tax


David Orlikow: Do you have any figures on this particular plan, the RRSP?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We are, of course, considering the registered pension plan clause. I do not have those figures.


David Orlikow: I wish to return to a subject which several of my hon. friends have raised, that is, the whole question of how these various provisions for tax savings or tax postponement affect the total system of the collection of taxes which are required to meet the needs of the Canadian people. I have expressed my feelings about the operation of the RRSP and other pension plans. I wish to refer to what has been said by my hon. friend from Waterloo-Cambridge and my hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands about the minister's apparent decision to drop the surtax on taxable incomes above a certain level.
The minister said, in reply to a question last year, that the surtax was part of a package which was put together because people with lower incomes were not getting the increases which they would have got as a result of the indexing of family allowances, so it was felt it would be fair to place this extra tax upon those with higher incomes. Since the escalation of family allowances is now to be resumed, it was felt it was fair to drop the surtax on people in the upper income brackets.
I do not suggest for a moment that the minister was not technically correct in his answer, but it seems obvious to me that the surtax was part of the whole package which the Prime Minister announced in October, 1975. The people were told that in order to deal with rampant inflation it was necessary to set up an Anti-Inflation Board and impose restraints covering price increases, wages and salaries, and not just wages and salaries but the incomes of other groups as well. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister, on the first day he broached the whole idea in his speech on radio and television on October 17, 1975, stated:
No one will be permitted an annual increase of more than $2,400. I want to make it clear that the income guidelines apply to all forms of income including fees charged by doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers and executives.
He could not have been more specific. Then the Minister of Finance, in December of 1975, I believe in the course of his meeting with the provincial finance ministers, had this to say on the same subject:
In terms of equity it is, we believe, only fair that those at the upper end of the income scale, who are able to absorb the impact of rising living costs without undue hardship, should be asked to shoulder some share of the burden ... It is fair to ask those who already enjoy ample means to make a proportionately greater sacrifice in the national interest.
Hon. members will know that the NDP members of the House opposed the anti-inflation program because we said it would not work, that it would not be fair and equitable. We were reproached very strenuously by the Minister of Finance and other members on the government side. We were asked why we did not go along with the NDP government in Manitoba which supported the anti-inflation program.

It is no secret that we disagreed with the government of Manitoba's position. The Premier of Manitoba was one of the first supporters, long before this government got the idea, of an incomes policy for Canada; but the Premier of Manitoba found that an incomes policy would work only if'it were applied fairly. He had the illusion that the government meant business. He had the illusion that the government would live up to the kind of commitments made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance which I have just quoted. Ever since then the government of Manitoba has been trying to get the federal government and the Anti-Inflation Board to live up to the commitments they made.
However, we know that the government has not lived up to its commitments. Doctors, lawyers and engineers are getting far more than an increase of $2,400. The Anti-Inflation Board, in its annual report, has given figures showing that this is so. The government of Manitoba tried to put a limit of $2,400 on the amount doctors would be able to receive in the form of a salary increase in any given year, but it got no support. In fact, its efforts were sabotaged completely by the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, who I am sure was working in close co-operation with the Minister of Finance.
It seems to us, Mr. Chairman, that removal of the surtax is one more illustration of the fact that this government never believed in implementing an incomes policy which would be fair and equitable. There is very little equity-in fact, it is inequity-in saying to people at the bottom of the income scale that their increase can be as high as $600 while people at the top of the income scale can get an increase of $2,400. We said at the beginning, Mr. Chairman, that the amount of the surtax was far too small. We said there should be a 100 per cent tax on income increases of more than $2,400.


Mr. Elzinga:: What has this got to do with the bill?


David Orlikow: It has everything to do with the bill.


Peter Elzinga: We are talking about RRSPS.


David Orlikow: We are talking about income tax, which is one of the largest sources of revenue required to meet the needs of the people of Canada. If you give concessions in the form of RRSPs and give away several tens of millions of dollars in the form of bonuses to people who avail themselves of RRSPs, then obviously you have to collect the same amount of money from some other tax source. It is for this reason that we object to the removal of the surtax.
Let me remind members of the House that it is because of the kind of policy the minister has adopted in removing the surtax that the Premier of Manitoba has announced that in all likelihood the Manitoba government will withdraw its support of the anti-inflation program, so far as public servants are concerned, in the coming year. Removal of the surtax will mean additional bonuses for the highest income group in Canada, a saving of $800 for those with a taxable income of $50,000 a year, a saving of $1,850 for those with a taxable income of $75,000 a year, and a saving of $3,000 for those with a taxable income of $100,000 a year. This is over and
December 17, 1976

above the benefits these groups have reaped by escaping substantial control through regressive tax measures, such as personal income tax indexing and a variety of special income tax shelters for high income groups.
The Toronto Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star over a year ago reported-I am speaking from memory, but I think I am correct-that there were at least five people in Canada over the last year, the "last year" being either 1973 or 1974, with incomes of over $200,000 and who did not pay one cent in income tax.


Peter Elzinga: They are all behind bars.


David Orlikow: No, they are not behind bars. If the hon. member doubts my statement, I can give him a copy of a letter that I received from the deputy minister in which he states this is the fact and tells me how it can be done.


Peter Elzinga: Which one was Davey Barrett?


David Orlikow: We believe that to rescind the surtax is another indication to the ordinary people of this country that the federal government lacks any real commitment to the spirit of the anti-inflation program which it announced more than a year ago. On top of that, while the government refuses to do anything substantial in terms of making the income tax system more equitable, it is continuing its policy of easing the corporate tax structure. There is no question that the corporate tax structure has become easier, while corporate profits, despite what the government claims, are substantially higher than they were a year or two ago.


Peter Elzinga: Thank God.


David Orlikow: The member says, "Thank God". That shows where his interests or his biases are.


Peter Elzinga: The Canadian people are thankful for the corporate structure.


David Orlikow: I would invite the hon. member who keeps interjecting to get up after I have finished and to put on the record his views on corporate taxes, at a time when the ordinary citizen finds it very difficult to pay the tax he is going to be asked to pay to meet the cost of services in this country.
For the benefit of the hon. member who has been interjecting, I will put on the record figures showing corporate profits. According to information compiled by Statistics Canada, in the first nine months of 1976, while in aggregate corporate profits have not increased-this, of course, is what we were assured would happen under the anti-inflation program- corporate profits in 1975 were approximately 2'/2 times their 1970 level, which was already exceptionally high. A more reasonable indicator of the profit picture is the rate of return on equity represented by current corporate profits. The federal government is using this concept to establish a minimum liable rate of return for corporations irrespective of cost increases. There may be considerable value in applying a similar test to determine whether profits are unreasonable or excessive.
Income Tax
An examination of the detailed information made available by Statistics Canada in the first half of 1976 to determine the return on the rate of equity garnered by the corporate sector in aggregate and in certain sectors shows there has been a very substantial increase in profit. Pre-tax profits represented a 20.4 per cent return in the mining industry in 1976, as compared with 11 per cent in 1970; 19.8 per cent in manufacturing in 1976, as compared with 10.7 per cent in 1970; 29.4 per cent in printing, publishing and allied industries in 1976, as compared with 18.7 per cent in 1970; 35.4 per cent in machinery in 1976, as compared with 11.6 per cent in 1970; 39.2 per cent in transportation equipment in 1976, as compared with 10.1 per cent in 1970; and 24.8 per cent in chemical industries in 1976, as compared with 12 per cent in 1970. I could go on, Mr. Chairman. In any event, the over-all total rate of return on equity for all industry was 18.3 per cent for the first half of 1976, as compared with 9.2 per cent for 1970.
These figures on corporate profits and on what corporate taxation contributes to the revenues of this country, together with the nearly $8 billion in deferred taxes which is really a no interest loan to the large corporations of this country, indicate that more than mere tinkering with the Income Tax Act is needed. On this note I am going to close. There should be a very substantial rewriting of the whole tax structure to provide for the kind of equity recommended by the Carter commission which was appointed by a Conservative government.
I again urge the Minister of Finance not to wait until the traditional time to introduce a budget, but to bring in a budget which will include income tax provisions that are fair to the ordinary people of this country and one which will give the economy the kind of spur it needs to get people back to work. This country certainly does not need 7.5 per cent unemployment. Quebec does not need 10.1 per cent unemployment, nor does Newfoundland need 13 per cent unemployment. The tax structure of this country, particularly the income tax structure, should give the economy a kind of boost it is not now getting as a result of the present Income Tax Act.


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Chairman, my concerns are going to be addressed to the minister. They will not be in the form of instant economic solutions provided by the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


An hon. Member:: Be objective.


Robert Hylton Brisco: That is what I would like to do. I have an inquiring mind. I am not about to be snowed by the statement that the corporate level of profit in 1976 is 2'/2 times the 1970 level. The hon. member did not bother to concern himself with any of the costs of inflation, increased costs of production, increased costs of equipment and increased costs of labour. If that is the critic for the economic policies of the NDP, then God help the NDP and those Canadians who vote for them. I have never heard such utter nonsense in this House.
80005-66%

December 17, 1976
Income Tax
Coming to specific areas of concern, instead of wasting the time of this House with hollow rhetoric, which is all we have heard from the NDP this afternoon and in statements previously on this bill by the same hon. member, a bunch of hollow phrases that do not mean anything, I wish to ask the minister a couple of questions of more pertinent concern both to me and to my constituents. I would ask the minister to excuse me if I am not in his particular ball park. I may perhaps be skirting the responsibility of the Minister of National Revenue. My question is with reference to the taxation of pensioners who have contributed to a company pension plan.
I have for particular reference an individual who worked for Cominco Limited for 26 years. He paid a considerable amount in taxation to Canada over that period. He retired early from that company and moved to his native land of Italy. This individual is in receipt of a very small pension of $130 a month, which is now being taxed away at the rate of 25 per cent by the federal government. It leaves him with a very meagre sum indeed. I am sure it is not the government's intention to put that kind of onerous tax on an individual with such a small monthly income from his pension plan.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that there is an option available here. The person in question could either elect to pay 25 per cent of his gross amount, or elect to be taxed as a Canadian, in which case he would have the full benefit of the personal exemptions that a Canadian taxpayer would have. If his pension arises in Canada, it is subject to Canadian income tax law. Because he has moved out of the country, he is given the choice as to payment one way or another.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I will then move to a couple of other points, again within the provisions of this bill as I understand it. This is with reference to the possible use of profit-sharing returns, in part in shares or in stocks, either purchased from a company or in a profit-sharing type of arrangement that workers might have with a company. At times there is the opportunity or option for them to buy shares of a company at a discount figure. Is there any opportunity or any consideration being given to the possibility of this type of funding being put into some type of RRSP? It should be borne in mind that although there are a lot of different suggestions to assist a better relationship between labour and management, one of these suggested solutions, and I do not say it is the answer, is a profit-sharing type of program between management and labour. It is one that is acceptable in at least some industries. I wonder whether there would be an opportunity, on that basis, to provide an option for them to put some of that investment into an RRSP.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If I understand the suggestion, Mr. Chairman, it is that someone who has the benefit of payments from a profit-sharing plan should be entitled to roll that into an RRSP without incurring taxation liability. The answer is, that does not exist. The profit-sharing receipts come into his income. He can then pay them into an RRSP, but of

course only up to the maximum that would be provided when this bill is passed.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Chairman, I have one final point to raise with the minister. I recognize the fact that this issue has been raised by a number of members, and I have also personally received a large amount of correspondence on the subject of annuities for people at the age of 70 or 71. I should like to refer the minister to page 2043 of Hansard where it is reported that the hon. member for Ottawa West directed a question to the minister which I think sums up pretty well the concerns of many members with reference to RRSPs. Could the minister perhaps elaborate on his answer? I recognize that he has not been able to commit himself definitely in that regard, but could he take a moment to review his answer and perhaps explain it in greater detail?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: At the moment, the sole form in which the proceeds of an RRSP can be retained for pension purposes for retirement, other than getting a full pay-off, is by the purchase of a life annuity. The representations that we and members of the House have received from the participants in the plan have included the suggestion made by my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa West, that one should be entitled to keep those funds either with the same trustee or some other trustee, or be entitled to a payment of the income on those funds from the trustee during his retirement years, perhaps with some encroachment on capital, rather than by annuity. I can only reply by saying that there is now no provision in the law for that kind of arrangement. I am prepared to undertake to make certain that this matter is considered by the retirement income committee when it is under way.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Chairman, I have one final question for the minister with reference to the provision for roll-overs. I understand that the only option is an annuity. I do not suggest for a minute that I am an expert in this field, and that is why I inquire. Why cannot a person pay taxes on his RRSP if he cashes it in, either the entire sum or in part, if he reinvests it so that it brings in a higher rate of return? I must say that I do not agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he expresses concern regarding the savings instincts of Canadians. I think it would be unwise to direct our concerns to a spending economy rather than a savings economy in the long haul. I think that all Canadians to some degree would have the proper motive. Is there anything wrong with their paying their fair share of the tax, whatever the government sees fit, but not going the route of an annuity? Let them choose their own avenue of investment, somewhat as described by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is an option that a participant in the RRSP now has. In effect, he can take the entire proceeds of the plan at the age of 70, but of course he would have to pay tax on the full amount. He would be able to average his tax under the income averaging provisions of the

bill, but there would be tax payable. At that point he is free to invest as he likes.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments on Bill C-22, to amend the Income Tax Act. There are a number of provisions in this bill about which 1 have a great deal of concern and to which I take some objection because in my opinion some of the amendments proposed only perpetuate some of the inequities in our personal income tax system which discriminate against low and middle income Canadians, to the advantage of upper income Canadians. For this reason I would like to outline, first of all in a general way, my philosophical reasons for objecting to some of these clauses, and then to get into some specifics and deal with some of the amendments before us.
In any income tax system that any government imposes, there seems to be an obligation on the part of the government to have some kind of fairness and equity in the system so that groups and different sectors will bear the burden of taxes in proportion to their ability to pay. We have in this country the personal income tax system and the corporate income tax system. What has been happening to various tax policies of the government-and the bill before us today is only the latest example-is a change in the tax burden, in who is shouldering this burden.
What has happened, for example, is that over the past couple of decades we have seen a change in the way that the corporate sector bears the tax burden and the way in which the person or individual citizen in Canada has to pay taxes. For example, in the 1951-1952 fiscal year we find that about 54 per cent of the income tax collected by the federal government came from the corporate sector, and about 46 per cent of taxes came from personal income taxes. But a couple of decades later, by 1973-74, this proportion had changed dramatically, for in that year, the latest for which statistics are available, we find that about 30 per cent of income taxes came from the corporations and about 70 per cent came from individuals.
So a great shift has taken place in the income tax system. The burden has been shifted to individuals, to the personal income tax system and away from the corporate income tax system. The point is that this shift has come away from the corporate sector to the personal income sector at the same time that corporate profitability has been increasing, and hence their ability to share the burden has been enhanced. We find, for example, in the last five-year period from 1970 to 1975 that corporations' profits have increased from $7.7 billion to $17.8 billion, or an increase of 131 per cent. But during the same period of increased corporate profitability the corporate tax rate declined from the effective rate of 29.6 per cent to 26.6 per cent.
Estimates show that because of the tax concessions, the write-offs and the loopholes, the federal treasury has been losing some $2 billion to $3 billion a year in terms of the corporate tax revenue that it could be collecting. On top of this kind of inequity there has also been another provision which has allowed corporations to postpone or defer paying income taxes, a provision which is not available to individual Canadi-
Income Tax
ans. To date we have the astounding figure-they are estimates, but based on the rate of deferral-that corporations have been able to defer or avoid paying the federal treasury some $10 billion in corporate income tax. That is a very significant sum. We do not even charge interest at the going rate on this deferral of some $10 billion. It is, in effect, a free loan; but you know very well that if I were to be late in paying my personal income tax, I would be charged interest on it.
The argument for this reduction in the corporate tax rate as well as the shift of the tax burden away from corporations to personal income taxes has always been that this will stimulate the economy and create more jobs. What a hollow and false argument that has proved to be. We find that some 700,000 Canadians are unemployed today. Obviously, the tax concession method is not working to promote a healthy economy for Canadians. The point is that we have a system of taxation which has built-in inequities with regard to the corporate and personal income tax systems which are further compounded when we analyse the trends which have been taking place within the personal income tax system itself. What I am trying to show is that the burden has been shifted away from corporation taxes to personal income taxes, and within the personal income tax system the burden is being shifted away from those in upper income brackets to those in lower and middle income brackets. RRSPs are only one example of the inequities that are taking place in our income tax system.


John R. Rodriguez: Do poor people buy RRSPs?


Reginald Cyril Symes: A number of studies have been carried out recently. One of the most recent and most significant was done by the National Council of Welfare, a government advisory body set up by an act of parliament. The study shows that because of a number of newer exemptions and deductions, some of which are in this bill today, and because of modifications being made to these deductions, taxpayers earning under $5,000 per year get an average tax saving of about $244, but taxpayers earning over $50,000 per year save about $4,000 because of registered retirement savings plans, income interest deduction plans and all the other deductions which are built into the system.
The point I am trying to make is that we are moving away from the idea of a fair income tax system based on one's ability to pay. What is fair about a tax system which permits 27 per cent of all tax savings to go to the top 5 per cent of income tax filers and only 33 per cent of tax savings to tax filers with low and middle incomes who, of course, make up the majority of taxpayers in this country? That is not a fair system, and this was pointed out in the report of the National Council of Welfare when it tried to define what would be a fair tax system and what principles should apply. The provisions of the bill before us should adopt those principles. I think it would be useful to examine the amendments before us within the context of the definition found at page 4 of the report, which is as follows:

December 17, 1976
Income Tax
Any discussion of taxation must begin with two fundamental concepts: the progressivity of the tax structure-what percentage of income is paid in taxes- and the comprehensiveness of the tax base-what is included as income in computing taxes.
This, basically, boils down to the idea that the more you earn and the more you can afford to pay in taxes, the greater is your ability to pay. Page 5 of the report-and I agree with this wholeheartedly-states:
The rationale behind the ability-to-pay principle is that government has a right-in fact, an obligation-to modify, through the tax system, the great disparities of wealth which arise from the unequal distribution of income. In other words, the tax system ought to be, and in fact is, an essential part of our system of income redistribution. It collects money from those who can pay and, through this collection, makes possible those other programs which provide a basic income to those whose own income is insufficient for their needs.
I think all Canadians agree with this principle, and it is one of the ways in which we have been operating-or supposedly operating-our tax system date. For example, this is the concept behind old age pensions. When people retire and are without the amount of income they have been used to, through our tax collection system we are able to supplement their incomes because we have been taxing people according to their ability to pay. Surely this is what the system should be all about, and surely this is what the amendments we have before us should be doing. But when we look at them in detail, we find that that is not the case. We find that although many Canadians think our income tax is regressive, the tax rates vary from province to province in terms of personal income tax rates, and in terms of the federal system, from a low of 7 per cent to a high of 63 per cent.
The point is that those figures can be very misleading and many Canadians think that this is the rate at which they are being taxed, but it is not that way because when we take into account deductions and other loopholes, we find that the progressivity, which is so important to a fair taxation system, is not there. One of the good examples of this is the interest income deduction plan. We find, in that the plan allows the first $1,000 of interest not to be taxable, the benefits of this deduction go to higher income Canadians at a much greater rate than to people on lower incomes. For example, quoting again from the report of the National Council of Welfare on page 28:
The savings of the average taxpayer were to be encouraged, it was said; but once again the greatest benefits went to the wealthy. The figures show the same pattern as with all the other tax subsidies; persons making between $5,000 and $10,000 received an average tax saving of $39.06; those making between $10,000 and $15,000 received an average of $56.39. Those earning $25,000 to $50,000, however, received an average benefit of $216.01, while taxpayers who made over $50,000 got, on average, $339.40.
In other words, we have a plan here which is supposed to save people's money, but the unfairness of it is that it benefits the wealthy who already have more income, and hence more protection against inflation and rising costs. It benefits them to a much greater extent than it benefits low and middle income Canadians. In terms of lost revenue in 1974, the last year for which statistics are available, this interest income deduction plan cost the treasury some $550 million. Surely there is a far better way to redistribute income than using that $550 million through the interest income deduction plan to give greater
[Mr. Symes.J
benefits to the wealthy. Surely we could have used that money to devise a better scheme and give greater benefits to lower and middle income people who are fighting so hard to survive the growing inflation rate.
We see this kind of example in government legislation. Tax benefits help the wealthy more than they help lower income Canadians. For example, with the registered retirement savings plan we find the same pattern emerging. The figures produced by the National Council of Welfare are very revealing. It is argued that this plan is necessary because it will give people an incentive to put money away for their retirement. No one can quarrel with that concept. Surely, however, because the people on the lower and middle income scales will face more severe problems when they retire in terms of income than upper income Canadians, the system should be revised in favour of them. This plan works exactly the opposite way; it gives benefits to the wealthy. The amendment will give larger benefits to upper income Canadians because it raises the amount they can contribute.
Let us examine some of the figures, Mr. Chairman, as given at page 23 of the report of the National Council of Welfare. For those earning under $5,000 a year the tax saving from this registered retirement savings plan is $1.02, but only 38 per cent of tax filers belong in that group. Those earning between $5,000 and $10,000 save $9.81; they represent just over 31 per cent of tax filers. The average tax saving for people earning between $10,000 and $15,000 a year is $38.43, and they represent 18 per cent of tax filers. In the group earning between $15,000 and $20,000 a year the tax saving jumps to $125.01, yet they represent only 6 per cent of tax filers. When we come to the group earning over $20,000 a year, the tax saving takes a tremendous jump to $551.88, yet this group represents only 4 per cent of tax filers. Where is the fairness in this system? Is it taxing people on ability to pay? It is not.
The personal income tax system has been so warped by the policies of this Liberal government that the more a person earns the more he can save through programs like this. I have not heard any Conservative oppose this backward step.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Mclsaac:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to address a question or two, and a few remarks, to the minister while we are debating this most important and complex bill. We have been discussing the registered retirement savings plan and the various changes in its revision. In essence, the proposal we are discussing proposes tax deferral to years of reduced earnings because the present plan and provisions are being extended in this regard. The minister has received a number of suggestions in the course of this debate and I wish to commend him for introducing changes such as the increase in limits and so on brought in through this bill.
My remarks will be directed to an area of interest to my food producing constituents. While there are a number of
December 17, 1976

provisions that have been added over the years to the Income Tax Act, such as the deferred cash payment on prairie grain delivery, that have been of assistance to farmers in averaging their income, another plan that has been of great assistance is the five-year averaging provision that has been in place for some time. I would suggest to the minister, however, that improvements are still needed to bring in better equity in income averaging for farmers. The tax laws for the most part are designed primarily for the wage earner with a fairly steady monthly cheque and fairly steady annual income which hopefully increases as the years go by. Farmers, on the other hand, have never been able to look to a uniform annual increase so I would hope that the minister would consider extending the five-year averaging period.
I do not believe that the cattle industry is treated as fairly as the grain industry under present legislation. We have all seen situations where cattle are bought in December or January purely for the purpose of beating the tax situation. I do not think a law should be set up that encourages buying cattle, or deferring buying them as it has in the past. I think there is room for a provision that would enable a cattle producer to sell off a significant number of his herd and put the money into a special averaging annuity which could be drawn as income over the next several years. I am aware that there are provisions in that respect for anyone who discontinues a farming operation, but surely there is no reason why such a scheme should not be available to anyone who wishes to continue farming but decides to get out of the cattle business, for example. Changes have been suggested by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association which has had requests along these lines from cattlemen, particularly in western Canada, during the past year. I wonder if the minister could tell the House whether his department is considering such changes to Bill C-22 and, if not, would he consider it for the future?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for his representation. Similar suggestions have been received from time to time, but the judgment has been made that the five year period is adequate. I am prepared to re-examine the question, however, to see if it might be appropriate under the circumstances he has described.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: I hope the minister will examine that, Mr. Chairman. In my view the present provisions are not adequate to make a fair income averaging generally available to food producers, particularly the cattle industry.
I should like to deal with one further aspect of the tax act not specifically before us today. I have raised the question of the capital gains tax with respect to farm consolidation. I have had a number of situations drawn to my attention during the last year or so in which a farmer who owned six quarter sections of land, say, had the opportunity to buy two quarters close to his home base of operation. In the situation I have in mind he did not want more land; he considered selling two quarters which were perhaps 20 miles from his home and buying two quarters close to home. In other words, he would
Income Tax
wind up with the same amount of land and a more closely knit farm operation. In the meantime, because he would have sold the distant land, he would have incurred capital gains tax. I realize that it may be difficult for the minister and his officials to suggest a provision which could apply fairly in that situation. However, it is a situation into which we run with increasing frequency in western Canada owing to the rise in the value of farm land since valuation day. Has the minister given this matter consideration and, if so, can he make any comment to encourage my constituents who have encountered such problems?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, there are no people in Canada whom I would like to encourage more than the hon. member's constituents. I ought to point out to him that in past considerations this has been a most difficult area. Talking in the most general terms, the statute now provides for roll over possibilities where there has been an involuntary disposition of land, for example, where there has been an expropriation and where property passes on death, under certain circumstances. Representations have been made not only with regard to farm land, but with regard to equities in businesses and other major assets; those have been representations for exemptions and up to now it has been difficult to concede on any one of those examples without conceding the principle of the legislation as a whole. I have undertaken on a number of occasions to take a fresh look at the matter, but at the moment I would hesitate to ignite any spark of encouragement for thinking that there will be immediate action at this point.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief. I apologize to the Chair for not having been present during the entire debate in committee, and the point I am about to raise may have been dealt with. I wish to make a suggestion concerning registered retirement savings plans. It seems to me that, basically, those earning reasonable incomes invest in such plans in order to escape a certain amount of taxation in the years they invest in such plans. But many complain because present programs are restrictive and do not yield as good a return as they might. Is it possible for such funds to be put aside, by the simple expedient of depositing them, for example, with a trust company? When the funds are withdrawn the owner would be issued, say, with a form not dissimilar to the T4 for regular income or the T5 for security income. It could be a form of that kind. The point is, you could use such a form in any year subsequent to the year of original investment, so that once the money is taken out, tax would be paid on it.
A man may want to retire early. Perhaps he has a terminal disease and knows he will not live long enough to benefit from the retirement funds he has put aside. Or perhaps the depositor has no terminal disease; perhaps he or she does not feel well and, at some age before retirement, decides to call it a day and pack it in. The saver who has money put aside is not eligible for old age security but may be prepared to use some of his laid aside funds and pay tax on them. His income in the years before he gets the old age security pension will be

December 17, 1976
Income Tax
relatively low. It seems to me that people like that should be able to withdraw their funds and pay taxes on them. Presumably such people would not withdraw this money when their income is high and would withdraw it only when their income is at a low point. When the money is withdrawn the trust company, bank or other institution would issue the T slip as I have suggested in the year in which the withdrawal is made, and that money would be taxable. In other words, the owner of the money would pay tax in that year, or on that part of the money he withdraws.


An hon. Member:: All or any part of it?


John Raymond Ellis: On all or part of it, yes. It seems to me that such provision would allow the depositor to negotiate interest terms with the financial institution receiving the deposit. He would have complete control of his funds and, if an emergency arises in his life, he could control his financial destiny by using all or part of these funds, and pay the taxes applicable. I have put forward a suggestion. I wonder if the minister would comment on it, or say why such a simple plan could not be worked out.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I canvassed this point on page 1626 of Hansard. It has been a recurrent theme throughout this particular discussion. In essence we are talking about a retirement plan rather than a savings plan. It is a retirement plan which would make the position of the registered retirement savings plan person analogous with that of the registered pension plan contributor.
The solution the hon. member proposed deserves to be dubbed the Ottawa West solution, after my colleague from Ottawa West who suggested that-


John R. Rodriguez: Is he still your colleague?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -instead of having to invest the money in an annuity, it should be possible to invest these funds and continue them in a trust relationship with a trust company, withdraw the income, and perhaps anticipate on some of the capital, rather than bring the program to an end. I would have to say that that is one of the matters with which the study into retirement income will be concerned. In the past we have really only tried to analogise the registered pension plan with the registered retirement savings plan. But the question naturally arises as to whether we might consider some different arrangement. I might conclude that remark by saying that the individual participating in a registered retirement savings plan has the option of taking all his money out and paying tax on it in that one year, under the income averaging provisions.


John Raymond Ellis: But not a portion of it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not on a portion of it at this point.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I have a flight to catch at four o'clock and wish to say a few words. I understand from my colleagues that we may continue this debate on Monday,

so that perhaps I can conclude my remarks in two or three more speeches next week.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We will be happy to extend the time.


An hon. Member:: But not the aircraft.


John R. Rodriguez: There lies the difficulty, Mr. Chairman. I do not have available the aircraft privileges extended to the Minister of Transport.
I am interested in what the hon. member for Kootenay West said. He described the difficulties of a man in his community who had worked 20 years for Cominco and retired on a pension of $125 a month. He finds the 25 per cent tax he must pay the Canadian government difficult to bear. It seems to me that the problem is not so much that he must pay 25 per cent as that he collects only $125 a month after working for that mining company for 20 years. It seems to me that is a fairly good argument for indexing pensions, and it is an indictment of that company's private pension plan, since it will not support this man when he most needs support, in his retirement years. Hon. members who recite such stories always look at them from the private sector point of view, which does not work at all.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What does work?


John R. Rodriguez: What works? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre outlined an excellent program for pensions in this country. If the minister and the official opposition would listen to him, the people of this country would be well-served by such a plan.
A reading of clause 1 makes it evident that at a time when the regressive nature of the tax system has never been so well-documented, a further retrograde step is being taken. It is incredible that the government should choose to introduce a bill which goes further toward entrenching inequality in the national tax system. It is ironical that a government which claims to be in favour of the principle of progressivity should introduce a clause such as this. These are times when I wish there was television in the Chamber so as to show that when an important bill such as this one is under consideration, most of the Tories have gone off for the weekend-


Some hon. Members:: Where is your party?


John R. Rodriguez: -or else they are hiding on the back benches and writing their Christmas cards, while poor people have to exist on a pittance.


Mr. Paproski:: Merry Christmas, Rodriguez!


An hon. Member:: What are you doing with your $1,500 raise?


Mr. Deputy  Chairman@: Order. I think we should listen to the hon. member for Nickel Belt.


John R. Rodriguez: I can understand the sensitivity shown by some members. If I were doing these things myself, I would be upset. At least they woke up in a hurry.
The principal of progressivity implies that the proportion of income which an individual pays in taxes should increase as a person's income increases. When the government accepted the ability-to-pay principal, it theoretically committed itself to doing something about the great disparities of wealth which arise from the unequal distribution of income. Supposedly it was going to collect taxes from those who can pay and then use that money to provide programs which increase the income of those who cannot make ends meet.
If the Liberal government were even the least bit committed to a principal which the majority of Canadians believed in, one would have expected to see the gap between the poor and the wealthy narrowed. But given the government's record of doing exactly what it promised it would not do, it is not surprising to learn that income disparities have actually increased in the last few years. According to Statistics Canada, the lowest quintile of the Canadian population actually received a lower share of total income during 1975 compared with a year earlier. When the 3.9 percent recorded for this sector of the Canadian population is compared to the 4.4 percent obtained by this group in 1965, it becomes possible to see how "progressive" the Trudeau administration really is. As the Globe and Mail stated on October 21, 1976:
The figures suggest that despite government efforts to redistribute income with family allowances and other transfers to individuals, low-income groups are still receiving a lower share of total income than during the mid 1960's before many social welfare policies were improved.
The poorest 20 per cent of the Canadian population is not only becoming poorer, but is also bearing the greatest tax burden. The tax system as a whole does nothing to contribute to the goal of income redistribution. As Allan Maslove states in a report for the Economic Council of Canada,
Indeed, over the lower portion of the income scale, the system tends to contradict the ability-to-pay principle by taxing the poor at a higher rate than those who are better off.
In this report entitled "The Pattern of Taxation in Canada," Maslove shows that the over-all effective tax pattern is highly regressive to a broad income level of $5,000-56,000.
I hope the minister will comment on all this, because I want to know how it is that despite all the tinkering with the tax system in the past few years we have not narrowed the gap between the rich and the poor in this country. I want the minister to explain this to me, because the people in my riding who live in inadequate housing and receive inadequate incomes want to know the answer. I hope he will be able to explain, so that I can send out copies of Hansard and let them see the answer.
I hear another interruption from over there. The hon. member should be concerned about it, too, because the part of the country he comes from, northern New Brunswick, is not exactly the lap of luxury.
Given that 46 per cent of all family incomes are included in the under $6,000 income class, according to 1969 statistics, the
Income Tax
regressive tax structure affects a very large proportion of the population. He also points out that 8.3 per cent of family units which received $15,000 income in 1969 paid at a rate of 8.4 per cent less than those earning under $2,000. Furthermore, the highest income group paid a lower proportion than did the average. The extreme regressive nature of the tax system at the low end of the income scale and the lack of progressivity over the remainder is the overriding conclusion to emerge from Maslove's study.
On top of all this, it is clear that the wealthy are not paying higher taxation rates through the corporate sector. In fact the corporate contribution to the total tax revenue has been rapidly declining in recent years. As R. Deaton writes in "The Fiscal Crisis of the state":
Between 1962 and 1970, the corporate share of all federal income revenue fell by roughly 38 per cent while the additional share of federal income tax revenue increased by over 23 per cent. With respect to all provincial income tax revenue between 1962 and 1970, the corporate share fell by over 60 per cent while the individual share increased by roughly 83 per cent.
In full knowledge of these facts, what is the government proposing to do? It hands us a piece of legislation which does not contain a single clause which will make the tax system even slightly progressive. In actual fact it is attempting to implement measures which are of benefit only to middle and high income earners. The government is purposely deviating from the principal of progressivity by providing tax deferrals and loopholes.
While the present system of tax brackets and the corresponding marginal tax rates have the appearance of being progressive, in actual fact the progressivity of the tax system is a myth. All those provisions in the Income Tax Act for reducing taxable income are only of real benefit to the affluent. The government is actually subsidizing the rich instead of using that money to provide programs for the poor. As "The Hidden Welfare System" points out, "these tax subsidies provide the greatest benefits to the well-to-do but are of no benefit to those outside the tax system because their incomes are too low." This amounts to institutionalized inequity, or as we on this side of the House call it, socialism for the rich.
Clause 1 of Bill C-22 is one more step in the direction of entrenching inequity in the Canadian tax system. This clause illustrates the problem about which I have been talking. Clause 1 limits for RRSP contributors have been raised from $4,000 to $5,500 for those who do not have a pension plan, and from $2,500 to $3,500 for those who do have a plan. This cannot be supported for several reasons. First, the poor, those with incomes below the tax payment threshold, receive no benefit from the program in terms of a tax saving. They cannot save $1,000 let alone $3,500 to participate in this program. These band-aid retirement programs provide no old age security for the poor.
Secondly, the wealthier the person, the greater the benefit. As the National Council of Welfare found in 1974, persons earning over $20,000 received four times the benefit of persons

December 17, 1976
Income Tax
earning between $15,000 and $20,000 and 14 times the average benefit of persons earning between $10,000 and $15,000.
Finally, in 1974 the RRSP program cost Canadians $513 million. This money could have been used to develop programs for those in need of assistance rather than to provide tax shelters for the rich who are the friends of the government and the Tories in this House. They do not need any extra retirement benefits. Do not tell me that L. Edward Grubb, former president of INCO, on top of his $150,000 a year pension needs an RRSP. He needs it like I need a hole in the head.
This sort of proposal by the government is a prime example of the kind of fat cats it looks after. It looks after its own friends, Mr. Chairman. It does not look after the poor of New Brunswick or northern Ontario.


An hon. Member:: What about Toronto?


John R. Rodriguez: It does not look after the poor of Toronto either. That, in a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, is the philosophy of this government: the rich get richer under this program and the poor get poorer. You cannot argue with the facts.


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


Charles Robert Turner: Would the hon. member for Nickel Belt accept a question?


John R. Rodriguez: Certainly. I recognize that any answers I may give may help the poor in New Brunswick so I will let my hon. friend ask his question.


Herb Breau: It would help the people of New Brunswick, whether they are fortunate or not, to have the hon. member admit this. Is he aware that it was the Liberal government in the 1960's that introduced to this country a national program of medicare; and does he believe that it was the fortunate in society who benefited most from that program?


John R. Rodriguez: I am glad the hon. member raises that question. It is obvious he does not remember his history, and a man who does not remember his history is lost. It is obvious who introduced and endorsed medicare in this country.


Herb Breau: Who introduced it?


John R. Rodriguez: This is another example, Mr. Chairman, of a party that has principles, a party that has a social program. We dragged this Liberal party kicking and screaming into the twentieth century.


John Allen Fraser: Who was it that kept the Liberal party in power? Why did you support them in 1963?


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. I think it would be only fair, as I said a while ago, to hear the hon. member for Nickel Belt.


John R. Rodriguez: In further answer to the hon. member's question, he knows full well that it was a CCF government that put medicare into Saskatchewan. When Thatcher of the

Liberals took power in Saskatchewan he started dismantling the program and placed a fee on users of the service. The Liberals were kicked out and have never returned since, and good riddance to them.
Those are my remarks regarding this part of the discussion on clause 1, but I will return, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues have assured me that I can return next week, and we will still be here later next week.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Chairman, one can have a lot of fun with statistics and I do not think anyone has more fun with them than the hon. member who has just spoken. But the one positive statement that he made which is totally false and which, among many others, I would challenge him on was his assertion that in this country over the recent period the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer.
I do not want to address myself to the gap issue, the question whether the gap between the rich and the poor is broader or narrower, because that is less important. What is important is the fact-he is not in a position to deny it because it is true-that the poor in this country have been getting progressively better off. Perhaps the gap is not closing fast enough, but that is another question.
One of the things that I and other members of this party are proudest of is that the poor in this country have been progressively getting better off. In 1968, according to the Economic Council of Canada, 18 per cent of the people of this country were living in a condition that the Council described as poverty. In 1976 that figure had been brought down to 11 per cent. That is still too many people in Canada living in poverty; but for him to tell the House that the poor have gotten poorer is totally false. I hope he is man enough to stand up in his place and acknowledge that what he said is not true, that in fact there has been steady progress made in Canada, though perhaps not as much progress as he or some of us would like. Nevertheless, it is false to say that the poor in this country have been getting poorer.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully-


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for Nickel Belt but I would appreciate it if hon. members would confine their remarks to the bill before the committee.


John R. Rodriguez: Then I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think that since I was accused of making false statements and I was challenged on them, I should respond to that. I am glad the hon. member mentioned this, and I am glad that what he said is on the record. I want him to tell me whether there are five million Canadians living in poverty. Are not things relative? The cost of living is an indication that these people have not moved ahead in terms of the buying power of their dollar. I would like him to stand up and tell me why the five million poor of this country have not had their conditions improved; why on Indian reserves we have 90 per cent unemployment. Let him not tell me that the Indians do not count,
December 17, 1976

because they sure do. They are Canadian citizens, Mister. Indians living on Manitoulin Island-


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Nickel Belt recognizes that he is not raising a point of order but merely a point of debate.


Mr. Milne:: Mr. Chairman, I will take but a couple of minutes of the time available to us to raise an issue that is somewhat associated with the comments made by my colleague and good friend from North Battleford. It comes under the provisions of the Income Tax Act as it affects the capital gains tax on farm land.
There has been representation made over the years to the effect that there is an inequity between farms that are not incorporated being allowed to be transferred within the farm family for farm purposes and, in so doing, escape capital gains tax. That provision is not extended to farms that are incorporated. Perhaps in the past there was good reason because, generally speaking, incorporated farms have another business associated with them. It might be an egg grading station, trucking company, cattle sales barn operation, and so on.
I do not want to ask a question but just put forward the suggestion that in the review of income tax, as given by the minister to the hon. member for North Battleford, he will also consider the possibility of exempting from capital gains tax that portion of the incorporated farm that is land only. This would seem to make it fair for the non-incorporated farm and meet one of the objectives that we all have, that this country be as self-sufficient in food as possible.
If that is not done, one of the risks we run is on the larger farms, the ones that tend to be incorporated, the management team and often the basic herd are broken up for tax reasons. Not only do we lose the land from productivity, but also the management, and the people engaged in agriculture go into some other vocation.
I simply wanted to take that minute to raise my concern that we also look at rolling over only the land portion of incorporated farms as we do for non-incorporated farms, but certainly not any associated business. In that way we protect against the request by all small businesses that they have the same provision.


Mr. Leggatt:: Mr. Chairman, it is always interesting to sit in this House when the hon. member for Nickel Belt is speaking. It is also interesting to note the kind of reaction he seems to inspire. If he were making an argument that was not worth listening to, and if his facts were inaccurate, I would expect the kind of dull silence we usually have in this place on a Friday afternoon.
It was interesting this afternoon to watch the reaction from both government members and the official opposition. Why do they get so upset at the poor old hon. member from Nickel Belt? He is just a poor little guy from the back woods who comes here to say a few things, but everyone gets upset. I
Income Tax
suspect that he touches a nerve when he comes into this place. There may be a conscience starting to rise.


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. I thought the hon. member for New Westminster was rising to discuss the bill before us. If that is the case, he may continue.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member will permit a question.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Of course, on any subject you like.


Stanley Ronald Basford: If the argument of the hon. member for New Westminster is so cogent, Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to know why his colleague from Nickel Belt did not stay in the House to listen to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Nickel Belt had a very important engagement with the poor people of his riding in Nickel Belt.


Ralph Goodale: You are laughing, Stu.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: He does not have "Air-Otto" to get him there. He has to travel by regular aircraft. That means leaving here at least half an hour before his plane goes. He has every right to leave this place on a Friday afternoon. I am delighted he was able to stay here long enough to get members opposite so excited. It is nice to see some of the oldtimers in the House actually open their eyes for a change.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Stanley has his eyes open.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He said oldtimers.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The hon. member for Nickel Belt was well briefed. I expect he will be back on Monday to complete his remarks.
In accordance with your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I will get back to Bill C-22, Clause 1. It deals with the iniquitous problem of rewarding high income earners with more tax shelters than there are RRSPs.
There is a myth abroad that things like RRSPs have not affected the redistribution of wealth. We have quoted a number of statistics which amply demonstrate that this is a regressive measure. What is happening with RRSPs is that you are distributing income in reverse. That is why we have taken a firm stand in terms of eliminating these kinds of tax shelters and why we favour the Carter commission approach to taxation.
Along with that kind of myth is the idea that somehow, because of the so-called progressive tax system we have, corporate wealth is being redistributed through the corporate tax structure. I want to deal with that for a minute because it is related to Clause 1.


An hon. Member:: David Lewis did it.

Income Tax


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A lot of people did it. They are no less accurate and they are no less correct.
It took the Royal Bank of Canada 100 years, from 1870 to 1970, to accumulate $11.4 billion in assets. In five years under this government, represented by the Minister of Finance, the Royal Bank went from $11.4 billion to $25.2 billion. That is an increase of $13.8 billion, far more than they accumulated in the entire previous century. The idea that somehow this government, or a government formed by the official opposition, is too hard on business is absolute nonsense. There has never been a more friendly government to large business in Canada.


An hon. Member:: There is nothing wrong with that.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I can understand someone saying there is nothing wrong with that, because we stand in this House with a different philosophy. That is why there is a failure to perceive the basic thrust of the argument we are making about income tax. It is exactly the argument that my good friend, the parliamentary secretary, made. He said we should not forget that the poor are not getting poorer, the poor are probably getting slightly richer.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I did not say probably, I said they are.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I accept that. I think it is correct, but it does not deal with the disparity, and that is what you must deal with in a society that is falling apart at the seams. Crime rates are rising. These are relative facts. The relativity is that one person may be going to Hawaii or the Barbados where he will have a great time, while the other person is struggling away at home. He sees that the sweet life is available to everybody but him. That fellow is a great candidate for being a bankrupt. That is why I suggest members opposite fail to perceive that the thrust of income redistribution is where the basic difference lies between the parties of this House. It is income fairness, a redistribution in terms of society, that holds a society together. I will take you to any modern, western industrial society where income disparity is not as high, and I will show you a lower crime rate.


An hon. Member:: A country like Sweden.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: You betcha!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: And like Great Britain.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Yes, like Great Britain. I do not mind Great Britain at all. It is a nice place to live in, and I don't know why the hon. member for York-Simcoe is against Great Britain; it is a lovely place. These Milton Friedman economists cannot get it into their heads that there is something in civilization besides the almighty buck.
Let me get back to what I think is the interesting answer given by the parliamentary secretary that he did not care so long as the poor got relatively less poor, or at least that their incomes came up. He misses the entire point about the subject that is now under discussion in this committee. There is no
fairness in this tax system under which we live. I will give you another example, that of the little fellow who runs a gas station, the small businessman.
The amount of tax that the government collects from small business operators of gas stations is far higher than the tax collected from the corporate giants that lease those stations. Is that fairness? This guy is being driven to the wall with self-service stations, he is being driven out of business, and he also has to pay more than his fair share of the tax. That is why, unless you perceive the argument which is to redistribute income and to have a genuinely progressive tax system, there is no point in us shouting back and forth at each other because we are on two tracks, one going right by the other.
Hon. members are making an assumption in their arguments with the hon. member for Nickel Belt that they can abandon the whole concept of income redistribution. If they would all just admit that they are against income redistribution and that they wish the rich to get richer and to see disparities in income grow, we would not need to debate the subject any further. That is the only answer we can perceive from the answers they give.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What is wrong with both the poor and the rich getting richer?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: There is nothing wrong with it, but we should reduce disparities in incomes.
I should like to go back to the bill and I want to ask the minister or his parliamentary secretary to respond to another question which is typical of what I see as an elitist approach to the tax system. A wage earner who has his tax deducted at the source does not have any advantage, through interest or otherwise, because of the moneys that are deducted in advance in anticipation of what his tax burden will be in any particular year. A professional or a corporation can file his or its income tax on a quarterly basis. Why is there that distinction? I am asking this question seriously and I hope the minister or his parliamentary secretary will put his mind to it.
Why is it that, for example, the government allows use of those funds for at least a quarter in the case of the corporation or professionals, whereas a wage earner has to have it deducted on a monthly basis? Why is there discrimination between wage earners and professionals? It is clearly to the advantage of corporations and professionals to do it that way, and clearly to the disadvantage of those who work with their hands to do it the other way. If I am wrong, I will be happy to be corrected. It is typical of the whole philosophy behind the government's approach to income tax. As a lawyer I can pay quarterly. In fact I can pay at the end of the year, if I want, and then there is a slight penalty involved.
The official opposition look at it in exactly the same way as does the government. It is largely as a result of the poor not having the kind of political clout and political power that resources give one in the kind of society we have. I hope I can have an explanation of that kind of discrimination, but I must say that it is somewhat typical of the approach to taxation
(Mr. Leggatt.]
December 17, 1976

which this government takes. The RRSP, as we were arguing, is clearly a discriminatory provision.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Can you keep this up for another three minutes?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I doubt it.
I want to deal with something else in clause 1, which is the discriminatory feature of RRSPs in terms of the tax shelter given the rich. What has been needed for a long time is the direction that Carter, a very conservative accountant, recommended a long time ago, that is, to tax money as it flows, to tax money as it is available. I have never been one who believes in universality, and I will disagree with many members of my party on that question. I think that is wrong.


Mr. Peters:: Why?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Because R. J. MacMillan should not get a guaranteed old age pension. He is in a position to provide his own. Income tax does not take it all up, and that is the argument that we have been making. The income tax system is not progressive enough to take it all back.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, this is becoming a caucus meeting.


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. It being 4 p.m. it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to consider the bill again at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I advance the possibility of proceeding with this bill in committee now in view of the fact that it is four o'clock, and of not proceeding with private members' business in the hope that we might be able to dispose of this bill before the end of the day?
Some bon. Members: Oh, no!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be on the record that this bill contains 87 clauses. If the Postmaster General thinks that we will be irresponsible enough to deal with them all in the next few minutes, he is more irresponsible than I thought he was. The answer is no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being 4 p.m., the House will now proceed with the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions.
Handicapped Citizens


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Notice of motion No. 4 in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion stands at the request of the government.
Notice of motion No. 5 in the name of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris) moved: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee of Members of the House of Commons and the Senate to investigate and report on the needs of Canada's physically and mentally handicapped citizens: in order to provide a basis of information, necessary in avoiding the current costly duplication and overlapping of services, and essential in planning legislation for a comprehensive programme of services at the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government to support and supplement the excellent work of voluntary organizations; all with a view to making it possible for the handicapped to live a creative, fruitful and independent life in the family and community, thereby placing Canada in a position of leadership in preparation for the World Congress of Rehabilitation International to be held in Winnipeg during June 1980, an event which marks the end of the United Nations Decade of Rehabilitation.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While I would be delighted to second the motion of my hon. colleague, I think some arrangement has been made whereby the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) should second this motion so that the unanimity of the House can be noted. Accordingly, I stand down in favour of the hon. member for York South.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that we register for the record that the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) seconds the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, first I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) for agreeing to second this motion. Similar motions have been debated on two previous occasions, once back in 1973 and again in 1975. On both occasions there was unanimity in all the speeches which were made. As I look around the House today I can see that the hon. members who strongly support action of this kind are still with us, so I trust we shall have unanimity.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Rodriguez is not here.

December 17, 1976
Handicapped Citizens


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: But Stanley is still here.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think we are fortunate that this is being debated on the eve of Christmas because even the Scrooges are mellow at this time of the year, and of course the cynics disappear, momentarily at least, into the woodwork.
I do not intend to take very long. I trust that we will get to the point of accepting this motion. I have taken the trouble to have discussions with the powers that be with respect to the motion. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and his parliamentary secretary have pointed out that in the New Year we will be debating the new social security legislation, and that in this regard there will be a committee hearing at second reading. Perhaps that will be the proper vehicle by which to carry out the purposes outlined in my motion.
I have also discussed the matter with the government House leader, and perhaps I should read the response I received from him so that I can be specific. I quote:
As you know, the Government will be introducing legislation during this session on the subject of social services, including rehabilitation of the disabled. This bill, after second reading, will be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs where witnesses may be called and every facet of the bill considered. I do not think that anyone would object to the kind of work to which you refer being done at that time, perhaps by a sub-committee.
In view of these discussions I have decided to move an amendment to the motion as it was originally proposed, and I seek the unanimous consent of the House to present this amendment at this time. I move that the following words be added to the motion:
or in the event that it is not feasible to set up a Joint Committee, the same task should be carried out by the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, preferably by a sub-committee of the main Committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to move his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In the first debate back in 1973-and I trust hon. members have had an opportunity to consult Hansard- the intention was to set out goals for rehabilitation. I summarized at that time what these goals were in the words of a member of the British House of Commons, Alfred Morris, who has since become the Minister for Rehabilitation in the present British government. I quote Mr. Morris again as follows:
We seek a society where there is genuine respect for the handicapped; where understanding is unostentatious and sincere; where if years cannot be added to the lives of the very sick, at least life can be added to their years; where needs come before means; where the mobility of disabled people is restricted only by the bounds of technical progress and discovery; where the handicapped have a fundamental right to participate in industry and in society according to their abilities; where socially preventable distress is unknown; and where no man or woman has cause to feel ill at ease because of disability.
That is much more than the bed and pension approach which prevailed far too long in dealing with handicapped Canadians.
One of the great leaders in the rehabilitation field in Canada was the late Keith Armstrong who, as founder of the Canadian

Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled, provided, I think, the greatest leadership of all who have been engaged in this field. Dr. Armstrong passed away last June 25, just as we were moving into new dimensions in the rehabilitation movement, but he has left a great heritage. During his career Dr. Armstrong stressed co-ordination, and pointed out time after time that while Canada was rich in facilities for dealing with rehabilitation, while there was a multiplicity of voluntary agencies-no less than 48 voluntary agencies, as far as we can discover-and while there were all sorts of highly skilled individuals working in this field, there was a great need for co-ordination and co-operation if we were really going to get the rehabilitation movement going as we desire, and as this motion today suggests we should.
I am sure Your Honour will agree with me that there are exceptional skills in the rehabilitation field. My interest in rehabilitation is much more than the interest of a member of parliament; it is because of a personal involvement originally and because of personal problems in the family. More recently it is because I myself have been the beneficiary of the skills of rehabilitation medicine. It was just a year ago that Your Honour and myself were under the care of one of the world's most skilled surgeons in the field of cardiac rehabilitation, Dr. Wilbur Keon.lt is significant, Mr. Speaker, that this is the same gentleman who was the key person involved in the more tragic circumstances surrounding the former Leader of the Social Credit Party, whom we remembered in this House today.
By 1975 it was remarkable how much progress had been made. After just two years there had been much improvement and development, and I reported this in a statement I made at that time. One of the major areas of activity was the technical aids committee set up by the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled. I had become increasingly involved and I had the privilege of being appointed chairman of that committee. Its essential work was to make available as quickly as possible sophisticated electronic equipment for the severely disabled and chronically ill. This would also spill over to the geriatric population.
In 1974 a seminar was held in Vancouver by the Kinsmen Rehabilitation Foundation. This was a major breakthrough on the North American continent because it provided a format for making the equipment available, an action that is urgently needed to get the handicapped population out of expensive human warehouses and institutions and back into the bosom of the family and into the community. The report of the seminar, an excellent publication, was made available to the government. This is still the only basic document we have that provides information on activity in this field.
Other workshops have been taking place. As recently as last August professionals working in the field were brought together at the Crippled Children's Treatment Centre here in Ottawa for an educational and informational seminar. Similar seminars will be held in Edmonton and the maritimes next
December 17, 1976

year. As a result of the leadership provided by the Canadian voluntary groups in this field, an international seminar will be held in Seattle next June.
Out of all this priorities have emerged. It is now recognized that there is an urgent need for an educational information centre in Canada where all the professionals working in the field of rehabilitation can find information on how to best carry out their responsibilities. Dr. David Symington of Queen's University is chairman of that subcommittee on educational information; Miss Margret Perry of the Kinsmen Rehabilitation Foundation is chairman of the subcommittee on distribution of the systems. She is not only Canada's leading authority but has an international reputation as well. The subcommittee on engineering and development is chaired by Nelson Durie of the National Research Council; that committee is compiling information on equipment available, as well as carrying out development and engineering. The subcommittee on evaluation and standards is the responsibility of Professor Robert Scott of the University of New Brunswick.
Canada needs a national information centre not only for public education but also as a resource centre for professionals. It will eventually be necessary to have a similar centre in each of the provinces as well. The education of professionals in regard to rehabilitation skills is being pioneered at Queen's University under the direction of Dr. David Symington. He has an excellent program there which will become the prototype for similar educational and training programs in universities across the country, in addition to community colleges and other centres of education.
The big problem is funding and working on the basis of ad hoc funding. There is a great need for advisory councils. The province of Ontario is providing leadership in this and has an advisory council made up mostly of handicapped persons. Perhaps, too, one day we will have a minister of state for rehabilitation as they have in the United Kingdom.
Many developments are contemplated for the future. Recently a seminar was held in Toronto on the employability of the handicapped, which was sponsored by the federal and provincial governments and private groups. It was found that rather than being a liability to places of employment, handicapped persons were an asset. Speaker after speaker from industry pointed out that because of attitude and aptitude and to the job devotion the handicapped person was often a more profitable employee. It is expected that the result of the seminar will be a great leap forward in employment of the handicapped. The Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) spoke a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker. He is not here at the moment, but he will be interested to know that the Post Office is opening up employment to handicapped persons who are adept on the coding machines which are necessary in the automated postal service.
A seminar was held in Edmonton last see week on housing, transportation and support services for the handicapped. The report of that seminar will be available to the general public, and of course will be directed to government at all levels. It should be pointed out that most of the funding for these
Handicapped Citizens
seminars and workshops is made available by the federal and provincial governments.
Another development that is encouraging is the cross-fertilization of many agencies in the field of rehabilitation. Many members of this House attended the legislative breakfast held on October 13 by the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded where the president, Margot Scott, did an excellent job of presenting the needs of the association. CRCD is also getting into an area of concern and international responsibility through co-operation with ICTA, the International Commission on Technical Aids, Housing and Transportation. We are working and co-ordinating with the Prosthetic and Orthotics Association and the Biomedical Engineering Society to avoid duplication.
A CRCD delegation, which included the former parliamentary secretary to the minister of national health and welfare, was in Tel Aviv last June to make an appeal to hold the next international congress on rehabilitation in Canada in 1980. We were successful, and Winnipeg will be the host city in June, 1980. At that great gathering experts from all over the world will meet for a whole week in an effort to solve the problems of the handicapped. It will also be the end of the decade of rehabilitation. That, of course, will be the basis for international attention and celebration, and Canada will be the focus.
In the background of all this activity has been the Department of National Health and Welfare. The message has come through loud and clear from the minister, because on May 13, in response to some of the representations from the groups I have mentioned, particularly the handicapped themselves, he said:
In every area the message was clear:-
He was referring to the handicapped people. I continue quoting:
-They 'wanted in': into employment, into community living, into maximum participation in community life, into the planning of systems and services designed to help them. At the same time they 'wanted out': out of institutions, out of dead-end sheltered workshops, out of welfare, out of being pitied, out of being thrust onto the sidelines with a pension and a shrug.
That shows that the minister is in tune with what is going on in the country. I trust-and I am coming to the end of my remarks as I wish to allow time for other contributions this afternoon-that we will be able to agree that one of the best ways of bringing this all together, of bringing this about, is through a committee which could deal in depth and broad dimension with all the activities taking place, a committee whose work would place Canada in the forefront of the rehabilitation movement in time for the activities of 1980. It would also be a good Christmas present for the handicapped. I suggest, too modestly, that after 25 years' service in the House of Commons this year, it would be one of the best rewards a member of parliament could be given.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) for introducing the motion we are

December 17, 1976
Handicapped Citizens
considering, and also to say how pleased I am that it has been seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appol-loni). I hope this means that the chances for the motion's adoption are good. It has been my pleasure on two or three previous occasions to support, on behalf of my party, motions similar to the one before us today, and I take particular pleasure in supporting it now as we look forward to the World Congress of Rehabilitation International which is to be held in my city of Winnipeg in 1980.
One of the ways to measure a society is to see what it does for the less fortunate. The more we do for the disabled and the more we give them the chance to live normal, natural lives, the better is our society. I think it is an excellent idea that there should be established a special committee, or a reference to a standing committee which will make the necessary studies, so that we will be in a position to be the best possible hosts to the world congress which will be held in 1980. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this motion.


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate from the bottom of my heart the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) for bringing forward this motion, and for his courtesy and generosity in allowing me to second it. His genuine concern for the handicapped transcends partisan politics, which are usually petty. He has shown genuine concern for our fellow human beings, fellow-Canadians, particularly those who are weaker than others. I commend him on his concern.
I do not want the motion to be talked out and will do my share by keeping my comments brief. I should like to point out some facts which perhaps the hon. member did not have time to point out. May I refer to the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons which was co-sponsored in the United States by Canada? Incidentally, this declaration of rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1975, little more than a year ago. I should like to quote two paragraphs, because they illustrate that about which I am concerned. Paragraph 7 reads:
Disabled persons have the right to economic and social security and to a decent level of living. They have the right, according to their capabilities, to secure and retain employment or to engage in a useful, productive and remunerative occupation and to join trade unions.
That paragraph highlights an omission or gap in service which became noticeable in the seminar to which the hon. member referred, a seminar on the employability of the handicapped help in Toronto. There the message was clear. The handicapped said, "We do not want handouts; we want work and we are capable of working." The question is, how are we to get them to their place of employment? What means of transportation are we to use? It is easy to say that, yes, we shall give them a job. How are they to get to that job? Remember, these people to a large extent pay the same taxes which you and I pay, particularly for public transport. But what is public transport, expecially in Toronto, doing to help the handicapped? The answer is, unfortunately, very little.
Some other Canadian cities are giving the handicapped better service than Toronto is giving. For instance, recently

when I was in Halifax I noticed a special bus which is especially equipped for the handicapped. It was provided by the generosity of one human being, not by that of any government. I suggest that we should look into this kind of thing. The gap in services is enormous.
My second point concerns paragraph 12 of the Declaration, which reads:
Organizations of disabled persons may be usefully consulted in all matters regarding the rights of disabled persons.
I would not have drafted that paragraph in that way, for to say the least it is patronizing. I would have rephrased it and said, "Organizations of disabled persons should be usefully consulted in all matters." That is the crux of the matter and explains my slight hesitation with respect to this motion, excellent though it is.
The point is, we must find out the real needs of the handicapped. They do not want our pity; they do not deserve it. But they do deserve our help. We must know how best to help them, and who will decide that. Will it be a group of bureaucrats who know nothing of the handicapped and feel that, while looking down on them, they are under the moral obligation of feeling affection for them as they would for Tiny Tim? No, we have gone beyond that, surely. The handicapped themselves must tell us what they need. We must have the guts to follow their recommendations, and not impose on them our ideas. That is one of my reservations.
Although reference to a committee has been recommended, I think it would be an excellent idea to establish a subcommittee, since in all probability its members would at least know about the problems of the handicapped. They would be receptive to ideas concerning the handicapped. I hope that such subcommittee, or special committee, would invite as many of the disabled as possible to come before it to testify; in that way we could learn from the handicapped. We cannot presume to know the answers. We should be humble enough to ask them what to do.
I return to the question of the employability of the handicapped. Not long ago I placed a question on the Order Paper asking how many people officially designated as handicapped were employed by the federal government. If one excludes the Department of National Revenue, the numbers were not impressive. I am not proud of them. I am certainly not proud of the record of all federal departments. We must consider this question carefully. Are we not wasting time and merely paying lip service to ends we want to accomplish?
One year ago, when speaking on a similar motion proposed by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, I strongly recommended that a ramp should be built so that Canadians in wheelchairs would have the opportunity to listen to debates in the House of Commons. Although they have the same privileges as other Canadians, they do not have facilities for coming into the galleries of this House. I raised the point one year ago. Where is the ramp?
I raise another point. Are federal buildings, particularly Canada Manpower Centres, readily accessible to the hand-
December 17, 1976

icapped? Not on your life! 1 raised another question one week ago and was told, with a little patronizing pat on the back, that a five-year study is under way to ascertain how many Canada Manpower Centres are accessible to the handicapped. A five-year study! In the meantime, what happens to people who are in wheelchairs and who really want a job? How are they to get to the officials of Canada Manpower? Are they to telephone? With due respect to Ma Bell, it takes a lot more than a telephone conversation to get a job nowadays. There is an appearance of good will, but in real terms what we find is a shrug and total apathy.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) with respect to the appointment of a joint committee of the House and Senate, or of a sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, to study the needs of the handicapped and the services available to them.
Before I begin my comments I should like to express the regard and admiration I feel for the hon. member for Brandon-Souris who, over the years, has worked so indefatigably for an important group in our society, the handicapped. Last year when the hon. member presented a similar motion, the occasion was marked by the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of most of the members of the committee on technical aids for the handicapped, some of whom had to be carried up the stairs to the gallery because they were in wheelchairs. The reason they were available to attend was that they had just come from a meeting of their committee, a standing committee of the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled of which the hon. member for Brandon-Souris is the chairman. I understand he was in Tel-Aviv this past summer, along with the former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the hon. member for York-Centre (Mr. Kaplan). During that visit he helped to ensure that in 1980 the World Congress of Rehabilitation International will be held in Canada; to be exact, in Winnipeg, a city which I understand is quite close to Brandon, part of the constituency represented by the hon. member who has presented this motion today.
The three efforts I have just mentioned are only the three most recent ones; there have been many others over the years. In this instance, because of the hon. member's contribution to the cause of the handicapped, I feel I can break with tradition and pay compliments to someone on the other side of the Chamber. And since I am throwing bouquets this evening I should like to express the view that the hon. member's motion is intrinsically a valid one, just as last year's motion was intrinsically valid. Had I seen this motion three or four years ago, I think it is quite likely I would have gladly supported it.
Last year the hon. member's motion proposed that a number of services be made available to handicapped persons. At that time the government was able to state that a great many of the needs identified in the motion would be met through the provisions of a shared-cost agreement with the provinces, an
Handicapped Citizens
agreement which would help the handicapped in two important ways. First, it would offer cost-sharing to the provinces with respect to more comprehensive rehabilitation services affecting a broader group of persons, including children and the aged. Second, it would offer the provinces cost-sharing, or improved cost-sharing arrangements which would permit the handicapped, the aged also, to remain in their own communities rather than move into institutions. I believe we have convinced the hon. member, because this year he has not repeated this particular part of his motion. I feel sure, from the feedback I am getting, that many groups in Canada today have recognized the proposed legislation as a step in this direction. More recently, at the annual meeting and conference of the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded, support for the legislation was evident.
I would at this point beg the indulgence of the House while I quote from remarks made by the president of the association in response to an address by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde):
The proposed federal Social Services Act has much to commend it to the Canadian public. Most noteworthy is the intent of the legislation to preserve the dignity of all persons in need of social services and to assure the provision of such services in a way which would preserve traditional family and community living patterns. This approach of delivering services is most encouraging to the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded.
I think all members will agree that the government has come a long way in three years toward meeting the needs of handicapped citizens. I am speaking specifically now about the proposed cost-sharing legislation in the area of social services which I understand will be receiving first reading in the House in the new year. I, for one, look forward to taking part in the debate concerning this legislation.
As most members are aware, the legislation is a positive result of the social security review which has been going on with the provinces for some three years. All Canadians, including the handicapped, were invited to join in the review, and many of them did. Moreover, the government actively sought the views of a number of organizations which speak for the handicapped. A survey of the needs of the handicapped was carried out and I understand, from the information contained in that survey, that the needs identified were closely related to what was contained in the motion which was before us last year.
All this is to say that we already have sufficient evidence as to what the needs of the physically and mentally handicapped are. That is not the problem we face today. Indeed, I understand that the handicapped are beginning to feel over-studied and over-surveyed. One investigator, I am told, was recently thrown out of a club because the handicapped members were tired of answering questions. They wanted action. Mr. Speaker, the kind of action they want will be possible once the legislation of which I have been speaking reaches the implementation stage.
I should like now to be more specific with regard to some of the benefits of the proposed legislation, benefits which are not available either under the Canada Assistance Plan or the vocational rehabilitation for disabled persons programs.

Handicapped Citizens
A better range of rehabilitation services will become available for handicapped persons whose ultimate goal is employment. This would include employment-related services such as employment preparation. It would also include services to help disabled persons keep the jobs they have found-counselling, structural modifications to the place of employment, and, perhaps most important, transportation services to and from work at a reasonable price. A related area would be the establishment of a fund to permit capital expenditures for rehabilitation facilities. It is hoped the fund would encourage the setting up of innovative kinds of facilities, training grounds for the employable handicapped which would resemble small businesses and be vigorous and stimulating places for the rehabilitation process.
The legislation would not lose sight of the disabled persons who cannot work-obvious examples are disabled children and the elderly with handicaps. Included also would be a number of persons whose multiple handicaps make the regular labour market an impossible goal. I make this last statement guardedly because every day we hear of miracles-of mentally retarded, blind people, for example, being trained for jobs, and of new technical aids making possible today what was impossible yesterday.
It is equally important for such persons to be able to enjoy the benefits of living in Canada, to have the kinds of services that the "employable" disabled enjoy. The vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons legislation featured employment as the sole criterion for eligibility. This would be dropped in the proposed legislation in favour of making it possible for all handicapped persons to become eligible for rehabilitation services. For children this would mean special day care services, prostheses and medication; for the elderly it would mean a range of necessary counselling and social integration services; and for the elderly and others there would be the same transportation services to community activities as are available to the employed to get to and from work.
In addition to rehabilitation services, a number of what are termed "support services" would be shareable in order to enable the handicapped and the aged to remain in their own homes. At the present time the only alternative for a large number of them is to go into some kind of institution, a home for the aged, a chronic care hospital and so forth. Is it logical for some people to have to obey a nine p.m. curfew just because they live in a hospital instead of an apartment? People should be able to choose where to live. If they choose to live in a community and contribute to it, then they should be able to do so, and the community should be able to provide the kinds of services that are necessary to accomplish this end, whether that be day care, homemakers' services, attendant care and other services. Again, the legislation which will be before the House would make it possible for the federal government to share in the costs of such services when the provinces provide them.

I do believe, though, that the second part of the motion now before us has more validity than the first part, namely, preventing duplication of services by providing better information. I also believe that there is need for a great deal more information on the topic of rehabilitation and disability in Canada and that it should be possible to have access to this information more easily than is now the case. Certainly there should be more published information available on what is happening in Canada before we host the 1980 World Congress.
I believe that the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled some time ago asked the Centre for Applied Research and Engineering Design at McMaster University to do a study with respect to the feasibility of establishing a national information centre for the handicapped. The centre reported that there was a definite need in Canada for this kind of service.
I am sure you will understand, Mr. Speaker, that this is a complex matter. The handicapped and the professionals working with them have need of a wide range of information. A doctor at a rehabilitation hospital, for example, might want to know about new developments in the area of artificial limbs. The occupational therapist might want to know where to find a lightweight feeding spoon for a person with cerebral palsy. The handicapped person might want to know where he can find an apartment he can get into with a wheelchair. How would you provide for such diverse requests?
In addition, some information is needed on a national basis-information, for example, on artificial limbs, wheelchairs and other aids. A lot of other information is required on a local basis: where to get homemakers' services, what theatres are accessible, meals on wheels, and so forth. Other information is required on a more regional basis: where is the closest school for the deaf, what association can help someone with multiple sclerosis? Not all of this information should be stored in a national centre. Housing for the handicapped in Thunder Bay is of interest only to persons in and around Thunder Bay or-and here is the catch-a handicapped person who intends to move to Thunder Bay. If it is impossible to store local information in a national centre, it will still be necessary to be able to have access to that kind of information somehow.
To complicate matters further, it would seem that one of the most pressing needs, at least as far as the handicapped themselves are concerned, is to know more about services. And services will be the most difficult subject to grapple with. They are basically a local responsibility delivered by local voluntary agencies or municipalities and funded, in whole or in part, by the provincial government which, in turn, is reimbursed 50 per cent by the federal government.
There may be a partial solution in that, within the proposed social services legislation, cost sharing would be available for information and referral services at no cost to the user. Certainly information and referral services for the handicapped would be included. It is to be hoped that the federal legislation would permit wider usage of such services in Canada on local and provincial bases.
December 17, 1976

In addition, I am gratified to learn that the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled is prepared to take up the challenge and to pursue the matter of information for the handicapped. Apparently a committee has been formed and a proposal is forthcoming, I believe.
It would seem that the hon. member's motion is not really necessary in that in the proposed social services legislation we have one of the most important opportunities of helping Canada's handicapped which is apt to pass our way for some time. I suggest that we use it. I also suggest that all hon. members and Senators who are interested in helping Canada's handicapped should reserve their energies for debating the bill which will come before the House right after the new year, at which time, of course, witnesses can be heard and the whole matter considered.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing forth this motion which is most timely and of interest to many Canadians, particularly the handicapped.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) on his motion, not a new one on his part. His record as leader in this field, as a man of knowledge and personal experience, has uniquely qualified him to direct the attention of all of us to this most important matter. I strongly support this impressive motion. I have been impressed by the remarks of ladies and gentlemen opposite. I was particularly impressed by what the hon. lady said about public buildings under federal jurisdiction, where for too long we have been too casual, careless, and thoughtless.
My colleague has drawn the attention of the House to a positive matter. It has often been said that government and the institutions of the nation should help most those who most need help. The motion before us is a very constructive one. I heartily support it and I am confident that this House, in thoughtful assembly here on a Friday afternoon, will support it as it goes to a vote.


Frank A. Philbrook: Mr. Speaker, at the very outset I should like to extend my thanks and congratulations to the hon. member who has sponsored this motion, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) who, I would say, perhaps more than any of our colleagues in this House, has been distinguished by a career marked by compassion and good work.
I feel the government has accomplished a great deal to date in this field of services for the disabled. However, as our country is evolving, the services should also expand to serve a larger target group. Society would benefit more if it could give to all of is members a better quality of life that would lead them to become more independent and participate in industry and in society according to their abilities.
The destiny of our handicapped has not been enviable, nor is it now. We must not fool ourselves: those considered physically handicapped represent approximately 10 per cent of the population. This group is highly diverse in terms of age, family situation, income, and types of disabilities. For centuries the
Handicapped Citizens
disabled have been objects of pity, but the handicapped have now come out of their isolation. They have stepped out into public view with their artificial limbs and in their wheelchairs. They are now pressing governments to be given their rights and to make their own contributions to the growth of Canada.
Too often, after being prepared at great cost to fill a role in society, the physically and psychologically rehabilitated handicapped person is prevented from doing so. So-called architectural barriers often frustrate the best laid plans. A couple of steps, too narrow an exit, a small room, and he or she becomes a prisoner, a dependent.
It must be recognized that the disabled, as well as us, the so-called able-bodied, need friendship, satisfactory jobs and incomes, recreation, transportation, housing and accessibility. Their efforts often fail because of the physical obstacles they must face in today's environment. For example, the ambulatory disabled find it difficult to use door knobs, stairs, and other common design features that make it possible for all of us to move around and live a normal life.
Many seriously disabled confined to a wheelchair cannot use public transportation, have difficulty in finding suitable accommodation, and satisfactory employment. These individuals must condition themselves to work for a low income and a way of life that has not much to offer as far as activities are concerned.
A large number of us are here this afternoon because of a mini-bus system which transported us from, say, the Confederation Building. Most of us can get to where we want to go when we want to go. We require a wide choice of modes of transportation and we want to be able to choose among them, sometimes the fastest mode, sometimes the least expensive and, at other times, the most scenic.
The disabled person does not have a real choice most of the time. In most areas, for example, public transportation is not accessible, although I understand one young man in a wheelchair in Vancouver got tired of paying the high prices of the mini-bus system and started using public transportation until authorities broke him of this singular habit. I am told that he wheeled up to a bus stop and waited for the bus driver or fellow passengers to help him on. Once on the bus, he held onto one of the posts toward the front of the bus and put on the brakes of his chair.
The only mode of transportation available to the disabled in the community is the taxi. The disabled have told me that not all companies and not all drivers are interested in driving the disabled or are physically able to handle a wheelchair. Some speak of waiting up to four hours for a taxi. For most disabled persons, and I would venture, for most Canadians, this is a mode of transportation which is prohibitively expensive. Yet there are many disabled persons who are forced to take taxis to and from work every day, thus increasing their work costs often tenfold. Many handicapped are locked into unemployment because they are actually unable to afford the cost of being employed. This is not a contradiction in itself. Who

Handicapped Citizens
could afford to work at a minimum wage job ten miles from home if the only transportation is a taxi?
A very small percentage of severely or totally disabled Canadians in the labour force receive their main source of income from personal employment. There are many contributing factors to this high unemployment rate, of which transportation is but one. Nevertheless it is an important factor, especially for those who are looking for employment. The availability and expense of transportation can be an insurmountable deterrent to employment.
An extensive American study on transportation for the handicapped, based on a survey of handicapped people, estimates that 13 per cent of the chronically handicapped aged 17 to 65 would return to work if transportation were no longer a problem. Transportation in itself does not create employment but it does create the conditions in which employment is attainable.
The handicapped require transportation services for reasons other than employment. Their trip purposes are just as diverse as for the non-handicapped, including trips for educational, medical, entertainment, shopping and recreational purposes, or simply to visit the home of a friend. Improved services would be invaluable in this regard as they would make possible the participation of the handicapped in all facets of community life. Increasing contact with the general public would facilitate the gradual elimination of long-held prejudices based on a lack of understanding of the needs, and more important, of the capabilities of the handicapped. This process is often referred to as normalization, the aim of which is to bring the handicapped back into the community on an equal basis with everyone else. It is a process which, if successful, will be of benefit to all, and adequate transportation is the first step toward its realization.
The implementation of the new social services legislation would enable the federal government to share in the costs to the provinces of providing transportation services to handicapped people, not only transportation to employment, but to visit doctors and to take part in community activities as well. I am sure that this new service will be greatly appreciated by the disabled and that it will help them to acquire more independence; they will no longer have to depend on friends or family to join their community. Whichever way we come to our purpose in helping the handicapped, I certainly hope we do.
I again thank the hon. member for Brandon-Souris for bringing this motion before the House.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the motion is an excellent one. I have only one reason for not accepting it at this point. It could have been accepted much earlier. However, we are now only a matter of weeks away from a new social services bill being dealt with in this House.
The handicapped in this country have been studied a great deal. It is now time for action. The bill to be introduced is an action bill. Action for the handicapped in this area will come sooner if we follow the normal procedure rather than setting up this subcommittee.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame! You have talked it out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. It being five o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. Monday, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 20, 1976