1969-12-18

PROMOTION OF ALEXANDER SMALL TO POSITION OF SECOND CLERK ASSISTANT

Mr. Speaker:: I am pleased to inform hon. members of the promotion to the position of Second Clerk Assistant of the House of Commons of Mr. Alexander Small. Mr. Small will continue to serve as Director of Legislative Services. I am sure hon. members will be gratified at this recognition of the services of this loyal, competent and highly esteemed table officer.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Ralph Slewarl (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects me personally and the principle of which affects all hon. members who are considered as backbenchers. Yesterday an announcement was made by the Department of Finance that effigies of former Prime Ministers would be placed on Canadian currency. This is a measure which I welcome, but it is one which I introduced in the form of a private member's bill during the last session on February 6, 1969, as found on page 5213 of Hansard. That private member's bill has been sitting on the Order Paper for almost one year and now a decision by a department of government puts into effect the subject matter of that bill without referring to it.
All hon. members are encouraged to take an active part in government and to bring forth new ideas. However, the system used according to the rules of the House to deal with private members' bills is such that backbenchers do not have sufficient opportunity to participate in the way they should.
To illustrate how the detail of the announcement coincides with what I did last February, let me say that after introducing my bill I outlined some suggestions for dealing with it, such as keeping the effigy of Her Majesty on one of the denominations. I even
ventured an opinion, wrongly as it turns out, that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) would not comment on it because he would be torn between two great loves. However, the bill has never had the opportunity to come before the House because of a silly method for determining the business of private members.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Before the second session began all of the bills were thrown together and drawn from a hat in order to determine their precedence. It seems to me that legislation should not be considered as a matter of chance. When a member waits for a long list of bills to be disposed of throughout one session he should not be obliged to wait for another list to be disposed of in a new session before being able to deal with his bill. When a member suggests a piece of legislation which is adopted by the government almost one year later, should he not be entitled to at least a teeny bit of recognition?
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy):
That the matter of dealing more efficiently with private members' business be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As hon. members know, a determination has to be made by the Chair on whether there is a prima facie case of privilege in the circumstances alleged by the hon. member for Cochrane.
The hon. member has given the Chair the required notice and I have had an opportunity to give very serious consideration to the grievance which he has brought forward. I use the word "grievance" advisedly because in my humble opinion what the hon. member is submitting for the attention of the House at the present time is a grievance rather than a question of privilege.
If there is, as he suggests, something wrong with the procedure adopted by the House for dealing with private bills that, of course, is a matter that ought to be considered in the usual way by the Committee on Procedure of the House of Commons. I would suggest to
December 18, 1969
2118	COMMONS
Alternative Dairy Support Programs the hon. member that this is the kind of situation which may well be considered by that committee. Indeed, I have indicated to the House on previous occasions that the whole area of private members' business, not only private bills but private members' resolutions and the submission of private members' motions, should be considered by the Committee on Procedure at an early date. I have already made this suggestion to the members of the committee. I will reiterate the suggestion in view of the representations now made by the hon. member. I would think that in the circumstances I should rule that although there may be a legitimate grievance there is no question of privilege on which the motion which he has suggested might be founded and put to the House at this time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs on the use of tobacco and cigarettes, in both official languages.-Mr. Isabelle.
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Ian Wafson (Laprairie) moved: that the second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on Tuesday, December 16, 1969, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions through the usual channels and I think there is general agreement that I may seek (Mr. Speaker.]

unanimous consent from the House to move a motion in the following terms:
That the Standing Committee on Agriculture be empowered to consider and report its recommendations on or before February 17, 1970, on alternative programs designed to utilize the funds available for dairy support in the forthcoming year in such a manner as to bring dairy production and consumption into better balance, thus increasing the net income of industrial milk producers through decreasing the cost to them of moving quantities of dairy products into export.
If there is consent-


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement to submission of this motion at the present time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Lot-biniere rising to indicate that he does not agree that the motion should now be put?


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We are ready to accept the motion of the Minister of Agriculture. However, there is a point which remains to be cleared up before we give our approval, and that is whether the report on the study on the dairy industry made by the committee on agriculture during May and June last will be tabled in the house and whether it has anything to do with the minister's motion.
If it is two different matters, we cannot give our approval but if, on the other hand, it is a report on that study, we will gladly give our consent.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that without getting into a debate. All I can say at this point is that I did consult with the House Leader of the Ralliement Creditiste yesterday. He indicated to me then that they would be agreeable to having this matter referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
The other part of the question is whether some of the findings or studies that were made in certain parts of Canada during May and June last year would be incorporated into the recommendations. I suggest it would be up to the committee to do that if they chose.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we lay down a stipulation. We shall give our consent provided
December 18, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES
we are allowed to ask the committee to take the minister's words into account.


Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous consent, Mr. Olson, seconded by Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale), moves:
That the Standing Committee on Agriculture be empowered to consider and report its recommendations on or before February 17, 1970, on alternative programs designed to utilize the funds available for dairy support in the forthcoming year in such a manner as to bring dairy production and consumption into better balance, thus increasing the net income of industrial milk producers through decreasing the cost to them of moving quantities of dairy products into export.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, after personal meetings and discussions with the responsible ministers from the provinces I announced on August 14 that:
Until a more well defined and logical longterm Canadian urban renewal policy can be formulated and enunciated, municipalities with urban renewal schemes presently in preparation will have to elect either to suspend further study or, alternatively, to complete their work in the knowledge that additional federal funds for implementation of the schemes may or may not be forthcoming.
At that time, also, I approved six projects and authorized negotiation for limited participation in six more. Shortly following that action, all municipalities preparing urban renewal schemes were informed of this announcement by letter.
More recently, Monday, December 8, I informed hon. members in the House that we have launched a full inquiry into the whole process of urbanization in an attempt to establish a set of rational objectives and a co-ordinated policy and program framework at the federal level, involving consultations with provincial governments and other interested parties. Our basic concern is to see that the causes and not just the symptoms are dealt with and that existing or proposed new interventions are related and productive. The urban renewal program, as administered under the National Housing Act-1964 amendment-is but one small component of the broad and complex process of urban redevelopment. Urban growth reflects the actions of
2119
Housing and Urban Renewal three levels of government and numerous private market forces; yet this one intervention-urban renewal-particularly, has not been linked with these other actions.
The program is an extremely rigid instrument. It is rigid in its requirement for a three-stage process-study, scheme, implementation-and in the resulting commitment to action in a tightly designated small section of a city. The process is tortuously long, resulting too often in stagnation and, in its final focus, removing the flexibility of a municipality-for example, in applying resources to a series of perhaps dispersed but planned interventions for clearance, rehabilitation and redevelopment.
Moreover, in the absence of clearly defined economic and social goals, including the provision of housing for the most disadvantaged income groups, the program appears to have served a multitude of often contradictory purposes which were never foreseen in the original definition. For example, as a result of urban renewal activities to date, there has been a net loss in low income housing stock.
As I said on December 8, we are embarked upon a deep study of the urban process- identification of the determinants of urban growth, the causes of urban problems, the inter-relationship of governmental action at and between each level, and the other forces at work. At this stage, I admit quite freely that we are impressed mainly by the complexity of the social systems that cities have become. The finding of solutions will be a major undertaking involving much expertise, all governments and the public-consultations which we will seek and welcome.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
In the meantime we do not see the wisdom or justification for an expansion of government intervention, of major new dimensions, in programs such as urban renewal, some forms of which are doubtful in their results. We see rather a need for more emphasis on low income housing and such investments that provide clear and more immediate benefits.
If, Mr. Speaker, I accepted only those urban renewal schemes about to be brought to the implementation stage, the federal treasury alone would be involved in ultimate expenditures approaching $400 million and loans up to two-thirds of the total grant. Provincial and municipal expenditures would have been on a similar scale. No rationale could be
2120	COMMONS
Housing and Urban Renewal devised to support an immediate decision to commit such a level of expenditure when so little is lost in this pause until a sounder basis is provided.
Having said that, however, I should note that even in this transitional stage, Mr. Speaker, there are some schemes to which all three levels of government have an identifiable commitment and which, in our view, can be accepted within the general concerns I have expressed. Over and above the six on which negotiations started in August, there are 12 such projects distributed between the eight provinces of Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
Within specific dollar amounts in each case,
I am offering to the provincial ministers responsible and have authorized CMHC officials to proceed with negotiations toward at least partial implementation of these additional 12 projects. To fund the federal grant share of these and other approvals up to and including this year, federal expenditures for this program will be maintained at a level of approximately $25 million annually for the five-year period 1970 through 1974.


Mr. Stanfield:: That is a big deal.


Robert Knight Andras: This compares with expenditures of $7.5 million in 1967, $12.5 million in 1968, and $23 million in 1969. Beyond that, further investments in urban renewal are most unlikely at least until the urban policy review is completed next year, and it is quite possible that the results of that review will indicate the need for new directions and programs of urban assistance.
For those communities with schemes in preparation but not ready or not approved, I have asked my officials to re-examine each project in order to determine whether some of the work they wish to do can be accomplished by other NHA programs-land assembly, section 16 or section 40 loans, public housing, sewage treatment loans-or whether they can be assisted by other federal departmental programs. Some municipalities have already begun to negotiate redevelopment with private sources-I understand with some reason for optimism-and others may wish to do the same, based upon the schemes prepared. Should communities wish to de-designate the areas set aside for urban renewal, we shall certainly honour our commitment to contribute to the cost of the scheme preparation completed to that date.

DEBATES	December 18, 1963
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that inherent in this approach I have outlined is a principle to which I subscribe, that of the need for constant program evaluation. Even the most well intentioned plan conceived can encounter unforseen weaknesses and changing priorities and conditions when executed. Failure to undertake critical evaluation as a constant requirement so that these weaknesses are identified, or failure to adjust to the need for change, even though inconvenient and sometimes painful, leads to the waste of scarce resources and would be irresponsible.


Mr. Baldwin:: There is not much enthusiasm in that statement.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, at long last the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing has made a statement on urban renewal. But his statement says nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is nothing but a slap in the face for the cities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On the basis of the statement, I submit it is clear that the government is not giving leadership in this area. It ought to give more leadership and ought to make sure that the three levels of government confer with a view to solving the problems that beset our urban centres. What concerns me more than anything is that the cities have difficulty in gaining the ear of the government. I hope the minister will, in his sincerity, support the proposition that this party has recently stated in terms of so structuring the parliamentary committee on the constitution that we will be able to have dialogue, consultation and direction from the cities. Perhaps here we will get the answers.
Urban renewal is a fact. I am surprised the minister did not state it is not the fault of the cities that they have so obviously gotten into this mess but rather the fault of this government and its bureaucracy for entering into programs without giving them any study whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The former minister in charge of housing indicated, when he suddenly realized what was happening, that he had found out it would take 120 years before we
December 18, 1969
would be able to pay for the renewal schemes that are on the boards. He also said he had great sympathy with the cities which had thought the money would be available. This is the point, Mr. Speaker. It is the fault of this government rather than the cities with respect to their plans for urban renewal.
The minister indicated there would be $25 million per year available between 1970 and 1974. This is an illogical statement, Mr. Speaker, when we think of all the money that has been spent-$125 million wiped out with respect to Expo, the cost of the art centre jumping from $9 million to $46 million and on the CBC, which is questionable in many respects, some $200 million. In addition, recently the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) approved construction of a $28 million departmental building. If we are talking in terms of money, Mr. Speaker, where is the rationale with respect to the minister's statement?
The city of Hamilton-and when I say this I speak on behalf of all cities-is looking for leadership and guidance in this area. They are going to be very disappointed and dismayed. The minister mentioned money in his statement. We do not know yet how much money will be available for each city. I know the city of Hamilton was supposed to receive a $5 million federal contribution and only received approximately $2 million. Is the minister, through this program, going to give the city of Hamilton another $2J million?
I am pleased the minister mentioned public housing. The Hon. Stanley J. Randall, speaking on behalf of Ontario, and I am sure this applies to other provinces as well, stated:
To date, the federal guidelines on public housing have not been established and this is making itself felt in large areas like metropolitan Toronto where uncertainty over size and design is affecting planning for further projects.
The Canadian Welfare Council has stated that we require 30,000 public housing units per year. I wonder how much of the government's program for one million units is going to be geared to actual public housing? I do not have the figures for 1969 but in 1968 there were only 13,527 such units constructed.
In conclusion I wish to say I am ashamed that the minister has not brought out his guidelines on public housing. As a matter of fact, he has not brought out guidelines on anything.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
2121
Housing and Urban Renewal


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister indicated he would give us guidelines for urban renewal and public housing. In the long run, he has not given us any guidelines at all. All he has given us is the same story that he has been telling for some time. I wonder whether the minister cannot make a statement on guidelines for urban renewal because this government is studying the constitutional problems as they affect the cities. I understand there is a problem among the government frontbenchers as to what role the federal government will play. Perhaps we will have to wait until the government makes up its mind as to the role it can play in solving urban problems before it definitely decides what it is going to do with respect to urban renewal.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the statement by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras), is it any wonder the former minister in charge of housing, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), resigned? I should like to preface my remarks by saying that the minister now in charge of housing is a very able, sincere and concerned person. He possessed these qualities when he was involved in Indian affairs but when he began to demand action to bring about a better deal for the Indians he was quickly shunted out because his ideas were not those of the government.
We now find him in exactly the same position with regard to housing. His ideas are not those of the government or, especially, of the Prime Minister who does not believe in active federal participation in housing. This is why the minister had to content himself with such statements as "we must await a better defined long term Canadian urban renewal policy", and that he is deeply impressed by the complexity of the problem. Mr. Speaker, the failure to produce urban renewal policies can be placed squarely on the present government for its lack of leadership and initiative in this field.
Between 1946 and 1969 hon. gentlemen opposite have spent a mere $186 million on urban renewal and have erected a Berlin wall of obstruction and frustration in the way of its success. In 1964, when the amendments to the National Housing Act with respect to the financing of urban renewal were passed, they were put into effect in three stages. Assistance was promised in the financing of studies undertaken by municipalities in the area of urban renewal schemes.

December 18, 1969

Housing and Urban Renewal Experience showed, however, that many municipalities had neither the money nor the planning staffs to make this scheme a success. Therefore in 1967 the government proposed amendments to the act and from 1967 to the present time no initiative has been taken in this field even though cabinet approval was given. As to the second phase, assistance in the preparation of schemes, the municipalities were required to make a financial contribution amounting to 50 per cent, a demand which imposed further hardship on them.
The third stage of the implementation of the scheme turned out to be a real failure. Not only did the government impose a 50 per cent financial contribution but no provision was made in legislation or otherwise in connection with the setting up of schools, recreational centres, day care centres and the like. In addition, the expropriation laws prevailing at that time worked severe hardship on those who had to deal with urban renewal. Again, zoning regulations and tax structures further hampered any real development in the field.
When the hon. member for Trinity, the integrated one-man band in the housing field, set forth in his task force report the notion that urban renewal and public housing were the areas of failure, making them the whipping boys, he did a great disservice to Canada. Since that time there has been a freeze on housing and urban renewal; only a slight thaw has been noticeable on the part of the minister presently in charge of housing. Is it any wonder he is only perpetuating the failure of the government in the field of urban renewal?
We in the New Democratic Party believe there should be active participation and partnership among the three levels of government together with all others involved in urban renewal. We ask the minister to call an immediate conference of all departments and agencies of government which are concerned in this matter. Second, we call for active federal leadership and initiative in helping to solve the problems of urban renewal. We heard the minister say he is making an allocation of a mere $25 million a year toward urban renewal. This is a serious disappointment to us. We ask for further financial assistance in this area so that the municipalities and provincial governments can play a more active part in attacking one of the main causes of the difficulties which beset our cities today. We in the NDP are greatly disappointed in the minister's statement.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43 to move a motion which I shall place before you in a few moments. I may say as evidence of the urgency attached to this request that I decided to seek consent to this motion only after hearing the hon. member for Cochrane speak this afternoon.
The present Standing Orders in relation to private members' bills are part hypocrisy and part stupidity. I feel that private members should at the earliest opportunity be provided with a better method of putting forward their public bills. Therefore I ask the consent of the House to move the following motion:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization review Standing Orders dealing with Private Members' Public Bills with a view to making a report to the House with a recommendation that changes be made including the right to allow a recorded vote on some of such bills.
As further evidence of urgency may I say that this motion closely parallels a motion which appears in my name under private members' motions as No. 39, and that I am foregoing my right to make a speech on it by putting forward at this time the motion which I have just read.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the hon. member for Peace River under the terms of Standing Order 43 which requires unanimous agreement. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: No.


An hon. Member:: Your own backbenchers will turn against you.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You did not
want to talk about it last year.



BROADCASTING ACT


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-174, to amend the Broadcasting Act.
December 18, 1969

He said: The purpose of this bill is to place all candidates during federal elections on an equal footing so far as some television coverage is concerned. The very high cost of television time prevents many candidates from using the medium and tips the scales in favour of those with large financial resources. The bill states that broadcasting undertakings shall provide each candidate with a total of 15 minutes free television time during the course of an election campaign.


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


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: the first reading of Bill S-12 (from the Senate), to prevent the introduction into Canada of infectious or contagious diseases.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the publication of the third volume of the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism. What is the position of the government with regard to the creation of French speaking units within the public service? Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to state on behalf of the government that this recommendation denies any concept of effective bilingualism and that the creation of linguistic ghettos within the Public Service will not solve anything?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot, of course, make any comment. I received the two large volumes at six o'clock, when I tabled them in the House. It will take some time for the government to study them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the government accept the assessment made by the royal commission as
Inquiries of the Ministry to the failure of the governments' attempts to encourage bilingualism within the Public Service and the methods followed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the Prime Minister attempts to reply to the question I would suggest that this line of questioning should more properly be answered by way of a general statement which might be made on motions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am simply attempting to ascertain the policy of the government with respect to certain very important and far-reaching recommendations made by the commission. May I ask a supplementary question with Your Honour's permission.
Has there been any change, or is any change contemplated, as a result of the report in the policy set out by the former Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, underlining the primacy of merit in appointments and preferments within the public service? Will the Prime Minister assure the House that merit will continue to be the decisive consideration?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, how can I say whether there will be any change made in light of the recommendations until I have read the report?


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State. Was the minister philosophizing, prophesying, or did he just have plain inside information when he said at the opening of the Public Service Language Centre on November 12 that units of the Public Service "might be developed in the future," using French as the working language?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: am not a prophet, Mr. Speaker. I had no idea whatsoever at that time that this recommendation would appear in the report of the B and B Commission. The only reasonable explanation is the one that the hon. member appears to reject, that is that the recommendation is dictated by common sense and is an extension of the policy we are already applying.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to trespass any further, but in view of the importance of the question may I ask a further supplementary. Do I understand from the
2124	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry minister's answer that in fact he has had no communication with either or both of the cochairmen of the B and B commission, and that the statement he made when opening the Public Service Language Centre and the recommendation of the B and B report are just coincidental?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I just answered that question. I said that I had not been in touch with either the co-chairmen or the commissioners about that matter. However, I did tell the hon. member, who did not seem to understand, that it was not just a coincidence, but that such an initiative seems to be the normal extension of the action undertaken by the government at the level of the public service with regard to bilingualism.



REQUEST FOR REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUBJECT OF INTEGRATED POLICY

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. My question arises from his exploratory discussions with Mr. Walter Hickel, Secretary of the Interior of the United States.
In view of the widespread interest in the subject of these discussions, and in view of the statement the minister himself made to the press, would the minister be prepared to move in the House reference of the whole question of an integrated energy policy to the appropriate standing committee or to a special committee so that Parliament could have an opportunity to review the subject, rather than be confronted with a fait accompli as was the case with the Columbia River treaty?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to consider the suggestion of the hon. member, but as he knows the Shultz commission is about to finish its work and report to the President. It may well be that in our continuing negotiations with the United States on this issue the question of oil policy will be settled independently of any broader initiatives prior to the reconvening of the House.
DEBATES	December 18, 1969


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's statement in the House the other day regarding what he alleged were the uneconomic aspects of transporting oil by pipeline from western Canada to Montreal, would the minister be prepared to table the working documents and data collected by the government so as to substantiate his statement?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there were documents before the House as early as the Borden commission in regard to the cost of a pipeline to Montreal. My statement was to the effect that it is preferable to see Albertan oil being sold in its natural economic market, where it is profitable, rather than being sold where possibly it would not be so profitable to the producers, provided that the interests of consumers in Canada are adequately protected as well.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question. In view of the fact that the sale of oil in the United States and the bringing of oil to Montreal are not mutually exclusive, would the minister be prepared to give the House the data from which members can ascertain the economic feasibility of bringing western oil to Montreal?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that this kind of information could not be given now. The hon. member may be suggesting that this be done by way of a statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am not asking the minister to make a statement or to give the information now but merely to indicate whether or not he would be prepared to table the documents.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there is no one document which would make this information available. There have, of course, been many studies in this regard. I would be very pleased to consider the request of the hon. member, and if it is deemed in the national interest to have a broad discussion, at the committee level or otherwise, then I would be very glad to consider the matter.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the

December 18, 1969

minister. A few days ago I asked the Acting Minister whether the presence of the United States Corps of Engineers in northern Ontario had anything to do with a survey of water resources, and the Acting Minister replied that he would make further inquiries. Has the minister any further report to make on the matter?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have been instructed that there are no members of the United States Army Corps of Engineers taking part in any federal water resources survey in northern Ontario. The only survey being made is a hydrological and hydraulic engineering study, and this is being undertaken in accordance with the announcement of the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Ontario in August, 1965. This study is referable to the principal rivers in northern Ontario which drain into James Bay and Hudson Bay. This assessment of water resources is to provide information that is essential to their effective future utilization. The work is co-ordinated with that being undertaken by Ontario to avoid duplication. I would emphasize that these studies and investigations bear no specific relation to any water diversion project or proposal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Is he able to tell us, now that the notorious Robert Gignac has been captured by the Quebec police, whether security measures will be taken in order to prevent this great friend of Lucien Rivard from escaping once again?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but in his absence I will address it to the minister who accepts responsibility for answering to the House on his behalf.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Would the minister inform the House by what means the Indian Affairs Branch came into possession of galley proofs of the book "The Unjust Society" by the Indian author Harold Cardinal without Mr. Cardinal's knowledge or consent? If an answer is not forthcoming and the question is to be taken as notice, would the minister also say whether the Indian Affairs Branch considers it part of its duty as trustee for our native people to censor the publications of Indian authors?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, a similar question was addressed to the Solicitor General a few days ago. If he wishes to reply to the hon. member may I refer the matter to him.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, arising out of an
answer by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to a delegation a couple of days ago in respect of allegations made that under Israeli occupation there are violations of the Geneva Convention and that civilians living in the area are being subjected to harassment, and because of the feeling of the Jewish people across Canada that an answer should be given in this regard, will the minister say whether during his recent sojourn in the Middle East he looked into this question and whether he concluded that there was no basis for the allegation? If so, why did he state to this delegation that he would look into the situation to find out whether there was any basis for the criticism put before him?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the right hon. member for Prince Albert asked this question because as he will see I did not authorize any such statement. A press conference was given by some of the delegates who were in my office. I was not present. I read with some surprise what was said. When they called on me I told them we have conducted exchanges with the Israeli authorities through the embassy here and otherwise and that the much broader question of an inquiry into the situation of civilians as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict has of course been examined in the United Nations, but full investigation of the situation has not
December 18. 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry been possible because of the lack of agreement between the parties.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the minister, in order to reassure the people of Jewish origin in Canada, whether consideration is being given to moving the Canadian embassy now located at Tel Aviv to the city of Jerusalem?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, we have no present intention to move the embassy to Jerusalem. As the right hon. member knows about as well as anyone in this country, he did not do so when he was Prime Minister and the same circumstances still prevail, namely, that Jerusalem is still pretty much a disputed area.


John George Diefenbaker: Did the minister not say at that time that we should take that course of action?


Mitchell William Sharp: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I was not a member of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the right hon. gentleman rising on a question of privilege?


John George Diefenbaker: The statement was made outside the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POLLUTION


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister concerning water pollution. Has his attention been drawn to the statement by the government of British Columbia and the minister concerned that the government of British Columbia and not the federal government will make the decision whether oil drilling will be permitted in the Gulf of Georgia? This is an important matter to many British Columbians.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my attention had not been drawn to this until a few moments ago when the hon. member was good enough to send me a note stating that he intended to ask the question. I believe this matter was dealt with at an earlier stage by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources but I shall check to see whether his attention has been drawn to this.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on this topic. In view

of the statement to which my colleague from Surrey referred, would the minister make a statement in the House on motions to clarify the position because I feel the minister has not clarified the position in the House?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not think a statement on motions would be of great advantage. The area of Georgia Strait comes inside the resource administration lines that the Prime Minister brought before the House a little less than a year ago in respect of offshore resources. In the event that the provinces agree to that distribution of administrative responsibility, then it could come within the provincial ambit of administrative authority, but to date the provinces have not agreed-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the minister's reply correctly, is he now stating that the offer to the province last year in respect of the Gulf of Georgia is still open to the province to accept?


John James Greene: This matter is still under discussion with the province.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's previous statement in the House that both he and the Minister of Fisheries would have to grant permits before there could be drilling in Georgia Strait, may I ask the minister whether he will now make clear that he still has the power to make the final decision in respect of granting such permits and that they will not be granted if there is any danger to the fishing industry?


John James Greene: That is correct. Until there is provincial agreement this area, being outside the low water mark, still comes under the jurisdiction of the federal authorities in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the reference to it. It is my view, even though it is a legal opinion to which I may not be entitled, that a permit would be needed from the federal authorities.



CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS AGAINST U.S. POSTPONEMENT OF CHEMICAL TARIFF CUTS

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of
December 18, 1969	COMMONS
the request of the U.S. government to the European Common Market to further postpone scheduled cuts in United States tariffs on chemicals, has the government made representations to the United States government to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the Kennedy Round agreement in light especially of Canada's unilateral acceleration of tariff cuts under the same agreement?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very complicated matter and I might as well read the answer prepared for me. Members will realize why I said that in a moment. This reduction arose from the Kennedy Round negotiations and the undertaking by the U.S.A. to eliminate the American selling price system of customs valuation on certain chemicals. The Common Market and the United Kingdom agreed to undertake tariff reductions beyond the first two stages only if the U.S.A. dropped the ASP system. As the United States Congress has not yet abolished ASP, neither Europe nor the U.S.A. will move to the next stage of reductions in 1970. The most important part is the next sentence. The effect on Canadian exports is calculated to be very slight.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Does the government intend to publish soon the annual report of the National Film Board for the year ended March 31, 1969?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall the date when the report is to be tabled in the House. I take note of the hon. member's question and I shall give him an answer later.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Did the minister receive, in September last, from the directors of the National Film Board, a five-year organization program? If so, could he table in the House the text of this program so that hon. members may see what it is about?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have received several programs, some of which relate only 21545-64
DEBATES	2127
Inquiries of the Ministry to financial matters and others to organization matters. I do not know which of these documents may be tabled and which ones contain government internal information but, after I have inquired, I will be glad to table those which may be tabled in the normal manner.



ORDER LEVYING CHARGES FOR USE OF FILMS

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. During the time of the uproar with regard to the Film Board, part of which has been solved, I think, by the decision to appoint someone to look into the staff problem, will the minister freeze the decision of the board to charge rentals for films to schools and educational institutions, pending clarification of this decision which was made unilaterally without consultation with the provinces?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have already replied to a question that was substantially the same as the hon. member's. I said that this matter was being discussed by the officials of the National Film Board and that, as far as I am concerned, I have not had the time yet to find out what it is all about. Therefore, I cannot announce the decision to impose any freeze whatsoever.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Why did the director for the Prairies area send a notice to every organization concerned, indicating the new rates set for films, from January 1, since the minister says that-


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that as put the hon. member's question is argumentative and is therefore not in order.



LAY-OFFS OF EMPLOYEES

John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question refers to a question and answer yesterday in the House on this subject. Is the independent person mentioned by the minister the same, a substitute for or supplementary to the one mentioned by the minister in regard to the report on all changes in the NFB which the minister said was on his desk on Monday of this week?
December 18. 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Gérard Pelletier: Neither, Mr. Speaker. When I mentioned that I had called for a report on whatever changes were made within the National Film Board, I had not yet received the Commissioner's suggestion that an independent person be appointed to review the appropriateness of the administrative decisions the Board has had to make within the last few days. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley should therefore consider that such an appointment which, by the way, will be made today, is in addition to and not instead of the study of all other administrative matters, including distribution of films.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that the minister, as much as possible, avoids interfering personally in internal and administrative decisions of the National Film Board.



ORDER LEVYING CHARGES FOR USE OF FILMS

[u'Not yet, Mr. Speaker. The representative of the Prime Minister, when he was in Lagos, put forward a plan which we believe would be more effective in increasing\ufeffDecember 18, 1969', 'the amount of relief that would reach the people of Biafra, and until this has been explored I do not think it would be in the interests of the Biafrans to make a decision on the other matter.']
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that film distributors and libraries in British Columbia have already been notified that the imposition of fees on films that were formerly free will commence on January 1, may I ask the minister if he would consider witholding this action until he has reconsidered the whole matter? If the minister leaves the matter in abeyance, these fees will come into effect before this reconsideration is completed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is all a question of logic.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that we have here a question requiring months of studies, for the situation is very simple. The Board, which like many other government agencies has seen its budget frozen, is trying to recoup as much as possible the cost of its services. Rental fees which it intends to charge henceforth for the loan of films are part of that policy. At the suggestion of the House, I agreed to discuss the matter with the Commissioner, and the discussions are already underway. They should not last too long, and were it necessary to take action, there would be ample time left to do so before July, but I will refrain from giving any assurance that such action will take place.



Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the findings of Norwegian scientists that the two and a half years of war in Biafra have resulted in the death of 40 per cent of the children there between the ages of two and four, will the Canadian government urge upon the United Nations the need for its initiative now to end this war and the wholesale slaughter of defenceless children?


Mr. Fairweaiher:: It is an internal matter, and they can do nothing about it.


Mitchell William Sharp: I have said on many occasions that to raise the matter in the United Nations, according to the advice we have received from the Secretary General, would not help to end the war; it would simply exacerbate the situation.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Merry Christmas.


Winona Grace MacInnis: May I ask the minister whether he could now let us know how the other initiative in Ethiopia is progressing?


Mitchell William Sharp: Not very well, unfortunately, and I am sure everyone regrets this. As I understand the situation, the Biafran delegation has now withdrawn.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question with regard to recent proposals under consideration by this government concerning relief and the recent promise to give a decision, particularly to Canairelief, before Christmas. Considering that presumably this is the last day when the minister will be in the House before the end of this part of the session, can he now give us some indication of whether the government has taken a decision and whether such a decision has been communicated to Canairelief?


Mitchell William Sharp: the amount of relief that would reach the people of Biafra, and until this has been explored I do not think it would be in the interests of the Biafrans to make a decision on the other matter.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact that several employees of the DVA medical clinic at Sydney have been served notice that their services are no longer required after January 31, and in view of the fact that the medical officers are being removed from this clinic making it apparent that the clinic will be closed, thus causing hardship, would the minister look into the matter and ascertain if this clinic cannot be retained for the benefit of the veterans?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: We do have to reduce the number of our employees, but we will continue to give the same excellent service to all veterans, including those at Sydney.


Robert Muir: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I regret that I do not agree with the minister's statement. However, would he kindly advise the House before we adjourn how soon the Prime Minister and his government will stop treating the veterans of this country like animals?



FINANCE


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Considering the lack of short-term credit and the high interest rates which have put businesses in a precarious position, would the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Bank of Canada will ease credit restrictions in order to enable the less prosperous regions, including Quebec, to fight unemployment more effectively in 1970?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot make such a promise. On several occasions the Minister of Finance told the House that the Bank of 21545-64*
Inquiries of the Ministry Canada encourages chartered banks to make credit more readily available precisely in regions where unemployment is high rather than in those where there are inflationary pressures. I have been informed that banks do indeed follow this policy.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Will he state whether the government intends to table or make public the contents of the Smith Commission report relating to the Montreal waterfront, and if this will be done before the Christmas recess?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: The Smith report was sent for translation perhaps two months ago. The translation has now been completed, and I have had an opportunity to study the report. It has some rather broad implications and recommendations which involve the Department of Transport. I want to discuss the report with the Department of Transport, and therefore I am quite certain that it would be impossible to table it, if we decide to do so, before the Christmas recess.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions I have asked the Minister of Justice about the position of the government with regard to quashing the conviction against an Eskimo in the Northwest Territories in light of the government's position on Arctic sovereignty. I would now like to ask the minister if he is able to answer the question or make a statement in view of the fact that the reasons for judgment indicate the offence took place on sea ice beyond the shore, and that the same court assumed jurisdiction in a murder case 60 miles off shore in Queen Maud Gulf?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated some time ago to the hon. member who addressed that same question to me that, although the judgment of Mr. Justice Morrow did refer to that case, the Crown Attorney has advised me the evidence is not all that clear. Although Mr. de Werdt indicated his intention to appeal the case, we
2130	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry are not yet in a position to respond to the question posed by the hon. member, but I am taking it very seriously and am looking into it.



SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT UPHOLDING EQUAL RIGHTS FOR INDIANS

['Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all regret very much the loss of this plane and are very happy that at least the crew escaped. I think the hon. gentleman will agree, however, that this is the reason why we should try to support daylight flights. These food planes that fly by night are mixed up with arms planes, and it is not surprising in a civil war if some of them are destroyed.']
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is a related and not a supplementary question. You can take your pick. Has the minister had an opportunity to review the sentences of those Indian people held for violations of the Indian Act and perhaps now held contrary to the decision in the Drybones case?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for a report. I just got it this morning and I have not yet had a chance to digest it completely.



Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the destruction by Nigerian aircraft of a Canairelief plane at Uli airport as it was unloading food. Has a protest been lodged with the Lagos government, either by his officials or through the Prime Ministers' emissary, over this outrageous attack on a plane which was on an errand of mercy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all regret very much the loss of this plane and are very happy that at least the crew escaped. I think the hon. gentleman will agree, however, that this is the reason why we should try to support daylight flights. These food planes that fly by night are mixed up with arms planes, and it is not surprising in a civil war if some of them are destroyed.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that government action on all pension and social security matters seems to have to await the government's white paper on social security, can the minister say whether it will be possible for the government to table that white paper when we return in January?

DEBATES	December 18, 1969


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the government will be ready to table the paper by that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that on the late show the other night I did not get an answer to this question, may I again ask the minister whether, in view of the delay in tabling the white paper, the government will consider providing for an interim increase in the old age security pension?


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously this is a repetition of a question already asked. I wonder if it is in order to ask it again today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was going to raise a point of order but all I will say is that, since I did not get an answer on the late show the other night, I shall give notice of the question for another late show.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Since this is not his day to be in the House I thought it might be directed to the acting minister, who should be here but isn't. In view of the urgency of the matter I will have to ask the second acting minister whether the President of the Treasury Board is taking any action to meet the demands of guards in federal penitentiaries for an increase in pay, and thereby avoid an imminent strike by these people?


Mr. Speaker:: I gather this is a repetition of a question asked within the last few days, but if the right hon. Prime Minister wishes to reply at this time there is no objection to it from a procedural standpoint.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was going to reply as you did by saying the question had been dealt with, but if the hon. member could possibly manage to be here tomorrow the President of the Treasury Board will be answering questions.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that tomorrow is the last day before the recess, will the Prime Minister require all ministers to be here to catch up on the backlog of questions?
December 18, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES



INDUSTRY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the report of the OECD that Canada is the only one of 12 industrial countries to show a slump in industrial production this year, he will say that the government is considering any new policies to halt this decline and to provide adequate employment opportunities in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that this situation arose because of the high number of strikes which were in industries under provincial jurisdiction.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the position of the government is that its general economic policy is functioning just as beautifully as its anti-inflationary policy?



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It relates to the announcement the day before yesterday by General Dynamics Corporation that it intends to build six 200,000 ton submarine oil tankers to transport oil through the Northwest Passage, and has made an offer to sell these tankers to six major oil companies involved in the Prudhoe Bay oil field. Since this offer was quite specific, mentioning costs and delivery dates, I would like to know whether the Prime Minister could indicate whether the government of Canada or any government department has been consulted regarding this proposal?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not been informed and I thank the hon. member for this information. We will be inquiring into it. As the Prime Minister said in answer to a similar question on this subject, the government's policy with relation to the Arctic waters will be announced in the second part of the session.



SCIENCE SERVICES


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a very direct question to the Secretary of State for
Inquiries of the Ministry External Affairs. Will the government take action on the Canadian science policy report of the United Nations Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development?
Since there is no answer I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. I had intended to direct it to the President of the Treasury Board, but he is not here. Considering recommendations in this new report, and the previous report by the former President of UBC, is the Prime Minister going to announce the decision of the government, one way or another, to rationalize the Medical Research Council, the National Research Council and the section of the Canada Council that provides social science funds into one single grant agency?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think that this interesting and important question asked by the hon. member should be replied to by way of a statement on motions.



COMBINES


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the startling figures tabled as a return on December 15 this year, showing that since 1963, 606 Canadian firms have been taken over by foreign corporations, can the minister indicate if he is considering specific action to examine and, if necessary, to prevent such foreign takeovers?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I said in a speech the other day that this was a matter of concern to me, and that some of the issues raised by the return that was tabled would have to be dealt with, I hope more effectively, through a revised Combines Act. The matter is very much under study by me.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Max Saltsman: No, on a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about reached the end of the question period. Perhaps we might allow the hon. member for Portneuf to ask a question. There might be time for another two or three questions if we deal with them quickly.
December 18, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



HEALTH INSURANCE


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Would he tell the House if the surplus premiums paid under the Ontario Health Services Insurance Plan are or will be refunded to federal civil servants who have moved or will move to Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: The question might be put on the order paper.



HOCKEY-SUPPORT BY MINISTER OF HOCKEY CANADA CHAIRMAN

Mr. Sieven E. Paproski (Edmonlon Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the continuous interference of Europe's hockey czar, Mr. Bunny Aherne, by continuously making rules to his ov/n advantage thus upsetting the world hockey championships, has the minister supported the great efforts put forth by Mr. Charlie Hay, chairman and director of Hockey Canada?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



WHEAT-INTRODUCTION OF PROTEIN CONTENT CONCEPT IN GRADING

Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister say whether the government will soon be proposing legislation that will introduce the concept of protein content into the grading of wheat?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there will be a revision of the Canada Grain Act as announced in the House on October 22 or 23.



STEPS TO SPEED UP MOVEMENT TO LAKEHEAD

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt. In view of the fact that there are only some 37 million bushels of grain now in 
storage at the Lakehead leaving space for some 60 million bushels, will steps be taken to insure a speed-up in grain movement to the Lakehead?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, steps have been taken in an attempt to insure a speed-up in the movement of grain to the Lakehead. Priority, of course, at the moment is being given to the shipment of grain to the west coast where it is being loaded into the vessels.



COMBINES


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is rising on a question of privilege.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the question asked by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) may I point out, in order that the House will not be misled, that in the report tabled on Monday showing that some 600 companies had been taken over, Algoma Steel was included as having been taken over by a West German corporation. In actual fact, the West German corporation only took over 25 per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest this is a statement and has very little to do with privilege. Order, please. We ended the question period some minutes ago but if hon. members wish to pursue the question period there is no objection on the part of the Chair. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I was asked a supplementary question by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. It is the same question-


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, if there is not unanimous consent for this side, then there is none for that side either.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course, I assume if the Minister of Justice wishes to pursue the question period that right will be extended to members of the opposition. Orders of the day.
December 18, 1969



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, December 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-139, to amend an act to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to oppose the proposal of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray).
I feel it is my duty to voice the views and aspirations of my fellow citizens regarding this motion but I will be brief.
The purpose of Bill C-139 before us is to extend for another year the imposition of the 3 per cent surtax. I would like to comment on the statement made during the last session by the Minister without Portfolio when he first introduced a bill to impose a 3 per cent surtax on personal income, as reported on page 9417 of Hansard for June 3 last. The minister used these very words:
In making this proposal tonight, I am mindful of the implication given last October that these surtaxes would be allowed to terminate as scheduled and that this was a factor in determining the series of tax measures then introduced. It will be clear to everyone, however, that the extension of the surtaxes at this time is required for the purposes of economic stabilization, and not for budgetary revenues.
It is clear that the legislation brought before us by the minister without portfolio is not based on an urgent need to supply the government with more money so that it may meet its commitments. As the minister said, it is a mere question of stabilizing the Canadian economy.
This 3 per cent surtax which has been suggested on a temporary basis represents a very strange Christmas gift to Canadians, who thought that it would affect them for one year only. So, they are being offered a very strange gift, that is a surtax they will have to pay for at least another year.
As the minister refuses to promise the withdrawal of this surtax at the end of another year, we are justified in believing that it will become permanent.
I just had to take a few seconds to say that the workers in my constituency and in others as well are unfairly subjected to that tax, for
Income Tax Act
it contributes to maintaining the cost of living at a high level and to perpetuating inflation. This is a glaring injustice, especially for low or middle income workers.
Through that surtax the government does not have to levy, according to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), the latter will dig into the pockets of the workers for the money they would need to meet their obligations. He will collect, in the coming year, the neat little sum of $20 million or so.
One does not have to give it much thought to blame severely the minister and the government for not being able to meet their obligations, and for levying a useless surtax.
As I said a while ago, that 3 per cent surtax was first levied on a temporary basis, but it is becoming permanent. We must also remember that this surtax was born in the month of February 1968, when the government proposed a 5 per cent surtax and was defeated in the House. The Canadians who, at the time, blamed the government and hoped to have the opportunity of telling it that they had enough of that Liberal administration, were forced to put up with its incompetence and finally ended up with a surtax no one wants.
Under the circumstances, we therefore have no choice. Indeed, we must vote against this surtax and ask the government to quit oppressing the low income workers. Those who are responsible for administrating public affairs, must, at long last, assume their responsibilities and respect the promises they made during the election campaign by drawing closer to the needs of the people. Only then will they understand that it is imperative for them to stop oppressing the Canadian workers, and to discontinue levying this 3 per cent surtax.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baitleford-Kindersley):: May I say a few words about this taxation bill, Mr. Speaker? The other day the Minister without Portfolio from Windsor West (Mr. Gray) suggested that this measure has been introduced in order that we may cool inflation. I read his remarks again just now, and that clearly is the inference to be drawn from them. I suggest that not all parts of the country are contributing to inflation and for that reason the government ought to consider introducing other measures to deal with existing problems. You know, Mr. Speaker, when other people lose their jobs we call it a reces-

December 18, 1989
Income Tax Act
sion; but when we lose our own jobs, then we call it a depression. Passage of this bill will adversely affect all those who are in economic difficulties and will do nothing to solve the problems of certain parts of the country. Of course, I am talking mainly about western Canada, because I know that part of the country. But my remarks apply equally to other, less prosperous parts of the country.
The minister may say that the economy needs cooling; but it does not need cooling right across Canada. The government ought to consider introducing fiscal policies which would help certain disadvantaged parts of the country and consider pumping more money into those areas. The government ought to consider industries in this country on a regional basis. For instance, if the potash industry is in trouble, it ought to consider helping that industry. If the oil industry or the agricultural industry is in trouble, the minister ought to consider helping those industries by implementing helpful fiscal policies. Although we have introduced fiscal measures involving tariffs, I notice that the tariffs do not work equally for the benefit of all parts of the country. For example, tariffs on automobile products affect mainly that small portion of the country encompassing the Windsor area, Toronto, and the Oshawa area. The people living in those areas might object violently if we were to tamper with automobile tariffs, yet hon. members representing those areas of the country will do little to reciprocate and help other parts of the country. Clearly, since the automobile industry and other similar industries are fairly affluent, it may make sense for us to say that we ought to cool the economy so far as those industries are concerned. But we should not apply such cooling measures right across the board. Certain industries need to be helped, and for that reason the government ought not to use a blanket approach in attempting to solve problems.
This bill reminds me of a Jerry-built house. I once saw a house that had attached to it a lean-to; another lean-to was added to the first one, and still another lean-to had been added to the second. This legislation reminds me of that structure, because it symbolizes this government's approach to taxation. If the government could assure us that in its tax reform proposals there would be changes in the kind of tax it is now seeking to impose, we might be more ready to listen to the government. Unfortunately there is no such
fMr. Thomson.]
assurance. Apparently the surtax is to be dealt with as the CNR indebtedness is dealt with, that is every year. We were told at one time that this would be a special tax. I submit that it is not solving our problems. I urge the minister from Windsor West not to cool the economy of the country right across the board, because some areas of the country need help if they are to solve some of their problems. If adequate fiscal measures are introduced to help those areas of the country, we shall be helping the economy generally and thereby bring about some semblance of unity which has real meaning within Canada.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I would not speak again to the main motion at this stage were it not for the seriousness of the situation we are facing at the present time. I think the government has to consider very seriously the question of its credibility and the confidence which the people of Canada will have in it, in view of developments which have taken place over the past several months and in view of the increasing feeling that the government has lost control of the situation and is no longer capable of grasping the problems we are confronted with in Canada. In considering this bill I think we have to keep in mind the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) last June when he delivered his budget speech. As has been pointed out previously, he said, as reported at page 9417 of Hansard:
It will be clear to everyone, however, that the extension of the surtaxes at this time is required for the purposes of economic stabilization, and not for budgetary revenues.
We must take a look at the performance of the economy since that time, at what public attitudes today are and at the public's response to government policies.
I note with considerable interest an article in this morning's Globe and Mail written by George Bain which, it seems to me, sums up pretty well public feeling at present towards the government's so-called policies of economic stabilization, of which this bill forms a part, as the minister has said. May I through you, Mr. Speaker, draw to the attention of hon. members part of what Mr. Bain wrote in this morning's Globe and Mail article. The article reads:
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
This Government has Its moments when it sinks into a state of absolutely numb fatheadedness-as, for particular example, when Finance Minister
December 18, 1969

Edgar Benson was asked by Robert Stanfield the other day what he intends to do about the continuing rise in the cost of living.
If there is one subject on which the Government ought to do its best to cultivate the appearance of humility, it's that one; there's nothing in the record to be self-satisfied about.
Ministers themselves, Mr. Benson among them, have been prating for months about the further remedies they hold in reserve, and with the cost-of-living index having reached 127.4 with no sign that it will stop there, a certain curiosity about what those measures are and when they are likely to be employed shouldn't be altogether surprising.
He goes on to mention some of the statements that were made by the Minister of Finance when he delivered his budget speech last June. At this time, I suggest the government should seriously consider withdrawing the bill. I think many Canadians would, in fact regard it as something of a Christmas present to the economy if the government saw fit to withdraw this bill. It certainly would be more in keeping with new economic trends that have developed since the Minister of Finance delivered his budget speech.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, the Minister without Portfolio, when he concludes the debate, will give some indication that the government is in fact having second thoughts about this policy and will consider withdrawing this bill at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? The hon. member for Compton.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-139, an untimely measure to introduce in the House.
No later than yesterday, we were given some proof of that when the minister was asked a question and we were told that the government does not need the money because it collects other taxes. Some public works and other projects have been stopped in order to save money and balance the government budget.
The 3 per cent surtax had been imposed for a year, and the government had suggested that it would disappear once the budget had been stabilized. But now, we are asked to maintain that harmful and untimely surtax.
Yesterday, I asked the minister the following question:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister why the government is maintaining this tax. We are told that for 1970, the government is expecting a huge surplus.
Income Tax Act
If the budget of the government is satisfactorily balanced, why should it unbalance the budgets of all Canadians to the benefit of the federal government's?
The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray) answered as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) said, in his budget speech, that it was necessary, in order to win the battle against inflation, to maintain fiscal restraints. In this regard, one of the methods he advocated was to maintain the surtax for one year in order to win this battle against inflation, which is in the interest of all Canadians, including the lower income groups.
Considering this answer, I wonder what proportion of the population will be paying this tax. The statement that the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) made yesterday was absolutely correct. This is what he said:
Even though the subsequent measure, an extension of which we are now debating, levied a 3 per cent tax on individual income and corporations as well, it is still grossly unfair. If this bill is passed, in 1970 the government will collect an additional $115 million from the individual income tax payer and only $40 million from corporations. This is a ratio of 3 to 1, that is $3 from the average, medium and low income taxpayers in Canada and $1 from corporations.
In the remainder of this year, an additional $25 million will be collected, $20 million from individuals and $5 million from corporations.
This is a ratio of 4 to 1, $4 being collected from individuals and $1 from corporations. The total tax revenue forecast for 1969-70 is on a ratio much closer to 2 to 1, that is $2 from individuals and $1 from corporations. Because of these figures I just quoted, surely this surtax makes the measure regressive and grossly unfair. This has already been pointed out by previous speakers.
These figures are certainly correct. We have long known that the greater part of the tax revenue comes from the small taxpayers and that when large companies declare a certain amount for tax purposes, they hide three times as much, a fact that the other members have not mentioned in their remarks.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, if we were to tax excessive profits, if we knew the fantastic sums they represent, we would realize the amount of currency issued which is harmful to the economy, because it creates inflation.
As a matter of fact, inflation is not caused by those 80 per cent of the population who are in deflation. Moreover, inflation certainly is not caused by those who are unemployed or on welfare. We see the gap widening everyday between those who draw welfare allowances and the others.

December 18. 1969
Income Tax Act
Farms are abandoned and industries close down because of excessive taxation, and because it is not possible for any reserves to escape taxation.
I agree with the members of the New Democratic Party that this is a glaring injustice. We do not want to take from people all the money and all the profits they make but, under our present system, if we are unable to do anything but tax those who have no money to give it to those who have already too much of it, this is a gross injustice and the government should do something.
If we have inflation in this country and if more taxes and more surtaxes are imposed, we shall unbalance our economy because we take their resources from those who need them, from those who could spend more, who could have a higher buying power, which would make it possible to sell surplus goods.
Canada is faced with several problems, but the most serious is overproduction which has reached such a point that we are unable to empty our warehouses and our stores for lack of money and purchasing power.
We should take some of the tax burden off the shoulders of low-bracket taxpayers so as to leave them with more purchasing power and to enable the manufacturers, the dealers and the retailers to sell more goods in order to produce more. As a result, more jobs would become available for our citizens who would then have a chance to earn a livelihood instead of getting deeper into unemployment and insecurity. In this way, we will not be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
We will not be able to balance our economy, by continuing our present policy because the more we increase taxes, the more we throw our economy off balance. When the population finds it more difficult to make ends meet, citizens accumulate profits and declare less for taxation purposes. We are in a tragic situation and some people say that the government, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the Bank of Canada can solve the problem of inflation by taking money from those who already do not have enough. The situation is very tragic and must be improved at all costs.
Yesterday, members of the New Democratic party quoted statistics. I will go a little further by quoting more figures. There are in Canada eight chartered banks. Yesterday, the accrued gains of those banks were mentioned. For my part, I will merely refer to the profits of the eight Canadian chartered banks for the last 12 months.

In the past year, the assets of the eight chartered banks increased to $6,647,802,000. Never before in history have we seen financial institutions increase their revenue so much. As for other businesses, they are in a bad way.
If certan institutions are allowed to make that much profit, all the better. Have they not been granted certain privileges by the government?
Many Conservatives and New Democrats voted in favour of lifting the ceiling on interest rates. Everyone voted for it except the Creditistes. Parliament is to blame if so much freedom was given to these institutions. They rule the roost, because we gave them a free hand. And since they have unlimited powers, they are justified in pocketing the profits they make. But the ones who cannot justify their position are those who gave them this sovereign power which belongs to the government and which the latter should never have yielded to such mighty companies.
This is not the way to solve the problem of inflation. The total assets of chartered banks amount to $6,647,802,000 for a single year, or the equivalent of twice the total amount of notes issued by the Bank of Canada in 35 years, that is to say, $3,287 million.
In this respect, we might say several things, but since we have a situation and a problem to solve, in my opinion, it would be logical to withdraw this bill. Considering that revenues may be obtained through other means and that public works are no longer being carried out, it would not be advisable to deprive citizens of what little money they might have, money which has been mostly borrowed at rates of interest of 8, 9, 10, 12 and even 25 per cent.
It is illogical for the government which claims to be a good manager, able to balance the budget of this country and that of all Canadian taxpayers, to favour a few institutions.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Some have said that to solve the problem of inflation, we should apply a control on prices and salaries but it would be of no avail because salaries, prices and interest rates are already too high. This is not the way to solve the problems of our economy which has to be balanced with whatever can be balanced.
Instead of providing our cart with two wheels of the same size in order to keep it going straight, we are putting on it a small
December 18, 1969

one and a big one; as a result, the cart is running around in circles. So is our present system and that does not help at all.
Since our production, in 1969, amounted to $72 billion and since we have consumed for 44 billion dollars' worth, our production costs should amount to $44 billion. Consumers should therefore pay $44 billion and the balance of $28 billion should be distributed as a compensated discount through credits issued by the Bank of Canada. We could thus adjust prices to facts, to consequences and to reality and we could balance the budget of the government. In my opinion, there is no other way to do it.
We would then be the first to fall into step because what we want is not power but reforms, not only I and the other members of the Ralliement creditiste, but all the people of Canada, and it is up to the government in power to bring them about. If nothing better than our solutions can be found, let us try them.
The steady increase in taxes and rates of interest creates an untenable situation and puts the people in an unstable position, in a dismal position, and the Canadian people must get deeper into debt in order to survive. There are almost no families in Canada that are not head over ears in debt. One only needs to see the debts of the school boards, of the municipalities, of the provinces to realize it. All those government agencies are on the verge of bankruptcy and no solution is suggested other than an increase in taxes both at the federal and the provincial level. Other governments do the same.
The people cannot breathe any more. Everything is connected. All the tax suction-pumps are connected to the Canadian body and the latter gets pumped so much that it will soon sink out of sight and vanish. That tax-pumping system will have to be abandoned one of these days. And I cannot see why trade unions and workers keep going on strike for wage increases, for this or that, instead of going on a tax strike.
Eventually, the taxpayers will refuse to pay their taxes. I hope that such a dreadful situation will not develop shortly. Our country would be disrupted. Everything would be destroyed and we would have to start from scratch. We object to this. We want to preserve everything that was achieved at great pains. We do not intend to demolish, we want to build.
Therefore, financial institutions should be set in order and made more practical and
Income Tax Act
consistent. They must serve man. They should not lead us to disaster. We do not agree on that and governments have never found a solution to the problem.
Progressive Conservatives are against this 3 per cent surtax. They have a great deal to say, but no solution to offer. While they were in office, they did exactly what the Liberals are doing now. They never found any solution to the problem. Just like the Liberals, when we suggest to them logical ways to solve problems, they laugh or do not believe in them.
If they feel that the ways we are advocating are no good, they should find better ones.
That is what I ask in the name of the Canadian people. We must improve the situation and administer the country in a fair and equitable manner. We must find ways to enable the people to live decently in an affluent country and when we find that the government is getting into debt, we think it is dreadful.
I know of nobody who can be indebted to himself and yet it is what this government is doing, with its unsound financial system which steals money from the people by levying prohibitive taxes. The economic blood is being drained and therefore, the economic body is thrown out of balance.
Instead of giving injections to those suffering from low or high blood pressure, doctors should raise the pressure when it is too low or lower it when it is too high. They would thus restore the balance of the human being.
Our economy is sick and presents the same symptoms: a lack of economic blood and of stability. Our economy suffers from low blood pressure and instead of giving it the proper remedies in order to get the pressure up to balance it, the pressure is lowered. That is why our society lacks balance. Since Confederation we have never had a balanced system. Our administrators have found a few solutions to that problem.
Financial tycoons are always listened to. They have always been granted all the privileges while the people was neglected.
I therefore support those who are asking for the withdrawal of the bill, because it is harmful, because the government has no need for it, and because it offers no solution to the problem of inflation.
We contribute to further increase inflation in our country by maintaining high interest rates, by cutting all public works and by increasing rates and taxes. This situation will

December 18. 1969
Income Tax Act
give rise to new difficulties and inflation will never disappear.
Let the responsible ministers open their eyes, so that the budget of the government and of individuals will be balanced in 1970. Since there are surplus goods, it would be quite easy to distribute them. It is much more difficult to produce them, to store them and to deliver them to stores than to distribute them on a permanent and logical basis, so that all can share in the advance of applied science. Each Canadian should be able to live decently in a country overflowing with wealth.
If we counted all the goods accumulated in the past 15 years, we would be amazed. In fact, these surpluses amount to several billion dollars.
Unfortunately, war alone can solve this problem. People have to work themselves to death in order to eat and to give their families a decent living. This should not be the case. We should find alternative solutions, because it is inhuman to wage war in order to dispose of surpluses which should be consumed. As long as production is not used to satisfy the needs of the people, we shall continue to experience the same situation and perhaps worse.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, it is with extreme reluctance that I participate in this debate again, after stating my views in opposition to the measure when I spoke on the amendment. The reason I rise for the second time is to underline the failure of government members to participate in this debate. A week ago we had a debate with regard to urban problems and there was very little participation by the urban members. After hearing the statements made today by the minister in charge of housing, I thought perhaps we should give the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) an opportunity to express his views not only in respect of this measure-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to speak to the bill.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I was relating my remarks to the bill and was requesting the hon. member for York West to set forth his ideas with regard to this measure-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I thought the hon. member understood what I said.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, this surtax of 3 per cent on individuals and corporations is the main part of this measure, and I said I thought members from the urban ridings would actively participate in this debate. I should like to underline to you, Mr. Speaker, that it was the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) when he was Minister of Finance, who first initiated a bill to impose a 5 per cent tax on individuals for the purpose of dampening down the economy. He used a rather colourful phrase. He said we must put on the brakes to stop inflation. He has now left the ministry of finance and has another portfolio. I thought members of the House, and all Canadians, would like to hear his views with regard to this measure because when he was minister of finance this problem of inflation worried him, and he took certain measures.
One of the measures the minister took was to impose a 5 per cent tax on individuals, but it did not pass. After other attempts to solve the problem, he brought forward a bill imposing a 3 per cent surtax on individuals and corporations which was applicable to 1969. Now the government is attempting to apply it to 1970. According to the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), the government has budgeted for a $375 million surplus. From that figure is to be deducted the $125 million loss experienced by Expo. This leaves a balance of $250 million. He has now advised the Canadian people that as of October this year, there is a surplus of $800 million. I am wondering why the government continues to press for a surcharge of 3 per cent on individuals and corporations. Surely, the affairs of the country, with an $800 million surplus at this time of the year, do not require that this measure be passed. If we recall, at the time the minister introduced this bill he said he was not doing it for the purpose of increasing the revenue of the country but to stabilize the economy. It may be that some of the measures he has taken have brought forth that stabilization because he now proudly boasts that he has an $800 million surplus. Surely, he could give Canadians a Christmas gift by not proceeding with this measure.
I am sure that the Secretary of State for External Affairs were he the minister of finance and had the surplus the present Minister of Finance has now, would join with us in attempting to show his concern for the
December 18, 1969

ordinary people, especially in the city of Toronto. He knows that, not only is there a housing problem, but also the high cost of living problem which affects all people across the country as well as the urban people. I am sure he would take steps to avoid the imposition of this tax. I rise at this time because members of the government do not seem to appreciate just what the problem is, and do not speak against the measure at this time. I recall the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell) making a speech in respect of the capital gains tax. I am sure he has people in his riding who are feeling the pinch of inflation these days. I would have thought he would have spoken against this measure. More particularly, however, it is the hon. member for York West who has been the main spokesman in respect of urban affairs within his caucus and who spoke heatedly at Hot Springs about-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I am just relating my remarks to one of the other members. I thought he would take a very active part in asking the government to do away with the 3 per cent surtax. It may be that the hon. member for York West is a little concerned about defeating the government. We recall that the government was defeated when the present Secretary of State for External Affairs brought forward the measure to impose a 5 per cent surtax, but through procedural finesse the government received what was called a vote of confidence. However, the members of the government knew they had been defeated on a financial matter. The government, therefore, remained in power. This was in 1968 when the member for York West was not here, so he probably does not know what happened. I am sure, however, that the present Secretary of State for External Affairs is aware of this because he bore the brunt of that terrible faux pas that was imposed on the Canadian people. Even if the members on the government side were to defeat this measure it would not mean the defeat of the government because they could then bring forward what is known as the "Knowles theory" with regard to votes of confidence and the government would probably be sustained.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that all those members on the government side who are concerned with the position of the little people and urban problems get up and speak now against this bill. Then, the bill might be
Income Tax Act
defeated and they could be counted as being opposed to this very bad measure.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Bechard in the chair.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
On clause 1-
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it quite clear right at the beginning that we have not changed our minds with regard to this matter. I, personally, feel that it was part of a very scrambled budget.
I do not intend to speak at great length at this time, nor do any of my colleagues. I merely want to state that we feel the purpose of this extension is not to deal with the problem of inflation. I think it is the wrong type of tool to deal with the inflation that we have, and that it is not doing anything. The last budget contained a highly objectionable measure in which certain types of construction in certain selected areas were to be deferred. My province was one, British Columbia was another, and Ontario was still another. In today's press I find the following statement made by the largest real estate broker in Toronto:
Most apartment houses-will not stand increasing mortgage interest rates-
All this means is that apartment projects, that is residential accommodation, which the Government did not want to affect, are being hardest hit by high interest rates. I have here from almost the same page of the same newspaper an announcement that a $5 million office building is to be built in Toronto. Construction of office space in Toronto was to be discouraged. I can tell the minister that in the cities concerned there seems to be no discouragement of the construction of office space. The type of construction which it was envisaged would be discouraged is going ahead full steam because developers and businessmen do not believe the Government is able to deal with inflation and, therefore, high interest rates are going to remain. They are a natural consequence of the inflation and they will continue.
Therefore, what was a discriminatory tax measure will turn out to be completely noneffective. I say that if this is part and parcel

December 18. 1969
Income Tax Act
of the budget, it is a feature which we classify and categorize as one that is thoroughly repugnant. It is a measure that was brought in by a government which wanted to retain power but which should have been out of office because it had been defeated on the original measure. It continued in office by throwing our constitution and system of government out of the window, and by doing I do not know what else in order to get another kick at the can or, to use another metaphor, to take another bite at the cherry. This is the measure that came out of that situation.
I will not move any amendment to this clause. We oppose it and that is all.


Albert Béchard: Shall clause 1 carry?


John Stratford Burton: to be susceptible to advice from the government, advised its clients about the greater number of services they can obtain, at easier terms, on their credit cards.
Mr. Benson's trumpeted device to reduce the number of starts of new, unessential buildings in the major urban areas-the deferral of capital cost allowances for two years-has been an admitted bust (although not yet a publicly admitted bust). Building has gone on very much as before, with the one result, if any, that prices of the unpostponed unessential buildings have risen higher.
The government's Prices and Incomes Commission, set up last May, hasn't an accomplishment to its name seven months later. True, it's had its troubles and may yet do something-the prudent bettor will demand odds-but, on the basis of its performance thus far, the government has nothing to be immodest about.
This is one view that is being presented of the government's policies, performance, and the image it is presenting to the public at the present time. I think that the minister and the government should consider very carefully the course on which they are taking the Canadian economy. Just where is the government leading the Canadian economy? In this context we must of course consider the extension of taxation which is proposed in the bill before us.
The government claims that this bill was not introduced for the purpose of securing government revenues but rather for the purpose of economic stabilization. Since revenues are not a particular concern of the government-and I think it has been shown already that government revenues in relation to expenditures this year are showing a fairly healthy picture-I would like to ask what is the purpose of retaining this measure?
What is the hope for this measure achieving the objective of economic stabilization, the objective which was originally stated for it by the Minister of Finance when it was first proposed last June 3? This matter has to be considered within the context of other developments in the Canadian economy. Within that context the government must decide in the near future that it will have to affect a major change of direction in its economic policies. Its main economic policy up to the present time has been a bust, a failure. It has not achieved the objectives which the government stated for it.
Some further comments would be useful in that regard, Mr. Chairman. For instance the November 1969 issue of Canadian Labour contained the following comments in an editorial:
The folly of voluntary restraints was clearly enunciated in Canada by three economists during a recent five-day period.
Income Tax Act
On Monday, October 27, the U.S. economist John Kenneth Galbraith said in Ottawa that voluntary restraints are ineffective because they bind no one. "Such appeals to virtue have proved useless," he said at the press conference, held in conjunction with the federal Labour Department's tripartite conference marking the 50th anniversary of the International Labour Organization.
The following day, the renowned British economist, Allen Flanders, said the answer to inflation is not voluntary restraints but a prices and incomes commission. His experience as a member of Britain's prices and incomes commission had convinced him that the commission could do the job by making public the facts of price increases and forcing companies to justify them. The commission need not rule on wage increases because, by investigating prices, it was in effect controlling wages.
On Friday, October 31, Russell Bell, Director of Research for the Canadian Labour Congress, spelled out the Congress' stand in a Toronto address to the annual convention of the Canadian district of the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers:	"In its discussions with the
federal Prices and Incomes Commission the C.L.C. has not received any convincing evidence that nonwage forms of incomes, including salaries, profits, rents, interest and professional fees, unincorporated business income, speculation in real estate prices and so on could or would effectively comply with any voluntary restraints.
"The grim fact is, therefore, that no trade union leader can guarantee those whom he represents that these non-wage forms of income can effectively be brought under restraint. No trade union leader can guarantee that under such a policy there would not be a diversion of labour income to other forms of income ... no trade union leader could give any assurance to his constituents that voluntary sacrifices made by them would be at all equitably shared by other forms of income."
Nevertheless, the Prices and Incomes Commission and the federal government spokesmen, including Prime Minister Trudeau himself, have been reechoing the call for voluntary restraints. In some of his public utterances the Prime Minister has said that if labour and business do not co-operate in imposing voluntary restraints, the federal government would study its constitutional position regarding wages and price controls ... "if necessary." A threat of a study is not a very fearsome thing.
As the inflation drama unfolds it becomes more and more apparent that the Prices and Incomes Commission and its calls for voluntary restraints are aimed at discrediting the unions that have made really worthwhile gains for their membership. Unfortunately, many uncritical people are accepting the apparently simple proposition that wage gains cause inflation and hurt the unorganized worker and the pensioner. The federal government is seeking to divide the workers into two camps: the affluent and the poor, the organized and the unorganized. The reality is not that simple, since many organized workers are poor, but it is easier to adopt such a simple proposition than to study the facts.
It seems to me that very relevant and useful points were made in that editorial, points which should receive serious consideration by the government. I urge the govern-

December 18, 1969
Income Tax Act
ment to give serious consideration to an overall review of its economic policy. The tax changes that are being proposed are an integral and important component of its economic policy, at least in terms of the government's own viewpoint.
I put this to the minister, Mr. Chairman. Does he really consider it is necessary for the purposes of economic stabilization to go ahead with this new tax at this time, since it is clear that there has been a basic change in the economy? It is clear, in fact, that some of the hopes that were entertained by the government last fall, this spring, and this summer when the budget was presented, that this particular measure would be of some assistance in stabilizing the economy, in bringing about some degree of restraint within at least the private sector of the economy, have not been met? Would the government not reconsider its position now? Does it not consider the time has come to take another look at the whole picture? I suggest that in fact there is a growing degree of disillusionment and resentment throughout the country because of the course of action which the government is following at the present time. This could have very profound effects and implications for the Canadian people as a whole during the coming years if the government does not come forward with more positive proposals to deal with the situation.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I would invite the minister to present his views on this matter to the committee. I ask him just what is the government's view with respect to the effectiveness of its economic policies within the framework of the provisions in this bill. Is he considering some of the representations that have been made over the past weeks and months for a change of direction in dealing with our economic problems? I would hope the minister has some comments for the committee on this important matter.


Mr. Nystrom:: May I say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that I do not intend to make another speech on this subject as I gave my views to the House yesterday. Now, I rise to ask the minister a question. As a premise, I would state we all remember that when the bill was introduced it was only supposed to apply to the years 1968-69. The government is now asking permission to extend the 3 per cent surtax to the end of 1970.1 should like to ask the minister whether he can give us any definite commitment that the government will

not come back next year and ask for another one-year extension.
In view of the lack of participation by the government backbenchers, I assume that the chances of the bill being passed are good. Has the government made up its mind whether it will apply for an extension to the end of 1971? If it has not, can the minister state what factors will determine whether they will ask for an extension?


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to thank the first speaker from the NDP who expressed such great interest in hearing from me. Had I been aware of this interest, I would not have withheld my remarks until the committee stage. I should like to respond to his comments and those of his colleague by saying that, obviously, in the judgment of the government the extension of surtax is considered to be necessary at this time in the public interest. This is why we are proceeding with the bill and asking this committee and this House to take a decision on it.
One should not overlook the fact that at the conclusion of the debate last June the House approved a motion, the general terms of which were that the House approves the budgetary policy of the government. Just yesterday, the House rejected by a substantial margin an amendment by the official opposition that this bill be given what is commonly known as the six-month hoist. It would, therefore, seems appropriate to proceed now to ask the House to take a final decision on this measure.
The hon. member who has just spoken asked about commitments of the government with respect to this type of proposal. I would repeat what I said in reply to a similar question yesterday, that it is the practice under our parliamentary system for governments of whatever party to refrain from making comments about matters of fiscal and financial policy until the appropriate time, and I do not think I should add anything to that reply.


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the very affable Minister without Portfolio-


Gerald William Baldwin: Very silent minister.


John Gilbert: -a question. There has been an announcement by the Minister of Finance that we have an $800 million surplus for the year 1969-$850 million. In view of the budget which anticipated a net surplus of $250 million, I wonder if the Minister of
December 18, 1969

Finance has received good advice from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, since he was the minister at a time when there was a serious inflation problem. Here, we have the government taking measures to create a huge surplus. I wonder if the minister would tell us why that is so necessary at this time, in view of the surpluses we have already?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, it is useful to remember that when a government has a surplus that does not mean it has stored up a big pile of dollar bills which it keeps hidden under a mattress somewhere. In fact, the amount covered by the surplus simply reduces the amount the government would otherwise have to borrow to finance operations and to provide funds for institutions like Central Mortage and Housing Corporation to carry on their worth-while public programs. In other words, the government borrows less than it otherwise would to replace existing borrowings as obligations mature. The surplus in question is already being put to good and effective use by enabling funds to be available for programs like more housing. Because the government does not have to go to the market for borrowing purposes while it has this surplus, it is in effect operating in a constructive way to reduce inflationary pressures.
I hope hon. members will agree that the development of the surplus is not only a reflection of sound financial management by this government but is also a reflection of the success of its anti-inflationary policy.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was most interested in the comments made by the minister. As I understand the effect of the surplus, it will be used to relieve pressure which would otherwise be felt on the money market. The pressure on the market will be decreased to the extent of the $850 million which it will not be required to lend to the government. This being the case, Mr. Chairman, can the minister be optimistic enough to suggest that this will have an immediate impact, or at least an impact in a very short time, upon interest rates? There being less pressure on the market we would expect interest rates to decrease. Can the minister indicate when this will take place, and to what extent it will be perceptible to other people and governments in Canada who might be compelled to borrow in order to maintain their own administrations?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The ability of the government to stay out of the market because of the surplus
Income Tax Act
certainly cannot help but have a good effect on the level of interest rates.


Gerald William Baldwin: But when and where?


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the minister would not wish to obscure the question put to him by the hon. member for Broadview. As I recall the question, I think the significant part referred to the impact that this would have. We know that the government does not stash away its money in some little private room. We know it takes the money and uses it instead of borrowing. Surely the point of the entire matter is that government policies are affected by whether it has to borrow or does not have to borrow. There are very serious consequences for the country when the government acquires a much larger surplus than it has budgeted for, since that creates unemployment and reduces growth. This bill represents an attempt at avoiding a stimulation of the economy. The consequences to this country are very serious when the surplus is larger than that anticipated. It was this type of problem I was bringing to the minister's attention, in the hope he would answer.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: You would have to spend $1 million on Information Canada.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, the subject
referred to by my hon. friend really is a suitable one to be debated in a budget debate, or on an opposition day. It is an important subject and might be inscribed for discussion on an opposition day. It seems to me that comment upon government policy that might flow from the present operation of the government's budgetary policy would be better left to a forthcoming opposition day debate. In fact, it might be best suited to a budget debate, when the government will announce its future policy based on the past performance of its policies.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, it is not possible for us to discuss this measure in an intelligent way without looking at the effect it will have on the budget. I think there are two matters to be examined in connection with this proposal. We must examine what its effect will be on equity in taxation, because my colleagues have ably demonstrated that our present tax system is inequitable; and we must also determine what will be the economic effects of the measure, especially since the government has budgeted for a certain surplus. We must assume that the government

December 18, 1969
Income Tax Act
knows what it is doing. That being so why is it, after having budgeted for a certain surplus, that the government now feels it necessary to come along with this measure to collect an additional surplus. This is an important matter and requires an explanation from the minister. We ought to know what will be the economic effects of this measure, if it is passed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, the budget statement gives an estimate of the yield which can be expected if the surtax is extended after the House agrees to that extension. One can therefore assess the economic effect by looking at the amount of the yield. One can also gain an idea of the economic effect by seeing who will have to pay surtax, and the amounts. This is something that can readily be computed by any hon. member.
The only thing I think I can add at this point is that the government has felt and continues to feel that the development of the surtax constitutes an important weapon in restraining inflationary pressures in a way that will be in the ultimate interest of all Canadians.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, we are
obtaining very unsatisfactory answers from the minister. Actually, one might say they are non-answers. We are quite aware of the projections related to this measure. Since the government is to have a greater surplus than anticipated, I submit it is necessary for us to look at this bill and question the minister about it. How necessary is this measure, because we submit that it is very bad. The only thing that might make it palatable or acceptable to us would be if the government were to say, "We need it in order to fulfil some part of our commitment to the people and to help us manage the economy." We submit that if the government's surplus in any event is to be bigger than anticipated, this 3 per cent surtax is no longer necessary. The government already has collected the money for which it budgeted, in fact, it will have more. Therefore I ask, why does it need this additional 3 per cent to be collected through this surtax? What possible justification has the government for bringing in this measure? It should be dropped.
Sometimes hon. members of the House feel obliged to support measures which, although unpopular, are felt to be necessary. But the minister has not justified this measure on economic grounds; nor has he said the government requires this money in order to meet its

budgetary obligations. Unless the government can make a case, I submit it will be on a sticky-wicket. It will need to bring forward its best bowlers and batters, because so far it has not made out a case showing this measure is necessary.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, where I come from cricket is not played as much as it may be in my hon. friend's part of the country. It seems to me, however, that in his questions he has attempted to bowl a fair ball, and in answering his questions I have attempted to connect and to hit the ball. I hope I am using the appropriate cricket terminology.
My hon. friends have referred to the size of the surplus. No doubt they will recognize that the actual amount of surplus is not really known until the end of the fiscal year when the accounts are closed. The amount will not be known until the minister of finance of the day gives his report to parliament and the country in his next budget address. Therefore, I think that discussions as to what might be the size of the surplus had really better be left until we have a definite indication of the amount of the surplus instead of some estimate based on the current report of the receipts and expenditures of the government. Also, with respect to my hon. friend's remark that the extension of the surtax in question should be shown as being necessary in order to permit the government to meet its budgetary obligations, I may say that this point was dealt with by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, in his budget speech of June 3 when he said in part:
-the extension of the surtaxes at this time is required for the purposes of economic stabilization, and not for budgetary revenues.
That is consistent with the policy the government has expressed through the budget statement of the Minister of Finance, namely, that the impact of fiscal policies should be such as to help to restrain the inflationary forces in the economy. The minister said in part in this regard, as reported at page 9416 of Hansard, that it is important, "not to relax the fiscal brake's exerted by the present structure of income taxes upon inflationary forces in the economy". Clearly, the conclusion was that the surtax should be extended. I submit to hon. members of the committee that the best way of disposing of the matter would be for this committee to take a decision on the advisability of the proposal at this time.
Progress reported.
December 18, 1969

Private Bills



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills: Bill S-15, An Act respecting McOuat Investments Limited, Bill S-16, An Act respecting Buccaneer Industries Limited, and Bill S-17, An Act to incorporate ICG Transmission Limited, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills (without amendment) . Bill C-7, an Act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways System and Air Canada for the period from the 1st day of January, 1969, to the 30th day of June, 1970, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada; Bill C-8, an Act to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act; Bill C-155, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and Bill C-157, an Act to authorize provisional payments for the 1969-70 crop year in respect of unthreshed grain in the Prairie provinces.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-Transport-Caribou-Wood Islands ferry service-improvement of facilities; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding)-Fisheries-Whitefish kill in Kootenay Lake; the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Grills)-Canadian National Railways-Transfer of employees from Belleville to Montreal.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, Private Bills, Notices of Motions (Papers) and Public Bills.


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, would the House agree to proceed immediately to the consideration of private bills instead of notices of motions (documents)?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions about this and I think there is agreement, but perhaps I might be permitted to state the terms of the agreement. We are willing for private bills to be called first, but for the purpose of dealing only with Bill S-13 which is in the name of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc). We are prepared to give it second reading, refer it to committee of the whole and give it third reading today. We think this can be done in two or three minutes. We could then revert to Notices of Motions (Papers). If that is the request of the hon. member, this party is prepared to agree.


Gerald William Baldwin: We are prepared to agree to the request made by the hon. member for Laurier. As to what has been suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, we have no objection if that is the wish of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BANK ACT


Fernand-E. Leblanc: that Bill S-13, an act to amend Schedule A of the Bank Act, be read for the second time and referred to the Standing Committee of Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
house ready to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee of Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is there unanimous consent for this bill to be studied in committee of the whole?

December 18, 1969
Indian Affairs


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House in committee on Bill S-13, to amend Schedule A of the Bank Act-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier)-Mr. Bechard in the chair.
On clause 1-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the record should show that the reason that we are expediting this measure is that all the bill does is change the name in English of a particular bank.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I be permitted to say this should be an example to the minister that eloquent silence quite frequently is more effective.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
House will now revert to Notices of Motions (Papers).



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I just wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, that there have been certain discussions. We on this side are agreeable to standing the first three notices of motions because the members who are presenting them are not ready to proceed. We are prepared to deal with No. 65 in the name of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, November 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he wil cause to be laid before this House a copy of all notes made at all meetings or conversations between the government or any agency or department thereof and any provincial government or agency or department thereof since June 25, 1969 relating to the policy statement on Indian Affairs made in the House
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
of Commons by the Honourable Jean Chretien, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on June 25, 1969.
Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamillon-Wenl-worih):: Mr. Speaker, no one can criticize the government for their energetic Indian policy and the manner in which the minister has gone out to meet the Indian people of Canada. No department has made a more radical change in outlook than this department. It has made energetic efforts at all levels to meet the Canadian Indians, where they live as well as in the offices of government.
I submit that it makes a complete mockery of democracy to force the government to release interdepartmental communications before the department is willing to do so. If they do not wish to release privileged government documents, they should not be compelled to do so. All this does is embarrass the government and hinder the civil servants who are doing an onerous job.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Colin David Gibson: You laugh because you would like to get your hands on all kinds of government files and have a complete McCarthy-like witch hunt. This is typical of the New Democratic Party attitude. You are not prepared to conduct a dialogue in the open. You want to fish behind the files to find out what is going on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Colin David Gibson: This is in-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member resume his seat? I might remind the hon. member he should be directing his remarks to the Chair rather than to hon. members opposite.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Colin David Gibson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was expressing my reaction to this critical, carping, prying attitude taken by members of the New Democratic Party. They are always trying to pry things out from government files, they are always on fishing expeditions-


An hon. Member:: That's terrible.


Colin David Gibson: It is terrible because it denies the rule of law. Each Canadian citizen is entitled to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. This means that each civil servant has a right to the privacy of his thoughts, without big brother leaning over his shoulder. This is a subject for humour among members
December 18, 1969

of the New Democratic Party but it is a serious matter to the people of this country who wish to think freely. Free thought is vital to the running of a democratic country. We do not want our civil servants to be victims of a McCarthy type of witchhunt such as caused so much misery in the United States. We do not want that in Canada. We shall fight for the right of civil servants to express themselves freely while they are preparing their reports. We do not want to see this right whittled down.
Doctors, lawyers, union leaders and others in similar positions are allowed to think for themselves without disclosing working papers. What would happen if a government party could not introduce a policy without disclosing every opinion which had gone into its making? It is true some of these reports might have political implications-they might disclose a clash of political views, a clash of principle between people who think one way and people who think another. Why should civil servants be inhibited in the expression of their views on paper by the danger that those opinions may leak out before a final decision on policy is made? This is clearly a case where the government is responsible for keeping papers confidential until it is time for reports to be disclosed.
A recent report contained interesting information on this point. It stated on page 259 that there must always be an element of security, not simply on the ground of national security, when it comes to policy making. The report went on to say that at formative stages in reaching decisions civil servants, no less than ministers, should be able to disagree among themselves about possible courses of action without danger that their views might become a matter of public knowledge.
Surely, this is the issue now before the House. Must these interlocutory proceedings be bandied from pillar to post and handed out to the press before decisions have been reached? If we give way on this point, we give way on a matter of principle and, in effect, we are whittling down the right of civil servants to be treated with the same respect as any other Canadian citizen. For these reasons, I am opposed to the production of these documents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I presume I shall conclude the debate at this stage if I make a few brief remarks.
Indian Affairs
The speech just made by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) was, if I may say so, extremely revealing. I say this with great kindness and tenderness toward the hon. gentleman, because the only thing it revealed was his ignorance of the subject. He made a great deal of play in connection with interdepartmental documents and reports of people working in the public service. He spoke of the necessity of preserving their right to think, and so on. It is obvious that the hon. member did not even bother to read the notice of motion before the House because that notice of motion, which will be put to a vote within a few moments, has nothing to do with what the hon. member was discussing. If he had taken the trouble to read the motion- it is possible that the hon. member did, in fact, take the trouble but was not able to understand it-he would see that it asks for material arising out of notes and conversations between the federal governmnt and the provincial governments. These were discussions which the very minister to whom the hon. member referred in such glowing terms refused to allow the Indians to attend.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) tells me he was a member of this House when the father of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth was in this chamber. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre tells me also that there is a great difference between the hon. gentleman who is presently the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth and his father, inasmuch as his father at least had the sense to know when not to say anything. He used that sense regularly and steadily. I think the attitude adopted toward this House by his father would stand the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth in good stead. Obviously, the more he says the more he displays his lack of understanding of the fundamental issues with which we are dealing.
When this motion comes to a vote, the hon. gentleman and all his ilk on the other side of the House who would deny this information to the Indians of Canada will see who is the almost treasonable sort of person.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps there might be general agreement to our calling it six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour allocated for the consideration of private members' business is now terminated. At eight o'clock the House will resume consideration of the business interrupted earlier this afternoon.
At 5.45 p.m. the House took recess.
Messrs:
Allmand	Isabelle
Andras	Jerome
Badanai	Lachance
Barrett	Laflamme
Basford	Laing
Bechard	(Vancouver South)
Beer	Lang (Saskatoon-
Blouin	Humboldt)
Borrie	Langlois
Buchanan	Leblanc (Laurier)
Caccia	Lefebvre
Cafik	Legault
Chappell	Lessard
Clermont	(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Cobbe	MacGuigan
Comtols	Mackasey
C6te (Richelieu)	McBride
Cote (Longueuil)	McNulty
Cullen	Mahoney
Danson	Major
Davis	Marchand (Langelier)
Deachman	Marchand (Kamloops-
Drury	Cariboo)
Duquet	Noel
Forest	O'Connell
Forget	Otto
Foster	Penner
Francis	Perrault
Gendron	Pilon
Gervais	Prud'homme
Gibson	Reid
Gillespie	Roberts
Givens	Robinson
Gray	Rochon
Guay	Roy (Timmins)
(St. Boniface)	Serre
Guilbault	Sharp
Hellyer	Smith (Northumberland -
Honey	Miramichi)
Hopkins	Smith (Saint-Jean)
Howard (Okanagan	Stafford
Boundary)	Stanbury
Hymmen	Stewart (Cochrane)


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-139, to amend an act to amend the Income Tax Act-Mr. Gray (for Mr. Benson)-Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
On clause 1-
James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 1 carry?


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Chairman, there are just a couple of questions I want to ask the minister. I want to ask him for information on the yield that is expected from the surtax on the individual income tax, and also the yield that is expected from the surtax on the corporation income tax. Further, is there information that could be made available to members which could be used to provide a comparison between the tax structure without the use of the surtax, and the figures as shown in the white paper in the tables set out on pages 26 to 29?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I may ask the hon. member to repeat his questions. I
December 18, 1969

was trying to gather together some information. Perhaps if he would restate them I could make a more responsive answer, since I did not hear all that he said.


John Stratford Burton: My first question is, what is the anticipated yield from this surtax for 1970, as applied to individual income tax returns, and what is the anticipated yield as applied to corporation income tax returns? My next question was with reference to the tables in the white paper on tax reform, given I believe at pages 26 to 29. Is there information to show what the comparison would be between present taxation and the expected taxation levels in the white paper proposals, on the assumption that this surtax were not to continue in 1970?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I regret I do not have a copy of the white paper with me, and perhaps I should also add that I do not have that type of computation with me and am not certain if it is readily available.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is just as well. You don't want to be caught with that on you.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I think the white paper will be found to be the basis of a very equitable and sound system of tax reform. It was my impression that we were now dealing with proposals arising out of the budget of last June. With respect to the hon. member's second question, I will try to get him some information at a later date, if it can be computed.
With regard to his first question dealing with the expected additional revenues, I am informed that for the year 1969-70, the additional revenue from personal income tax would be $100 million, and from corporate income tax $55 million.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 1 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member is seeking the floor he might wait until I put the question on third reading. This stage is not debatable.
When the shall said bill be read a third time?
Income Tax Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: By
leave, now.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak at any length on this stage of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Stratford Burton: I am glad to find I have such popularity on both sides of the House. I think the arguments have been set forth clearly by the New Democratic Party why we think this bill should not be proceeded with at the present time. I am disappointed in the answers that have been provided by the minister when replying to the proposals and points put forward by this party. We think that the fundamental point has not been answered by the government.
When the budget was presented last June, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) made it clear that the government was not proposing to continue this surtax into 1970 for the basic purpose of securing further revenues, but rather as a measure to provide economic stabilization. We feel there has been a basic change in the Canadian economy since that time and that the government must take that into account before proceeding with this bill. We believe that the government has not taken the present situation into account. We feel that it has not demonstrated that economic conditions are the same as they were last spring and earlier in the summer when these budgetary proposals were formulated, and that the change in events since that time dictates a change in policy. The government has demonstrated quite an inflexible position in not giving proper consideration to the proposals placed before it by the opposition, and in particular by the New Democratic Party.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I noted with interest the exchange that took place between the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray). The minister seemed to indicate that the government was not too sure what the revenue outcome would be in the current fiscal year in spite of the very sizeable surplus of almost $850 million as of October 31. In spite of the fact that some rundown of this surplus can be expected during the balance of the fiscal year, I think it is quite clear
2150	COMMONS
Division
that the government's surplus will be considerably larger than was anticipated by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech last June.
Nevertheless, since the Minister without Portfolio seems to feel that there is an element of uncertainty in the situation and that the government needs a little more time to deal with this matter, I would suggest that there is no real urgency to proceed with the bill through third reading stage now that we have heard the extent of the government's explanations. Perhaps the government should be given an opportunity to reconsider its position and obtain more data on the financial picture for the current fiscal year.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
That Bill C-139 be not now read a third time, but that it be read a third time this day three months hence.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest this would give the government the opportunity it needs to secure all the data required before passing final judgment and making a decision whether to proceed with this tax during the calendar year 1970 as proposed in Bill C-139.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) in this vote.


Mr. Speaker:: The question before the
House is the main motion. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that we proceed with the vote without ringing the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I want to make it quite clear that it is the wish of the House that the question be put without the call of the bells.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion be put without a recorded vote?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE OF WHITE PAPER ON TAXATION REFORM

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson (for Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale):
That the white paper entitled Proposals for Tax Reform tabled in the House on November 7, 1969, be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I feel it would be wrong if I did not make some remarks in connection with this reference, particularly in view of the type of reference that is being made. The House is being asked to refer this white paper to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade
Taxation Rejorm
and Economic Affairs, following agreement last June that it would be referred to a joint committee.
I support the contention that there would be advantage in sending the matter to a joint committee of this House and the other place. First of all, we understand there are some complexities in the Senate committee and in our own committee in connection with the hiring of staff to back up the committees. We are now to have two staffs, which involves double expense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then abolish the Senate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I hear what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says, but as long as the Senate exists it is as much a part of Parliament as this House. I suggest there would have been much better co-ordination at public hearings. As a matter of fact, I think we will run into the most unholy snarl in trying to co-ordinate the appearance of witnesses and others at both the Senate committee and the House of Commons committee. However, it is a government decision to refer this matter to both committees.
I know the Minister of Labour (Mr. Macka-sey) who is sitting opposite does not give a damn about the public. Although the people who attend committees do so conscientiously, they are blithely dismissed by many members on the other side of the House who could not care less about the expense and the trouble involved in bringing businessmen here from all over Canada. Many members opposite should get off their comfortable pews. People from Vancouver, Calgary, St. John's, Newfoundland, and Halifax are entitled to come here and make representations. They do not come here for the sake of taking up residence for a few weeks at the Chateau Laurier, yet I think this might well be the result of the rather short-sighted action by the government.
Officials from the Department of Finance will be given the go-around in attending two committees. What they explain to the House of Commons committee they will have to repeat to the Senate committee. It would have been so much more convenient to have them appear before one joint committee. Quite frankly, I do not know why the government decided to adopt this what I call nonsensical, short-sighted approach.

December 18. 1969
Taxation Reform
The last point I want to emphasize is this. The Senators have a great deal to contribute by way of knowledge. Without being disrespectful, as far as taxation and financial matters are concerned many of them have a lot to teach members of the House of Commons. In the same way, we can also help them. Joint committee hearings would have contributed a degree of mutual assistance in this very important field.
I do not know whether the government was stampeded because some members to my left made remarks last June about some of the nominees to the joint committee. They seemed to think that some of these people had perhaps a conflicting interest because there were directors of companies among them. I point out that there are directors of companies in this House. Every member of this House is also a taxpayer and has a vested interest in the taxation system of our country. So why is there this unwarranted and phony smear on a number of Senators who are serving their country in the other place? Perhaps it is because some of them have been successful in business. Since when has it been a crime to be successful in business?
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I suppose one should go around here in sackcloth and ashes and must have been to bankruptcy court a number of times in order to qualify as a parliamentarian, if one follows the argument of the New Democratic Party in attacking the members of the other place who would have sat on the joint committee.
I want to mention the attitude of the minister. He has become hypersensitive about criticism of the white paper. Maybe he has cause to be hypersensitive because he is suffering from shellshock. After the publication of the white paper he boasted that he was receiving words of praise in thousands of letters from people approving of his proposals. I am sure that now the score is reversed, because as an individual member I have yet to receive a letter of commendation. I have not had one person from my constituency or from my city tell me that he approves of the white paper. The letters which I receive are written on the finest grade asbestos.
A number of the people who have written to me have developed good businesses. They are the people who are making our cities, our towns and this country. They are the people who meet payrolls. They give employment to people coming out of universities. They are the ones who make this country go; yet this
[Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) .1
white paper will hit them like the knacker's hammer hits a steer. It seems to me that many of these business people will have to sell their businesses; they will get rid of them. If we are concerned about 603 businesses being taken over by foreign capital, let us just apply the provisions of the white paper as it now stands and see how many businesses will be sold. They will be on the market; they will be up for grabs, because if there is one thing wrong with the white paper it is that there is not one iota of incentive in it.
My first impression of the white paper has not changed one bit. It contains no incentive. I said this the night the white paper was published. There is no incentive whatever. On the contrary, the philosophy in the white paper is "Save and invest now and we will get you later." It comprises a combination of a capital gains tax, a small business tax and the estate tax at absolutely vicious rates.
Is this to be an egalitarian society? Is this the philosophy behind the white paper? I do not know what kind of dream they think they have, but it seems to be the idea that everyone is to be reduced to the lowest common denominator you could possibly find. I remember a slogan used in the election of 1949 in Great Britain. The Labour Party said, "Fair shares for all". The answer was, "Yes, fair shares for all; fair shares of mediocrity"-and how they have inherited that over the years. Fair shares of mediocrity is what we are headed for. The underlying philosophy of this paper is that you be a spendthrift, get rid of your money.
Let us look at what is being done. First of all there is a sort of hocus-pocus being attempted here. There is a deliberate, camouflaged attempt to show that 750,000 taxpayers will go off the tax rolls. This is based on an estimate in respect of 1969 income tax returns. But when for? For 1971 and 1972 incomes. If inflation continues at the present rate of 5 per cent, of course there will be a gradation of income and a lot of those 750,000 people who are estimated on the basis of 1968-69 incomes will have had their incomes inflated by another 10 per cent to 15 per cent. They will find themselves in the taxpaying bracket. There are no two ways about it. So why say 750,000 taxpayers? That is given as the estimate of the number of taxpayers who will be tax relieved as a result of the increase in exemptions.
If you are to talk about relieving the burden of those people, I say all right, go
December 18, 1969

ahead and do it now. You could give a good dead of relief by increasing the exemption for children, for instance, by $100. That would give interim relief to taxpayers who are finding it tough to meet their obligations. Or, better still, if you want to provide real equity, then give a tax credit. That is far more equitable than a tax exemption. If you have a $400 increase in tax exemption, everybody gains that. The man who earns $3,600 a year has an additional $400 for himself and another $400 for his wife. I am not complaining about him. But the man who earns $50,000-and there are very few of them-and the man earning $25,000 or $35,000 get the same. On the other hand, if you give them an equivalent tax credit, everybody having the same amount, it will be worth a great deal more to people in the low-income group. It will mean a great deal more to them than to those in the high-income group. That is a fairly complex matter, yet it seems to me if equity is the aim of this tax system, the tax credit system is preferable to a system whereby tax exemptions are increased.
We have no complaint about the principle of an allowance for working parents, although this will mean that a few more worms will come out of the can. My complaint is that this provision is to be applicable only to parents with children under the age of 14. What about the single working person who has an aged dependant? How many women in this city are supporting an aged parent and have to hire a nurse or someone to come in to look after a bedridden mother or father? They cannot obtain relief at all. The white paper does not provide equity in respect of working persons with dependants for whom money has to be put out as an expense of going to work. Therefore, as I say, it is short on that point.
I do not disagree too violently with the idea of a capital gains tax in certain limited categories, but why on earth pick on the family home? Why make a person a lifetime bookkeeper? Why place him in a position where he will have to value whatever paintings or works of art he may have? Why should he have to obtain a receipt when he buys something, and keep it? In addition, of course, this proposal will discourage the man who wants to be a proud and responsible homeowner and who would normally keep up his property, not necessarily by spending money on it but through not letting the home run down. He will have a more expensive property as a result, and he will get hit for it.
Taxation Reform
What is this $1,000 a year allowance for occupancy? What nonsense! Is this $150 for maintenance an allowance of some sort?
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Why go after the family home for capital gains? The only people who will gain from this will be the evaluators, because it will become essential to obtain a proper evaluation for the so-called V-Day; otherwise you will be caught. What about capital gains, in view of the present scale of the estate tax? I say, do not save now, do not invest now because it will all be taken away. Surely when the minister speaks about this five-year evaluation in widely-held Canadian companies, he realizes that everyone will get out of widely-held Canadian companies. Who will act as the arbiter of what is a widely-held Canadian company? Will it be the stock exchange? A widely-held company has to be one that can meet the requirements of a stock exchange listing. On this basis people will have to dispose of some of their stock or they may lose control of the company. This, again, will be a deterrent to Canadians.
I suggest to the minister a course of action taken in some other countries, that is, any time you have a roll-over of stock in a resource developing company, there shall be no capital gain tax so long as the investment is in resource development stock. Let the minister try that for size. I am offering this suggestion to the minister because I wish to be constructive. I believe this is the experience in Australia where people are investing in their own resource development companies; they are participating in the improvement of their own industries. My time is limited, and therefore-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
still have time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The initial order was for 20 minutes on this motion. I will speak for 20 minutes and will give other members, particularly those on the other side, an opportunity to speak. I should like to hear members of the finance committee speak seriously about some of these problems. I am sure they have received the same kind of letters as I have. Let us put forward these views now. The minister has opened the whole subject matter of the white paper. I think that much of this debate should not have taken place under the rules governing the reference of a paper or a document to a committee, which allow for limited debate only. The minister

December 18. 1969
Taxation Reform.
made this debate wide open when he spoke about the contents oi his white paper. Since he spoke, everybody else is entitled to do so.
In summary I say, first, that this is the wrong kind of taxation system for this country. This tax proposal will deter people from accumulating capital. It will load the requirement for tax revenue on the back of the taxpaying public whom we do not want to overload. They are people between the ages of 30 and 60. Ask the trust companies and the life insurance companies which groups of people in this country save the most, and you will find that persons between the age of 25 and 30, those who are newly married and so forth, have more than enough to do to make the first payments on a home, to buy a car and to cover all the expenses of starting a family. They are not the savers. But people from the age of 30 all the way up to 60 are the ones who save most. After the age of 60, the incentive to economize tapers off considerably.
The people who will be burdened with the additional tax, and some of it is vicious in the accelerating rate of its increase, are earning between $9,000 and $25,000. What is so sacrosanct today about earning $25,000? All sorts of people in the government service earn this amount. Teachers, high school principals, municipal officials and provincial officials earn about that amount. Are they to be considered in the wealthy class? Are those who earn between $12,000 and $13,000 to be considered in the wealthy class, as the minister said? Under agreements signed a few weeks ago, carpenters, plumbers and electricians will be earning more than $12,000 or $13,000, not including overtime. When they earn $7 an hour, that is what it comes to on a yearly basis. They are now in the wealthy class. I ask the minister to speak to high school teachers who in some cases are now receiving a fairly decent salary of $10,000 to $12,000 a year. He should listen to their complaints.
I say that this white paper demands the most exacting examination. The minister has already indicated a number of areas that are giving him concern. He must be suffering from shellshock resulting from the attacks on the white paper which have come to him in a steady flow of letters. He should not get involved in intemperate attacks, such as the one he indulged in yesterday, against the presidents of two or three banks of this country and some others who have been critical. Have they not the right to criticize? The minister assumes the right to criticize any and every person. They have that right also. What is 
wrong with businessmen attacking the white paper? I could almost say it is petty-minded -ness to jump on the backs of people who make sincere criticisms of the white paper. I would like to see the white paper go to committee. I do not want it to go to the finance committee of this House; it should go to a joint committee.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member argued that this white paper should go to a joint committee for consideration. Whether or not this should be done, I am sure the hon. gentleman is aware that it is being considered by the Senate committee. I am not supposed to mention the Senate in the House, for some reason or other; I am supposed to say "the other place". However, the fact is that that committee is sitting at present and is investigating this matter. Would the hon. member tell us how he thinks the Senate can disband that committee, in light of the fact that the Government Leader of the Senate is determined to show the House that he has a better committee? In fact, he has already offered to the chairman of the House of Commons committee the benefit of all the effort and research of the Senate committee. If the government is to follow the hon. member's suggestion, we will have two committees-the Senate committee and a joint committee. How does the hon. member think the Senate will disband their committee?
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I know that the die is now cast, but I am criticizing the decision that was made. The decision was made when the Government House Leader in the other place laid out the business. The reference was to be to the Senate Committee on Banking and Commerce, the same as when this item was posted on our Order Paper many weeks ago.


Steven Otto: That is yesterday's apples.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Whether they are or not, I can still criticize them.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and to give greater clarity, you will recall that a special order of the House was made for this debate several weeks ago, saying that the Standing Orders would be changed for this debate so that hon. members would speak for a maximum of 20 minutes. Some 21 members, including the
December 18, 196S

hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), have observed the terms of that special order. In fairness to them, I wonder if we could continue that order so that no hon. member except the four lead-off speakers would be in a position to speak for a longer period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take the remarks of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) personally, even though he made them just prior to my rising.


Steven Otto: What about all the books you have there?


Max Saltsman: I won't use all of them, just about half of them.


Gerald William Baldwin: Those are all the letters he got opposing the white paper.


Max Saltsman: The House appears to be in a cheerful mood. We heard Christmas carols as we were waiting for a vote, and we are all optimistic for the coming season. Unfortunately, we have only to read this white paper to lose some of the natural optimism of which we are capable. There are many things in the white paper that would deter the most determined optimist. Although there are in the white paper some proposals with which we agree, on the whole it seems a foolish, halfhearted document. It seems cautious to a fault, and it seems to place the wrong emphasis in many areas.
Sometimes I become a little historical, sometimes I wonder what a new generation coming after us, reading the Hansard of our time, will think about events in this chamber. That new generation may very well live in an age when the name Canada is a forgotten memory, when the historians will say this was a great nation with great potential, which declined because there were foolish men in its government; it was a country full of promise, which had some of the greatest natural resources in the world and marvellous people who were respected all around the world; many small nations looked to us for assistance and help; we were a light that failed. They will wonder why.
They may look at the newspapers of today and see that the warnings were clear, the signal flags were flying, pointing out the dangers facing the country, and yet the warnings
Taxation Reform
were ignored. They will read about a man called Walter Gordon who sat with the government for a long time, who was concerned about the future of his country, who went up and down the country sounding warnings about the danger we were in, and who had to leave government with a broken heart.
They will read about another man called Watkins, who wrote a report pointing out the great dangers facing the country. He made some headlines in the newspapers and then was ignored by the very government that authorized him to conduct an investigation in the first place. They will see that there was no shortage of people to point out the great problems facing the country. Then they will look at the white paper and wonder how in the world any government ever believed that the proposals contained in it would meet the problems facing the nation.
They will not know of our sincerity. They will not know how we looked standing here in this chamber. They will not know how hard we tried. All they will know are the words contained in Hansard. For instance, among the things they will read are the remarks of my honourable, distinguished and erudite friend from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), expressing his great and grave concern for the wealthy of this country at a time when the nation was in serious trouble-and they will wonder why.
I think it will be rather laughable for them to examine those remarks, because if they know anything about history they will recall that there were days when there was no income tax and when millionaires could keep all their capital to themselves. What did they do with it, Mr. Speaker? Did they invest it? There are many stories of how the great robber barons at the turn of the century threw great parties and lit cigars with $100 bills so that they could revel in luxury. These were the days before some of their money was taken away from them. The assumption today is that if we take some money from the wealthy, the country cannot grow. Perhaps it would be a good thing to remove the imposition of income tax from the wealthy so they might continue with their gay parties and good living.
Future generations will read in the newspapers that some of our business leaders were horrified at the reforms contemplated in the white paper. They will read how they abused the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), how they called him a Socialist. They may even read this headline in the Kitchener-Water loo Record of December 9, "Benson Paper

December 18, 1969
Taxation Reform
Rapped as 'Shocking' Blueprint for Socialism." Would it were so, Mr. Speaker, but I am afraid it is very far from the truth. Whatever his merits may be, I am afraid the Minister of Finance is not a Socialist.
The generation of the future will read these things and will think that these business leaders were ingrates. After all, the Minister of Finance has been very good to them. One day he stood up in this House, in reply to a question I put to him about bank profits, and virtually said, "It is a good thing they are having these profits. After all, we get some of them. We are partners." I think the bankers of our country are terribly ungrateful and do not Show the respect that they should for the minister.
When business leaders call for belt-tightening, it is always government belt-tightening they mean, belt-tightening on all sorts of public expenditures, on housing for low income families, on aid to disturbed children, and on hospitals. They do not call for belttightening in respect of other activities in our society, no matter how frivolous those activities may be. Day after day we see advertisements urging people to borrow money and to make use of credit cards. There is no belttightening in that sector.
At times like this I am almost inclined to be sympathetic to the Minister of Finance for the terrible abuse to which he is being subjected. Here is a good, solid reactionary bringing in a good, solid reactionary document and he is being called a Socialist.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is almost libellous.


Max Saltsman: It is almost libellous, as one hon. member says. It is no way to treat a good, solid reactionary and is unfair to a man who is trying hard to be solid. History will recognize these proposals for what they are-a smug, comfortable government making a few slight gestures in the direction of progressiveness.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I started by saying that I am an optimist. I like to believe that Canada will survive the kind of government we now have and that the public will see through the rather obsolete, tired and foolish documents of this government when the white paper is examined. It will be our role to analyze this paper and point out its very serious defects so that the Canadian people will see what they are up against. The minister is trying to keep a leaky capitalist ship afloat by patching it.
We have to ask ourselves what tax reform should consist of. Is this tax reform, or is it a

piece of patchwork? How significant are the proposals placed before us? I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is not tax reform at all. Tax change, yes, but not tax reform. The major criterion of any tax system must be equity. How equitable will this system make our society? It fails miserably because it perpetuates the same old double standard that has always existed in this country. Selfemployed people are free to make expenditures and get deductions not available to those who work for wages or salary. The system for the first time permits a deduction of up to $150 for expenses resulting from employment, but it is certainly not fair enough. It does not change the basic principle and the basic difference in treatment of two groups of citizens.
The white paper should have made a recommendation that the tax free allowance for Members of Parliament be discontinued. I think it is impossible to justify it in this day and age, especially when Members of Parliament are supposed to be trying to demonstrate that our tax system should be changed. I am sure there is not a member in this House who could not make a case for the $6,000 expense allowance, but he should have to make that case. It may be argued that it could present some difficulty in producing bills, etc., but the small expense involved in justifying the expense allowance should be undertaken. I believe this recommendation should have been contained in the white paper. There is a rumour that it was considered and dropped. The white paper should have the courage to make changes. I suspect the reason such a proposal was not contained in it is that the government was not being very courageous in other areas.
Earlier in this debate there was a discussion about the role of the Senate. The hon. member for Edmonton West pointed out that some Members of Parliament have a conflict of interest. I think the day is coming when members will have to indicate where they stand, just as it has been suggested that those in the other place should indicate their association with interests likely to be affected by the proposals in the white paper. Members of Parliament must always be beyond criticism. It is a difficult position and perhaps in some ways it is unfair. Those of us who will be working on this paper must be cognizant of the fact that everything we do will be subject to criticism, that our sincerity will be questioned and that sincerity should be demonstrated.
December 18, 1969

Obviously, any tax system has to raise revenue for public purposes. This is one of the purposes of taxation. But the proposed tax system ignores much of the revenue potential in our society. It still provides special advantages for the mining and oil industries and does not deal adequately with things like surplus profit. For instance, nickel is in tremendous demand around the world but our tax system enables the producers to reap a speculative profit over and above the cost of production. If it were profit based on skill or intelligence, perhaps an argument could be made for entitlement; but it is a profit derived from the natural resources of this country, to which we are all heir. It is our heritage and we are entitled to see that the rewards of that heritage are equitably distributed.
The same is true of bank profits. It is the government's policy to ensure that interest rates remain high because in that way windfalls accrue to our financial institutions. True, we get some of it back in taxes. Their profit does not depend on skill or intelligence; it depends on the gratuitous granting of that right to them by the government of Canada. This tax system does very little to tax sources of income different from the traditional ones. On the contrary, the greatest burden of taxes will now fall on the middle-income group in this country. As was pointed out by the Carter Commission, this group is perhaps the most valuable in our society. It includes skilled tradesmen and many professional people whose entire income generally comes from salary and who do not have available to them the outlets available to those who are self-employed.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that unless this particular recommendation is changed, there will be dire consequences for this country because that group includes some of the most talented but also some of the most mobile of our people. I have spoken to many in the middle-income group who would be reluctant to leave Canada and would put up with a fair amount of abuse before doing so. However, if the tax burden becomes too great, they will leave the country. This is a very serious flaw in the proposal.
If we look at our tax system we have to ask how it contributes to a just society. After all, the words "just society" are on everyone's lips today. Any taxation system which garners taxes only on the basis of income receipts is unacceptable in a modern age. Our tax system ought to be changed and should include provision for permitting our people a
Taxation Reform
guaranteed annual income. We should have a negative income tax, or taxation on a demographic basis, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
We must find ways of redistributing income through our taxation system and put money into the hands of those who do not have enough money to pay taxes. We must ask ourselves how a taxation system will help preserve us as a nation, as well as how it stimulates industry. To my way of thinking, nothing in these taxation proposals indicates the government has the slightest concern for the people of our country. Will these proposals permit us to establish those industries for which the country has a potential, or will we, because of the proposals, adhere to our colonial past as producers of raw materials?
It is obvious that these proposals will mean we will continue producing raw materials as we have been, because they favour the extractive industries. Also, despite the analysis by Carter showing how our relying on the production of raw materials will affect us, the proposed taxation system will continue bonusing the oil and mining industries, even when it has been shown that that is completely unjustifiable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate on the proposals contained in the white paper. I propose to relate my remarks to a specific portion of the white paper, that portion dealing with the taxation of small businesses and farms. I do so because I feel that if I did not speak on behalf of those involved in this area, I would be remiss in my duty to those in my constituency who come within that category.
The economic backbone of the area I have the honour to represent is composed largely of incorporated farms and small businesses. Although we have major industries in the area, I think I can say with complete justification that the base of our economy lies in the small business. Small businessmen as a group will probably suffer more than others if the proposals contained in the white paper are implemented. I fear that if some of the injustices contained in the white paper are not drawn to the attention of the government, it is quite possible they will be incorporated in the legislation.

December 18, 1969
Taxation Reform
May I first discuss the matter of small businesses and how the white paper proposals will affect them. As I said, our small businessmen will be hardest hit of all if the white paper's proposals are implemented in their present form. I wish to deal with some of the ways these proposals will hurt small businessmen. First, small corporations will pay more taxes under the proposals, because of the proposed increase in corporation taxes and because of the capital gains tax small corporations may be required to pay. Second, since small corporations will no doubt have to pay more taxes, it will become more difficult and more expensive for them to expand.
Here I am thinking of a flourishing industry in Port Dover, a florist industry which contributes greatly not only to the economy of that town but the entire country because it does business far beyond the borders of our country. Not long ago I was discussing the white paper proposals with some officials of that company and they were appalled by them, saying that if they are implemented they will make a marked difference to the company's ability to expand. The company's ability to construct new greenhouses will be severely curtailed.
The third difficulty also involves finances. There will be pressure on corporations to pay out dividends, and that will make management of such corporations much more difficult. Such work may be beyond the scope of laymen and as a result more expert employees, accountants and other specialists will have to be employed by small corporations in order to look after certain financial aspects. Clearly, small business owners will find it increasingly difficult to retain control of their small businesses. Furthermore, in order for them to raise capital and pay taxes they will have to expand their businesses by selling shares and becoming publicly-owned companies. In so doing they will widen the basis of company ownership and will lose that personal control they have held until now.
I might say that most Canadian farms are incorporated and my comments about small businesses could be made equally about small farmers. I shall go into greater detail on the question of farmers in a minute or two. The Toronto Telegram of November 12 had this to say about the proposals, as they relate to the small businessman:
Already small businesses have a hard time competing with big businesses, the wiping out oi a tax preference might end them.
[Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand) .1
The government ought to take these remarks into account. The Ottawa Journal of November 12 said as follows:
The proposal (respecting five year accruals) would force owners of many small companies that have gone public to sell control of their firm to pay taxes.
That underlines the point I stressed a minute ago. Let us examine, Mr. Speaker, more specifically how these proposals will affect the incorporated farm. Farms are incorporated for a number of reasons, the first being, I suppose, the hope that incorporation will place them in a more favourable tax position. That does not necessarily follow. This is a legitimate business practice, and there is nothing wrong with it. Farms are also incorporated in order to help owners plan their estate. It is much easier for a farmer to pass the control of his farm to those of the next generation if he can hand down to them shares in a limited company, the farm.
As I have said, the factors here affecting incorporated farms also apply to small businesses. But there are other reasons that lead farmers to incorporate, Mr. Speaker. The institution of a system of capital gains taxation has very widespread implications for farms large and small. The new proposals will affect what I term recapture of depreciation write-offs. For instance, a $10,000 tractor which might have been written off, for taxation purposes, over a five-year period at a depreciation rate of 15 per cent is traded in, let us say, on a new tractor and brings an allowance of $2,000. Under the new proposals the farmers will be liable for taxation on the written off tractor. This is a direct change from the present situation in which the farmer is specifically exempted from recapture of depreciation, that is, from taxation on the recaptured depreciation.
Most farmers have been operating on a straight line depreciation basis. Under the new system they will have to work under a diminishing balance system which will depend upon the category of the particular capital asset being considered. This will place farmers in a most unfair tax position. Farmers are also to be taxed on the gains made from the sale of livestock and equipment. If these proposals remove the present basic herd allowance as a non-deductible capital expenditure, I submit that the whole concept will disappear. As my colleague said a few moments ago, the work of the average farm owner who wants to keep a proper record of the value of his assets will be increased a hundredfold.
December 18, 1969

[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Farmers are also subject to all the problems inherent in small businesses seeking funds for their expansion. It is often difficult for the farmer to obtain funds with which to acquire more land. Our Department of Agriculture officials seem to be enamoured with the concept of the large or integrated farm. If that is to be done, capital will be required to do it, capital far in excess of what can be obtained from present outlets. Farmers will be able to deduct capital losses on principal residences, but only if those losses result from the sale of a farm. I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but I have given enough detail to show that the present proposals in the white paper on taxation will work an unjustifiable hardship on small businessmen and farmers. I think what I have said is pretty well summed up in an article that appeared in the November 11, 1969, edition of the Globe and Mail from which I now quote:
The 21 per cent rate persuaded small and new businesses to plow much of their earnings back into the business. By taxing them at a concessionary rate it provided them with an internal source of expansion capital. It also permitted them to defer the payment of tax at a level higher than 21 per cent until they took earnings into personal income, which might be for many years. This provided a second source of capital.
Now the small businessman will have to pay 50 per cent on all his profits. If he takes them into income he will almost certainly be paying at a rate higher than 21 per cent.
As the white paper sets out, in a few years it will be at the rate of 50 per cent.
Either way he will have less capital to develop his business. The small business, moreover, has always been at a disadvantage in the market place; it has always been less able than large business to borrow for expansion.
The proposals of the white paper will make it much more difficult for a man with bright ideas to start and build a business.
Canadians cannot know how much of their productivity and prosperity has depended upon creative men who started small, with the aid of the low 21 per cent rate and eventually grew big and forced their competitors to grow also, and thereby provided wealth and jobs all round.
One has only to look at any small business community to see the effect it has on the economy. It brings employment and wealth into the area. The tax base is widened as a result of expanded business enterprise. Having emphasized the recommendations as they now exist, perhaps it is only fair to suggest alternatives or in what way the proposals of the white paper could be changed to make it more palatable and easier for the small businessman to prosper. As my
Taxation Reform
colleague mentioned a few moments ago, the whole concept of increasing the corporation tax at the rate of 50 per cent should be looked at in light of the succession duties that will ultimately be levied on a particular estate and company. Surely, if it is the intention of the government to tax at the rate of 50 per cent on all profits, by the same token the company should be relieved of the heavy succession duties that are now levied against it. The two should be looked at as one. If a study were made, the succession duties would of necessity be abolished.
The other way out, of course, is to leave the incentive as it is at present. It could be left at the rate of 21 per cent on the first $35,000 profit on business. Perhaps we could devise a method of tax credit to the company such as accelerated depreciation. These are ways in which it could be made more palatable and easier for the small businessman. Sometimes it is difficult for the small businessman and the farmer to get together to present a brief in a form which puts their case forcibly enough to the government.
I trust the committee to which this matter is referred will see that opportunity is given for the farmers of this country, either through their organizations or private individuals, to have every opportunity to set forth, perhaps more eloquently than I have done in these few minutes, the case for a taxation policy that is related to their business.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the white paper which we are now discussing is a well-prepared document. In spite of what has been said in some quarters, it makes a number of technical problems fairly understandable. The scope of its recommendations and the material included in it are such that a considerable period of time will necessarily lapse before its full implications can be analysed. I was very pleased with the format the minister chose for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It means that by the device of a white paper the government has not committed itself to an inflexible proposal. The committee that will hear representations from many parts of this country is well qualified to sort them out and to make recommendations which I am sure will be fruitful to everyone concerned. Tax reform is a particularly difficult and complicated matter, especially when it is of the magnitude which is contained in this white paper.
I believe it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
December 18, 1969
2160	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, just a month ago I raised a question with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) regarding the Caribou-Wood Islands ferry service. This was not the first time I had discussed the matter in the House. It has also been raised by my colleagues from Prince Edward Island and the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacEwan). It is a matter of importance to the province. Indeed, it is a matter of importance to the whole area. Anyone who knows the story of Maritimes transportation realizes it has always been a matter of great concern to us. It is a most important economic consideration.
Surely a great need in Atlantic Canada is the full development of the economic advantages which we have. I recall the expression from the economic textbooks comparative advantage. In the tourist industry, a most expansive and expansible industry, we have an opportunity to help ourselves. The growth of tourism is most encouraging. I rejoice in this fact not only for mundane economic reasons but because I like people to see the beautiful part of Canada which is the Maritimes.
We have a most successful service from Wood Islands to Caribou. This is shown very clearly from a few figures which I will quote. In 1957, 84,000 passengers were carried on this service. Up to November of this year this figure had risen to 320,701. The automobile traffic has risen from 23,000 to nearly 95,000, a phenomenal growth. Many more people would use this ferry service if it had more boats and more room.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
As the great tourist attractions of the other island, as we call it down there, Cape Breton, become more widely known and appreciated this route will become one of the great routes for tourist traffic and for vacation tours. A natural vacation tour is Prince Edward Island, historic Pictou County where my ancestors were dragged out by the nasty English, Cape Breton's magnificent Cabot Trail, and that wonderful fortress at Louisbourg


which is becoming so attractive. We need more boats and more service from the boats which are there. I am not yet convinced that navigational aids cannot be put there which would allow night-time traffic.
I pay tribute to the efficiency of the crews. They are courteous, they are competent and they move traffic as well as they can, given the existing facilities. But we must have more boats. The Minister of Transport, for whom I have a high regard, although he disappointed me somewhat bcause of his lack of a sense of urgency in connection with Charlottetown Airport, is, I hope, the kind of man who can do something about this problem. I expect good things from him. The present need is known; it is demonstrated clearly. Future needs can be clearly forecast. We need no more studies, no more looking into the situation, no more consideration. The people want to use the service and they have demonstrated this for many years.
It seems only a few years ago that the hon. member for Central Nova and I went over in the Lord Selkirk when it was a new boat. We had a most delightful trip across the Northumberland Strait and I hope we can repeat it when a new boat is put there. I would say that the L. M. Montgomery would make a fine ship there if facilities are suited, but it would be foolish to rob Borden to pay Wood Islands. I would suggest a new ship, and I am so co-operative and thoughtful and helpful tonight that I am even prepared to suggest a name for the new boat. I would suggest it be called the John Angus MacLean, recalling the services of a man who has distinguished himself in the House of Commons for 18 years and whose ancestors settled in the Belfast area which is served by the Wood Islands-Caribou service.
I have suggested a name. I have provided the inspiration, I hope. I surely do not have to detail the argument. I hope the hon. member for Central Nova and I can make this trip again in a new ship and that we can call at that wonderful restaurant over in Caribou, the Seahawk, which is outstanding for its blueberry pie and other treats in which the Minister of Transport and I ought not to be indulging. The parliamentary secretary might get away with it because he has a better figure. But this, too, is a feature on the Caribou side which should be developed to improve the facilities on the pier for the waiting public. The main thing is to get a new boat to strengthen tourism and to develop our economy. I hope we shall hear some good news from the parliamentary secretary
December 18, 1969

and that we may expect no more dilatory delusions but concrete action.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member concluded by saying he hoped to hear some good news from the parliamentary secretary. I can tell him that the parliamentary secretary will give him some news, though it may not be as good as he is expecting. The hon. member also told us he expects some good things from the minister. If he had expected bad things I should have been greatly surprised, because everyone knows that the minister is strongly attached to his department and is doing everything that can be done to improve transportation in every part of the country.
The hon. member told us something of the beauty of the province from which he comes. Last summer I almost had a chance to go to Prince Edward Island with my family, but in the end it did not materialize. However, after hearing all the good things the hon. member had to say about Prince Edward Island, I shall do my utmost to visit that province next year, at which time I shall be in a position to reach an opinion at first hand.
The hon. member told us that his province was one of the belle provinces of Canada. In that case, it would have to be the second one because the first would, of course, be the belle province de Quebec.
Now I have to give the hon. member the reply which the department has prepared; the reply which would have been given to him had the minister himself been here.
There are two problems connected with the ferry service. One is the inadequacy of the terminal facilities and the other is the question of ship capacity. Terminal facilities are wholly within the responsibility of the Department of Transport, but the operation of the ships is administered by the Water Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission.
So far as the terminal facilities are concerned, the province of Prince Edward Island has over the last year constructed a combined tourist bureau and ferry terminal with restroom facilities and a car park. There is some further work to be done on these facilities. At Caribou plans have been drawn up by the Department of Public Works, on our instructions, for a new car park with restroom and eating facilities. The total cost of the program will be shared with the province of Nova Scotia. It is planned to have the facilities in operation next year. So far as ferry capacity
DEBATES	2161
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion is concerned, it is recognized that the two vessels at present on the service are very much overstressed during peak periods. As far as the question of a suitable vessel is concerned, all possible avenues are being carefully explored to see what can be done to provide one.
The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) has suggested a name for a new ferry boat. I will draw his remarks to the attention of the minister, and as soon as the department decides that an additional boat is required we will discuss whether it is possible to adopt the name put forward by the hon. member.



FISHERIES-WHITEFISH KILL IN KOOTENAY LAKE

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on November 26 I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) the following question, as reported at page 1268 of Hansard:
Has the Department of Fisheries completed its investigation of the heavy kill of whitefish which took place in the west arm of Kootenay Lake over two months ago? If so, what was the cause of the heavy fish kill and what steps have been taken or recommended to prevent the recurrence of a similar disaster?
Since I received no reply to my question from the minister I felt the matter was serious enough to warrant raising it again in the House, and I welcome this ten o'clock period to outline briefly the problem involved and to make some observations on the apparent shortage of research facilities in the fisheries department.
Last summer a very heavy and concentrated kill of adult whitefish took place in the west arm of Kootenay Lake. I have seen a number of estimates of the fish kill and they vary considerably. However, there is no doubt that the kill was far in excess of the 100,000 fish estimated by the British Columbia Fish and Game Branch to have died up to the middle of October.
The most disturbing feature is that the cause of the fish mortality had not been definitely established more than two months after it was first observed. Unless new information has come to hand, I believe that the biologists are still not certain of the real cause. Perhaps the minister will have some further information tonight about the cause of the fish mortality, and more importantly about what measures can be taken to prevent a recurrence of a similar disaster.
December 18. 1969
2162	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The beaches and shores of the west arm were littered with dead whitefish. I have talked with fishermen who claim that large numbers of them were also found in the main lake. However, the west arm of Kootenay Lake appeared to be the main source of the kill. It is disturbing suddenly to find thousands of fish dying, with blood oozing from their fins and tails and a white growth around their gills. One report suggests that they were killed by a fungus disease. A number of other possible causes were suggested, such as poisoning by pesticides or residue from heavy metals.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this whole affair is that it vividly illustrates the very limited and inadequate research facilities that exist in Canada for checking into fish diseases. We have many competent biologists in this country. A number were sent into the area to check on the whitefish, but it appears that lack of research facilities greatly hampered them in finding the cause of the fish mortality. I understand that samples of the fish were sent to the federal government's biological research station at Nanaimo, but it appears that Nanaimo has neither the facilities nor the specialists to handle research projects associated with viruses. Other samples were later sent to the Western Disease Laboratory in Seattle, Washington. This points up the urgent need for expanded research facilities in this field in Canada.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Once a disease strikes fish, as it did in the west arm of Kootenay Lake, it is urgent that a very early assessment of the cause be made. In this day and age, with water pollution problems becoming more serious every day, we can expect to find other cases of fish diseases and it is a cheap investment to protect our fisheries with the most up-to-date research facilities possible. I would suggest that a possible site for one of these modern research stations is right in the centre of the Kootenay country where we have one of the finest fishing areas to be found in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will be able to give us the full story on the whitefish kill which I have mentioned and that he will be able to outline the measures needed to prevent a repetition of this disaster. I also hope he will press for an immediate increase in the research facilities required to cope with any and all types of fish disease. This heritage is too precious to lose because of lack of knowledge due to inadequate research


facilities, or the lack of enforcement facilities if pollution problems need to be checked.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) asked whether the federal Department of Fisheries has completed its investigation into the whitefish kill in Kootenay Lake during the summer. The answer is no, we have not completed our investigation. This is a freshwater lake. The waters do not flow through salmon streams into the ocean. This lake therefore comes under the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities. As the hon. member undoubtedly knows, our fishery authority, is delegated to the provinces in respect of freshwater lakes and streams across the nation. Any lake which is freshwater comes under the provincial authority, in this case the British Columbia Fish and Game Branch.
The provincial people collected samples of the whitefish killed during the summer. They immediately alerted our people at the Fisheries Research Board and various studies have been carried out. We know definitely that the cause is not pollution in the sense of waste, for example, from one of the mines in the area. I believe there is only one mine in the immediate vicinity which produces heavy metals. There is no indication that lead, zinc, and so on, are the source of the problem. There is no evidence, either, that insecticides or pesticides caused the fish kill. It is thought, as the hon. member mentioned, that a disease is the cause, but the nature of the disease has not been finally established.
It is not for lack of effort or indeed lack of competence on the part of the people in the Fisheries Research Board that the evidence is not conclusive. We have one of the largest and finest biological stations anywhere in the world at Nanaimo,, and we have also involved the scientists at the University of British Columbia and in the U.S. Pacific northwest. We need more research effort, as the hon. member suggested, in respect of fisheries and we need improved facilities. But the fishing industry in Canada, in relation to the value of our output, attracts the largest research development anywhere. Between 6 per cent and 7 per cent of the gross value of the product is invested by the taxpayers in research and development. So it is not for lack of competent people and research facilities that we still do not have the answer to this particular problem on Kootenay Lake.
December 18, 1969	COMMONS



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES FROM BELLEVILLE TO MONTREAL

Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my reason for stating this grievance tonight is some alarming decisions being made by senior officials of Canadian National Railways. The particular grievance to which I refer is the proposed transfer of many positions from the comptroller's office of the Rideau area now located in Belleville, to the regional office in Montreal, Quebec. We fear in our area that this is only the beginning of a program to centralize and move many more positions to Montreal. Belleville has been for many years a very important part of the CNR operation due to the fact that at one time more than 3,000 employees came from that area. It has been said that Belleville was built around the CNR.
This suggested move is alarming to these employees who have deep roots in the area, because at least 90 per cent of them own their homes there. They are a vital part of the local community and their children attend local schools. Many of these employees have been associated with the railway for a considerable time, and some of them have been associated with the CNR for as long as 28 years. In this particular department the average term of service is 16 years.
Furthermore, they are being asked to move to an area where many of their associates will be French-speaking. May I say, with all due respect to our French-Canadian neighbours, these employees do not speak French, nor will they be able to speak it in their lifetime. They are fearful of what this move will mean to them in the near future, especially if they are asked to speak both languages. They are also fearful of their children's lack of opportunity to be taught in English owing to certain conditions which exist in the area to which they are being asked to move. Furthermore, they would be moving to an area which is much more expensive than Belleville, and in addition they will lose their seniority. In plain words, their job security is at stake. While we all realize that changes must take place and certain economies must be made, it is well known that this operation could be carried out in the present location without any substantial, additional cost.
As a businessman I always recognize the value of public relations to human beings. At this time I question whether the officials who are making the decision are considering the
DEBATES	2163
Proceeding on Adjournment Motion basic principles of human rights with regard to their fellowmen. Many of these long time employees will not move and set up a home in such a large centre. This will result in the loss of many trained, experienced key workers, which will add to CNR costs in training new workers. It will also result in the downgrading of services to the passengers and in the dissatisfaction of the public.
It is my opinion that many officials in the local Belleville office are against the proposed move, but they are being overruled by the officials in Montreal who are far removed and are apparently not too interested in the human problems of affected CNR employees in the area. The proposed move has caused considerable alarm to our city council and to many citizens outside railway employee circles. The attitude on the part of officials at the senior level is considered to be callous.
In all sincerity, as a representative of these people I implore the Minister of Transport to make personal and forceful representations to the senior CNR officials to reconsider this inhuman treatment of loyal railway employees of long standing.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Grills) has made a good plea for his case tonight. I can imagine his worries about this matter because in my riding I have thousands and thousands of CNR employees, and if some change were made that would mean they would have to leave Montreal and go to Belleville, in the riding of the hon. member, I am sure that I would be complaining.
The hon. member must know that this decision was made by Canadian National Railways, and everyone in this House knows of the autonomy of Crown corporations. There is no easy facility whereby a ministerial office can impose a recommendation on a Crown corporation. After the member put his question to the minister yesterday, December 17, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) took the matter up with representatives of the CNR in Montreal and in Ottawa.
I give the hon. member my personal assurance that tomorrow I will bring the arguments he has advanced tonight to the attention of the minister so that he may forward them to the CNR. Everyone knows the desire of the Minister of Transport to do everything
December 18. 1969
2164	COMMONS
Proceeding on Adjournment Motion that is possible to assist hon. members, but once again I repeat that Crown corporations have a certain autonomy. We can make suggestions, but it is up to them to decide whether to apply those suggestions. I can give no more assurance tonight to the hon. member, but I repeat that I will bring his

arguments to the attention of the minister. Let us hope that in a few days, if possible before Christmas, the people concerned in his riding will get a nice Christmas card with a cheering message.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Friday, December 19, 1969