1977-01-31

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything further to add at this point to the answer that I gave at that time. I will determine if there is any further definition of the dates.']
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question had been for the Prime Minister and I think should await his return to the House. He will not be in today, I understand, so I will pass.



Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the right hon. Prime Minister I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. It has to do with the dealings of AECL in Argentina and it is in light of the testimony of Mr. Lome Gray before the public accounts committee. Mr. Gray said that it was his position and the position of AECL that they did not want to know who the agents were who were dealing for Canada and for AECL in this transaction. Mr. Gray also confirmed in these hearings that he discussed with cabinet the use of agents. I would ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it was the position of the cabinet and the government of Canada that they, too, did not want to know who the agents were and told Mr. Gray to go on in his own way, or did they just neglect to pursue this important matter?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the cabinet had ever dealt with the matter in any way or had ever considered the question whether information on that point ought to be a matter of interest to the cabinet.
I should say, Mr. Speaker, that as far as I am concerned, it seems to be improper to put questions on matters that are simultaneously going on in standing committees. Normally, we deal with the evidence and testimony given in a standing committee when a committee reports to the House.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of an answer given by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons
with regard to a meeting that was held with Mr. Gray and a committee of the cabinet. At that time the Prime Minister reported that Mr. Gray had told the cabinet committee they were dealing with agents. It is very important that the House and the people of Canada know whether it was the decision of the government of Canada that they did not want to know who the agent was with whom AECL was dealing. The question I direct to the Acting Prime Minister is simply this: Is it the position of the government that they did not want to know who was the agent? Second, if they did not want to know, was it because they neglected to study this issue, that they were irresponsible in not following it up, they forgot about it or did not want to know?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe I made it clear in my earlier answer that the matter as such never came before the government of Canada requiring a decision as to whether or not we wanted to know. It simply did not arise in that form.


James McPhail Gillies: Obviously, what the Acting Prime Minister is saying is that there was total neglect on the part of the government with regard to inquiring about this matter. My supplementary question is this: What priority does the government of Canada now give to finding out who the agent was? I ask this because the government of Canada may now be partially responsible for the wrongdoing on the part of officials of other countries. How high a priority is the government of Canada giving to finding out who the agent was, and in particular in terms of how willing the government of Canada is to using all its powers in diplomatic terms and so on with the government of Italy to encourage that government to release this information to Canada so that the Canadian people will be able to judge what in fact took place in this rather unsavory transaction?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member having asked whether the government had already decided that it did not want to know certain things, I replied, and I repeat, the matter to my knowledge never came before the government in any form which would require a decision on that point. In answer to the second question, I repeat to the hon. member that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is now authorized by the House of Commons to undertake a full examination into all the circumstances. The ministers who appear will co-operate fully with the committee in obtaining all the information that is required for it to make its report to the House.

January 31, 1977
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR NAMES OF MINISTERS PRESENT AT CABINET MEETING-DISCUSSION OF USE OF AGENTS TO SELL REACTORS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the acting Prime Minister. The former President of AECL told the committee last Thursday that the matters in question today were discussed by a cabinet committee. However, he could not remember what cabinet ministers were present at such a meeting. In fact, he could not even name one cabinet minister who was there for sure. Will the acting Prime Minister undertake to check the records of cabinet committee meetings in order to find out who was present and report this to the committee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will consider that question. I am not ready at the present time to give an undertaking that I will disclose the names of ministers who attended any or all cabinet committees or cabinet meetings, but I will consider the question.


An hon. Member:: Television in the cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONFEDERATION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will address my question to the Acting Prime Minister on the assumption that as a senior minister he will know something about the government's plans. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if it is the government's intention to win the battle of Confederation by having the Prime Minister issue a series of personal challenges to the premier of the province of Quebec, or does the government of Canada have any specific new policies that it will be announcing intended to appeal to the province of Quebec in a positive way?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister in reply to a number of questions last week indicated that the government will go forward with its policies on the subject of national unity and as time goes on the Prime Minister will make further comments, as he did over the weekend. I understand that the Prime Minister's analysis on Friday and Saturday in Quebec received enthusiastic and strong support in that province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Any Liberal speaking to the chamber of commerce always gets that kind of response.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: The babbling horde should keep quiet so one can get the question out.

I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister, considering that last week the Prime Minister answered no fewer than ten questions on this important subject and referred to only one program, namely the Official Languages Act, and considering that the program is supported by all the parties in the House, whether the government has no other proposal that it intends to bring forward to appeal to the hearts and minds of the people of the province of Quebec.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. The answer is obvious, that when new programs are developed, they will be announced in the House of Commons. The hon. member speaks of appealing to the minds and hearts of the Canadian people. I am sure he is pleased that the appeal made on the weekend to the minds and hearts of the people of Quebec and of all of Canada has struck a very responsive chord.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: If mere rhetoric could win every battle, the Liberals would be in office for a thousand years.


An hon. Member:: It just seems like a thousand years.


John Edward Broadbent: I have a final supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Considering that it is important to appeal in a concrete way to the people of the province of Quebec and not simply try to win this battle by scoring cheap constitutional points,-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the government, and specifically the Minister of Finance, in his meeting with the ministers of finance of all the other provinces tomorrow, intends to bring before those finance ministers a specific program to deal with the national problem of unemployment, and in that context the particularly bad problem of unemployment in the province of Quebec which is forecast to average more than 10 per cent next year.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose tomorrow to introduce any additional programs to those which my colleague, particularly the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, has in operation in the country.


John Edward Broadbent: Oh boy; we are all set.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member should know that, of course, any budgetary change would be announced
January 31, 1977

first in the House rather than at the federal-provincial conference.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Further to statements made by the Quebec dairy producers' representatives that they will be penalized because the Quebec government will give assistance to the dairy industry, could the minister advise whether these statements are justified or whether the federal government, when distributing reimbursements, will not take into account the assistance given by Quebec so as to be equitable in all provinces?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am not 100 per cent sure of what the hon. member is talking about, but I am responsible for our national dairy program. That responsibility means that dairy producers under the national program should be treated as fairly and equitably as possible.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister.
Could he tell us whether he has held meetings with the officials of UPA in Quebec on this issue?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have not had meetings with UPA for quite some time.


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the Prime Minister very correctly said when he was in Tokyo last fall, we must pull up our socks and improve our productivity and our technology if we are to increase our exports, and as our yearly deficit in manufactured products is now in the vicinity of $10 billion a year, is the government planning to introduce incentives to induce greater industrial research and development in this country, to be paid in direct proportion to increased effort that is made to improve our technology and increase our sales in manufactured products? Manufactured products are the ones which provide jobs.
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with my hon. friend's statistical data. I would like to merely point out that in 1976 the situation was corrected. Our trade balance was showing a deficit last year but in 1976 we were successful in regaining our usual rank and due to our exportations we had a favourable balance of payments.


George Harris Hees: As there was improvement in the export of our raw products, which enabled other countries to manufacture goods which we should be manufacturing, and as there was no improvement in our exports of manufactured products, the ones which provide the jobs, does the minister not realize that answers like his which are vague non-answers do not impress the business community or increase our industrial research and development?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River.


CONFEDERATION
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council which is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. It being generally conceded on all sides that the Liberal government in Quebec was defeated mainly because of political dishonesty, deceit, excessive secrecy and lack of accountability-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: -all of which elements are quite apparent in the present federal Liberal government-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: -will the hon. gentleman indicate if it is the intention of his government, through the Prime Minister or otherwise, to do what it can to remove these defects to show the people of Quebec who, like all Canadians, want open and honest government that this can be done and to make a major contribution to national unity?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.

January 31, 1977
Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


LEGAL AUTHORITY OF DEPARTMENT TO REMOVE CHILDREN FROM CUSTODY OF PARENTS-SUGGESTED COMPLIANCE WITH PROVINCIAL LAW
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The director general of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in Saskatchewan has said that the department has been illegally taking children away from their parents in Saskatchewan. There are some 700 children in the care of the department in Saskatchewan, and the parents of these children, in all likelihood, never had the right to a hearing regarding the apprehension of their children. Could the minister inform the House whether it is his view that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has no legal authority to apprehend Indian children, as is the view of the director general in Saskatchewan?


Hon. Warren AUmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that while there is no special legislation which would enable the department to take these children into custody, the department acts under Section 88 of the Indian Act which has general provisions for the welfare of Indian children. In the cases in point, these children have been taken either because they have been abused very badly or have been abandoned. We take them on a humanitarian basis and place them in foster homes or institutions, about 60 per cent of which are Indian homes or institutions.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the minister's response indicates a continuation of a paternalistic attittude toward our Indian population. I should like to ask the minister whether he can assure the House that in future the department will issue clear guidelines respecting compliance with provincial law, obtaining court orders if apprehension is deemed necessary and especially, to advise parents of their rights pursuant to basic principles of Canadian justice. Finally, where there has been wrongful taking is the department considering the question of compensation to parents from whom children have been taken without just cause?


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the allegation of the hon. member with respect to paternalism, the Indian people want the federal government to do this and not the provincial government. In general, however, it should be done by the provincial government. Unfortunately, we cannot get an agreement with the provincial government of Saskatchewan to do it. With respect to compensation and notice to the parents, the reason the children are taken is that the parents are either badly beating the children or completely abandoning them. In many cases, we cannot find the parents.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has missed the point on which I was trying to obtain information. There is the basic principle of justice here, regardless of whether these are Indians or other citizens of our country. I

ask the minister again, if this has not already been done, will he send some indication to the parents that they have rights with respect to this matter or at least refer the matter to the courts for an independent assessment of whether these children are properly taken away from their parents?


William Warren Allmand: I will gladly look into that, Mr. Speaker. We would like to regularize this as much as possible. If we have acted without the full support of the law, we have done so merely because there was no other way of dealing with a very sad situation.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Now that he has had an opportunity to look further into the circumstances surrounding the compilation and circulation of the extra-parliamentary opposition list by one of his predecessors in office, is he able to tell the House and the country whether there is any hard evidence that any person on the list in fact acted improperly in circulating documents or doing anything else that would justify having them grouped together and classified for special treatment, as they have been?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as I informed the House during the course of question periods last week, the totality of the information was transmitted to the ministers of the departments in which the people in question were employed. It then became the responsibility of that department to evaluate the information.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to remind the minister that it seems strange he can delegate all the responsibility emanating from his own very special department to others. Does he still hold to his position that he does not intend or make arrangements to contact these people listed so that they can take any action they deem necessary to their records or take appropriate action against the government? Is these any evidence of misconduct in leaking documents or otherwise and if so, why was something not done under the Public Service Act or the Official Secrets Act? Why was this left to fester for years?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can refer the member to the very full examination of this type of thing which was done by the Royal Commission on Security which reported in 1969 and stated quite clearly that in these areas departmental responsibility should remain paramount.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO OTHER BLACKLISTS EXIST
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister
January 31, 1977

since the Solicitor General has stated there is now no list in his department. Can the Acting Prime Minister show the House that there are no such lists in any of the ministries falling within the government of Canada, lists which contain names, which would affect relationships or destroy trust and confidence between those on the list and their superiors in the public service? Can he also indicate the present situation with respect to the other ministries of government, particularly those to which this particular list was transmitted?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot personally verify what is in government files. I have not searched them.


Mr. Stanfield:: Why not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: So far as I am aware, and based on my knowledge of this particular question, there are no such lists in existence.


An hon. Member:: You said that before.


INQUIRY TO DETERMINE IF PEARSON GUIDELINES BREACHED BY CIRCULATION OF BLACKLIST-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the questioning of the past week I cannot understand how the Acting Prime Minister can stand up and say that he had not searched, or caused any search to be made. May I direct my supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board? Last week I asked whether he was causing any inquiry to be made into this matter, or whether he had made inquiries through the Department of Justice with respect to any public servant, particularly the one who is acknowledged as being on the list, he himself having acknowledged it, to determine whether there has been any breach of the Pearson guidelines? Has he undertaken that? If he has, what are the results; if he has not, when does he intend to undertake such an examination?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, following the question of the hon. member, I am not sure whether it was on Thursday or Friday, I began an examination, as I indicated to him, but have nothing further to report at this stage.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
What position will the National Capital Commission take as a result of the instructions of the Quebec government to the Communaute regionale de l'Outaouais not to accept the lowest
Oral Questions
bidder for the construction of a filtration plant in the Aylmer-Hull-Gatineau region, but to ask for new tenders?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the National Capital Commission has written today to minister Claude Morin asking his government to grant the contract to the lowest bidder. Indeed, the federal government is asking the Quebec government to abide by the assurance first given by minister Leger in his letter to the president of the CRO on December 2 last. We think it would be unfortunate to put off that project unduly. Not only could such a delay entail serious consequences for carrying out the project, but especially higher costs, which is unacceptable for all citizens of Canada as well as of Quebec.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister? My question relates to the mandatory policy guidelines first initiated by Prime Minister Pearson in 1963 and supported by the present Prime Minister in 1969, to which my leader referred on Friday of last week. I refer in particular to the requirement in those guidelines to this effect: That when a public servant's security or reliability is in doubt the employing departments and agencies will be required to tell the employee everything that is against him, so that he can have an opportunity to resolve that doubt. May I ask if those mandatory guidelines which are part of the government's policy were followed with respect to the persons named on the list attached to the letter of June 15, 1971, by the then solicitor general?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the guidelines to which the hon. member refers are still in existence. They did not apply, as I understand it, to the persons to whom the hon. member referred because in that case there was no question of dismissal and there was no question that that would cause the guidelines to come into play in their case.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Read them again.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that is my understanding of the question. That is my immediate response to the hon. member's question, but I will be happy to look at the question further and reply again tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the promise to reply tomorrow will be better kept than some of the promises to that effect which were made last week. Since the guidelines refer not just to cases of dismissal but to questioning of reliability, does that situation not apply

January 31, 1977
Oral Questions
to these employees, and therefore will the minister see that the whole matter is checked and, preferably, that any reference to this matter is completely removed from the files of those employees?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I presume that there can be a different interpretation or application with respect to the question of reliability. In this case, as I understand it, the letter was intended to suggest to ministers that they should remind those employees of their obligations with respect to a certain aspect of governmental responsibilities.


George Harris Hees: Come off it, Allan. You can do better than that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is quite doubtful in my mind whether that contemplates a challenge with regard to reliability of such persons because subsequent events, as I understand it, have seen some of these persons at least continue their responsibilities and even carry out increased responsibilites. Therefore subsequent events really do not justify the retrospective interpretation of the hon. member.


Walter David Baker: You are paranoid.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, seriously, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister if there is not someone on the government side who is big enough to admit that this whole farce was a Goyer goof?


George Harris Hees: Goyer's gumshoes.


Mr. Goyer:: What about your gumshoes, MacKay?


Walter David Baker: At least they fit.


An hon. Member:: Back to the oil refineries.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs a question about which the minister has spoken on numerous occasions and about which his views have been made known on the radio, on television and in the newspapers. I am alluding to the minister's statements that Canada needs to develop a nationally integrated food policy. Is the minister's department working on such a policy? If so, what input is the Department of Agriculture supplying with respect to the formulation of such policy which the minister seems to think is so urgently needed for Canada?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, to answer the, question, I indeed hope that in the not too distant future we will have a national food policy. I assure the hon. member that any such food policy would not be possible without the closest co-operation and

integration of the Department of Agriculture, and there have been discussions between the departments and ministers to that effect.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since, publicly, the Minister of Agriculture seems to view this matter differently from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, may I ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who has suggested that Canada now needs such a policy, what weaknesses he sees in the present agricultural policy espoused by the present Minister of Agriculture?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to discuss the whole area of food policy at this time. Many of us, including the Minister of Agriculture, recognize that just as energy and transportation are vital matters, so food is perhaps the most vital of all and agricultural policies, right through to the processing, distribution and retail level and consumption, are all part of that food policy. We hope before too long to have a nationally integrated strategy which will give both consumers and producers a better idea of where we are going.


Mr. Fraser:: Don't worry, they already know.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I wonder if the minister has received the report of an air incident, reported as near miss, which occurred on January 21 over Victoria International Airport and involved an Air Canada aircraft on a scheduled flight to Vancouver. Among other things, it came within 200 yards of bringing about a by-election in the riding of Esquimalt-Saanich.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald W. Munro: This is an occurrence which could have been avoided had radar been in place at Victoria International Airport but in fact disaster was avoided by swift and appropriate evasive action on the part of the Air Canada pilot in command of flight number 266.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: I am happy to join with the hon. member in applauding the swift action taken by the pilot. I have not yet seen the report personally, but I look forward to doing so.


Donald W. Munro: I hope the minister will see this report. Will he give an undertaking to examine it in the light of the need to instal radar now at the Victoria International Airport? If it is true that radar is now being taken out of Vancouver, could he give an undertaking that it
January 31, 1977

will be installed, if only temporarily, at Victoria International Airport?


Otto Emil Lang: I shall try not to draw any conclusions, Mr. Speaker, until I have received the report.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS ALLEGATION QUEBEC BREAKING AGREEMENTS-ATTITUDE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TOWARD FUTURE AGREEMENTS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. On January 27 it was reported that the Prime Minister had criticized the Parti Quebecois for unilaterally breaking commitments with Ottawa. The reference was to participation in the anti-inflation program and English language courses for immigrants using the services of Canada Manpower in Quebec. He stated that Ottawa would be "more careful" in the future in dealing with a province which broke its agreements. Is the minister now in a position to be more definitive with respect to this alleged statement by the Prime Minister that Ottawa would be "more careful in the future"? Has the government any proposals in that regard?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not
specifically, Mr. Speaker. I might point out that in the case of the anti-inflation program there was a meeting of first ministers in mid-December at which Quebec was represented and at which it was agreed that no further action would be taken with regard to the termination of the anti-inflation program until the finance ministers could meet at the meeting which is to be held tomorrow and the next day. That was generally agreed around the table and there was no demurrer from the minister representing Quebec. Obviously, in further dealings when there is a situation of that kind it would be incumbent upon the federal government and, indeed, among the other provinces, to make sure that Quebec is, in fact, prepared to stick by what is a general consensus around the table.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In the light of the importance of this question, involving the unilateral breaking of commitments undertaken with the federal government, and since the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has indicated to the House that he intends to raise this issue with his provincial counterpart in Quebec, can the hon. gentleman assure us that at the federal-provincial meetings to be held tomorrow and Wednesday, this subject will be on the agenda in order that it may be properly resolved?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It will not be on the agenda as such, but there might well be some reference to Quebec's change of position in the interval between the two meetings. I should point out that while the federal government does, of course, have over-all responsibility for the anti-inflation program, because it is in relation to the provincial public sector in which the changes are made, that kind of unilateral action
Oral Questions
could have an effect upon the other provincial governments as adverse as the effect upon the over-all program.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I can appreciate the answer the minister has given us, but bearing in mind that the unilateral breaking of commitments could possibly destroy confederation, will he reassess the reply he has just made and put this question on the agenda for full and open discussion? In my view it is of such importance that, with all due respect, the minister would be irresponsible if the matter were not definitely placed on the agenda.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It would not be my intention to put any of the finance ministers at that meeting, including myself, in the dock. I think it is regrettable that Quebec should have followed this course of action. I hope the reactions of the hon. member and of many others in the country will convey themselves to that government and that we might have some better assurance that when, as provinces and as the federal government, we agree on something unanimously, undertakings of that kind will be observed. A reputation for fair dealing, whether by a government or by an individual, is very important and I am sure this cannot be lost on the government of Quebec.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Some time ago, in the first session of this parliament, the minister said we might expect a second phase of the telecommunications legislation. I wonder when we may expect, in the second session of this parliament, to hear about the second phase of this legislation.


Hon. Jeanne Sauv6 (Minister of Communications):: Soon, Mr. Speaker.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Is the delay in the presentation of the second phase due to the present constitutional legal battle which is before the Supreme Court and in respect of which judgment has been reserved or does the minister plan, before tabling the legislation, to discuss the matter with the communications ministers of the provinces?


Jeanne Sauvé: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no relation between this case which is before the court and the delay in preparing this legislation. For the information of the hon. member, I would say that the legislation is ready, that I am giving it the last touch and that I hope to present it before initiating discussions with my provincial counterparts.

Oral Questions


COST OF ELECTRICITY IN MARITIMES-REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT ON NEGOTIATIONS TO SOLVE PROBLEM
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to address to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would he tell the House how he is getting along in resolving the power problems of the Atlantic provinces? First, with regard to his short term program of aid to Nova Scotia, a program which was received with something less than enthusiasm by the government of that province, has he been able to reach agreement on this subject?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: We have not yet reached agreement, but I believe we are much closer than we were. I hope I shall have an announcement to make some time within the next week or so.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With regard to the longer term problem and the minister's search-I think it has gone on for almost a year now-for some agreement at least with regard to a study of a more far-reaching maritime grid to distribute electric power, has the minister achieved agreement on that subject? Is he conducting negotiations himself, or has he resorted to an agent?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS-AMOUNT OF INCREASE IN EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES TO AID IN EMERGENCY
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question, also, is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As he is aware, the United States is currently suffering from an acute shortage of energy supplies brought on by crippling cold weather along the eastern seaboard, in the midwest and in the south. Bearing in mind both humanitarian considerations and possible repercussions on the Canadian economy in terms of food and manufactured products imported from south of the border, I should like to ask the minister by how much the sale of liquefied natural gas has already been increased by way of emergency supplies to the United States. Might I urge him to make provision for similar short-term contracts with the U.S.A. in the near future?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to tell the House the National Energy Board responded so rapidly that the government in Washington has already stated publicly its appreciation of the assistance offered by Canada. Fifteen billion cubic feet of natural gas has been allocated and it is now being delivered on the basis of about 400 million cubic feet a day. In the event that this is not sufficient to tide over those particular areas in the United States which have been so heavily and harshly hit, I know the National Energy Board is prepared to consider additional allocations. I should perhaps also take this opportunity to tell the House there have been a number of other authorizations given by the National Energy

Board with respect to home heating fuel oil for the east coast, for New York State, and that an inventory is being undertaken at the present time with respect to propane supplies which might be made available to the United States on an emergency basis.
[DOT] (M50)


OIL PIPELINE TO KITIMAT-INQUIRY AS TO TASK FORCE TO STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT-PUBLICATION OF REPORT
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question also is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It has to do with the application which will shortly be before the National Energy Board with respect to an oil pipeline delivering oil to tankers at Kitimat for delivery to the United States. Is it correct that an interdepartmental task force or committee has been set up to study the environmental impact of such a pipeline, particularly as it affects the coastline and the people living along the coastline of British Columbia; and can the minister assure the House that the report of the task force will be made public prior to the National Energy Board making its decision, so that those who want to make submissions to the National Energy Board will be in possession of all the facts which have been gathered by the task force?


Alastair William Gillespie: To some extent, Mr. Speaker, I will have to take note of the question but I think I can say this. On an interdepartmental basis there is a task force or study group working, particularly on the marine aspects of a possible oil spill threat associated with that particular application. Undoubtedly, other ministers responsible for this particular area will want to comment with respect to the publication and publicity of such a report or findings.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, may I ask the minister whether he can tell us what departments are represented on that interdepartmental committee; and can he assure the House that all the information which the government has collected with respect to the possible dangers to those living adjacent to the coastline of British Columbia will be made public so that the people of that area can make an intelligent appraisal of the effect of the pipeline and can make the kind of representations which they think appropriate when hearings are held?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I want to do everything I can to assist those who are concerned about this problem to make representations and to assure them that their representations will be heard, and indeed taken into consideration in any policy decision later taken. As to the membership of the committee, I am fairly sure that the Department of the Environment, the Department of Transport and my own departmental officials will be involved. I cannot tell the House how many other departments will be involved, but quite clearly those departments are the three main ones.
January 31, 1977


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Charles-Eug£ne Dionne (Kamouraska): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Considering that a high percentage of the unemployed are victims of decisions taken by Unemployment Insurance Commission agents as regard finding jobs which are impossible to get in an area where the unemployment rate exceeds 20 per cent, does the minister plan to provide appropriate guidelines to those who are responsible for this situation so as to avoid undeserved hardships to those without jobs and income?
Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the premise contained in the hon. member's question, but in the event that that is taking place it is why we have established a very informal appeal procedure dealing directly with the board of referees, so that anyone who feels that he has been abused can take that particular appeal route. If the hon. member has a large, specific area that he feels needs looking into, he has only to make representations to me and we will examine the matter.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question, in the absence of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, is addressed to his parliamentary secretary. In light of the fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs has demonstrated considerable fiscal largesse with reference to the move from Ottawa to the maritimes involving some $20 million, I should like to know why it is that some fiscal responsibility or at least largesse is not demonstrated with reference to veterans affairs welfare officers whose visits to constituents in my riding and in ridings all across Canada have been reduced by at least 50 per cent, and why the situation should get so bad that a member of the Department of Veterans Affairs found it necessary to make a collect call to my constituency office because the department would not allow any further long distance calls from the Department of Veterans Affairs? I think the situation demands an explanation.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is a particular case which will require some investigation. I think we should take the question as notice until the minister returns.
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Can the minister tell the House what action he proposes to take following meetings that he has held with representatives of church leaders from the city of Toronto who expressed to him concern over the importation and distribution in this country of material that is clearly in contravention of section 159 of the Criminal Code of Canada? What action does the minister propose to take as attorney general?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I had a very useful discussion this morning with the church leaders mentioned. We canvassed the whole problem of hardcore pornography being imported and distributed in Canada. They will have an announcement to make in a short while with regard, I think, to a very useful arrangement they have entered into with some of the distributors. With regard to others I urged, as I have urged in the past, that provincial attorneys general take action against distributors for the sale and distribution of those materials deemed to be obscene, contrary to the Criminal Code.
I informed the church leaders that I and the Minister of National Revenue had reviewed the processes of the Customs Tariff Act in regard to inspection of material coming across the border and co-ordination between the Department of National Revenue and federal, provincial and municipal police forces. The church leaders will be meeting with the Minister of National Revenue in due course, but I elicited their help and co-operation in bringing to the attention of the Department of National Revenue materials now in their hands, or that would come into their hands, which should properly be barred under the Customs tariff.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Given that the enforcement provisions of the Criminal Code are within provincial jurisdiction, I would ask the minister whether he intends to bring in amendments to the Criminal Code to tighten up the penalty provisions of section 159?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we did discuss the law and what other additional wording might be employed in the provisions of the Criminal Code without being able to determine that we should use some word other than "obscene". I did discuss some suggestions, one being additional penalties. The attorneys general will be meeting to discuss this. When I met with them in Vancouver last June I suggested to them that they might want to indicate to me what amendments to the Criminal Code might be made. I presume that at a meeting to be held shortly they will be making some proposals in this regard.

Old Age Security Act AIRPORTS


CHARLOTTETOWN-REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT ON CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport, notice of which I have given him. It bears upon a pre-Yuletide exchange that we had. Can he now advise of the results of discussions between officials of the P.E.I. government and those of his own department on a matter of major concern to the whole of Prince Edward Island, namely the progress of construction of the new Charlottetown airport?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything further to add at this point to the answer that I gave at that time. I will determine if there is any further definition of the dates.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, and according to the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I would like to table copy of a letter, and translation thereof, sent by the chairman of the NCC to the Quebec minister of intergovernmental affairs dealing with the contract for the water purification plant for the Hull-Aylmer-Gatineau region.


OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-35, intituled: "An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act".


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

Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-390, to amend the Railway Act (ownership of land where railway line abandoned).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, this bill is an attempt to amend the Railway Act so that if and when railways are successful in abandoning their lines, the rights of way will revert to the Crown and, therefore, to the people of Canada.


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

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I gave notice of my intention to rise at this point, pursuant to Standing Order 75C, with respect to the bill now before the House to amend the Income Tax Act, Bill C-22. I have had more than one occasion in the past to comment that I believe the planning of the business of the House should be based upon agreement. However, I have also had occasion to comment in the past-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it the minister is giving the Chair indication of his intention to move the motion of which he gave notice on Friday. Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale), seconded by Mr. MacEachen, moves:
That in relation to Bill C-22, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax, eight hours shall be allotted to the further consideration in committee of the whole stage of the said bill;
That, at the end of the eighth such hour, any proceeding before the committee shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the committee of the whole stage of the said bill, shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
May I indicate to the House that there is only one item remaining in routine proceedings, that being the calling of questions on the order paper. This motion has been properly put forward under motions, but I wonder if the House might agree that we ought to tidy up routine proceedings by calling questions on the order paper and then reverting to motions.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that is an eminently sensible suggestion.
January 31, 1977


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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: 131, 296, 648, 816, 831, 832, 833, 843, 890, 891, 931, 943, 965, 994, 1,097, 1,146, 1,172, 1,274,1,314, 1,325, 1,339, 1,400, 1,417 and 1,423.


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 Ministry of State for Science and Technology?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable figures for the fiscal year 1973-1974?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is concerned:
1. Name of Contract
(a)	2. Amount Committed
Biomass Ltd.	$ 25,800
Dr. A. Chambers	1,500
Charsley & McHale Ltd.	3,000
Decision Systems Inc.	12,000
O. Dubas	3,043
J. Farrell	7,000
G. Legare	5,000
B. Paqurek and C. M. Woodside	5,300
H. L. Smith Ltd.	15,867
S. Tanny	4,800
Undersea Research Ltd.	9,500
D. Watson	34,800
R. Goblot	5,000
D. G. McFetridge	875
Statistics Canada	890
J. T. Wilson	3,175
Bureau of Management Consultants	25,650
Audit Services Bureau	4,712
Halliwell and Laliberte	5,000
Total	172,912
3. 1975-76, $172,912; 1973-74, $522,512.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Farm Credit Corporation grant a loan to Mr. Don Phillips, R.R. #1, Toledo, Ontario, on or about September 1, 1975 and, if so, was the Corporation aware (a) that he had 12 head of cattle at the time the application was made (b) that he intended to increase his herd to'20 (c) that as a condition for making the loan, the Corporation insisted that he increase his herd to 30 and that Mr. Phillips did increase his herd as requested?
2.	Was the Farm Credit Corporation or the Department of Agriculture aware, that the Ontario Milk Marketing Board would not increase the milk quota for Mr. Phillips beyond that already in existence for 12 cows and, if so, what are the reasons that the Corporation insisted on an increase to 30 cattle?
3.	Is there any regular liaison or exchange of information between the Farm Credit Corporation and the Ontario Milk Marketing Board and (a) if so, what was the outcome in this case (b) if not, for what reason?
4.	Is the Farm Credit Corporation and the Department of Agriculture aware of the severe penalties applied to Mr. Phillips for alleged over-production based on the old milk quota for 12 cows and that penalties have been applied so that he is without any monthly income and, if so, will any action be taken immediately to resolve this situation?


Eugene Whelan: The Farm Credit Corporation advises: 1. Yes. (a) Yes; nine beef cows, 12 dairy cows, 20 calves, for a total of 41 head of cattle, (b) See answer to (a) above, (c) No. After normal counselling discussions as to a viable enterprise, the applicant presented a proposed plan based on a 35-cow operation.
2.	No, the applicant reported to the Corporation that additional quota would be made available to him by the Ontario Milk Marketing Board.
3.	Quota is negotiated between the producer and the Ontario Milk Marketing Board. There is continuing liaison between the Corporation and the Ontario Milk Marketing Board concerning overall policy.
4.	There has been continuing contact between the borrower and the Farm Credit Corporation's Credit Advisor. Alternate payment arrangements have been put into effect, and the problem now appears to be correcting itself.


Mr. Lachance: Between the date of the presentation of the last budget May 25, 1976 and October 12, 1976, did the Department of Public Works hire, dismiss or transfer employees to other departments and, if so, how many?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: Yes. 582 Hired (This includes Casual and Term-six months or over). 1,024 Dismissed (Struck off strength)-The term dismissed is misleading because it denotes discharge. Only one of the 1,024 was actually discharged. The balance either left of their own volition or completed a specified term of employment. It should also be noted that there is a rapid staff turnover in the north and that one term position may have had several incumbents during the period May 25 to October 12, which inflates the turnover in relation to the actual numbers of positions involved. 62 transferred.
2536

January 31, 1977
Order Paper Questions "SAVE 10" PROGRAMME


Mr. Epp: 1.	What is the name of the company who received the advertising contract for the "SAVE 10" programme?
2.	What was the budget for the advertising?
3.	Were there contracts tendered for the advertising programme and, if so, which firms submitted tenders?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. Vickers & Benson Ltd.
2.	$39,150.
3.	The contract was not tendered for the advertising programme as it formed part of the total energy conservation advertising contract.


Mr. Yewchuk: What was the cost of health care for treaty Indians in Alberta in (a) 1965 (b) 1970 (c) 1975?


Marc Lalonde: (a)	(b)	(c)1965-66	1970-71	1975-76Direct Costs1 Indirect Costs* 2 3 Federal	Data	$2,885,000	$10,815,000Government Province of	not available	1,326,000	2,651,000Alberta	1,326,000	2,651,000Total	5,537,000	16,117,0001	Represents the cost of services provided directly by the Department of National Health and Welfare, such as payment of drugs, transportation to hospital and Alberta Medicare premiums for treaty Indians; contracted health services to Indian bands; and operating costs of Departmental hospitals.2	Represents the federal government's share (estimated at 50 per cent) of the Province of Alberta's costs of hospital and medical services extended to treaty Indians through the facilities of Departmental hospitals. This amount does not include the federal government's share of other provincial costs of health services to treaty Indians as provided directly by physicians or through hospitals other than Departmental hospitals. The nature of the formulae under which the federal government shares these costs makes it impossible to determine the portion of total federal contributions or the utilization of services for any particular ethnic group or district, because

these provincial health care programs are universal and include all insured residents.


Mr. Yewchuk: What were the main components of health care costs for treaty Indians in Alberta in (a) 1965 (b) 1970 (c) 1975?


Marc Lalonde: (a)	(b)	(c)Direct costs	1965-66	1970-71	1975-76Treatment-health care delivery Public Health-health education	Data not	$4,895,000	$14,262,000and surveillance by trained public health nurses	available	354,000	1,028,000Involvement of Indians-health	representatives for health education, home visiting, hygiene, sanitation and health liaison	programs. Health Support-laboratory	100,000	287,000testing, X-rays, glasses etc.	188,000	540,000$5,537,000	$16,117,000Less: recovery from Province	2,652,000	5,302,000Net Direct Expenditures Indirect costs Federal governments's share of the	$2,885,000	$10,815,000Province of Alberta's cost of hospital and medical services.	1,326,000	2,651,000TOTAL	$4,211,000	$13,466,000
Notes: (1) For purposes of comparison the 1970-71 breakdown has been adjusted to reflect that comprising the current Indian Health Services activity structure.
(2)	Direct costs represent the cost of services provided directly by the Department of National Health and Welfare, such as payment of drugs, transportation to hospital and Alberta Medicare premiums for treaty Indians; contracted health services to Indian bands; and operating costs of Departmental hospitals.
(3)	Indirect costs represent the federal government's share (estimated at 50 per cent of the Province of Alberta's costs of hospital and medical services extended to treaty Indians through the facilities of Departmental hospitals. This amount does not include the federal government's share of other Provincial costs of health services to treaty Indians, as provided directly by physicians or through hospitals other than Departmental hospitals. The nature of the formulae under which the federal government shares these costs makes it impossible to determine the portion of total federal contributions or the utilization of services for any particular ethnic group or district, because these provincial health care programs are universal and include all insured residents.
January 31, 1977


Mr. Yewchuk: What was the government's share of the cost of health care for treaty Indians in Alberta in (a) 1965 (b) 1970 (c) 1975?


Marc Lalonde: Direct costs1 Indirect costs2 3 Total
Data
not
available


[Stage Direction]
1	Represents the cost of services provided directly by the Department of National Health and Welfare, such as payment of drugs, transportation to hospital and Alberta Medicare premiums for treaty Indians; contracted health services to Indian bands; and operating costs of Departmental hospitals.
2	Represents the federal government's share (estimated at 50 per cent) of the Province of Alberta's costs of hospital and medical services extended to treaty Indians through the facilities of Departmental hospitals. This amount does not include the federal government's share of other Provincial costs of health services to treaty Indians, as provided directly by physicians or through hospitals other than Departmental hospitals. The nature of the formulae under which the federal government shares these costs makes it impossible to determine the portion of total federal contributions or the utilization of services for any particular ethnic group or district, because these provincial health care programs are universal and include all insured residents.
Mr. Horner: 1.	What is the actual or estimated cost to Air Canada to physically remove or alter Section 14A of the Flight Operations Manual 500?
2.	How many such manuals does Air Canada have?
3.	Could the costs have been reduced if this action had been avoided by the implementation of the directive of the President of Air Canada when he issued a memo to all Air Canada staff concerned to disregard Section 14A of the Flight Operations Manual 500 and, if so, for what reason did Air Canada choose to follow the action it did?


Otto Emil Lang: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. $82.96.
2.	2,132.
3.	Manual 500, like other such manuals, is continually amended to reflect current company policy. The issuance of a directive by the President did not reduce the cost of making the amendment to the manual.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. D. R. Brown, Director General of the Unemployment Insurance Commission for Ontario, send a memorandum dated March 9, 1976 and marked "Confidential 20C-5" to all District Managers and Regional Office Branch Heads and, if so, did the memorandum (a) announce a policy of personnel security clearance to be instituted by the UIC and that such a decision was taken by the National Executive Committee of UIC (b) state in part: "you are asked to ensure that all the employees concerned complete the Personal History Form and that you arrange to have their fingerprints taken"?
2.	What is a general description and listing of all the positions that were designated to undergo such security clearance including Benefit Control Officers, Office Managers, staff related thereto, etc?
3.	How many persons in each region of the UIC are affected by the order and what is the total number of persons across the country?
4.	How many employees have at any time been fingerprinted since they commenced employment with UIC and how many are scheduled to be fingerprinted at the time the answer to this question is prepared?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. Yes. It was however marked "200-5" (a) Yes. (b) Yes.
2.	Secret Level: Directors General, Director, Information Services, all Senior Executives, Deputy Directors General, Regional Security Officers, Regional Directors, Operations, Regional Telecommunications and Administrative Officers, Regional Property and Communications Manager Regional Telecommunications Officers. Confidential Level: All information Services Officers (IS), all Financial Administrators (FI), all Personnel Administrators (PE), all Organization and Methods Officers (OM), Regional Office Branch Heads, District Managers BCOs-Benefit Control Officers, CAS- Chiefs of Administrative Services, Chiefs, Benefit Control. Regional Telecommunications Monitor (RTM), General Services Superintendents (GSS), Telecommunications Clerks, Communicators and ATs and CRs-Regular employees whose normal duties require them to operate teleprinter of FAX equipment. Personal secretaries and administrative staff attached directly to any of the above positions are cleared to the same level.
3.	Ontario Region, 587; Pacific Region, 138; Quebec Region, 549; Prairie Region, 130; Atlantic Region, 300; All Canada, 1704.
4.	Nine hundred sixty-one have been fingerprinted. 668 are still to be processed. 75 positions are vacant.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. Robert Vantangerloo, at the time, Personnel Director for the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Ontario, write a memorandum in March 1976 on the subject of personnel security clearance and, if so, what are the job levels of all employees in the UIC who received the memo?
2.	Did the memo state in part " . . . it is intended to prevent passing of confidential information to groups with an interest in embarrassing or otherwise damaging the Canadian government.. ." and, if so, has this led to the institution of a programme of checking personal histories of employees of the UIC as well as having them Fingerprinted for the stated purpose of not embarrassing the government?
80008 -2 3lh

January 31, 1977
Order Paper Questions
3.	If such a programme has been instituted, what are the (a) reasons justifying the decision to take such a move (b) purposes for fingerprinting UIC employees?
4.	Is the government placing greater restrictions than it did formerly on the rights of public servants and, if so, do the restrictions represent a lack of trust and/or an attempt to spy on public servants?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. Yes. See reply to question 890 answered this day.
2.	Yes. No, the stated purpose, as outlined in D. Brown's memo, March 9, 1976 is "the prevention of unlawful passing of such information to individuals or institutions who are not entitled to possess it."
3.	(a) See 2; (b) See 2.
4.	No.


Mr. McGrath: 1.	What was the total number of personnel flown into the wilderness camp, known as SAR 1 and located at Eagle River, Labrador, in 1976?
2.	How many were involved in Search and Rescue training exercises?
3.	What are the names, ranks and/or positions of the persons flown into the camp for other than Search and Rescue exercises?
4.	At what cost to Canada were these non-Search and Rescue personnel flown in and billeted at SAR 1 ?
5.	What are the names of the non-Search and Rescue personnel who were flown in from (a) CFB Goose Bay (b) CFB Summerside (c) CFB Camp Gagetown (d) CFB Greenwood (e) Maritime Command, Halifax (f) National Defence Headquarters, Ottawa?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Seventy four.
2.	Forty one underwent rescue training.
3.	It would not be appropriate to give this information as several of those who attended hold senior positions with our allies. The release of the information would require approval by other governments.
4.	The cost of flying in and billeting personnel was approximately $11,070. $10,720 of this amount was for flying operations which has been accounted for under the regularly scheduled monthly flying training costs. Billeting costs in excess of the basic amount accounted for in the above figure, were charged to and paid by the host Canadian officers.
5.	See part 3 above.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Except for wage earners, what persons or firms supplied goods, performed services or contracted to supply or perform undertakings at CFB Gagetown from January 1, 1975 to date?
2.	In each case (a) what are their names (b) what amount was paid or contracted to be paid (c) which transactions were tendered?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1 and
2. The information is not readily available. To provide a reply would entail a lengthy and costly examination of hundreds of

accounts which could not be done without hiring additional personnel for which the Department does not have the necessary resources.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Has the government been approached by the Province of Newfoundland requesting funds, in addition to those offered in the form of loans, to develop the Gull Island site in the Lower Churchill area of Labrador?
2.	Has any offer been made by the government to develop the Lower Churchill Gull Island site in the form of loans and/or grants?
3.	Have funds been requested to expand the proposed tunnel between Labrador and Newfoundland beyond the provision of a cable link to include the capability to provide vehicular access between Newfoundland and Labrador and, if so, what was the decision of the government?
4.	What action has the government taken to reconcile the differences between the Governments of Newfoundland and Quebec as a result of the request by the Government of Newfoundland to recover that number of megawatts required to develop the Gull Island site for the benefit of Newfoundland?


Maurice Dupras: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	None.


Mr. Howie: 1.	From January 1, 1976 to date, was any forest land in New Brunswick sprayed to combat the spruce bud worm and, if so (a) how many acres (b) what chemical was used (c) what was the (i) total cost of the operation (ii) amount contributed by the government (d) what degree of success was achieved?
2.	(a) Is there any evidence of harm to humans spraying with the chemical (b) has any research been carried out on the effects of the chemical and, if so, what?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: 1. (a) 9.6 million acres; (b) mainly fenitrothion; (c) (i) approximately $18 million, (ii) In so far as the Federal Government is concerned, $5.6 million. This contribution was a diversion of funds from one project to another under a previously approved Forestry Subsidiary Agreement between the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Province of New Brunswick, (d) Excellent results were obtained in terms of foliage protection and in the reduction of budworm numbers.
2. (a) There is no evidence of harm to humans as a result of spraying with the chemical in New Brunswick, (b) As it pertains to New Brunswick, research has been conducted on the effects of the chemical on the spruce budworm, songbirds, small mammals, livestock, stream fauna, pollinators and other non-target insects by various agencies including the Department of Fisheries and the Environment, the New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources, the New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, and Agriculture Canada; and in relation to humans, research has been conducted at the Izaak Walton Killam Hospital for Children, Halifax, with funding currently provided by the New Brunswick Department of
January 31, 1977

Order Paper Questions
Natural Resources through the New Brunswick Department of Health.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1974, have any Canada Council grants been given to residents of New Brunswick and, if so (a) how many (b) to whom (c) for what purpose (d) in each case, what amount?
Hod. John Roberts (Secretary of State): I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: Council data is not maintained in a form that would allow retrieval of the detailed information requested without long perusal of individual files. However, five Council programs of aid to individuals have been computerized as part of an operation that will eventually include all Council programs. The data available in respect to the computerized programs is provided in Table 1. The number and total value of awards granted to New Brunswick individuals
and organizations under all	Council programs	is set	out in
Table 2. Table 1			
Awards to Residents of New Brunswick by Selected Program Fiscal Years 1974-75 and 1975-76 Town of			Number of
Program Name	Residence		Awards
Arts Grants (Up to $8,000*)			
Chiasson, H.	Moncton	1Goupil, J. L.	Shippegan	1Richards, D. A.	Fredericton	Total	1 3Senior Arts Grants (Up to $16,000*)	Thompson, K. E.	Fredericton	Total	1 1Leave Fellowships (From $7,000* to $10,000*)	Bogaard, P. A.	Sackville	1Cameron, C.	Fredericton	1Christian, W. E.	Sackville	1Gallant, M. J.	Moncton	1Gibbs, R. J.	Fredericton	1Lepage, Y. G.	Moncton	1Morin, S. J.	Moncton	1Pugh, A. R.	Fredericton	1Robichaud, O. D.	Moncton	1Scobie, C. H. H.	Sackville	1Szabo, L.	Fredericton	1Woodward, C. A.	Fredericton	Total	1 12Doctoral Fellowships (From $5,500* to $6,500*)	Austin, D. L.	Minto	2Barrett, L. G.	Fredericton	1Bell, D. G.	Woodstock	1Blackstone, M. A.	Fredericton	1Brym, R. J.	Fredericton	1Davies, G.	Moncton	1De Camprieu, R.	Dieppe	1M.	Drain, S. C. M.	Harvey Stn.	1Drost, D. R.	Sackville	1NumberTown of	ofProgram	Name	Residence	AwardsGallant, C. M. M.	Moncton	2Hebert, L.	Edmundston	1Janssen, C. A.	Fredericton	1Kent, P. C.	Fredericton	1Leblanc, J. R. S.	Moncton	1MacCulloch, C.	Fredericton	1Malenfant, J. E. L.	Dieppe	1Martinez, J. P.	Moncton	1Massey, I. A.	Rothesay	1McGillvary, M. B.	Saint John	2Ouellette, J. G.	Moncton	1Riegger, R.	Saint John	2Robertson, P. J. M.	Fredericton	1Robichaud, A. M. C.	Moncton	1Robichaud, M. A. R.	Moncton	2Ross, J. M.	Fredericton	1Scott, R. J.	Fredericton	1Smith, M. E.	Fredericton	2Snowdon, J. D.	Sackville	1Stairs, A. E.	Woodstock	2Stanley, D. M. M.	Sackville	1Vaiciulenas, A. T.	Saint John	2Walker, L. J.	Riverview	1Weldon, J. F. G.	Newcastle	1Young, R. A.	Fredericton	Total	1 42Special M.A. Fellowships ($5,500*)	Bartlett, L. B.	Fredericton	1Collier, C. A.	Fredericton	1Connor, H. W.	Riverview	1Ferguson, B. S.	Fredericton	1Leblanc, P. E.	Moncton	1McAllister, A. L.	Saint John	1McConnell, R. L.	Saint John	1Roy, M. P.	Moncton	1White, G. M.	Dalhousie	1Willis, K. L.	Saint John East	Total	1 10
* This refers to the basic amount of the fellowship and does not include additional costs for travel, thesis typing, production or research which may be met by these programs.
Table 2
Canada Council
Awards to New Brunswick Residents and Organizations Fiscal Years 1974-75 and 1975-76 (number and $'000)
Awards
Program	1974-75 No.	$'000	1975-76 No.	$'000M.A. Fellowships1	5	29	5	32Ph.D. Fellowships1	19	108	23	146Leave Fellowships1	4	36	8	87Research Grants	18	134	18	106Killam Program	1	12	1	14General Research Grants	4	12	4	39Conference and Travel	5	12	3	9Explorations	15	35	13	35Arts Grants1	2	10	1	7Senior Arts Grants1	-	-	1	12Short Term Grants	3	5	3	4
January 31, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Awards
Program	1974-75	1975-76Travel Grants	No. 1	$'000 1	No.	$'000Project Cost Grants	-	-	1	2Touring Office	1	1	2	16Theatre	2	106	2	148Film and Video	1	5	3	16Visual Arts	3	28	8	58Music and Opera	4	35	4	35Art Bank	1	1	12	15Writing	15	67	8	38
1 Amount is based upon the average value of the fellowships.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 161 for the same years indicated in the reply, what is the government's best estimate of the number of Canadian Armed Forces personnel automobiles with final destinations or origins in (a) Quebec (b) Ontario (c) provinces west of Ontario moving between Canada and Europe and the United Kingdom?
2.	How many Canadian Armed Forces personnel automobiles shipped by the government to/from continental Europe and the United Kingdom, for the years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76 were accepted/delivered by military personnel at (i) Trenton/Kingston, Ontario (ii) the Port of Montreal?
3.	(a) For the years (i) 1973-74 (ii) 1974-75 (iii) 1975-76, what was the average rate per automobile paid by the government to the ocean carrier and/or freight forwarder (b) what ocean carriers are being used at the present time and what ports in (i) Continental Europe (ii) United Kingdom (iii) Canada are being used (c) what is the ocean freight rate per ton/or per automobile charged by the ocean carriers currently carrying most of the automobiles (d) what individual in what Department is responsible for routing this cargo?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
1973/74	1974/75	1975/76(a)	214	203	217(b)	670	582	604(c)	436	491	4602.	(a), (b) and (c)	1973/74	1974/75	1975/76(i)	901	815	844(ii)	744	590	5523.	(a) (i), (ii) and (iii)	1973/74	1974/75	1975/76$250	$300	$300
(b) Care Line. Cast North American Ltd. Federal Commerce and Navigation Co. Ltd. (i) and (ii) Norwich (feeder service to continent) and Felixtowe, UK. (iii) Montreal and occasional shipments to or from Halifax and Vancouver, (c) Current

Ocean freight basic charges on a standard North American Car-$300. (d) The annual contract is arranged by the Director of Transportation Operations at National Defence Headquarters Ottawa. A freight forwarder, Transcar Co. of Frankfurt, Germany has the current contract and that company and its agents in Europe and Canada/Montreal arrange the routing of this cargo.


Mr. Yewchuk: Is the Department of National Health and Welfare making any effort to encourage and facilitate such healthful outdoor and participatory sports as (a) fishing (b) hunting (c) hiking (d) mountain climbing (e) rock climbing (f) canoeing (g) cross-country skiing (h) downhill skiing and, if so, in each case, what effort is it making?


Marc Lalonde: The Fitness and Amateur Sport Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare is national in scope and deals primarily with national sports governing bodies and recreation associations. Through its joint objectives, the Branch seeks to help the best Canadian athletes in their pursuit of excellence, and to assist in the improvement of general fitness and recreational opportunities for Canadians. The following Associations received contributions for programs which have a significant impact on the development of healthful outdoor sport and recreation programs for Canadians:
Recipient Associations (1975-76 and 1976-77): 1. Canadian Recreational Canoeing Association: The Canadian Recreational Canoeing Association conducts six Canoeing Instructor Schools across Canada each summer in order to train experienced canoeists in teaching, organizing and promoting canoeing and canoe tripping. The participants are those involved in Youth Leadership using canoeing and the out-ofdoors as educational mediums. The training received is then transmitted in agencies such as youth programmes, in school and college outdoor education programmes, or local canoe clubs. The Association has a Task Force on Standards. It is anticipated that, by 1977, a national set of standards will be approved by all provinces and national organizations that deal with canoeing. $19,080; $65,535.
2.	Outward Bound Canada: Outward Bound aims to reveal and strengthen character through controlled challenge and understandable stress. The courses include extended expeditions in wild country, and challenging activities such as white water canoeing, mountaineering, and cross-country skiing. $32,000; $30,000.
3.	The Alpine Club of Canada: The Alpine Club of Canada encourages the practice of mountaineering and mountain crafts; the exploration of alpine and glacial regions and the promotion of scientific study and the education of Canadians in appreciation of their mountain heritage. The Club organizes leadership training courses for ski mountaineering, rock and snow climbing; guide books are published which cover many of the Canadian mountains; the Club works closely with Parks Canada and the Canadian Travel Bureau by providing infor-
January 31, 1977

mation for tourists on mountaineering, back packing, such as access roads, routes, maps, guide books, conditions etc. $7,526; $11,602.
4.	Canadian Ski Marathon: The Canadian Ski Marathon is a two day wilderness cross-country ski event covering over 160 kms that attracts over 3,000 people of all ages. During the winter the Marathon Trail is used for group ski tours and races. $26,860; $27,500.
The following national organizations have been involved in outdoor recreational activities and programs for a number of years. In fact, they were the pioneers in many of the outdoor recreational programs. These organizations have received financial assistance to enable them to conduct leadership development programs and to provide more services to their member and non-member participants in outdoor recreational activities.
5.	Canadian Camping Association: $54,941; $78,526.
6.	The Boy Scouts of Canada: $50,474; $42,515.
7.	Girl Guides of Canada: $10,336; $26,784.
8.	Boys' and Girls' Clubs of Canada: $79,400; $55,492.
9.	The National Council of Young Men's Christian Association of Canada: $57,974; $67,822.
10.	Young Women's Christian Association of Canada: $30,179; $19,718.
11.	Guides catholiques du Canada: $32,408; $35,000.
12.	Association des Scouts du Canada: $72,516; $89,489.
The following three associations strive to upgrade the quality of Canadian participation and the pursuit of excellence in their sport by strengthening the provincial, regional, and local organizations. This task is accomplished by the hosting of conferences, clinics for coaches and officials and providing technical assistance.
13.	Canadian Ski Association: $438,013; $400,176.
14.	Canadian Cycling Association: $160,075; $72,839.
15.	Canadian Ski Instructors' Alliance: (1976-77) $48,204.
16.	The Canadian Ski Patrol System: The Canadian Ski Patrol System is a charitable organization comprising highly trained volunteer and professional first aid and rescue personnel. The System was formed in 1941 to promote the sport of skiing through the encouragement of safe skiing and to provide assistance to injured skiers. $38,862; $62,500.
17.	Canadian Hostelling Association: The Canadian Hostelling Association (formerly known as the Canadian Youth Hostel Association) was established in Canada in 1933 and since has been providing low cost accommodation, educational and recreational activities and travel opportunities for young people, families and senior citizens. The Association offers such group programs as cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, canoeing, (including white water) cycling, sailing, hiking, rock and snow climbing etc. $62,922; $55,516.
Order Paper Questions
18.	Fitness Trails: Over the past few years many municipal recreation departments, summer camps, community agencies etc., have been showing a growing interest in fitness trails and are in need of specific guidelines in regards to the concept and construction of trails. Because of the large volume of requests from across Canada, a booklet entitled "Fitness Trails" was developed in the hope that it would assist people, associations etc. with the development and construction of Fitness Trails.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Did the President of the Privy Council, as recorded on page 2150 of Hansard, answer on December 11, 1974, that . .the federal and provincial governments have begun an intensive two-year study of methods to alleviate flooding in the Montreal area"?
2.	Did the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, as recorded on page 2489 of Hansard, answer on January 22, 1975, that "Discussions began in May, 1974 .. ."?
3.	Did the Minister of the Environment, as recorded on page 12581 of Hansard, answer on April 7, 1976, that "Within a few weeks I should receive an interim report and in June we will get the official report on the study made on floodings of rivers in the vicinity of Montreal."?
4.	Did the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, as recorded on page 12655 of Hansard, answer on April 8, 1976, "In the provisional report, which I have here, which the Minister received yesterday and which I received today,. .." and, as recorded on page 12656 of Hansard, "The final technical report and recommendations are, however, not due until June 30th ..."?
5.	Was the final technical report and recommendations received and (a) if so, on what date was it received (b) if not, for what reason?
6.	Were objections registered by the Quebec Provincial Government after receipt of the interim report?
7.	Were recommendations in the interim report unacceptable to the government and, if so, what were they?
8.	What was the cost of the production of the report and on what date and to whom was payment made?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: 1 to 4. Yes.
5.	Yes (a) November 30, 1976.
6.	No.
7.	The recommendations of the interim report and the final report are essentially the same; only minor changes have been made to some of the recommendations.
8.	The cost of the study, including printing of the final report, comes to around $700,000. As provided for in the Agreement, 50 per cent of this amount has been paid by the federal government to the Government of Quebec.


Mr. Neil: Has the Minister of National Revenue received representations from the Canadian Council of Rehabilitation Workshops seeking exemptions from federal sales tax for institutions and facilities whose prime objective is the rehabilitation of handicapped or disadvantaged persons and, if so (a) have they been considered (b) does the Minister plan to grant such exemption in the near future?


Hon.   Monique@: Yes, representations were received on October 29, 1976. (a) Yes. (b) No. The Excise Tax Act does not permit exemptions additional to those now available to the Council's workshops.

January 31, 1977
Order Paper Questions LIP-APPLICATIONS, SASKATCHEWAN


Mr. Neil: By constituency, in the Province of Saskatchewan under LIP, what was the (a) percentage rate of unemployment used in determining the allocation (b) initial amount allocated to each constituency (c) amount of each secondary allocation?
Hon. Jack Cuilen	(Minister	of	Manpower andImmigration):	(a)	(b)	(C)Unemployment	Initial	SupplementaryConstituency	Rate	Allocation Allocation	Assiniboia	2.91 S	; 75,000	-,Battleford-Kindersley	6.66	75,000	$ 27,000Mackenzie	13.94	342,000	358,000Meadow Lake	14.64	369,000	411,000Moosejaw	4.67	75,000	12,000Prince Albert	8.22	149,000	103,000Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain	4.13	75,000	43,000Regina East	6.00	75,000	183,000Regina-Lake Centre	3.80	75,000	-Saskatoon-Biggar	8.81	214,000	68,000Saskatoon-Humboldt	6.83	75,000	-Swift Current-Maple Creek	4.48	75,000	9,000Yorkton-Melville	7.60	110,000	49,000


Mr. Howie: How many persons were employed by the Job Creation Branch of the Department of Manpower and Immigration in each province on November 1, 1976 and, of this number, how many were not permanent employees?
Hon. Jack Cullen	(Minister	of Manpower	and
Immigration):			
Permanent	Non-Permanent	TotalOttawa Headquarters	27	71	98Newfoundland	4	31	35Nova Scotia	6	33	39New Brunswick	6	33	39Prince Edward Island	3	8	11Quebec	24	131	155Ontario	12	108	120Manitoba	5	28	33Saskatchewan	5	21	26Alberta	7	23	30Northwest Territories	2	6	8British Columbia	10	56	66Total	111	549	660


Mr. Friesen: With reference to the answer to Question No. 790, how many persons in (a) 1973 (b) 1974 (c) 1975 immigrated to Canada from (i) England (ii) France (iii) Germany (iv) Portugal (v) Spain (vi) Italy (vii) India (viii) Hong Kong (ix) Taiwan (x) Japan (xi) Caribbean (xii) United States (xiii) Mexico (xiv) Latin American Countries?
Hon. Jack	Cullen	(Minister of	Manpower andImmigration):	(a) 1973	(b)1974	(c) 1975(i)	19,979	28,828	27,761(ii)	3,586	4,232	3,891(iii)	2,564	3,636	3,481(iv)	13,483	16,333	8,547(v)	688	727	697(vi)	5,468	5,226	5,078(vii)	9,203	12,868	10,144(viii)	14,662	12,704	11,132(ix)	1,372	1,382	1,131(x)	1,105	859	635(xi)	19,281	23,885	17,973(xii)	25,242	26,541	20,155(xiii)	662	676	845(xiv)	11,057	12,528	13,270


Mr. Wenman: Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation so that the situation whereby Commission ports who do not make grants in lieu of taxes to municipalities, is corrected as quickly as possible and, if so, on what date?


Otto Emil Lang: It is the
intention of the government to introduce legislation concerning Canadian ports as soon as possible. At that time the government will have made the necessary decisions and will announce proposals with regard to such matters as grants in lieu of taxes.


Mr. Friesen: In (a) 1973 (b) 1974 (c) 1975, what percentage of immigrants from France settled in each province?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Newfoundland	Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia1973	.45	.06	.421974	.21	-	.501975	.21	.08New Brunswick	Quebec	Ontario per cent	Manitoba.47	61.79	26.24	1.25.33	66.99	21.93	1.68.33	75.10	15.85	1.54Saskatchewan	Alberta	Bristish Columbia	Northwest Territories and Yukon.36	4.02	4.74	.20.28	2.93	4.98	.17.77	2.75	3.32	.05
January 31, 1977


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 153 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. Again, the reason is the lengthy nature of the answer.


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 Agriculture?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable figures for the fiscal year 1973-1974?
Return tabled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I remarked a few moments ago, 1 have often stated that my well known preference is to arrange for the planning of the House by agreement. However, I have had more than one occasion in the past to observe that there are, indeed, times, either for reasons of ideology or just plain politics, when one or more group in this House may find it of advantage to fail to so participate in the affairs of the House so that the House cannot come to an agreement or decision on measures before it. It is for the purpose of dealing with just this kind of intransigence that we have this particular procedure and that this motion is made.
It is particularly regrettable in this instance that an agreement was not possible. The amendments to the Income Tax Act incorporated in Bill C-22 are numerous. They are important in their over-all impact on Canada, and important to the
Income Tax
many thousands of Canadians they affect directly. These taxpayers are now telling us to get on with our business so that they can get on with theirs. I believe the opposition expressed in some corners of the House to particular measures proposed in this legislation has been ill-advised. It has impaired the orderly and effective conduct of the business of parliament and it is not serving the interests of the country.
It has been claimed that the bill, particularly with its changes which raise the level of deductible contributions to pension plans, benefits only the well-to-do. The facts do not support this claim. In 1975, average family income in this country was $16,263. In 1976, of course, this figure would have been higher. Yet the simple arithmetic of the new maximum contributions to registered pension plans and registered retirement savings plans tells us that they will benefit taxpayers with incomes above $12,500. Several hundred thousand middle income taxpayers in this country, taxpayers whose incomes are average by this modest measurement, are helped by these changes. Far from a gift to the privileged, the increases simply restore the real value of limits set for contributions when tax reform was introduced five years ago.
They do no more than make up for the erosion brought about by inflation. Furthermore, many pension contracts require percentage contributions by employees which now exceed the old limits under the Income Tax Act. Without the changes proposed in this bill, these employees will be making contributions to their retirement which are disallowed as deductions, in other words, contributions which will have to be made out of after-tax income.
The bill also provides for a doubling of deductible child care expenses. In this regard I wish to refer to a report which appeared in the Globe and Mail of Saturday last in which it was alleged by a group in Ottawa that there was discrimination as between men and women in the application of these particular measures by favouring a single father to the extent of $1,560 per year for each child, as opposed to a $1,000 maximum for a woman. I would point out that that report is entirely erroneous; the application of the law is the same in both cases.
Almost all of the quarter of a million Canadians who claim the child care allowance stand to benefit from the increase in annual limits to $1,000 per child and $4,000 per family. None of the tax returns taking advantage of these increases can be processed by Revenue Canada until this legislation is approved. The measures in this bill are based on a budget introduced fully eight months ago. It has had the benefit of detailed examination in the House and in the country. All we accomplish by further delay is to prolong uncertainty for taxpayers and delay the decisions that thousands of individuals would like to make with respect to their planning of investments and their planning for retirement.
2544

January 31, 1977
Income Tax
There are other changes in this legislation which will improve our tax system. The bill helps the small businessmen of this country, increasing the annual business income, subject to the low rate of corporate tax, to $150,000 from $100,000, and increasing cumulative income eligible for the low rate to $750,000 from $500,000. The bill introduces a new and fairer tax regime for charities. The changes will ensure, as far as possible, that tax exempt amounts flowing to charities are used as efficiently as possible and for strictly charitable purposes.
The bill provides for a simpler tax calculation affecting five million Canadians, many of them elderly people on limited retirement incomes who are able to make use of the interest and dividend reduction, pension and disability deductions and the special exemption for those over 65. The bill imposes a 10 per cent surtax for 1976 on individuals whose taxes exceed $8,000, a provision clearly based on ability to pay, affecting all taxpayers with incomes above $30,000. There was an erroneous report, attributed to the Canadian Press over the weekend, that this bill repeats the surtax. The very opposite is true. Unless this bill is passed, the surtax, which some hon. members say they favour, will not be imposed at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In fact, the bill imposes the surtax as a supportive measure to the decisions made pursuant to the anti-inflation program introduced somewhat over a year ago.
I have mentioned only the most obvious reasons why the bill needs the approval of parliament. We are approaching the February 28 deadline when taxpayers must make their decisions on retirement plans and finalize their arrangements with trustees. Increasing numbers of other taxpayers are in position to complete their tax returns and to claim refunds, but hesitate to do so because they are affected by other measures in the bill. More than the usual degree of uncertainty already faces individuals and corporations in the conduct of their affairs at this time. Surely it is our responsibility as members of the House to deal as soon as possible with this legislation.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) indicated that the planning of the business of the House should be by way of agreement. Fortunately, that has characterized most of the arrangements for the business of the House, I think, and I know from the reputation, reasonableness, approachability and flexibility that it is much out of character for this man to be playing the Madame Defarge of parliament in moving this motion.
I was a little disturbed that, when he talked in the course of his remarks and used the phrase "in some quarters of the House" with respect to Bill C-22, he did not identify the quarters of the House from which an attitude of intransigence emanates, as he said; because I think it is fair to say-and I think there will be agreement even from those on the government side-that with respect to Bill C-22 the official opposi-

tion, the Progressive Conservative party, has not dealt in a way that could be styled intransigent, by any stretch of the meaning of that word, because there is recognition that although the bill is long and complex, it is important to Canadians.
I would not want to rise in my place and say that there will never be a period in the life of parliament when the use of the guillotine would not be necessary. There are occasions when the use of the guillotine is perhaps necessary, and it is up to the government of the day to make up its mind, when it finds it is necessary, and to suffer the consequences of its actions on that decision.
But the question that has to be asked by this parliament every time a motion of this nature is put is whether a case has been made out by the government for invoking what is unusual under our rules and traditions, in terms of our parliamentary history. The fact of the matter is that this guillotine motion, under our rules and traditions, has not been used very often. If the government has a problem with respect to this situation, it is not as a result of any intransigence, I respectfully suggest, on the part of the opposition but, perhaps, because of the way this session began. This is the first session, in the memory of parliamentarians who have been here longer than I have, in which parliament did not receive at the beginning of the session, in the throne speech, a list of the priorities or important legislation of the government.
As a result, we started on the wrong foot. There was no evidence whatsoever of any planning of the session by the government, nor any indication of what was considered important. This was distressing to us who, having returned to parliament at a time when the economic problems of this country were not getting any better but were, in fact, getting much worse, were faced by a government which gave no evidence whatsoever that during a long parliamentary recess they had even considered them.
As I have described before, there was no evidence of any action on legislation dealing with such problems as unemployment, inflation or lack of productivity. In fact, the situation could only be described as a legislative wasteland. If you go day by day through the debates during the fall of this session of parliament, you will see that we jumped from bill to bill- one day on this bill, one day on another. There was complete lack of any sense of direction in the mind of the government, which was translated into lack of leadership in terms of the business of the House. It is a fact that only on January 24, when we returned from the Christmas recess, we received any indication that there might be some direction to the government's business-almost three months after this session had begun. That is the basis of the problem of the operation of this parliament in this session, and that is the problem with which we are faced.
The Minister of Finance did not mention Bill C-19, the debate on which occupied a total of 15 Vi parliamentary days, almost the whole of the government's legislative period during November. I am referring to the restraints bill. How this occurred, escapes me. That bill had a predecessor in the first session of parliament. We made it clear to the government that

if they withdrew the section dealing with the amendment to the Railway Act, it would pass quickly. We made it clear to them in- the course of the debate and in the course of private discussions that if they removed that section from the bill we would pass it quickly. As a matter of fact, when they finally removed it almost at the end of that period of debate, the bill was passed quickly, but we wasted a tremendous number of parliamentary days.
1 think that is the prime example of stubborness. I do not think it lies at the feet of the government House leader. I think he was dealing with a very stubborn Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) who was finally convinced that while his nannies may get a free ride on government aircraft, this bill was not going to get a free ride in the House. When he was finally prevailed upon to withdraw that section, we withdrew opposition to the bill.
Let me deal, in the few minutes I have left, with Bill C-22, the income tax bill. We are not denying the importance of this piece of legislation, but in point of fact it was left to the tail end of the first part of the second session of this parliament to be dealt with. This important piece of legislation, which affects so many Canadians and respecting which failure to pass would wreak great havoc on economic planning, was first called on November 19. Then it was neglected. The bill was not called again until December 2, and then it was called for debate on three parliamentary days.
If this bill was so important, why did the government order its priority in the way it did? As a matter of fact, up to and including the committee of the whole stage, where the bill now stands, we have only occupied a total of 4'/2 parliamentary days on a very important tax bill. The question which faces us is whether, under these circumstances, we ought in the parliamentary sense to agree to the closing off, or the guillotining, of the debate. The public is guaranteed the results of this bill by motions like this one and perhaps subsequent ones which are going to be brought as the debate proceeds. The public is guaranteed the benefit of the bill in any event, so our question is whether in terms of the traditions of this House, the official opposition ought to agree to this kind of thing.
Having regard to the arrangement of priorities and the lack of leadership in terms of the business of this House, I respectfully submit that this opposition ought not to be the handmaiden to this government's stupidity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Therefore, we are not prepared to support this closure motion. That is not to say that this would be the case on other occasions, but it is important that we understand that the government has certain responsibilities with respect to the ordering of the business of this House, and those responsibilities, unfortunately-I use the word "unfortunately" because I look upon the government House leader as an adversary only in the professional sense, and certainly not in the personal sense-have not been carried
Income Tax
out. It is unfortunate that that has occurred, and it is also unfortunate that the government has decided to guillotine this piece of legislation after only 41/2 days, using necessity as an excuse which the government must have foreseen some time ago because, after all, the government is the drafter of the bill and, more than that, is the orderer or the business of the House of Commons.
In terms of the role of the opposition, I have always held the view that the opposition has no right whatsoever-no parliamentary right, in any event-to carry on, willy-nilly, prolonging debate on important issues when there is no disagreement in principle. However, when there is disagreement in principle it is the duty of the opposition to carry on the debate and to expose the government, and I think we have carried through on this principle.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to make the observation that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) did not spend even 30 seconds attempting to justify this unusual procedure of cutting off debate. I can understand his not spending even 30 seconds, because he knows he has no case whatsoever.
As the House leader for the Conservative party has just said, the reason the government is doing this is that its sense of priorities has been totally wrong, not only with regard to this bill but also with regard to other important national questions. The government brought this bill in for its first serious debate just before the Christmas recess. That is when the debate really began. The Conservative House leader just said we have spent only 4'/2 days on it. This is a bill that the government says is very important. If it is so important, why did we wait since last May, the time of the budget, until just before Christmas for a serious debate? I suggest that the government hoped to slip it through before the Christmas recess.
We do not support the guillotine motion in this case. As has just been indicated, there are times when the government must have a right to act and to exercise its judgment when the opposition is unnecessarily holding up things. In principle we go along with that. Sometimes the government has to act and be responsible for its decisions. However, in this particular instance we say this action is totally unjustified.
We have come back after a month's recess. In that time Canadians talked about all kinds of serious problems, notably the problem of unemployment. But what were the first two steps taken by the government: a debate on televising proceedings in the House, followed by a debate on metrication in certain aspects of agriculture. Those were the priorities of the government. Now the government brings in closure with respect to this financial bill.
The Minister of Finance spent all his time dealing with the substance of the bill and making the best he could of a terrible case for a terrible piece of legislation. In indicating why we oppose the closure motion and why we oppose this bill, I want to talk about four principal clauses in the bill to which we
80008-24%

January 31, 1977
Income Tax
object. We object to them because they are fundamentally unfair to the people of Canada. I want to deal with the changes in the pension plan, and in particular RRSPs; I want to talk about the child care provisions of the Income Tax Act; the elimination of the special surtax on upper income Canadians, and the effects of indexing.
In talking about these four clauses I want to point out that the information I am going to provide pertains to taxpayers at 1977 levels of taxation on the assumption that those taxpayers will have the average amount of optional deductions for which they may be eligible, and these taxpayers will have two children under the age of sixteen. What are the provisions in this bill? They are being proposed in a country which has growing inequality, in which the poor people have a lower percentage of the total income now than they had 20 years ago, and in which the top segment has a greater percentage of the national income than it had 20 years ago.
Surely that is a disgrace for any government that likes to describe itself as progressive. What are the effects of the changes in the registered pension plan and RRSPs, and how do they affect a $10,000 per year family? That family gets an average saving of $200. A $20,000 a year family saves $500. A taxpayer earning $50,000 per year will save $780. That poor friend of the Liberal party who earns $100,000 will save $940. The benefits in those four categories are in exactly inverse proportions to what they should be in a society which is concerned about economic justice.
What about the child care provisions? Instead of making a direct grant to all people who need child care facilities-and surely they are needed in this country-and by dealing with the need to finance child care in this way, we get profound inequality in terms of effects. What are the benefits in that category for a taxpayer earning $10,000, with two children? He or she will save $200. The $20,000 per year taxpayer will save $250. The $50,000 per year taxpayer will save $390. Then, again, that special friend of the Liberal party, the person earning $100,000 per year, will save $470. That is exactly in inverse proportions to what anyone concerned about compassion and justice would provide.
Then there is the surtax provision that the Minister of Finance touchingly raised a few minutes ago. He correctly pointed out that the surtax will be removed in 1977 on incomes of $30,000 a year or more. I would have thought that instead of drawing attention to that fact, he would have apologized for it. Wage controls will remain on the ordinary workers of the country during that period, but the family with an income of $30,000 a year or more that is supposed to share the burden of the anti-inflation program-and that was the justification given for it when it was introduced a year ago last Christmas-will have the surtax removed. Wage controls will remain for the ordinary people, and I think particularly the non-unionized workers of Canada, while the special surtax for the rich will be removed.

Mr. Speaker, let me show what that little bit of Liberal justice will do. The taxpayer at the $50,000 level will save $420 next year. No one below the $30,000 level will save a cent as a result of this change. The taxpayer at the $80,000 level will save $1,654, and the taxpayer at the $100,000 a year level will save $2,491. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the special surtax which the rich were paying under the controls has been lifted, but wage controls remain. The Minister of Finance said this is peanuts.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is what you said last year.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, $2,491 saved on an income of $100,000 may be peanuts, but to the poor of Canada it is not peanuts.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You have turned yourself completely around. Be honest, now.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has had his chance. Under the provision for indexation carried forward in this act, again the benefits accrue to the people in the various categories I have mentioned. A poor person earning $10,000 a year-and for most parts of Canada that means living below the official poverty level-will save $98; a person earning $20,000 will save $164; the $50,000 a year person will save $450, while the taxpayer with a $100,000 income will save $1,055.
I have gone quickly through the four principal categories of tax benefit provided by this legislation. In each and every one of these categories I have shown that upper income Canadians benefit more than the average or poor Canadian. I say the net effect will be to increase inequality in Canada, instead of reducing it. For that reason, we not only oppose the invocation of the guillotine on this bill, but the bill itself.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that this allotted time has expired. The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier).


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the motion the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has just presented to the House.
First of all, let me say how surprised I was when, upon entering the House, I was told that such a motion would be presented to the House. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that, had we been dealing today with matters of little importance, as always the House would have been allowed to debate for days on end, because the rule of the present government is to waste time discussing matters which require no commitment on its part. But as soon as the matter becomes serious, as is always the case with matters financial, the government comes in with its club, closure. This is the twenty-first or twenty-second time this procedure is used in this House and, believe me, Mr. Speaker, we do not approach it or counter its use blithely. In this move we see the special characteristic of this government which persists in imposing its will, its dictatorial ways. This, to my mind, is what harms the Liberal party, why it is losing in
January 31, 1977

popularity right across Canada and mainly in Quebec. The culprit is its dictatorial attitude, its the compulsion to impose its will even on the opposition; dealing with as serious a topic as that of Bill C-22 we are allowed barely four days of debate, after which closure will be imposed.


Mr. Bechard:: After that, we are told that we pass nothing!


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: 
Charles-Arthur Gauthier: When time comes to discuss a serious matter, which deserves to be debated, closure is imposed because the government seems to be in a rush. Everything becomes urgent. That is funny! Since recent events in Quebec, everything is urgent. Even the Constitution has to be rewritten. Hurry, hurry! Yet, for 100 years, what we said fell on deaf ears.
Mr. Speaker, I do not like being "closed" in. But I enjoy discussing serious issues freely if we are still under a democracy, though I never believed in democracy with the Liberal party in this House. This is the worst bureaucratic dictatorship we ever had in Canada. It gives us the evidence of it today by its guillotine motion, using Standing Order 75C. Well, Mr. Speaker, I assure you-


An hon. Member:: How come-


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: That is odd, somebody is shouting on the other side and you never know who it is. That is like a flight of bustards. You never know which of them sang. I am simply saying that I strongly oppose this question to protect democracy in Canada. I am not totally opposed to the adoption of the bill because of some clauses like the doubling of the aid given to day nurseries and so on. I am for this; I want this aid to increase but for example when they want to increase the contributions to a registered retirement savings plan I simply say this is once again to protect the well-to-do, to protect the friends of the party. And when the minister tells me this afternoon in the House that the average salary is $16,000 a year in Canada, this is not true.
I do not know where his information comes from but it is not true that the average salary in Canada is $16,000 a year, Mr. Speaker. We must say things as they are and stop inventing statistics. All kinds of statistics are invented to cheat the Canadian people. That is precisely why some provinces are disgusted with all these statements.
Mr. Speaker, about the increase in pension plans, I repeat once again, that if we want to help Canadians-and I said it already in the House-let us increase the basic income tax deduction. In doing so we will help every worker, every Canadian. But why is it we do not deal with that? We do not as a matter of fact.
Income Tax
We discuss the average salary but never will the basic income tax deduction be increased to give a chance to those earning still $8,000, $9,000 or $10,000 a year to return a little less money to the federal treasury. Let those who earn big salaries pay. There should be some in Canada because to arrive at such an average salary, thousand of employees must be earning $35,000, $40,000, $50,000 a year. And there are some friends of the party who earn $45,000, $50,000, $55,000 or $60,000 in Canada!
Mr. Speaker, once again I repeat that I cannot accept such a motion and that I will vote against it, not because I am opposed to the bill-we will discuss it later on-we will have at least another eight hours to discuss it. But for the time being, I want to oppose this motion, the way the Liberal government proceeds and I am sure that the vast majority of the opposition will share my point of view.
Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, as members we have a number of jobs to do in this House. We are here to challenge the administration of the government and question ministers as to how they carry out their duties. This House is a sounding-board in which we, as members, can express the concerns of the country and the concerns of our regions and constituents. To a certain point, this chamber is a debating society in which new ideas are put forward. We challenge them, improve them and, speaking for the people of Canada, say what we think ought to be done or what we seek to achieve. But we should not forget-and sometimes we do-that this is a legislative body as well. We have to pass laws. We have the responsibility not only of talking about changes, of talking about what we want to do, but of enacting those changes and incorporating them into laws which will move this country in the direction on which this House decides.
Speaking as a member of a party which is committed to change, which wants to get things done, it is particularly important to me to see this House passing legislation, to see us moving forward and adopting ideas. But we can do this only if we pass laws which will be carried out in the country. We cannot bring about changes just by talking about them. We must bring them about by passing laws. We bring forward laws, vote on them and, hopefully, pass them. During the present session we are talking about human rights legislation, we are talking about improvements in the immigration laws, and about all kinds of economic matters which need to be solved with legislation. We must move ahead; we cannot allow the House to become bogged down with just talk about legislation which will not be dealt with. In other words, the House must face its responsibilities.
The Social Credit party spokesman suggested that the process of time allocation threatens democracy. I put it the other way around: I say that democracy is preserved with time allocation; it is preserved when we bring the House face to face

January 31, 1977
Income Tax
with its responsibilities and ask it to vote on legislation before it.
People all over this country are calling for a new budget. The economy is not growing as quickly as we want. The world is changing. Our trading partners are implementing new policies which will affect us. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has said that he is working on a new budget. Indeed, no persons are demanding one more enthusiastically and with more determination than the leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) and other hon. members opposite. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we have not even adopted all the parts of the old budget, which are extremely important.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister has only had since last May!


Mr. Kaplan:: This budget provides considerable tax relief across the board. The Social Credit spokesman mentioned, I believe, that the minister had indicated that average income in this country was $16,000 a year. That was not average individual income, but average family income that the minister was referring to, and he said so. And when we are dealing with family incomes of this size, you will note that a considerable number of the important measures in the budget benefit average families.
Mr. Speaker, I think something like five million Canadians, in a normal year, get income tax refunds. That is an approximate number, but not one of these refunds can be paid based on the budget until the bill before us is passed. The Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) cannot issue the order for the refunds to be sent to Canadians unless she has the authority of the legislation which allows such refunds to be made. That legislation must be passed by this House. It is, therefore, urgent that we bring debate on this legislation to an end and to a vote, after which we can move forward and deal with a new budget and all the other important matters which hon. members of the House seek to change through legislation.
Opposition leaders have indicated that sometimes they might approve time allocation, but they have indicated that in this case they cannot approve it. They have taken that position, they say, because the government has not shown enough leadership in moving ahead with existing legislation. Mr. Speaker, in these circumstances how can you exercise leadership without using time allocation? Surely it should not take long to pass a bill of the kind we are discussing. However, it soon became clear that the opposition intended to dig its heels in, prolong debate as long as possible and force the government to do what it has done today; that is, bring in time allocation. As far as I am concerned, time allocation should be used far more often and on a regular basis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Most Canadians would be astonished to learn that there is no regular method for observing a legislative timetable for bills such as the one before us. There is no other way by which members and the country can know in advance how long legislation will be reviewed, how long it ought to be considered, and when it will ultimately be voted on. I very

much look forward to the day when time allocation will be a regular feature of the rules of procedure and processes of this House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am always interested to hear the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Kaplan). He suggested for example, that the House of Commons is somehow involved in the governmental process. That is the kind of facile argument government spokesmen raise when they argue in favour of restricted debate in the House of Commons. Let us look at this question in its correct perspective. We are debating a motion which will deny the representatives of the people of Canada the opportunity to debate fully, and without restriction, certain measures brought forward by the government. As for the process of governing, it is the responsibility of the government to conduct its day to day activities and involve itself in the consideration of those who question its method of operation.
We are debating our ability to conduct a free and full debate on measures which the government has brought before parliament. These are measures which the government House leader, in his wisdom, has seen fit to bring before parliament. I see the present occasion as an attempt on the part of the government House leader to apply time allocation to all legislation at all stages.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I understand the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has said on television that he would consider implementing time allocation in various debates. Although the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) is responsible for moving the present motion, the motion itself clearly shows the government's policy. Present circumstances have arisen because of the government's failure during the present and past sessions of parliament to show leadership in this House.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to document the legislation which was passed recently. We in the opposition have dealt reasonably with quite a number of items of legislation put forward by the government. The problem is not that the opposition has held up legislation, but that the government has had little of consequence to bring forward. It brought forward certain items it wanted passed, but left in abeyance certain tax matters from the previous session of the present parliament. Last fall it brought forward Bill C-19 which was debated at length. It was delayed until the government acceded to the opposition's request to remove an objectionable clause. After that the House made good progress. Once the government listened to the reasonable arguments of members on my side of the House, Bill C-19 which related to government expenditures soon passed all stages.
We are now dealing with the Income Tax Act. We have spent 4Vi days on it. Second reading is passed and we are now in committee of the whole. We have dealt with the borrowers
January 31, 1977

and depositors bill, C-16, which took Vh days. We have dealt with the James Bay agreement bill, an important piece of legislation which took Vh days. It has been given second reading.
We have finished Bill C-2, dealing with advance payments for crops, after two days' debate in the House. Second reading has now been given. We have dealt with the Halifax longshoremen's dispute: Bill C-14 took up one-half day in the House. We have dealt with Bill C-5 concerning currency and exchange. That also took one-half day. We have dealt with Bill C-8 on the subject of securities: it took about 20 minutes. We have dealt with Bill C-12 setting out tax agreements with certain countries, which took 20 minutes. We have dealt with Bill C-3, the Deposit Insurance Corporations Act, which took 30 minutes. We have dealt with a bill concerning historic sites and monuments, Bill C-13; the debate took half a day. These things were all done before Christmas. What obstruction has taken place?
Since Christmas we have been dealing with the Customs tariff, Bill C-15, which we completed last week. Bill C-7, concerning small craft harbours, was dealt with in the course of one day before Christmas. We spent one day before Christmas on Bill C-26 having to do with scientific activities, and I suspect it will go through the House if the House leader decides to bring it down for debate.
We spent one day before Christmas discussing metric conversion and grain. It was discussed again on Wednesday and Thursday and it has now gone through second reading. When we consider that 35 days were spent on government business before Christmas-a total of 40 days up to now-we wonder what strategy the government is following. Why is it bringing down a bill under Standing Order 75 to close debate before even putting Bill C-22 before the House for discussion to determine what progress can be made? I assure the representatives of the government presently in the chamber that as far as we are concerned in the official opposition, we intend to give full and reasonable attention to all the provisions of that bill. We do not intend to delay it; we intend to deal responsibly with this legislation. If any other party, such as the NDP, feels it is likely to gain any political advantage by filibustering, it will suffer the consequences of such a move. I am not here to defend the NDP.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If they feel they have a case, let them speak, and suffer the consequences. I can well imagine the public response the leader of the NDP is now getting from those who want to know what their position is with respect to rebates on their cheques and RRSPs. I think the leader of the New Democratic Party and his group should give serious consideration to allowing reasonable but not prolonged debate on this measure.
The point I am making is that if the government persists in its present approach toward legislation, it will cause itself even more damage than it has already suffered by reason of its bungling and ineptness. By its present course it is showing
Income Tax
little respect for the House of Commons, composed as it is of members who represent all parts of the country.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is not one in respect of which an allocation of time should be sought. I suggest to the House leader that it would be far better if the Minister of Finance could explain to us why it took so long to bring down the budget bills, the legislation which flows from the budget of May last year. Why are we only now dealing with these matters? Why did the government resume the session with a symbolic gesture by bringing in a motion having to do with television in the House? As a result, it was universally criticized for lack of judgment in setting priorities.
We deserve a full explanation of this apparent attempt to restrict debate. If it is the tactic of the government to restrict the speeches of representatives of the people of Canada, hon. members opposite can rest assured that I, along with my hon. friends on this side, will fight strenuously against any such attempt.


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, it is the first time for me to take part in a debate in the House as Minister of National Revenue and member of the cabinet. I think the circumstances of this parliamentary debate fully reflect the worst that can happen to the parliamentary institution when it over emphasizes the significance of procedure instead of keeping in mind the purpose of its very existence-the welfare of Canadians.
I think the wizards of procedure have been particularly well represented this afternoon by the speech of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) who has told us that most Canadians agree on the propositions of Bill C-22 to alleviate the fiscal burden of the taxpayers, but that the parliamentary institution, which means himself and the opposition, had a part to play. The hon. member tried to explain what this part was, even when the Canadian people want this bill passed, and the only thing we have learned from him is how a democratic institution suddenly becomes a lofty sanctuary above the common people.
Or again the list which has just been read by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is the exact extension of this mentality of the opposition, which, short of ideas, is desperately clinging to procedure. He has given us a reading of the parliamentary works which have been completed since the beginning of this session, taking care to specify that the House took half a day, a day or a day and a half, according to the matter, without telling us at any moment why the opposition wanted to filibuster this bill.
The point of view I want to present this afternoon is that of the least popular of ministers during the first months of the year, the minister responsible for taxation, but I shall do it in a positive manner, because I know that the measures contained in Bill C-22 are beneficial to the majority of Canadians, and not only to a minority. My first concern and my duty as minister is to give Canadian taxpayers the service they are entitled to. That is my first responsibility, and I am not using

January 31, 1977
Income Tax
the word service just for the pleasure of it, but I am talking about quality, fastness and as few mistakes as possible when our 15,000 civil servants review the many tax returns which have already started to file in for the 1976 taxation year.
It is very important that the House discuss and vote on Bill C-22. A lot of uncertainty and confusion now exists among individuals and families who are about to fill their tax returns. We receive an increasing number of phone calls. People read the papers, watch television, listen to the radio and see that the forms they have already received, earlier than usual this year, that is at the beginning of December, the tax return forms take into consideration, more exactly take for granted that Parliament will adopt Bill C-22, but they know on the other hand that it has not. They rightly wonder what will happen.
As minister, I had to proceed with the printing of the amended tax return forms, which take into consideration the provisions of the bill and therefore anticipate the decision of the House, but it is understood that we shall have to amend the forms and to correct the returns filed in by taxpayers if the House does not pass or amend Bill C-22.
As long as Bill C-22 remains undecided, income tax rebates to taxpayers will have to be delayed. As of today, which is the very commencement of the period when returns are received by my department, I have to inform the members of the House that 41 such reports have been put aside because they included one or several of the provisions subject to the amendments included in Bill C-22. This is very unfair, to start with. We hope we will be able to process these returns and we hope to give them priority as soon as the bill is passed. I do not think that the official opposition or any opposition in this chamber wants to penalize taxpayers for our lethargic procedures or lack of ideas.
The major changes of benefit to taxpayers which are being delayed include three points, among others, on which I should like to touch briefly. First is the increase of pension plan contributions, both registered pension plans and registered retirement savings plans. I will not quote misleading statistics in the way the leader of the New Democratic Party did earlier on and confuse Canadians even more. I do know for a fact- and this was clearly illustrated by the information given in December in the course of the debate and earlier this afternoon by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald)-that this favours-


John Edward Broadbent: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) is rising on a point of order.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have high respect, as a rule, for the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin), but she indicated that in some sense what I said earlier was misleading. I say in all seriousness to the minister, would she kindly point out which of the statistics I used was misleading?


Miss B6gin:: Mr. Speaker, I would greatly appreciate, like everyone else not only in this chamber and the press gallery but all across Canada, knowing the source of the statistics. If the hon. member-


John Edward Broadbent: They were taken from figures of your own department.


Monique Bégin: Everyone who has worked with statistics knows that nothing is easier than turning them around in all sorts of ways and playing tricks with them. The hon. member read-I thought he would be far more honest about it-categories of salaries and annual incomes, but did not give the slightest indication as to the year, and then quoted out of the blue-


John Edward Broadbent: 
John Edward Broadbent: 
Mr. Peters:: They are your own estimates, not ours.


Monique Bégin: That is why, knowing they are tools of work, that we do not quote them without saying what they are. That proves my whole point.


William Arnold Peters: You are the minister, so why don't you act like one?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) has the floor.


Monique Bégin: Besides the benefit brought under the pension plan contributions, I should like to speak of the increase in child care expenses and reiterate that the leader of the NDP has a very strange idea of what the mass of Canadians are all about. If he thinks that the quarter of a million Canadians who use the child care expenses provisions of the Income Tax Act are very limited in their needs, then good for Canada, we are a very lucky country to have so many Canadians who can afford to use child care expenses. But, of course, nothing will ever be perfect for the NDP. The third and last point-
January 31, 1977


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the "minister, but her allotted time has expired.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it is music to my ears to hear these buddies of past years now quarrelling. When I think of how the NDP kept the government of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in power from 1972 to 1974, and then spent all their time this session attacking the Conservative opposition, to hear them now fighting with their lovers across the way is sweet music.


John Edward Broadbent: Don't get personal.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I happen to be opposed to this closure motion, though as the government knows I support the particular bills and spoke in the House in favour of them. Nevertheless, I defend the right of the NDP to say what they think is the truth.


Mr. Benjamin:: Thank you for your help.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We have spent 4xfi days on this bill.


Walter David Baker: And that is all.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, that is all. If the NDP honestly believe that if any person can afford to save money he must be rich and be put down, let them have the right to say that.
Let me put forward to the government this very simple thought. Along with many thousands of Canadians I was insulted when I came back to the House this session to find the order of business before us. When the whole country was worried about the fact that we had been in a recession for over two years, with nothing being done to attack the basic causes of inflation or unemployment, the government presented us when we first came back after the recess with a motion to bring radio and television into the House. No one is opposed to that, but surely there are more serious matters to discuss.


John Edward Broadbent: Ask Walter Baker.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The next item on the agenda was metric conversion. Let me remind the House that Canada signed a treaty in 1907, 70 years ago, stating that we were going to bring in metric conversion some day. In 1971, the government passed an order in council saying we were going to put this promise into effect. It only took 70 years to get to that position!
In the last day or so before the recess at Christmas they sneaked in the metric conversion bill which affects the culture, lifestyle and pocketbooks of all farmers in western Canada. They did not think to give a chance in this important legislation to the ordinary, individual workingman in the factories and offices, the small businessman or the farmer, to get a few more bucks of his own to look after his future because these universal plans which we have are not meeting the need. This is good legislation the minister is trying to get through. I do
Income Tax
not quarrel with that. All I ask is, why did they not bring it in on the first day of this session?
Parliament is important. I felt deeply ashamed when I heard members on the government side applauding the fact that what this government needs is closure, closure all the time. They call it allocation of time. You do not drive Canadians to do anything: you lead Canadians. If you want to go back to where the mistake was made, go back to 1968 where the biggest nitwits of all parties got together and brought in the rule changes. That is where you go back to if you want to criticize changes in the rules.
If you want this House to get its business through, allow hon. members to speak on behalf of their people and express their own views. Two years ago, the Manitoba legislature got rid of all this nonsense of trying to restrict elected representatives of the people. There you have a government agreeing with an opposition that the government has a right to govern and the opposition a duty to oppose. Once the government gave to the opposition complete freedom to oppose, the talking slowed down. How they got it was not by allocation of time. They simply sit there all night until the guys are finished talking. Once you get past midnight, the speeches get shorter.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Would you approve of that? Would you support that change?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If you want changes in the rules, there is a committee sitting now with all the opportunity of bringing in this type of thing. We are not unreasonable people. If you want to take the estimates and give us back the power to control the spending of money, which parliament is here for, you will be surprised how quickly hon. members can get their difficulties off their minds. However, as long as you take away from parliament the right to speak and the right to vote jon money supply, you cannot expect anything else. Parliament, however, can do its level best to vote against those restrictions and controls.
I think I have said enough, Mr. Speaker. I, personally, do not think the technique of closure is acceptable to a modern-day parliament. I believe that a positive alternative should be adopted; that the leaders and the spokesmen of our parties who deal with these rules should accept the fact they made a big, fat mistake back in 1968, and give in. I said "all parties" because we have nitwits in our party as well as other parties. They should bring in the type of rules we need in this House.
On this particular issue, I know how important it is to the civil servants to get all their papers out. But let me tell this House another little story. Even though an order in council went out in 1971 that we were going to have metric conversion, the civil servants who worked on this program so efficiently and thoroughly over the past seven years forgot to tell the government that they had to have legislation to make that possible. Last fall they rushed to the government and said, "Give us legislation." It was not until the last minute, just before Christmas, that they got it together. This legislation is going into effect tomorrow. The government does not consider it will have any trouble pushing it on the farmer. The railways

January 31, 1977
Income Tax
do not, and will not accept it. Parliament spoke last week. That bill, which all parties accepted in principle, is in committee. I am sure the government is smart enough now to accept the amendment that we proposed last week, will put it through and will take the rap, as we all should.
In conclusion, this move today not only shows the arrogance of a government too long in power, but shows a philosophy that is not suited for this country. I do not like to be bossed by the dictators on the left, or the dictators on the right. I certainly do not like to be bossed by the dictators who do not even sit in parliament. I suggest that this bill, closing off the right to speak in the House, should be voted down by every person who thinks he is liberal and believes in the freedom of the individual and the right of members of parliament to speak their mind.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those perennial debates which anyone who believes in democracy and our system of government is ready to oppose, whether he is on the government side or in opposition. Those in government today should oppose it because they will likely be in opposition before long. They should be prepared for that eventuality and support the idea of agreements between parties, rather than the use of force. It is true that this government has the right, because of its majority, to make the final decision.
Looking at legislation that has been passed over the last few months-in fact, years-there have been very few occasions when members of the government or of the opposition were smart enough to persuade the civil servants that something in an act should be changed. Therefore, it is almost assured that, with this government's present majority, this bill will be passed in exactly this way. This government did not have any input into the bill originally. Nor did it have any input at any stage in this House. However, it is not prepared to allow the opposition to make some changes. It would certainly shorten the debate if the government gave some consideration to the arguments being made by the opposition.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin). She stated that 41 tax returns involving rebates have been processed to this date. Big deal! I agree that is not a large number. However, these people are not entitled to rebates until after March 31. Therefore, it is not a very important consideration. It is also a fact that only 3 per cent of all returns are in by the end of February. Most of those ask for a rebate. The hon. member opposite makes a lot of noise. With the extra $4,000 he is being paid, he should think about some of our problems. If he wants to make loud noises, he should do that in caucus.


An hon. Member:: Where did you get your licence to prophesy?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has the floor for the purpose of making a speech.


William Arnold Peters: I may not have a licence to prophesy, but let me tell that loud-mouthed member that legislation would pass through this House a lot quicker if we were not given so many ombudsman bills.


An hon. Member:: "Omnibus".


William Arnold Peters: Well, whatever the word is. There is no great rush about these budget bills. The government knew what it wanted when the budget was presented last May. Rather than throwing all these bill together, it would have been easier to process them if they had been separate bills for the retirement savings plans, the retirement pension plans and the child care plan. The government should have learned by now that it would be a lot easier if they did not throw in everything but the kitchen sink. It would make more sense to separate these bills. We could then make some progress.
I think the retirement savings program, which is relatively new in this country, could be introduced in a bill and those who are interested in that subject might pass it in a couple of days. Remember that this is not fair: it gives a lot more money to those who are making $20,000 and over than it does not those who are making $6,000 or $7,000; and also remember that those who are making $6,000 or $7,000 are paying for the gain of those who are making over $20,000. If you do not pay it one way, you pay it another. You are talking about money that is being raised to pay the taxes of this country. If you give more money to those earning a higher income than to those earning a lower income, then the latter pay for the benefits that the former get.
I think it would be reasonable to allow two to three days for a debate on the retirement savings plan. It can be said that we have had a pension plan for a long time and everybody understands it, and since there is no change in the pension structure perhaps the bill could be passed in a day and a half. As to the child care provision, there is considerable controversy about whether it provides any kind of equality at all to the people in this country. I think the Minister of National Revenue would probably agree, because she is a woman, that at the low end of the income structure women are in more desperate need of work than they are at the high end, and for that reason there is probably a greater need for child care for people with low incomes than for those with high incomes and much of the assistance will have to flow from the publicly-developed child care structures.


Monique Bégin: This is provincial. The $108 million is the amount people are waiting for in deductions.


William Arnold Peters: That amount of money is the money that all taxpayers are paying to a few taxpayers who are able to get benefit from it. I suggest that if that were in a separate bill it could be passed in two or three days. All of that, and a lot of junk, is in the income tax bill. There are a lot of provisions in it and we have already allowed five days for it. The minister is saying we will get eight more hours. I think it is this type of
January 31, 1977

conglomerate bill that is unreasonable; and if it is not unreasonable, then the official opposition in the House is to blame because they agreed to Standing Order 75C. If the other opposition parties were in agreement, the government could do it under 75A. Some of us are opposed to having that conglomeration thrown together without the opportunity to speak on various issues that are not related to the income tax except in a general way and that can only be debated in the budget debate. That is the only cement which holds this whole hodgepodge of bills together.
I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), who has a lot of experience in this field, a question. Something said by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) impressed me. It was that we give away a lot in trying to get the House to function properly. We have given away almost all our control of economic matters in the House. But would it not serve the members of parliament, and serve the process of law, much better if we were not to put bills before the House with some provisions which some members accept and others do not so that we get to the point where nobody knows what is acceptable and what is not.
I listened to the speech of one member from the official opposition and I do not know whether that party is for, or against, this bill. I am not sure that they know, either. They are prepared to speak against rule 75C because they are opposed to it, but I am not sure whether or not they will support the bill, regardless of whether they are prepared to debate it for the rest of the afternoon or even for several days. Frankly, I think some of my colleagues might have difficulty with the time allocation on this bill, with its provisions of varying degrees of importance. I think the government should be more fair to the opposition. We have had several such bills, such as the bill on justice, this bill on income tax-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to protest the move by the government to bring down the guillotine on the tax bill now before the House. I would not have spoken were it not for some of the unrealistic arguments that have been put forward on the other side. For example, the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) said that the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters) should sit down and shut up because by speaking he was delaying the refunding of some $108 million to the taxpayers of this country. That is pure balderdash.
The same minister said that only 41 income tax forms had been filed to date, out of the millions of forms that have to be filed in this country. May I remind the House that the deadline on filing income tax forms is April 30, so we have a lot of time: we have three months to go. I know that many taxpayers in this country will not be getting refunds before some time in March, April or, indeed, May or June. It is a phony argument to say we have to impose closure on the House because we would be delaying refunds for thousands of
Income Tax
taxpayers. If the government wants to present arguments, the arguments should be credible. If it was serious about this bill and about the time factor, it would have made sure that the bill was brought to the House before this.
This bill is the result of the budget of last May 25, and the government delayed several weeks after the budget before the bill was brought before the House. Then, when parliament reconvened in the fall, the government delayed several weeks before bringing the bill back before parliament. When we came back a few days ago, the government had some other bills of a minor nature that they put on the order paper.
The bill before us today is one that we, as parliamentarians, should be discussing, studying and scrutinizing very carefully. It is a bill dealing with the taxation system. It is a system which is one of the more unfair systems of any of the industrialized countries in the world. Carter told us so many years ago, and many other people have documented the fact. We have just had a report from the National Council of Welfare, called the hidden welfare report, which says that literally millions and millions of dollars each year go out to people in this country in the form of tax write-offs, and so on. This bill will add to that. We know it will raise the limits for private pension plans. This bill would add to that: we all know that. It would raise the limits for private pension plans. It would end the surtax which was imposed on high income people to try to make them fight inflation along with the ordinary Joe.
As parliamentarians, these are the things we should be concerned about if we want to create a just society and a more egalitarian society. Instead, the government brings down the guillotine on this bill. That would not have had to be done if the bill had been introduced sooner. We could have had a good discussion. There did not have to be any acrimony. The government could have listened to the logical arguments of members of the opposition and of members in the progressive wing of the Liberal party. More equitable changes could have been made. For reasons like these, I cannot remain seated and not protest when the government brings in a motion to bring down the guillotine.
In a democratic parliamentary system-and the government House leader should be interested in this point-closure should not be invoked lightly or in a frivolous way. That should only be done with regard to a really serious piece of legislation which is considered an absolute must and which has to get through. It has to be a life and death type of situation-and surely this bill does not fit into that category. If the government is going to start using Standing Order 75C, closure, on small bills like this, I think the work of parliament will be slowed down and this place will become an even slower, more monotonous and more outdated institution than it already is.
One way to speed legislation through the House is by working with opposition parties and by making sure the opposition parties have a chance to air their points of view on things they feel are important. If the government would co-operate like that, I am sure it could expedite legislation through the

January 31, 1977
Income Tax
House. However, when the government brings in closure, it poisons the air of the House. A number of hon. members become angry, and angry members can hold up a lot of legislation for a long time. I know backbenchers will agree with me. It is in the government's own interest not to do things like this and not to antagonize hon. members over what is a relatively small piece of legislation, albeit a very important piece of legislation for many people in this country.
The government tried to put this bill through just before Christmas to give a large Christmas bonus to the wealthy people by increasing the limits for private pension plans, by increasing the limits for registered retirement savings plans and by ending the special surtax on high incomes. That is what the Liberal party tried to do. It tried to rush it through when people were not watching. It wanted to play Santa Claus to the wealthy people of this country.


An hon. Member:: Grow up.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The members of this party made up their minds not to go along with that, and before Chirstmas we stopped the bill. Now the government is trying to invoke closure and bring down the guillotine to protect its wealthy friends. The Minister of National Revenue has the audacity to suggest that if we keep debating this bill we will delay the sending out of refunds to hundreds of thousands of taxpayers. I do not buy that argument. The overwhelming majority of income tax returns have not even been processed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They haven't even come in yet.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: They have come in, but they can't be processed because you are delaying.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I suspect that many people have not yet even received their T4 slips, knowing the speed at which this government operates and knowing the Post Office of this country. If things are that far behind, why does the government want us to rush this bill through?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The taxpayers are behind.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The taxpayers are behind, partly because of the unfairness of the government. Little wonder the government is doing so poorly in the public opinion polls when it treats parliament, and opposition members who are here doing their work as well and as studiously as they can, with such arrogance, and when it tramples on all the good ideas which come from this side of the House. I am really glad I am not a Liberal backbencher, because I know they are expressing these ideas to their ministers, and they are being trampled upon. That is why so many of them are considering not running in the next election: they are disillusioned with the government.
I am glad the government brought in closure today, because that brings into the open the way it operates, the way it perceives people and the way it treats people. It brings it all out into the open and indicates to the Canadian people that this is a big, arrogant government-a Big Brother. By this action, the government is indicating that it wants to push

things through and trample on the rights of people just because it has to have its way. I see that my time is pretty well up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: However, I had to rise and say those words, not just on my own behalf but on behalf of many hon. members in the back benches of the Liberal party who sit there like muffled puppets on the end of a string and feel frustrated because of the actions of the powerful ministers who sit on the front benches. Liberal backbenchers know very well that they cannot speak their minds because they would be denying themselves promotion to parliamentary secretary positions or eventually to the cabinet or to the Senate. I know most of them want to follow the lead of hon. Jean Marchand and eventually end up in the Senate, because that is where all good Liberals want to end up. It is really on behalf of all those good Liberal friends of mine that I have made these few very relevant remarks this afternoon.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I also want to say a few words about this motion under Standing Order 75C. I also want to speak on behalf of alienated Liberals from the three prairie provinces.


John Edward Broadbent: There are only three of them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Liberal backbenchers cannot get the message through to those in the two front rows and those in the middle. They do not seem to have the courage or the guts to do so. If they do have the courage or the guts, they do not have the muscle to get messages through to the cabinet. If what they hear back home is meaningless to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), the government House leader and the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin), then I would be only too glad to assist those Liberals, because what the government is trying to do in this legislation is not meant to help most of the people of Canada.
The government has invoked Standing Order 75C, which it has the right to do under the rules, but it is doing so in the case of legislation which will help only about 30 per cent of the taxpayers of the country and the overwhelming majority- about 70 per cent-will reap little or no benefit. Those who have the lowest incomes will reap the least benefit from this legislation.
Much has been said about alienation in this country-not just in Quebec-and one wonders why there is alienation. People feel alienated when they find out, sometimes weeks, months or even years after the fact, that if they have an income of only $10,000 a year, a wife, two or three children and mortgages up to their eyeballs, they will reap benefits under this bill totalling close to $500 in 1977, but that the fellow who is in the $25,000 bracket will reap benefits of, would you believe, $1,156, give or take a few dollars here or there.
Under this bill, people in the $50,000 bracket-and that includes civil servants, cabinet ministers, union leaders and
January 31, 1977

corporate executives; a lot of people-will benefit by a little over $2,000. In the fight against inflation which the government has been waging, one would have thought that it would at least have had the decency to continue the idea that those who have can pay a little bit more for a little while longer should do so. But no, the government wants to relieve those on high incomes. For the government this is just another step on its way to the cemetery.
Mr. Speaker, no wonder there is alienation. This bill is one of the reasons-this unfair tax system which requires people at the lowest end of the income scale to pay a disproportionate share of the cost of running the country. Of course, there is nothing new about that: it has been chronic with old-line party governments in this country since year one.
The alienation is compounded almost weekly. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is liable to ask for a motion under rule 75C before this part of the session is much older. He got kicked in the head for wanting to hurt places like Halifax and St. John's, Baie Comeau and Quebec City, the Georgian Bay ports, the western grain producers and the flour milling industry of Canada. He got kicked in the head all last fall, and I am convinced that finally his colleagues persuaded the government to withdraw that clause from an earlier bill proposing government restraint. But I will be damned if the same minister did not bring the same provision back to the House in another bill.
Alienation is not peculiar to Quebec, Mr. Speaker. I do not know how many times the Minister of Transport has to be kicked in the head or how many times a brick wall has to fall on him. The trained seals and pacified sheep over there sit silent, but I hope they make some noise in their caucus. They certainly do not make it here. They drive people to wanting separation. There are a few in every part of the country who feel that way, and with the government's total lack of priorities they will continue to try to pass legislation that helps the wealthy and forgets about unemployment. They did not really implement their own anti-inflation program. They said the minimum increase in income should be $600 per year, but I do not see the old age pensioners getting that. That was not a priority; the priority was bulldozing various and sundry items through this House. This reminds me of a late, unlamented premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker, who proposed legislation about branding irons, chicken debeakers and turkey saddles at a time the province had the highest unemployment for years. The same thing is happening here.
While the official opposition may vote with this party in opposing the motion, I would have thought they would be stridently opposing the legislation as well. But I hear a strange silence from them. I can recall no objection from any member of the official opposition about a taxpayer with an income of $50,000 a year saving $2,000 under this bill, while somebody with a $5,000 income saves only $500 or less. 1 would have thought the official opposition would have wanted to reverse that table. Certainly, we New Democrats would like to reverse the child care provision. A family with an income of $10,000
Income Tax
or less will save up to $200, but families with an income of around $50,000 will save up to $400. It should be the low income family that benefits twice as much as the high income family. There is not too much noise about this from the official opposition, however. I sense a strange reluctance on their part to impose a tax on high wage earners that would be in proportion to that paid by people on low incomes.
The alienation continues, Mr. Speaker. It is not only because of the bill I mentioned earlier, stupidly introduced by the Minister of Transport with the consent of the government House leader. I can tell the government House leader that the bill will not go through even if we are kept here in July and August. Some government backbenchers from the maritime provinces, the St. Lawrence ports, the Georgian Bay ports, and even from western Canada, will confirm that they do not want to see it go through either. I think this pattern of alienation has to stop.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan).


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate this motion on the legislation that we considered at another time, not that I have anything new to say, but to tell this government that my constituents and many people in the Atlantic region are not worried about it. What they are concerned about is the extremely high unemployment in their areas.
ti2 This past weekend I spoke in the riding of a Liberal member. I was informed both by the press and other people that there is 35 per cent unemployment in the Chatham-New-castle area of northern New Brunswick at the present time. I know what it is in the Cape Breton highlands and the Canso area. The unemployment is unbelievable and is as high now as at any time in the last 20 years. In fact, in some cases it is almost as high as during the depression. Myself and three fellow members were in Newfoundland and saw what it is like there. I do not have to tell hon. members from Newfoundland about this, but maybe some backbench Liberals have not been there to see the conditions in the outports. If they knew about unemployment there, they might have a different attitude to the distribution of income.
It bothers me that this bill proposes to remove the surtax from incomes of $30,000 and over, while wage and price controls are to remain. There is something wrong with a government that considers as progressive removal of a surtax from the rich at a time when people on low income are not even not holding their own but are unemployed. There is no record of under-employment in the country; no record of people so discouraged that they do not look for work. That is because in areas of Newfoundland, in areas of northern New Brunswick, in areas of the Gaspe, in areas of northern Ontario, and in Cape Breton there just are no jobs.
When I apply for a disability pension on behalf of a constituent, I am astounded to get a letter saying the disability allowance is not available because the applicant can do light

January 31, 1977
Income Tax
work. Where is anyone to get light work in Cape Breton, northern New Brunswick, Newfoundland or the Gaspe, Mr. Speaker? Not only does the constituent not get the disability pension but he does not get his rightful share of unemployment insurance because of the definition of "region". The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) promised me, when he was minister of manpower and immigration, that the definition of "region" would be changed so that a small sub-region like mine, and other parts of Cape Breton, would not be included in the provincial average. The higher employment in the Halifax-Dartmouth area pulls down the amount available to areas that need it.
If I sound angry, let me say that my anger is called for by what I see happening across the Atlantic provinces. Every member from the Atlantic provinces should be angry. I oppose separatism, as does everbody in this House, but I can understand why the people of Quebec would want separatism. Under this government they have suffered from great unemployment in certain parts of that province. One sees unemployment in much of the Atlantic region.
My party supports a more favourable distribution of income to lower income groups in Canada and apologizes to no one for that position. There is no evidence showing that the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) are correct when they say that the present measure is needed as an inducement for saving in this country. The fact is that personal savings in Canada in the last three years have gone up. We do not need incentives for our people to save. Such arguments are false. There is no evidence to show that without passage of this measure there would be a disincentive to invest in the private sector of this country. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that if you give the rich a tax break, they will invest part of their wealth in New York in the United States where they will get a higher return. According to their logic, that is fine. But we as members of parliament should not encourage that. We have the right and the serious obligation to oppose this measure.
My long-time friend, the deputy prime minister, recently made a speech after being awarded an honourary degree for his work concerning the reform of parliament. I was impressed by his speech. I do not know much about procedure, Mr. Speaker, but recall his saying that debates today are not the same as debates in the good old days in the 1950s. The minister said that certain unimportant bills which should not take long to pass are debated for too long, whereas important bills which ought to be debated at length are not debated enough.
The present bill falls into the latter category. Four and a half days of debate is not enough. I can tell Liberal members, some of whom are personal friends, that people in the Atlantic region are mad at them for considering at the resumption of this session the televising of House debates, when so many of our people are desperately suffering from under-employment and unemployment. Be more concerned about the equality of

income distribution in this country, and less concerned about forcing through the House this legislation which will benefit the rich. Surely, backbenchers opposite and progressive elements of the Liberal party oppose the incestuous relationship which has developed beween the rich and their party, a relationship which is evident in this legislation. When are the progressive elements of the Liberal party going to make the party truly liberal, instead of listening to its right wing?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Conservatives.


Andrew Hogan: Your present income distribution policies are hurting the people of Canada, and it should be obvious that they are hurting you, too. No wonder you will be thrown out in the next election, when you introduce bills like this.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to understand why the government would bring in closure on this measure. I speak as one who has supported closure in the past when I felt the issue was of such urgency that closure was called for.
I shall now mention a significant set of figures on which I hope to elaborate later. The Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) suggested that 41 of between eight million and nine million taxpayers may be hurt by this measure. I suppose when you compare that number with the number awaiting changes to the Old Age Security Act and to workmen's compensation legislation and the like under the jurisdiction of other legislatures, the figure is not particularly significant. But we should look at it in its correct perspective. By the end of March, in a normal year, not more than 3 per cent of all filings have been completed. By the end of April, in any average year, not more than 20 per cent of all tax forms have been handled.
I suggest that this debate would have finished well before the end of April, and fail to comprehend why the government feels it necessary to impose closure on this measure. The government argues that taxpayers are waiting for rebates and to having forms processed. Even if one could say that this measure will affect a few poor people who sort of got lost in the shuffle, as it were-I give the government the benefit of the doubt-I cannot see any urgency for the passage of this measure because the people will not get their tax forms back more quickly than in any other year.
Unfortunately, my party does not have enough members in this House to prolong this debate beyond a certain point; otherwise we would have fought this measure to the end.
After studying the bill, you can only come to one conclusion. Nothing focuses attention more on the inequalities in this country and on the welfare system which favours the rich than this sort of debate. In other words, the government does not want to debate the bill.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?
January 31, 1977



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom)-Agriculture-Cow-calf support program-Reason for reduced payment to provinces which have programs; the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-Labour conditions-Composition of proposed group to discuss economic issues-Position of Canadian Labour Congress; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-Request for action to protect public from effects of excavation in Quaker Crescent area of Lower Sackville.
It being five o'clock, this House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper,-


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the private members' business it was intended to discuss today. There were the normal discussions about the item which the House was supposed to consider during private members' hour, the item standing in the name of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert). Unfortunately, weather conditions in that hon. member's home province have prevented his attendance in the House today. We received that news late this morning and have been going through the regular list of items on the private members' business agenda without being able to find an item ready for consideration at this time.
I regret to inform the House that unfortunately, despite our best efforts, we have not been able to bring forward an item for consideration during today's private members' hour. In view of that circumstance, and since we have made every effort to bring forward an item for consideration, I suggest that the House might consider continuing with and concluding its discussion relating to the motion proposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No way. Call it six o'clock.


Ralph Goodale: Only ten minutes remain in that debate. In view of our physical disability in going ahead with private members' business, I suggest that we would most expeditiously and efficiently use our time if we could continue and conclude discussion of the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The House has been informed that we cannot proceed with private members' business. Does the House consent to the request of the parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Adjournment Motion


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont on a point of order.


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I would be ready, if need be, to proceed with motion No. 28, if you can put it to the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what we understood.


Mr. MacFarlane:: No, that is not what you understood. You cannot expect something for nothing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There is not unanimous consent that we do not proceed with private members' business, so we shall have to call the motions in order beginning with the motion in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Mr. Blais:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there has been an indication by the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) that he would be ready to proceed with motion No. 28. While the House did not give consent to call it six o'clock, it surely did not refuse its consent to proceed with motion 28.


Walter David Baker: Perhaps I can help the Chair. The hon. member having indicated that he is ready to proceed, I do not think we should put any obstacles in the way of bringing his motion forward. I suggest we do not waste parliamentary time, but that we proceed as we have suggested.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Frankly, that is what I thought was going to happen. I am surprised the parliamentary secretary said nobody was ready, because we were told that the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) was. We shall be glad to proceed with motion 28.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Does the House agree to proceed with motion 28?


Ralph Goodale: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but in view of the remarks which have just been made, I want to make it abundantly clear that the information which has been given to the House in the last two or three minutes by the last two or three speakers is definitely contrary to the information given to me earlier. If the hon. member is prepared to proceed now, that is desirable, but it is not in conformity with the information I obtained earlier.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I did understand that the hon. member was prepared to proceed with item 28, but I was subsequently informed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of

January 31, 1977
St. Lawrence Seaway
the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale) that this was not the case. I had contacted spokesmen for the party to take part in the debate; I went to the trouble of doing that. But after hearing from the parliamentary secretary I informed them they would not be required to attend at this time. I wish these circumstances to be on record.


Mr. Reid:: Since there is some dispute as to whether the House is prepared to proceed along certain lines, I wonder whether hon. members are prepared to take up my private member's bill C-1001. I think this is an ideal bill for us to debate since apparently all the members who wish to speak on it are in the House at the present time.


Walter David Baker: On with Lachance!


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, if there cannot be agreement to take item 28, I suggest you follow the proper procedure and call the first and subsequent orders until you come to item 28.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that we stand all motions prior to motion 28?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: Wonderful.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Claude-Andr£ Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider a revision of the financial structure of the St. Lawrence Seaway, by remitting the interest carried over to date, by converting the loans which were made into holdings owned by Canada, and at the same time make provision for an increase in Seaway toll rates sufficient to cover annual operation costs and current capital expenditures, and also to provide the government with a return on its investment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that after all this confusion, it is somewhat difficult to gather one's thoughts and get into an argumentation on the subjet. Since I thought that the motion of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) would be called, I have had relatively little time to gather my thoughts. However, this subject has concerned me for some time. I remember, in particular, that last year the officials of the St. Lawrence Seaway Administration appeared before the Committee on Public Accounts and told something about their financial difficulties, especially in view of the somewhat peculiar financial structure of the St. Lawrence Seaway Administration and in particular in view of the decision made in 1970 by the American counterpart to our administration, that is the St. Lawrence Seaway Administration, American Section, to

remit interest outstanding up to 1970 and also to transform into assets capital expenditures on the American side.
In fact, I think it might be appropriate to give the background of the St. Lawrence Seaway and the reasons which brought both government levels to sign an agreement in 195455 to build this seaway which, as everyone knows, joins the Atlantic ocean to the Great Lakes by way of the St. Lawrence itself. Indeed, before the inauguration of the seaway, it was extremely difficult to move goods by ship since the St. Lawrence River did not lend itself to it. Anyway, the Welland Canal had been in operation for many years, which allowed small boats and shallow draught steamships to navigate on the Niagara River.
But it was decided that it might be preferable to dig a canal so that larger freighters could go directly from the Atlantic ocean to the Great Lakes and particularly to Lake Michigan and Lake Superior to avoid the transfer of cargo at Montreal or Quebec City harbours into smaller vessels that could negotiate the St. Lawrence above Montreal where there is not much water.
This agreement was reached at the two levels of government-American and Canadian-and it was decided then that a first amount of $350 million would be lent to the Canadian St. Lawrence Seaway Authority to begin work. This first loan of $350 million was spent between 1953 and 1959 to dig and build locks and all the necessary facilities.
Yet, the interests were obviously capitalized when the seaway became operational and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority was supposed to start paying those interests which amounted to some $65 million.
We should not forget that when traffic projections and toll schedules were established initially the seaway was to be largely profitable and it was expected that it would repay the interest on the original loan and also the invested capital. Anyway, the Canadian government has always considered that this capital which has been, in the last seven years, invested in capital expenditures or real estate, was a liability, therefore an account receivable which has been left, in spite of several recommendations from several committees and directors of the seaway, in the liabilities of the seaway and therefore as an account receivable for the Canadian government.
Unfortunately we should recall that the initial forecasts as concerns the increase in seaway traffic, inflation, inflationary pressures which have, of course, affected the operations of the seaway, wages, and so on, have prevented the initial forecasts from becoming reality and we realized later that in spite of surpluses in its every day operations and the fact that it repaid regularly the interest, the seaway would never be able to refund the initial loan which was of $350 million as I said.
We must also remember that to accommodate larger freighters we had to invest up to $185 million to renovate the old Welland Canal, dredge it and develop existing facilities. Consequently, out of the total present debt of the St. Lawrence Seaway, $817 million, we must realize that about $500 million
January 31, 1977
[Stage Direction]
are investments, holdings, real estate-locks, wharves, buildings, all the equipment necessary to the daily operations of the seaway-and the rest, about $318 million, are the accruing interests up to this day.
We must also remember that, as a joint American-Canadian commission is seeing to the enforcement of toll rates, the tolls can be increased only if there is a consensus between the two levels of government. Twice between 1960 and 1970, in 1964 and in 1967, studies showed that, because of inflation, the toll rates had to be re-examined and that an increase should be considered.
Unfortunately, both times the two levels of government could not reach a consensus and the rates stayed at their former level. On the other hand, in 1971 the Carr report made two main recommendations aiming first at a 10 per cent increase in the toll rates and the prescribed rates and at a reorganization of the financial and accounting systems of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
We must also remember that in 1970, as a result of similar problems faced by the American authority of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the American government had taken a momentous decision concerning the financial structure of their seaway authority. They had decided more particularly to capitalize capital expenditures already made. Evidently those expenditures were lower on the American side since they have only two locks. Nevertheless they decided to put what was considered as accounts receivable among the fixed assets of the American government.
On one hand, since interests were regularly accruing, they decided to pay off the entire debt and on the other hand, to provide that the American authority of the St. Lawrence Seaway should pay each year a fixed amount to reimburse the floating debt. Consequently the American sector now enjoys an extremely healthful financial condition and each year with its operating surplus it pays off the interests. On the other hand, its decision was not taken in spite of the urgent and pressing requests of various directors. 1 am thinking in particular of Messrs. Camu and Laurendeau. I could not speak for Mr. Chevrier, but in the annual report of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority for 1975, it was clearly indicated that he suggested precisely what is provided for in my motion, namely, and I quote from memory: " ... to remit the interest carried over and convert the loans which were made into holdings owned by Canada, and at the same time, make provision for an increase in Seaway toll rates sufficient to cover annual operation costs and current capital expenditures, and also to provide the government with a return on its investment."
As a matter of fact, the Canadian government did not follow up this matter for a very simple reason: because it is in the process of restructuring the main public corporations involved in transportation. I am thinking in particular of a bill which is now before the House concerning Air Canada and the CNR. The situations are somewhat similar in that the capital expenditures of those two corporations will eventually be converted into holdings owned by Canada and will no longer be accounts receivable. As a matter of fact, it is merely an accounting
St. Lawrence Seaway
fiction. It is now obvious that the St. Lawrence Seaway will not be able to meet its initial commitments, that it will not be in a position to repay the outstanding debt which now amounts to the astronomical amount of $819 million, that it will not even be able to repay the interests due, because it has not even been in position for three years now to cover its operation costs.
I have here the estimates for 1976-77, and the estimated revenues are $26.5 million while the estimated expenditures amount to about $36.5 million, for a $10 million deficit. This does not include the interest due for 1976-77 which amounts to $45 million. There is no question whatever of reimbursing one penny of the interests due, which means that the government will have to continue the fictional financing of the St. Lawrence Seaway since it is the creditor and loans and interests due are not recoverable through the seaway operations.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, my explanation might give the impression that the St. Lawrence Seaway is in a very unsound financial position and is not viable. In my opinion, it is a misleading conception of the situation. In fact, it is not possible to simply assess the St. Lawrence Seaway strictly in relation to its operation costs or its capital costs since it represents an asset, a tremendous economic advantage for Canada, providing a very convenient means of transportation for freight traffic between the Atlantic Ocean and the Great Lakes.
In any event, the tonnage keeps increasing ever since 1959, that is since the opening of the seaway and it is expected that this tonnage increase will continue during the next 15 years, at an average rate of about 2.5 per cent. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this tonnage passed from an average of 12 million tons during the years just before the opening of the seaway in 1959 to 57.6 million tons in 1973, a record year so far. In fact the increase in the Welland Canal itself is still more significant because similar increases pushed traffic up to 67.2 million tons in 1973.
Since then the Seaway Authority had all sorts of problems beyond its control: strikes, bad weather, problems in grain transportation; in short, things have improved gradually, the situation now seems better and the administrators are extremely confident that the increase will continue during the next 15 years.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is good to underline the great economic value of the St. Lawrence Seaway. It is worth just mentioning that the overall value of products carried through the seaway system was estimated at approximately $6 billion. Of course, this amount does not include the indirect benefits accruing to the shippers, the cost of commodities to the consumer and, of course, the expansion of international trade for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I shall try to be brief but I simply want to explain to what extent it would be possible for the government of Canada to give back to the St. Lawrence Seaway a sound financial structure, which can be done without spending a single cent. It is strictly a bookkeeping operation similar to what the U.S. government did in 1970. As the directors of the St. Lawrence Seaway said themselves before the Committee
[Stage Direction]
January 31, 1977
St. Lawrence Seaway
on Public Accounts, and this is the wording of my motion, Mr. Speaker, we would simply have to remit the interest carried over to date, namely about $318 million, and to convert the loans which were made originally, namely $500 million-$350 million for the St. Lawrence Seaway itself and about $200 million for the administration of the Welland Canal-into holdings owned by Canada, and at the same time-and this is for the past-put an end, once and for all, to the difficult situation in which they find themselves and provide for the future an increase in the seaway tolls sufficient to meet operating costs, for, as I said a while ago, this year the operating deficit will amount to some $10 million while, naturally, enabling the government, if the administration becomes sound, to make a return on its investments.
Mr. Speaker, I know this matter has been of concern to the government for some time now, and that it has been the subject of many a study. It must be understood that, though this is an accounting operation, it also fits within the wider context of the financial restructuration of the big state-owned transport companies. As I said before, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) tabled a bill in the House whose aim is precisely the organization of the financial activities of the CN and Air Canada. I feel it would be indicated to integrate the St. Lawrence Seaway into that policy; that would enable the seaway to have firm objectives in the future, and of course, it would reassure its users who really do not know what to expect, and I don't blame them. In fact, that may be one of the main problems of the St. Lawrence Seaway in view of its precarious financial situation; and there again, this in a fictitious way, since the Canadian government, in the final analysis, must finance it and cover its expenses, while the users, who do not know where they stand cannot really plan their future activities.
I therefore advocate, strictly, in my motion, a reorganization that is long past due, a reorganization that has proved itself in the American equivalent of the St. Lawrence Seaway, through namely, the remission of interest and capitalization of fixed assets; to allow the administrators in the future to make better plans for their financial activities, investments and capital expenditures, so that they can really do the job they are paid for, that is administrate a business which is highly vital, economically fundamental for the prosperity of eastern Canada, particularly for Ontario and Quebec, and also of course for the Maritimes. This business is also highly vital for western Canada since it allows grain from this region to be transported directly without having to pass through costly intermediaries en route to foreign markets. In short, Mr. Speaker, this is an operation which is needed and I strongly urge the House to accept this motion and recommend this restructuration.
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate on this very important resolution. It is very current to our problems. This nation stretches some 4,500

miles across the breadth of the North American continent. We are in keen competition with our trading partner to the south and the rest of the industrial free world. We are in keen competition in the movement of raw materials and minerals to the third world countries. As far as our competitive position is concerned, more and more people are concluding that we are not able to compete with our major competitors in many ways. In analysing our own economy we can readily see that we have built up our costs. This has placed us in a very difficult non-competitive position with much of the free world, including our major competitor the United States. Transportation is a key factor. Transportation of goods for export and within Canada for consumption plays a part in the total cost, whether we are buying or selling a commodity, of our efforts to provide jobs and a standard of living comparable to what is expected.
The development of the United States was handled somewhat differently than our own. Their core of government engineers designed and built much of their transportation system. I think of their waterways in particular. The Mississippi is a tremendous waterway, providing cheap transportation for much of their export goods as well as those consumed in the United States. Their core of engineers deepened, broadened and extended the Columbia River to the point where tugboats and barges can move coal, grain and lumber a long way inland. There is no question about the cost of developing their waterways. They felt that by developing the Mississippi, Columbia and Ohio rivers, as well as many other river systems, they were building their country. There was no question of charging it all back and paying for it. This is one of our faults in Canada.
I can readily accept the first part of this resolution. However, I absolutely oppose the second part. It is time for the federal government to play a role in building this country, making the facilities available to all Canadians no matter whether they live in central Canada, western Canada or eastern Canada. In other countries the waterways have proven to be a major competitive vehicle in getting their products to the export market as well as distributing them within the country. This resolution suggests that everything should be paid back to the federal government. We have been obsessed with the idea of paying back to the federal government. It is the duty of the federal government to build this country so that Canadians can find jobs competitive with those around the world.
This is a great country, with a great potential. The shipping industry is one of those great potentials. We have talked about an industrial policy for years. What has this country launched upon? It launched its industrial policy upon an air industry. We do not have a large enough market to sustain the air industry in which this government has invested. It may be terrible to say that, but it is true.
We cannot compete with the air policy of the United States. France and Great Britain had great difficulty maintaining their air industries. However, there are some industries that lend themselves well to industrial policy. The shipping industry is one of those. We have, if not the longest coastline in the
January 31, 1977

world, certainly the second longest. There is great potential in our inland waterways. However, what do we see? There is discouragement with regard to our waterways. There is hesitancy and reluctance to make use of our natural shipping lanes and coastal lines. One aspect of our industrial policy should be the shipping industry. It should be encouraged, not discouraged. The railway industry is another. It, too, lends itself to this philosophy because of the great breadth of this country. It would complement an industrial policy.
What does this resolution suggest, particularly in its last part? It states the following:
... by converting the loans which were made into holdings owned by Canada, and at the same time make provision for an increase in Seaway toll rates sufficient to cover annual operation costs-
I think they should be sufficient to cover annual operating costs, and I do not object to that. It goes on:
-and current capital expenditures, and also to provide the government with a return on its investment.
This is the point I wonder about: are we as a government investing in Canada to have a return on our investment in so many dollars and cents, or will that return come to Canada indirectly? That is the question which we, as legislators, have to ask ourselves. Will we be satisfied to have that return come back to us indirectly, not directly as this motion suggests? I say that in the long run we, as Canadians, must be prepared to say we are satisfied with that return coming back to us indirectly, and we are confident that it will if we provide the vehicle or the avenue, whatever you want to call the St. Lawrence Seaway, for Canadian products to enter world markets.
What will the doubling of the St. Lawrence Seaway tolls do, and what will the doubling of the fees on the Welland canal do to the shipping industry on the St. Lawrence Seaway? I have here an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail on June 24, 1976, which reads as follows:
Federal proposals to increase tolls on the Welland canal would double the fees for many vessels moving through the Seaway system-
I want to stop here and make the point that everybody in the House and in Canada knows that vessels using the St. Lawrence Seaway are mainly Canadian vessels manned by Canadian sailors. By doubling the tolls we will be making those Canadians ships less competitive with their counterparts on the ocean lanes. The article goes on to read:
-the twenty-eighth annual Conference of the Canadian Water Resources Association in Toronto has been told.
John MacDonald, chairman of the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association, said in a speech prepared for delivery to the conference that the proposals would decrease the use of the Seaway and seriously affect the interests of western Canada.
"We are told that Ottawa intends to charge for use of the Welland the same tolls on bulk cargo as those now prevailing on the international Seaway," he said.
A group of people who have studied the St. Lawrence Seaway want to see it used to a greater extent than it is today. What would that do to Canadian ships? It would mean more jobs for Canadians. If we did not increase the tolls, it would
St. Lawrence Seaway
make Canadian goods more competitive with other goods in world trade, and it should make foreign goods in Canada cheaper for the Canadian consumer.
In my view it would be logical and it would make good sense for the government to say to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, "We believe that you should charge tolls which would allow you to cover your costs of operation, but we do not expect you to pay an increase on the money we, as the Canadian government, have paid in the building of the St. Lawrence Seaway". I think that is a fundamental point.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) once said in the House of Commons that this would allow Americans to use the Seaway free of charge. I want to make the point that the Americans use the Mississippi and they use the Columbia. They have a tremendous network of inland waterways which assist that nation in moving its products to export, and around its own country for internal trade. These waterways are the cheapest form of transportation that a country has. They are our cheapest form of transportation.
Some 50 per cent or 60 per cent of tonnage on the St. Lawrence Seaway is made up of western grain, but the major portion of the remaining cargo is made up of iron ore which is made into steel, and steel means good jobs. Today steel in world trade is a very competitive commodity. Steel mills in central Canada are in keen competition with Japanese and American steel mills. The steel mill and plant operating on the east coast is in keen competition with steel mills in the United States and in central Canada. Yet we have before us a resolution which will increase the cost of doing business in this country.
There may come a day when we will say that we should pool a little money to build an additional waterway, and that perhaps the Seaway could pay a little bit back so that we will build an extension of the Seaway and deepen and lengthen the locks. Perhaps some time in the future when we place ourselves in a competitive position in world trade we will be able to do that, but I say to the House that now is not the time. We are in severe competition with other countries; there is a tremendous growth in unemployment in Canada and economists say that 1977 will be a difficult year. Also, cargo on the Seaway is carried solely on Canadian ships. The men who man the ships on the Seaway are Canadians.
The doubling of the tolls, even on the Welland canal, as the Canadian Water Resources Association stated in Toronto last year, may well double the costs of many vessels moving on the St. Lawrence Seaway. This would place us in a more difficult position than the one in which we find ourselves. In the remaining portion of the 1970's Canada will remain in keen competition with other nations, so now is not the time to adopt this resolution, particularly its latter half.
There is only one other point that I wish to make, and I think I would be remiss if I did not make it. If we double the tolls on the Welland canal unilaterally, we can expect some retaliation from the United States which might come in many different ways. For example, they could double their tolls on the Sault Ste. Marie locks. This would be detrimental to

St. Lawrence Seaway
Canadian shipping and would add to the cost of moving grain and other products through the St. Lawrence Seaway.
In 1976 we took action with regard to the beef industry which we in this party said would bring retaliation, but we were scoffed at. However, retaliation did come in one form or another. One only had to listen to the former U.S. secretary of agriculture, Mr. Butz, speak in Saskatoon a month ago to realize that retaliation was thought about and talked about by the United States government. Retaliation does take place, but whether it is visible and clearly seen by all is another thing. If we unilaterally double the tolls on the locks of the Welland canal we will be asking for retaliation. If we increase the tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway, we will only hurt ourselves in the long run.
We are making Canada less competitive and creating more unemployment, not just in the shipping industry, as I mentioned before, but also in the manufacturing industry, which wants to get its products out into that shipping lane. To put it bluntly, we are creating less revenue for the farmers of western Canada, and anyone who knows anything about western Canadian farmers knows that when they have a dollar they spend two to buy equipment which is manufactured in central Canada.
We turn off the whole economy with what I call this search for additional revenue, which is a method of taxation. That is really what the resolution means to me. It is a search for additional revenue by a money hungry government which already spent far more than it should have spent in 1974, 1975 and 1976. I would like to see the government reduce its demands for additional revenue for 1977, not search for more ways to raise revenues. I would like to see the government reduce the rabid expenditures which have taken place in recent years which have harmed the Canadian economy and which have helped to put us all into a very difficult competitive position. By adopting this resolution we would only find ourselves in a worse competitive position.


Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member who moved this resolution and to the most recent speaker, I have a few things to say about the general effects of the resolution, but I want to speak mainly about the Welland Canal. My constituency covers a good half of it, the important southern end. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) was expounding on government expenditures. He should remember that we have cut down expenditures in every government department. That has been going on for well over a year, so I think his remarks can be overlooked because they are not very accurate.
As far as the Welland Canal is concerned, I do not think the remarks of the hon. member were correct on that either. For the last four years I have been talking about this with my constituents, and also with the members of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. We cannot by any means say that all the ships and sailors on the St. Lawrence Seaway going through

the Welland Canal are Canadians. There is a huge number of salties. There is a fair number of American ships, and many Canadian ones.
What is carried through the Welland Canal which mainly affects Canada? It is mainly coal from the Lake Erie ports on the United States side, and iron, both from Thunder Bay and from Pennsylvania, but mainly from Thunder Bay and the north shore. Where do they go? They go to Hamilton. They supply the steel companies there, Dofasco and Stelco. A considerable amount of grain is shipped several times a year in large quantities, but a great amount of grain is shipped past us to Toronto, to Montreal and to Maritime ports by rail. When we talk about increasing the tolls and about the cost of shipments through the Welland Canal, we are really talking about so many cents per ton of coal. According to the Seaway Authority, it decided to apply four cents to the cost of shipping each ton of coal. I think some people do not remember how much the price of coal has gone up. It costs about $52 or more per ton, and four cents on $52 is very little.
With regard to steel, the same logic applies. A few cents on a ton of iron ore do not affect the competitiveness of our Canadian manufacturing firms at all. Similarly, the very few cents added to the cost per bushel of transporting wheat is almost negligible, and we have no trouble disposing of our wheat. In fact recently we sold another huge order to China.


Mr. Kempling:: It won't go through the Seaway.


Samuel Victor Railton: Hon. members must realize that increasing the tolls at the Welland Canal to cover annual operating costs will not affect our economy. I think the hon. member for Crowfoot is right: we will have to absorb the capital costs and the interest debt. That is only sensible; but on the other hand I do not think we should go on crying about the raising of tolls. It is the only sensible thing to do. Naturally we would limit the increase to the amount required to cover the annual cost of operation.
There are many other people who would like to say a few words in this debate. I would like to go on and talk about the rest of the Seaway, the fact that it is an international waterway and that sort of thing, but I cannot cover all that. I think we have to give other hon. members a chance to speak too.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my party has long taken the position that something like the St. Lawrence Seaway is a public work for the national good. It is a part of a national transportation system which benefits the nation as a whole. In fact it is an instrument of national policy. I want to tell the hon. member who moved this resolution that at least one part of his resolution would discriminate further against producers, shippers and exporters in different parts of the country because of where they happen to live, our geography and our climate.
I think there is no disagreement that the debt, and the interest thereon of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority should be taken over by the government of Canada. That would signify the total public ownership of the St. Lawrence Seaway,
January 31, 1977

and the cost of that debt should be born by the nation as a whole and not just by the users. I hope there is little or no argument about that concept anywhere in this House, and I hope my good friends on the government side will remind the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) that this is one area where his idea of user pay should not be allowed to take effect.
I want to remind the hon. member who moved this resolution that making provision for an increase in Seaway toll rates sufficient to cover annual operation costs and current capital expenditures is just not acceptable. Current and future capital cost expenditures should be borne by the government.
I see some inconsistency in this resolution. Current and future capital cost expenditures should be borne by the nation as a whole, just as the hon. member proposes in the earlier part of his resolution, but original capital costs and interest debts should also be assumed by the country as a whole. I do not know how the hon. member can have it both ways. Providing the government with a return on its investment is just nonsense. Something which is a public utility and a requirement is an asset to the nation as a whole. I do not know of any town, village or city looking for returns on their investments in sewer systems, water systems and highways. The St. Lawrence Seaway falls into the same category.
The last point in the resolution is totally unacceptable to most people in this country. The St. Lawrence Seaway is one of the main transportation routes in our nation. It is a benefit. The nation as a whole shares the cost. The nation as a whole can and should carry the cost of transportation in every part of the nation and in whatever form, whether ferries and causeways in the Atlantic provinces, a waterway like the St. Lawrence Seaway, or ports like Churchill and Prince Rupert. If these are to be operated not only on the basis of paying the costs of operation but recovering the cost of all capital, interest, and a return on investment, only the rich could travel. We would export little and we would have trouble importing because people would not be able to pay the price of goods.
Surely the fact that ships are energy efficient means that we should promote greater use of them in this country. Grain producers must have low cost water transportation if we are to remain in competitition with other grain exporting nations.
In his remarks the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) spoke of doubling the tolls. An article which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle Herald on June 4 last reported Mr. Paul Normandeau, president of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, as telling the Public Accounts Committee that tolls would have to be five times higher than their existing levels in order to put the St. Lawrence Seaway on a paying basis. Now my hon. friend would have us accept a resolution that would not only put it on a paying basis but would give the government a return on its investment. There is no way we can accept that, Mr. Speaker.
I would remind hon. members that Canadian cargoes move toll free through the United States locks at Sault Ste. Marie. I agree with the hon. member for Crowfoot that if we were to
St. Lawrence Seaway
increase our tolls there would of course be retaliatory action. This would be bound to have an effect on Alberta coal moving to Ontario. I suggest that the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) check with Ontario Hydro and Ontario consumers to see how they would like that. It also means that grain shipments, about ten million tons a year, could be diverted to United States ports.
This is a public utility and it could operate at cost to the user. The capital cost and interest cost should be assumed by the nation as a whole. Those who advocate it should operate with a return on investment to the government should remember that the government is the people of Canada. This facility is meant to function for the welfare of the people of Canada, as are a lot of other facilities.
My hon. friend across the way speaks of international shipping. How many international ships would use the St. Lawrence Seaway if these tolls were imposed? They would use United States ports.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture represents agriculture from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In a brief submitted to the government last September, the federation opposed any increase in the tolls although they supported that part of the hon. member's resolution which proposes the government should take over interest charges. Their brief reminds us that the United States government absolved those responsible for their portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway of all past, present and future capital and interest costs. It would seem to me we can do no less.
The brief also had this to say:
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture opposes any increase in tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway, and further recommends that the capital debt and interest accumulated thereon be assumed by the Government of Canada.
The interest and debt amounts to something over $800 million, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Do you subscribe to that?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The same thing should be applied to the CNR debt.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Because it is a public utility. The government of Canada should pick up all those bonds, pay out the bond lenders, and stop the taxpayers being pressured by those who collect the interest. Hon. members should look at the CNR financial statements as well as at those of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture brief claims that a toll charge high enough to cover annual operating costs, the future recovery of capital costs and accumulated debts, even amortized over 50 years, would be intolerably high.
There is another matter, Mr. Speaker. The problem is not only the effect this would have on our competitive position in the export of grain but on the hauling of iron ore. If the hon. member for Welland thinks that a lot of that would not be

January 31, 1977
Income Tax
diverted by using other means and other routes, he is kidding himself. An increase in tolls would encourage that to happen.


Samuel Victor Railton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have been misquoted by the hon. member in two statements-one about the recent statement and the other about costs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I have difficulty recognizing that as a point of order. It is mostly a point of debate and argumentative.
It being six o'clock, and the hour appointed for private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):
That in relation to Bill C-22, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax, eight hours shall be allotted to the further consideration in committee of the whole stage of the said bill;
That, at the end of the eighth such hour, any proceeding before the committee shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the committee of the whole stage of the said bill, shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if the government moves anything as horrendous-that is the correct word-as a closure motion, it ought to have some justification for it, and the justification which has been put forward by spokesmen for the government is that until Bill C-22 passes income tax rebates in 1976 cannot be processed.
It is important to consider statistics. They show that the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue normally processes 3 per cent of all tax returns by the end of March, and we say that this bill would pass by then in any event. More significantly, we argue that certain rebates can be made within the authority of legislation passed so far. After all, Bill C-21 to do with the excise tax deals with sales tax exemptions which relate to the same May, 1976, budget.
As I said when speaking about tax returns, on average only 3 per cent of all such returns are processed by mid-March, only 20.2 per cent of the total are processed by mid-April, and 36 per cent by mid-June. Not until mid-August will, say, 92.3 per cent of all tax returns have been processed.

My party has shown strong determination in opposing passage of this measure; unfortunately, since there are only 16 of us in the House of Commons it is most unlikely that we could hold up this legislation, much as we are determined to try, long enough to interfere significantly with the processing of tax returns. I therefore suggest that the government is being less than honest with Canadians when it says that it must impose closure in order to help the taxpayer, particularly the little taxpayer.
I have had a number of letters from irate citizens who have at least $11,000 tucked away in savings. They are angry with me for opposing this bill. They want to add to their savings and they do not want to pay taxes.
I say that the government is not justified in bringing in closure. Its two grounds for the motion, namely, that passage of the bill is necessary because it will help certain people and that it cannot pay rebates unless the bill passes, are without foundation. Therefore, it is scarcely justified in moving the closure motion. I think the government should be thoroughly ashamed of itself for the less than honest manner in which it has placed this matter before the country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we oppose this motion. We believe firmly that the use of closure is the wrong way to run a democratic parliament. I agree with the remarks made by one or two members this afternoon on the government side of the House, that we must find ways to apportion our time and use it sensibly as among various kinds of legislation. Some pieces of legislation are important and deserve considerable debating time; some are unimportant and ought to be dealt with quickly.
What bothers me about the present method of using closure is that it is a case of giving in to the idea that there is no way to work out our timing arrangements on a sensible basis. Therefore every time we use closure we put off the day when we shall find a better way. So, Mr. Speaker, because we think it is wrong to apply closure to a bill as contentious as this one, and because we think that the use of the closure rule delays the finding of a better and more co-operative way to run the House of Commons, we strongly oppose this motion. I say this as one who has often advocated a sensible apportionment and allocation of our time. I think it can be done. I think we can start a session with a clear indication of what is to come before the House, and with an agreement as to which measures are important and deserve debating time, and which measures can be dealt with quickly. But so long as we have a government which refuses to give us the session's program in advance and relies on the present ad hoc, helter-skelter way of doing things, we shall have a parliament which does not deal with its business in a business-like and appropriate way.
As a member of this House I have seen a good many applications of the closure rule-the old one as well as the new one-and I can say that every time it is used it creates feelings of ill will; and, worse, this procedure prevents us from working out a sensible way to deal with the business of the House of Commons.
January 31, 1977


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being 8.11 o'clock p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 75C have expired. Accordingly, under the terms of that standing order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion, (Mr. Macdonald (Rose-dale)) which was agreed to on the following division.
Alexander
Baker
(Grenville-Carleton)
Baldwin
Benjamin
Brisco
Broadbent
Caouette
Clark
(Rocky Mountain) Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Coates Darling Dick Dinsdale Dionne
(Kamouraska)
Douglas
(Nanaimo-Cowichan-
The Islands)
Epp
Fairweather
Firth
Friesen
Gauthier
(Roberval)
Income Tax
 NAYS Messrs.
Gillies
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain)
Hargrave
Hees
Hnatyshyn Hogan Holmes Horner Howie Johnston Kempling Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand) Korchinski Laprise La Salle Leggatt MacDonald (Egmont)
MacKay
Masniuk
Mazankowski
McCleave
McGrath
McKinley
McKinnon
Mitges
Muir
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
Nystrom
Orlikow
O'Sullivan
Patterson
Peters
Pigott (Mrs.)
Ritchie
Saltsman
Schumacher
Stanfield
Stewart
(Marquette)
Towers Whiteway Whittaker-64.
(Division No. 17)
Abbott	YEAS Messrs. Fox	MarchandAllmand	Francis	MartinAnderson	Gauthier	MclsaacAndras	(Ottawa-Vanier)	McRae(Port Arthur)	Gendron	MilneBasford	Gillespie	MunroBechard	Goodale	(Hamilton Ea:Begin (Miss)	Goyer	Nicholson (MissBlais	Gray	O'ConnellBlouin	Guay	OuelletBreau	(St. Boniface)	ParentBuchanan	Guay	PearsallBussiires	(Levis)	PelletierCaccia	Guilbault	PennerCafik	Harquail	PhilbrookCampagnolo (Mrs.)	Herbert	PinardCampbell (Miss)	Hopkins	Portelance(South Western Nova)	Isabelle	PoulinCaron	Jamieson	Prud'hommeChrdtien	Joyal	RailtonClermont	Kaplan	ReidCollenette	Lachance	RobertsCorbin	Lalonde	RompkeyCorriveau	Landers	RooneyCullen	Lang	RoyCyr	Langlois	(Timmins)Danson	Lapointe	RoyDaudlin	Leblanc	(Laval)De Band	(Laurier)	Sauve (Mrs.)Demers	LeBlanc	SharpDionne	(Westmorland-Kent]	Smith(Northumberland-	Lefebvre	(Saint-Jean)Miramichi)	Lessard	StanburyDouglas	Loiselle	Stewart(Bruce-Grey)	(Chambly)	(Cochrane)Drury	Loiselle	StolleryDupont	(Saint-Henri)	TessierDupras	Macdonald	TrudeauDuquet	(Rosedale)	TurnerEthier	MacEachen	WatsonFleming	MacFarlane	WhelanFlynn	Maine	Young-110.Foster	Marceau


Mr. Speaker:: 1 therefore declare the motion carried.


MEASURETO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday. December 20, 1976, consideration in committee of Bill C-22, to amend the statute law relating to income tax-Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale)-Mr. Ethier in the chair.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-22, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax.

When the committee rose on Monday, December 20, 1976, we were on clause 16 of the bill.

Shall Clause 16 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
On Clause 18.
[Stage Direction]
January 31, 1977
Income Tax
Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, before going on with this clause, I would like an explanation from the minister.


An hon. Member:: His officials are not here yet.


Max Saltsman: We have lots of time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, under the provisions of the Judges Act, when all individuals to whom an annuity could be granted upon the death of a federal judge have themselves died or ceased to be eligible for annuity, the judge himself becomes eligible to receive a lump sum payment which represents a return of pension contribution which has been made to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
At present a taxpayer may purchase an income averaging annuity in respect of any lump sum pension payment which he receives upon his withdrawal or retirement from employment. This amendment extends the privilege of forward averaging to federal judges who receive a lump sum pension payment as described above. Because such a payment is made at a time other than the time the judge withdraws or retires from his judgeship, this amendment is necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 21.
Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the clauses to which we take exception in terms of the disproportionate benefits it provides to some people in comparison with others. I have a table which I would like to read in connection with how the benefits occur with regard to child care expenses. In considering child care expenses we find that there are many tables here dealing with who benefits and who does not. There is a table in conjunction with registered retirement savings plans and child care for two children. If income is $10,000, the saving is $210. The disability deduction, which is one of the highly touted aspects of this bill, is $275. We are not complaining that these savings at that income level should not take place, but if we go on to higher incomes, for example, $50,000, the saving is doubled. In the case of a registered pension plan the saving is $430. In the case of an RRSP the saving is $645.
Using that income, in the case of child care where two children are involved the saving is doubled. The saving is $430. It seems to me that these things should be organized in such a way that the saving is equal. If in fact the saving is to be $210 at the $10,000 level for the registered pension plan, or $210 in the case of the child care plan, it should be the same for everyone right across the board, and we object to the fact that the saving is larger with higher incomes. That is the feature all the way through the various aspects of the bill which we find so offensive.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: This is a point about which the hon. member's colleagues have been making a great deal. The response is that on the other hand the tax payable at the various levels indicated is upped as income is progressively
[The Assistant Deputy Chairman.]
greater. It is true that there is a larger reduction in tax as you go up the income scale. On the other hand, there is a very much greater absolute tax payable.


Max Saltsman: This is the kind of thing we hear when we talk about progressive income tax in this country. They say lower the rates because they are too onerous. Then the minister comes along and says that we have a progressive income tax, and look what the rates are. What we are saying is that this is only one example. There are many more examples which we have put forward. Every time a deduction is introduced which makes it possible for people with higher incomes to get greater benefits from registered retirement savings plans, child care deductions and even disability deductions, the progressiveness of the income tax system is reduced. This is what is being done all along in our income tax system as a result of these various deductions. In fact the system is not nearly as progressive as the minister makes it out to be.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I just have to point out to the hon. gentleman that the percentage change remains the same all the way up.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, what is the argument of the government against a tax credit arrangement? The minister says that the percentage remains the same ail the way up. That is true, but the amount does not remain the same all the way up. In some cases the amount is considerably more than in others. If we were to use a tax credit out of tax payable and if we set a fixed sum, that would be the amount of a child care deduction. It would be an actual amount. It would apply to the rich the same as it would to the poor. It seems to me that when we do things on a sliding basis, that means that at the high end those who need it least get the greatest advantage, and this has to be paid by everyone. That is the amount the government does not get in taxes. Therefore everyone pays it, and those who need it most do not get the most advantage out of it. If this were calculated on the basis of a delayed tax, a deferred tax, or a tax which would be set at a fixed amount and the amount payable from the income tax were taken off, then this would be fair and it would also be in proportion to need.
Using the amount of $300 as an example, this sum would represent a higher proportionate amount to the poor than it would to the rich. It would be a very small proportion of the taxable income of those earning $20,000. In fact, it might cost them money because it would become income. On the other hand, at the lower end it would have quite an influence because it would be deducted directly from tax.
I would be interested to know why the Minister of Finance has not given some consideration to this more equitable proposal. It is being used now in Ontario with regard to the Ontario proportion of income tax both for the elderly and for farm properties. Both of them are in the form of a deferred tax. I see no reason why we should not at least consider this, because the minister must agree that what we are doing in each of these instances is providing a great deal more benefit at the top end of the tax structure than we are at the bottom. Every dollar deducted at the top end is considerably more-
January 31, 1977

four or five, depending on the degree-than it is at the low end, and if we want to provide child care where it is needed so desperately, we should provide it to people with lower incomes.
Under this scheme the advantages seem to flow unequally to the top end. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and this will continue to happen. While it is true that it is equal on a percentage basis, it is not truly equal. It is like saying we all have an equal opportunity, but some of us were born in more favourable circumstances than others.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member who is speaking from his seat is not necessarily equal. He may have less intelligence than most but we give him equal opportunity in this tax structure. I think it is not equal, however, and we should be starting to provide opportunity on an equal basis.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, in percentage terms it is equal. There is an inequality in the income tax structure but it is in the upper bracket, not the lower bracket. In percentage and absolute terms, the more you get the more you pay. This is done by way of deduction rather than giving a tax credit. It is regarded as a deduction available for certain people in the work force-primarily women, but also a single parent man. In order to earn income, if these people have dependent children they have to make arrangements for day care facilities. In that sense it is regarded as a sum expended for family purposes so that the taxpayer may be free to earn income.


William Arnold Peters: Would the minister not agree that where we are setting up day care centres as are other segments of government, which are usually operated in a community structure where it is absolutely necessary to have this kind of care so that family may have enough money to get by on, that the need becomes greater at the low end of the income scale rather than the top end? The minister is correct in saying it is a progressive tax structure and that the rich pay more than the poor on a percentage basis, but would he not agree that there is more left over at the top end than at the bottom end?
In the example given to us, suppose the child care deduction were eliminated and replaced by a tax credit of $350 per child, for the woman whose earned income was $6,000 this would mean a $93 reduction in her tax bill. Instead of the $257 tax saving she now receives from the deduction, she would have her taxes reduced by $350, a difference of $93. The $20,000 a year woman would have her tax bill increase by $30 since the present tax deduction gives her a saving of $380, but the credit would only give her a saving of $350.
It seems to me we are interested in the low end of the scale particularly in those subsidized communities where a large percentage of people depend on two incomes and even the combined income is not very high. The tax credit would bring more relief on a percentage basis than it would the person at the top end of the scale, no matter what the physical amounts
Income Tax
were. I think everyone will agree that if we keep on with the structure we now have, the difference in the standards of living between those at the low end of the scale and those at the top will become greater. It may still be true to say that the percentage the government gets back from the tax structure is much higher at the top end than at the bottom, but the actual amount of money is not higher at the top than the bottom. It is much lower.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, as indicated by my colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge, the minister seems to be arguing the case that income tax is set up in a progressive way so that the higher the income, the higher the percentage of tax. That is theoretically true, but every special provision we put into the act, such as this one, is another step toward destroying the very progressivity about which the minister spoke so favourably.
What do we see when we look at the child care provision? A large number of married women in Ottawa work, and I am sure every member knows some of them who have quite high qualifications. According to the income tax tables for this year, those who make between $20,000 and $25,000 per year will be taxed at 31 per cent on their taxable income. The minister is now proposing that $1,000 spent on child care should be exempt from income tax, which means that such a woman will save between $300 and $350. But her secretary, who is probably earning $8,000 or $9,000 per year, will pay 20 per cent tax on her taxable income and not save even half of what her boss does.
This provision does what the Carter commission pointed out years ago-it takes one more step toward destroying the progressivity about which the minister spoke. I see the minister shakes his head. I would be glad if he could explain how our argument is in error.
It seems to me that we should not be moving toward provisions which give people a legal method of avoiding income tax, but that we should be moving to eliminate these loopholes and special provisions. To a great extent they are used on behalf of people in the upper income bracket, or self-employed people, and are of little or no use to the ordinary working person on a low wage.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I would make the point again that, of course, as the progressivity of the tax goes up you have the same relative percentage all the way up. It does not alter that, except as you top out, at that point some of the higher income does not get the same benefit it otherwise would if the expenditure goes above $1,000 per year. There is progressivity in percentage terms. Of course this is of more value in the higher of the two categories, but in percentage terms the relativity is the same.
The hon. member for Timiskaming says we should reverse the order and have declining benefits the more tax you pay.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
2568

January 31, 1977
Income Tax


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We do not usually follow that policy, and I am not sure that in terms of equity it would be reasonable.


David Orlikow: The point I am trying to make, which has been made by many others, including the National Council of Welfare, is that we ought to be directing our attention either toward remodelling income tax along the present lines, or to some form of negative income tax. The aim would be to put money into the hands of people at the bottom end of the income scale rather than people at the top.
We have said many times that everything we have done over the last 25 years has led to the position we are in today where the bottom one fifth of income earners are getting a smaller percentage of the gross national product than they were 25 years ago. They are getting less than 4 per cent of the gross national product, whereas the people in the top group are now getting about 42.5 per cent of the gross national product. The kind of proposals the minister has put forward in this bill, along with other government proposals, have led to the present situation with which my party disagrees completely.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: I invite the backbencher of the Liberal party to stand up and express his own point of view.


Mr. Pearsall:: What about the mill workers in B.C.? They are getting $10 an hour.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, I reinforce the invitation of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, particularly since we are debating this bill under a time allocation order. Backbenchers opposite should not be reluctant to stand up and present their ideas. Normally they are kept in line by their Whip who says they can yell from their seats but that they should not take up the time of the House.
It is clear, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North pointed out, that the efforts of the federal government and other levels of government to redistribute wealth have failed. While governments transfer money to lower income people through programs like the old age pension, guaranteed income supplement, family allowances and other government programs on the one hand, they give benefits and allowances of the kinds contained in the present bill to the better off, on the other. What the left hand gives the right hand takes away, and to that we object.
Let me give some examples. Most of us favour women's liberation. We think it is long overdue that women should be given equality in the eyes of the law. Unfortunately most of the benefits of the women's liberation movement are enjoyed by women of the middle and upper income brackets; poor women get few of the benefits, despite all the pitches you hear about women's liberation. How does that relate to the present legislation? This bill would allow women who do not want to stay home to work and deduct up to two thirds of child care expenses from income. In raising my argument I am not

saying that the law discriminates as between women. Circumstances in life can militate against certain women and the law is not taking those into account.
How do women at low income levels who go to work arrange for the care of their children? They do not send their children to child care centres or fancy nursery schools. They cannot afford those expensive luxuries. Generally a neighour or relative looks after the children. That is how women at lower income levels arrange for the care of their children during the working day. The fact is, at that level, you are not going to get receipts which you can present to the government for claiming a deduction. That is a fact of life, as anyone will attest who knows how people at the lower income level live.
But the people who will avail themselves of the deductions in this bill can avail themselves of all sorts of fancy schools, be they language schools or nursery schools. Those women will get the real benefit of the bill. I am talking of women who start bringing up their children from the age of three or four to be part of this society's elite; those women make sure that our present class distinctions continue. And that is what this bill is all about.
I know the minister is not inexperienced in dealing with constituents. His constituency contains more than one class of constituent, and he deals with all sorts of people in his constituency. He knows that the child care of the better off is different from the child care of the poor. This legislation, by its very nature, is designed to help the better off.
Let me touch on arguments regarding the progressive nature of our income tax system. I do not quarrel with the minister when he says that he is trying to maintain equity under the income tax system. I would not quarrel with the minister if the present income tax system were equitable and the programs associated with it were closing the gap between the rich and the poor. But how can he argue that inequality breeds equity? Really, that is what the minister is arguing. He is saying that he wants to maintain the present system of equity. We say that existing so-called equity is not worth a darn. It is widening the gap between the rich and the poor.
We do not favour the present sort of proposals which do nothing to make the income tax system more equitable. We say that the income tax system can be made more equitable if the government pays a tax credit, that is to say, if it pays the same amount to those at the lower end of the income scale that it makes available to those at the upper end. In that way it could make the income tax system somewhat more fair. That is the kind of equity for which we stand, in contrast to the kind of equity which the minister has put forward.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, I will not add to what the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge just said, but I should like to raise the matters he raised in the form of a question to the minister. I suppose one could argue that the present income tax system would be equitable if you were to treat everything in the market system in the same way, as being of equal value. Under such a system the government, through its progesssive income tax-I will not argue how progressive our

present income tax system really is, because I do not think it is progressive at all-would not say to Canadians that it prefers spending on automobiles as opposed to spending say, on bibles or other consumer goods. Under such a system one could argue that the government is taking a neutral position. But when the government provides incentives through its tax system and says, "We want you to spend money on child care or registered retirement savings plans," and so on, it is, by definition, making a value judgment. In other words, the state wants to encourage that kind of spending. On the other hand, if we are concerned about equality in society, should we not proceed on a direct grant basis, as my colleagues argued, to ensure that the tax system treats all people with equality? Would that not be better than the present income tax structure of this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, perhaps our viewpoint is somewhat different. We are recognizing under the tax system that people in the community, make financial contributions with regard to pensions for retirement, RRSPs, and child care expenses, contributions for which they are out of pocket and for which, reasonably, there should be some recognition in the tax they pay. I do not pretend for a moment that there is equality between all taxpayers. There is a fundamental assumption which is not obviated by the tax system, or by the income system within the community, namely, that some people are making more than others. We are saying, indeed, that there is not equality between taxpayers, because the higher you go up the income scale the more tax you pay, and you pay a greater percentage of your income in taxes. The hon. member is right in one respect. Even having applied those factors you still have more left in hand. But the money left in hand does not initially come from the tax system but from a whole variety of different circumstances in which people find themselves in the community.
I suppose, not intending to carry the hon. gentleman's argument to the extreme, I can refer to the United Kingdom taxation system where, in Canadian terms, at a relatively low level in the taxation system taxation takes away any additional earned income. In terms of incentive I would think on the whole it is in our interest to continue to leave substantial incentive out there for some people whom the hon. member might not regard as great contributors to the community, but also for a great many people with respect to whom he would concede are making contributions by their talent and otherwise and who are rewarded by a greater return on income. So there is a basic equality there. I suppose the hon. member would take more away in tax from those further up the income scale, but we would still leave them with more in the end.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister has replied to one aspect of the question, one upon which I really did not want to concentrate, namely, whether the income tax structure is sufficiently progressive-is there a certain point at which one should increase the amount one must pay. I should like him to deal with the question.
Income Tax
Let us assume there is a particular schedule of progressivity in the income tax structure and the democratic government of the day decides that certain goods and services, for example, the provision of day care facilities, are important and therefore should be encouraged by the state. If the government makes such a decision, does it not make a lot more sense to provide for these things directly as opposed to providing for them through the tax structure?
Consider, for example, the present measure providing for child care allowance. In terms of tax benefit the average person earning $10,000 a year, with two children, receives a benefit of $200, but a person earning $100,000 with two children, receives a benefit amounting to $470. What I am asking the minister is this: instead of attaching benefit for day care to the income tax structure as such, would it not be a lot better to leave it alone in this respect and to take a figure somewhere in between, say, $310, and make sure it goes as a direct payment to all taxpayers, or, indeed, to people who do not pay taxes because their income is not sufficiently high, but have a need of day care facilities? Is it not better for the state to involve itself in actions it believes to be desirable and pay for them directly, rather than using the tax system to pay for the service in such a way that the rich inevitably benefit more than the poor?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman seems to be suggesting that instead of tax deductions we should make a transfer payment to individuals from the public treasury. I think there could be some debate about the wisdom of doing this. One thing is clear. Very likely the apparatus at government level for operating the transfer system and deciding who was to get payments and who was not, would be more expensive than the operation of the present tax system.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, as an innocent country boy I have a lot of questions I should like to ask the minister. I do not want to go off half-cocked on this, you know, when I get back home, especially if I am in the constituencies of some of the minister's colleagues.
The way the bill is now, the child allowance is raised to $1,000 from $500 and the family maximum from $2,000 to $4,000 which, if I understand it correctly, means that a person with income at the $10,000 level would qualify for a deduction worth about $210 while someone in the $50,000 category would qualify for $430. I should like to ask the minister whether someone in the $50,000 a year category-I imagine there are few working wives or mothers in that category- would need some $190 more than a working mother earning $10,000? What is the logic here?
What would be wrong with reversing the situation? I appreciate the minister trying to give extra benefits for child care, but what would be wrong with reversing the entire clause? If the figures I have are reasonably accurate they suggest it might be a good thing to reverse the clause so that the person earning $10,000 or thereabouts might get the maximum benefit allowable in that category, and the person at the $100,000 level would get the minimum tax savings.
80008-25H

January 31, 1977
Income Tax


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am afraid I shall merely be repeating myself for the fourth time when I suggest to the hon. member that in percentage terms the position of the two parties would remain the same. In absolute terms, it is true that the person at the upper end of the income scale will get more. On the other hand, the person at the upper end is going to pay way more in tax and in percentage terms. So there is not equality in the tax system but a position in which there is a progressive income tax-the higher you go, the more you pay both in absolute and percentage terms. We are applying a scale which is related to income. The amount of the tax benefit does move up, I would concede, but on the other hand the tax liability is very much greater at the upper end than at the lower end.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I suppose what I was getting at was dollars. The sum of $390 means damn little to a person with $50,000 a year compared with a benefit of $200 for someone earning $10,000. Another thing I wanted to ask the minister about was this-I hope I am not misquoting him; it sounded very elitist to me-he seemed to be saying that the one who contributes the most should get the most out of the tax system. Is the minister suggesting that the working mother who is a waitress or a stenographer earning $8,000 or $10,000 a year does not make as good a contribution to society as a lady executive earning $30,000 or $50,000 a year? Is he suggesting that the working mother at the higher income makes a greater contribution automatically, or was he just thinking about tax dollars?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I did not say that at all. I hope the hon. member will not put those words in my mouth.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I did not want to do so. I am glad the minister has cleared that up. Another question I have in mind concerns a working woman who, though she is working, does not earn any income. I am not referring to a woman working in the home. I am referring to work outside the home-she is not paid for this work but she is still a working woman and she pays for child care. Would her spouse be able to claim a tax saving on his tax return?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Chairman.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I do not know whether I am happy with that answer or not, because it means that in the case of the Minister of Transport, who has a wife who is a working mother, and who works without pay, I am glad to know the hon. gentleman would not be able to get this benefit when he sends in his tax return. But what about the mother who works for a charitable institution for nothing, and pays for child care? Would her husband be eligible for a tax benefit in that respect?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Chairman. As I have indicated, this is a deduction with respect to expenses incurred for the purpose of earning an income.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, under the present law certain taxpayers, working mothers, are allowed to deduct the actual cost of child care up to an annual maximum of $1,000 a year-as my colleague points out, the family maximum is $4,000 a year-provided the amount claimed does not exceed two thirds of a taxpayer's earned income for the year. According to the report issued by the National Council of Welfare, in 1974 child care deductions, which at that time had a maximum set at only half the present rate, cost the government of Canada over $29 million, so it is obvious that if we increase the amount to $1,000 per person as is now proposed, we are talking of an amount of money in the neighbourhood of $60 million.
I attended the annual convention of the Manitoba New Democratic Party this past weekend where there was a long and pretty acrimonious debate because many delegates felt that the provincial government was not putting enough money into day care centres. In explaining the position of the government, the premier agreed that the government was not putting in enough money, but argued that the amount spent by the government had gone up from almost zero three or four years ago to something in the neighbourhood of $3 million to $4 million for this coming year.
Since most of the $60 million goes to women in the middle and upper income brackets, it seems to me that we would accomplish a great deal more if, instead of giving these tax credits which the National Council of Welfare has indicated will probably cost the treasury $60 million, that amount were better spent in larger contributions to provinces which have already set up day care centres and want to expand them, or to provinces which want to set up day care centres. I wish the minister would give some thought to this.
While I am on my feet I should like to say a few words about an interjection which the hon. member for Coast-Chilco-tin made while my colleague was speaking, and which I think ought not to go unnoticed.


William Arnold Peters: Ought not to go unanswered; it should go unnoticed.


David Orlikow: That is right. The hon. member interjected words to the effect that we should go out to British Columbia where mill workers were making $10 an hour. I hope he will get to his feet when I have finished, but from the tone of his voice one would assume that somehow $10 an hour was an outrageous figure and was too much. I did some fairly quick arithmetic, and assuming that the mill workers worked a full year, which I think very few do, at 40 hours a week they would make $20,000 a year. That sounds like a lot of money, but with the cost of housing today I do not think mill workers are living in the lap of luxury if they make $20,000.
Instead of worrying about the mill workers making $10 an hour, the hon. member should give some thought to the kind of society where in the province of Ontario, according to reports, more that 800 doctors earned over $100,000 each last year. If
January 31, 1977

the hon. member would start worrying about that situation perhaps we would get some equity.
With regard to who benefits from this, I want to tell the hon. member for Coast-Chilcotin that I do not represent many workers who make S10 an hour. My colleague from Winnipeg North Centre and I represent several thousand women workers, many of whom are relative newcomers to Canada. They came to Winnipeg from Portugual, Spain or The Philippines and they work in the garment industry and make something in the neighbourhood of $3.50 an hour which, if they work a full year, which is unlikely, would give them an income of about $7,000 a year. The same is true of the garment industry whether it is in Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Sherbrooke or even Vancouver. That is the nature of the industry, it being faced with competition from countries like Taiwan, Hong Kong and so on, countries where, if the workers get $1 a day, they are doing well.
The garment industry workers are not going to get much by way of a tax benefit from this provision. In fact as my colleague from Waterloo-Cambridge said, if they can make arrangements to have their children looked after they will probably use neighbours who will get a few dollars a week and not report the income, or have so little income that they have no income tax to pay anyway. These are the realities of the situation and it is for this kind of reason that we oppose this proposal. I urge the minister to rethink his position and to come up with a plan whereby the federal government would begin to pay a much larger sum of money toward the provision of adequate day care centres across this country than is the case at the present time.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister whether his department has done a study in order to find out who benefits and who does not benefit from this provision. Perhaps the minister could shoot down all the arguments we have made simply by providing us with some information that might be readily available to his department. Has his department conducted a study of what families, by family income, have received the benefit of this particular provision? Without talking about the improvements in this section, what is the distribution of this benefit to families by family income? There is no point our talking about taxpayers' income because many of these middle and upper income people who claim this deduction only work part time. They are making substantial incomes but are doing so in a relatively short time. It is therefore important to know to what families this benefit is going according to size of family income. Does the minister have this kind of information for us?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, we do not have it by family income; we have it by individual taxpayers' income, because that is, of course, the manner in which it is filed. I can refer the hon. gentleman to the volume on taxation statistics, the 1976 edition, which because of the compilation rate relates to 1974. Table 2 in that volume will indicate the manner in which it is distributed.
Income Tax


Max Saltsman: I should like to pursue the argument that has been put forward by my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, regarding what we think would be a far more appropriate and intelligent approach to this matter of child care services than is proposed in this clause. I was not too sure from the minister's reply whether he had some sympathy with the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. I do not know whether it was simply an administrative problem or because of some administrative difficulty. In fact I do not know whether he thought it was a good idea from an administrative point of view if we are talking about tax credits as one way of being more equitable in terms of how this money is being redistributed.
Surely it is not nearly as complicated as the plan put forward by the government some time ago with regard to relating family allowances to family income. It certainly cannot be any more complicated that the present system of guaranteed income supplements for old age pensioners. These things are done by computers. You look at a person's income tax form, analyze it, and see what they are claiming. Surely it would not be that complicated. I would appreciate if the minister would clear up the point.
Is the minister saying that he is not sympathetic to the basic idea of (a) a system of tax credits, whichever one we get, with sort of an equal amount of money for child care, (b) the transfer of this amount of money into a pool for child care centres rather than doing it through the income tax system, or is he simply saying that the difficulty is an administrative one and he cannot figure it out?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member referred to the family income security program. As I said to the hon. member for Timiskaming, it is a deduction of actual expenditure. In the family income security program there is no requirement of proof of expenditure. The hon. member is suggesting that this be given to every family irrespective of actual expenditure or child care services. That would indeed very much simplify the matter, but I wonder if that is what is really the objective. What we are trying to do is give some recognition for expenditures actually laid out. To the extent his leader was saying that in effect we should increase the taxation, particularly at the upper end of the scale and make it in transfer payments, that does not happen to represent the position of the government at this point.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, the minister is having some difficulty, which I can understand, with what I am asking him. In fact there are two ways of doing it. You can relate it to the claim. On the other hand, you can relate it on a broad universal basis. I had really not thought about it until the minister made it as a suggestion. Actually if there is a second earner in the family and there are small children involved, you can count on one fact. Somebody will have to look after the children if the second earner goes to work. If nobody looks after the children and it becomes the responsibility of the husband and the wife, after working for a full day, to stay up

January 31, 1977
Income Tax
and look after the children, surely making some payment to that family would not be out of line. You can be reasonably sure that if a transfer payment is made on the basis of a second worker in a family, it could be done on a universal basis.
Almost anything would be an improvement over what has been suggested at this point. The preferred way is what is being suggested by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. That is that the amount of money involved here might be better used in terms of providing day care facilities for people at the lower income level who want to go to work.
If you ask yourself who benefits from this, who needs the help the most, you quickly would have to come to the conclusion that the people who need help the most are that group of people which is probably the largest group on welfare, the single parents. Very often there are complaints that they are on welfare, but this is often because they have a child. It is the largest single group on welfare. The greatest thing we can do in terms of getting these people off welfare and giving them a chance to go to work and realize an opportunity is to provide some service for them.
These are not the kind of people with the skills of those who earn a great deal of money. Anything we can give them through the income tax system in the way of a tax deduction or tax benefit is a waste of time. Chances are they will not earn enough money to be able to take advantage of it. Even if they get some money that puts them into a taxable bracket, the very regressive nature of this system tends to be less favourable for them than for people with higher skills and in a better position to get the money for the work they do.
The minister is responding in a way that often happens with these income tax systems. In other words, you start off with a system and you add a little bit of this and a little bit of that. You get pressure from one group or another. You say that in the next budget you will tack on a little piece for them, "do not get too upset with us." The party with which the minister is associated tends to be more inclined to look for the swingers, the middle and upper-income groups. He obviously has to be in some struggle to keep them happy.
A few years after the great Carter report when we tried to simplify the tax system, we keep having these things added. They not only complicate the tax system but increase its regressive nature. It gives little bits and pieces. We wonder why the distribution of income over all these years has really not been effective in any significant way. It is because of this kind of patchwork approach.
Getting back to the question of what should be done about the problem of child care, obviously something should be done. It reflects an absence of really looking at the problem and saying there is a child care problem.
There are a lot of people who should be helped if they want to go to work. They should be helped with child care expenses. What is the best way of doing it? Rather than coming up with this bitty thing that in fact keeps the middle-income people somewhat happy and sort of responds to the clubwoman type

of request, the minister should reconsider the government's attitude toward child care centres.
If the government is prepared to forgo this kind of revenue in the tax system, it should be prepared to use this amount of revenue which is significantly fairer and more effective than the measure before us today.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to the minister's response. I appreciate the reasons he gave. They reflect government policy and also the reasoning of his officials. I consider the minister to be a pretty decent guy who thinks about and considers ordinary people. Why would he countenance this kind of program rather than fight for a program that would give a $470 tax saving to someone at the low end of the tax scale with a $10,000 income and only a $200 tax saving to the one at the $100,000 end of the income scale? Why, in the name of decency if nothing else, will he not do that?
Don't tell me the clause cannot be reworded to do that very thing. His officials, two of them here now, could work out a scale or formula that would reverse the position for the working mother who earns $7,000 or $8,000 a year as a waitress or stenographer so that she would get the maximum tax saving. Probably her whole income tax of $500 would be returned. The working mother in the $20,000 or $30,000 bracket would get less of a tax saving. If there is such a thing as a working mother in the $100,000 bracket, which I doubt, she would only get a $200 tax saving. Surely to God that is the decent thing to do.
I was hoping that some of my colleagues in the official opposition would have something to say about that tonight, because they have been the greatest motherhood party since last February. I was hoping someone would get up, but do you know what they think of child care? They are watching Evel Knievel on TV.


Albert John (Jack) Pearsall: I did not know he was on now.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What is the stand of the official opposition on decent child care facilities? I had hoped the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, who has done some pretty good things about day care centres and child care, would have something to say, but he has been bloody silent tonight. The Tories would not even help force the vote so the Liberals would have to bring in closure.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Why watch TV; we have you here?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I ask not only the minister but the official opposition if they would not prefer to see the low income working mother get the maximum tax saving and the high income working mother get the minimum tax saving? That is what I would like to know.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, I wish the Minister of Finance would answer the questions posed by my colleague who just sat down. I would like to join my colleague in asking
January 31, 1977

where the official opposition is on this measure. I find it extraordinary that on one of the most significant parts of a tax bill that affects in particular average and low income people in Canada, the Conservative party in the House of Commons has had not one word to say. When they get around to policy development, their leader asks a man by the name Reuben Baetz, who is head of the Canadian Council of Social Development, but I understand he has been reluctant to give them advice. Perhaps he sees how cynical they are. I hope he reads the record of today's debate and finds out that the official opposition had not one word to say on this important measure.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I was interested to hear the argument used by the National Council of Welfare on income tax systems, and I was particularly interested in their statement on the unfairness of some of the sections of the income tax law. I am sure that many Canadians will be very interested in this.
It may well be that the reason why more Canadians are not interested in day care centres and the ancillary facilities of day care work stems from the fact that this government does not want extra women in the labour market.
I went to a Manpower Centre in my own area a couple of weeks ago because I was obsessed with the idea that the figures which are available for employment do not meet the criteria that I would set, and in fact they are considerably below them. I asked whether there would be enough women in the area to fill the 300 vacancies available at a factory close by. An official said there were about 300 women listed at that Manpower Centre. I asked whether all those women would be able to work in that plant making jeans. He said that no, of course they would not, that there would be no trouble getting 300 women to work in that plant, but only 100 would be from his list. This means that in any particular field there might be four or five times as many women available for work as are registered. One of the reasons for that is the fact that if you have a very low income you have to get your neighbour or your mother-in-law to look after your baby when you go out to work. So these women agree to do the work of baby sitting for reasonable wages so long as they do not have to give receipts. They are not interested in the work if they have to give receipts because they do not want to get their husbands in trouble with their income tax forms. They are not interested in making that income otherwise. If they can get that income under the table without receipts, they will take the work.
Let me say for the edification of the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin that I had the opportunity to visit a country not long ago, a country to which Canada is giving considerable aid for development. One of the things on which they are spending a large amount of money is the development of day care centres in conjunction with their industrial projects. In fact every housing unit they build is connected to a day care centre. They believe it is absolutely essential for low income people to have two incomes per family, and to make that possible day care centres are necessary.
Surely the Minister of Finance, who comes from an area where many residents are in desperate need of day care centres
Adjournment Debate
and who leave their children in less than satisfactory conditions when they go out to work, must be sympathetic to the argument put forward by my colleague who said that this measure will mean a reduction of tax revenue for the federal government of about $60 million which could be invested in day care centres in conjunction with the municipalities and provinces. This would be of much greater benefit to the people in need of day care assistance than this kind of exemption which we believe, perhaps wrongly, is of greater benefit to the tax structure itself than to people at the lower end of the income scale.
I hope the minister will give some consideration to transferring to his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, this money in lieu of the tax exemption so that we can build day care centres, and so that we do not find that a country which is much less progressive and developed than ours, and certainly much poorer than we are, does more in the area of social assistance than we do by building day care centres for those who need to work.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the topic I want to pursue tonight is the cow-calf program, and I see the parliamentary secretary is here. One could describe the federal cow-calf program in the language of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) himself as being a load of bull. It is too little, too late; it discriminates against small producers, and it discriminates against provinces that set up continuing stabilization programs when the federal government refused to do its job.
The program allocates less to cover the whole country, $70 million, than Alberta and Saskatchewan budgeted for their 1976 programs, $72 million. The pay-outs are expected to be about $30 per cow less than the $50 Alberta and Saskatchewan were paying under the 1976 program, and will cover fewer cows.
At a meeting with the Minister of Agriculture in December the provincial ministers were led to hope that the federal plan would cover 1976 as well as 1977. That has not materialized. As with all other federal stabilization programs, the plan is not

January 31, 1977
Adjournment Debate
indexed to cover all costs of production. Ninety per cent of the five year average stabilization level will not come near to covering the producers' losses.
The payment set-up works against small producers by deducting the first five cows and then paying on 70 per cent of the remaining herd. Naturally this means that the small producer gets paid on a smaller percentage of his herd than a producer at the maximum 100 head. All this does is save the federal government a bit of money. If the federal government really wanted to exclude hobby farmers, it could have set a minimum cow herd and paid on the whole thing.
The government is only paying 70 per cent because it is assuming an 85 per cent calf drop. That means the producer gets no support at all for the cows that he breeds and feeds and on which he comes up a loser. However, the really foolish feature of this program is the additional 15 per cent exemption for herd replacement. If the government wants to end the depletion of the cow herd, which is going on very rapidly and which by mid-1977 may see us back to 1971 beef crisis levels, the way to encourage producers to build herds is not to reduce payments that may keep some of them operating until the market picks up as predicted.
In Saskatchewan, for example, there was a record cow slaughter in 1976 as 202,000 cows went to the slaughter yards-that is double the normal rate-and at that time the same pattern held true for heifer slaughter as well. A further 10 per cent to 12 per cent deletion in Saskatchewan's cow herd is expected this year. That will bring herd levels in that province back to 1970-71 levels, wiping out five years of gains toward a more diversified agricultural economy.
Consumers will see a return to the high prices of the early 1970's when the beef cycle hits its high point in 1978-79, as the government's so-called stabilization does nothing to stabilize the production of cattle at the farm level.
To pay $20 or so when some producers have had losses of up to $100 a head is no more than a political ploy. The cynicism of the federal plan is further demonstrated in the provision that producers enrolled in provincial programs will receive only half of the federal deficiency payment. While the government has consistently opposed toploading of federal stabilization plans, the minister can hardly claim that Manitoba, B.C., Ontario and Quebec are toploading his plan. They were instituted because the federal minister failed to bring in a plan of his own.
Returns to producers are higher in all the provincial plans than they will be under the federal scheme. Manitoba, which sends more than half its beef to central Canada, would have lost $4 million in federal payments in 1976 had the plan been in effect then. It makes no sense to penalize a province which brought in an imaginative and progressive plan to protect its beef industry in the absence of federal action. If medicare had been introduced on the same basis as this stabilization program, Saskatchewan would only be getting half the payments it now gets.

The time when federal-provincial relations are at their shakiest since Confederation is scarcely the time to add new injury to inaction. I can assure hon. members that representatives from all the provinces we talked to are very upset about this point. Manitoba taxpayers, for example, will continue to subsidize central Canadian consumers, as Alberta and Saskatchewan taxpayers did in 1976, to the tune of some $72 million.
The federal government cynically exploited the drop in beef prices as it moved the food index lower and gave the impression that the anti-inflation program was working. The beef index is just under three points in the consumer price index.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the minister's real heroes in the fight against inflation are taking a beating. Farmers all across the country have suffered income cuts, but beef producers are in especially desperate straits at this time. The 15,000 producers who have applied for payments under Saskatchewan's emergency plan had average taxable incomes of $1,600 in 1975. That is the kind of "powerful group" in society which has had to suffer the rough justice of restraint. The federal government must take the blame. It could have controlled imports, but it did not. It could have rationalized the country's beef marketing system, but it did not. Thousands of cow-calf operators are paying for this inaction now as they mortgage their family farms or go under in bankruptcy and, in a year or two, millions of Canadians will pay in higher prices at the supermarket. But between now and then is an election and maybe the Minister of Agriculture's $70 million sop will buy him some friends. I doubt it.
The second point I want to raise is the increase in community pasture rates by over 30 per cent in a year when beef prices are low and when we have an anti-inflation program. Farmers have just received notice that the PFRA community pasture rates administered by DREE will increase for cattle from nine cents per head per day to 12 cents per head per day, an increase of some 33 per cent. Breeding charges are going from $10 to $13 per day, an increase of 30 per cent. Delegations of farmers have protested to me the increase of over 30 per cent in a year when people are being told to tighten their belts, yet here is a federal government agency increasing the rate to farmers by over 30 per cent. That does not seem to be fair, especially when farmers are getting depressed prices for the beef they are forced to sell and the federal government says they must recover their costs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Pelletier).


Mr. Ir6n6e Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the House to a sentence the hon. member has just spoken and which I did not expect at all, as I am not following the text prepared by the department. The hon. member raised this point at a time when the problems of the Confederation are
January 31, 1977

being discussed at the provincial and federal levels. The hon. member said all this was the fault of the federal government and of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). On several occasions the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) asked the provinces to come to an agreement. He urged them to discuss the national program. He did not want a program unsatisfactory for most of the provinces. Therefore he asked them to come to an understanding first, after which it would be possible to develop a national program. So I think that the allegations of the hon. member are absolutely unfounded, as it is much too easy to cast all the blame for this on the minister. [English]
I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the incorrect allegations which the hon. member made about the federal cow-calf stabilization program in his question of January 27, 1977. This is an important program for the Canadian beef industry and it is essential that such misrepresentations are not given to Canadian farmers.
I wish, first, to emphasize that the program announced by the Minister of Agriculture on January 4, 1977, does not discriminate against farmers or provinces. From the farmer's point of view this program will ensure that producers in all provinces will receive stabilization benefits whether a program is, or is not, already in effect in his province. In this respect I am sure the hon. gentleman opposite will agree with me that the federal initiative in the cow-calf sector is a very positive step toward correcting discrimination and inequities which have existed among provinces in the past.
A producer who is enrolled in a provincial cow-calf program will receive the maximum net support possible under either the federal or the provincial program-whichever is greater. He will receive 50 per cent of the federal stabilization payment, with the remainder coming from the provincial government.
The federal program, which will cost an estimated $70 million, will relieve provincial treasuries of a significant portion of their commitment to producers. Producers will not only receive the full amounts guaranteed in their provincial plans but in those cases where the federal stabilization level is higher than that of the province, will receive larger payments than originally anticipated.
It would not have been fair to implement a federal program which had no benefits for producers already registered under provincial plans.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary but his allotted time has expired. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave).


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION-REQUEST FOR ACTION TO PROTECT PUBLIC FROM EFFECTS OF EXCAVATION IN QUAKER CRESCENT AREA OF LOWER SACKVILLE
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, late last November and last month I mentioned the melancholy and sad events touching housing development in the commu-
Adjournment Debate
nity of lower Sackville in the constituency of Halifax-East Hants.
I pointed out that through the Nova Scotia Housing Commission people had been sold lots and promised land for a church, a 15 acre shopping centre, high rise and single family dwellings, a school, and amenities such as parkland. Subsequently the Nova Scotia Housing Commission entered into a deal. The 15 acre shopping centre swallowed up all the land and removed the school and apartment buildings and the place for other single homes, as well as the parkland. I suggest that was a gross breach of promise to the people who had bought in all good faith and depended on the plans presented by the housing commission. I thought that was dishonest. I also said that the company entering into this deal had done so without taking part in any tendering proceedings. The company was actually formed after the original deal was made. Two friends of the minister of housing for Nova Scotia formed the company, to acquire the land. I said this was corrupt.
The Nova Scotia Housing Commission was good enough to let me see its files. I found, that the very first document which ought to have been on record is missing. That has not caused me to withdraw or soften the complaints I made.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation had poured millions of dollars into that development through grants that it made to the Nova Scotia Housing Commission, to enable land to be assembled in the first place, and with mortgages made available to homeowners when they began to build. A great deal of federal money is therefore at stake, which is why I have been raising this question in the House of Commons.
When the concept of the shopping centre expanded from one involving 15 acres to one involving 21 acres, bulldozers moved in; along the rear lines of the lots on two streets, Quaker Crescent and Polara Drive, a wall has been created, some of it is up to 30 feet high. The wall is holding back a sort of clay soil. The contractor has attempted to shore up this wall. Indeed, I gather that he plans to put a wire fence along the top of it. But the people who bought on Quaker Crescent and Polara Drive expected to be able to look down a gentle slope, through birch trees, walkways and other single family dwellings looking onto a lake. It was to be a pleasant neighbourhood prospect. Instead, they will face one of the largest Dominion stores in eastern Canada. It will be smack up against their properties, as will the other buildings of the shopping centre nearby.
The Nova Scota Housing Comission said, in its defence, that it was only making proposals when it presented plans to the homeowners. The plan, signed by the Nova Scotia Housing Commission was, they say, only a proposal. This brought forth what I consider the best line in the public dialogue which has been created since I raised this issue in mid-November, when Councillor Francene Cosman of Bedford, which is nearby, said that if that was the proposal well, she, herself had once been proposed to and she took that proposal seriously.
2576

Adjournment Debate
I said that great hurt has been done to property values by reason of this desecration of what was originally a fine neighbourhood concept. This must also hurt the investment in that area of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I can suggest three remedies; two, not being germane to this House, I shall mention only briefly. In order to protect the public there must be some change in the law in the province of Nova Scotia. That province cannot depend on a minister of housing whose association with the developers makes Damon and Pythias seem like mortal enemies. Second, provincial and municipal laws must be changed so that the public is protected.
We come into the picture in relation to the third point and I hope the parliamentary secretary will raise this question with CMHC. I do not disagree with the role CMHC has played in this matter. As a matter of fact, any opinion I have had from the minister or the parliamentary secretary has been sympathetic to the homeowners because of the nature of the promises made to them. But I think that if federal moneys go through CMHC to provincial housing corporations or commissions we should insist that very strong agreements are made so that we may know exactly what that federal money would be used for. It simply cannot be left to be administered by a provincial housing minister as though he were running an old pals' act.
All this has led to a lot of frustration among the people concerned. They feel alienated. They say, "The developer is too big for us to deal with." They say the minister of housing is too important for them to be able to deal with. Some of that frustration has boiled over on myself. I know the developer has attacked me in a long front page letter published in the Halifax Mail-Star. My reply has not yet seen the light of day
in that same newspaper, so the newspaper will obviously not be very helpful in this fight. Nonetheless, by boiling over here, and perhaps in other places, we may yet civilize developers and get a better deal for those who put their life savings into housing. At least that will be my endeavour.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in my response in the House on November 30 on the subject the hon. member has raised, I replied in some detail setting out the position of CMHC with respect to this project. I am sure he does not want me to repeat my words. I might add that after making my response I spoke to the hon. member and suggested that the matter of the residents' rights in this controversy might be taken up with the ombudsman in Nova Scotia. It goes without saying that if the Nova Scotia Housing Commission has disregarded any legal obligation to the residents, they should consider seeking an injunction, or other appropriate legal action. Not being a lawyer, I hesitate to go any further in giving advice to the hon. member.
I take note of his remarks concerning the need for a strengthening of the agreements with regard to development projects and I will bring the hon. member's comments to the attention of my minister. I should like to tell the hon. member's comments to the attention of my minister. I should like to tell the hon. member that CMHC is not in the business of running municipal councils and that zoning is not our business, but I repeat that if there are legal problems here which demand further action, the proper course, I suspect, would be for him to take the matter up with the people concerned and advise them as to the possibility of going to the ombudsman.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Tuesday, February 1, 1977