1967-12-14

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I think I am speaking for all members of the house when I express to you, Mr. Speaker, our happiness at having you back among us in the chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We were sorry indeed when we heard that you would be away because of indisposition. We were delighted to learn that your ailment, whatever it may have been, has yielded to medical and surgical treatment and that you are strong, active and vigorous again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I, while expressing our happiness at having you back, also express our thanks to your deputy, the hon. member for Humber-St. George (Mr. Batten) for having filled your place during your absence. There is only one thing; in order to maintain the important principle of bilingual equality Your Honour will have to read the prayers in the French language for four days in succession.


Mr. Speaker:: Frankly I thought the Prime
Minister was about to make a statement on another subject. If I had thought otherwise I might not have recognized him.



BROADCASTING, FILMS AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts-Mr. Berger
[Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.1
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-188 intituled "An Act to amend the Interest Act".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is to impose reasonable limits on finance companies by putting a ceiling on the interest rates, in all cases, of 12 per cent, in order to better protect Canadian citizens who must resort to loans.
Motion agreed and bill read the first time. [English]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is in possession of full information as to the situation in Greece. If so, could he report to the house on the matter, and especially on whether any Canadian interests-that is, interests apart from our natural concern with the state of affairs in a NATO ally-in the form of Canadian lives, persons or property are in danger in Greece at the present time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is not easy for me to report on the actual situation inside Greece, talking about the domestic and political situation. My hon. friend probably knows as much from the press reports as we have been able to ascertain officially. The King, the Queen and the royal family have left Greece and are in Rome.
So far as the situation in Greece is concerned and the effect it might have on Canadians who are in that country, we have had a report from our embassy that the situation is quiet and that Canadians are in no danger. Our embassy has been in touch
5404	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry with Canadian citizens to give them the appropriate advice in the circumstances, but there do not seem to be any circumstances requiring their immediate withdrawal from that country.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding the reports that are emanating from the NATO meeting in Brussels, where some important decisions seem in the course of being made. I want to ask the Prime Minister, has the Secretary of State for External Affairs been given any authority to make firm commitments in so far as Canada is concerned? If so, what is the nature of those commitments?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, no authority has been given to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that would involve any change of commitments on our part. As my hon. friend knows, at the annual meeting of the NATO council the affairs of the coalition generally are discussed, including its defence policies, and proposals made by military headquarters and also by the council.
There has been no authority given and no authority required to make any changes in Canadian policy, nor have any changes been made. Some reports have been made which will have to be considered, and as a result of that consideration there may be changes, but if so the house will have a chance to discuss them. The Secretary of State for External Affairs will be home I think either late tonight or tomorrow, and will probably have a chance to make a report to the house Monday afternoon.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the report that a NATO naval force is being contemplated, has Canada made any commitment respecting a contribution to supply NATO naval ships?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we already have a north Atlantic naval force and we have committed ourselves-and the house knows about the commitments-to make contributions to that force. There may be under consideration now an alteration of that force,
(Mr. Pearson.]
DEBATES	December 14, 1967
but if so that will have to be discussed by the government in so far as any Canadian commitment is concerned, if one indeed is envisaged.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of our announced intention to participate in an international NATO fleet to help counterbalance the strength of the Soviet naval fleet, which is now the second largest in the world, is the Canadian government giving any consideration to increasing the number of ships we have at present in the Canadian navy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not know of any proposal that would require us to increase the number of our ships, but I am sure my hon. friend would wish me to wait until I have a report from the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning exactly what is involved in this proposal, if it is a proposal. That is all it would be, a proposal.
iTranslation1



DETECTION OF FOREIGN SHIPS IN CANADIAN WATERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, in relation to what was discussed a moment ago, since the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) stated Tuesday that foreign vessels came within rather close range of our coasts.
Is the Minister of Transport able to inform the house whether the hovercraft purchased by the government could be equipped for the detection of foreign vessels or submarines coming close to Canadian shores?
[English1


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Is my hon. friend referring to the hovercraft?


Gérard Laprise: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is not intended to be used in the search for submarines role. It is to be used for search and rescue work, looking for seamen in distress or aircraft downed at sea; that is the purpose for which it is being bought and tested. The Royal Canadian Navy has a very substantial anti-submarine capability, along with the Royal Canadian Air Force, and listening devices which are
December 14, 1967

installed as part of the over-all defence of the north Atlantic region and the North American continent for detecting and if necessary destroying submarines.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  A. B. Pallerson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the minister considering the advisability of taking deportation proceedings against the two United States citizens who have been engaged in disrupting the administration of the University of Toronto?
{.Translation]


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I take the question as notice and I will try to obtain the information which I do not remember at this time.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the house when the government expects to make known the findings of the committee which has been sitting under the chairmanship of the President of the Privy Council studying the question of foreign investment in Canada, so that Canadians generally may be made aware of the government's attitude toward this most important subject?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we had hoped the report would have been made available to the government before now, but I understand it will not be ready until the end of this month. I hope we will be able to report to the house on this matter when the session resumes in January.



REQUEST FOR ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION ON FARM STORAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance who above all
Inquiries of the Ministry others is the person most aware of the slow movement of wheat off farms in western Canada this year and the forced necessity, because of low quotas, for farmers to build excessive new storage facilities which may be surplus to their needs in future years when more normal shipping conditions return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon.
member ask his question?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Is the minister in a position to announce the restoration of the accelerated write-offs in four years on farm storage which was in effect during 1965 and 1966 but was terminated at the beginning of this year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Well, can't we ask a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I think we should be entitled-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked his question.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I heard the representations of the hon. gentleman and I will take them into sympathetic consideration.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Can the farmers look forward to some relief after the beginning of the new year, when they start filling out their income tax returns?


Mr. Fairweather:: There are enough of them who are delegates.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, last Monday I asked the right hon. Prime Minister whether Canada had participated in any discussions at the United Nations or elsewhere concerning the possibility of bringing before the security council the question of the Viet Nam war and the search for solutions to it. The right hon. gentleman gave some general information and ended his answer by saying he would take the question as notice and perhaps be able to give a more specific reply tomorrow. Since this is two
5406	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry days after "tomorrow" I wonder whether the right hon. Prime Minister could give us some information on this point.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, discussions are still going on among members of the security council as to the desirability of inscribing this item on the agenda of the security council for an early session. No decision has been taken on that matter as yet. I understand that if it is a matter for discussion at the security council there will be no difficulty in having representatives from North Viet Nam and the Viet Cong take part as observers and participants in that discussion. There will be no difficulty about them reaching New York.


David Lewis: Will the right hon. gentleman inform the house whether Canada is supporting the idea of the security council becoming seized of the problem?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think there are great
difficulties in the way of any discussion of this matter at the security council which will lead to any constructive results. We are exchanging views with other members of the security council to see whether they feel in fact there might be good results from such a discussion.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs when we can expect him to make the announcement referred to by the Minister of Finance in respect of disability pensions and other matters of concern to veterans and their dependants.


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that in dealing with disability pensions an announcement will be made some time next week, certainly before the Christmas adjournment.


Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, has the departmental committee on pension rates reported to the minister?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Not as yet, Mr. Speaker.

DEBATES	December 14, 1967



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister which arises from a letter addressed to him and all members of parliament from the Canadian cattlemen's association, in which that association asks whether universal medicare is still to be put into effect in Canada in view of the protests by provincial governments, and in spite of the contrary judgment indicated by members of the cabinet. Does the government intend to institute medicare on July 1, 1968?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is the law.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: It was
last year, too.


Alfred Dryden Hales: In view of the Prime Minister's answer I should like to state that this house passed a law concerning capital punishment but still we are-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is an argument.



PROTEST RESPECTING LACK OF WELFARE STATISTICS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Portage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It arises out of the reply to written question No. 711, in which we are advised that in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics there are 105 people working on health statistics, 31 on education statistics and none on welfare statistics. The standing committee on health and welfare has been dealing with the question of abortion and its work is hampered by the lack of adequate statistics on welfare. I am shocked at the fact that no staff is allocated-


Mr. Speaker:: Is that the hon. member's question?


Siegfried John Enns: My question is, will the minister ensure that sufficient funds are allocated to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics so they may hire staff to collect welfare statistics?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has now made a representation.
December 14, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC SERVICE	TRANSPORT



REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF HOLIDAY SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. Having in mind the rather unique situation existing in the country in regard to such holidays as Boxing day and Remembrance day, could consideration to be given to consultation at the federal, provincial, municipal and private levels in an attempt to rectify this confusion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister of National Revenue to deal with this question.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the public service there is no confusion with regard to Boxing day. It is not one of the holidays available to public serv-ance except in the particular circumstance of being the extra holiday which may be designated by the deputy head of the department. Whether a day is a holiday may vary across the country, but the important thing to the working people is the days they have off, which are usually defined in collective agreements and vary greatly across the country. I believe the average in Canada is about eight, whereas the public service of Canada has ten.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. If the minister has not already done so, would he consider requesting insurance companies to immediately make available for housing mortgages a greater proportion of their dollar reserves?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be having discussions with the insurance companies and other institutions about the needs of the housing market in the coming year.


James Edgar Walker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If such a request brings no appreciable results, would the minister consider other, stronger measures?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The supplementary question is hypothetical.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAUSEWAY-INQUIRY AS TO NEXT STEPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, In light of his press release yesterday indicating the continuation of the Northumberland strait crossing project, and in light of the considerable uncertainty in the minds of many about succeeding phases of construction of this crossing, would the Prime Minister be willing, say in the next few days, to provide the house with a schedule of events so we might know in more specific terms the details of this project?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I should await the report of Colonel Churchill before attempting to answer this question.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the Prime Minister that this report is important. I wonder, then, when we might expect to have the report in order to see what are the next phases of construction.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have asked that the report be prepared as quickly as possible, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue in a further effort to obtain clarification of the status of the Northumberland crossing project as a result of the Prime Minister's announcement yesterday. Are we to consider now that in effect item No. 17 has been deleted from the minister's list of slashed expenditure which he gave us?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that my friend read carefully item No. 17.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since the Yukon legislative council yesterday unanimously passed legislation calling
December 14, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry for the establishment of a committee on constitutional reform and for discussions leading to amendments to the Yukon Act, is it the intention of the government which the Prime Minister leads to assent to the legislation and co-operate in the establishment of that committee?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in questions of constitutional reform it would be our obligation, as well as our desire, to consult and co-operate with the council.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one I directed to the Prime Minister a moment ago. I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development-I am sure he is aware of the legislation to which I referred in my question to the Prime Minister- whether he will be instructing his commissioner in the Yukon to assent to that legislation.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, this question has to do with a financial agreement for a two year period that was agreed to between the government of Canada and the council of the Yukon Territory. It was agreed to in Ottawa, but when the old council returned to higher latitudes they repudiated the agreement and we rewrote our agreement accordingly. They have now imposed some taxes in order to have us revise our agreement; they have also put a stipulation in the agreement which affects it. I have not talked to the commissioner yet, but I expect to be speaking to him later today.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, since the council's request merely calls for discussions, will the minister not assure the house that on that basis he will instruct the commissioner to assent to the legislation?


Arthur Laing: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot; because the council is fully aware and has been informed that we are preparing a white paper on the entire matter which covers more constitutional ground than that suggested in their own resolution.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCES DOCUMENTS AT TOURISM CONFERENCE IN ENGLISH ONLY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Is the minister aware that among the invitations sent out to the provincial ministers of tourism, the one received by the Quebec minister was in English?
Has the minister checked to see why this invitation sent to Quebec was written in English, and can he tell us whether he is taking steps to make sure that this will not happen again?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; some of the material sent to the province of Quebec was inadvertently printed in English. This was because there was a consolidation of reports from all the provinces and these reports arrived in Ottawa to be consolidated just prior to their dispatch to the provinces. This is a matter that we will endeavour to correct next year. It was certainly inadvertent and is regretted.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO CLOSING OF POOL ACCOUNTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. On Monday last I inquired whether the 1966-67 pool was going to be closed early, or earlier than last year. Is the minister now in a position to provide an answer?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am. The 1966-67 wheat pool account will be closed somewhat later than last year because of the fact that wheat deliveries by producers during the 1966-67 crop year were at the highest level in the history of Canadian wheat operations. I am informed by the wheat board that they expect to close the 1966-67 wheat account some time during the first quarter of 1968.
December 14. 1967	COMMONS



SUBMISSION BY PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamillon South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Registrar General, but in his absence I will direct it to whoever is acting in that capacity at the moment.
Is the minister in receipt of a submission produced by the pharmaceutical manufacturers association of Canada and sent to all members of parliament which makes certain misleading assertions about the price of prescription drugs and is intended to influence the introduction of a government bill on patents that is to come before the house tomorrow? Can the minister assure the house that this submission will have no effect on this bill?


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Parliamentary Secretary to Registrar General):: Mr. Speaker, I am taking notice of the question on behalf of the minister.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the meeting he held yesterday with the three maritime premiers concerning l.c.l. rates, I should like to ask the minister whether he has been able to arrange a date for a meeting with the appropriate officials of the two railways to discuss this rather united submission.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet been able to, but I hope to do so at an early moment and to get their reaction to the request of the Atlantic premiers.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Mon-tagnes asked the Prime Minister, in my
DEBATES	5409
Inquiries of the Ministry absence, whether we knew something about the circumstances of the suicide of a young Portuguese immigrant in Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes; we know that a young Portuguese immigrant named Manuel Gomez Rosa threw himself from the eighth or ninth floor of the national revenue building in Montreal, and died.
Mr. Rosa had been informed a few minutes before by an immigration officer in Montreal that he had to leave the country by December 21.


Mr.   Roger-E. Regimbal@Argenteuil-Deux-Monfagr.es: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I put a supplementary question to find out whether it is true that two other cases of suicide had been noted in Montreal on exactly the same spot during the last two years and possibly another incident in Toronto, again at the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that the supplementary question should be put on the order paper. It concerns events which may have taken place some time ago.


Mr. Regimbal:: Mr. Speaker, may I put my question in another form?
In view of the fact that similar events have already occurred, is the minister considering a study or a review of the procedure concerning the immigrants, so as to make sure that it is adapted to the difficult human and social circumstances in which the people affected by the decision of senior immigration officials find themselves?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know I think we are trying to proceed as humanely as possible, but there is one thing we will do very soon, and that is put bars on the windows of the ninth floor.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that at the present time the dairy farmers of Canada are meeting in Ottawa with the minister's officials on the dairy policy, has the minister anything to announce to the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that whatever the minister has to announce should be announced on motions.
December 14, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Whelan: This is an important matter Mr. Aiken: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I ask to the dairy farmers, Mr. Speaker, and I whether the minister intends shortly to make have had some tremendous representations. a statement on motions in this connection.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to ask a supplementary question?


Eugene Whelan: I should like to ask the minister whether anything beneficial is being done to help the dairy farmers of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Even beneficial statements have to be made on motions.



INQUIRY AS TO ASSISTANCE CHEQUES FOR CROP FAILURE AREAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister inform the members of the house and the many interested farmers in western Canada whether the P.F.A.A. officials have completed their inspections of the crop failure areas, and whether it is the government's intention to have the assistance cheques in the hands of the farmers before Christmas?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe all inspections have been completed, and I have not yet received a report as to when the cheques will go out. I will be very pleased to look into the matter for the hon. member and to make every attempt to have these cheques sent out before Christmas to farmers in those areas which have been inspected.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the apparent success this week of an industrial nuclear explosion in New Mexico, U.S.A., to free natural gas, can the minister report any progress in a similar experiment in Canada, particularly as it relates to the tar sands?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member does not think that this again is the type of statement that ought to be made on motions. The hon. member might ask whether the minister proposes to make a statement on motions.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I put a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government or the minister's department been following closely this exploratory work done in the United States, and does it have beneficial implications for the situation in Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I had a report this morning from the chief engineer of the National Energy Board who was present at the explosion, and he tells me that it will take a couple of months before an assessment of the result of the experiment is available.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of national health. Some time ago the minister indicated that the government considered it might be inflationary to grant a centennial bonus of $100 to old age security recipients. I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to grant such an award or bonus to those who attained the age of 100 years or more during centennial year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making a representation which I assume will be considered.



PLUTONIUM-REPORTED SALES TO FRANCE AND JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. I should like to ask whether the contract for the sale of substantial quantities of plutonium, which I understand has been made with the government of France, contains safeguards relating to their use for peaceful purposes in the interests of international safety.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am informed by usually reliable sources that this question was asked yesterday.
December 14, 1967



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he received representations from representatives of the machinists union for Canadian Pacific's western shops in Winnipeg protesting general lay-offs of Canadian Pacific personnel scheduled to take place during Christmas week? If so, can he tell us what he is doing about the matter?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I did receive representations, Mr. Speaker. A reply has been prepared, but I am not sure whether it has been despatched.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour in his capacity as the minister for housing. In view of the reports of encouraging discussions between the minister and the province of Ontario following the recent housing conference can the minister say whether any similar discussions took place with the government of British Columbia, and if so with what result?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Highly satisfactory discussions took place yesterday, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of the agenda remaining to be dealt with prior to the Christmas recess. Since the tariff reductions resulting from the Kennedy round are intended to come into effect on January 1 next, can the minister inform the house how that will be accomplished in view of the fact that the resolutions based on the Kennedy round are not coming before the house or the committee before Christmas?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that these resolutions will come into effect in the same way as other budget resolutions, that is either coming into effect at the time of the announcement or on the date announced in the resolution itself. In this respect there is no difference between these and any other budget resolutions. I was careful to make these inquiries because, of course, we are under an obligation to make reductions in accordance with our agreements in Geneva. I am advised that we can do so without in any way offending the ordinary practice of this house.


David Lewis: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since this means they will come into effect before parliamentary discussion and decision, I suppose one has to assume they will come into effect subject to our approval?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I understand this is always the case. If parliament were not to approve the resolution the government would then have to either make refunds or collect from the taxpayers.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the completion this morning of the committee hearing on the Bell Telephone bill, and in view of the urgent need for a decision in connection with it, will the minister make a statement before Christmas concerning the department's study of satellite communication?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not know whether it is necessary, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement about the study of satellites as they relate to the bill before the committee. If it were felt essential this matter could be given consideration, because the government has made considerable progress in its plans in respect of commercial satellites. I hope it might be possible for the committee to complete its deliberations on the Bell bill and report it to the house in such a wray that it could be given final consideration at the current session. It would seem to me that a reasonable effort should be made to do so.
December 14, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry
AGRICULTURE	WAYS AND MEANS



TURKEYS-REQUEST FOR IMPOSITION OF IMPORT QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the great flood of turkeys coming into Canada from the United States and the apparent failure of the value for duty regulations, would the minister consider imposing a quota system or some other system that would enable the turkey producers to make plans for next year?


John James Greene: When turkeys from the United States were imported into Canada at less than the cost of production early this year, the government took prompt action and fixed a value for duty of 21.5 cents, which considerably improved the situation.
I have not had any reports from the turkey producers that these measures have not been successful or if I have had such reports I do not specifically recollect them. If in fact these measures have not been successful we will review the situation, because it is our intention to protect the turkey growers or any other agricultural industry from unfair competition from the United States or anywhere else.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to put this question to the Registrar General, but in his absence I will put it to the acting minister or perhaps to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the government aware of the fact that a prominent chain store, with outlets in several cities, is presently advertising grade A turkeys of over 20 pounds at 38 cents a pound in Toronto and 43 cents a pound in Ottawa? Why is there this five cent per pound penalty on the consumers in Ottawa?


John James Greene: I will certainly take up this matter with my colleague the minister of consumer affairs, and see if he can take any action.
(Mr. Hellyer.]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Batten in the chair.


The Chairman:: The house in committee of ways and means on a proposed resolution to amend the Excise Tax Act. The text of this resolution will be found appended to the budget papers in Votes and Proceedings for Thursday, November 30, 1967. Yesterday afternoon when the committee was discussing this resolution there was some confusion. May I suggest that the one we began discussing yesterday was the Excise Tax Act, as recorded on page 5 of the budget resolutions for Thursday, November 30. I apologize to the committee for any confusion the Chair might have caused.



EXCISE TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act to provide among other things:
1.	That effective December 1, 1967, the excise tax on each five cigarettes or fraction of five cigarettes contained in any package be increased from two and one-half cents to three cents.
2.	That effective December 1, 1967, the excise tax on each pound of manufactured tobacco, including snuff but not including cigars and cigarettes, be increased from eighty cents per pound to ninety cents per pound.
3.	That effective December 1, 1967, the excise tax on cigars be increased from fifteen per cent to seventeen and a half per cent.
4.	That effective December 1, 1967, an excise tax of
(a)	two and one-half cents per gallon on wines of all kinds containing not more than seven per cent of absolute alcohol by volume, and
(b)	five cents per gallon on wines of all kinds containing more than seven per cent of absolute alcohol by volume.
be imposed in addition to any other excise tax imposed by the said Act payable at the time of sale by the Canadian manufacturer and at the time of importation or withdrawal from bonded warehouse by the importer or transferee who takes imported wines out of bond for consumption.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Mr. Roxburgh:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words about the increase in the excise tax on tobacco. I fully agree with the sentiments that the hon. member for Edmonton West expressed yesterday. When a government wishes to raise extra revenues through taxation, invariably it ends up by increasing taxes on tobacco and liquor.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: There is a limit to this sort of taxation, Mr. Chairman. I hope that the minister and the anti-smoking propagandists have not forgotten the lessons to be learned from prohibition in the 1930's. Fortunes were
December 14, 1967

made by those who engaged in bootlegging, smuggling and the illegal manufacture of liquor. The minister will agree with me, I am sure, that nothing is more degrading to a government than to have to engage in the costly business-and I emphasize those words-of stamping out or controlling smuggling, bootlegging, and so on.
The tobacco industry, at least, through the taxes it pays puts half a billion dollars into the pockets of government every year. If the government increases taxes on tobacco and liquor to the point where smuggling, bootlegging and allied activities become attractive, not only will it lose revenue that it otherwise might have gained through taxes but it will need to spend much needed money to suppress those activities.
Another point was put well in an article in the Globe and Mail written by Bruce West. His remarks concisely sum up my feelings about the matter. He said:
I don't like being taxed in the fashion of a naughty little boy being made to pay for his follies.
Then he went on to say:
And by silently accepting each new levy on such things as drinks and smokes, we seem to be admitting that we are bad little characters.
I wish to say to the minister, to the government and to Mr. Bruce West that I am one of those naughty little boys and I will not take the tax increase sitting down. I feel that the limit has been reached in imposing excise taxes on liquor and particularly on cigarettes.
I know it has been some time since the federal government increased the excise tax on tobacco. The last increase took place in 1959. That merely illustrates the point I am trying to make. Away back in 1942 there was a tax increase on tobacco and there were other increases in 1943, 1951, 1952 and 1959. Obviously, since the tax has not been increased since 1959, the government must have realized that the limit in excise tax on tobacco had been approached. The latest increase brings the excise tax to the maximum amount that can be imposed. It is the limit.
As I said previously, the tobacco industry alone brings approximately $500 million to the coffers of the government. At the present time there is dissension in the house about whether medicare ought to be introduced. Some say it should be introduced and others say that because of our present economic position it should not be introduced. I will not go into the merits of the argument but I will
Ways and Means
say that the tobacco industry by itself, through the taxes it pays, could support a large part of the medicare program. In fact, if anyone ever stopped to think about it, the tax that the tobacco industry pays in one year enabled the St. Lawrence seaway to be built.
I acknowledge that excess use of tobacco may be as bad for one as excess use of anything else. A friend of mine died through an excess use of coffee. He drank 40 cups a day approximately. Nevertheless, tobacco has brought a lot of enjoyment and relaxation to many. When one considers what a night editor has to do in editing some of the reports which come out of Ottawa, surely it can be said with truth that if he had no cigarette, pipe or cigar to help him to relax his nerves his life may be very, very short. The same may be said of active businessmen, secretaries and many others who work under tension. Tobacco was a great boon to our boys who were fighting overseas. When they were under heavy fire their nerves were raw and often they preferred to sit down and smoke a cigarette or pipe instead of eating food. I know that chaps who have served overseas will agree with that statement.
I sincerely hope the minister and the department have decided that the present tax represents the limit in taxation that can be imposed on tobacco. These remarks apply equally to another product over which the minister has jurisdiction. Taxes on this product have also been raised recently.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to enter into a discussion with the hon. gentleman who has just spoken about the merits or otherwise of taxes on tobacco. I thought it might interest the house to know that the general problem of smuggling, which at one time was an important consideration in the level of taxes on tobacco in this country and remains an important factor, has been altered by the tendency of the United States federal government and state governments to impose taxes on cigarettes, as has been done in Canada. For example, the United States federal tax on cigarettes is 8 cents per package. In California they impose another 10 cents, in Massachusetts another 10 cents, in New Jersey 11 cents, in Pennsylvania 13 cents and so on. Whether this is a good or bad practice I will not say, but I feel that governments generally agree that this is an excellent way of raising money.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: May I ask the minister a question? I shall not ask him to go into detail with respect to the various states in the

December 14, 1967
Ways and Means
U.S.A. Each state in that country is similar in many ways to each province in this country. I am thinking particularly of Ontario.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
As stated by the minister, certain states add an extra tax upon tobacco. Would the minister compare the excise tax imposed on tobacco by the federal government with that imposed by the government of the United States across the line?


Mitchell William Sharp: I thought I had given the relevant figures. In the United States there is a federal tax of 8 cents a package. In Canada the tax is in two parts. We are now proposing that there should be a tax of 3 cents per five cigarettes, which is 12 cents for 20, plus $4 a thousand approximately-there are some differences by weight-in excise duty, which is another 4 cents per 10 cigarettes, which is 8 cents per package.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: In other words, the federal government in Canada imposes a tax amounting roughly to 20 cents on 20 cigarettes compared with a United States federal tax of 8 cents.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes. But in the United States the states as such tax cigarettes more heavily than our provinces do.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: What about Virginia, Kentucky and the other tobacco-producing states? How do their taxes compare with the taxes in some of the other states?


Mitchell William Sharp: Their taxes on cigarettes, as might be expected, are very low. For example, in Virginia and Kentucky the tax is 2i cents on a package of 20 whereas in states which do not produce tobacco and where consumption is high, such as New York and Pennsylvania, the tax is four or five times as much.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I should like to point out to the hon. gentleman that there is certainly quite a difference between the excise tax in the United States and that imposed here, with the result that there is a chance of smuggling being carried on. But I will leave the subject at this point, expressing the sincere hope that both the present government and any future government will feel a limit has now been reached in the taxation of this product.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just said that the 16 cent federal tax on

a 20 cigarette pack is higher than in the United States, where it is 8 cents per pack, and he added that the provinces levy less taxes than the American states. Does the minister know the amount of the tax levied by the Quebec government on a 20 cigarette pack, for instance? Could he give us that information?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed that in the province of Quebec the tax is six-twenty-fifths of one cent per cigarette, about a quarter of a cent, or 5 cents on 20.


Barry Mather: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister or for the hon. member who spoke just before him. We have been given a lot of figures concerning the revenue which the federal government secures by taxing the sale of cigarettes. Has the minister at hand a figure indicating the expense to which the public of Canada is put by reason of heart trouble, lung cancer and other diseases which are caused by smoking? I do not want to make a speech, but I suggest the cost is comparable with the revenue that is produced.


Mitchell William Sharp: I know that the cost of the diseases which may be caused by tobacco is very great but apparently there are people who believe they get a great deal of enjoyment out of tobacco. It is very difficult in this kind of calculation to decide where the benefit lies.
This is a matter for personal judgment and not one which is particularly relevant to the revenue. May I say that as far as the federal government is concerned our application of a tax has nothing to do with our moral or individual views about the tobacco question.


Mr. Howe (Wellingion-Huron):: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to make a few comments on the question of cigarette smoking. Many of us were very pleased when we heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare announce a few days ago that this subject was to be referred to a committee for consideration. I have been very interested in this question ever since the former minister of national health and welfare told us that a fund of $600,000 would be set up to study the subject of cigarette smoking and its effects. Since that time almost $400,000 has been spent on this project and studies have been undertaken which indicate the hazards caused by cigarette smoking.
December 14, 1967

In spite of this, however, and notwithstanding medical advice and the publicity given to this subject by the news media, statistics show that the sale of cigarettes has been increasing. In view of the fact that such large amounts of revenue are being obtained by the government from tobacco taxes, I feel some action should be taken to provide the safest possible cigarette filter.
In this connection I was interested to receive a letter from the chairman of a senate committee in the United States which is making an investigation into the subject. There is one paragraph in this letter from Senator Warren Magnuson which I should like to put on record.
Last August, the Senate commerce committee held two days of hearings on the progress which is being made toward the development and marketing of a less hazardous cigarette.
I feel that Senator Magnuson's committee has an important task on its hands and I hope it will be found that more research in this direction is necessary. Should this be the case I hope the Minister of Finance will look favourably on any request by the Department of National Health and Welfare or the National Research Council for any assistance desired in finding the safest possible filter for the smokers of Canada in order that they may have a choice available to them instead of smoking cigarettes which we feel are bad for their health.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, I am rather glad of this opportunity to make an addendum to the speech I delivered when the budget was introduced. I was, as it were, cut off in my prime and in full flight on that occasion.
I should like to make a passing reference to begin with to the strange discrepancy between the two sides of this budget. I have no doubt whatever that the minister will tell us he combined the two possible courses open to him. One was, of course, to contain expenditure and the other was to increase revenues. Technically he would be quite right. But if we notice the order of magnitude of the two parts we see it is a strange chemical mixture he has produced. His plans, according to his own figures, will bring him in only $270 million extra in a full year. On the other hand, his partner, the Minister of National Revenue-
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Partner in crime.
Ways and Means


Colin Cameron: I take it for granted people will realize that the minister is his partner in crime but I will say "his partner" and leave it at that-presented the house with a series of cuts in government expenditures which amount to some $1,200 million.
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is not possible to make cuts of that magnitude without very severe repercussions on the entire economy. Any adding that the minister did in the way of adding to his revenues was a very halfhearted attempt. I am not going to go over again the list of alternatives for revenue which I derived from the repsrt of the Carter commission, but I would like to point out that in this morning's Globe and Mail it is reported that Canadian corporation profits are up by 2.6 per cent over last year, which would at least gently indicate there was another place where the minister could have got some of his revenues.
I think we have to examine the possible reasons for this action because it is too simple to say that the minister is really another Scrooge and just loves to increase taxes.


Mr. Chretien:: I would like to ask the hon. member a question in French if he does not mind.


Colin Cameron: Please do.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Does the hon. member not know that during the forthcoming fiscal year, half of the additional revenue of the federal government will result from the fact that we have compelled corporations to advance their payments to the treasury by two months, and that half of our revenue for the fiscal year, following this mini-budget, already accrues from corporations? In budgetary terms, that revenue represents an additional tax for corporations for the forthcoming fiscal year, that is 1968-69.


Colin Cameron: I would point out to the Minister without Portfolio that this is a one-shot business. You are merely advancing it and getting the money earlier than usual. Therefore there win be a longer period between the time of that payment and the next payment to accommodate that change. It is really no increase in revenues.

December 14, 1967
Ways and Means
We have to examine the circumstances in which the minister found himself and which to my mind probably induced him to take this rather disastrous course of action. To do that we have to make a brief review of the events which led up to the pegging of the Canadian dollar at 92J cents American.
From 1950 to 1962 the Canadian dollar was on a floating exchange rate and in all those years it oscillated within a very narrow band of 3 cents American, never extending either way beyond that 3 cents. Then in June, 1961, there came a very dramatic change and our dollar rose to over 100 cents American. The next month it went up to 103 cents American and by the end of 1961 and the beginning of 1962 it was running as high as 10 cents over the American dollar, understandably causing very serious repercussions on the Canadian economy. Exporters began to encounter difficulties. Import prices rose with a consequent effect on the whole range of prices. I think we should now look at the next cause.
The development which triggered this explosive rise was a massive inflow of American capital, possibly due to the policies of the Canadian government of the day, and the policies of the Bank of Canada which produced high interest rates in Canada and attracted this inflow. The next stage was reached when the United States government took steps to stem the outflow of capital from that country and brought in the interest equalization act. Immediately the government of Canada, by this time the Liberal government, sent representatives to Washington to beg that Canada be exempted from the operations of that legislation. They succeeded in getting that exemption but had to pay a price for it, and the price was that the Canadian government would maintain its holding of reserves at a certain level, some $2.4 billion or $2.5 billion.
From that moment on, Mr. Chairman, the government of Canada was in a strait-jacket. It was unable to use monetary policy as an instrument to promote economic growth. All its policies had to be tailored to the twin problems of maintaining the tight rate of the Canadian dollar and keeping our reserves below that ceiling. I may say that only a few weeks ago the Bank of Canada had to get into the market to press the Canadian dollar down a bit and in doing so added to our holding of American dollars, showing that these two policies are incompatible. But more important, Mr. Chairman, these two policies

together have tied the hands of the government.
I suggest that if the Minister of Finance hopes to get out of the bonds which he is in now-I am sure he realizes it is a very difficult situation, if not politically very dangerous-he has to take some rather drastic and decisive actions. The first of these, I think, would be to free the exchange rate. It is difficult to forecast with any certitude what would be the immediate result of freeing the Canadian dollar and having it on a floating exchange rate. However, the last occasion is not long ago when the Bank of Canada had to move into the picture to control an upward pressure on the Canadian dollar, and in today's particular circumstances the American dollar is under pressure following devaluation of sterling. So I think it is safe to assume the pressure would be upwards. If that were the case the government would be free to pursue an expansionary policy, to expand the money supply and promote growth and production in Canada.
However, with our minds on what took place in 1961 and 1962 we would also have to take some steps to see that history would not repeat itself. There would have to be some control over inflow and outflow of capital. We could not afford another massive inflow of the type which threw the whole exchange situation out of gear in 1962. There would have to be some controls in that regard. I think it is time the government of Canada looked at the outflow of capital and ceased always parroting the plea that we require massive importation of foreign capital, without paying attention to what is taking place in the economy at the present time. These are two of the things I think the government will have to do.
Then, there is the problem of controlling the type of inflation we have today. As I said the other day, I was interested to hear the minister say he understood it was not a demand type of inflation. This left me very perplexed because the only way in which his budget could make sense would be if it were a means of controlling a demand type of inflation, since it was directed toward cutting down on consumer spending, toward a contraction of the economy of the sort that should take place if there is a rapid development of a classic type of inflation, of too much money chasing too few goods. No one, not even the minister, suggests that the present inflation is of that type. But he is unwilling or perhaps unable to take the only sort of inflation control measures that must
December 14, 1967

be taken in the circumstances of a cost-push type of inflation. He is not prepared to move in the direction of selective price controls on basic commodities whose costs enter into all other costs of the economy.
I know the minister will take refuge in the constitutional position and suggest, technically quite rightly, that this is beyond the powers of the federal government, that only the provincial authorities have jurisdiction over price controls. But I suggest, Mr. Chairman, it would be a very bold provincial government indeed that would be prepared to defy the federal Minister of Finance if he placed before them the necessity for them to exercise their constitutional power to control prices, and if he accompanied that with a well-planned publicity program. In such circumstances I cannot conceive of any provincial government in its right mind persisting in refusal. It would be not only politically disastrous but also economically disastrous, as any such provincial government would be refusing to alleviate the situation of its own citizens.
I want to return for a moment to the question of the control of inflow of capital. For long I have been very doubtful of the statements made time and time again about how dependent we are on an inflow of capital. When I examine the figures I find we have a very small net inflow. I think there was only some $85 million last year as the balance left over following an outflow of some $1,300 million. When we examine some of the ways in which this inflow capital has been used we cannot help but be struck by the extravagant and wasteful ways in which that capital has been invested.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
For instance, as I believe my colleague from Waterloo South mentioned the other day, we have invested in the oil industry some $7 billion to develop an industry which is now incapable of operating at any more than 35 per cent of its capacity because it runs up against market values. As one can imagine, half that investment would have produced all the oil wells we require at the present time. However, that capital flowed in without the government exercising any control over its volume or direction. This minister or his successor and this government or its successor will have to consider very carefully the direction of investment in this country by an investment board such as those which exist in many countries whose function it is to select the areas in which
Ways and Means
massive investments will be permitted and those areas in which they will not be permitted.
One may say that this is a drastic alternative to the minister's budget but I suggest, despite the Prime Minister's denial the other day that we have a crisis, that we actually face a crisis of such proportion that only drastic action of this type will enable us to gain control of our economy and to expand and grow by our own decisions in Canada and not be dependent upon the by-products of decisions made elsewhere. Otherwise I can see the minister and his successor staggering from crisis to crisis while our development and growth are inhibited in a way which will not be tolerable to the 20 million people living in Canada who are conscious of the fact that we have vast stores of natural wealth from which they should be able to build a growing and expanding economy without these continuing crises and restrictive measures. I would think that if the minister and the government or the government which follows are not prepared to take this kind of action, eventually the people of Canada will place their hope in a government which will be prepared to take such action. I shall not be here at the time but I shall watch the situation with interest. My colleague from Winnipeg seems to take exception to that, but I should like to point out that the calendar tells me differently.
However, I beg the Minister of Finance to consider very seriously the necessity for these several measures-a return to a floating exchange rate, the exercise of control over the inflow and outflow of capital, selective price controls to control the cost-push type of inflation, and eventually some measure of control over the direction of investment in this country, so that he or some successor will be able to present to the people of Canada a more hopeful and optimistic budget than the minister has been able to present in any of the many many budgets he has presented during his short term of office. Resolution agreed to.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: The house again in committee of ways and means on a certain proposed resolution to amend the Excise Act.



EXCISE TAX

[Stage Direction]
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Act and to provide among other things:
1.	That effective December 1, 1967, the duty of excise on spirits distilled in Canada be increased
[Stage Direction]
December 14, 1967
Ways and Means
from thirteen dollars to fourteen dollars and twenty-five cents per proof gallon.
2.	That effective December 1, 1967, the duty of excise on Canadian brandy be increased from eleven dollars to twelve dollars and twenty-five cents per proof gallon.
3.	That effective December 1, 1967, the duty of excise on all beer or malt liquor be increased from thirty-eight cents to forty-two cents per gallon.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall the
resolution carry?


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, on this resolution there are a few remarks I should like to make in respect of what I consider has taken place with regard to the price of spirits over the past few years and what I consider to be a quite improper practice on the part of the liquor control boards. I refer to the difference between what must be done by the federal and provincial governments when they wish, in effect, to increase the tax on bottled spirits and bottled beer. Under the provincial liquor administrations it is merely as a result of an administrative order that prices are hiked 25 cents, 15 cents, or whatever it may be. Usually it is said to be on the basis of increased costs. No one, of course, is fooled by that sort of transparent justification for a good number of the increases over the past few years. We know it is merely a desire by the provincial administration to take more and more in the way of taxation from this field. An administrative order by a liquor control board, when it is not fully justified by increased cost or by an increased tax at the federal level, can thus put in force a tax without approval by the legislature.
The federal government, however, in order to increase its revenues from wines and spirits must pass amendments to the Excise Tax Act. A certain practice has developed as a result of what the minister proposes. There have been almost immediate increase in prices by some of the liquor control commissions on the stock they had on their shelves and which had already been cleared from bond. This is something which someone in private business would refer to as unconscionable windfall profits and it is something which we always complain about as a result of any tax action that is taken by the government. Somebody immediately hikes the price on stock which is not actually being covered by the increase in the tax. I say this as a reflection on the action taken by a number of the liquor commissions across the country.
There is another aspect of this matter involving the activities of some of the liquor
[The Assistant Deputy Chairman.]
commissions which in effect act as blenders and bottlers. The question arises whether they shall be deemed under the Excise Tax Act to be manufacturers. This is something which I believe the minister should consider because it does affect the level of revenue. Certainly in this case the excise tax should be leviable at a different level from that on which it is now calculated. We see more and more of the liquor control boards in effect importing in bulk and blending, mixing and bottling. These people have an advantage over the people who bring their spirits in by the case. I wonder whether the minister has considered this point, because I believe it is an area in which some examination might be made.
I think I have said all I want to say with regard to this type of taxation, because the same principles apply in some ways with regard to both liquor and tobacco. I was glad that the hon. member for Norfolk discussed the question of smuggling. In respect of spirits which the old people all know of as moonshine, it becomes very, very-
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: What is it?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I do not know whether the minister has ever had any experience in this regard or whether I have even tasted any, but I suppose that somewhere along the way I have tasted it.


An hon. Member:: You didn't go blind.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is my understanding that some of this product is alleged to be very good. In any event the minister will realize that the temptation becomes very great to indulge in the illegal manufacture of spirit alcohol and it is difficult to control this. A market is readily available. The minister does not have to go back too far to know the situation. When he was with the Department of Trade and Commerce I am sure he was aware that the Department of National Revenue was having very great difficulty controlling the smuggling of cigarettes from the United States into Canada, particularly into the province of Quebec where the level of provincial tax makes it very attractive and where there is a ready market.
We just cannot get into this type of situation because not only is it self-defeating in that revenue is not being obtained but the expenditures for control become so great. It was my hope that we would have all the bills in respect of these matters today. I am sorry
December 14, 1967

the minister is not able to produce them because I hoped that all the bills resulting from the resolutions except those in respect of the Kennedy round could be dealt with at this time. We have discussed these matters during debate and the fact that we find some of the tax increases repugnant has been made known. Saying so again I do not think will improve the situation.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: We will now consider the resolution concerning income tax which is to be found in Votes and Proceedings for Thursday, November 30.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I wonder whether we could do the customs tariff resolutions first as they are rather minor ones?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I am in the hands of the committee but I had thought that members would prefer to deal with all the customs tariff matters at the same time rather than the inconsequential amendments I brought forward in June and then the others I tabled in connection with the Kennedy round.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, but there are some here.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, that is right, but I would have preferred to have them all together in one bill. I am in the hands of the committee, but I really do not see much advantage in passing just those few I brought forward in June without dealing with them along with the Kennedy round resolutions which I tabled later. I would prefer to do it this way and I think this would make possible a better discussion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is just one observation I should like to make. It was my hope that we could deal with the June customs tariff amendments and those which appear at page 6 of Votes and Proceedings for November 30. These are the ones in respect of the imposition of additional duties on wines and spirits and are the ones to which I referred.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, I understand what you mean.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We could consider the ones in respect of the Kennedy round as something else entirely.
Ways and Means


Mitchell William Sharp: Very well. Mr. Chairman, perhaps you would call the customs tariff items of June 1 and those of November 30. I would be very happy to deal with them now.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The house in committee of ways and means on certain proposed resolutions to amend the customs tariff as noted in Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, June 1, 1967.



CUSTOMS TARIFF

[Stage Direction]
1. Resolved, that Schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out tariff items 20925-1, 21045-1, 22001-1 and the heading thereto, 22002-1 and the heading thereto, 22003-1 and the heading thereto, 26325-1, 40938-1, 42761-1 and the heading thereto, 42762-1 and the heading thereto, 44043-1, 44047-1, 47600-1, 56400-1 and 69315-1, and the enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of those items, and by inserting therein the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:
Item 3805-1 agreed to.
Customs tariff-15640-1. Tequila, per gallon ol the strength of proof; British preferential tariff, $5.00; most favoured nation tariff, $5.00; general tariff, $10.00;
and in addition thereto, under all tariffs, $9.00 per gallon of the strength of proof.
When the goods specified in this item are of greater or less strength than the strength of proof, the measurement thereof and the amount of duty payable thereon shall be increased or decreased in proportion for any greater or less strength than the strength of proof.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I should like to make one comment in regard to the customs tariff resolution of June 1 in respect of item 15640-1. I thought perhaps a quick tab name for this tariff proposal might be the "tequila" item. There was a reduction in the tariff but if we look at the resolution put before us on November 30 we find that the tariff on tequila has gone up. This tariff item on tequila could be referred to as being in a yo-yo position. Outside of that one item I do not wish to make further comment.


David Lewis: It is like the difference between sobriety and inebriation, up or down.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 20925-1, 21045-1, 22001-1, 22003-1, 26325-1, 35240-1, 40938-1, 42711-1, 42761-1, 42762-1, 44043-1 agreed to.
Customs tariff-44047-1. Aircraft engines, when imported for use in the equipment of aircraft;
When of types or sizes not made In Canada; British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 271 per cent.
On and after July 1, 1968: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 271 per cent.
[Stage Direction]
December 14, 1967
Ways and Means
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Ever since I have been in the house, at least once a year we have dealt with the customs tariff on aircraft engines which is shown as item 44043-1. Perhaps we could have some finality in respect of this item. I have asked about this in the past and have been furnished with various explanations, some good and some not so good. Could the minister indicate some finality in this regard or are we going to have to deal with this item from now to the year 2000?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not sure whether I am able to answer this question satisfactorily; therefore I will not try.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 46241-1, 47600-1, 56400-1, 69315-1
agreed to.
Resolution No. 1 agreed to.
Resolutions 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could ask the minister for some explanation in respect of paragraph 14 shown in Votes and Proceedings for November 30 under customs tariff. Paragraph 14 states that customs tariff changes are deemed to have applied to all goods mentioned in the said resolution imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after that day and before January 1, 1968, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before December 1, 1967.


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps I had better ask one of my officials to come down to help me on this technical matter. Possibly in the meantime we could go on to something else.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Subject to that explanation we could carry the two resolutions.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall this resolution carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Subject to the explanation.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: We will now proceed to the resolution to amend the customs tariff as listed in Votes and Proceedings for Thursday, November 30, 1967.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, while we are waiting for the officials, would it be possible to stand these resolutions and go on to the income tax resolution?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed that we stand the resolutions on the Customs Tariff and

proceed with the resolution on the Income Tax Act?
Some hen. Members: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: House in committee of ways and means on a certain proposed resolution to amend the Income Tax Act. The text of this proposed resolution is appended to the notice paper of Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, November 30, 1967.



INCOME TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
Resolved that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Income Tax Act to provide among other things:
1.	That for the 1968 and subsequent taxation years, in addition to the income tax otherwise payable by an individual under the Income Tax Act, a special surtax be payable equal to the lesser of
(a)	5% of the amount of the basic tax as determined under section 33 of that act in excess of $100, or
(b)	$600.
2.	That for the taxation years commencing after November 1968 a corporation shall during the 12 months period ending 2 months after the close of each taxation year, pay to the Receiver General of Canada
(a)	on or before the last day of each of the 12 months in that period an amount equal to one-twelfth of the tax as estimated by it at the rate for the taxation year
(i)	on its estimated taxable income for the year, or
(ii)	on its taxable income for the immediately preceding year,
(b)	on or before the last day of the month ending 3 months after the close of each taxation year the remainder of the tax payable on its taxable income for the year at the rate for the year and that for the taxation year commencing in the period after and that for the taxation year commencing in the period after November 1967 and before December 1968 a corporation shall during the 10 months period ending 2 months after the close of its taxation year pay to the Receiver General of Canada
(e) on or before the last day of each of the 10 months in that period, an amount equal to one-tenth of the tax as estimated by it at the rate for the taxation year
(i)	on its estimated taxable income for the year, or
(ii)	on its taxable income for the immediately preceding year,
(d) on or before the last day of the month ending 3 months after the close of its taxation year the remainder of the tax payable for the year at the rate for the year.
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, as the house knows, the first paragraph of this resolution proposes a special 5 per cent surtax on individuals, which is imposed on the amount of an individual's basic tax in excess of $100.
December 14, 1967

All those whose basic tax is less than $100 will be exempt, and the tax will not exceed $600.
For the benefit of hon. members who may not be fully acquainted with these terms, it might be suitable to define what the basic tax is. It is defined in section 33 of the Income Tax Act and is used in the computation of the abatement to make room for provincial taxes. It was also used in the calculation of the tax reduction introduced in 1965. It was used in computing the 20 per cent tax reduction for those with very low incomes introduced in 1966, and it is not disturbed by the present proposal.
Basic tax is income tax as computed on taxable income using the graduated rate schedule. This tax is computed before making the abatement on account of provincial taxes and before deducting the 20 per cent reduction with a maximum of $20 introduced in 1966. It does not include the old age security tax, and it is after deducting the 20 per cent dividend tax credit and before deducting any foreign tax credit. Essentially, it is the graduated rate schedule applied to taxable income, and before the abatements for provincial taxes.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister a question? Could the minister explain to the members of the committee the reasons-I am sure there must be some and perhaps in my stupidity I cannot understand them-for the ceiling of $600 of which the minister speaks. In other words, the maximum increase which any person will have to pay is $600. There may not be many people in that income bracket, but surely they are precisely the people who can most afford to pay. I wonder whether the minister could explain this.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, the reason for putting on the maximum here was exactly the same reason for putting on the maximum when we applied the process in reverse. When the tax was reduced in 1965, we provided that it would not be reduced by more than $600. So when we put a surtax on-this is not a change in the graduated scale of taxes; it is additional to the amount of tax- it was felt that if the process worked in one direction it should work in the other. It was not our intention in 1965 to benefit the rich by reducing their tax by the whole of the deduction from the basic tax. So when we came to apply the surtax we said we should apply the same principle in reverse and not
Ways and Means
apply this surtax as if it were just an ordinary increase in the graduated rates of tax. That is basically the reason why the government applied the principle in both directions, when we reduced it and when we increased it.


Mr. Monteilh:: Mr. Chairman, it is a fact, is it not, that practically all the reduction made in 1965 was brought back in the budget of 1966?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, that is quite true. But when we did reduce the tax we neutralized the effect in 1966. When we went in the other direction we applied the same principle as we had when we made the reduction in the amount of basic tax.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, since the minister has given his explanation I shall make my comments on the resolution at this time. I did not participate in the budget debate and I am not going to make a budget debate speech now. I have one or two comments to make in addition to those which my colleagues have made with regard to the necessity of imposing taxes and the type of taxes that have been imposed.
I would like to say something about what I believe to be a little bit of nonsense that has been bandied about with regard to the position taken by the members of the New Democratic party, and why we could not possibly support their subamendment. They have taken the position that the minister has completely abandoned the Carter report. As a matter of fact, some of the members of the New Democratic party called for a wholesale implementation of the recommendations of the Carter report. I do not think too many of them were aware of all the recommendations contained in that report because they could not possibly endorse some of them before their so-called supporters. If they did, they would have their hides taken off by their supporters.
* (4:20 p.m.)


David Lewis: You know that?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have certainly had
representations from the same type of voter who feels that he does not want things like unemployment benefits and other items deemed to be income in accordance with the Carter report; he wants them carefully kept out.
Not all of the representations requested by the minister in connection with the Carter

December 14, 1967
Ways and Means
report have been made. Not all of the provinces have replied. There has been no white paper published, so the house has not had an opportunity to discuss a government white paper on the Carter proposals. Yet we are told that in this particular budget we should have implemented holus-bolus the recommendations in the Carter report.


David Lewis: No one said that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That statement appeared
time and time again in the speeches of the members of the New Democratic party, and that is certainly their attitude.
Whether or not the minister has abandoned the Carter report is for him to say; I am not going to speak about what he is going to do. However, I will say that having attended the deliberations of the Canadian Tax Foundation, at which were tax lawyers, tax accountants and economists, many of whom support the N.D.P., I think the report merits far more study than it has been given up to now. Anyone who dares suggest that the report should have been implemented, in whole or in part, in this budget is being completely naive. As a matter of fact, this to me is a dangerous attitude to adopt.
I have been trying, Mr. Chairman, to get the minister to refer the Carter report to a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons before the government commits itself to a white paper. I have gone through the deliberations of the tax foundation earlier in November and I am more than ever convinced that I am right in this suggestion. There is a wide divergence of opinion at the academic and professional tax lawyer and tax accountant level. Some very prominent tax accountants and tax lawyers advocate, for example, a capital gains tax. Others are quite in favour of the principle of integration. Others are in favour of the removal of the depletion provisions for the extractive industries, and just as strong views are held the other way.
I would put it to the minister and to the members of this committee that there is no crushing need to implement the provisions of the Carter report. The inequalities in our taxation system have been there for a long period of years. It took a lot of time to determine their exact nature and for the royal commission to make up its mind on the kind of system it was going to recommend. We know the commission based itself on a particular system of taxation advocated by some economists from Chicago, and these

questions have been kicking around for some time.
I think it is certainly open to question whether the commission has fastened upon a tax system that was primarily designed for the United States economy, a capital accumulating economy, and has decided to impose it upon the Canadian economy which is far from capital accumulating but is actually a capital borrowing economy.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I again put it to the minister as forcefully as I can that some members of this house should be appointed to a joint committee with members of the other place. The other place is eminently suited for the long and deliberative study that is required for the consideration of the Carter report and the submissions which have been made to the government. Then this house will be able to make up its mind and in the end we will have a much better result. The government is going to take a certain position for political reasons, and the white paper will commit the government to certain courses of action.
There is no such thing, Mr. Chairman, as being partially in favour of a capital gains tax. I could use another simile and say there is no such thing as being a little pregnant. One is entirely sold with this idea or not. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will reconsider the position and that, in light of certain events which are now taking place and which will take place in the future, the house will be given the opportunity to appoint members of all parties to a joint committee to study the Carter report, instead of the government publishing a white paper first. That is all I have to say with regard to this resolution.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I was going to rise in any case to repeat the very strong objections of the members of this party to the measures contained in this resolution, but perhaps I may take a minute or two to answer the strictures directed against the members of this party in connection with the Carter report.
My hon. friend from Edmonton West is wrong in suggesting that any one of us asked the minister to implement the Carter report now holus-bolus. What we said-and I am not going to retract what we said for one moment-was that we were in favour of the principles of the Carter report. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, I do not qualify that statement by reference to any particular recommendation as far as I know and
December 14, 1987

understand it, and I hope I know and understand most, if not all, of the recommendations.
I was fully aware when I spoke, as were my colleagues when they spoke, that the minister had not yet completed his studies of the Carter report. I cannot put my hand on Hansard for November 30 so I am going to speak from memory, and no doubt the minister will correct me if I misrepresent him. But what the minister said on that day was this. As I recall, he cited four objections that have been raised to the Carter report and intimated-he did not explicitly state-that he agreed with them. Those four objections were made by what I call the vested interests whom the Carter report was trying to get into the taxation net.
The minister then went on to say, according to my recollection of his remarks, that as far as the government were concerned they were not going to implement the Carter report but would merely amend and revise our present taxation system in what they thought were appropriate ways. In other words, what the minister said was that as far as the basic principle of the Carter report was concerned, which is that all purchasing power from whatever source, whether coming from what we now call income, or transfer payments, or benefits, or from capital gain, that came into the hands of a Canadian citizen, either individual or corporate, subject to the integration of taxes, was to be regarded as taxable.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
That is the principle we accept, Mr. Chairman, and it is the principle that the minister rejected, as I understand the situation. We were, of course, not naive enough to think that the minister should bring in an entire restructuring of the tax system immediately. What we did say to him, and what I say to him without any qualification again today, is that if he was desperately in need of revenue before next spring then he ought to have imposed other taxes. He ought to have immediately removed the concessions to the extractive industries. I shall have something to say in a moment about the absurd position which the minister took. In fact, it is suggested that quite possibly he would have made more out of removing the concessions I mentioned than he could out of increases in the personal income tax. This is what we said, and I do not withdraw from that position for one moment. This is where the money is, and this is where he should have
Ways and Means
gone. I oppose this resolution, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my colleagues as well as myself. Others may well take the opportunity to tell you this themselves.
I believe that this increase in income taxes is unfair, is unnecessary and in its economic consequences is bad. I do not know why one needs any more reasons to oppose it. It falls on the working people of this country. This attempt to equate the exemption of the first $100 of basic tax with the ceiling of $600 at the other end seems to me a kind of cynical illogic that we should not be willing to accept. In fact, it is a kind of sophistry which is intended to throw sand in people's eyes. The fact is that the exemption of the bottom $100 will mean some people will be exempted from paying an additional $5, that is, 5 per cent on the basic tax of $100. The limit of $600 for any person having an income of about $30,000 or more, as I have calculated, will mean anywhere from $100 to $400 or more. So far as I am concerned, you do not do justice by offsetting $400 or $500 at the top, for the person who can well afford the money, against $5 at the bottom.
This is typical of the justice that I have witnessed in this house, and when I was not in this house, which is often meted out to our people-the equality of one horse to one rabbit, and that is not equality. You do not achieve equity by removing $5 at the bottom, which the rich guy also gets because his first $100 is not taxed either under this proposal, when in addition to that he gets an exemption on anything over $600 which he would have had to pay.
The minister tells us in a soft voice that the reason for this is that in 1965 when there was a reduction of 10 per cent, if I remember correctly, there was a limit of $600 at that level so now he feels morally obliged to have the $600 ceiling when he increases the tax. What nonsense this is. What utter, unmitigated rubbish it is. Of course the other limit was justified.


Mitchell William Sharp: Why?


David Lewis: Because the people who pay more taxes at that level can afford to continue to pay more taxes. In any tax system in any society the important thing so far as the individual is concerned is what he has left, not what he pays. If I may bring in a personal note, I recall when I was national secretary of the C.C.F. and getting the amount the C.C.F. could afford to pay; I paid very little tax and I was left with little.

December 14, 1967
When I
much more in taxes but I was still better off. As I say, the important thing is not the amount a person pays but the amount he has left. It was right to establish a $600 limit at the time taxes were reduced because the person at the top could afford to pay more. It is inequitable, it is unjust, it is unfair, it is anti-social so far as I am concerned, to establish a $600 limit when you increase taxes. The person making $50,000 or $60,000 a year-there are not many, but there are some-can afford to pay $1,000 or $1,200 in additional taxes much more easily than the ordinary worker can afford to pay even $1 per week more in taxes.
The increased taxes to which I have referred would not affect the normal living of the wealthy person, whereas an additional $50 for the ordinary working man means cutting down on the necessities of life for his family. When you add to that the increased cost of cigarettes and beer, which are the ordinary working man's luxuries, then you hit him very hard indeed. This is why we oppose this measure. This is why I do not accept this sophistry in respect of the $600 limit. I cannot think of any other reason for this move than that the minister wanted to be kind to the people whom he hopes will buy his bonds. These are the people who have the money with which to buy his bonds. We cannot, under any circumstances, support such a proposition.
The budget is also unnecessary, Mr. Chairman. I do not, for the life of me, see why the minister had to bring down this budget on November 30. Do you know how much the minister will raise in the remaining part of this fiscal year? He will get about $25 million out of the increase in income tax and a total, if I remember correctly, of some $40 million or $45 million including the other taxes on tobacco, beer and spirits. If the minister suggests to this committee that an additional $25 million for the remainder of this fiscal year even begins to touch his problem, he would be less intelligent than I sincerely believe him to be. He will make no such statement. He knows quite well the revenue he will raise between now and next March or April when his regular budget would be presented will be, in terms of the size of our budgets, peanuts. It will not even affect his money market position. You are not going to affect anybody by getting $25 million in possible revenue when you think in terms of a total picture of $9 billion or $10 billion. You are not going to persuade anyone there is any

All of this could have waited until the spring and until the minister had an opportunity of completing his study of the Carter report. At that time he could have informed parliament of what he wanted to do in relation to the complete picture. He could have corrected the many inequities in the present tax laws and closed up many of the holes by means of which people avoid taxes and evade them, at least, avoid them within the bounds of the law as they have learned to do. He could have plugged up the extensive holes in connection with expense accounts which are deducted from taxable income. In that situation the minister could have told us what other revenues or taxes he required for his purposes. He could have waited until spring rather than giving a Christmas present to the ordinary working people of Canada of an additional 5 per cent surtax. This is a mean thing to do when it is unnecessary.
However, the minister thought it necessary, Mr. Chairman, in order to raise a measly $25 million for the remainder of this fiscal year. He thought it necessary because he wants to slow down the economy. His purpose is to increase unemployment. His manner of dealing with what he calls the inflationary pressure is to produce what is known in the fancy language of economists as more slack in the economy. This really means more slack in the belly of the working man. What he wants is more unemployment or he would not have brought down this totally unnecessary budget or this unfair surtax of 5 per cent. The minister is deliberately aiming at slowing down the economy and cutting down aggregate demand through taking money from those who spend their money in the consumer market and are incapable of saving for investment purposes. He wants to cut down that aggregate demand in order to slow down the economy, to increase unemployment, in the hope that increased unemployment will bring down prices. That is a questionable hope, e (4:40 p.m.)
We do not live in that kind of classical economy any more where a larger dose of unemployment will necessarily bring down prices. Wages are much less flexible now because they are embodied in collective agreements. They do not come down quickly, and I do not believe they should come down quickly; let me make that clear. The labour unions have considerable power and they use
Ways and Means	.
resumed the practice of law I paid real difference, and therefore the change is
unnecessary at this time.
December 14, 1967

that power for the benefit of the workers they represent. I believe it is right that that should be so.
Prices in the economy are frequently administered and controlled, not necessarily by cost pressures but by other factors which have nothing to do with costs and which have nothing to do with the public welfare. There is no guarantee that an increase in unemployment which the minister is after in this budget will reduce the pressures on inflation that the country is now faced with. In my opinion and in the opinion of my party it is wrong to have a policy that is directly aimed to increase unemployment. The minister's present policy is aimed to do just that. I see no other explanation for the tax increases which the resolutions that were dealt with a few minutes ago and the present resolution contain. Their acceptance will reduce the rate of growth of the economy and increase unemployment from the present level of roughly 5 per cent to 7 or 8 per cent in the next number of months.
Let me remind the committee, as I respectfully tried to remind the house, that when we increase unemployment across the country we do not increase it evenly. Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan, to name three provinces, will be faced with unemployment increases that will be below the national average; Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and British Columbia probably will face increases in unemployment that will be away above the national average. And if that is serving national unity, I do not understand the meaning of simple English words. At this time in Canadian history, to undertake an economic policy that may increase unemployment in one of the provinces that is concerned and deeply concerned with our search for unity is to take a thoughtless and reckless action in terms of the future of this country.
If you increase unemployment across the country as a whole by 2 per cent you will increase it east of Ontario by 4 or 5 per cent. This distortion has always been a fact in the economic history of this country. Other countries experience similar distortions. Every time you increase unemployment generally you increase it in the disadvantaged areas in greater proportion than you increase it in the areas which have enjoyed a comparative advantage. This follows logically, mathematically and historically, and this is wrong.
It is wrong to burden Quebec and the Atlantic provinces with higher levels of unemployment than they now suffer from. It
27053-342}
Ways and Means
is wrong in social terms and in terms of the future of this country. We cannot and we do not intend to let this resolution pass without continuing our protests as firmly and as strongly as we can. We protest that the tax the minister has imposed is unfair, unnecessary and wrong at this time.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, may I comment on the statements which have been made by the hon. members for Edmonton West and York South. The hon. member for Edmonton West repeated his suggestion that the Carter commission recommendations should be referred to a committee of the house for study. I gave serious consideration to this possibility and in a way I am inclined to agree with the hon. member. It will be very difficult to bring down proposals that will satisfy public opinion in this country. Tax reform is one of the most difficult and delicate matters that any government must deal with. Perhaps it would have been easier to remove that responsibility from our shoulders and place it on the shoulders of a committee. Nevertheless, I believe that the government has a responsibility that is very special with regard to the raising of revenues, and I did not think it was in accordance with the traditions of our system of government for the government to say to a committee of the house: Please tell us how to reform the tax system. It is perfectly all right to ask a committee to make suggestions. My hon. friend's government asked a committee to advise the government on suitable methods of tax reform. But I believe that any proposals which are brought before the house must be brought by the government itself.
I also felt that if we were to refer the Carter commission recommendations to a committee the government would only get another advisory report. We had already received a very thorough, indeed, a monumental study on tax reform and we had asked the public to comment on the report. I felt that the time had come for the government itself to bring before parliament a scheme of tax reform.
I recognize, as the hon. gentleman said, that once we have made our recommendations we are to some extent committed to them in the sense that once I have brought down a budget I am committed to it, since the government stands or falls-


David Lewis: Unless you change your mind.


Mitchell William Sharp: Unless we change our minds, that is right.

December 14, 1967
Ways and Means


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister's predecessor in office pulled back from his budgets.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is right. This is always possible. To a certain extent I believe that our traditions are changing. I believe it is now recognized that some of the old traditions which say that governments must never alter the proposals that they make with regard to legislation, that they must stand or fall on every comma or period, have now been surpassed by modern developments in our parliamentary institutions.


David Lewis: They have been surpassed by simple common sense.


Mitchell William Sharp: By simple common sense, I quite agree. As my hon. friend from Edmonton West knows, the minister watched the bill with respect to the Bank Act being altered and improved as the result of the work of the committee. I expect that the white paper on tax reform that we bring forward will improve as the result of the study that will be given to it by the parliamentary committee and I hope that the government will be ready to accept amendments that appeal to it as being improvements and that it will not stand on the principle that since the government has not proposed the amendments they are not therefore good. I hope that this is how it will work out and I believe that this is a superior method of dealing with the subject. But my hon. friend from Edmonton West no doubt sincerely believes that his method of dealing with the matter is superior. He may turn out to be right-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I want parliament to have more authority than the government has.


Mitchell William Sharp: I think that not only will parliament be asked to approve of the government's proposal but that there will be an opportunity, during the discussion of the white paper, for the independent views of members of the house on all sides to be expressed. This is a most difficult matter and no study that I have ever engaged in during my long experience in government has taxed my intellectual capacity more than trying to understand the implications of the Carter commission recommendations, to say nothing of improving on them.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Turning now to the remarks of the hon. member for York South I should like, before I say anything else, to correct the impression that was left by his leader with the Canadian public. I listened one day to the hon. member [Mr. Sharp.l
for Burnaby-Coquitlam talking on the program "The Nation's Business". He was talking about the budget. As I listened to him I became surprised that he would make such a misleading statement about the incidence of the surtax. As I recall, he said the surtax would not increase beyond an income of $12,000 a year, creating the impression that we were increasing our tax by 5 per cent of the income of an individual and not by 5 per cent of the tax. I do not believe the hon. member meant to mislead, but he certainly did mislead many people who listened to that program.


David Lewis: I did not hear the program but I am sure the minister is not suggesting that people were misled deliberately. He agreed that the $12,000 figure he mentioned is perfectly accurate in relation to the basic tax, and 5 per cent with a limit of $600 means that the limit on the basic tax is $12,000. Is it not true that this misstatement was in a context which could not have been misinterpreted? This is what I have been given to understand. I am told that instead of saying income tax my hon. friend from Burnaby-Coquitlam left it as income.


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not think the leader of the N.D.P. meant to mislead but it was clear within the context of what he said that at this relatively low level of income in our modern society the ceiling applied.
I would like to correct this impression and say that the ceiling applies at an income of $32,060 where the basic tax is $12,100. To put this in perspective, the number of taxpayers who benefit from the ceiling is about 20,000 and the amount of revenue involved is very small.


An hon. Member:: They are the ones who can afford it.


Mitchell William Sharp: That may be so. The reason there was a limit on the amount of the reduction in 1965 and the reason why, in reversing the process, we have placed a ceiling on the amount of the increase is the very rapid acceleration of a surtax on the basic tax. It changes drastically toward the top; it makes very little change at the bottom but it makes a tremendous change at the top.
I was listening to the hon. member for York South extolling the virtues of the Carter commission and when I recalled what the commission had recommended by way of alterations in the schedule of income tax I could not help being surprised by the stand
December 14, 1967

he is taking today. I recall that the top marginal level of tax under the Carter commission is to be 50 per cent. I am surprised he should agree so wholeheartedly to that principle when he objects to there being a ceiling of $600 on the surtax which does not apply until you get to an income of $32,060. The commission recommends that we should so alter our tax schedule as to reduce the marginal rate from 80 per cent to 50 per cent in some cases. This he approves, though at the same time he objects to our efforts to avoid distortion of the present schedule of rates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Colin Cameron: Will the minister now permit a question? Is he afraid of questions?


Mitchell William Sharp: No.


Colin Cameron: Does the hon. gentleman not agree that he is misrepresenting the recommendation of the Carter commission, because the 50 per cent level was to include capital gains as well as income from other sources? Has he not read that part of the report?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not misrepresenting either the Carter commission or, I hope, anyone else. The fact of the matter is that the marginal rate of tax was to be reduced to 50 per cent not to compensate for the addition of capital gains but because it was believed that the present rate of tax interfered with incentive. I am surprised, as I say, that the hon. gentleman should at one and the same time be supporting this principle and objecting to our avoiding distortion of the present rates.


Colin Cameron: What the Carter commission said was quite different. They pointed out that in the upper income brackets the recipients gained more through capital gains than from ordinary income and that is why they were placing the level where they did.


Mitchell William Sharp: The commission is clear on this point. If earnings or income from salary or wages are high it is quite likely the recipient receives no capital gains whatever. At one time I happened to be in private business where my income was fairly high and I found myself in just that position. If the Carter commission recommendations had been accepted my rate of tax would have gone down, and that is what the commission meant to happen.
Ways and Means


David Lewis: Exactly. May I ask the minister a question, because he is really, if I may suggest this without offence, making a kind of high school debating point?


Some hon. Members:: What about you?


David Lewis: The minister is fully capable of answering for himself. I have greater respect for him than have his supporters. He does not need help in defending himself.
I am not sure whether the 50 per cent limit would be permanent. I am ready to accept it now, certainly. But is it not a fact that the Carter commission calculations, if adopted, would produce at the 50 per cent limit more revenue than is presently derived at the 80 per cent level, that if all the income from the various sources is integrated the consequent revenue will be at least as great as it is now? The point we are urging on the minister concerns the equity of the base for taxation.


Mitchell William Sharp: I really do not want to enter upon that kind of debate with the hon. gentleman. I attribute to him as much intelligence as he attributes to me.


David Lewis: What a mistake.


Mitchell William Sharp: The Carter commission, when adopting the idea of a comprehensive tax base in which all forms of income were included, had in mind that total revenue from this system would be about the same as formerly or maybe a little more. The point I was making-and the hon. gentleman has not satisfied me about it-is that in so far as income from salary is concerned a rich man would be better off under the Carter recommendations than under the present tax system. This is undeniable, and this is what Carter intended. There is a very close relationship between personal income tax rates and his proposed method of taxing corporations. However, I shall not pursue this argument any further. I wished to make the point because I am sure the hon. member wants to be consistent in his arguments, as I hope to be consistent in mine.


David Lewis: And I still am.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I pass now to a further point which he made, one which has been put forward by other members of his party, namely the allegation that this budget was intended to create unemployment. I can only say to the hon. member for York South that I know of only one government in the world which has deliberately tried to do this and

December 14, 1967
Ways and Means
that is the government of the United Kingdom. It is a government with which I believe he has some sympathy and whose principles he supports. If we want a good example of what not to do, it is that we must not follow those principles, and I do not intend to do so.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that unless we take this ounce of prevention now it is exactly that pound of cure we in this country may face. The purpose of this budget is to prolong our expansion and not get into the kind of difficulties that would force us into the stop-go kind of economy that we in this country have avoided for seven years.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I wish to mention one other point, coming back to what the hon. member for York South said. This is something I want to say not only about his comments but about the comments of other hon. members. The statement I made on the Carter commission report was very carefully considered. Nothing more is to be read into it than what I said. Each word was very carefully considered. I see from the press that there has been a tendency to say that the government has ditched Carter.


David Orlikow: You have.


Mitchell William Sharp: My words do not say that. All I recommend to hon. members is that they read what I said and not what the newspapers say I said, and may I point out that they have Hansard available to them.


David Orlikow: It is not what you said; it is what you did.


Mitchell William Sharp: All I have done is what I have said.


David Orlikow: Exactly.


Mitchell William Sharp: And when the white paper comes down the house can then judge what the government is going to do about tax reform. What I said was this:
The government believes that substantial reform is necessary if its revenues are to be raised as fairly as possible and with a minimum of interference with the proper development and functioning of the Canadian economy. I believe that the report of the royal commission will turn out to have been of great value to the government, to parliament and the people of Canada in helping us all to recognize the deficiencies in our present tax system and to devise sensible ways to reform the system.
However, the work we have done within the government, as well as the analyses we have received from others, leads us to the conclusion that while the reforms we will place before parliament and the public in the form of a white paper

and ultimately in draft legislation will undoubtedly be influenced by the monumental report of the royal commission, they will be more in the nature of reforms of the existing tax structure rather than the adoption of a radically different approach. They will not necessarily be limited to item? which the commission has recommended.
That was what I said and that, I hope, is what parliament will debate.
When I asked the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands the other day whether he agreed with the Carter commission report he said yes, without qualification. I then asked him a special question on a very sensitive matter, and he said he would tax veterans disability pensions.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, no, no. I won't go for that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, if the minister is going to quote me I wish he would quote me in full. I said yes, if they were brought into a tax bracket that would cause them to be taxed, but I think the minister could count those in that category at present on the fingers of one hand because the government has not been all that generous.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I think if the hon. gentleman will examine the question he will see that if these payments were taxable now a great many veterans would pay tax on them. I am quite sure the hon. member for Kootenay West will agree.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Absolutely.


Mitchell William Sharp: I can recall one other incident, perhaps one of the first incidents in the house arising out of the Carter commission report when the hon. member for Skeena asked a question indicating he believed that the three year tax exemption for mines should be continued. I do not know whether it should be. But when I hear the members of the N.D.P. trying to support the Carter commission in principle because they believe this is a good political thing to do and then individually disagreeing with some of the essential principles of the Carter report, I really do not know where they stand on the matter. As I listened to the hon. member for York South he said, "Yes, I agree in principle with the report but not necessarily with everything in it." That is what I understood him to say.


David Lewis: You are wrong.
December 14, 1987


Mitchell William Sharp: I think this represents the view of most people in this house. They are very much in favour of tax reform, as I am, but they do not agree with everything in the Carter report. I believe this is the position of most hon. members in the house. I hope the N.D.P. will agree with this, because I believe that is the position they also should have.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, the discussion was warming up and becoming so interesting that I would willingly have allowed it to go on, but I should like the time to explain why I intend to vote for the minister's bill and say why.
I say immediately that it is not because I find it perfect, and I have heard a good many suggestions that I would willingly support, but I also have heard the minister call for suggestions and criticisms, because he realized better than anyone else in the house that this is a most complicated situation which it is not easy to settle.
Here, Mr. Chairman, is an outline of the reasons why I propose to support the government.
First, I believe it is important inasmuch as I am concerned at least, to state that I have no partisan interest in doing my utmost to bring the government down. On the contrary, I believe it is important to do everything I can to ensure a certain stability to the government. I find the present system of exposing the government to non-confidence motions, one after the other, to have the sword of Damocles constantly hovering above your head, is an inconsistent way of doing things in our advanced world. In view of the complicated problems that have to be settled, the governments should be assured of some stability, four or five years in office, so that they may have the time to arrive at policies, the good or bad results of which can then be observed.
If the government errs, we will have an election campaign during which we will have the opportunity of making them-and the electors-understand the error of their ways, but it seems to me that the tendency to bring down the government every five or six months is futile, childish and out-of-date in the complicated world in which we live.
There is another reason, Mr. Chairman. It is that in the field of finance and taxation, we realize today that the problem is worldwide and complicated, to the point where even an expert like the minister who has
Ways and Means
spent a lifetime in the field and who is surrounded by experts in the matter, who has met experts in taxation and in international finance of every country of the world, himself recognizes, as he has this afternoon, that he has trouble in finding equitable solutions.
Therefore, if an hon. member-were he the most brilliant, the most intelligent, the most talented, the most experienced-suggested that the solution he offers is absolutely unchallengeable, I would call him presumptuous. All the suggestions which have been made may have some merit but the minister responsible for the administration, in this instance the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), in co-operation with his colleagues of the cabinet, must take the final decision under the system by which we are governed.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I have the feeling, Mr. Chairman, which is shared by many other members, that the hon. Minister of Finance is a victim of a system over which he has no control; he is struggling in a sort of strait jacket conditioned not only by international but intercontinental circumstances and he does his best under such circumstances. In view of the complexity of this problem, of the difficulty to find an absolutely unchallengeable solution, I give the minister and his colleagues the benefit of the doubt. If experience shows that they were wrong, we shall have another election and then we shall have the opportunity to ask them for an accounting.
Besides, Mr. Chairman, I feel it would be advisable to go to the bottom of things, to use the expression of that great man who came here to meddle in matters that were none of his business.
The bottom of things is not merely a gesture of good or bad administration of some government or other. The bottom of things means that we are going through a financial and economic cycle which affects at present every capitalist country of the world, as well as socialist countries. I need not recall what is happening at present in England. The minister, as well as others, have mentioned it earlier. I need not recall either what is happening in France, where open demonstrations and uprisings involving thousands of citizens are taking place, in protest against certain pieces of legislation, such as the reduction of social security benefits enjoyed up to now, and against some other measures.
There is no need for me to evoke the cry "Vive la Bretagne libre" which stems from absolutely obvious economic deficiencies, as

December 14, 1967
Ways and Means
well as other French possessions. There is no need for me to evoke here the fact that for months the President of the United States has been calling for an increase of 10 per cent in the personal income tax. Some will tell me that this is due to the war in Viet Nam. That is possible, but it is a fact, and we, any and all of us, can do very little, if anything, to put an end to it.
We are caught in this international whirlpool, we are conditioned by it. I say, therefore, that we must give the government the benefit of the doubt and rally around it to spare our country even more serious economic troubles than those we now suffer.
I repeat the words: Whoever is without sin in this house-to encourage whoever thinks he is infallible in the field of financial reform to get up and tell us so. I think we will then see someone who is unbelievably presumptuous.
So much for that, Mr. Chairman. However, constructive suggestions can still be made. I was told, for example, that we dislike the realization that taxes must be raised and that we must deprive ourselves and tighten our belts. But who among us can say that he has not lived beyond his means in trying to imitate the Americans who live in a style which only a rich country like the United States can afford.
But, anyhow, Mr. Chairman, who among us, once again, can suggest a measure obviously better than the one proposed by the government, with proof and experience to support it? Who among us has, in these financial matters, the experience which the Minister of Finance has with all the years he spent at the service of the government? Who can take advantage of the advice of experts as able as those around him and those he meets when he goes to see the ministers of finance of other countries
Mr. Chairman, this being said, I repeat that there still are things which surprise us. For instance, I am one of those who do not understand very well why something like $17 billion-official figure for the world last year-are still being devoted to manufacturing armaments to kill people, while only $1.75 million is devoted to preventing people from dying of hunger. This is something surprising, and one might be allowed to express his surprise before that state of affairs which is not necessarily Canadian but once again international. I repeat that the problem is international.
[Mr. Mongrain. 1
Mr. Chairman, I will not mention the difficulties we are experiencing in this country and which on the whole are almost all taxation problems which result from the economic conditions due to what I mentioned earlier. One knows, for instance, that the maritime provinces complain that they are neglected. One knows that if Quebec is talking about separatism, it is mainly because Quebec probably does not enjoy the relative affluence it hoped for. One knows that the wealthy province of British Columbia sometimes complains and toys with the idea of separatism too. One knows that when the provincial premiers come to Ottawa, it is to ask for money, because they never have enough. We also know that our municipalities and school boards are desperate.
Mr. Chairman, I refer again to some basic suggestions, because X see the need to go once again to the bottom of things. I believe-and anyone may say it, even those who endorse the proposal-that the present capitalist world, the leaders and the lords of high finance find comfort and reassurance by shouting "socialism", even when some socialists are proposing measures acceptable to all. By the same token, I think that perhaps some socialists are too prone to curse capitalists, instead of seeking opportunities to sit down and discuss things with them, and afterwards ask the government to implement measures so that the bosses of national and international high finance may proceed of their own accord with this self-reform, before a hungry and deaf people resort to violent rebellion, because it is no use preaching to a hungry man.
Mr. Chairman, it will be said that I exaggerate, but I wish I had the time to mention some facts to prove that such is not the case. I think that, in the field of high finance, there is a lack of co-operation with the Minister of Finance or the government, if you wish. There is insufficient acceptance of the reforms made necessary by conditions in 1967; instead, they will have to be imposed upon them.
Mr. Chairman, when I heard the chorus of boos which greeted the appearance of the Carter report, what my English friends call the true and tried, from private business, I was greatly concerned. I said to myself: In all likelihood, this hurts them, they are concerned with this discernible trend to the left; so I read the Carter report very carefully. I admit that I am not as qualified as other hon. members, but I read it several times, and I said to myself: Even if it may be
December 14, 1967

said that the report will not be fully concurred in, it contains a large number of recommendations which, at least, might give a hard push in the right direction to our economy and our financial system, maybe not toward perfection, since perfection is not of this world, as we all know.
There are other things, Mr. Chairman, which are surprising to us. I think I would agree with my socialist friends-I hope I do not insult the members of the New Democratic party by calling them socialists-who say that the government should have recourse to a greater number of these sources of profit which are now reserved for private enterprise and which could benefit the general public, that the government should try to reserve a certain number of them for itself, or at least try to establish some kind of joint enterprise or force private enterprise, which derives considerable revenue from these sources, to establish priorities with regard to its investments. In fact, a certain severity should be shown private enterprise to make it understand that if it does not willingly respect these exigencies of modern life, it will be forced to do so by circumstances and not, I hope, by violent actions on the part of the population which is beginning to find present conditions extremely trying. The people always find that they are being imposed upon and that the national burden is not borne by everyone equally.
Mr. Chairman, there are other things that amaze me, such as our antiquated tax collection system. The school boards collect taxes, with all the staff and the whole system that is involved; municipalities collect taxes, with all the staff and the equipment required; provincial governments collect taxes, with all the staff and the expensive equipment they need; the federal government collects taxes, and God knows how complicated that system is. Therefore, I am wondering if the time has not come to simplify this a little and to say, for example: The provinces will collect taxes and then, they will make an agreement with the federal government for a distribution of some kind, in order to reduce this army of tax collectors who hound us day and night. I am not referring to those in debt to finance companies which are still more exacting and probably demand their pound of flesh with more cruelty. But all that becomes extremely costly for the taxpayer who is pressed by the school board collector, the municipality, the province or the federal government and all the other agents and who is at the end of his tether.
Ways and Means
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, when reference is made to adjustments in the financial field and when prime consideration is given to a reduction of government expenditures, as persistently requested by newspapers-I hear the provincial premiers telling their ministers that it is essential to make savings-I wonder whether it is not time to regroup the provinces and make them a little more viable.
One after the other, the members for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland are heard complaining about their provinces being handicapped, abandoned and poor. Would it not be time for those provinces to group together, to pool all their available resources, in order to reduce their administrative costs? Why have four provincial administrations trying to attain the same economic level as Quebec and Ontario? Would it not be advisable for the central provinces to do likewise? Of course, British Columbia will always stand apart, being a rich province, but I feel that it would not be illusory to start serious discussions-there has already been talk about it-to start a serious dialogue in an attempt to reduce the number of provinces; in short, to regroup the provinces considered poor, so that they might pull together, save in their administration and also offer greater economic value when they negotiate loans on the market.
Mr. Chairman, those are all remedial measures which could be suggested. Many others have been put forward. I think the minister would welcome them, all the more so because he has asked for them admitting that, in spite of his experience, the problem is extremely complex for all the countries in the world and that it is not the exclusive concern of the federal government.
I would say that, when such a difficulty arises, we should think about the welfare of our country. When we are not sure of reaching perfection, we should try, at least, to choose the lesser evil. With the best interests of the country in mind, at least in my case, I must vote for this bill, which is probably not perfect, but since I have yet to see anyone showing me something better, I will accept it at this time, with its good points, the sacrifices it calls for, keeping in mind the words of President Kennedy: This is not the time to ask ourselves what our country can do for us, it is the time to ask ourselves what we can do for our country. My country is Canada.

December 14, 1967
Ways and Means


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, we in the
N.D.P. have made it very clear that we oppose these tax proposals. We have said, and I will return to this point later, that this is the wrong time to increase taxes. A tax increase at a time when we have increasing unemployment can only lead to more unemployment, and for the minister to deny that this action will lead to increased unemployment is a complete contradiction of the facts.
We are opposed to the particular proposals because they are completely unfair. If ever there was a class budget, this is it. This budget is designed to increase the burden of the ordinary taxpayer and let those people who have large incomes get away almost scot free. A 5 per cent surtax will mean that the bulk of the money raised will be from income tax paid by those in the lower or middle income brackets. The provision to which the minister referred relating to a maximum of $600 which can be paid by anyone exempts those people who can most afford to pay increased tax from paying their share. I think the minister said there were
32.000	people in the income bracket that will be required to pay increased taxes to the extent of $600. It may well be that not much money will come in as a result of the 5 per cent surtax collected from these very wealthy people, but the fact is that this sets a very poor example because the ordinary citizen will have to pay the full increased tax while
32.000	wealthy people will have a limit in respect of what they must pay.
The minister said again that he had not rejected the recommendations and basic principles in the Carter commission report. He put on the record again this afternoon what he said earlier. No matter how thin the minister slices the boloney, it is still boloney. The facts are very clear. The minister proposes by this mini-budget to increase the personal income tax and ignore entirely the recommendations of the Carter commission. These recommendations may be accepted at some later date but in light of the situation it is pretty obvious to most of us that the majority of the Carter commission recommendations will be forgotten.
The minister has tried to scare us off by telling us and the Canadian people that we surely do not want unemployment insurance classified as income and therefore taxed. He asks us whether we want veterans benefits classified as income and therefore taxed. He says that surely we do not want these things

but he did not say today, though I am sure he will on another occasion, that we do not want members of co-operatives to pay tax on their co-operative patronage dividends.
What the minister is doing in defence of the mining industry, the oil industry and other business interests is chipping away from the basic concept the Carter commission enunciated in respect of its support of the interests of low income bracket group. I do not think it makes any difference whether the minister talks about a tax rate of 50 per cent, 45 per cent or 55 per cent. What the Carter commission stated was that essentially the low and middle income groups in this country were paying an unfair share of the taxes collected while the higher income group is getting away with a limited tax.
What has the minister said about this situation? Has he made one single proposal to plug the loopholes documented so very well by the Carter commission? He has not, and I do not think he will because he represents a constituency made up of people who are in the high income bracket.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, veterans.


David Orlikow: The minister has not said a word about the large number of people in the upper income bracket who do not pay a penny income tax in terms of expense accounts. He does not say anything about the large number of people who are in the position to deduct a very substantial part of their car expenses on the basis of being a business expense whereas the ordinary construction worker who may have to travel 25 miles each way between his home and his job cannot do this because this cost of transportation is not considered a business expense. The minister has not said a word about the number of people who deduct conference expenses. I have in mind a group of doctors who hold annual meetings in different cities and different countries. Recently this conference was held on a ship travelling the Caribbean. The cost of this was a legitimate business expense and deductible for income tax purposes. We have not heard a word about this sort of thing being inherently wrong.
The minister has not said a word about the basic recommendations of the Carter commission. The commission suggested that oil, mining and insurance companies are not paying a fair share of the taxes. The minister tries to create the impression that we are all animals of a strange kind because we think these people should be paying their share of
December 14, 1967

taxes. In the event that the minister has been too busy to read the Toronto newspapers, let me draw his attention to a couple of editorials which appeared this month in the Toronto Star. This newspaper at election time will promote the interests of the Liberal party and urge Canadians to elect Liberal candidates in all parts of Canada. Let us look at what the Toronto Star said about the minister's tax proposals and how he ignored the basic recommendations of the Carter commission. The editorial suggests that he has buried these recommendations but I think he has killed them. This editorial, which appeared in the Toronto Star of December 7, 1967 under the heading "Have The Insurance Firms Won", includes the following paragraph:
It noted that Canadian insurance companies, with 30 per cent of their business placed abroad, paid $ 13.800,000 in income taxes to foreign governments. It pointed out in contrast that foreign insurance companies in this country paid no income tax to Canada on life insurance policies written in this country.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The editorial went on to say:
The 1964 revenues of Canadian insurance companies exceed their expenditure by $90 million. But they paid tax on less than $5 million of that amount.
The report acknowledged that insurance premiums might have to be raised, or policy dividends reduced, if insurance companies were required to pay their fair share of income tax.
But the commission clearly believed that this was wholly acceptable since it would mean a substantial increase in federal revenues and a consequent easing of the tax load on the ordinary taxpayer.
These were reasonable and just proposals, long overdue. Are they now to be discarded by Mr. Sharp because of pressure from the insurance companies?
I think it is obvious that they have been discarded by the Minister of Finance. In an editorial which appeared a few days later on December 11, entitled "Mines Should Pay Fair Tax Share", the Montreal Star said:
How can finance minister Mitchell Sharp justify his decision to dig new tax revenue out of the ordinary wage earner while continuing to provide special tax privileges to big business-notably the mining industry?
The Carter Royal Commission on Taxation found that mining, along with the insurance and petroleum industries, was a potentially rich source of tax revenue that had long been enjoying unnecessary exemptions.
It is estimated in this editorial that the amount the mining industry would have paid, calculated on 1964 figures, if they had paid the ordinary taxes which all businesses 27053-3431
ways and Means
except mining, oil and insurance pay, was somewhere between $133 million and $250 million annually. It is for this reason that we say-and we are not alone in saying it, as I have pointed out-that the minister, despite all his protestations, has killed the basic recommendations contained in the report of the Carter commission.
The minister has ignored another basic recommendation of the Carter commission, namely, that Canada should do what nearly every other modern industrial country has done and implement a capital gains tax. If such a tax were imposed it would bring into the coffers of the Canadian government tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars. To the extent that this is not done, and for each year in which it is not done, the ordinary taxpayer is paying substantially more income tax than he should be paying. Yet the minister gets up again and again and says he is not ditching the Carter commission recommendations. I will believe that the minister is not ditching them when he brings in proposals to tax the mining, insurance and oil industries. I do not think I will be in this house long enough-and I expect to be here for some time-to see the Minister of Finance do that, because he believes, as apparently his government does, that those industries which have shall continue to have and those which have not shall pay taxes. That is precisely what the minister has done in implementing the 5 per cent surtax on income and the extra tax on beer and tobacco.
If we take the minister's budget speech together with the speech of the Minister of National Revenue in which he announced very substantial cut-backs in government expenditures for next year, we can come to no other conclusion than that there will be substantially more unemployment next year than there is this year. We reject such a policy. We reject it nationally and even more emphatically in terms of regional welfare and development.
It may not be a very serious matter to booming areas such as Toronto and Vancouver if the government cuts back on its expenditures. But I say to the minister and to some of the members of the official opposition who have been saying, if I understand them correctly, that the fault of the government is that it has not cut expenditures enough, that to impose the kind of cut-backs which the government proposes in the slow growth areas of this country is a disaster.

December 14, 1987
Ways and Means
While contractors may be building new factories, shopping centres, houses and apartment buildings at a record rate in central Canada in the Toronto and Hamilton areas, if you take away government expenditures in the Atlantic provinces there will be nothing left. I was there about a month ago at the invitation of railway workers. At that time I visited Sydney. I cannot remember when I spent a more depressing day, because I heard about lay-offs in the coal mines, in the steel mill, lay-offs of railway workers and longshoremen at North Sydney.
The proposals of the government to cut back expenditures mean that the unemployment situation in our slow growth areas will be of catastrophic proportions in the coming year. We do not agree that government expenditures need to be cut back at all. Certainly I will never agree that government expenditures should be cut back by the meat-axe method which the Minister of National Revenue announced the other day, while there is not the slightest sign of intention by the government to do anything to in any way restrict expenditures in the private sector of our economy.
I remember that when the Minister of Finance brought down his budget last year, I think it was in February, he announced not the cut-backs which we have had announced now but some kind of pause. I remember that the minister announced one specific project that would not be proceeded with. This was a building here in Ottawa which the government had previously agreed was necessary, namely, a building for the National Research Council.
The day after the minister made his speech announcing that pause, the day it was reported in the Ottawa newspapers that the government would not go ahead with this building, in the Ottawa Jouvnal, and I presume in the Citizen too, there was a two-page spread about the new hotel-office building complex within a few blocks of the parliament buildings which Campeau Construction Company Limited was going ahead with. I have no objection to another hotel being built in Ottawa. Perhaps it is needed. But as far as I am concerned we needed the building for the National Research Council a great deal more that we did the Skyline hotel. If we must have restraints, let us have them in respect of those things which are not necessary. We would be somewhat more sympathetic to the minister's ideas on restraints if 
we thought they would be applied to things we can do without.
At the housing conference which took place the other day, which I think ought not to have been proceeded with if the federal government could not increase the amount of money it was prepared to devote to housing, the premier of Ontario, Mr. Robarts, and the premier of Quebec, Mr. Johnson, made what I thought was a very worth-while proposal.
It was not a proposal that would cost the federal government money. It was in relation to houses whose cost, exclusive of land, did not exceed $15,000.
a (5:40 p.m.)
The Assisiant Deputy Chairman: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but while the Chair has allowed quite a bit of straying from the resolution now under study I think the hon. member is going a little farther than his predecessors. I therefore ask him to come back to the resolution under study.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I think I am precisely on the paragraph we are studying. I am trying to illustrate why I intend to vote against this 5 per cent surtax on income tax. First of all I am suggesting that we do not need this increase in taxes and, second, that if restraint is needed it should be in more sensible fields. One area in which we do not need restraint is that of housing.
The suggestion of the premiers of Ontario and Quebec was that if the federal government would rebate the sales tax on building materials used to construct relatively modest homes, the governments of Ontario and Quebec would in turn be prepared to rebate from their provincial coffers the provincial sales tax on building materials. They calculated that the federal and provincial rebates would amount to between $1,200 and $1,500. In other words, the two rebates would be sufficient to raise the down payment on a house.
I thought this was a very sensible and modest proposal that the federal government would jump at, but it did not do so. It is opposed to this kind of planning, to this kind of common sense. The federal government wants to charge everybody tax.
I suggest that people who build shopping centres, service stations and luxury office buildings can well afford to pay this tax. Why not? They merely pass the increased cost on to their customers. However, the ordinary citizen who wants to buy a house simply cannot afford this extra tax, so less and less people are buying houses.
December 14, 1967

This government simply refuses to interfere in the slightest way with the private sector. When there is need for restraint the restraint is focused upon the public sector. The federal government is setting an example which I am sure it hopes the provinces and municipalities are going to follow. If they do, then it means there will be a cutback in the building of schools. This is precisely the area in which the economic council, among others, has said we need to increase our efforts. It has already been announced that there is going to be a cutback in the building of new health facilities. As a matter of fact, the Minister of National Revenue has announced that the money from the health resources fund which goes toward assisting the provinces and universities in the building of medical colleges will have to be stretched out.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I
am sorry to interrupt the hon. member again but this resolution is to amend the Income Tax Act.


David Orlikow: But is that not precisely the point, Mr. Chairman? The minister is increasing income tax because he needs more money. If the government needs more money I am suggesting it should look at the expenditure that is being made. Because I do not like the proposals of the minister for the spending of money I am outlining as briefly and as closely to the resolution as I can the reasons I intend to vote against this measure.
I am not going to go into the arguments presented by the leader of my party, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, who referred to items of useless military expenditure such as the Bonaventure, the supporting destroyers and obsolete aircraft. We are pouring not small amounts, Mr. Chairman, but hundreds of millions of dollars into this sort of equipment.
I am suggesting to the Minister of Finance that he should manage the economic life and social needs of the country in such a way that the ordinary citizens are given some equity. Instead of doing this he is indicating clearly that he believes in the maxim that those that have shall continue to have. Until he changes his views he will not get support from the members of this house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal very briefly and basically with a comment made by the Minister of Finance which rather disturbed me. However, I must say that I do not rise as an authority on fiscal
Ways and Means
and budgetary affairs; I leave those matters to persons who have given them much more study than I and who have been more successful in forecasting financial affairs than I have in my lifetime.
I rise first of all, Mr. Chairman, because I thought the suggestion made by the hon. member for Edmonton West was a good one. He suggested that the Carter report go before a committee of this house or, if I understood him correctly, before a committee of the Senate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Both.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, or both. I think that is a good suggestion. I have argued for a long time that we should make much greater use of committees in the Senate when dealing with particular problems. These committees have done some good work in the past in such matters as manpower, land use, and so on, and they might well study other current questions instead of our spending large sums of money on royal commissions.
I understand why there is some hesitation on the part of the government in implementing the Carter report, because there have been widespread objections. The farmers organizations of Canada have objected on certain grounds to certain proposals in the Carter report. The beef producers have objected on certain grounds to other proposals. So have the fruit growers and the cooperatives. The national credit union has made strong protests against the effect of the application of certain proposals in the Carter report. Some unions have also objected to the implementation of certain sections in the Carter report, as have some large companies.
These larger companies have mostly been concerned with making representations to protect their write-offs and that sort of thing. However, I cannot understand why they did not have enough common sense and understanding of public relations to bring the plight of other people to the attention of the government when they were making their own representations.
The Royal Canadian Legion has been concerned about some of the proposals in the Carter commission report. As a matter of fact the Legion has written a letter to the Prime Minister explaining the attitude of their members. So have the army and navy veterans and other veterans organizations across the country. I have had a lot of correspondence on this matter and can fully appreciate

December 14, 1967
Ways and Means
their attitude to proposals in the Carter commission report that would tax veterans disability pensions. It was largely a comment of the Minister of Finance that stirred me for a moment or two to say a few words.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
This has been a matter of great interest to me since I was president of a Great War Veterans Association branch in 1919. I was one of those who helped prepare the resolution which was presented to the government urging exemption from taxation of disability pensions. In that connection I have some extracts from Hansard of the day. I recall the change in the attitude of the government at that time. This matter was brought to the attention of the house on June 13, 1919 by Sir Herbert Ames and Mr. Lemieux. As a result of their representations Sir Thomas White, who was minister of finance at that time, had this to say:
I am disposed to regard very favourably the suggestion put forward by the two bon. members. The hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) had drawn the matter to my attention and it strongly appeals to me. It is not necessary to make any amendment to the resolution, because it is open to us, when the bill is in the committee stage, to extend the exemptions by cutting down and not adding to the burdens of taxation. I will have a note made of the suggestions and get an appropriate amendment to the bill when it is in the committee stage.
Later, on June 24, the same question came before the house and the minister of finance, Sir Thomas White, had this to say:
I am glad to have the matter drawn to the attention of the Commissioner of Taxation.
I now wish to move an amendment by inserting the following clause immediately before clause 4:
"4. Section five of the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following paragraph:-
(i) Income derived from any pension granted to any member of His Majesty's military, naval or air forces for any disability suffered by the pensioner while serving in any of His Majesty's forces during the war that began in August, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, and the income derived from any pension granted to any dependent relative of any person who was killed or suffered any disability while serving in the said forces in the said war."
I think that meets the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) and concurred in by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux).
This was agreed to unanimously by the house at that time. When this amendment was passed the government received letters of thanks from the various veterans organizations, including the Great War Veterans Association, for taking this humanitarian approach. I was closely associated during

that period in the organization of the Great War Veterans Association. I remember it quite vividly. This principle has been accepted by parliament since 1919 and there has never been any suggestion of varying it until the Carter commission report was made public. This caused concern amongst a number of veterans organizations across Canada including the Royal Canadian Legion, and that is why the president of that organization wrote the Prime Minister a personal letter on this question.
This principle was endorsed by all parties at that time and has been endorsed by all parties until this date. They realize it is a humanitarian principle. Not only has it been endorsed in Canada but it is followed by almost all democratic countries. In order to illustrate this point I want to quote from the World Veteran for July-September, 1967, which contains a report of the proceedings of the international conference on legislation concerning veterans and war victims. When the standing committee on veterans affairs was in Europe in 1966, the members had an opportunity to meet with the executive of this organization and to attend one of their meetings. I was surprised because this organization, which represents veterans from about 50 countries in the world, is doing excellent work in connection with the promotion of world peace. It may interest some people to know that Colonel So-and-so, Major So-and-so and Brigadier So-and-so were sponsoring resolutions directed toward the promotion of peace in the world. Why did they do so? Those who have served in war or have suffered in war are usually the ones who are most concerned about maintaining peace in the future.
As I have said, most countries in the world exempt disability pensions from taxation. This matter came up for discussion again at this conference and the following resolution was passed:
Considering that war victims pensions are compensation for injuries occurred or for the loss of family members;
Noting that financial means for them are provided by the whole population of a country concerned through taxation;
Recommends governments concerned to decide that the compensation provided by war victims legislation be exempted from tax.
This is the accepted practice. I think we all realize that throughout the years it has been the practice of this government to exempt disability pensioners and their dependents from income tax on their pensions. It has
December 14, 1987

been the policy of the government in connection with workmen's compensation payments. It has been the policy of the government not to tax civilian disability payments or allowances. I urge on the members of this house, therefore, that they continue to support this humanitarian principle that has been in effect in our country since 1919. I can tell you that as a veteran and a socialist you will not get me to support any other policy.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance made a number of assertions with which I want to deal for a few minutes. I may say, first of all, that the minister made what I suggest was a basic distortion of the meaning and intent of the Carter report by trying to indicate that because there may be some details in it about which some may have questions, this means the Carter report as a whole is affected. It may well be that the disability pensions of veterans which are paid as a result of the gratitude of a country for service in war ought not to be included for income tax purposes. I have a strong feeling of agreement with this principle. There are one or two other benefits of a similar kind that ought not to be included in income. It may well be, therefore, that the Carter commission in seeking to put up a completely logical device did as a good many logicians have done many times in history, failed to recognize some of the exceptions which make logic stronger rather than weaker.
But when the minister suggests that these possible exceptions from the general framework of the Carter report justify him in ditching the report as a whole, he is treating the members of this house and the people of Canada as if they were children.


Mitchell William Sharp: Who ditched the report?


David Lewis: You did.


Mitchell William Sharp: I did not say that.


David Lewis: This is what the minister said. I do not always agree exactly with the way members of the press report things but it is not an accident, it cannot be an accident, when every report of his speech said the minister has rejected or ditched or jettisoned the Carter report. We are not all imbeciles.


An hon. Member:: Read his words.


David Lewis: I see it is six oclock, Mr. Chairman.
Private Bills
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. In order that the house may now proceed to consideration of private members' business it is my duty to leave the chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The house will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming debate on the motion of Mr. Cameron (High Park) for the second reading of Bill S-15, an act to incorporate Seaboard Finance Company of Canada.
Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move:
That order numbered 7 under the heading "Private Bills" appearing on this day's order paper, for resuming debate on the motion standing in my name for the second reading of Bill S-15, an act to incorporate Seaboard Finance Company of Canada, be discharged and the said bill be withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for High Park have leave to move this motion?


Mr. Peters:: No, Mr. Speaker.
Order stands.



CABRI PIPE LINES LTD.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, December 5, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-16, to incorporate Cabri Pipe Lines Ltd.- Mr. Jorgenson-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 1 carry?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, this bill might be said to be the twin of another bill that the house considered the other day, though the bills are not related. When this matter was being discussed in the house previously the hon. member for Skeena and other hon. members of this party objected to the wording of the bill. The company seeking incorporation has sought powers to carry on activities which are wholly beyond its means. As I understand it, the company specifically wishes to build a pipe line between Lloyd-minster and a storage point in Saskatchewan. In addition to seeking power to build such a pipe line the company, through clause 6 of the bill, seeks the power to carry on a great

December 14, 1967
Private Bills
many other activities. A great many of the powers that are being sought are not needed and I hope that the company will see fit to withdraw its request for some of these powers if it wishes this bill to receive favourable consideration by this house.
I am sure that the sponsor of the bill will agree that a radar chain is very expensive to build and that the $4 million capitalization of this company will not cover the cost of such a chain. I am sure that the company's money will not be enough to cover the construction of one microwave tower. Certainly the company will not build an airport and it will not buy aircraft for that airport. It cannot provide its aircraft with an adequate communications system. In short, Mr. Chairman, by being asked to accede to these powers which are listed in clause 6 members of parliament are being made to look like damn fools. The company obviously will not undertake everything that it seeks power to undertake under clause 6.
I have asked officials of the Senate if they can correct what is becoming an increasing problem. I am informed that representatives of companies such as this one which wish to become incorporated look at a copy of a bill that has recently been passed and adopt many of the provisions which have been included in such former bills. That, I suggest, has happened in this instance.
It is possible that some day this company will gather, process, refine, treat, transmit, transport, store and deliver gases, liquids and solids or any of them, but I very much doubt that in the foreseeable future the company will wish to bring about the expansion of a four inch pipe line. That is a very small pipe line. Its diameter is about one third of that of the pipe line which is now being laid on Kent street in Ottawa. The municipal authorities are forever laying new pipe lines on Kent street. From personal observation I would say that the pipe line on Kent street is an eight inch or a ten inch pipe line. Certainly such a pipe line would carry three or four times the gas that the pipe line which this company is to build will carry.
One thing is clear, Mr. Chairman. If this company wants to build a four inch pipe line I suggest that it must ask parliament for permission to do so. If they do not ask for that permission they will meet with little success in their application. They must say what they want to do.
Having listened to the hon. member for Provencher who is sponsoring this bill I realize that the idea of transferring gas to dry

wells from which it can be drawn during peak consumption periods is a worthy one. The idea makes economic sense and seems to be economically sound. I think the company would be well advised to go ahead with some of the projects it proposes but not with all these projects. In my opinion the company is not capable of developing some of these other projects for which they are seeking approval. I refer among other things to the clause which speaks about facilities for communication, the installation of teletype, microwave or television communication systems, and so on. Possession of these rights would mean that the licences could probably be sold as a step toward setting up a third broadcasting system in Canada. I do not suppose this will happen and I am sure the sponsor of the bill will tell us that the company does not have this in mind. I agree that when a licence is granted to a pipe line company it is advisable for the company to ask for assent to arrangements which would provide for certain types of communication to be carried on in connection with its operations but these, I suggest, would fall outside the Broadcasting Act or the Radio Act.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
No one can foresee some of the needs which may develop in connection with pipe lines. It may be possible for pipe lines to be fitted with closed circuit television which will allow for the observation of the progress of packaged capsules within a line. But I am sure that no company would establish a closed circuit television operation in connection with a 20-mile four inch gas line between Lloydminster and a dry well hole. If this is indeed the case, I suggest it is time to clean up the bill before us and remove some of the clauses from it.
It is high time these bills were drafted in such a way as to meet the real needs of the company seeking a charter. The legislation before us does not tell us where the operation will start or where it will end. It does not say what the line will carry or what it is intended it shall carry. It says the line may go across interprovincial boundaries. The bill does not say where. It says the line may go across an international boundary, and the nearest international boundary is a long way from the area in which I suppose this line is to be located. The line may carry gas or it may carry oil. All these eventualities are met by the terms of the bill before us.
Many hon. members are interested in a proposition which is still before the house
December 14, 1967

in connection with solids pipe lines. Every one will agree, I think, that solids pipe lines constitute a totally new form of communication which is likely to play a major role in years to come in our economy. Yet this company which proposes to build a 20-mile pipe line has asked for the right to carry solids as well.
Nobody seems to object, though in my opinion the company has very little chance of operating a solids pipe line with the amount of capitalization which is suggested here. I believe it is up to parliament to decide whether companies should be granted these valuable rights. In this case, if the company is a bona fide company, as we are led to believe, I think it should at least remove some of the garbage which is contained in the bill presented to us. I note that the sponsor did not rise here today to tell us he has been in touch with representatives of the company and that they are prepared to have removed from the bill some of the powers they obviously are not likely to use.
What does this company intend to do with a railroad? I am sure the sponsor of the bill will tell us that to his knowledge it does not intend to build one. I believe he would also tell us that to the best of his knowledge it does not intend to build a townsite, or go into the housing business, or buy and lease land, or do all the other things we are being asked to sanction.
If all our legislation were cluttered up with the junk which could be accumulated from other departments not directly concerned we would soon build up the greatest bureaucracy that ever existed. This is not how we handle legislation, and I suggest we follow the same principle in connection with legislation proposed by a private company. I lack sufficient knowledge of the law to explain why the lawyers thought fit to put all this stuff in the bill we are now considering. It certainly sounds stupid. We may get around to reading it all yet. Anyone who looks at it carefully would agree it is stupid, bearing in mind that the avowed purpose of the company concerned is to build a gas line four inches in diameter for a distance of 20 miles.
Some of the powers being requested seem altogether unreasonable. Suppose, for example, this company were to decide to enter upon housing development at the edge of Lloydminster. Despite its limited facilities it would no doubt be able to buy land, raise money, subdivide the land into building lots, establish streets with the necessary sewerage
Private Bills
and drainage, electric light, telephone communications and all the other facilities needed to operate a townsite. I do not know what the people in Alberta would do. I am not sure what the people in Lloydminster would do, but I would be very surprised if they were pleased with the federal government granting this company the right to do these things, and I presume these powers cover expropriation and other necessary measures in the establishment of a townsite. I doubt very much that the municipal and provincial governments will agree with this proposition.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
It is interesting to look at the names of the directors as given in the bill. They include a petroleum executive, a second petroleum executive, a third petroleum executive, a chartered accountant and a solicitor. I suggest that each of these will not be going into the housing development business. I suggest it is probable they will not set up a telecommunications agency or undertake many of the other things mentioned in the bill.
I ask the sponsor of the bill, why does the company want all these powers? In his evidence to the committee the solicitor for the company said that his clients might want to expand. Their pipe line might run across an international boundary but I understand such a boundary is 300 miles away. The company has no reason to build such a pipe line now, but it might. Certainly everything is possible, Mr. Chairman, but usually it is not very likely. I suggest that the likelihood of these people using the powers granted to them in this bill is in the realm of possibility but not likely in the realm of feasibility, advisability or probability.
I think a matter such as this should be of great concern to all hon. members. Such concern on the part of all members is not usually shown just because one person says it should be shown. But I find that after the general public decides something should be done about a situation and members read the public's comments, they change their approach and become concerned. I suggest that many of these powers in bills such as this are drafted simply because a company lawyer says, "I do not want to overlook anything and it is better to be safe than sorry." There would be no objection to this bill if the company simply said it wanted to build a 20-mile pipe line. It should specify exactly what feasible plans it has for further expansion, and in that case there would be little opposition to the bill.

December 14, 1967
Private Bills
I was impressed with the comments made by the sponsor of the bill. I was also impressed with the proceedings before the committee. I think everyone agrees that the project which this company has decided upon warrants support. From the company's point of view I suppose it is unfortunate that its pipe line will cross a provincial boundary. Had it not, the company could have gone ahead and built its 20-mile line. It might also have expanded to another well five or ten miles away.
In such a case the company could have justified its expansion program before the Alberta oil board, conservation board, or whatever the name of the provincial agency may be. I understand the provincial board is very strict in its regulations covering gas and oil and that it performs its job efficiently and effectively. I suggest that members of that board would have been very shocked if they found a company appearing before them, one to which they had already granted several charters under other names, asking for permission to build a railroad and establish a town. I suggest that members of the board would be very surprised if they were told the company wanted the right to manufacture electricity and undertake all the various ancillary operations mentioned in this bill. I think there are only three or four companies in Canada which have distribution systems and gas producing wells-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Jorgenson:: Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member has raised a few questions concerning the activities of this company I feel I should reply briefly to some of the points he has raised. I gather that the burden of the criticism and the opposition of the N.D.P. respecting this bill and others of its nature rests on the fact that companies are applying for powers which to the N.D.P. appear to be in excess of their immediate requirements. Without pretending to be an expert in the oil exploration, discovery and refining business, I should like to point out to the hon. member that the nature of the oil business is such that a company really does not know to what extent is must become involved in other ventures in order to provide the type of service it is necessary for it to provide if it is to operate on an economically sound basis.
I point out to the hon. member, as I indicated in my remarks when introducing

the bill and as was later substantiated by the witnesses who appeared before the standing committee, that in the initial stages the company intends to ask the National Energy Board for permission to construct this pipe line, but the other powers are being sought because they are the normal powers that could be required depending upon discoveries of oil or gas, the location of the area where they wish to extract oil, and various other factors involved in the production and distribution of gas and oil.
For example, it is quite common for pipe line companies to have their own communications systems and to build air strips so that they have accessibility to the various stations along pipe lines. But in each one of these cases they must apply for permission to the National Energy Board, whose members have the best technical knowledge and information to determine whether the right to build an air strip should be granted. Such companies have to conform to the regulations under the Aeronautics Act and under the Radio Act, but they do not do any broadcasting other than what is required to carry out their own operations. In addition to this the oil and gas conservation boards of the provinces are required to give their consent as well. So although the powers which are being sought here appear to be quite broad, in effect, before any operations can be initiated these companies must appear before the National Energy Board and before the oil and gas conservation boards of the provinces in order to obtain permission. Therefore, I feel that this is where the real safeguard should be, because these are the people who are in a position to determine whether a particular project is feasible.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
The hon. gentleman suggested that these conservation boards and provincial governments would be shocked if they were to learn of the powers this company is seeking through this charter. May I suggest to him that the conservation boards would be shocked if these powers were not there because that would mean that the company would be incapable of providing the type of service that would be necessary in order to operate their lines effectively. So long as these powers are contained in their charter the energy board can determine whether or not the operation is one which should be licensed to go into these other fields of operation.
December 14, 1967

It is for this reason the company is seeking broad powers. This is not unusual in these cases, because it is assumed that the members know full well that before licences can be granted the company must first appear before the National Energy Board and the oil and gas conservation boards of the provincial governments, which are provincial bodies set up for the purpose of examining applications of this nature.


Mr. Barneti:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened as attentively as I could to the remarks of the sponsor of this bill. He said he could not claim to be an expert in the oil and gas exploration and producing business. I certainly do not lay any such claim, so far as my own knowledge or experience is concerned. I do know, however, that the bill we have before us has to do with a transportation system; at least this is what the title says and this is what the hon. member sponsoring the bill said it was when he introduced the bill. I think it is in respect of that aspect of the matter that some of us are concerned.
I might perhaps draw to the attention of members of the committee that when we were considering this bill earlier my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena, made a point of suggesting, and securing from the house at that time the undertaking that this bill should retain its position on the order paper. I think, from that action on his part coupled with some of the remarks he made during the course of the discussions in the committee stage, it should be apparent to the committee that so far as any of us sitting in this part of the house are concerned we are not desirous of impeding the construction of a necessary facility for the transportation and storage of fuel in the area outlined by the hon. member when he introduced the bill.
I realize, when the hon. member says that the bill is in the normal or usual form, that perhaps he has some precedents in mind. This parliament has approved a great many bills in form similar to this. However, I believe that this is just the point; we believe it is time that this parliament took a good look at whether or not this is the proper form for bills of this nature, or whether we should take steps to make it clear that we wish to have proposals of this nature put forward in a different form, and in a form which some of us think would be much more sensible and rational. It is to that point that I should like to address myself today.
Private Bills
When I was discussing this matter earlier I endeavoured to draw some parallel between what has been happening in recent years in the development of pipe lines for the transportation of various commodities, principally petroleum, to what happened in an earlier era in our history in the field of railroad transportation. Some similar suggestions were drawn to the attention of the house by my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. He referred to the fact that at a certain stage in our history we were left with a conglomeration of railroads. The Canadian National Railways was formed by the coupling together of a number of uneconomical lines, and the taxpayers were faced with the burden of financing them.
There is a very real question in my mind as to whether in the future this parliament and the people of Canada will be faced with a situation where some of these companies which have been granted certain broad powers under charters-and the hon. member sponsoring this bill did not seek to deny that these powers are broad-will in effect attempt to cash in on a capital gain of substantial proportions, simply because they have a piece of paper which this parliament has granted them in the form of a charter.
I am old enough to recall some of the tail ends of the sad era of the railroad building boom in this country. I recall some of the views expressed in this house during the period following the end of the first world war, during the 1920's and during the economic situation which faced the country as a result of the recession in the 1930's. I believe it is a matter of legitimate concern that, if we can, we should take steps to prevent, a situation in the future facing the country in respect of the transportion of commodities by pipe line similar to that which developed in an earlier era in respect of the railroads.
I recall a bill which was dealt with a number of sessions ago and its passage through the house. It will be found in chapter 54 the Statutes of Canada for 1956. This act is entitled "An Act respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company," and it was an attempt, so far as parliament was concerned, to rationalize something that happened in an earlier era, when apparently parliament was willing to grant railway charters almost willy-nilly, on request. This is very relevant to the present subject, in view of the powers for which this company is asking. May I recite to the committee what parliament was asked to do in that bill assented to on June 7, 1956.

December 14, 1967
Private Bills


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The hon. member suggested that this charter would perhaps be something from which the company could make a capital gain. Would he agree that this could only be the case after the company had appeared before the National Energy Board and the energy boards of both provinces and had proven that its plans were economically viable and feasible? Then after the company has gone to all that trouble and obtained permission to operate, is this not the sort of thing we want to encourage, rather than worry about the possibility of their selling off the rights?
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am not in any way trying to disregard the position of the National Energy Board in this context, but I would refer the hon. member to clause 6 of the bill, which says in part:
The company, subject to the provisions of any genera] legislation relating to pipe lines enacted by parliament may-
It then goes on to refer to construction, purchase, lease or otherwise to acquire and hold, develop, operate, maintain, lease, mortgage, hypothecate, create liens or other security upon, sell, convey or otherwise dispose of these assets. Perhaps I am wrong in my understanding of what that means but I am perfectly aware that if this or any other company wants to enter into a specific proposal for construction they must get the approval of the National Energy Board. As far as I know the National Energy Board has no control over the sale or transfer of property which may take place. What we will be doing is giving these companies the power to trade with one another. This is the kind of thing I am referring to. In the course of time there might be a very inflated value placed upon doubtful assets, because of various sales and other financial transactions.
Sooner or later the cost of all these transactions will be placed upon the users of petroleum products, just as the high cost of transportation in this country has been placed upon the users of the railways, because of uneconomic moves in the past. This is the kind of thing I think should be of concern to us.

The measure to which I referred, respecting The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, stated in its preamble:
Whereas Canadian Pacific Railway Company, The Campbellford, Lake Ontario and Western Railway Company, the Columbia and Kootenay Railway and Navigation Company, The Fort William Terminal Railway and Bridge Company, The Georgian Bay and Seaboard Railway Company, The Guelph and Goderich Railway Company, the Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company, The Kettle Valley Railway Company, The Kootenay Central Railway Company, The Midland Simcoe Railway Company, La Compagnie du Chemin de Fer de Colonisation du Nord, The South Ontario Pacific Railway Company, The Vancouver and Lulu Island Railway Company and The Walkerton and Lucknow Railway Company have by their joint petition prayed that it be enacted as hereinafter set forth-
Then section 2 of the Canadian Pacific measure sets these companies out again, and indicates that they have all been amalgamated into the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. It does seem to me that if one were to follow through the processes that have taken place, under which the Canadian Pacific Railway acquired the charters of the companies I listed, he would find that the company came back to this parliament to ask that we in effect undo what earlier parliaments had done. That being the case, there might be some greater cause for considering the points I am trying to raise by the hon. member who asked the question.
I should like to suggest to the committee a parallel situation in relation to the kinds of bills which are passed by this parliament, so far as pipe line companies are concerned. Perhaps a bill along the following lines might be much more logical or acceptable, because it so happens that chapter 54-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I do not see how there is anything in the preamble read by the hon. member that is relevant to this bill. I cannot see how this argument is relevant. Certainly if the N.D.P. wants to stop a Canadian company from being formed by talking this bill out, so the company cannot be formed this winter and provide work necessary to those people who want to build the line, there is not much we can do about it; but I think members of that party should play the game properly. If it is their intention to keep this Canadian company from being formed so that it cannot proceed with a necessary project out west, then I think the hon. member-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: On the point raised, let me say that I feel the objections we have raised
December 14, 1967



Private Bills
relate to the form of this bill. We have stated some reasons for thinking that the bill is objectionable as it stands. It seems quite relevant to suggest a positive way of designing the bill, which might be in an acceptable form. I have referred to one which has to do with transportation, although in different form. In my view this reference is quite relevant to the points I have raised. The measure to which I have referred was assented to on June 7, 1966 and is contained in chapter 54 of the statutes of that year.
The preamble reads as follows:
Whereas Canadian Pacific Railway Company has by its petition prayed for the passing of an act authorizing it to construct a certain line of railway, as hereinafter set forth, and it is expedient to grant the prayer of the petition-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like you to rule on the question I raised.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I rise on a question of privilege.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: There has been no suggestion as to what is wrong with the form of this bill. The hon. member simply wants to read us this act, as a way of passing time. If the member has any logical or reasonable questions about the bill, I am sure the sponsor or myself could answer. I would be glad to answer any specific objection to the form.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I object to the hon. member imputing motives and suggesting that I am simply talking to waste his time and mine. I think that no hon. member has the right to make a suggestion of that kind in this house.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I suggest to the hon. member that it does appear to the Chair that his remarks are slightly outside the confines of clause 1 of Bill S-16. Perhaps the committee would make better progress if hon. members confined their remarks to the clause, although I realize that a general discussion is permissible on clause 1. Perhaps the hon. member will continue.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, the act to which I have just referred-and I will not continue reading the preamble in deference to the hon. member's sensitivities-would allow the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to construct a line of railway. The point I am trying to make is that if the company referred to in the bill now before the committee were prepared to put forward a proposal
in the form in which the Canadian Pacific measure was put forward, and indeed in the form in which the member sponsoring the bill suggested, this would be a much more simple and straightforward proposition. The bill in its present form has been described by my colleague, the hon. member for Timis-kaming, in his colourful manner, as containing a lot of garbage.
The Canadian Pacific Railway was authorized by parliament to construct a line of railway from a point on its line of railway at or in the vicinity of Brocket in the province of Alberta, thence in a generally southerly direction for a distance of approximately 20 miles to a point in township 4, range 29, west of the fourth meridian in the province of Alberta. Section 2 of this Canadian Pacific measure states:
If the construction of the said line of railway is not commenced within a period of two years, or if it is not completed and put in operation within a period of five years after the passing of this act, the powers of construction hereby conferred upon the company shall cease and be null and void as regards so much of the said line of railway as shall then remain uncompleted.
It just happens that this is the same area where this company wants to build a 20 mile pipe line. If the company came to parliament and asked for incorporation, subject to the approval of the National Energy Board, to construct the line with the necessary appurtenances and said that if they did not fulfil this within a period of a reasonable number of years their powers would lapse, I would suggest we would have a much more realistic proposition before us.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
We object to parliament being called upon year after year to give these broad charter powers to an apparently ever increasing number of concerns without any regard to a logical pattern. We are concerned that one of these days we or our successors in parliament may be faced with the kind of situation which parliaments in the 1920's were called upon to deal with in respect of railway transportation. It seems to me-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member accept another question?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am not sure that I understood his point. It seemed to me that he was suggesting we should go back to the system that we had before we set up the National Energy Board, so it would take the load off

December 14, 1967
Private Bills
this house. Is that what the hon. member is suggesting? Is he suggesting that we repeal the legislation setting up the National Energy Board and go back to the old system?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I did not try to suggest that this bill was exactly parallel. It might very well be that something in between what is in this bill and that particular railway bill might be desirable. I am suggesting that we are granting a multiplicity of these firms powers beyond all reason.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: The hon. member seems to object to this type of company coming before the house and asking for a charter which has broad powers. He is suggesting that each time such a company wants to build an extra five miles of pipe line it should come back to this house for permission to do so. If that were the case, would it not increase the number of times we would have to consider bills of this nature?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As I understood the hon. member when outlining the company's immediate plans, it had in mind building a particular 20 miles of line. I am not suggesting that the bill should necessarily be couched in those precise terms, as are bills in connection with railway expansion.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Does the hon. member honestly believe there is a comparison between the oil exploration business and the building of a railway line between point A and point B?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must advise the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that the time allotted to him has expired.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am very surprised at the interventions which have been made-


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether it would be in order to put to the hon. member for Provencher a question having to do with the subject of his last question?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Certainly.


Edward Richard Schreyer: If it would be in order, Mr. Chairman, for the sake of clarification I should like to ask the hon. member for Provencher this question. Even if one accepts in

large part his premise that in the oil exploration and development business it is not possible, as it is in transportation matters, to be specific with regard to locality, is it not feasible and reasonable at least to stipulate the region within which the company seeking a charter shall operate? One need not specify a locale, but would it not be reasonable to specify a region?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I suppose it would, Mr. Chairman, if we were competent enough in this field to determine just where pipe-lines were required, but since parliament has set up a body, the National Energy Board, to take the burden of responsibility off members of parliament, it seems to me they are the proper people to make the decision as to where pipe lines could or should be built, and what facilities should be permitted in connection with the gas distribution business.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, the point just made by the hon. member would be a good one if it applied in this case. In my opinion that is not the role of the energy board, and I am sure the board would agree that it is not. I am sure the National Energy Board will not grant the company the right to build houses, to broadcast, to build a railway; but we are being asked to grant the company the power to do all these things.
There are, I am sure, ancillary services in the telecommunications system which would be useful to the company. I am quite sure that 20 miles away it would be useful to have a telephone, and perhaps a private exchange. Telecommunications, testers and devices of that nature would probably be useful to the company in its exploration work. But there is another problem in this connection. For tax purposes we ask the company to declare its capitalization. This company is asking for powers that I do not think even Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has. As you know, Mr. Chairman, that is a fairly large company. It will be discussed in the house shortly when a bill respecting Trans-Canada Pipe Lines comes before us.
I understand that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has in its capitalization structure 15 million common shares of the par value of $1 each. The company wants to increase the number of common shares to 25 million at $1 each. It will have 5 million preferred shares of the par value of $50 each. The value of the company is decided on the basis of these figures and it will be taxed accordingly. In view of the situation in respect of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, surely it is being cheated
December 14, 1967

when compared with Cabri Pipe Lines. 1 am sure that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines does not have refineries. It does not have a railway line, as far as I know. It does not have the other facilities concerned with the handling of oil which will be granted to Cabri Pipe Lines if this bill is passed. Yet Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has a capitalization of probably-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted for private members hour has expired.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston), Company of Young Canadians-reported subsidization of private school in British Columbia; the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald), Construction of Northumberland strait crossing.
It being seven o'clock, the house will now resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Batten in the chair.
['I say to the hon. member that I am just coming to that in the course of my speech. I might say that I think there has been considerable misunderstanding of what is involved in the marriage breakdown proposal. That proposal was adequately and fully set out in the report of a group that was appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in January, 1964. That group reported in 1966. The committee consisted of leading churchmen, lawyers, judges, sociologists, psychiatrists, and even included a politician. The report is embodied in a book entitled, "Putting Asunder". Its subtitle is an interesting one: "A Divorce Law for Contemporary Society". The report says that the essence of the principle of divorce that is based on marriage breakdown is that the court studies and makes findings on the state of the marriage and not on the conduct of the parties. This change of approach is not accomplished by listing a series of circumstances, and saying that they are to constitute a breakdown.\nIn discussing their conclusion, the writers of the report say this:\nWe very soon decided that it would not be an improvement, but the reverse, to introduce the principle of breakdown of marriage into the existing law in the shape of additional ground for divorce: and our objections to any such compromise multiplied and hardened as the time went on.\nI and others on our committee went through precisely the same mental process. I suspect that others who subject themselves to studying the evidence and thinking about it will emerge with the same conclusions that the English committee emerged with.\nIn dealing with the choice of alternatives the English committee emerged with.\nAlthough some of our witnesses still had faith in the matrimonial-offence system, our study of it elicited little to its credit and nothing at all to make us want its perpetuation.\nIt should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that the English report was based on a period of 30 years experience with expanded matrimonial offences such as are contemplated in the bill that is presently before the house.\n[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)\nI want to read the conclusion of the committee report on this matter.\nIndeed we were persuaded that a divorce law founded on the doctrine of breakdown would not\nDivorce Law Reform\nonly accord better with social realities than the present law does, but would have the merit of showing up divorce for what in essence it is-not a reward for marital virtue on the one side and a penalty for marital delinquency on the other; not a victory for one spouse and a reverse for the other, but a defeat for both, a failure of the marital two-in-oneship in which both its members, however unequal their responsibility, are inevitably involved together. So we arrived at our primary and fundamental recommendation: that the doctrine of the breakdown of marriage should be comprehensively substituted for the doctrine of the matrimonial offence as the basis of all divorce.\nThe report proceeded to deal fully with what has been the main objection to basing divorce on breakdown, namely that it is not a triable issue and would impose an undue burden on the courts. This is the point of view put forward by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau), and I propose to deal with his remarks in more detail later.\nMay I first call the attention of the house to what the English committee said on this issue?\nFor the most part we were advised that a judge would not find it unduly difficult to decide, after hearing the evidence, whether or not there was a reasonable probability in all the circumstances of cohabitation being revived. Actions and conduct which under the present law constitute matrimonial offences, though no longer in themselves and by themselves grounds for a decree, would still be available as evidence for breakdown.\nIt is true, as the minister said-and he gave it as his main reason for turning down this proposal-that this would involve procedural changes. The minister said these changes were unrealistic, and would impose on the existing courts of law and on the judiciary an inquisitorial approach coupled with a broad administrative discretion.\nIn this statement, the minister differs from the view of the experienced members of the English committee. I suggest he is also overlooking the fact that in this field of family relationships the courts have had to deal with general issues for many years, and deal with them on an administrative basis. For many years the law in Canada has laid down that the custody of children is to be determined on the basis of regard for their welfare. This administrative jurisdiction has existed in English law for centuries since the courts of Chancery exercised a quasi parental jurisdiction over the affairs of children based upon the theory that the crown, which they represented was parens patriae. It is also true that the marriage breakdown theory as applied to divorce would require the', "December 14, 1967\nDivorce Law Reform\ncourts to determine whether the marriage was dead, whether there was any chance of its revival, or whether as it was a mere legal shell. It is not beyond the ability of the courts to do this, and anyone who says it is cannot be too familiar with what the courts are doing now.\nIt is true that the procedures required in arriving at such decisions would involve a somewhat different approach. This is one of the reasons I am advocating the change. It might involve the assistance of reports from social workers or other experienced people in the community. But there is nothing new in this. In divorce cases in the province of Ontario the rules of the court provide for the receiving of reports from the official guardian which, in turn, he obtains from the children's aid societies, in relation to conditions affecting children of the marriage. I am not sure whether this is the practice in other provinces, but these reports affecting the children are used by the courts to determine the highly important question of the custody of children in divorce cases.\nIt is said there is a lack of trained and experienced personnel. We have not heard about that from the Canadian Mental Health Association. If there is a lack, then I suggest the existence of a new approach to divorce would undoubtedly direct attention to it and the gap would be filled; more and more people would be trained in this field.\nThe responsibility would still belong to the court. But to turn down the proposal on the ground that it would introduce a new procedure is to turn it down on an unsatisfactory ground. In conclusion, I wish to refer for a moment to a further passage in the English report which says, in connection with whether the issue of breakdown is triable:\nThe evidence we have received suggests that Judges would be reluctant to be put in the position of having to make predictions about the future of marriages, but in fact a judgment of breakdown does not require any greater measure of prediction than, for instance, the judgment that the proved conduct of a spouse would, if continued, cause injury to the health of the other spouse. In both cases it is a present probability chat has to be assessed.\nThe report goes on to give other reasons why one should not mix the breakdown principle with the principle of matrimonial offences. I wish to deal with this subject once again when I return to the question of provision for reconciliation.\nIn the opinion of the writers of this report who, as I say, were highly experienced, the principle of breakdown ought on no account to be introduced into the existing law in the form of an additional ground. If I may put this in my own words, the tendency of lawyers handling divorce cases would undoubtedly be to avoid basing their cases on breakdown except where they do not fit into any of the other categories. As a result, the basis of the present law would remain; the unreality of determining misconduct would remain. The accusatorial procedure, with all the bitterness it engenders, would remain.\nI see it is almost ten o'clock. In the light of these observations I wish to proceed, when I have the opportunity tomorrow, to deal with the general provisions of this bill and to show that unfortunately it does not provide the best solution for the problem of divorce procedure."]
Herman Maxwell Batten: House again in committee of ways and means. It being seven o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
["House again in committee of ways and means. It being seven o'clock, I do now leave the chair.\nAt seven o'clock the committee took recess."]
Maurice Rinfret: Order. House in committee of ways and means on a certain proposed resolution to amend the Income Tax Act.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock I had been challenged by the minister and some of the members behind him on my suggestion that the minister's budget speech was an indication that he had rejected the Carter report. I was pointing out that all the reports I had read,
Ways and Means
seen or heard of the minister's budget speech interpreted his speech as meaning that he had ditched, jettisoned or rejected the Carter report. And, Mr. Chairman, all of these reports could not be wrong. In any event I will be referring to the minister's words.
I think it is of significance that Mr. Carter himself appeared on one of the television networks on the evening of the budget speech to say that he took it from the speech of the minister that the minister had rejected his report. I suggest that he also could not be wrong, Mr. Chairman.
The minister and the government clearly have put the report in the waste basket, except perhaps to the extent of including some of the suggestions in the report in the government white paper. Indeed, what the minister said in his speech this afternoon proves that. His attempt now to ditch the report and to hang on to it at the same time in order to have the support of those he is trying to confuse, as well as the support of those who see through the manoeuvre, is just not going to work.
What the minister said, Mr. Chairman, was this. He indicated that there had been four main objections to the report, with which he agreed, drawn to his attention. I would pause here to point out that in effect those four objections deny the acceptance of the report; that is the implication of them. Then the minister went on to say this, as reported at page 4906 of Hansard:
However, the work we have done within the government, as well as the analyses we have received from others, leads us to the conclusion that while the reforms we will place before parliament and the public in the form of a white paper and ultimately in draft legislation will undoubtedly be influenced by the monumental report of the royal commission-
I pause here, Mr. Chairman, to indicate the careful use of the words "undoubtedly be influenced by". I would be very much surprised if the reforms were not influenced by the Carter report. There are many facts in the report about which the minister had no knowledge and they may have some influence upon him. Whether in the right or the wrong direction remains to be seen.
The minister continues his remarks:
-they will be more in the nature of reforms of the existing tax structure rather than the adoption of a radically different approach.
If those words, Mr. Chairman, do not mean complete rejection of the report, I should like to know what does. Surely the report means nothing at all unless it means a radically

December 14, 1967
Ways and Means
different approach to our system ol taxation. It does not necessarily mean the adoption of every point made and every recommendation contained in the report. Nobody who gives advice expects that sort of thing to result. But a radically different approach would mean the acceptance of a basic and fundamental change in the taxation system of Canada.
When the minister says that all he is going to do is to reform the existing tax structure and not adopt a radically different approach, he is rejecting the Carter report, and no amount of shaking of the head on the part of the minister will change that fact. He will not be able to fool anybody that he intends to do anything else. I was always impressed, Mr. Chairman, by something I read many years ago written by a writer in Europe on philosophic subjects, who indicated in one of his books-I could not recall during the recess the title of the book-that the most common weakness of all people is a refusal to consider big ideas because of little objections and little difficulties.
I would suggest that when the minister tries to raise questions about the specific details that may or may not be included in the comprehensive tax base recommended by the Carter commission, he too is guilty of this failing. He is trying to divert the attention of the people of Canada from the importance and validity of the report by raising little objections, and is trying to prevent them from recognizing the really great ideas in the report by introducing little prejudices in one direction or another.
I would suggest-and I do not say this offensively-that this is a shabby way to deal with a monumental report, as the minister described it. It is a report which took four and a half years to compile and cost many millions of dollars to produce, using in the process some of the best taxation brains in the country.
As a matter of fact. Mr. Chairman, the commissioners themselves foresaw this situation. I went back to the report to refresh my memory about something that was said on this matter, and I should like to quote a fairly lengthy passage from page two of the first volume, where they say this:
We are fully aware that these conclusions constitute a severe criticism of the present tax system. They were not arrived at lightly nor are they the inevitable result of preconceived opinions. Our bias when we began our task was that the present system was basically sound and compared favourably with the systems of other countries. While we are still of the opinion that the present

Canadian tax system is as good as most other systems, we are convinced that it falls far short of the attainable objectives. We therefore recommend many fundamental changes which, if adopted, would produce a complete transformation and, we believe, result in greater equity and efficiency.
We hope Canadians will accept the challenge implicit in our recommendations. And there can be no doubt that our recommendations constitute a great challenge. Preconceived opinions about taxation are deeply and firmly held. Many will find it extremely difficult to take a new look at old questions. Because some facts cannot be readily ascertained, honest differences of opinion are inevitable.
Then this is the sentence I want to draw to the attention of the committee, Mr. Chairman:
There is a danger that the debate about these minor factual questions will divert attention from the major issues.
This, Mr. Chairman, is exactly what the minister has tried to do with the Carter report. He has tried to focus attention on minor factual questions and thereby attempt to divert attention from the major issues with which the report deals. I therefore feel confident to repeat, Mr. Chairman, that the statement that the minister has jettisoned the Carter report is a correct and accurate statement, and the minister cannot get out of that situation. Whether or not the reforms of the minister will be adequate from another point of view and whether or not they will be acceptable remains, of course, to be seen when he brings them before parliament.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The minister denied that his budget was intended to increase unemployment. He did not answer this charge directly, and in order not to answer it directly he did what I suppose we all do, Mr. Chairman: He diverted our attention to the United Kingdom. He was ignoring the point by drawing the attention of the members of my party, who proudly have associations with members of the Labour government in Britain, to the fact that that government has pursued policies intended to deflate the economy, with the result of very massive additions to their unemployment rate.
I have only three things to say about that, Mr. Chairman. First, we are not bound, as a party, and we do not intend ever to be bound, by the policies of any other party anywhere else, whether in Canada or elsewhere. I have very grave doubts myself as to whether, if I were in Britain, I would be in entire agreement with the policies there pursued. What is much more important, and
December 14, 1967

what I suggest to the members of the committee questions the relevance if not the honesty of the comparison, is that the minister knows quite well that to compare the problems facing the United Kingdom to the problems facing Canada is to do something that on any basis is not permissible.
They are faced in that country with problems of industrial development, modernization, monetary problems and the fact that sterling is a reserve currency, with all that flows from that. They are different from Canadian problems not merely in degree but in kind. To try to compare what is happening there with what is happening here is surely intellectually a thoroughly impermissible thing to do. Surely, Mr. Chairman, the minister cannot change the effect of his budget by merely pointing to the fact that it was done over there. I remember that the late Mr. G. D. H. Cole, from whom I had the good fortune to learn some things about economics when I attended a university in England some years ago, wrote a little play dealing with the general strike of 1926 in that country. One of the characters in the play was accused by the prime minister of Great Britain of having fomented trouble, a march on 10 Downing street. This character who was thus accused said, "Who, me? No, it's him that did it." Well the minister cannot do that. He cannot say, "Who, me? I did not do anything about unemployment, but Harold Wilson or James Callaghan or whoever it is in Great Britain did."
He is not going to persuade anybody with any intelligence he is dealing with the problem at all when he makes that kind of diverting statement. The fact is the increase in income tax is intended to reduce aggregate demand. The fact is that this increase in income tax, when coupled with other tax increases and coupled, as he and the Minister of National Revenue claim, with massive retrenchment, particularly in the field of construction with its multiplier effect, will necessarily result in increased unemployment. Since I give the minister credit for sufficient intelligence to know that result will follow, I must assume he intended that result. The result will not be accidental.
He and his advisers know greater unemployment will inevitably follow the policies announced in his budget. Since they know unemployment will follow these policies, then they must be assumed to deliberately intend increasing the rate of unemployment in Canada. Again I say you have to study the minister's statement carefully, as I did. When
Ways and Means
he said, "Read my words about the Carter report", he was very careful not to say that he accepted the report. He criticized those of us who said he had ditched it, but at no point in his answer did he say "I accept it" or "I accept the principles of it" or "I accept some of the principles in it". He was very careful not to commit himself.
When he dealt with the charge that he was going deliberately to create increased unemployment, he pointed to the British government. Nowhere in the statement which he made, even this afternoon, did he deny that the result of budget policies will be increased unemployment. In my opinion, the result will inevitably be increased unemployment. He was very careful not to say it. He was very careful not to say to this committee or to the country that in his opinion his budget will not increase unemployment in Canada. I challenge him to rise to his feet now and say just that. If he denies the charge which we make after studying his budget, that the results of these policies will be increased unemployment, then he ought to have the courage to get to his feet and say, "In my opinion unemployment will not increase in this country as a result of these policies". He was very careful not to state that. What he did say in his main speech on November 30, as reported on page 4905 of Hansard-and in more than one place, but the quotation of one short phrase will be enough to make the point:
The fiscal restraints that are essential now may limit somewhat the increase in our production next year but such a limitation now is far better than a serious recession later.
What in heaven's name do the words, "may limit somewhat the increase in our production next year", mean if they do not mean that he knows the results of the budget policies will be a decrease in the rate of growth in this country, and a decreasing rate of growth will necessarily mean increasing unemployment in this country? What does that carefully chosen gobbledegook which I have just quoted from page 4905 of Hansard mean if it does not mean increased unemployment? The minister says that will be the result of his budgetary policy.
As I have said two or three times, there has been a rather puerile attempt to divert us from discussing this serious result of his budget in Canada by trying to twit members of my party with the fact the British government is pursuing a certain policy. This will not hide the fact the minister is pursuing a deliberate policy of unemployment. I will be

December 14, 1967
Ways and Means
happy to be proven wrong if this does not happen, as will every other member in the opposition who shares this view. If I remember correctly, the Leader of the Opposition reached the same conclusion on this point in the budget speech, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would be as happy as I and my colleagues would be if we were proven wrong and the minister were proven right.
No one looks forward to even a small increase in unemployment at any time with anything but horror in a country like Canada. I am forced to come to the conclusion, however, after careful study of the minister's policies, that increased unemployment is the inevitable result of these budgetary policies. When that increase in unemployment occurs in the next months the people of Canada will know, and I hope they will for a long time remember, that the gentlemen on the treasury benches deliberately induced that increased unemployment to deal with a situation which might have been dealt with in many other ways.
I know, as I have said, the minister has rejected the Carter report. However, since he said that he will be influenced by it I commend to him the following sentence on page 28 of volume 2 of the report where the commission deals with the kind of inflationary situation we have:
Certainly what is needed is a policy that strikes at those responsible for the inflation rather than a policy that represses aggregate demand and eliminates the inflation only by generating unemployment and general idle capacity.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
This is what the budget is intended to do, generate unemployment and idle capacity, in the hope that that will eliminate the inflation that this country is faced with. The budget, instead, should deal with the forces that are responsible for the present inflationary pressures. I therefore say on behalf of my colleagues, and on my own behalf, that nothing the minister has said can possibly evade the facts, and they are facts, which say that this resolution with respect to income tax is unfair. The burden will fall on the ordinary people of Canada. The tax is not necessary since it does not raise any additional revenue worth anything at all in terms of the total budget. It is deliberately intended to produce unemployment, and in that respect it is antisocial and inhuman.
This totally unfair and unnecessary budget is one of the crosses that the Minister of
fMr. Lewis.]
Finance, who impresses one with his competence and intelligence, will have to carry in an attempt to achieve certain heights which have now apparently become achievable.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Before this resolution carries I wish to enter a word of protest on behalf of the married women of this country. I am concerned about the way that the income tax increase affects an especially large group in this country, the women of this country who must work outside their homes.
On previous occasions I have asked whether it would be possible to enact provisions which would allow our working women to deduct from their taxable income expenses which are incurred in connection with the care of their children. While our women are at work someone must look after their children. Since businessmen are allowed deductions with respect to business expenses, could not our working mothers be allowed deductions with respect to the expenses they incur for the care of the children. In the 5 per cent income tax surcharge a special provision is made for our well to do people. The greatest amount that our well to do persons will be asked to pay in addition to their normal income tax is $600.
I urge the minister to give special consideration to the needs of our working women.
I wish that the minister would give me the courtesy of paying attention, because I am speaking for a large group of women in this country.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister makes no
comment.


Winona Grace MacInnis: The
Ontario department of labour the other day published a survey which shows that one out of every three workers in Ontario, is a female. In 1941, on the other hand, only one married woman in 20 worked. Today, one married woman out of every four holds down a job outside her home, and a great percentage of these women are in the province of Ontario.
This dramatic rise in the number of women who are employed outside the home can be attributed to the fact that more mothers these days are leaving the home for the office. The more educated a woman is, the greater is the probability that she will work full time after she is married. I wish the
December 14, 1967

minister would listen. In fact, I shall pause in my remarks until I have his attention.


An hon. Member:: Please.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Half the working wives in the province of Ontario have children who are under 15 years of age. That represents 40 per cent of the women who work outside their homes. If half the working wives in Ontario have children who are under 15 years old, it is high time that consideration be given to allowing child care expenses to be deducted from taxable income in computing income tax. Surely, if businessmen are allowed expense accounts and deductions with respect to business expenses, there is merit in allowing the working wives in this country to deduct from their taxable income the expenses they incur in connection with child care. That makes more sense than increasing the income tax burden for those women who already have a difficult enough time in making arrangements day after day for the care of their families.
Many people brush working wives off with the remark, "These women are just out to get a bit of pin money." Nevertheless, many married women in this country are working and the time for income tax reforms is long overdue. I submit that the minister should give consideration to allowing our working wives a tax rebate. They badly need the money that would be rebated from their income tax to pay for the care of their children.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. lady that these kinds of matters are precisely the kinds of tax reforms that the Carter commission was concerned about. They are the kinds of matters that we are examining in the proposals with regard to tax reform that we will be bringing before the house.
When I was listening to the hon. member for York South answering my reply to him, I thought I would not continue the discussion because my remarks might tempt him to reply once more. I have two or three things to say about the Carter commission report which I hope will complete the discussion of it. My remarks bear on the attitude that the hon. member has displayed toward the report. He still persists in the view that he and his party are supporting every part of the Carter commission report. May I draw to his attention what was said by one of his colleagues, the hon. member for Skeena. I had forgotten the exact words that were
Ways and Means
used, but I remember being struck by the fact that the hon. member for Skeena should be the first member in the house to enter a protest against the Carter commission report. His words may be found on page 15 of Hansard for May 9, where he said:
I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the disastrous effects of the Carter commission report on the mining industry, particularly in British Columbia, will the minister be making an announcement soon regarding the government's intentions in respect of that aspect of the commission report relating to taxation of mining companies?
I have not heard anywhere in the country, during any of the representations which have been made to me, words more damning of the Carter commission report so far as the taxation of the mining industry is concerned than the words, "in view of the disastrous effects of the Carter commission report on the mining industry".


David Lewis: Nor have I.


Mitchell William Sharp: I have raised this question because I believe that this kind of lip service to Carter, while holding reservations on essential points in the Carter commission report, is not the sort of attitude that my hon. friend would wish his party to adopt.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister a question. Can he quote from the leader of this party or from the financial critic of this party words that contain any such reservation or qualification? The minister is indulging in his diverting tactics. I suggest that nowhere in the remarks of the leader of this party, in the remarks of its financial critic, or in my remarks, as one of the spokesmen of this party in this field, will the minister find words which contain any such reservations.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I cannot say in this respect who speaks for the N.D.P.


David Lewis: Come now, come now.


Mitchell William Sharp: I should have thought that the hon. member for Skeena in this respect was speaking for an industry that was in his own area. He has a particular interest in that industry. He spoke about that industry with greater authority than the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam could have spoken, since the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam does not happen to have any mines in his constituency.


David Lewis: How nice the minister is. The hon. member was asking a question on his own behalf, and not for the party.

December 14, 1967
Ways and Means


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, now, let me ask whether the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands speaks for the party when he speaks about the taxation of disability pensions. Does the hon. member for Kootenay West speak for the party when he raises some of his questions.


David Orlikow: May I ask the minister a question?


Mitchell William Sharp: And what about the hon. member for York South? For a moment I was not sure on which side of the question he stood.


David Orlikow: May I ask the minister a question. When the hon. member for York East yesterday made some interesting observations on taxation with respect to the Carter commission, was he speaking for the Liberal party?


David Lewis: And what about the hon. member for York-Humber?
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: When I made my statement on the budget it carried the full approval of the cabinet, and that is all I said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask the hon. member for York South, since he seems to believe that the recommendations of the Carter commission should be followed-I do not know whether he says without question, as does the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, or whether he simply agrees in principle-whether he agrees with the principle of the comprehensive tax base? If he does, this means that he would tax sons who inherit farms from their fathers at the full personal rates the proceeds from the inheritance. The strongest protests I have received about the report is that while the principle may be all very well, this is extremely unfair and would cause grave disruption. What the hon. member is saying is that he agrees that it is desirable to tax those inheritances at the full rate.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Kamloops on a point of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not rising on a point of order; I wish to make a contribution to the debate. I love to see the two socialist parties in the house having a fight and I can understand the temptation of the minister to make campaign speeches.


An hon. Member:: What about yourself?


Edmund Davie Fulton: But I would think that the minister would prefer to get along with the business before us. I raise the question of the relevancy of the general subject of the Carter report to a proposal to place a surcharge of 5 per cent on the income tax. Why not get on with the business, instead of pursuing a general debate on the work of the Carter commission? Such a debate could have taken place on the budget motion, but it is irrelevant at this time, it seems to me.


Mitchell William Sharp: As you well know, Mr. Chairman, we were discussing the income tax resolution when some general speeches were made by members of the New Democratic party, and I felt it was incumbent on me to reply to some of their general contentions. I would have preferred not to undertake this general discussion, but since the Chair permitted those speeches of a general nature it seemed to me I should be permitted to reply to them.


David Lewis: On the point raised by the hon. member for Kamloops, if my memory serves me correctly

and I say this in a sense of fun rather than by way of criticism-the general discussion on the Carter report was begun by the hon. member's colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West.
The Minister of Finance asked a question a moment ago and I should like to deal with it briefly. For the record, whether the hon. gentleman is interested or not, our party, last July held a federal convention-


Edmund Davie Fulton: What has that got to do with it?


David Lewis: Just a moment. Wait.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Stick to the rules.


David Lewis: At that time we adopted a policy of support for the Carter report. It is in line with this policy that I and others in this party have made our comments.
In the second place, we do agree with the idea of a comprehensive tax base. This does not mean that the minister or anyone else, in seeking precise components for inclusion in that base, may not come to the conclusion after listening to representations that a particular part of the recommendations made by the commission might not have to be amended or changed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


David Lewis: You can say "oh" as long as you like. The principle of a comprehensive
December 14, 19S7

tax base would not be affected by any minor revisions which might have to be made.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Chairman, I have not had the opportunity to speak on this resolution yet, but I now wish to protest against the tax increase that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is asking us to approve today. I object to that increase for several reasons.
The first is that when taxes are increased, usually something is given in return. The resolutions under consideration are designed to increase taxes and do not provide anything in return. On the contrary, works are cancelled, reductions are made, a check of the economic development is sought and, at the same time, taxes are increased. I find this completely unacceptable. If, at least, the people were given something for the additional money extracted from them by force. What they get is a cut in expenditures, fewer work projects, but all the same taxes are being levied. Why? If we are to increase taxes, we should give our people something in return. But this is not what is being done. We raise taxes, but we give nothing; on the contrary, we take something away. So, that is the first reason why I object to this resolution.
The second reason, Mr. Chairman, is that I feel we should be sick and tired of having two governments, one in Ottawa and one in Quebec, one after the other, each in turn, raising our taxes. We are the only nation in the world to be separately taxed by two governments, both of which levy income taxes.
The jurisdictions are really spread around and the same goes for us here.
I admit that Ontario does not have a minister of revenue and that the federal government collects taxes from the citizens in that province and then transfers them to the provincial government. But in Quebec we have two: one provincial minister of revenue and another minister of revenue in Ottawa. That means that we have two ministers of revenue to increase taxes alternately. Of course, we always have increases. When taxes do not go up in Ontario, they go up in Quebec; when not in Quebec, then in Ottawa. That is the system we know. I see some Liberal members from Quebec seem to like that. "Come on with the taxes". They were not called "taxers" for nothing. We had "Jean la taxe" in Quebec; we now have "Sharp the Taxer" in Ottawa, and the Liberal members from Quebec accept that.
Ways and Means
I wonder how the Minister of Finance can start his campaign for the leadership of the Liberal party under such bad auspices. In fact, he is starting on the wrong foot, with taxes.


An hon. Member:: It is none of your business.


Gilles Grégoire: Can you see that, Mr. Chairman? He is only the minister of taxes. How would he be if he were Prime Minister?
So, Mr. Chairman, I want to protest against these taxes and I even want to move an amendment to the resolution. So I shall ask my good friend, the member for Rober-val (Mr. Gauthier) to second the amendment.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval:
That the resolution be amended by deleting clause (1) of the said resolution.
Clause (1) provides that for the year 1968 and subsequent taxation years, income tax shall be increased by 5 per cent. It is called a special surtax. There are all kinds of designations. Sometimes, it is taxes; other times, it is surtaxes, to show the people they are overtaxed.
That is why it is called thus: it adds up to a lot.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Therefore, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this resolution be amended by deleting clause 1. Let the government ask anything it wants from the companies, but the people, I think, already pay enough taxes. Therefore, I ask that this part of the resolution which is to increase private income tax be deleted.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. When a resolution is before a committee, a part of it only cannot be amended. An amendment may be considered, however, in respect of the resolution as a whole. For this reason, I must declare that this amendment deleting clause 1 of the said resolution is out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I understand you to say that to amend a resolution, the amendment must relate to only one part of the resolution; that is what I am doing.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. Does the hon. member for Lapointe want me to repeat the ruling I just made?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

December 14, 1967
Ways and Means


Maurice Rinfret: I say that it is not possible to amend only part of a resolution but that the resolution as a whole has to be amended. That is the reason why the amendment is not accepted.

Shall the resolution carry?
Resolution agreed to: Yeas, 61; nays, 43.
During the taking of the vote:


Some hon. Members:: Out, out.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I must draw to the attention of the committee that some hon. members entered the chamber when the vote had started, and I would ask them in a gentle way to please withdraw.


Some hon. Members:: Out.
After the taking of the vote:


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I object to one of the votes cast.


Maurice Rinfret: I declare the resolution adopted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I request that you would reduce by one the number of yeas which have been recorded, because one hon. member who came into the chamber after you had called the division, nevertheless stood and voted and his vote was counted.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would like also to call to your attention that, in this corner, when you asked members in a given row to sit down, some of them remained standing and voted with the next row so that they voted twice. I was beside them, Mr. Chairman, and I saw them remain standing after you had told them to sit down.
I protest against the fact that some members voted twice.


Some hon. Members:: Name them.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. On this question of members coming in and going out and who could be in and who could be out, I wish to say I do my very best to see the north, south, east and west sides of the chamber. I made an appeal to certain members who had entered the chamber after the proposition had been put before the house, and I did not see any other member who came in after that.


Mr. Cashin:: Mr. Chairman, I voted because I was of the opinion, rightly or wrongly, that I was in the chamber at the time the vote was called. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, I need any lectures from the eminent and distinguished member for Kamloops-


Richard Albert Bell: You need a great many of them.


Richard Joseph Cashin: This is a matter of judgment. While I respect his opinion in these matters I trust he will allow me the privilege of deciding myself, in my own judgment, whether I was in the chamber or not. Nevertheless I thank him for his gratuitous advice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member in question has now identified himself

although I gave him the courtesy of not identifying him-and has attacked me, I think I should be allowed to develop my point. My point is that the rule must be applied equally and equitably to all hon. members. Your Honour ordered, or suggested to members who came in after you had called the division, that they retire from the chamber. There were a number of such members. At least three on this side accordingly retired from the chamber. The hon. member, upon whom my eyes were focussed because I was looking towards the curtains on our side to see whether our members would come in on time or not-I was looking at that spot-came in from behind those curtains after Your Honour had called the division and while the "yeas" were standing. My colleagues over here, several of whom were also looking there, will confirm this.


Mr. Deachman:: On a point of order-


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member did not see fit to withdraw when you invited those who came in late do do so-


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. The hon. member for Kamloops has the floor.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Edmund Davie Fulton: Now, sir, my only request when the vote was concluded was that you would order a reduction by one in the number of those who had voted in the affirmative. I know it will not make any difference in the over-all result. My only interest is that the rule which you yourself properly invoked
December 14, 1967

should be applied with equal force to all members. This was my only purpose in raising the matter. It was not my intention to give offence to the hon. member because I did not identify him; he has done that for himself. He has chosen to identify himself. I said that in my considered opinion he was in violation of the rules of the house.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Chairman, the reason I rose in my place is that the hon. gentleman did not identify me, although he did turn and speak to me across the house. For doing that I thank him for his advice and I assure him I would hope that my own action would be no less than his. In the circumstances I did what I thought I was entitled to do.


Maurice Rinfret: I think this very important question has been debated long enough. The Chair certainly has been enlightened and will have to have broader eyes in order to see all corners of the house so that no one will peek in, creep in or crawl in.
House in committee of ways and means on a certain proposed resolution to amend the customs tariff. The text of the proposed resolution appears as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings for November 30, 1967.



[Stage Direction]
13.	That the Customs Tariff be amended by adding thereto a section as follows:
There shall be levied, collected and paid as a customs duty on all goods hereinafter enumerated in this section when imported into Canada or taken out of warehouse for consumption therein, in addition to the duties otherwise established, an amount determined as follows:
(a) in the case of goods enumerated in tariff items 15605-1,	15610-1,	15615-1,	15620-1,	15625-1,
15625-2, 15630-1, 15635-1 and 15640-1, one dollar and twenty-five cents per gallon of the strength of proof; and
(bl in the case of ale, beer, porter and stout enumerated in tariff item 14700-1, four cents per gallon.
14.	That any enactment founded upon the foregoing resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of December, 1967, and to have applied to all goods mentioned in the said resolution imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after that day and before the 1st day of January, 1968, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before the 1st day of December, 1967.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall the resolutions carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, while one of your colleagues was presiding this afternoon a question was asked of the minister. He deferred the answer because it was a very
Customs Tariff
technical one. All that is required at this time is an answer to that question.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, as I recall the question it had to do with the amendment to the Customs Tariff which appears in Votes and Proceedings for November 30. These resolutions are consequential to the increase in the excise duties on spirits and beer produced in Canada. They provide that effective December 1 the customs duties on imported spirits and beer be increased by an equal amount; that is, $1.25 per proof gallon of spirits and 4 cents for a gallon of beer. Resolution 13 need remain in effect only until December 31 since, as provided for in resolution 7, effective January 1 imported spirits and beer are subject to the charges provided for under the Excise Act for these products.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the resolutions carry?


[Stage Direction]
Resolutions agreed to.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall I rise, report certain resolutions and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.



Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the house to move, seconded by Mr. Laing, that the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs be empowered to consider the subject matter of the proposed customs tariff resolutions the texts of which were laid before the house, Monday, November 6, 1967.
Mr. Speaker, I should have asked if I have the agreement of the house to revert to motions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the house revert to motions.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: That the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs be empowered to consider the subject matter of the proposed customs tariff resolutions the texts of which were laid before the house, Monday November 6, 1967.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
Customs Tariff

December 14, IS67


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, 1 feel I have the right to make a few brief remarks about that motion. I would therefore like to say a few words.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) proposed today to refer the resolutions which the house has just passed to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, no.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gilles Grégoire: -the bills that will follow.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Not at all.


Gilles Grégoire: Did I fail to understand the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: You did not understand.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is the resolution about the customs tariff known as the Kennedy round.


Gilles Grégoire: That will do just as well, Mr. Speaker, if those are resolutions dealing with the customs tariff.
This is why I should like to say a few words about that resolution presented by the minister because, since I do not sit on any committee, I cannot take part in the discussions concerning those pieces of legislation or those tariff changes.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that an hon. member is continuously and systematically prevented from sitting on committees brings about, in my opinion, a quite undemocratic climate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The remarks which the hon. member is now making are not relevant at all to the motion before the house. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, this motion is debatable. Therefore-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair agrees that the motion before the house is a debatable motion, but the membership of the committee or the fact that the hon. member is not a member of that committee is not relevant to the discussion.


Gilles Grégoire: Then, I shall, Mr. Speaker, refer to something dealing with that.
I was simply tying to explain why I object to sending that resolution to the committee, because as long as the committee is not prepared to expand its membership, in order to include the representatives of every ideology, it will not be able to do a complete job and that is why I object to sending the motion to a committee. If we are not wanted as members of the committee, then let us deal with the motions in the house, otherwise let us allow those who wish to be members of the committee attend its sittings.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You have the right to attend the sittings.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Gilles Grégoire: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now proceed to government order No. 45, resuming debate on the motion of the Minister of Justice for the second reading of Bill C-187, an act respecting divorce.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it not the intention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to give first reading to the budget bills based upon the resolutions which have been passed? We are quite ready to proceed in an attempt to get these matters settled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not all of them.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have two bills available but not all of them. Therefore I felt it would be better to proceed with all of them together.


Richard Albert Bell: The minister has had since last June to do something in relation to these bills. Surely he can introduce them tonight.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Surely we can have first reading. We have been very co-operative today and I hope the minister will be as co-operative. The efforts of opposition members today have been more than co-operative. I would think it would be very simple for the minister to introduce the bills for first reading. Certainly we should have first reading at least in respect of those resolutions of June.
December 14, 1967


An hon. Member:: They are not ready.


Mr. Lamberi:: If they are not ready, what is this house coining to? It is ridiculous that these bills should be introduced tomorrow or at some later date for first reading, when we have passed the resolutions today.


Mr. MacEachen:: The understanding was that we would dispose of the resolutions today, but not that we would introduce the bills for first reading. There is nothing irregular about this, and I think we should proceed now with the next order of business.


Thomas Miller Bell: If this government does not have the bills ready, and they have had since June to do so, there is something irregular about the government's conduct and the conduct of parliament.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The intention from the beginning was to deal with all the resolutions, and then the bills together. In order to do that the bills will be introduced for first reading at the earliest possible moment, at which time hon. members will have a full opportunity to discuss them and pass them speedily with the same co-operation they have shown today.


Richard Albert Bell: The bills are just not ready; that's all this means.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
question to the government house leader?
Is it the intention of the government to have the house approve all the bills deriving from the budgetary resolutions before the Christmas recess? I see that the minister agrees.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, may I point out to the minister that if he intends to give notice before moving second reading, it would be advisable that we obtain the bills beforehand to have at least the time to read them. There is only one week to go and we do not even have them. How do you want us to complete our study before the end of next week if we do not even have the bills? That is why I think the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) are justified in asking that the bills be tabled immediately, so that we may, at least over the week-end, have time to study them. Otherwise, we shall not be able to do so.
Divorce Law Reform


DIVORCE
[Stage Direction]
MEASURE RESPECTING GROUNDg, JURISDICTION, JUDGES, ETC.
The house resumed from Tuesday, December 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau for the second reading of Bill No. C-187, respecting divorce.
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I will resume my remarks where they were interrupted on December 5 last.
I was putting forward my second argument in support of the indissolubility of marriage through the very nature of love.
First of all, this supposes a love-match and not a marriage of convenience or interest. A notable proportion of the petitions for divorce stem from this marriage of convenience which we cannot advise against too much. Experience has proved that marriage without love does not last long. The parties involved very soon turn to divorce.
If it is a marriage for love, the nature of such love remains to be known. A marriage based on physical attraction only, on sex-appeal only, purely on sexual instinct finding satisfaction in the physical charms of the spouse, such marriage is as precarious and shaky as physical love itself. Love based only on physical attractiveness and in which sexual instinct finds satisfaction cannot last. In no time at all, it will crumble. This is a cause of another goodly proportion of petitions for divorce. They are marriages mostly gone into by couples while still minors. One could never advise often enough against these early marriages without sufficient proof of true love.
However, those marriages are quite valid, even if they are based on physical and psychological love, without any depth. The indissolubility of such marriages, which are not deeply rooted by this precarious love, finds its basis in the explicit will of the contracting parties, expressed in all freedom and lucidity. I will come back to that point later on.
A marriage contracted in an atmosphere of genuine love which supersedes, yet includes, purely physical love, essentially admits of an absolute and irrevocable bond of faithfulness. Let all those who married under the influ-uence of genuine love call upon their own experience; they will soon feel that the indissolubility of marriage is intimately bound with the constancy of love. Provisional love,

December 14, 1967
Divorce Law Reform
short-term faithfulness, those are contradictory terms. The daily experience of true lovers demonstrates this. How often they promise to be true to each other in life and death! How often they plight their troth! If one of them were to say: "I will love you for two years", the other could rightly answer: "In that case, you do not really love me." The basic reason of all this is that true love is necessarily faithful and irrevocable. At the beginning of all true love there is the intention of being absolutely, definitively and permanently faithful. The lover will not love where he does not intend to be faithful. How real, then, should be conjugal fidelity which is based on the most intimate relationship that can exist between two people, a relationship sealed in the physical union of two bodies! I could elaborate on this point, but I think this will suffice to show the strong basis on which rests the indissolubility of marriage. However, I will add two con-firmatur.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
First, the exclusive character of true love indicates the necessity for an absolute and irrevocable fidelity. It is a fact ascertained daily that two lovers do not admit a third party between them. What is the origin of jealousy in love if not from the fact that true love excludes any person other than the parties concerned. As soon as one of the two goes towards a third party, the other suffers, and how! Love tragedies, suicides resulting from deluded and unrequited love find an explanation in that. These facts illustrate in a concrete way the necessity for an absolute and irrevocable fidelity in love.
Secondly, if we take a look at forms used to certify the existence of marriage, whether in the civil tribunal or the religious tribunal, we always find this little formula: until death do you part. Why that? On what is this little formula based?
What does it express exactly, if not a requirement for absolute and irrevocable fidelity? And to bless the remarriage of divorced people with those words: until death do you part, seems to me a monumental farce which alters to a considerable extent the seriousness of fidelity and love.
Thirdly, the indissolubility of marriage is based on a contractual promise. Marriage is looked upon as a contract. Therefore, it comes under the law. A special obligation of fidelity results from a promise given and accepted by words, signs or equivalent acts.

Two beings are tied to one another by contract and that until death do them part. Some might say that any contract can be terminated if both parties to it so desire. That is true and that is the reason why I do not insist too much on the indissolubility of marriage. However, I wish to point out that the object of the marriage contract is not outside things. The interested parties are the main object of it, which makes the marriage contract a unique contract. Individuals have an absolute value and nobody can dispose of them at will as can be done for purely material objects. I therefore believe that the indissolubility of marriage is also based on a special obligation of fidelity which does not only proceed from love as such, but from a given and accepted promise.
In concluding this first part, Mr. Speaker, owing to the divine will concerning the nature of true love and a mutual and contractual promise, it must be admitted that indissolubility is an essential characteristic of marriage. It is therefore ascribable to natural law. Since such is the case, there follows an inevitable consequence, to wit that no human institution a fortiori, nor any individual can break marriage ties without going beyond his rights. This statement does not prejudge the quite exceptional cases which can occur beyond the scope of those principles. But a worthwhile reflection must be based on duly recognized principles rather than on exceptional cases. My views on divorce can be readily appreciated. But before dealing more specifically with this matter, let us draw a last corollary from the preceding remarks.
Our modern world rejects indissolubility as an extreme requirement for a normal marriage. Among other fatal remedies, it proposes what is commonly called trial marriage. Of course, such a sexual union, deprived of the intentional faithfulness and responsibility of genuine love, has nothing to do with a true marriage. To try marriage is about as sensible as trying death in an extended sleep. Trial marriage to me is the same as public concubinage.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to consider the attitude of the state toward divorce.
As we have seen in the first part of these thoughts, indissolubility of marriage to which divorce is opposed arises directly from natural law as such. Now, the principles of natural law are absolute standards. Thus, there is not and cannot be a true dispensation from a natural, moral law. As a result, divorce, which purports to be a dispensation from the natural law of marriage, a dispensation of
December 14, 1967

indissolubility, is totally objectionable because it undermines the very basis of marriage which God decreed to be indissoluble. Does that mean that the state should adopt toward divorce an attitude of total prohibition? No, as we shall see later on. The impossibility of a true dispensation does not preclude the possibility of a legal tolerance. It will be the first point of the following thoughts. Then, we shall briefly consider the motives likely to legitimize such a tolerance. Finally, we shall put forward some remedies likely to control a social ill which is contaminating an entire nation.
First, the possibility of the legal tolerance of divorce. Let us first recall some guiding principles.
The Church alone can legislate on marriage between Christians, that is baptized people. The state alone has the right to legislate on the marriage of non-Christians, that is to say non-baptized people but, of course, only in the framework of the natural institution. As far as marriage of Christians is concerned, the state has exclusive rights on the civil effects of the marriage (for instance, right of succession, legal guardianship, family allowances, etc.).
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
When mention is made of religious divorce or civil divorce, strictly speaking and in principle, it can only involve the breakdown of the matrimonial bond. Even after the religious or civil judgment, except certain most exceptional cases, the matrimonial bond is always there because it is permanent by nature. Such a judgment can only ensure certain religious or certain legal or civil effects.
In the light of these principles, let us clarify the attitude of the state while I shall summarize in this way:
Always, the morality of right had to face the question of whether a legal tolerance and the regulating of bad things are allowed and may be more prudent than total interdiction which, through the wickedness of man, may have worse consequences. For instance, since St. Augustine, numerous theologians have held as licit the legal regulation and, therefore, the tolerance of controlled prostitution, provided this did not result in the apparent moral justification of vice and the multiplication of offences. Similarly, Christian politicians and jurists can participate in the legal regulation of civil divorce, but only if the legislation does not multiply the divorce 27053-344i
Divorce Law Reform
offences and does not give the impression that those same Christian politicians and jurists approve morally what they believe they cannot prevent legally. The tolerance or, rather, the legal damming up of an evil reality must, as a whole, serve morality.
I, therefore, define my opinion in five points.
(1)	Divorce is, and will always be, a moral offence, because it is contrary to an essential and natural propriety of marriage. This must be clearly evident in the civil legislation or, better still, the civil legislation must not be such that it presents divorce as something which is normally beyond reproach.
(2)	As already stated, none but God should have the power to allow a true exemption from this natural law called indissolubility of marriage. However, a duly established institution such as the state may accept a legal tolerance and legislate accordingly.
(3)	In conclusion I say once more, because this seems to be of crucial importance, that civil legislation should not be established under any colour of moral legalization of divorce. Tolerance does not mean moral approval. On the contrary, the whole civil legislation system of the state, more precisely its marriage legislation, must be geared above all towards family happiness, the preservation of chastity and the durability of natural marriage.
Modern society, which seeks any number of grounds for divorce and increases the frailty of marital unions through legislation on the property of married couples and other arbitrary provisions of marriage laws, digs its own grave.
(4)	If society can tolerate divorce, while trying to decrease its frequency, it can also tolerate marriage between divorcees to ensure its civil effects only.
(5)	In practice, society will have to consider each individual case with the utmost care. It will have to carefully consider the alleged motives of the litigants and, especially, ensure maximum security for the children. We have no right to allow innocent children to feel the effects of the marriage breakdown.
These few considerations, however schematic, are enough to allow the legislators to undertake a sound discussion. Now, let us look into the grounds which can justify this tolerance on the part of the state with regard to divorce.
There can be many grounds, all more or less valid. However, my attention is caught more particularly by four of them.

December 14, 1967
Divorce Law Reform
The first one is the non-consummation of a valid marriage. Marriage is consummated after sexual relations. If a sexual act has not taken place, the marriage can be annulled. Since there has not been real sexual union, we cannot really speak of an indissoluble marital tie. This situation can happen quite often when the two spouses, for some reason or other, had no opportunity of living together after the marriage took place. If they have lived together, the marriage is presumed to have been consummated.
Secondly, the impossibility of a peaceful cohabitation where one of the spouses, most often, the wife, is victim of the brutality of the other or of a professed hatred. This ground is more imperative if the children of the marriage must live in an infernal atmosphere. Of two evils, one must choose the lesser.
Thirdly, adultery may be a valid ground. The infidelity of one of the spouses deprives them of every right to a complete partnership between husband and wife. Even if condonation is an ideal, one can understand the unbearable situation of the spouse who remained faithful.
Fourth, the definitive and unjustified desertion of one of the spouses, especially if the children of the marriage suffer by that in a special way.
The grounds could be manifold. But I would like to point out two things about them. All grounds are not to be accepted simultaneously. It is absolutely necessary to limit them; otherwise, we will be opening the door to anarchy in society. The legislators must adopt only a few, those which seem the most imperative, according to the situation in the country.
Any civil legislation that really wants to put a stop to divorce, that social evil, will have to be demanding with regard to the procedure to be followed. That will be a way to emphasize the disapproval aroused by such a state of affairs. It will be most important to find out whether the husband and wife deliberately made up the grounds which could justify their divorce petition. It must be recognized that whoever wants to leave the other can easily and with the explicit intention of getting a divorce create the unfortunate situation which would justify such a petition to the state. The latter must therefore be in a position to bring to light that deceitful intention.
In short, Mr. Speaker, even if civil law recognizes the validity of certain grounds
[Mr. Simard.l
for divorce, this law and the judicial procedure to be followed must be established in such a way that people can say that it is not easy to get a divorce in Canada. If they say the opposite, it is a sign that the state morally approves divorce and accepts the practice on a wide scale. Therefore, such legislation is harmful and fully deserves the censure and indignation of all those who still possess a remnant of natural morality. The state itself,
I repeat, is digging its own grave. The experience of foreign states in past centuries is quite revelatory with regard to this unescapable consequence. If part of the population has lost all natural sense of morality, the lawmakers must show some instead, even though it is sad indeed to realize that such a substitution is necessary.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
And what of the remedial action to be promoted against divorce? The state must therefore take a negative attitude toward divorce, that is, show its disapproval by being exacting with regard to grounds for divorce, as well as to the legal procedure to be followed. But it must not restrict its role to a negative attitude. A squarely positive position is perhaps the best way to check that disease. Such a positive position should consist in promoting, by every means possible, the indissolubility of marriage. Those means are many and varied. I shall point out a few.
Through special grants, the state should promote and encourage social organizations whose main purpose is to protect the family and the marital community. For instance, several institutions are designed to prepare future spouses properly. Others bring together couples with some experience of married and family life, to study some specific problems peculiar to married people and to strengthen finally the bonds which unite them. Other agencies work toward the reconciliation of separated spouses. It seems to me that the government should give positive help to such agencies which contribute to the welfare of society in general, and of the marriage institution in particular.
To prevent under-age weddings, which are too frequent, society should, for instance, further promote youth recreational activities which aim at the development and flowering of young people in a healthy climate. Even if some young people sometimes commit the well-known blunder, society should provide them with some protection against shotgun weddings, as they are called. The parents of
December 14, 1967

those young people have no right, even to hide a certain shame, to push them into a marriage they do not want. One evil cannot be cured by another evil.
Finally, it might perhaps be well to review all our statutes on marriage, and see it they really serve the family well, and do not burden it with certain obligations which, in the final analysis, are detrimental to the strength of marriage. Some spouses consider giving up marriage because the state imposes obligations upon them which they did not have in single life.
Many other ways could be enumerated, Mr. Speaker, but it is up to us, legislators in this house, to seek and find the most efficient means to reinforce the stability, the indissolubility of matrimonial ties and to stem the social evil of divorce. The state should always endeavour to promote variously the solidity of that small cell which the family, the conjugal community constitutes. Is society not made up of thousands of such small cells? If the cells deteriorate and break down under the influence of divorce-cancer, what will happen to the great body, society? Deteriorating cells indicate a dying, or already dead, organism. However, if cells are teeming with life, that is, if the married community maintains an indefectible stability, the organism as a whole will be in a state of growth and sound development, in other words, society is on the straight road to full development.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, when this matter was discussed at the resolution stage I welcomed the fact that at long last we had a bill for the reform of our divorce laws which had been introduced by the government. I must admit when I saw the bill itself it was a serious disappointment. It now represents a considerable improvement from the existing law of Canada, but it is not very difficult to accomplish this because the existing law of Canada, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) pointed out, was either pre-confederation law or the law of England of 1857 as modified in 1870. The existing law of Canada is so antiquated and has produced such grave hardships that any change in it was bound to be an improvement. However, the bill goes very little if any further, than the changes made in the law of Great Britain in the 1930's.
I think it is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that when parliament at last tackles the problem
Divorce Law Reform
of divorce it does not take advantage of the British experience. It is too bad that the law, as introduced by this government, is not atuned to contemporary society or to the needs of the second half of the twentieth century. It is to be regretted the government has not seen fit to listen to the advice of the churches, although the government does refer to this advice. When I say "the churches", I mean almost all of the recognized churches in Canada. They have advocated a totally new approach, an approach based upon the concept of marriage breakdown. This is a totally different way of handling the problem of divorce from the old concept of matrimonial offences. The basic philosophy behind this new approach, known as marriage breakdown, was enunciated, so far as I know, by Lord Walker, one of the members of a royal commission on marriage in 1955, who said:
The true significance of marriage, as I see it, is lifelong cohabitation in the home for the family. But when the prospect of continuing cohabitation has ceased, that true view of the significance of marriage seems to require that the legal ties should be dissolved. Each empty tie-as empty ties accumulate-adds increasing harm to the community and injury to the ideal of marriage.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the bill before us makes a sort of verbal nod to the breakdown theory but, as I shall point out, it rejects that theory in essence. The matter was very well put by one of the English law lords in a debate in the House of Lords in June, 1963 when he said this:
There are only two theories alive in this problem -namely, are we going to act on the matrimonial offence or are we going to act on the breakdown of marriage theory? That is the fight.
That is still the fight here.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The bill which the minister has introduced mixes up the two theories of matrimonial offence and marriage breakdown, and the melange is neither logical nor sound. It contains other defects which I shall try to point out and rectify by way of amendments when we reach the committee stage. I know that the minister has promised to take seriously such amendments as may be presented in committee.
Once again this government has put the members of the House of Commons on the horns of a dilemma. It has introduced a bill which contains serious defects, both in its basic approach to the matter with which it deals and in its details. Nevertheless it may be impossible for us to reject this bill as its

December 14, 1967
Divorce Law Reform
provisions contain a great advance, as I have already said, over the existing law. It is just too bad that once again we are asked to accept the second best.
Before I discuss some of the major faults of the bill may I say that certain features of it should be welcomed. The first of those is the provision with respect to Canadian domicile, whereby the domicile of a married woman shall be determined as if she were unmarried. That means in effect that a married woman can bring her action for divorce where she lives. This reform is long overdue. The old rule that a husband's domicile prevailed was based on an English judicial decision, which in turn was based on the survival of the theory of the unity of the spouses. The theory in effect was that the wife had no separate existence apart from that of her husband. I think that any married man in this house will say that that theory was not founded on fact.


Mr. Groos:: I agree with you there, Andy.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Thank you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was a plaintive response.


David Walter Groos: I just wanted the hon. member to know that I was listening.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The theory, apart from its hoary nature, has worked grave hardships. I am glad that that matter is being changed.
I also welcome the final elimination of parliamentary divorce and the conferring on the Exchequer Court of Canada of jurisdiction to pronounce divorces, pending the acceptance of jurisdiction by the Superior Court of Quebec and the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. It is not necessary to recall the long battle that was waged by my colleagues, the hon. members for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and Skeena (Mr. Howard) to bring about this reform and to remove from parliament the responsibility of exercising a judicial responsibility which it was in no way fitted to discharge.
We welcome, further, the fact that the bill grants to the courts the right to deal with corollary relief, that is to say, those questions to do with the maintenance and custody of the children of the marriage and the payment of alimony to deserving spouses. It is my view that any law would be irresponsible if it failed to provide that the authority which dissolved the marriage could, at the same time, have authority to deal with the obligations that have arisen out of and been created by the marriage.

I welcome another feature of the bill which recognizes the duty of the courts to be concerned with the question of reconciliation. For reasons which I shall go into later, I have come to the conclusion that the provisions in the present bill, divorced as they are from the new approach of marriage breakdown, may turn out to be of little effect. It is however, some comfort that the existence of this problem is recognized.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, so far as the good aspects of the bill are concerned, if the grounds for divorce are to be expanded instead of the new theory of marriage breakdown being adopted, I welcome the extension of these grounds to include physical and mental cruelty, rendering continued cohabitation intolerable. We welcome the recognition that where a marriage has broken down and has resulted in an extended period of separation, that that marriage then should be dissolved.
Having recognized and welcomed these features of the bill, let me now turn to what I consider to be the basic defect. That is, as I have said before, the rejection of marriage breakdown as the sole ground for dissolution of the marriage. As I said before, this approach was put forward to the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons by a number of highly responsible groups: the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada, the National Council of Women, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Committee on the Status of Women and a number of individuals who are experienced in this field.
I have just this week received a communication from the Family Services Association of metropolitan Toronto which points out that in the second annual report of the British Law Commission of 1967 the following statement is to be found:
We are satisfied that if parliament were to accept the principle of breakdown as the basis of divorce, practical and feasible proposals making use of the separation grounds could be prepared for the consideration of parliament.


Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit me a question?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Perhaps I might deal with the hon. member's question after I have finished. I have limited time in which to speak.
December 14, 1967


Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member explain, or at least, give us a definition of a marriage breakdown?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I say to the hon. member that I am just coming to that in the course of my speech. I might say that I think there has been considerable misunderstanding of what is involved in the marriage breakdown proposal. That proposal was adequately and fully set out in the report of a group that was appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in January, 1964. That group reported in 1966. The committee consisted of leading churchmen, lawyers, judges, sociologists, psychiatrists, and even included a politician. The report is embodied in a book entitled, "Putting Asunder". Its subtitle is an interesting one: "A Divorce Law for Contemporary Society". The report says that the essence of the principle of divorce that is based on marriage breakdown is that the court studies and makes findings on the state of the marriage and not on the conduct of the parties. This change of approach is not accomplished by listing a series of circumstances, and saying that they are to constitute a breakdown.
In discussing their conclusion, the writers of the report say this:
We very soon decided that it would not be an improvement, but the reverse, to introduce the principle of breakdown of marriage into the existing law in the shape of additional ground for divorce: and our objections to any such compromise multiplied and hardened as the time went on.
I and others on our committee went through precisely the same mental process. I suspect that others who subject themselves to studying the evidence and thinking about it will emerge with the same conclusions that the English committee emerged with.
In dealing with the choice of alternatives the English committee emerged with.
Although some of our witnesses still had faith in the matrimonial-offence system, our study of it elicited little to its credit and nothing at all to make us want its perpetuation.
It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that the English report was based on a period of 30 years experience with expanded matrimonial offences such as are contemplated in the bill that is presently before the house.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I want to read the conclusion of the committee report on this matter.
Indeed we were persuaded that a divorce law founded on the doctrine of breakdown would not
Divorce Law Reform
only accord better with social realities than the present law does, but would have the merit of showing up divorce for what in essence it is-not a reward for marital virtue on the one side and a penalty for marital delinquency on the other; not a victory for one spouse and a reverse for the other, but a defeat for both, a failure of the marital two-in-oneship in which both its members, however unequal their responsibility, are inevitably involved together. So we arrived at our primary and fundamental recommendation: that the doctrine of the breakdown of marriage should be comprehensively substituted for the doctrine of the matrimonial offence as the basis of all divorce.
The report proceeded to deal fully with what has been the main objection to basing divorce on breakdown, namely that it is not a triable issue and would impose an undue burden on the courts. This is the point of view put forward by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau), and I propose to deal with his remarks in more detail later.
May I first call the attention of the house to what the English committee said on this issue?
For the most part we were advised that a judge would not find it unduly difficult to decide, after hearing the evidence, whether or not there was a reasonable probability in all the circumstances of cohabitation being revived. Actions and conduct which under the present law constitute matrimonial offences, though no longer in themselves and by themselves grounds for a decree, would still be available as evidence for breakdown.
It is true, as the minister said-and he gave it as his main reason for turning down this proposal-that this would involve procedural changes. The minister said these changes were unrealistic, and would impose on the existing courts of law and on the judiciary an inquisitorial approach coupled with a broad administrative discretion.
In this statement, the minister differs from the view of the experienced members of the English committee. I suggest he is also overlooking the fact that in this field of family relationships the courts have had to deal with general issues for many years, and deal with them on an administrative basis. For many years the law in Canada has laid down that the custody of children is to be determined on the basis of regard for their welfare. This administrative jurisdiction has existed in English law for centuries since the courts of Chancery exercised a quasi parental jurisdiction over the affairs of children based upon the theory that the crown, which they represented was parens patriae. It is also true that the marriage breakdown theory as applied to divorce would require the

December 14, 1967
Divorce Law Reform
courts to determine whether the marriage was dead, whether there was any chance of its revival, or whether as it was a mere legal shell. It is not beyond the ability of the courts to do this, and anyone who says it is cannot be too familiar with what the courts are doing now.
It is true that the procedures required in arriving at such decisions would involve a somewhat different approach. This is one of the reasons I am advocating the change. It might involve the assistance of reports from social workers or other experienced people in the community. But there is nothing new in this. In divorce cases in the province of Ontario the rules of the court provide for the receiving of reports from the official guardian which, in turn, he obtains from the children's aid societies, in relation to conditions affecting children of the marriage. I am not sure whether this is the practice in other provinces, but these reports affecting the children are used by the courts to determine the highly important question of the custody of children in divorce cases.
It is said there is a lack of trained and experienced personnel. We have not heard about that from the Canadian Mental Health Association. If there is a lack, then I suggest the existence of a new approach to divorce would undoubtedly direct attention to it and the gap would be filled; more and more people would be trained in this field.
The responsibility would still belong to the court. But to turn down the proposal on the ground that it would introduce a new procedure is to turn it down on an unsatisfactory ground. In conclusion, I wish to refer for a moment to a further passage in the English report which says, in connection with whether the issue of breakdown is triable:
The evidence we have received suggests that Judges would be reluctant to be put in the position of having to make predictions about the future of marriages, but in fact a judgment of breakdown does not require any greater measure of prediction than, for instance, the judgment that the proved conduct of a spouse would, if continued, cause injury to the health of the other spouse. In both cases it is a present probability chat has to be assessed.
The report goes on to give other reasons why one should not mix the breakdown principle with the principle of matrimonial offences. I wish to deal with this subject once again when I return to the question of provision for reconciliation.
In the opinion of the writers of this report who, as I say, were highly experienced, the principle of breakdown ought on no account to be introduced into the existing law in the form of an additional ground. If I may put this in my own words, the tendency of lawyers handling divorce cases would undoubtedly be to avoid basing their cases on breakdown except where they do not fit into any of the other categories. As a result, the basis of the present law would remain; the unreality of determining misconduct would remain. The accusatorial procedure, with all the bitterness it engenders, would remain.
I see it is almost ten o'clock. In the light of these observations I wish to proceed, when I have the opportunity tomorrow, to deal with the general provisions of this bill and to show that unfortunately it does not provide the best solution for the problem of divorce procedure.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Ricard:: I should like to ask the leader of the house whether there is any change in the business for tomorrow and whether he can indicate the business for next week.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Tomorrow we shall continue our consideration of this bill. The business for next week is reasonably clear: it will be consideration of the broadcasting and budget bills.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: My question arises from an article which appeared in Maclean's magazine for December, 1967, "Maclean's Reports". It is about an unusual school in Vancouver which has grown up in response to the wishes of half a dozen or so disgruntled students from Lord Byng high school who complained about the high school system. By the end of the summer this group had grown to about 20 youngsters aged between 12 and 18 from all over Vancouver. They appealed for help from the Company of Young Canadians and in response, Colin Thomson, a 20-year-old graduate from the University of British

December 14, 1967	COMMONS
Columbia and a C.Y.C. employee, agreed to work as co-ordinator. So they set about developing a rather unusual school.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
They were able to rent space in Vancouver. They were able to obtain a library by lugging their own collections of books from home, which does not sound very much like a poverty stricken clientele and, as this article reports:
Their 1,000 volume collection leans more heavily on John Lennon and Henry Miller than it does on Shakespeare.
The problem of full-time teachers was almost insurmountable until the efforts of Mr. Thomson were augmented when the Company of Young Canadians, as this article reports, "agreed to underwrite salaries for five full-time staff members". But I learned by checking that there are three full-time staff members from the Company of Young Canadians at this unusual school.
I quote further from the article:
To achieve the freedom they want, the kids have thrown out formal lessons, exams, report cards, grades, predetermined curriculum and timetables.
Instead they have something called independent study. They stay home for days, if they are working on a project. They organize field trips, and have heard a Buddhist monk lecture on Viet Nam.
As I read this article it struck me that this was a rather unusual engagement for an organization that was supposed to be one of the main arms to be used in the drive in the war on poverty. I looked up the act establishing the company, and find that in the objects and powers defined in section 15 the company may:
-engage in community development work in urban and rural areas in Canada:
organize and carry out programs designed primarily to widen the social and economic opportunities of young people who leave school before completing their schooling;
organize and carry out programs. .. to reduce the number of young people who leave school before completing their schooling;
assist vocational training projects... undertake recreation programs for young people where recreation programs are not available;
undertake programs in public health-
And so on. All of these deal with poverty as we ordinarily recognize it. When the act was introduced in this house the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) himself said:
It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that in all such proposed projects or programs the company would operate only in co-operation with the many 27053-345
DEBATES	5463
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion other organizations and agencies already in the field which are already attempting to deal with these social and economic problems.
I would maintain nothing is in the field of education as much as the public school system of British Columbia, but here we have the Company of Young Canadians going completely outside its mandate, not to cooperate with that school system but in a very real sense to subvert it.
Checking again, I found there was no cooperation either with the provincial department of education or the Vancouver school board. The entire project has been set up without the least co-operation from there, and it is being treated as another private school. Unless there is a complaint from a parent or from a student within the school it will not normally be investigated by the provincial department or by the Vancouver school board.
What I am really interested in are the constitutional points that this experiment raises. Although the volunteers from the Company of Young Canadians may not be receiving any direct grant, or a salary from the school, nevertheless their expenses are paid through the company. Taking these three teachers as a fraction of the 180 volunteers in the field, and allotting them a percentage of the total budget for the company last year, we find that providing these volunteers for this school for middle class and wealthy students, costs the taxpayers of Canada well over $13,000. It does not matter how indirect it is, the subsidy is there. It seems this is a strange intrusion of the federal authority into the field of education.
I would be interested to know if other provinces in the country can expect the same sort of treatment that is being provided to British Columbia. We who come from British Columbia know very well that on a variety of aid programs we have had to battle tooth and nail in order to get federal assistance for that province, and so it seems strange that this organization can move so openly in opposition to the existing organization, indeed in contempt of the existing organization, to set up a school system the virtue of which is highly doubtful, and the operation of which has nothing whatever to do with the sort of poverty that was contemplated when the act setting up the Company of Young Canadians was being debated and passed by this parliament.
December 14, 1967
5464	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. John R. Malheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his representation. I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians that after being approached by a number of young people and parents who wished to establish an experimental school in Vancouver, the company now has three volunteers at the Knowplace school. The organizers of the school have consulted provincial educational authorities. Provision of these volunteers is undertaken under the terms of section 15(h) of the Company of Young Canadians Act. That is the extent of my information from the company.



TRANSPORT-PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAUSEWAY-INQUIRY AS TO NEXT STEPS

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, earlier today in the question period I raised with the Prime Minister the matter of further details with reference to his press statement of yesterday, when he indicated to the general public that there would be no scrapping of the Prince Edward Island crossing project. I think Prince Edward Islanders and many other Canadians can be forgiven if they become increasingly sceptical about the future of this project. Indeed I find it difficult to obtain support in any quarter for the belief that the government is in fact serious about the continuance of this project. Some people suggest there never was any seriousness on the part of the government, even in the early stages, in respect of pursuing this project. I find this difficult to believe.
Since I am not privileged to know about the various discussions going on in cabinet circles about this matter, it is difficult for me to know the actual state of mind which exists with regard to this particular project. However, I must admit that if people had some doubt concerning the furtherance of the Prince Edward Island-New Brunswick crossing, they must have had that uncertainty heightened to a considerable degree when only a few short hours following the release of the announcement that the project would continue the man who made that announcement indicated his own resignation.
I do not suggest there is a connection between these two events, but I do suggest, if the government expects to be taken seriously in the matter of dealing with this most important project, that it is high time we had some action. It is an important project, not only to the end that it will achieve for the first time a permanent means of transportation to and
[Mr. Johnston.)

from two provinces of Canada, but also it is important-as will be realized by those concerned about this, if they investigate the matter-from the standpoint of the future standard of living which may be enjoyed by the people of Prince Edward Island.
I would think that this government and indeed any government ought to be concerned about the fact that there are provinces of Canada which have a standard of living much below the standard of living in other parts of Canada. It is a fact well known to members of this house that the standard of living in the Atlantic region is at a figure of roughly 70 per cent of the national average. Until major steps are taken by the national government to rectify the serious problems which face this region we will never effectively achieve a national standard truly enjoyed by people in all parts of the country.
I believe this crossing is fundamentally important because it involves two great problems which confront Prince Edward Island-ders. One of these problems is transportation. If we wish to become competitive in the manufacturing business related to our basic industries of farming and fishing, it is imperative that we have the kind of transportation which can only be provided by a causeway or crossing facility. I think this is well understood by most people.
Of almost equal importance to Prince Edward Island is the whole business of a power link which, as I understand it, will come with the establishment of the crossing. The idea of s submarine power cable has been accepted for some time now. However, Prince Edward Islanders cannot look forward to the benefits to be derived from large amounts of low cost electric power until that crossing is completed. There is the third argument that the national government at the present time is expending annually $5 million in the form of a subsidy to make up the difference in the cost of the present ferry transportation service.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
These are all good economic reasons for all Canadians to be concerned about the future of the Northumberland strait crossing. Yet, during the past two years we have seen the most unusual performance ever witnessed on the part of this government. On several occasions in the house we have been told that the government is not going to do this right now-that at some time they plan to get it
December 14, 1967	COMMONS
under way, or that at the moment it is being reviewed.
It is not my concern and intention this evening to bring out the many questions and comments that have been made in this house because they are all of public record, and known. What concerns me, and the reason I asked the question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) this afternoon, is the hope that we can get some assurance from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) that in the next few days we can expect some schedule indicating that the people of Prince Edward Island and of Canada generally may be assured that the project is going ahead, rather than some general statement that the government is committed to maintaining a transportation link, which is something I find now a bit devious. I hope to get a firm commitment that a permanent link will be established, whether it involves a complete causeway, or a causeway, tunnel and bridge complex, which will be established and built in the shortest possible time; because this makes good business sense and will provide the kind of economic opportunity this island province both needs and desires.
I find it very difficult to accept, as I am sure that people do, that in the two budgets which have been presented in just a little over a year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) on one occasion and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) on another occasion have taken what I thought was a light approach, that they could with complete abandonment suggest that this project could be deferred, delayed, rescheduled-whatever euphemism you want to use-and expect the people to be satisfied.
Therefore I ask the Minister of Public Works to give the members of this house and the people of Prince Edward Island some assurance that we may have some specific assurance shortly, rather than the usual generality that tells us very little and fills us with great disappointment.
Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I must say I have listened with some amazement to the tenor of the remarks of the hon. member.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You always do.


Mr. Mcllraith:: I quite appreciate the hon. member from British Columbia, but I hope he will stay out of this debate. After hearing him earlier this evening I do not think he has anything useful to contribute to this debate.
27053-345J
DEBATES	54S5
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
There never has been any time since I was made the minister that we have said we were not proceeding with this crossing. We have spent a great deal of money on it and the project is proceeding extremely well.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: You mean the studies.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member keeps interjecting. Surely I am entitled, since I am limited to three minutes, to be heard in reply to the seven minute statement of the hon. member, during which time I did not interrupt.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Injured innocence.


George James McIlraith: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the house does not wish to hear me, that is fine, but I would ask that the rules be enforced, particularly if these would-be, but unsuccessful, leaders keep on interrupting.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In view of the several over there I say this is injured innocence.


George James McIlraith: There may have been doubt created by some press reports, and undoubtedly more now, created by the remarks of hon. members opposite. In case there is such doubt I want to make it very clear that this project is proceeding. To do this I can do no better than read from the remarks of the Minister of National Revenue as reported in Hansard at page 5181 of December 7. He said in respect of this question:
This next item is most important to many of my hon. friends from the maritime provinces. The government has decided to defer the placing of any further new contracts for the Northumberland causeway, pending a thorough review of the situation by Col. Edward Churchill, whose services have been retained as a co-ordinator of the project. This review, made necessary by the drastic escalation in the estimated cost of the project as originally conceived, will include the examination of alternative ways of meeting, on a more economically justifiable basis the commitment of the federal government to the government and the people of Prince Edward Island.
There was an interjection following, which the minister stated:
That commitment this government will keep.
The press release of the Prime Minister to which my hon. friend referred is as follows:
There is no thought of scrapping the P.E.I. crossing project.
December 14, 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Revenue Minister Benson told the House of Commons on December 7 that the federal government would keep its commitment to the people of Prince Edward Island. I now confirm what he said.
We intend to proceed with the project. In fact, we are busy on it now. Colonel Edward Churchill is now actively directing a full review of the plans made by Northumberland Consultants Limited.
We believe that the people of Prince Edward Island want us to honour our commitment in the most efficient and practical way. I have asked Colonel Churchill that there be no delay in completing a thorough review of the plans and this review is proceeding at full pace.
That engineering review is going on extremely well at the moment. I cannot give a definite date as to when it will be completed. I cannot foretell what precise form of crossing will be recommended in the review. It is impossible to give a precise time schedule of construction work when you do not know the precise form of the construction work that will be undertaken.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.19 p.m.

Friday, December 15, 1967