1969-02-19

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 19, 1969


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which I think should be brought to the attention of Your Honour and of the house, and in respect of which I have given notice pursuant to the appropriate standing order. This matter of privilege is one that I think affects to a considerable extent the members of this house; certainly it affects the hon. members on the government side directly, and I suppose all members indirectly.
I come directly to the point. My question of privilege arises from a statement that is made in what appears to be a form letter sent out by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) to what would appear to be the electors of his constituency. With much of what he says in his letter or circular I agree, and I want to make it plain that I am not making any charges or suggestion, or saying anything derogatory about the hon. member. The particular part of the letter that needs to be brought to the attention of the house reads as follows:
The new rules are now in effect, in the House of Commons, and since you will recall that I fought for these changes for six years, I am pleased to report that the business of the House of Commons will at long last progress with some efficiency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am glad the hon. members are seizing the only opportunity that they will have to applaud the contents of this letter. It continues:
There have been some disappointments, mostly in the composition and power of the committees, because although the committees have been given a great deal of work to do, the government members of the committee have been instructed to make no changes to the bills, coming before the committee-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: I continue:
-and to vote exactly as they are told by the government. However, since I have dealt with this at some length in a speech which was well covered by the press, I shall not go further into this subject, at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gerald William Baldwin: If this letter is widely circulated in Toronto hon. members on the government side of the house may be subjected to criticism or abuse which this letter is bound to generate.
To show that there is some foundation to my question of privilege may I quote from citation 210 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition:
The privilege of freedom of speech enjoyed by members of parliament is in truth the privilege of their constituents. It is secured to members not for their personal benefit, but to enable them to discharge the functions of their office-
In some instances that rule has been exercised to protect hon. members from prosecution. To some extent the encroachments of the party system in the House of Commons have diminished this rule. Sometimes, on questions of principle, we vote by party. However, we were led to believe after June 25 that all this was to be changed and that the millenium had arrived, the golden age. While debating certain proposals in the Procedure Committee we were told that in the new committee system hon. members supporting the government, hon. members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and hon. members of all other parties could park their partisanship outside the committee room and, in the "clubby" spirit of the new committees, work with one another for the benefit of the people of Canada. If the contents of the letter I have referred to are correct, and I hope the Prime Minister will take the opportunity to contradict what the letter says, the government has destroyed the edifice of the committee system on which our new rules are predicated. Despite what some of the more experienced members of my party said, I was naive enough to believe that partisanship would have no place in our committee structure. It appears I was mistaken.
5696	COMMONS
Alleged Issue of Document on New Rules
It might be well to put on record again comments made by the Prime Minister a few short years ago. They appeared in a magazine, and were quoted at page 2801 of Hansard for November 15, 1968. In particular the Prime Minister, as reported on that page of Hansard, wrote these words as they are set out in the article in question:
I am only concerned with the anti-democratic reflexes of spineless Liberal herd.
We thought that those words applied to a situation of the past. I urge the right hon. gentleman to rise and say publicly that hon. members of his party have every freedom to go into a committee room under the committee system which now prevails and vote as they see fit; and that in the discussion of those questions which are important and of benefit to the people of Canada they have full freedom of expression which members of parliament must have to discharge their responsibilities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that it is the intention of hon. members to have protracted discussion on the point of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peace River. The Chair has to decide whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. I think that the Chair can immediately, without further debate, make a ruling on that point. I am sure if one hon. member is allowed to participate further in the debate it may go on for a while. Wednesday is a short day, and perhaps we ought to go on to the business on today's order paper.
I suggest that if any group of hon. members or any one hon. member is concerned about the question of privilege, it would be hon. members of the government or the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto). The matter has
Comeau's Hill
Short Beach
Lr. Surettes Island
Yarmouth Bear Point Spectacle Island
Short Beach Deep Cove
Sandford Seal Island Swim's Point Pinkney's Point Port Maitland 
DEBATES	February 19, 1969
not been raised as a question of privilege by the hon. member for York East, and I doubt very much if, in the circumstances, the hon. member for Peace River has raised a legitimate question of privilege. In any event, the question has not been followed by a motion. There being no motion before the house I suggest that the Chair has no alternative except to declare that there shall be no discussion.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: The Prime Minister is saved.



FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.-Mr. Gillespie.
[Editor's Note:	Text of report above
referred to appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Comeau: How many contracts have been awarded to Leonard W. Shaw, of Sandford, N.S. since 1963 and what was the value of each?
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public
Works): Since 1963, the following contracts were awarded as a result of public tender calls on which he was the lowest bidder:
Wharf repairs	$ 5,287.00
Deck repairs	6,476.40
Wharf extension	2,969.50
Paving	4,987.10
Deck repairs	6,476.40
Breakwater construction	9,919.00
Breakwater repairs	8,939.60
Breakwater	12,006.25
Groyne reconstruction	9,277.60
Skidway repair	8,667.00
Repair floating breakwater	2,654.80
Wharf widening	50,112.96
Breakwater repairs	15,071.50
February 19, 1969 COMMONS	DEBATES	56971968	Questions	$Short Beach	Breakwater repairs	44,213.38Chegoggin Dyke	Breakwater repairs	34,503.10Goose Bay	Wharf repairs	6,771.50Dennis Point	Wharf repairs	8,923.09L. E. Pubnico	Wharf improvements	8,737.50The following contracts were awarded	as a result of invited tenders	to not lessthan three (3) firms on which he was the	lowest bidder:	1964	$New Edinburgh	Wharf repairs	519.00Church Point	Wharf repairs	2,140.32Sandford Bridge	Reconstruction	1,250.00Turpentine Island	Wharf repairs	2,308.00Porter's Cove	Wharf repairs	1,299.00L. E. Pubnico	Wharf repairs	3,679.75Lr. Plymouth	Wharf repairs	432.001965	Bluff Head	Dredging	274.00Salmon River	Breakwater repairs	1,625.00Port Maitland	Breakwater repairs	4,966.05Lr. Wedgeport	Float	2,930.00Yarmouth	Float	6,239.001966	Newellton	Wave dampener	3,475.80Yarmouth	Tide gauge	2,659.75Port Maitland	Paving	3,275.35Dennis Point	Deck repairs	3,298.00Goose Bay	Fender repairs	565.80Pinkney's Point	Barricade	98.00Lr. Plymouth	Deck repairs	1,125.001967	Pinkney's Point	Barricade	98.00Meteghan	Fender repairs	2,430.00Newellton	Fender improvements	875.00Wedgepoint	Barricade & remove debris	178.00Carleton Village	Dredging	960.00L. E. Pubnico	Wharf repairs	1,838.00Saulnierville	Deck repairs	425.00Amirault's Hill	Wharf repairs	388.501968	Porter's Cove	Barricade	106.00Dennis Point	Breakwater repairs	4,265.00Ledge Harbour	Breakwater repairs	5,725.00Chegoggin Point	Breakwater repairs	367.70L. E. Pubnico	Barricade	124.00Wedgepoint	Wharf repairs	3,200.00Short Beach	Dredging	2,160.00Middle E. Pubnico	Wharf repairs	3,222.00Stoney Island	Approach widening	616.00Newellton	Fender improvements	894.00South Side	Fender repairs	496.00Falls Point	Derrick improvements	150.00Swim's Point	Road repairs	1,455.00
February 19, 1969
Questions
The following contracts were awarded minor or emergency work:
Amirault's Hill Cape St. Mary's Lr. Wedgeport Amirault's Hill Chegoggin Point Yarmouth Sluice Point Cape St. Mary's Yarmouth Pembroke
Little River Harbour Salmon River Cheboque Town Pt.
Cheboque Town Pt.
Bear Point Yarmouth Dennis Point Short Beach Wedgeport Cheboque Town Pt.
Yarmouth
Yarmouth
Sandford
Sandford
Yarmouth
Cheboque Town Pt.
Cape St. Mary's Port Maitland
Yarmouth Sandford Short Beach Chegoggin Dyke Short Beach Sandford Sandford
Middle E. Pubnico
Cape St. Mary's
Kelly's Cove
Sluice Point
Morris Island
Abbott's Harbour
Sandford
Lr. Wedgeport
Lr. Wedgeport
Port Maitland
Towing Yarmouth-Digby
Yarmouth
Short Beach
Sandford
Kelly Cove
Yarmouth
TMr. Laing (Vancouver South) .1
as a result of requests for	quotations
Wharf repairs	$ 40.00
Float	900.00
Wharf repairs	120.00
Wharf repairs	100.00
Deck repairs	75.00
Wharf repairs	125.00
Derrick	150.00
Wharf repairs	275.00
Remove float	100.00
Dredging	150.00
Wharf repairs	500.00
Wharf repairs	50.00
Repairs to guard	100.00
Wharf repairs	50.00
Ladder	60.00
Wharf repairs	180.00
Ladder	90.00
Breakwater repairs	1,200.00
Dredging	750.00
Light	250.00
Wharf repairs	426.00
Wharf repairs	190.00
Bridge repairs	75.00
Breakwater repairs	200.00
Float	100.00
Approach repairs	75.00
Float	455.00
Derrick	1,020.00
Wharf repairs	60.00
Remove sand	75.00
Ladder	150.00
Dredging	425.00
Deck repairs	390.00
Ladder	100.00
Paving	472.50
Ladder	300.00
Wharf repairs	99.00
Removal of debris	275.00
Wharf repairs	75.00
Approach repairs	65.00
Wharf repairs	50.00
Dredging	450.00
Resetting float	90.00
Derrick repairs	170.00
Tide gate repairs	40.00
Float	300.00
Derrick repairs	85.00
Breakwater repairs	100.00
Clear deck	50.00
Clear deck	200.00
Derrick repairs	475.00
February 19, 1969


PRIME MINISTERS CONFERENCE, JANUARY, 1969
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Who will be attending the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in London, England in January 1969, besides the Prime Minister?
2.	What are their individual functions in the government at present?
3.	What will be their individual functions at the Conference?
4.	What accommodation has been reserved for the Canadian delegation, at what hotel, by suite and room type?
5.	What is the expected cost of this accommodation per day?
6.	Other than dormitory accommodation, has the government reserved any other rooms in this hotel, such as reception rooms?
7.	What is the total budget allocated to this trip?
8.	What was the total cost of the last Canadian delegation to the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 
DEATHS FROM ALCOHOLISM, DRUGS AND SUICIDE
Mr. Caouette: For each year since 1965, in each province, what were the number of deaths per thousand persons attributable to (a) alcoholism (b) drug addiction (c) suicide?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports as follows:
Attached is a table showing the number of deaths and the crude death rates per 100,000 population for Canada and each province due to or associated with alcoholism and suicide. No information is avail abm on deaths attributable to "drug addiction".
[DOT]. Pepin.]
r-i
Deaths Due to Alcoholism and Suicide, Canada and Provinces, 1965-1967
	Canada	Nfld.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Yukon	N.W.T.
1965													
Alcoholism	196	-	3	8	9	42	74	13	2	13	30	-	2Alcoholic psychosis	28	-	-	-	-	3	8	-	1	3	13	-	-Cirrhosis of liver-with alcoholism	378	-	1	1	3	107	160	19	5	21	61	-	-Total	602	-	4	9	12	152	242	32	8	37	104	-	2Rate*	3.1	-	3.7	1.2	2.0	2.7	3.6	3.3	0.8	2.6	5.8	-	7.41966	Alcoholism	225	-	3	7	7	44	95	9	7	20	31	1	1Alcoholic psychosis	19	-	-	-	2	6	5	-	-	2	4	-	-Cirrhosis of liver-with alcoholism	378	-	-	5	3	123	160	14	3	23	47	-	-Total	622	-	3	12	12	173	260	23	10	45	82	1	1Rate*	3.1	-	2.8	1.6	1.9	3.0	3.7	2.4	1.0	3.1	4.4	6.9	3.51967	Alcoholism	256	1	4	16	7	47	103	12	5	23	37	1	-Alcoholic psychosis	29	-	-	2	-	7	6	1	1	3	8	-	1Cirrhosis of liver-with alcoholism	422	3	-	4	5	123	174	22	13	22	54	1	1Total	707	4	4	22	12	177	283	35	19	48	99	2	2Rate*	3.5	0.8	3.7	2.9	1.9	3.0	4.0	3.6	2.0	3.2	5.1	13.3	6.9
Suicide
No	
1,715	23	6	65	35	323	635	101	97	160	267	2	1Rate*	
8.7	4.7	5.5	8.6	5.7	5.7	9.4	10.5	10.2	11.0	14.9	14.3	3.71966 No	
1,715	15	8	69	25	365	661	102	77	146	240	4	3Rate*	
8.6	3.0	7.4	9.1	4.1	6.3	9.5	10.6	8.1	10.0	12.8	27.8	10.41967 No	
1,841	10	10	57	30	396	755	101	82	137	259	2	2Rate*	
9.0	2.0	9.2	7.5	4.8	6.7	10.6	10.5	8.6	9.2	13.3	13.3	6.9
*Per 100.000 population.
5700	COMMONS DEBATES	February 19, 1969
Questions
February 19, 1969


SASKATOON-BIGGAR INDIAN HOUSING
Mr. Gleave: 1.	(a) How many new houses were built in each Indian Reserve within the federal constituency of Saskatoon-Biggar during 1967 and 1968 (b) at what cost to the federal government?
2. (a) How many are expected to be built in 1969 (b) at what expected cost to the federal government?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: There are two Indian reserves within the federal constituency of Saskatoon-Biggar namely, the One Arrow and the Beardy (also includes Okemasis).
1.	(a)	One Arrow	Beardy (Okemasis)1967	7	81968	5	9(b)	1967	49,000	59,3501968	35,209	64,7732.	(a?	1969	3	7(b;	1969	21,000	49,000


SUPERANNUATION FUND INTEREST RATE
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What interest rate does the government pay for the use of monies in the superannuation fund of federal employees?
2.	What has been the range of the interest rate the government is paying for borrowings of money from other sources during the past six months?
Date of	Amount of Coupon Rate	
Issue	(M of $)	(%)August 1	35	64August 1	105	6iAugust 1	260	7October 1	35	6October 1	200	64October 1	200	64October 1	100	64December 15	50	64December 15 29180-3621	100	64
Questions


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: (a) Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 32(1) of the Public Service Superannuation Act, interest is credited to the superannuation accounts on the last day of each quarter in the fiscal year calculated at the rate of 1 per cent of the balance to the credit of the account on the last day of the preceding quarter, (b) In lieu of crediting interest at a higher rate than that described in paragraph (a), the government makes special credits to the superannuation account, pursuant to Section 32(2) and (3). It is estimated that during the fiscal year 1968-69, these special credits will be equivalent to interest at a rate of 3| per cent to 4 per cent per annum in addition to the rate mentioned in paragraph (a). This is in response to the first part of the question.
In response to the second part of the question, the average yields at the weekly tender of treasury bills over the past six months ranges from a low of 5.43 per cent on August 28, 1968 to a high of 6.65 per cent on January 9, 1969.
The amount, coupon rate, and yield at time of issue of the government's borrowings in the bond market over the past six months are set forth in a table and I would ask the consent of the house that this table be printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have leave?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The table above referred to is as follows.]
Maturity	Yield at time of issue (%)
15/12/69	6.65
1/10/70	6.75
1/4/73	7.00
15/2/70	6.11
1/10/71	6.25
1/4/70	6.60
1/10/95	6.60
1/5/70	6.28
1/4/71	6.36

February 19, 1969
Questions


RAILWAY CROSSING ACCIDENTS
Mr. Lewis: 1.	What are the figures on accidents at railway crossings for each of the years 1960 to 1968?
2.	What research is presently being conducted into safety-warning devices?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows:
1.
Year	Accidents	Killed	Injured1960	473	172	6281961	444	145	5421962	428	154	5421963	476	160	6181964	433	154	5701965	452	150	5401966	478	186	6211967	447	177	5211968	428	120	5682.	The Canadian Transport Commission has under continuing study and investigation the improvement of existing warning devices and the development of any new devices which come to its attention. Members of the Engineering staff of the Commission are active members of the Canadian Standards Association, the Association of American Railways and the American Railway Engineering Association who continually engage in research and investigation of methods of improving railway and crossing safety. At the present time study and experiment is being conducted, in collaboration with the National Research Council, on a type of revolving light for use on locomotives designed to give additional warning to motorists of trains approaching crossings.


AIRPORT CEILING AND VISIBILITY
Mr. McGraih: 1.	What were the number of hours when the ceiling was less than 200 feet and/or visibility less than a \ mile for the following airports for the year 1967: St. John's, Nfld., Gander, Nfld., Stephen-ville, Nfld., Moncton, N.B., Sydney, N.S., Halifax International, Montreal International and Toronto International?
2.	What were the number of hours when the ceiling was less than 200 feet to 400 feet and/or visibility \ to l of a mile for the following airports for the year 1967: St. John's, Nfld., Gander, Nfld., Stephenville, Nfld., Moncton, N.B., Sydney, N.S., Halifax International, Montreal International and Toronto International?
3.	What were the number of hours when the ceiling was less than 500 to 900 feet and/or visibility

1 to 21 miles, for the following airports for the year 1967: St. John's, Nfld., Gander, Nfld., Stephenville, Nfld., Moncton, N.B., Sydney, N.S., Halifax International, Montreal International and Toronto International?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1.	St. John's, Nfld. 608; Gander, Nfld. 254; Stephenville, Nfld. 220; Moncton, N.B. 202; Sydney, N.S. 323; Halifax International 787; Montreal International 51; Toronto International 135.
2.	If it is meant when the ceiling was 200 feet to 400 feet and/or visibility J to f mile the answer is St. John's, Nfld. 1275; Gander, Nfld. 675; Stephenville, Nfld. 374; Moncton, N.B. 620; Sydney, N.S. 1059; Halifax International 1098; Montreal International 174; Toronto International 204.
3.	If it is meant when the ceiling was 500 to 900 feet and/or visibility 1 to 2J miles the answer is St. John's, Nfld. 1712; Gander, Nfld. 1430; Stephenville, Nfld. 848; Moncton, N.B. 1114; Sydney, N.S. 1365; Halifax International 1570; Montreal International 807; Toronto International 809.


MONTREAL HARBOUR OPERATIONS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Is the government taking steps to ensure that Montreal Harbour operates all year round and, if so, what steps and, if not, for what reason is action not being taken?
2.	Does the government intend to increase the use of containers in Montreal Harbour and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Does the government intend to impose a toll on the St. Lawrence River and, if so, for what reason?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1.	It is not possible for the government to ensure that Montreal Harbour operates all year round because the river can be blocked by ice jams which are the result of weather and other natural causes and which cannot be entirely prevented with the technology now available.
To the extent that it is possible, it has long been the practice to maintain an open channel for the evacuation of ice in order to reduce the incidence of floods and measures and devices for this purpose are constantly being studied and improved. Ships wishing to go to Montreal may use this channel when it is open and are assisted to the extent that government resources will allow.
2.	Facilities for the handling of container traffic are available at Montreal Harbour. An
February 19, 1969

increase in the use of containers is a matter for decision by shipping companies.
3.	There are no plans at present for the imposition of tolls on shipping in the St. Lawrence River.


LAC MEGANTIC, P.Q. RAILWAY CROSSING ACCIDENTS
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	How many accidents have occurred at (a) the Victoria Street railway crossing in Lac Megan tic, P.Q., during the last twenty years (b) at other railway crossings in Lac Megantic?
2.	How many persons were killed or injured in such accidents?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Canadian Transport Commission reports as follows: 1 (a) Two accidents involving personal injury; (b) Sixteen accidents involving personal injury.
2.	These accidents resulted in fatal injuries to two persons and injuries to 33 persons.


AIR CANADA OPERATIONS
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	How many persons work for Air Canada?
2.	How many aircraft does Air Canada have and what number, by type?
3.	How many airports are there in Canada and what is the location of each?
4.	How many individuals have a pilot's license?
5.	What was the number, the area, the cause and the type of Air Canada aircraft involved in accidents between 1965 and 1968 inclusive?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Regarding parts 1 and 2 only, the Management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. 16,613.
2.	120, consisting of the following types: Viscount 39; Vanguard, 23; DC-9, 31; DC-8, 27.
3.	Information provided in "Canadian Aerodrome Directory" available in Library of Parliament.
4.	31,517 as of December 31, 1968.
5.	1965 One, Toronto International Airport, April 24, 1965-Aircraft landed on runway with one wheel up due to missing clevis pin in undercarriage uplock system-No injuries -Vickers Viscount 757-CF-THL. 1966 One, Edmonton International Airport, December
Questions
17, 1966-No. 3 engine compressor and reduction gear section disintegrated shortly after take-off due to fatigue failure of the first stage impeller of the engine-No injuries-Vickers Viscount 724-CF-TGT. 1967 One, Ottawa International Airport, May 20, 1967-Failure to abandon a training manoeuvre under conditions which precluded the availability of adequate flight control-Three members of crew killed-Douglas DC8F-54-* CF-TJM. 1968 Nil.


ST. FRANCOIS RIVER DAM
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the federal government purchased the dam located on the St. Francois River facing the Kruger Pulp Limited plant at Bromptonville?
2.	If so (a) at what cost (b) has the government decided to renovate this dam (c) when will work begin and what amount of money has been allotted for this work (d) what is the expected completion date of the work?
3.	If the government has decided to reconstruct the dam, are the plans for the erection of a new dam completed and, if so, are such plans available?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by several departments as follows:
1.	No.
2 and 3. Not applicable.


VISITORS SERVICE CENTRE, LAKE LOUISE
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	How many parcels of land have been leased by the Crown to individuals or corporations for motel development or other development in the Visitors Service Centre at Lake Louise?
2.	(a) How many acres or lots are contained in each parcel (b) if there were lots, what are the measurements of the lots?
3.	To whom did the Crown lease the parcels in question?
4.	(a) What consideration was paid to the Crown by the lessees for each of the leases (b) what rental is prescribed to be paid?
5.	Is the government prepared to table copies of any agreements in reference to the said land leases or sales?


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development reports as follows: 1. One.
2.	(a) Four acres and fifty-four hundredths of an acre, more or less; (b) Not applicable.

February 19, 1969
Questions
3.	Montaineer Motel Company Limited.
4.	(a) Nil; (b) A fixed annual rent and concession fees based on a percentage of gross receipts of the lessee.
5.	No. Lease agreements constitute a confidential landlord-tenant relationship. The government does not table such documents, which would represent a breach of this confidence, without the express written consent of the lessee.


NATIONAL PARKS ENTRANCE FEES
Mr. McIntosh: 1.	What are the names of the National Parks In each province?
2.	What is the entrance fee to each National Park?
3 What was the total amount of entrance fee *collected at each park according to the last figures available?
4.	Did the Minister authorize Mr. J. I. Nicol, Director of National Parks to state, at a recent news conference, that it was government policy to increase entrance fees for National Parks?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. British Columbia: Mount Revelstoke; Glacier; Yoho; Kootenay. Alberta: Banff; Jasper; Elk Island; Waterton Lakes; Wood Buffalo (partly in Northwest Territories). Saskatchewan: Prince Albert. Manitoba: Riding Mountain. Ontario: Point Pelee; Georgian Bay Islands; St. Lawrence Islands. New Brunswick: Fundy. Nova Scotia: Cape Breton Highlands; Kejimkujik. Prince Edward Island: Prince Edward Island. Newfoundland: Terra Nova.
2.	The park motor licence fee for passenger cars is $2 for entering Mount Revelstoke, Glacier, Yoho, Kootenay, Banff, Jasper and Waterton Lakes. This licence will allow entry to any National Park which requires a licence and is good for any number of trips during a fiscal year. The licence fee after November 1 in any year is $1.
The park motor licence fee for passenger cars is $1 for entering Elk Island, Prince Albert, Riding Mountain, Point Pelee and St. Lawrence Islands. This licence will allow entry to any of the above parks only and is good for any number of trips during a fiscal year. A 25 cent single trip licence is also available for parks in this category.
A park motor licence is not required for Wood Buffalo or Georgian Bay Islands
[Mr. Forest.l
National Parks nor is one required for parks in the Atlantic Provinces.
Note: In addition to the passenger car fees there are fees for various other vehicles and trailers such as buses and different sizes and types of trucks. These are listed in the Schedule of the National Parks Highway Traffic Regulations but are too numerous to list in the answer.
3.	For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968 the totals were: Mount Revelstoke-Glacier, $306,244; Yoho, $9,133; Kootenay, $77,582; Banff, $622,183; Jasper, $105,877; Waterton Lakes, $82,190; Elk Island, $20,829; Prince Albert, $15,004; Riding Mountain, $47,019; Point Pelee, $39,559; St. Lawrence Islands, $5,568.
4.	I have examined the press accounts following the news conference and noted that in answer to a question from the press Mr. Nicol indicated accurately that park entrance fees and other fees were currently under review. When the review is completed and recommendations made the decision as to whether there shall be an increase and if so, its extent, will be made and announced by me.


GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT BLIND LANDING EQUIPMENT
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Transport intend to install blind landing equipment in government aircraft?
2.	Is the government considering the possibility of requiring commercial airlines operating in Canada to install blind landing equipment?
3.	Does the government have automatic landing equipment installed in any of its aircraft and, if not, will it consider the advisability of installing such equipment in government aircraft and will it also require that this kind of equipment be installed in commercial aircraft?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of National Defence and Transport as follows: 1. No, there are no plans for such an installation.
2.	No.
3.	The government does not have automatic landing equipment in any of its aircraft and no consideration is being given at this time to the advisability of installing such equipment. The provision of automatic landing equipment in commercial aircraft is not expected to be made mandatory.
February 19, 1969


SEWAGE DISPOSAL, BANFF
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	Are enterprises in Banff, Alberta, departmental and otherwise, pouring raw sewage into the streams and Bow River?
2.	Has the CPR constructed a sewage disposal plant in their hotels at Banff and Lake Louise, and is raw sewage being poured into the rivers and streams in the Park by these hotels?


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development reports as follows: 1. Sewage from the Banff townsite sewer system is presently discharged untreated into the Bow River. The department plans a sewage treatment plant for the town of Banff in the near future.
2.	The C.P.R. has constructed a sewage disposal plant at Chateau Lake Louise. Sewage from the Banff Springs Hotel enters the Banff townsite sewage system and is discharged untreated.


INFILTRATION OF LAOS BY NORTH VIETNAMESE
Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys): Has the International Control Commission, on which Canada is represented, been requested at any time in the past six months to investigate allegations of North Vietnamese massive infiltration into Laotian Territory and, if so, with what results?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Within the last six months, the Royal Laotian Government has, on three occasions, complained to the International Control Commission about the illegal presence and activities of North Vietnamese forces in Laos as evidenced by attacks on the government post at Thateng in the southern panhandle adjoining South Vietnam (Royal Laotian Government notes dated November 29, 1968, December 14, 1968 and January 9, 1969). Despite the efforts of the Canadian Delegation to have formal investigations made of these complaints, only the first two were subjected to first-hand inquiry by Commission representatives but only in a preliminary way during an "observation visit" on January 2-3 of this year. As regards the third complaint, our Commission partners-India and Poland-voted against a Canadian proposal for an investigation and no further action on the complaint has been taken.
Questions
Final judgments have not yet been rendered by the Commission on the factual conclusions which can be drawn from the evidence available on these incidents. The Canadian Delegation has been attempting to obtain agreement on a Commission report not only of its visit to Thateng but of visits to other towns in the same area which the Commission made in February and April 1968 in response to similar complaints by the Royal Laotian Government.
Direct evidence regarding the exact extent of North Vietnamese infiltration into Laos is difficult for the Commission to establish because it is not permitted entry into the communist-controlled areas of Laos. Nevertheless, evidence of North Vietnamese military activity in Laos-in contravention of the terms of the 1962 Geneva settlement relating to that country-has been clearly established by the Commission in areas controlled by the Royal Laotian Government and has been made public and reported to the House on earlier occasions.


METEGHAN RIVER, N.S., CUSTOMS OFFICE
Mr. Comeau: Is the government considering closing the Customs and Excise office at Meteghan River, Nova Scotia and, if so, on what date?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister of National Revenue):: The Customs operations at the Outport of Meteghan River are currently being reviewed to determine whether services provided are consistent with existing needs and are fully justified in relation to administrative and operational costs. The review has not been concluded and I am therefore not in a position at this time to say whether or not the Customs office will be maintained at that location.


SECURITY SERVICE FOR FOREIGN EMBASSIES
Mr. Robinson: Does the federal government provide police and/or security service for Embassies and Consulates of foreign countries and, if so, what was the cost of the service provided during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned, yes. The cost for each of the years 1960-68 was: 19601966 inclusive, Nil; 1967, $40,736.48; 1968, $31,059.50.

February 19, 1969
Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Robinson: 1.	What are the overall requirements to obtain a franchise or license in the field of CATV (community antenna television) ?
2.	(a) How many companies and/or individuals have been licensed (b) what are the names and addresses of the companies and/or individuals (c) who are the directors of the companies that are licensed in CATV?
3.	Does the federal administration have control over the rates charged for the service?
4.	Does the federal administration allow monopolies to exist in this field?
5.	What revenue is received by government from franchises or licenses in CATV?
6.	How many companies and/or individuals have received a franchise or license to operate in Metro Toronto, and (a) what areas have been allotted to each (b) is there competition in and for the allotted areas of franchise (c) what amount is paid for the franchise in each case?
Return tabled.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, RICHMOND
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	How many offices does the Unemployment Insurance Commission have in the federal Constituency of Richmond?
2.	How many claims for unemployment insurance benefits have been made annually in each of these offices each year since January 1, 1965, by residents of the federal Constituency of Richmond?
3.	How many claims have been accepted annually in each of these offices since January 1, 1965?
4.	How many residents of the federal Constituency of Richmond have registered with the employment service annually since January 1, 1965?
5.	Of those registered, how many have found employment annually since January 1, 1965?
Return tabled.


WOOD BUFFALO PARK DEVELOPMENTHOUSING FOR INDIANS
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	What are the plans for development (a) in general (b) road construction (c) development of tourist facilities (d) development of tourist promotion (e) industrial development, for Wood Buffalo Park, for the next five years?
2.	(a) What is the total number of new houses built on each reserve within the Athabasca constituency for 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 (b) what are the plans for construction on each reserve for 1969?

3.	(a) How many off-reserve houses were built for Indian families within the Athabasca constituency in 1967 and 1968 (b) how many will be built in 1969?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?1


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, on December 10 I filed question No. 1,008 relating to the establishment by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of regional desks, the appointment of personnel, and volunteer advisers. It is now well over two months since the question was put on the order paper. The information must surely be easily available to the staff of the Prime Minister's office or of the Privy Council office, particularly in view of the Prime Minister's increased staff, and I am wondering why I could not have an answer by now.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: If I may give a word of explanation, Mr. Speaker, the question has not been answered because the regional desk system is not completed yet. We are reorganizing it; we are even adding to it, and I think it might be better if I could answer the hon. member once and for all when the thing is established, rather than answer him now and have him put supplementary questions later. I can assure the hon. member that it will not be very many more weeks until the system is completed and fully in operation.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you kindly call notices of motions Nos. 65, 68 and 69?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



HAPPY VALLEY, LABRADOR, CHIP MILL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 65-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence between the Government of Canada particularly
February 19, 1969
[Stage Direction]
as represented by the Department of Public Works, the Atlantic Development Board and the Area Development Agency, and the Government of the Province of Newfoundland with respect to the development of a chip mill at Happy Valley, Labrador, a liner board mill at Stephenville, Newfoundland, and supporting facilities in these two areas.
Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, the information requested by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) is of a confidential nature given to the government of Canada in the course of government investigation for particular purposes, disclosure of which could be detrimental to the competitive position of the firms.
I have spoken to the hon. member and explained this matter to him, I understand that he will consent to the removal of this notice of motion from the order paper.


Mr. Marshall:: I agree, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



BUILDING OF WHARVES AND POST OFFICES IN THE CONSTITUENCY OF COMPTON

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 68-Mr. Laiulippe:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Government of Canada, particularly as represented by the Department of Public Works, the Atlantic Development Board and the Regional Development Corporation, and the Government of the Province of Quebec on the subject of the wharves and post offices which are supposed to be built in the federal constituency of Compton.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that no correspondence has been exchanged on the subject mentioned by the hon. member for Compton in his notice of motion and I wonder, in the circumstances, whether he would accept to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Laiulippe:: I agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion withdrawn?
Motion withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Sianfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It arises from the statement made yesterday by the Chairman of Air Canada to the effect that Air Canada will need some $300 million more than it can generate from its own revenues to cover the obligations it envisages in the next five years. Will the minister say whether the government is now considering any request from this Crown corporation to issue common shares to the public?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Not at this point, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this service to the Canadian public and the importance of this corporation being able to make its plans well in advance, can the minister indicate the present status of the study regarding possible mergers with this corporation, and will he indicate when a decision will be forthcoming on this matter, as well as on the question as to how the corporation is to meet its various needs?


Edgar John Benson: I am not aware of any such studies as my hon. friend mentioned. Perhaps I could refer that part of the question to the Minister of Transport.
The matter of financing Air Canada in the future, with regard to borrowing, has not been decided at this point. Discussions however, are going on between the government and the president of Air Canada.


Mr. Slanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which perhaps I should direct to the Minister of Transport or to the Minister without Portfolio. May we be assured that before any of these loans are negotiated the government will make a statement to parliament concerning its intentions about Air Canada, its corporate structure and any negotiations it might be entering into with Canadian Pacific Air Lines.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would be hesitant to give that assurance

February 19, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry because I do not think the two things are necessarily related. One is strictly a financial mechanism which really comes under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Finance. It might easily be that he would say that was the best method of financing at some stage. I have already given the assurance that every opportunity for debate will be given before any decision is made public in respect of the latter part of the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Meantime are we to be led along the garden path?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether, in view of the length of time involved in making adequate plans to provide an adequate air service in the future, he would press for a clarification concerning the future of Air Canada, so that the country will be assured of a reasonable air service.


Edgar John Benson: I believe adequate future planning is being carried out by Air Canada. The matter of financing future aircraft acquisitions, and so on, in respect of Air Canada is a matter for discussion between the officials of Air Canada and the Department of Finance. The best method of financing and the acquisition of aircraft will be determined after looking at the pros and cons of various alternatives.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister give the house an assurance that Air Canada, that great national utility, if I might call it such, will not be sacrificed in order to confirm or conform with the expressed wishes of the Minister without Portfolio from Manitoba who during the election campaign, stated that Canada should dispose of it?


Mr. Speaker:: The fion. member for York South.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have asked a question. I cannot understand why the Prime Minister, who is usually very fast in trying to answer questions, would not take advantage of the opportunity to assure the people of Canada that this is not going to be sacrificed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs arising out of the report of a tfiree year study in Alberta complaining about the monopolistic control of service stations by large oil companies. Has the report been drawn to the attention of the minister, and will he consult with the provincial attorneys-general in respect of appropriate action under the Combines Investigation Act or the Corporations Act dealing with this field.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: At the present time all I have is reports about the report. We have sent a wire to Alberta asking for a copy of the report, and when it is received it will receive our very close attention and study.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence.
Is it true that his department has refused to cede to the Department of Transport the land that it owns in Farnham, for the construction of the future international airport in that locality?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think that the question as put is in order. The hon. member is asking the minister to confirm or deny a news item and, for that reason, the question cannot be allowed.



OLD AGE SECURITY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasl-ings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the cost of living has increased by 8J per cent during the two years since old age pensions were tied to the cost of living, and since pensions have been raised by only 4 per cent during the same period is the government reconsidering the adequacy of the correction formula with a view to making sure that the old age pension increases at
February 19, 1969

exactly the same rate as the increase in the cost of living.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware of the many improvements and progressive changes we have made to the old age pension scheme in the last few years. He is also aware that at the present time we have under review this particular scheme and all other programs in the old age security field.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as the minister's answer confirms what I have suggested, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether this short-changing in respect of old age pensioners is a cornerstone of the just society?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government has extended an invitation to the secretariat of the Commonwealth association to hold the next Commonwealth meetings in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Is it the intention of the government to extend an invitation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary to make a decision on that question at the present time.



TEXTILES-REQUEST FOR LIMITATION OF IMPORTS

Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether any consultations are taking place or consideration is being given to lessening the quotas of textiles allowed into Canada, particularly men's shirts from low wage countries? I ask this question because of the announcement today by Cluett Peabody and Company of Canada Limited that they are closing their plant at Stratford, which manufactures men's shirts and which will throw some 160 people out of work.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this development which my hon. friend mentioned, and the
Inquiries of the Ministry difficulties that certain shirt manufacturing companies have recently had to face. Indeed it was because of the increase in low priced imports of woven shirts during 1967 and 1968 that last year we negotiated export restraint arrangements with several additional low wage countries in order to prevent further damage to Canadian shirt manufacturers. It seems reasonably certain that with the additional agreements now in effect imports of low priced shirts will decline in 1969 to levels which should provide some relief to Canadian manufacturers.


Gerald William Baldwin: When you get through some of us will have no shirts.


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcoiin):: Mr. Speaker, in respect of these agreements was Japan also included?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we negotiated quotas with Japan. We also negotiated quotas with other countries which are considered low wage countries.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of the question asked by the hon. member for Perth concerning the closure of a Canadian shirt factory. Does the minister now realize that as a result of his policies Canadians are rapidly losing their shirts?



HOUSING


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport in his capacity or responsibility for housing whether he is considering a recommendation to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that the fees charged by lawyers appointed by the corporation to handle mortgages on houses be reduced along the lines recommended by the task force.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe this question was asked previously. If the hon. member thinks there is urgency in asking it a second time it might be placed on the order paper or discussed at the time of adjournment.



EFFECT OF TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS ON NATIONAL HOCKEY TEAM

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of

February 19, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry National Health and Welfare whether he is meeting with a group of hockey executives tomorrow with a view to setting up a structure for a more effective national hockey team and, if so, what part if any will the recommendations of the task force on sports play in this issue?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt as to whether the question is one of urgency. If hon. members are agreed that the question and an answer should be allowed I have no objection.


George Harris Hees: Let him answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings having suggested the question is urgent, it shall be allowed.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member, I am meeting tomorrow with the hockey executives and other people interested in the hockey situation in Canada, with the end in view of improving the Canadian position in international hockey. We will be considering the matter of bringing in those people to see whether the situation can be improved. As to what effect the task force recommendations will have on this development, we will have to wait until that force completes its findings and makes a report. It is bound to have some effect. Whether one of the courses of action will be a reference to a parliamentary committee to study the whole question, is something I do not know at this time.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, can the minister say whether the government intends to have the whole relationship between professional and amateur hockey examined by a parliamentary committee?


John Carr Munro: As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, this is a course of action to which the government will have to give consideration.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to an oral answer today in respect of a question appearing on the order paper. Pollution is a very important national problem facing Canada. The parliamentary secretary admitted that raw sewage from Banff township, which over

1.500.000	people visit each summer, is being poured into the river. Will the government now build the necessary facilities to make certain that the Bow River will be kept pure, in view of the fact that this affects some
750.000	people?
Perhaps in the absence of the minister I might redirect a question to the parliamentary secretary. In the event he has no answer I should like to ask the Prime Minister this question, because I know he has studied pollution and considers it one of the most important national problems facing Canada.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that from a government which professes to be in favour of increased dialogue we are getting an awful lot of nonanswers and silence.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of both ministers involved with Indian Affairs and northern development I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can enunciate clearly at an early date what the responsibilities and duties are of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Andras) in respect of his association with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, because there is a great deal of doubt about this in the minds of the native Indian people. They should like to know what his functions are.



EXHIBITIONS


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Finance.
Since it has been reported this morning that Canada has just agreed to a $2 million loan to Ceylon for 40 years without interest, could the Minister of Finance give the house the assurance that a similar loan could be granted to the city of Montreal in order to save Man and His World?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Charlevoix.


Bernard Dumont: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
February 19, 1969



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question to the Prime Minister. In its brief to the government the Confederation of National Trade Unions has pointed out that unemployment in the country has reached alarming proportions, especially in Quebec, and urged the government to devise economic incentives to correct the situation. Could the Prime Minister tell the house whether or not it is his intention to follow up the unions' proposal?


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


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I maintain that this matter is of an urgent and extremely important nature, since the rate of unemployment in Quebec is currently 8.2 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Timiskaming.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, through you, whether he is in a position to advise the house when arrangements will be completed as to the turning over to the House of Commons of control of the East Block, necessitated by the need for office space made necessary by changes in translation and other services?



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the continuing starvation in Biafra, will the Canadian government exert diplomatic and political pressure on the Nigerian government to stop the terror bombing that has recently had the effect of reducing drastically full capacity relief flights at the Ulhi airstrip?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be more useful to put pressure on
Inquiries of the Ministry Colonel Ojukwu to agree to daylight flights; then the possibility of bombing would be greatly reduced.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS SHARED PROGRAMS-FREEZE ON BUSINESS EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Will the freeze on the federal contribution to the federal-provincial costsharing program dealing with business educational facilities be melted, and if so, when will the thaw take place?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend must be talking about technical schools rather than business education. What was indicated to the provinces was the amount that we felt we could advance in the forthcoming year. If I have misinterpreted the question, I would appreciate my hon. friend telling me so.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister could take the questions as notice, because the information I have is that it concerns business educational facilities.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has conveyed to our member of the observer team in Nigeria the concern of this country about recent reports that all male Biafran refugees in Port Harcourt are in danger of being executed? Will the minister undertake to report to the house the results of any investigation of this matter by the observer team?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to convey this information from the hon. member if it is information. I will have inquiries made.


MIDDLE EAST-SAFETY OF CANADIANS ON AIR ROUTES
Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I ask the minister what steps the government is taking to ensure the safety of Canadians from non-aeronautical hazards when travelling by air in the Middle East. Second, what can be done to prevent

February 19, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry the escalation of these terrible incidents, the repetition of which occurred again in Zurich last night?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is deeply shocked and concerned by this further instance of interference with civil aviation by violent action. We strongly condemn such actions which endanger the lives of innocent persons and constitute a grave threat to international travel and communications.
The Canadian government endorses and supports the statement issued yesterday by the Secretary General of the United Nations calling for international action to prevent the recurrence of such events. These attacks are particularly to be deplored for the risk of escalation in the Middle East conflict which they carry, and for the hampering effect they are bound to have upon the efforts of Ambassador Jarring to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement of the Middle East dispute.


Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the long standing problem in the Middle East and the recent events in Zurich, will the minister say whether a reassessment of Canada's policy with regard to the Middle East is part of our foreign policy review at the present time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, our policy with respect to the Middle East is, of course, under constant review, because this is a matter of very urgent importance to all countries of the world. We are following events very closely. We are doing all that we can to support the efforts, particularly of the Big Four, to assist in bringing about a settlement. We believe this to be the most effective action we can take at the present time.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker,
because it was noisy for a while in the house last Monday, I misunderstood the question asked by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), who wanted to know if we were on the point of signing an agreement with the province of Newfoundland in respect of the FRED program.

I thought he was referring to Prince Edward Island and I answered that I hope the agreement would be signed within a few weeks. I wish to make it clear that the answer concerned Prince Edward Island and not Newfoundland.


APPLICATION OF PROGRAM TO DEPRIVED AREAS
Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Could he tell the house whether his new department intends to limit its program to a few pilot areas in Canada, or to extend it to all the economic regions of every province?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we shall help as many as possible with the means and resources at our disposal.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Is it the intention of the minister to introduce in this session legislation amending the Criminal Code to prohibit off-track betting?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I discussed this matter with the Attorney General of Ontario, the Attorney General of Saskatchewan and the Deputy Attorney General of British Columbia last week during one of the free periods in the federal-provincial conference. At that time the matter was before the Supreme Court of Canada. The hon. member knows that on Monday afternoon the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the petition for leave to appeal of the Attorney General of Ontario, without reasons. I have written all the provincial attorneys general asking for their reaction to the stated law as it now exists. On receipt of their replies we will have to consider just what legislative action should be taken.


AMENDMENT TO BAIL PROVISIONS
Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the difficulties the students in Montreal are having obtaining
February 19, 1969

bail, has the minister given consideration to the early introduction of amendments to the Criminal Code with reference to the bail section?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I have to remind the hon. member that the administration of justice and the task of interpreting the law as it now stands is the responsibility of the Attorney General of Quebec and the crown prosecutors in Montreal. As for the reform of or amendments to the law of detention before trial, and bail, it is the intention of the government to introduce as soon as we can a new, omnibus bill-not quite so omnibus-on wire tapping, bail and other allied matters.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister assure the house that the legislation governing fire-arms will be ratified before the next winter carnival?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, has the minister in mind a change in the right of a magistrate or judge to deny bail when he believes that in the interest of justice the individual who has applied for bail ought not to have it?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. member is tempting me to comment on a current judicial proceeding-


John George Diefenbaker: No, I am not.


John Napier Turner: -and he
would not really want me to do that.


John George Diefenbaker: I was not thinking of any present case at all, Mr. Speaker. I am simply asking the minister, does he have in mind changing the law so that the present discretion which rests with a magistrate or judge in the granting of bail will be determined by statute?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my view is that the law on bail is in need of a good deal of amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
Inquiries of the Ministry INTRODUCTION OF SECOND OMNIBUS AMENDING MEASURE


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that another or a second omnibus bill to amend the Criminal Code will be prepared soon.


An hon. Member:: It is not omnibus; it is ominous.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of this, does the minister intend making a statement on motions to tell us what he has in mind as far as amendments to the Criminal Code are concerned?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think that the next time the estimates are discussed in the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs would be a good time to discuss that matter, and I would be glad to do so.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate whether one of the proposed amendments in the second omnibus bill will include changes to the first one, that has not yet been disposed of?


John Napier Turner: We will certainly get a simpler name for the benefit of the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question to the Minister of Justice,. Mr. Speaker. In view of the rather general agreement which has for some time existed with regard to the outmoded use of corporal punishment, will this matter be included in the second omnibus bill to be presented by the minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PUBLICATION OF PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL
John George Diefenbaker: May I direct a further question to the Minister of Justice and ask him whether, when he brings in what I suppose one might call his "minibus bill" containing various amendments to the Criminal Code, he intends to include an amendment to the section dealing with obscenity, in order that pornography may not be published as it is being disseminated today, which by reason of judicial interpretation, is actually not subject to law?

February 19, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Napier Turner: shall certainly take that suggestion into consideration. As a matter of fact, after the right hon. gentleman raised this matter a few weeks ago I asked the department to give me a resume of the current chaos in the law affecting obscenity.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister for his reply. May I suggest he should look at the situation in the state of Michigan, where the law has worked very well to keep pornography out of the homes.




Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Following his meeting with the Voice of Women this morning on some aspects of foreign policy, can the minister indicate to us what the government's present policy is with regard to Canada's joining the Organization of American States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member is asking for a policy statement from the minister. However, the minister may reply briefly, if he wishes to do so.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under consideration.


EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA
Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Is he in a position to tell us today exactly when the publication in French of the rules and general orders of the Exchequer Court which he promised in January, will be tabled?


John Napier Turner: had been assured, Mr. Speaker, that those rules and general orders would be published in both languages in the near future, but I will seek information from the Chief Justice of the Exchequer Court.


CANADA CORPORATIONS ACT
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the minister giving consideration to the situation of minority stockholders, who have faced apparent discrimination in connection with recent corporate mergers and take-overs, when preparing amendments to the Canada Corporations Act?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he is in a position to announce the membership of the new board to be established in connection with the investigation of prices and costs and, if not, when we may expect an announcement in this regard?
Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker; not yet. When this question was last raised I asked the hon. gentleman whether he had any suggestions to make with regard to the membership, but I have not yet received any.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the minister whether the country may soon expect to learn the composition of this board or whether it will have to wait as long as it waited for the white paper?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I said with regard to the white paper that the policy enunciated therein would serve as a basis for consultation with the interested economic groups in the country. I believe it would be wholly improper for me to name the board before that process has been completed.


COMOX-ALBERNI-INQUIRY AS TO HOLDING OF BY-ELECTION
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he has yet had time to consider a date for the by-election in
February 19, 1969

Comox-Alberni? It is next door neighbour to another constituency in which a by-election has already been held. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has had time to consider a date for the by-election in Comox-Alberni, and whether he can assure us there will not be too long a delay before it is called.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can give that assurance, Mr. Speaker.


HOUSING
Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Since the minister is trying by all possible means to sensitize the government to problems in the house field-and I congratulate him for it-could he tell us whether the Bank of Canada will have some part to play within the financing co-operatives to be established?


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Robert Simpson: I have a question for the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker, but in his absence I should like to direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Has the Secretary of State received a letter from the president of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood expressing grave concern about and strong criticism of the C.B.C. program, The Public Eye, of February 5, and the further program concerning the Indian people of Canada shown on February 17? If so does the government, through the Secretary of State intend to look into this matter?


Mr. Robert Stanbury (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: As the hon. member knows, the Secretary of State is away on a government mission in Africa. I have not had such a letter brought to my attention, but I shall be glad to look into it and if such a communication has been received, bring it to the attention of the C.B.C.


Robert Simpson: Since it is apparent that the producers of this program went far out of their way to show the Indian people in as bad a light as possible, I would ask the parliamentary secretary to look into this immediately.
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSE OF COMMONS


TELEVISING OF HOUSE AND COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a question for the President of the Privy Council. The other day I asked the minister whether he would give consideration to placing immediately before the Committee on Procedure the question of broadcasting our discussions in relation both to this house and to the several committees. Can the minister tell us whether this matter will be on the agenda, as the committee begins its work this afternoon?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Well, Mr. Speaker, the committee has a certain order of reference and I think it will stick to that.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the considerable interest shown in this subject, may I ask whether the minister is giving consideration to setting up a special committee to examine the possibilities in this direction?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am not considering the establishment of such a committee, Mr. Speaker.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Si.
Barbe): My question is for the minister responsible for rural development and regional economic expansion. In view of the disappointment caused by his mistaken announcement the other day that a FRED agreement would be signed very shortly with Newfoundland, when he meant Prince Edward Island, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would now give special consideration to Newfoundland and to its FRED agreement with the federal government?
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are having talks with the provincial authorities, and we hope to find the best solution available to assist Newfoundland.


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the fact that the program for the expansion of his activities has already been tabled, can the minister say when we may expect the ratification of such an agreement? We have heard a great deal about it, but we

February 19, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry are not certain about the progress made toward ratification.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have every reason to believe that it will be a short delay and that the P.E.I. agreement will be signed in the near future.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: A few days ago, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Finance whether he would consider making a statement in the house, at his convenience with regard to employment conditions, particularly in certain parts of the country, and the answer then was that he would consider doing so. I wonder whether he has yet had ample opportunity to consider whether or not we can expect such a statement. Perhaps he can tell us when a statement is likely to be made.


Edgar John Benson: have considered the hon. gentleman's suggestion and discussed the matter with my colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. No decision has been made on this point.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
John Gilbert: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the tremendous support fhe minister received in his bid for the leadership of his party, is he prepared to respond by giving support to the new Ontario Liberal candidate, Judy LaMarsh?


George Harris Hees: Smile.


HOUSING
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Last Monday evening, in this building, the minister showed slides and films on the problem of housing. Everything was in English only. I would like to ask him whether he

would be willing to show those films and slides once again, with French comments, for the benefit of French-speaking members.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will show them in French a little later, Mr. Speaker.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I would like the minister to assure us that the projection of those films and slides will be accompanied by comments in French, for the benefit of French-speaking members.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this presentation does not deal directly with the business of the house. Perhaps I am mistaken, but at all events, I would be glad to hear what the minister has to say.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I said, Mr. Speaker, I hope to have the opportunity within a few weeks of presenting this in French.


INCOME TAX
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance supplementary to one that I put to him 12 days ago. Does the government intend to go on collecting the 2 per cent social development tax, even though the legislation has not been passed by parliament?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this is the usual procedure with regard to changes in the income tax, as my hon. friend knows. If we can move forward with the business of the house very quickly- and I am sure he will help us-we will have this legislation brought forward so that it can be ratified by the house-as I am sure it will be because it is for the benefit of all Canadians.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question. Does the fact that this is the usual procedure of the Liberal government make it correct?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, it is not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
.February 19, 1969
(3:00 p.m.)


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson that Bill C-165, to amend the Income Tax Act and the Estate Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Saltsman (p. 5191).
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronlenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few brief remarks regarding Bill C-165, put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), to amend the Income Tax Act and the Estate Tax Act. Leaving aside the Income Tax Act, after much consideration of the points that have been put forward by the minister and the excuses made on behalf of the minister and the government by several private Liberal members, I must declare that I am against the amendments to the Estate Tax Act.
I wish to quote briefly from the Napanee Beaver for Wednesday, February 12. In an editorial the editor states:
The Financial Post suggests that the most desirable move as far as succession duties are concerned would be to abolish them altogether ... Abolition of succession duties has been recommended by the Trust Companies Association of Canada and professional estate planners and executors find the combined requirements of federal and provincial death taxation complex and baffling. The layman doesn't stand a chance If he tries to handle such matters by himself.
That is one reason I am not going to put any Intricate statistics before the house today. I am just going to speak out to the best of my ability against this measure because I do not think it is good for Canada. I continue with the quotation from the Beaver:
Death taxes should be levied by either one governing statute, or, at least, under uniform laws and administration. Or, better still, in the view of many, they should be eliminated altogether-
Mr. Benson has indicated that death taxes are too good a source of revenue to be abandoned and has said that they have formed a favourite source of revenue for governments since the days of early Rome. This is true, but heavy taxation also led to the downfall of Rome because it was ruled by a government which became too greedy.
Ancient history tells us that one of the most damaging factors that destroyed democracy in ancient Rome was the rule of a triumvirate
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act which led to a dictatorship. History now repeats itself. We have in this house a triumvirate. I am not going to foretell the future but it bodes ill for the progress of Canada to have a modern Pompey, Crassus and Julius Caesar in this house. The triumvirate that existed in Rome consisted of three warlike persons; this one consists of the ministers of culture, money and manpower.
I was one of those who two weeks ago, before we had the opportunity of debating this measure in the house, opposed it on television and radio and in the other news media serving my section of Ontario. Representing the riding of Frontenac-Lennox and Addington in the House of Commons, I realize that I represent an area where the family farms and the small businesses in the towns, villages and countryside have always been the most stable and the main sources of livelihood.
At this point I want to refute a statement made by a Liberal member, the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre), who in his speech last Monday clearly interpreted Liberal policy when he made excuses for the minister's severe taxation measures. As reported at page 5624 of Hansard the hon. member said:
Unless estate taxes are used to prevent the pyramiding of family wealth, then it must follow we are going to move increasingly into a hereditary aristocracy of wealth in this country. It will not be basically from a titled aristocracy. It will gain power in the nation's political affairs by virtue of birth rather than by virtue of individual worth. I am convinced that this or any other form of class system is bad for Canada.
I interpret that to mean that Liberalism proclaims that family thrift is now something to be frowned upon. According to the record of the Liberal party and their socialist policies and tendencies, both on the part of the party and of their new leader, this is nothing but sheer nonsense. I will not allow the hon. member to say this about the people of Frontenac-Lennox and Addington who operate their modest but thrifty family farms and small businesses.
The same thing might be said about other ridings across Canada. The hon. member for Coast Chilcotin talks about the menace of a hereditary aristocracy of wealth in this country that would emanate from the customary hereditary traditions, whereby a father and a mother try to save and to hand something down to their children. This is typical Trudeau liberalism and socialism. The old virtues of thrift and economy are now condemned.
Imagine the Liberal party, through this Liberal spokesman who is propounding its

5718	COMMONS
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act latest policies and opinions, speaking of the menace of the small family farms and businesses of Frontenac-Lennox and Addington or any other riding in Canada, of their forming a titled aristocracy and gaining power in the nation's political affairs by virtue of hereditary rather than individual worth. This is more Liberal socialistic nonsense.
In fact, if the people who operate the family farms and small businesses of this country could make their opinions and policies more known and workable at all levels of government, Canada would not be in the grave condition it is at the present time. The people who operate the farms and small businesses of this country operate them, by and large, in a sane and sensible way in order to earn a living. Rather than dissipate their assets in one generation, with good management and the minimum of government interference the owners of these farms and businesses pass them on to the next generation. This government, Mr. Speaker, with its socialist policies is politically bankrupt. Since its taxation policies are frantic, it is evident that it is fast approaching a state of monetary bankruptcy.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The minister's proposed tax provisions have been changed. He has reverted to the $50,000 estate tax floor which was included in previous legislation. I am glad that the representations made by the leader of our party and our party members have helped to check the smash and grab policies of the Minister of Finance. Formerly he proposed to levy tax on estates worth $20,000 and more. Even so, I am not satisfied that the proposed legislation as revised is good for Canada. This measure will still place a mortgage on most small businesses in Canada and on most family farms in cases where mothers or fathers bequeath their interest in the business or farm to a son. The measure is being brought in at a time in our history when small family businesses and farms are having difficulty just in keeping afloat and solvent. The inheritor must have enough cash on hand to run the business and, at the same time, to pay to government its huge estate tax, to say nothing about meeting the expense of living and bringing up and educating a family.
I have said I am against the estate tax, and I wish to put my thoughts this way: A parent ought to be able to hand down to a son or daughter the family farm or family business and the operating equipment thereof, without any estate tax being levied on that part of the

DEBATES	February 19, 1969
estate forming the business or farm, provided that the beneficiary becomes or is the resident operator of that farm or business. Any other property in the form of cash in the bank, bonds, stocks, etc. should of course be taxed at appropriate rates. After all, that would be nothing more than an income tax. We cannot avoid income taxes.
I have received between 75 and 80 letters on this matter from the people of my riding. They are all good and reasonable letters; they all concede we must have taxation. But most of them say it should not be this kind of taxation. These letters point out that the estate tax is nothing but a duplication of taxation. Each letter protests that small businesses and farms are taxed heavily enough every year and ought not to be subjected to a tax that, on the death of the surviving owner, is tantamount to confiscation. I cannot read all these letters but I shall read one that is representative of all of them. It is from Mr. Donald H. Hough, R.R. 2, Napanee, Ontario. It says in part:
If sons inheriting farms have to borrow large sums to pay estate taxes, this added burden of debt on Canadian agriculture can only add to the cost of production and force up product prices to the consumer. Also, the Department of Agriculture, and especially the Federal Dairy Commission have been working toward larger, efficient, units of production. This prohibitive rate of tax can only work against this principle, and will destroy larger units.
I understand that part of the theory behind estate taxes is the objective of the "redistribution of wealth"; to accomplish through the use of taxation, an equalization of citizens and families down at a generally comparable level. Here a great injustice is being done to farm land owners, who require the land, livestock, machinery and equipment which forms most of their estate for the purpose of making an annual income, while wage and salary earners who probably have a much larger annual income over most of their lives need have only a house and probably a car for their estate-
This estate tax rate will cause inflationary pressures because people will take the attitude "might as well spend it now". It will also cause less employment, as people will let their property depreciate, and men wil have no incentive to build larger businesses and then have the results of their labours or management almost confiscated.
The land, livestock, production buildings, and agricultural machinery, to a farmer, are the same as an education or skilled trade to the professional man or worker for wages, they are a requirement to make an income. Since the education or skill cannot be considered part of the estates of those people, a farmer should be provided with sufficient exemption to permit him to pass to his son an economic size unit of land, livestock and machinery, as long as these are actually being used for agricultural production. The value of residences, automobile and personal possessions and cash and
February 19, 1969

investments could be taxed on an equal basis with estates of salary and wage earners if anyone must be subject to such a grasping tax.
I think Mr. Hough's opinions are well worth listening to and heeding. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, and most hon. members can readily agree with him. It is my further opinion that the government should drop the estate tax bill. Let there be income tax, as there has been since 1917, I believe. That tax should be commensurate with the needs of the government. I am referring to the many worthy economic and social services this government has to supply. Let the income tax be commensurate with the annual profits of small businesses and farms which are handed down as estates. In my submission, if one considers all the circumstances this tax has no merit and there is no place for it in our society.
To further support this view, may I now read an extract from the Toronto Telegram of Tuesday, February 11. In an address given the previous evening L. G. Greenwood, president of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, is reported to have made certain comments. The newspaper report of those comments in part is as follows:
Ottawa should consider abolishing inheritance taxes rather than proceeding with its plan to increase revenue from them . .. Reducing exemptions in estate taxes would run counter to other government policies and could weaken Canada ... His criticism of the inheritance tax changes was part of an attack on government tax and welfare policies which, he claimed, promote inflation and reduce the individual's incentive to work-
"Small businesses, often they are family businesses, do much for the strength of Canada. Why should they be put in jeopardy when the owner passes on?", he asked.
The general tendency to increase taxes erodes incentive and leads to "alienation from work," said Mr. Greenwood ... The failure of productivity in Canada to keep up with wage increases is one cause of inflation which he termed "an insidious disease, a destroyer of values."
It would be "tragic" if Canadians lost their initiative because of government policies, he said. "The better life must be earned. It is not something that can be created by an act of Parliament," he added.
I am sure Mr. Greenwood means that legislation has increased the burden of taxation. That burden, when shouldered by the small businesses and farms of Canada, will serve to decrease their future productivity. The estate tax takes away all incentive for the proprietary channels to save. Liberalism and its present policies are not Liberal policies at all basically, but socialistic policies. They are not traditional with the former line of Liberal thought.
DEBATES	5719
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
There is another point being made at this time across the length and breadth of this country. I hear people on the streets of towns and villages in my riding discussing the inconsistency of Liberal policy. Regardless of what excuses the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or any member of the cabinet may make, splits in the cabinet and the utter worthlessness of the government's present policies are pointed out, as well as the impending damage being done to the Canadian economy.
Although the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), who is also the minister responsible for housing, stressed in his report the need for more housing and advocated the abolition of certain taxes which discourage more housing, for example, the 11 per cent sales tax on lumber and building materials, the Minister of Finance said "no" to this recommendation.
I commend and support many of the policies recommended by the Minister of Transport in his report which encourage more estates. It is true that every house built by a young couple or family is the beginning of another estate. On the other hand, the Minister of Finance is proposing a taxation measure which will destroy thousands of estates and stagnate and stultify the founding of potential new estates. This, Mr. Speaker, is a typical example of Liberal contention within their own ranks. The minister responsible for housing says, "Yes, go ahead, Canada, as soundly and economically as possible". Then we have the Minister of Finance saying, "No, you cannot go ahead, Canada, until you pay me my pound of flesh."
Canada, as a corporate body, is only 102 years old. I am sure most hon. members will agree that with the exception of a narrow strip along the 49th parallel of latitude, the St. Lawrence Valley and the Maritimes, Canada is largely undeveloped. There are too few estates in this young country to have an estates tax. That is the reason I oppose it.
In this country, as well as in this house, one must be of one opinion and purpose. Once cannot equivocate. I deplore the adverse effect of Liberal policies and Liberal administration upon the progress, growth and development of Canada. Furthermore, I oppose a capital gains tax, as this has been likened to, or any similar measure. With all the support I can possibly summon I oppose this estate tax. Most hon. members will from time to time pay tribute to and espouse private enterprise. Here is a chance for us to support private
February 19, 1969

Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act enterprise at its very best by opposing this bill.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: rise to speak in this debate, Mr. Speaker, as a layman. Should I live to be a thousand years old I will probably never accumulate an estate on which estate tax will have to be paid. The more articles I read written by people who are supposedly experts in the financial and taxation field, the more I read newspaper reports of what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has said, the more confused I become. I am to blame in part because of my ignorance in this field. I do not want to give the impression that I am taking the position of being both for and against this estate tax proposal. I hope I can be logical in presenting my position as I think the majority of the people of this country support it. My colleagues and I support in principle the levying of estate taxes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. member answer a question?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I will be glad to when I am finished. While I do not always agree with everything written by Douglas Fullerton, I would like to quote from one of his articles which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of February 8:
One might go even further in suggesting that in a truly egalitarian society there should be very severe restraints on the transmission of property from one generation to the next.
I agree with that point wholeheartedly.
Children of the middle classes and the rich start off now with many advantages in competing with their poorer fellows-better home environment, better food and medical care, and usually better education.
Their advantages in all of these respects are better than those of their poorer fellow citizens. Mr. Fullerton goes on to say:
Why should they have the further advantage of inherited wealth as well?
Privilege is something that should be earned, not transmitted from father to son-
In that light I am convinced many thousands of people in Canada support the principle of taxing estates. But the levying of such a tax must be progressive and equitable. As with all taxes of this nature, it must be based on ability to pay. I wish that the government, as well as the official opposition, would be as concerned about the thousands of millions of dollars of undertaxed and untaxed incomes in this country as they are with taxing those in the low and middle income brackets.


[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The N.D.P. amendment reads as follows:
That Bill No. C-165 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to a complete revision of the federal estate tax legislation with a view to making the rates of taxation under such legislation truly progressive and equitable.
That is why I am opposed to this bill. The principle of taxation based on ability to pay, progressive in its application and equitable, is not to be found in this legislation. I know that bits and pieces attempts are made in various parts of the legislation partly to apply this principle. But in totality not only this tax but the overwhelming majority of tax legislation in Canada is not just, equitable or sufficiently based on ability to pay.
For the record I would like to read the policy of the New Democratic Party as expressed in writing before and during last year's election campaign so that there can be no possibility of any member misunderstanding it, particularly those sitting to my immediate right.
Canada's system of taxation is unjust. The middle and lower income groups pay too much and many privileged persons and corporations get off very lightly. The New Democratic Party believes in a complete reform of our tax system and at the same time protection of the family farm and the family business. Provision will be made for the transfer of the family farm or the family business from one generation to the next without impairing that enterprise.
There will be no inheritance tax on a farm which on the death of a husband passes to his wife and dependent children. Inheritance tax on a farm unit passing directly to a member of the family, ought to provide for payment of tax over a long period and tax credits if the farm stays in the family for a period of years. At no time will it be necessary to sen farm assets in order to pay inheritance tax.
A farmer's retirement fund is frequently in his land. On selling the land when he retires a farmer should have the right to invest a lump sum, with income tax exemptions, in an approved retirement plan.
The farmer must always have a free choice between use of the cash or accrual system of accounting for tax purposes.
I emphasize the last sentence in that portion of our party's policy pertaining to inheritance tax:
At no time will it be necessary to sell farm assets in order to pay inheritance tax.
We in the New Democratic Party believe it is socially desirable to have family-owned and family-operated farms and small businesses. While we believe that an estate tax is all right in principle, we submit that the
February 19, 19G9	COMMONS
application of the principle requires exceptions and exemptions so that these socially desirable objectives of family-owned and family-operated farms and small businesses are not inhibited or destroyed.
Many hon. members have welcomed the change proposed by the minister whereby a six-year period will be provided for payment of estate tax. I submit that this will not be really sufficient in a number of cases and that in certain isolated cases the requirement that the tax be paid within six years is likely to force the sale of the assets of a family-operated farm or business unit or will necessitate additional borrowings resulting in a burden of debt from which recovery cannot be made.
With the government's majority the minister will get his legislation passed, but I hope that the regulations he promulgates to implement it will permit the stipulation at his discretion of an additional number of years over and above the six specified in the bill during which family-owned and operated farms and small businesses can pay estate tax and thus not be placed in jeopardy by having to sell some of the assets or take on additional debt. I also hope that the regulations will permit every case to be judged on its own merits. This can be done because in reality 80 per cent or more of Canada's population will never even come close to having to pay an estate tax.
I am often amazed about the concern expressed at great length by those in the insurance, estate planning, trust company and banking fields. But when they protest and say that inheritance taxes or succession duties should be done away with, I am somewhat suspicious of their desire to help the small estate or the individual whose income throughout life has been low or very moderate, in view of the fact that those who have the most to gain from the abolition of estate or inheritance tax or succession duties are those who do not need their abolition.
Having listened to a number of hon. gentlemen in the official opposition raise so much fuss about estate tax, I would appreciate it if some of them would give the house an explanation of why, in 1958 or 1959 when they were in office, they made major changes in Canada's tax legislation that did away with a great amount of tax legislation pertaining to succession duties and substituted for it an estate tax. I would appreciate hearing from members of the Conservative party the reasoning behind this. I can see some good administrative reasons for it. It is easier to
DEBATES	5721
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act keep track of and collect estate taxes than it is to do these things with succession duties. But if there are a lot of arguments in favour of doing away with inheritance duties I would still be grateful to hear an explanation for the actions of Conservative members when their party formed the government of this country.
I wish to add my view to that already expressed by many hon. members in support of estate tax regulations that should not endanger the operations of family-owned and operated farm and small business units.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
It has been mentioned before but is worth repeating that for a not very large grain farm in the prairie provinces one can arrive at total assets of $200,000. Two sections of very average land would be worth at least $90,000. The machinery required to operate a farm of two sections of land with average crops and good management would be worth at least $25,000. If one were to take a line of machinery containing each kind of machine perhaps two or three years old for that kind of operation, the value of that machinery would be at least $25,000. The buildings on a grain farm of that size would be worth at least $15,000. Most farms of that size at the moment would have anywhere from 30,000 to 40,000 bushels of grain in store on the farm. I think it would be fair if we were to estimate the value of that grain at at least $45,000. A farm of that size is only large enough for one family to operate. It cannot be divided among more than one son because then there would be two units which could not survive. These figures total somewhere between $180,000 and $200,000.
Let us also assume that some amount of debt is owing on that farm. There may be an amount of debt on the land and there is bound to be on the machinery and buildings. For the sake of argument let us say the debt amounts to $50,000 and the net taxable value is $150,000. According to the minister's tables, if the farm were to be left first to the widow and upon her death to one son the taxes would amount to $26,700. If I read the minister's tables correctly, this is less than what the tax would have been under the old estate tax provisions. But I submit that if the $26,700 has to be paid off in six years-it really amounts to five rather than six but we will take six years as the period-this means that over $4,000 per year must come out of the annual revenue of this two-section grain farm
February 19, 1969


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to this debate on a number of occasions it was not my intention to speak today because I felt that any contribution to be made by this party had already been made. However, there are a number of questions which I feel should be answered before this measure goes to a vote. This is my purpose in rising today.
Let me make it perfectly clear at the outset that I am not opposed to reasonable estate or inheritance taxes, but I am concerned about any legislation which attempts to reduce the future effectiveness of wholly owned farm or business units. I am concerned about what criteria will be used by his assessors in evaluating estates. Will valuations of estates in 1969 be based on today's inflated prices or on purchase prices? If a property was obtained 15, 20 or 30 years ago this might have a bearing on the eventual assessment.
I appreciate the minister's reconsideration which resulted in increasing the exemption 29180-363
DEBATES	5723
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act from $20,000 to $50,000. What criteria will be used in respect of a private home, forming part of an estate, which may have been purchased five years ago with a mortgage at 6J per cent? Is it unreasonable to assume that today that home, with modest improvements, would be worth $5,000, $6,000 or $7,000 more than a similar home, perhaps built by the same contractor, in an urban area with a mortgage bearing interest of 9J per cent? What criterion is to be used? Will the assessment be based on the purchase price, the market price, the asking price, or will it be based on the municipal tax roll? I think all these things could make a difference.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would like me to inform him, let me say that the value of an estate is based on fair market value at the time of death. I should point out that this is the net value after deducting any debts. In addition, the value of an estate is subject to appeal.


William Skoreyko: I am glad to hear there is an opportunity for appeal. What is the situation in respect of farm land adjacent to a city which, based on its production value as a farm, might be worth $100 an acre? By the same token, in a year or two this land could be subdivided as a housing development and could be worth in excess of $1,000 an acre. How do you arrive at fair market value? I hope the assessor will not evaluate property of that kind on the basis of the developed value because that could wipe out the estate.
The same principle applies to small business. What happens in respect of a small family farm when the farmer, because of ill health, continues to live on the farm but cannot contribute manual labour and holds back one of his sons, if you like, to continue the work of developing that farm? In this situation some consideration should be given to reward. This brings me to the speech made in the house yesterday by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), who read into the record a letter from a farmer constituent who is 48 years of age, is concerned about buying his father's farm, and is also wondering what his son will do when he passes on.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
This legislation is punitive in the sense that the bill affects all existing trusts. Most trusts are irrevocable. I would like to know what law is available or is contemplated by the federal or provincial governments so that trust adjustments can be made in accordance
February 19, 1969

Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act with the law. I would also like to know where the provinces stand in this entire picture, particularly those provinces which before October 23, 1968, relied heavily upon estate tax revenues. The estate tax is punitive because in my opinion it indeed penalizes thrift. I think it is discriminatory. I believe it discriminates against family-owned enterprises as opposed to public companies. In fact it discriminates against all those companies which are wholly family-owned.
Much has been said in the last day or two of this debate about the table made available to us by the minister. I refer to the table of deductions on estates of certain value. It is strange that most speakers have referred to item 1 on the first page of the table. This item deals with estates left outright to the widow, and on her death equally amongst her adult children where the number of children is- and then the number of children is set out. It is true that in some cases the new tax is less than it is under the existing scheme. Nobody seems to take into account or give serious consideration to estates left in trust where the income is paid to the widow during her lifetime and the assets are divided equally amongst her children on her death. The figures for Ontario perhaps do not reveal that there are very many people in this position, but I am sure hon. members will find that in other parts of Canada a great many people come under the heading of item No. 3 of the minister table. There is a direct penalty for those people who have dealt in trusts.
I read with interest the submission made by Michael B. Jameson of McCarthy and McCarthy, Toronto. I think every member of this house has received a copy of it. This submission was made before changes were made to the estate tax legislation, but it contains :a number of points that I think are worth considering. The document is a quick summary of Mr. Jameson's reaction to the legislation then proposed. His first point is:
No private executors will dare venture (into) the field of trusts, except on peril of his life, and tax.
His second point is:
One cannot really argue with the inclusion in the tax base of gift tax paid in respect of gifts which are themselves included in aggregate net value.
3. How will existing trusts be changed if they are taxable, or will they be exempted? Most are irrevocable and can the Variation of Trusts Act be used which all provinces do not have?

He says in point No. 4:
What about Alberta? Will all widows now retire there so their estates receive a 75 per cent credit or will Alberta be legislated against-since Ottawa knows best?
Then he puts forward a few more points of view and says:
Is the motto of the future to be "Work, spend and be merry for tomorrow we give all to Ottawa", or perhaps "Widows shed your mourning and enjoy the life your husbands couldn't give you inter
vivos"?
I think Mr. Jameson's point No. 10 is an important analysis of what the legislation could ultimately mean. He says:
Will the will of tomorrow be made conditional upon the surviving spouse entering into a covenant to remarry within 90 days someone ten years younger, such covenant to run with the will or property in perpetuity, so that property will pass free of tax from spouse to spouse to spouse, etc., etc., etc?
As I say, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is punitive because it discriminates against the small, family-owned unit whether it be a farm, business or whatever. It discriminates against those people who have the faith to deal in trusts.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: 
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to take part in this debate since, under the new rules, any debate seems superfluous. I think all hon. members know what an hon. member of the Liberal party confessed in a letter read in the house earlier. Government supporters have been instructed to go to committees and, no matter what is in a bill, to take the pill, so to speak.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Government supporters
are told to introduce no changes to bills. If

5723	COMMONS
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act opposition members ask questions, those questions are to be sidetracked. Wherever possible, amendments are to be ignored.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I see hon. members smiling. They may say, "Oh, but these new rules will help us to get on with the job." We shall soon find out what sort of job is being done when we examine the provisions of this bill.
I am reluctant to take part in this debate because I am reluctant to play games. That is all debates in this chamber are now-games. No matter whether hon. members are talking on second reading or third reading, they are indulging in games and wasting their time. Their speeches are exercises in publicity because this chamber has become a forum of publicity. Under the old rules, when the house went into committee of the whole the opposition proposed useful amendments, some of which were accepted. I remember when Judy LaMarsh was in opposition. She proposed an amendment in committee of the whole with respect to a bill to amend the Criminal Code. The Minister of Justice of that day, Mr. Fulton, accepted the amendment which had the effect of giving protection to every policeman in Canada. That does not happen under the new rules because now we play games. I might spend hours preparing an important speech or spend no time on it at all. It makes no difference in this factory created by the Liberal party.
I know the new members are not happy with what is going on. If they do not know what is happening, it will not take them long to learn.


Mr. Whicher:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. I have listened most attentively to the hon. member and, as I recall, he said all members of the Liberal party received certain instructions. I am a Liberal party member and I have received no instructions from any member of the government. If I had received such instructions I would not have obeyed them, because I was sent here to do a job and I intend to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Furthermore, I know of no Liberal member who received instructions similar to those contained in the letter that was read earlier. In my opinion the writer of that letter should be brought to task-and I point out that here I am speaking strictly for myself.

DEBATES	February 19, 1969


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am happy to hear from the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher). He is breaking in a new set of harness and likes to look important. May I point out that another Liberal member has admitted that such instructions have been given.


An hon. Member:: Name him.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I see the hon. member carrying on as he does in committee. I think we all know what has been happening under the new rules. Actually I am disappointed at the calibre of debate. Anyone reading Hansard will concede that about the best speech made on Bill C-165 was made by my leader during the early stage of debate. When the budget was originally brought down he put his finger on the problem many hon. members have referred to. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) spoke eloquently this afternoon about that problem.
Unintentionally the minister left with the house a wrong impression with respect to the floor of the new exemptions. Newspaper reports may be partly to blame for this erroneous impression. Also unintentionally, the minister misrepresented the change made with respect to tax liability under the increased progressive rates.


An hon. Member:: Shame.
Another hon. Member: Which side of the fence are you on?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I see hon. members are beginning to heckle. May I say to the hon. member who has just interrupted that I intend to send copies of Hansard to his riding so that his constituents will know what sort of member represents them. I do not think the hon. member's constituents sent him here to heckle. They sent him to get on with the business of the country and not to talk a whole lot of tommyrot.
At the outset the minister left the impression that the basic exemption had been increased to $50,000. From my reading of the bill it seems that estates worth $50,000 and less are not taxable. Nevertheless, all estates worth more than $50,000 have a basic exemption of $20,000 plus certain other exemptions included in this bill. The minister's remarks seemed to imply that the basic exemption for all estates was $50,000 and therein, I submit, lay the misrepresentation. In part, articles like the following one which appeared in Time magazine of February 7 may be responsible
February 19, 1969	COMMONS
for existing misconceptions. The article in question says in part:
Benson restored the rule that estates of $50,000 would remain tax-exempt-
The idea is that a person with an estate of $100,000 enjoys an exemption on the first $50,000. I do not think that is correct.


Edgar John Benson: A person may have an exemption on an estate worth $100,000.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is possible, and I will deal with that point. But a man might have an estate of $51,000. On that he enjoys an exemption of $20,000 and has to pay tax on the other $31,000.


Edgar John Benson: I never said the absolute exemption was $50,000.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not suggest the minister did. I can only suggest that those reporting the minister's remarks misunderstood him. You know, Mr. Speaker, this bill reminds me of a little story. One day Robert Browning wrote a poem. Next day he went to visit Elizabeth Barrett Browning, who was sick, and after he read the poem to her she said, "But what does it mean?" He looked at it and walked round the room. Then he said, "You know, when I wrote that poem only God and I knew what it meant. Now, I confess, only God knows what it means." I agree that the minister did not intentionally leave wrong impressions about the provisions of the bill. The press misquoted him or misinterpreted his remarks.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I quote again from Time magazine:
Benson restored the rule that estates of $50,000 would remain tax-exempt, and proposed to allow heirs to stretch out tax payments over five years. Meanwhile .. . Canadians will have an adequate chance to change their wills-
The situation was reported to Canadians in that way by the skilled writers of Time, a magazine that deprives our Post Office Department of $700,000 annually. The minister and I are on all fours. There is no $50,000 exemption. If an estate is valued at $51,000 there is a $20,000 exemption and tax is paid on the balance of $31,000. The minister and I both know that is the situation, but it is misunderstood by the public.
As I read the bill, estates under $50,000 are not taxable but estates over $50,000 may have a basic exemption of $20,000, plus additional exemptions depending on the category of the person to whom the property is left. A child
DEBATES	5729
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act inheriting property at the age of one year has a different exemption than a person inheriting property at the age of 24 years. As an example, if A leaves B an estate of $60,000, under the proposed new act the basic exemption is not $50,000 but may be $20,000. The rate applies to $40,000 and not $10,000. Let me repeat there is no $50,000 exemption provided for in this bill.
In a speech last night an hon. member spoke about homework. I would like him to listen to what I have to say and then perhaps he will do a little more homework. Many people believe the basic exemption will be $50,000, and I will quote examples of this in a few minutes. Before doing so I want to make some general comments regarding the effect of a progressive increase in rates on property passing from husband to wife and wife to children. If Bill C-165 becomes law, it will have a serious effect on second generation Canadians. In other words, when a husband leaves property to his wife and the wife in turn leaves it to the children, it is the children who will suffer.
In western Canada today there are many Canadians who originally came from Ontario and Quebec. These people had to tolerate a cold climate and terrible conditions in order to have grain to take to the elevators. They worked under these conditions in order to build an estate for their families to enjoy. They certainly did not work under these conditions in order to lose it in a socialistic and communistic manner as this government is now proposing.
Today farms are more valuable than 20 years ago. Farms in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan are worth $125, $150 and in some cases $200 per acre. These estates have increased in value through inflation. The government has been aggravating and stimulating inflation since it was elected in 1963. The government has not done anything to control the situation. All it believes in is spending money to buy votes. The motive behind this inflation has been to inflate the value of property to over $300,000, and when the person is deceased the government then receives half of his estate. At the cost of farm land and equipment today it does not take very much to build up an estate of this value.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), a spokesman for the New Democratic Party, stated that the Carter commission report was like the Bible to a Christian. On the death of a farmer his son is in a strait-jacket because of provincial legislation.
February 19, 1969

Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act The legislation states that a farm mortgage cannot be foreclosed without the consent of the court, so he is unable to obtain a loan in western Canada. The result is these farms and ranches must be sold.
A member of the other place, Senator Hazen Argue, in quoting a Saskatchewan commission stated that 24 per cent of the large farms in the Regina plains were owned by United States syndicates. Some cabinet ministers agree with the Watkins report that United States capital must not be encouraged. However, under this new legislation when sons inherit a farm they will have no choice but to sell to United States syndicates. It is in this manner the family farm will be affected. It is in this manner the family business will be affected.
Some politicians have been peddling the philosophy of the Carter commission like that other Carter peddles his liver pills. The farmers, ranchers, small businessmen and salaried men who have taken care to build up investments so that their children will have a good start in life would all suffer if the recommendations of the Carter commission were implemented. The recommendations I refer to are to be found on pages 472 to 490, volume 3 of the report. If time permits I will show that the gift provisions of this new legislation have "out-Cartered Carter". The proposed act will replace the Estate Tax Act of January 1, 1959. The act of 1959 replaced the Dominion Succession Duty Act which had been in force since 1941.
During the last election campaign members of the N.D.P. told the farmers across western Canada that the Carter commission report was the greatest thing since Carter invented a pill. These same members said, "We are for the farmers. It is those rich beggars in the city who are stealing all the money. They are making all the millions." I hope these socialists never return to the farm belts and compare the Carter commission report to Carter and his pills.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I heard M. J. Coldwell speak on many platforms when I was taken to election meetings by my father. He talked about every farm in western Canada having a mortgage and implied that the government might as well own them anyway. I cannot see that the N.D.P. has changed a lot since the Regina manifesto was published. Incidentally, it has always puzzled me why it is called the Regina manifesto. It was created in the Palliser Hotel in Calgary. My hon. friend from Regina-Lake
[Mr. Woolliams.l

Centre knows something about Calgary because he married a Calgary girl.
Let us see what Carter had to say:
In appraising the present system, it is also useful to compare the level of estate taxes in Canada to those applicable in the United Kingdom and the United States. Table 17-1 indicates, for estates of certain sizes, what the tax impact is in each jurisdiction. The figures for Canada and the United States are to some extent understated, as non-ereditable provincial and state taxes are not taken into consideration.
That is the level existing before we implement this bill, which will go through the committee with the proper instructions.
It is evident that the present level of estate tax in Canada is substantially less than that applicable in the United Kingdom, but, except for very large estates, is greater than that applicable in the United States. In particular, the United States tax is subsantially lower on that portion of the estate passing to the widow.
In other words, Carter's first point is that Great Britain has a higher tax than Canada and the United States has a lower tax. Why should we have the same tax as Great Britain? This is a land of resources. We have our mines, our factories, our farm lands. We have our cattle which come off the grass of Alberta, the grass of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Those resources properly developed increase the gross national product of this nation and provide the revenue to give the Canadian people the services they demand.
If the government takes the capital away from sons who have the know-how, how will Canadians get the capital to develop their ranches, mines, cattle and other industries? Great Britain in former years had a different type of economy. It was an island that brought in cheap raw materials from the colonies, processed those materials and exported the finished products to other markets. Why should we pay the same high taxes as Great Britain, particularly when we want to develop the northern part of our nation, and when we have the vision to develop ideas and the initiative to carry them out? This is the kind of society I live in. At least it is the kind of society I have always thought I lived in. People have been free in this country to invest their capital. That is why people who had initiative left the east and went west.
Again returning to the Carter report, I quote from the third volume, and I hope that members of the N.D.P. never go out and say this to the farmers, even to collect votes, because things like this excite the farmers:
Despite our inability to find support for this alleged unfortunate incidence of estate taxes, it
February 19, 1969

appears reasonable to conclude that taxation imposed on the value of a business will in some instances influence the owner to sell part, or all, of the business. It is highly unlikely that sales of businesses will result from one motive only, and if estate tax is a contributing factor its impact will vary in each instance. However, assuming the extreme position where a business is sold only to meet taxes, the result of the sale may in economic terms be good or bad depending on whether or not it advances the future prospects of the company.
He says the same thing about farms. I am speaking of this great socializer, Carter. This is the bible that the N.D.P. go out and campaign on. This is the great line, the cruncher:
There is little evidence to support the position that businesses tend to prosper to a greater extent because they remain in the same family.
In other words, Carter asked why farms should be passed on to families, why businesses should be passed on to families. In his view they might be better off in the hands of strangers; it might be better to drive sons off the farm. Did the N.D.P. say that in Saskatchewan when it was winning farm seats there? I don't think so. Did the N.D.P. say this to small business? No one operates a business of any size in Canada today under a quarter of a million dollars. That is peanuts following the inflationary period through which we have been passing. Carter recommends that-


Mr. Thomson (Balileford-Kindersley):: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, and just to keep the record straight, may I ask the hon. member whether it was not the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, when he was prime minister, who inaugurated the Carter tax study?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am quite prepared to say he did not write the report. Mr. Fleming appointed Mr. Carter and I said to Mr. Fleming, and I think Mr. Fleming admitted it himself, that it was a great mistake. Carter was told to look at changes in the estate tax and income tax. He was not told to bring in a socialistic bible. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I do not have to live with the sins of the Diefen-baker cabinet. I never was graced by that opportunity.
These recommendations are like Carter's little liver pills, and I do not think my hon. friend should recommend them to the farmers. I think he is too intelligent to do that. I want the farmers of Saskatchewan to know what they were voting for, particularly in those areas that went socialist. Coming from one of those belts I have never understood how they could be socialist. If the people in 29180-364

Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act those areas are not capitalists there are no capitalists in Canada.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) does not like it when he hears talk about socializing farms. If one is attempting to win farmers' votes then I must agree with him. You must ask, does it affect my little old pocketbook and my little old ballot box, when you are running to be a member of parliament.
To return to my quotation from the Carter Commission report:
It is not the purpose of the tax system to cause businesses to be sold or to protect them from sale. Taxation should be levied in the most neutral manner possible. However, this does not mean that if a taxpayer elects to place his resources in such a way that they are not readily realizeable, he should secure a tax preference over other taxpayers with liquid assets.
In other words, Carter says that if the estate tax, or this new tax bill which has out-Cartered Carter, makes a farmer sell his holdings, or a businessman sell his business, or a family sell its shares in a big industry that it controls, so what? Let these assets fall into a stranger's hands. If the grandfather went to great pains to build up a business or an industry, to create something for his heirs, let it be destroyed. There is only one system like that in the world.
If this proposed change is adopted we may destroy the small businesses of Canada, the farmers and the ranchers. Even those salaried people like deputy ministers, who probably get around $45,000 a year and put their money in investments, or who buy into a company when they retire, will not be able to pass the benefits on to their sons. Yet Carter says this is all right.
The T. Eaton Company is one of the richest family controlled enterprises in Canada. Grandfather Eaton did more to develop the west than any other living industrialist in Canada. He brought supplies to the farmers through his catalogues. The tragedy of the situation is that through legislation like this we may force the grandson to sell the business to Americans, or have the state take it over.
Speaking in Weyburn the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that inefficient farmers have to go. I have a clipping of his speech in my possession. I was quite surprised to read that.
I say to the members of this House of Commons that the situation in Canada is far different from that in Great Britain. We are a country that needs capital in the hands of
5732	COMMONS
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act individuals who have the know-how, the initiative, the creativity and the daring to develop the resources of this land which are in abundance north, south, west and east. This is also important in the oil industry. In Britain their economic development came about by processing raw material bought throughout the world at a cheap price and processed and sold as finished products in a captive market. In Canada, on the other hand, we have the raw materials. What we need is capital left in the hands of individuals to process our own raw materials into finished products so that we will own our own industries and have jobs for Canadians. I say jobs for all Canadians. As I said once in Drumheller, when the coal mines are broke the miners are out of work.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Only through production and trade will the gross national product grow so that this great country can afford the services that our people demand and maintain equality by the implementation and promotion of the same. If the Canadian government by increasing the estate tax and reducing the exemptions skims off the cream of the capital as it is doing by this new bill, the United States will own more of our industries than they do today. Out goes the Watkins report. Carter said: Tax the people and give them services. The N.D.P. always talks about the Scandinavian countries. When I was in Denmark and spoke to the taxi drivers they said there was no opportunity there.
More businesses, more farms, more ranches, more mines, more industrial concerns will fall on the auction block and be sold to United States interests. I do not have the figures but, as I have said, many farms in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta are owned by United States interests. Carter says, if you have to sell the farm, the ranch, or the small business to pay high estate taxes, so what? His suggestion is, sell it, get rid of the people.
In order to have an efficient farm, ranch or small business today you must have an investment of at least $250,000. That does not frighten me. The price of land in the rural areas and indeed the price of land in cities plus the price of equipment in business or agriculture will verify my statement.
Now let us take a look at some figures. I want to put these on the record because some phases of this bill have been misrepresented. Let us take an estate valued at $100,000 which is to be left to two sons 25 years of age. Do

DEBATES	February 19, 1969
not ask me what would happen if their ages are between one and 25; it would take a computer to figure it out. On a $100,000 estate, under the proposed tax the amount would be $8,700. On a $150,000 estate the amount is $21,000. On a $200,000 estate it is $36,200. On a $300,000 estate it is $75,700. This is a 25 per cent increase over the former rate. On a $500,000 estate it is $174,200, an increase of 40 per cent. On a $750,000 estate it is $299,200, an increase of 40 per cent. On an estate of $1 million it is $424,200, an increase of 35 per cent. In any small industry in ordinary business circles $1 million is not much. If you have a printing press in the city of Calgary or Toronto with a $1 million investment it is not a big enterprise any more.


An hon. Member:: What's a million?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad a Liberal yelled that. That is what C. D. Howe said. But the tax you pay is $424,000. By this bill the capital is being skimmed off so that the sons will have to borrow money in this competitive world where one has to deal with unions and make adjustments in respect of labour. I am not complaining about that. However, it is difficult to survive. These figures do not tell the whole story. If a husband's estate is $200,000 and the wife has inherited $20,000 during her lifetime, say from her father, and she wants to keep her inheritance in her family the rate of taxation on her estate will be on the combined amount of $220,000. It cannot be 100 per cent. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is so kind that he says that when they get that grabby they will only collect 50 per cent.
The minister's computers will be kept busy recording social security numbers so that no one can escape the social security axe. When the social security cards came in we were told they did not mean anything. Now the number is put in a machine. Judy LaMarsh admitted in her book that she had enumerated every Canadian by a number. This is the social welfare prison in which we now find ourselves, and this is endorsed by our good friends. Time does not permit me to go into all husband and wife trust conditions, but one thing is sure. The Carter family unit pill has now been handed to every Canadian and this government has told the people to swallow it. It is the castor oil treatment: Open your mouth and we will give you the medicine that is good for you.
Under the bill the exemption for children inheriting property progressively becomes
February 19, 1969

less from age one to age five. At age one I believe it starts out at $35,000 and at age 25 it is reduced to $25,000. It is in respect of the gift tax that they have really taken the bite. Under the old act you could make on $4,000 gift or you had a means by which you could make a gift exempt from tax of half the difference between your total taxable income and your tax. For example, if your taxable income was $35,000 and your income tax was $12,000 the difference was $23,000 and therefore you couild make a gift of $11,500. You could make a gift of $11,500 if you earned $35,000 in that year and your tax was on that basis. You could also make during your lifetime one gift of $10,000. We know about the agreement between father and son. The father would sell the son the farm, the son would pay $4,000 per year and there would be a gift of $4,000. That is how they gifted away the homestead so that the son could obtain title to it and be able to operate it.
Today the ceiling on gifts if $2,000 and they are cumulative. For example, if you have a $300,000 estate when you die and have made gifts totalling $125,000 you will pay a tax on a total estate of $425,000. Then you work out the difference between a high and a low, whatever that means. Do not ask me to explain this because only God understands it now, but some experts will perhaps work it out. The gift tax is added to the estate so you pay a tax even on the gift tax. The minister shakes his head. I cannot tell you the name of the man who gave me this information, but he is the head of one of the trust companies in this land. If I am challenged I will give his name. I see my farm friend shake his head. He is an expert. I am not; I sought knowledge.
We all know that reasonable taxes must be paid but high progressive death taxes spell the death knell in respect of children inheriting enough money to develop the resources of this nation. What is the difference between this system and a socialistic state whether it exists in the U.S.S.R. or anywhere else in the world? I heard the leader of the N.D.P. say during the rules debate that there are two ways to arrive at a totalitarian state. One is by revolution-and they are even trying that in this country-and the other is by the subtle method. He mentioned that he met the Prime Minister at a political meeting a number of years ago and said that the Prime Minister is never at a loss for a word or leaves one out and does not intend to. He said 29180-3641

Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act that he thought he was using the subtle method to take over this country. This is another method by which you take over farms. It is not the method used in Russia. It is done here by taxation.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I have two or three more comments to make. I was very impressed with the federal-provincial conference for this reason. The federal government has been implementing tax legislation in fields exclusively delegated to the provinces. We have observed federally implemented taxes in those fields as a way of changing the constitution without consent and without amendment to the constitution. I have not time to read the entire section, but section 92 of the British North America Act covers those things which fall within provincial jurisdiction, and medicare is one.
Perhaps I should not say that medicare falls exclusively within provincial jurisdiction, but this is one field in which the federal government has legislated. They gave the provinces the pill and then said, we will negotiate. The government suggested it would consult with the provinces only after they had the pill in their systems. In other words, you do not see the doctor first. You take the pill first and then see the doctor. That is co-operative federalism. That is what the government is doing when it legislates in provincial fields.
Some people ask, why should we care when 75 per cent of the money goes back to the provinces? The deputy premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Steuart, said they did not want this kind of legislation. The federal government should stay out of provincial fields. The Prime Minister suggested that he wanted the nation to stay out of bedrooms. We want a strong central government, but if that government intends to survive it must stay out of provincial fields.
We must remember that in the long run it is the citizen who pays. He is the one who puts out from his pocket both for provincial and federal schemes. Consultation with the provinces after implementation is like giving the patient the disease first and supplying the pill and the water later.
The N.D.P. members make promises about the implementation of the Carter commission report in respect of farmers and businesses. They cannot see why anyone would object to this bill except that the voters might see through the bride's negligee. That is what might happen and they are frightened. Never was there such a deception-
February 19, 1969

Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his tune has expired unless there is the unanimous consent of the house to allow him to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I can conclude my remarks within two minutes. There never was such a deception. I grew up with the party in Saskatchewan. It has been a great party of reform in many ways. They went into Saskatchewan to defeat the Liberal and Conservative members and to bring about reform, but when they told the western farmer that the Carter commission recommendations should be implemented because it would take money from the millionaires and leave it to the farmers' sons they did not tell the truth. Many of their candidates were told this through the literature sent out by their headquarters. They did not even know the colour of the covers on the Carter commission report.
I Jiope I receive good good news coverage on what I have said today. Perhaps I am being selfish, but almost every farmer subscribes to the Western Producer which is financed by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. This is the main publication that the western farmer reads, and it is in effect put out by the farmers' co-operative, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. I hope my remarks will be printed in that publication in order that the farmers of Saskatchewan will know that what the N.D.P. has told them is untrue. They had better look out because their sons will lose the farms. I am sorry for the Liberals because they have tried to out-socialize the N.D.P. There are many Liberals sitting over there who are true Liberals, and I am sure they must feel very uncomfortable.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am a little hesitant to speak at this time because I am afraid the contrast between the previous speaker and myself will be so great that some hon. members may fall asleep. In any event I should like to make a few comments about this tax proposal which has aroused a great deal of controversy across the country.
The most controversial aspect of t.he new tax proposal by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) seems to be in relation to estate and gift taxes. Tax is eliminated under the new proposal when an estate is passed from the husband to the wife or the wife to the husband, but the rate of taxation is increased


drastically when the estate is passed to a daughter or a son. I heard one government member state: We will get our money a little later, but we will get more of it so we do not mind waiting. Surely this is true.
I think it is fair to say that this tax proposal has caused great consternation throughout the country, and that the government has received more protest mail than in respect of any other matter before the house, including the abortion bill. Any time that legislation is brought forward and creates so much controversy, there must be something wrong with it. Let me refer to a letter I received from the president of the Investment Dealers' Association, Toronto. He stated:
This legislation, if implemented, will, in our view, seriously reduce the amount of capital available for Canada's future development and will unfavourably affect the ownership of Canadian industry by Canadians. Clearly, any diminution in the flow of capital investment will reduce the employment opportunities available to our expanding labour force.
We urge that no action should be taken on the proposals until their full implications are analysed and assessed.
The Ontario Economic Council in its report on transfer taxes, their effect on productivity and control of our economy, had this to say:
Learned critics over many years have debated the pros and cons of transfer taxes. Such critics have almost invariably been men of law concerned primarily with the justice or impartiality represented rather than with economic consequences.
Undue concentration of wealth resulting from a complete absence of transfer taxes tends to destroy incentives which contribute to productivity.
Over-imposition of transfer taxes, on the other hand, has the same effect-
That is what is happening here. The report continues:
[DOT]-not only by reducing the national urge to save and build, but by contributing to the loss of control of the nation's material resources.
Obviously there must be a mid-position. What is it and how closely do our practices approach it?
Under the old taxation system, in the happy days of yore, if one's estate was $40,000 or less no estate taxes were paid. After the estate size reached $1,500,000, one entered the 50 per cent estate tax bracket and 54 per cent was paid on everything above $2 million. Those were the ranges. Under the present system the exemption is prescribed as $50,000 and, as the previous speaker mentioned, if the estate happens to be larger than that taxation begins at $20,000.
I feel rather critical of the minister on this point in that it seems to me the public was
February 19, 1969	COMMONS
misled in some way into thinking they were actually getting an exemption of $50,000. The tax on the remainder is increased to a point where an estate worth $300,000 will be taxed to the extent of 50 per cent of the value. Such a tax in practical terms means confiscation of half the assets of the estate. Since very few heirs can finance such a tax and a farming operation as well, especially if there are brothers and sisters who want immediate cash for their share of the estate, the family farm is in danger. Farmers and farm leaders across the nation are very upset about this situation. The ultimate effect may be the wiping out of the family farm. The immediate effect could be the wiping out of the incentive to build up a family estate since, in the long run, it cannot be kept in the family anyway and nobody really wants to labour into his old age for the benefit of the tax collector.
One of the farmers who communicated with me had this to say:
I believe in keeping the family farm in existence. In my opinion the corporate farms, especially when financed by huge feed companies, oil companies, and other such giants are the ones which should be taxed a greater percentage as these will surely destroy the family farms.
These are the organizations which will be taxed less under this proposal. They were taxed to the extent of 54 per cent and will now be taxed to the extent of 50 per cent. This farmer goes on to state:
If farms are kept at a reasonable size more people could earn a living at it and prices might be more favourable. I would like to see governments encourage small operators, not force them to quit, so that they can join the already unemployed.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
He goes on to say:
If the present trend continues in regard to larger and larger farms, it will mean more unemployed, more housing problems, more ghost towns. What will become of places which depend on the local farmers for existence? Bonnyville, with a population of over 2,000, is an example-
That is a town in my riding.
-of a town depending on local farmers. There is no industry other than farming to keep this town going. Where would all these people go if there were only a few farmers farming the whole municipal district?
The family farm should be preserved. It is the foundation of Canadian agriculture. It is one of the essential components of Canadian society, and it could surely be destroyed in one short generation if this new tax went unchallenged. I would like to quote from another letter I received from a farmer in the
DEBATES	5735
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act riding. He expresses opinions which summarize pretty well most of the communications I have received. He says:
I am writing to inform you of my strong disapproval of your proposed new Estate Tax Act as it applies to the smaller estates, and farms in particular-
The farms in our area operate as economic units largely because of the good management practices of the owners. If land, cattle or other assets had to be sacrificed in order to pay high estate taxes, the result could mean the dispersal of the entire estate. I consider this to be unfair, especially when the majority of heirs will have spent a good part of their lives helping their father (or mother) to operate and build up the family farm.
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Smerchanski) last night said that under this new proposal even less tax will be paid if proper planning is used. I think this farmer was able to forecast that statement, because he went on to say:
If the owner could be assured of living to a specified age, he or she could make arrangements for the disposal of the farm to the heirs, but as is all too often the case, he or she can die suddenly while still owner. The heirs can then be left with the necessity of having to forfeit the greater part of the source of livelihood in order to pay this estate tax.
All. too often the purchasers of these bargains are "big business" operations. I feel that this new tax will eliminate the family farm as a way of life for those of us who take pride in being independent and self-supporting. There are already too many cogs in the wheels of labour whose only incentive to work is to get a chance at drawing an unemployment cheque. We are people and individuals, not just statistics punched out on a computer card.
This fairly adequately summarizes the feelings in my constituency and, I think it is fair to say, those in all the west and possibly the east as well. I see this tax proposal as simply another step by the government to erode the freedom of the individual. This government seems to be obsessed with compulsion. Its history since 1963 has been to bring in a compulsory pension plan, compulsory medicare and a Criminal Code bill which includes so many clauses, so many different subjects, that it is impossible to feel that you have the freedom to discuss each one and vote on it individually according to your desires.
Having listened to some government members who have spoken on this bill, it seems that what used to be considered a good trait or reasonable trait is now something of which to be ashamed. I am talking about personal ambition and initiative to build up an estate. I do not think it is a shameful thing for a farmer or any businessman to want to build up an estate and provide security for
February 19, 1969

Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act his family. The hon. member for Provencher spoke about planning estate tax payments, and so on. He made some comments which I think are very interesting. I would like to quote one of them:
No matter how you slice it, it ends up as a tax bait to the federal government.
That sounds a little paradoxical when compared with the general tenor of the hon. member's speech, but that is one of his statements. The hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) spoke like a Conservative for most of his speech except for the last portion, and I should like to quote some parts of it. He said at one stage:
I now wish to speak about the new estate tax being applied to a $100,000 estate. I wish to take the case in which the tax bears most heavily, the case where the estate is left outright by a widower to one son, and not to two or three. Under the present law that son will pay $10,200 in estate tax. Under the proposed law he would pay $13,200, an increase of $3,000, which is considerable and which threatens the existence of the family farm.
Government members should take this into account. The hon. member for Coast Chilcotin also said:
It seems the state not only has the right to impose estate taxes, but in my opinion it has a duty. The alternative is very clear. Unless estate taxes are used to prevent the pyramiding of family wealth, then it must follow we are going to move increasingly into a hereditary aristocracy of wealth in this country. It will not be basically from a titled aristocracy. It will gain power in the nation's political affairs by virtue of birth rather than by virtue of individual worth. I am convinced that this or any other form of class system is bad for Canada.
I disagree that keeping a certain amount of an estate in the family is bad for the family. I think it is in fact good for Canada. I suggest that the minister reconsider some of his proposals in this vein. I believe that more consideration should and must be given to farmers' sons and daughters and to the sons and daughters of small businessmen, because in most cases they have spent many years working hand in hand with tbeir parents building up the family farm and should therefore be entitled to a better deal than seems to be in the making at the present time.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to belabour the debate but there are a few things I would like to say in *connection with the proposed changes to the Estate Tax Act. The first thing I would like to say is that I am very surprised at the lack of judgment and foresight displayed by the
[Mr. Yewchuk.l
Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). Surely a minister of his experience and background, a man who has been an accountant and auditor, should have foreseen the uproar that these tax changes would bring about. He should also have appreciated the need for precision and certainly in our tax laws. I cannot for the life of me understand how he made such a blunder in setting forth these proposed changes to the act.
I congratulate the minister, though, for one or two things in this bill. I may be a little selfish in my first congratulation to him. In December of 1963, about six years ago, I introduced in this house a private member's resolution suggesting that the Liberal government of the day take note of the situation whereby succession duties were payable within six months from the time of death. In the odd case they did give, at the discretion of the minister, an extension for the payment of these duties, but they were very rare. Succession duties had to be paid in cash within six months. I recommended at that time that the period should be extended and the normal rate of interest charged. I am glad to see that what I suggested is incorporated in the proposed legislation.
I remember so well giving the example at the time of a farmer who died without leaving a will and, very unfortunately, six months later his wife died without leaving a will. The farmer had two sons who were working with him on the farm. They had a first-class herd of purebred cattle. When the mother died, succession duties were payable in six months, not in the form of cattle, land or buildings but in cash. They did not have the cash. What did they do? They had no alternative but to call an auction sale, and their cattle were sold under the hammer to raise the money with which to pay the succession duties. Years of careful work on the part of the father and sons in raising this herd were lost because the succession duties had to be paid quickly. This has now been changed. The minister has suggested a period of six years and I congratulate him on this proposal, though it does not remove the problem of meeting succession duties which will still have to be paid eventually.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I think I would be remiss if I did not comment on some of the observations made last night by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Smerchanski). He said, among other things, that we on this side of the house had not done our homework. He also complained
February 19, 1969	COMMONS
that the press had not done their homework in connection with this bill. I am sure he must have received as many letters in connection with this legislation as I and other members have received, and I think it is unfair for him to suggest that we have not done our homework. I am sure we on this side have done as much as he has done.
I hope he circulates Hansard to every farmer and small businessman in his riding so that they will have the opportunity to read what he has said. After all, I think the hon. member would agree that we are here to represent constituencies which, we hope, will grow increasingly to develop Canada as a first-class country. We want to promote industry and small businesses; we want to see profitable farms develop; we want to see greater employment opportunities provided. For the hon. member to suggest that this legislation will not have an adverse effect on Canada's farms and small businesses is, in my opinion, misleading. I should like him to distribute the Hansard in question to all his people and let them make up their own minds in this regard.
The hon. member spoke about tax-free gifts. As you know, Mr. Speaker, under these amendments tax-free gifts are restricted to $2,000 whereas the old limit was $4,000. The hon. member for Provencher says the effect is unchanged because a husband and a wife can each give $2,000, making $4,000. I ask the hon. member: In how many cases does a wife living with a husband pay tax separately? There are some cases, of course. In cases where she is a taxpayer she will be able to give $2,000.


Mr. Smerchanski:: She does not have to be a taxpayer.


Alfred Dryden Hales: She has to be a taxpayer. It is not in every case that a husband and wife can each give $2,000.


Mark G. Smerchanski: Sure they can.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Well, we will leave it to the lawyers to interpret. I have put my interpretation on it. The hon. member expressed the opinion that from a standpoint of dollars and cents the proposed estate tax is equitable. With regard to estate tax planning, he said, after August 1, 1969 one could opt either to take the old rates or the new rates. This is not the interpretation I place on the bill. After August 1, 1969 there is no such choice; the regulations have to be followed. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, who should be doing the homework?
DEBATES	5737
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act


Mark G. Smerchanski: You should.


Alfred Dryden Hales: You tell me if I am wrong.


Mark G. Smerchanski: You are wrong.


Alfred Dryden Hales: The hon. member talks about corporations paying between 60 and 70 per cent of their net profits taxes, taking into account the tax on dividends amounting to anywhere between 10 and 20 per cent. He talks about this as though it was a wonderful thing. Imagine a corporation having to pay 60 or 70 per cent of its profits in taxation. How can he, or anyone else with corporations in their ridings, expect them to survive when they have to pay up to 70 per cent of their net profits in taxation? After all, these firms must put something aside for research and for their necessary capital requirements to keep them up to date and in line with the times. I do not know how we can expect them to continue under this staggering taxation load.
Turning again to the subject of small businesses and succession duties, let me say I would have preferred the Minister of Finance to have done something to help these enterprises which are struggling to continue their existence. Let him go up and down the main streets in any of the towns and cities of Canada and see how many empty stores there are. Why are they empty? They are empty because small businessmen have been given no encouragement by the government. Instead of bringing in this type of legislation the Minister of Finance would have been better engaged in providing expanded opportunities for the operators of small businesses.
One point in particular occurs to me in this connection. In thousands of cases the wife of an operator of a small business works with him, serving in the store or corner shop. But the husband is not allowed to charge her wages as part of his operating costs. Yet if she did not work for him he would have to hire somebody else, and the wages paid to that person could be deducted as a legitimate business expense.
A few years ago a Conservative government introduced the Small Businesses Loans Act. I cannot think of anything else which has been done to assist small business. If the present situation continues we shall see more and more empty stores throughout the country. A good deal is said in this chamber about industry. I want to see encouragement given to industry to develop and provide jobs for Canadians. But when large corporations, small businesses and farms are all saddled
February 19, 1969

Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act with the proposed taxation the attitude of those engaged in them is:	I might as
well sell out. And where are they likely to find a purchaser? Very likely it will be a United States corporation. So we find ourselves recalling the stand taken by a former minister of finance, Mr. Walter Gordon, when he urged us not to let Americans take over Canada but promote Canadian investment in Canadian industries. The present government does not appear to think in those terms. It does not worry about the number of corporations which will have to sell out in order to escape succession duties.
We realize that under the minister's new proposal no estate duty is payable when an estate passes from husband to wife or from wife to husband. That sounds good. But it only represents a postponement of a final tax payment. What is the attitude generally to these proposed changes? Many have said to me: What is the use? We might as well spend the money. We saved it to give to our children but there is such a heavy tax on it we might as well spend it.
What is the effect likely to be? An attitude of this kind toward spending promotes inflation. It throws another log on to the fire of inflation and, goodness knows, that is what we want to avoid, because inflation is the greatest enemy facing Canada today. Nevertheless the government is making proposals which will only worsen this situation, and for the life of me I cannot imagine why they should wish to do so at this particular time.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
As the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has asked, what does the government want to do? Force fathers to sell out? They do not seem to want to encourage their heirs to carry on the family farm or business.
I have received, as I am sure everyone in the house has, considerable mail on this subject, more than on any other matter to come before the house. I am not going to put all of these letters on the record, but there is one that really made me feel terrible. It is from a man who is a long way along life's road. He says:
The political parties all seem not to give a half a damn about the electors who have a substantial estate. "Let's rob them" seems to be the slogan. Well perhaps this will work for a while.
I will mention two items. My son-in-law is a Ph.D. in science from McGill after getting an M.A. from Queen's. He and Marjorie and family are living in the U.S.A. They always talked about the time when they would come back to Canada. But not now. They would be crazy to come back

to this country and I told them so. John has applied for U.S.A. citizenship papers.
The other item was told me by a Galt businessman, since the first of this year. A friend of his retired. His home was in Michigan. He had planned to settle in a nearby Canadian town, close to Galt. In checking items with a banker in that town the banker told him he would be crazy to come back to Canada. This chap and his wife are now settled in Florida. I think this could be multiplied many times across the country. If I were only ten years younger and had a wife the same age and well, I would get out of here fast. After spending 52 years in the shoe business I now find that it is practically impossible to pass any of my hard-earned savings on to my grandchildren-ten of them in Canada.
My apologies for this long letter. At long last I am sorry that I am a Canadian.
Is that not a sad way to have to end a letter? This is a man in his twilight years who has worked in the shoe business in Canada since 1909, and who says he is sorry he is a Canadian. We do not want that sort of thing in this country. We want people to have the opportunity to work and to save, to show initiative and receive reward for their effort. It is only natural for a man who works hard to want to save a little money to hand on to his children. He paid tax on that money and he paid plenty. He should be allowed to hand on a portion of what he has saved after paying tax. I am not saying that succession duty should be abolished completely, but I do think some discretion in the amount of succession duty levied should be exercised.
As I said at the beginning, I am not going to belabour this point. I am concerned about small businessmen and farmers, those in my riding who are engaged in industry and who want to survive, to develop their industry and to receive some reward for their work. I do not want the owners of businesses, big and small, to say to me: "What's the use? I might as well sell out." If they have to sell out they sell to people from the United States, and they will eventually take over this country. Although I do not think that is the wish of any member of this house, I can see the day coming when this will be the result if the government continues to tax the Canadian people in the way that is proposed.


Mark G. Smerchanski: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the hon. member who has just spoken quoted from page 5682 of Hansard, the tenth line from the bottom, and he is correct when he says it should read "before August 1, 1969" and not "after August 1". That accords with the proposed legislation. May I thank him for bringing that matter to my attention.
February 19. 1969	COMMONS


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I would be derelict in my duty if I did not take the opportunity to rise in my place and register my strong protest at some of the implications of Bill C-165, to amend the Income Tax Act and the Estate Tax Act.
First of all, I was not only appalled but amazed when about ten days ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) rose in his place in this house and implied that he had received no objections from members of the opposition with respect to these proposed amendments. I must give the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) full credit for taking it upon himself to raise a point of privilege following that implication by the minister in order to clear up the record. We finally got an admission from him that he had received eight or ten letters from opposition members.
I was one of the opposition members who registered my protest in as strong language as I could couch in a two page letter to the minister under date of January 22. I am not going to go into the details of it but I did send copies of the letter to the 18 weekly papers in my riding so they would know that the opposition was on the job in this house. At that time I was a little concerned whether under the new rules we have adopted I would even get the opportunity to register my protest. However, I have that opportunity now.
I am not going to belabour the point this evening because I feel that other members of the opposition have gone into thorough detail in their analysis of the effects of this bill upon Canadians in general and the people I have to honour to represent in particular. I am referring, of course, to the large number of farmers on family farm units and to small businesses, I was a farmer myself and a member of the farming fraternity for a number of years before moving into the business world. Therefore I am fully aware of the problems created by this proposed tax measure as applied both to small businessmen and to farmers.
I think the majority of Canadians agree with one provision of the bill, namely, the transfer of an estate without tax from one spouse to the other at death. This amendment was long overdue. But we find the government being benevolent on the one hand and taking money away on the other, and as many members have pointed out this is where problems arise.
In my letter to the minister I think it is worthy to note that I suggested we do away
DEBATES	5739
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act altogether with the principle of estate tax as outlined in this bill. I make that statement because the province of Alberta already refunds 75 per cent of the estate tax that it collects from people in that province. I believe the premier of Saskatchewan, the hon. Ross Thatcher, is on record as saying it is his intention to do the same thing in Saskatchewan, and if the record is checked I believe the province of Manitoba has indicated it is also considering this step. If that is the case, the inference is that Canadians, particularly those in western Canada, are definitely against the principle of this bill. Consequently, why does the federal government not follow up this trend of thought and eliminate this tax altogether?
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The federal government will say that they must have tax revenue, and I agree with that. I also think that the principle of income tax is the fairest principle on which taxation can be based. Surely the government could recover by way of extra income tax levied on businesses or farms any amount which might otherwise be recovered by way of estate tax. It is only right that those who have worked hard to build up a business or farm should enjoy the fruits of their labour and know that those fruits will not be dissipated on their death.
I worked on a family farm some years ago. My father, brother and I worked day in and day out, year in and year out, from daylight to dark. We all hoped to share eventually in the family farm. Others who work in family businesses hope equally to share in those businesses. That principle has helped to build up farms and businesses in this country, particularly in the rural areas. If the prospect of inheritance induces people to work hard in a family farm or business it is unrealistic to expect that by imposing inheritance taxes we shall maintain the incentive of prospective heirs to work hard and build up businesses. It takes a lifetime to build a business, and on the deaths of the owners the government should not collect estate taxes which may cripple the business.
I regret that the Minister of Finance is not in the house. In fact, I see no minister here at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One
or two hopefuls are present.


Richard Russell Southam: We are discussing a major piece of legislation and yet no minister of the government is here to listen to hon. members.
February 19. 19G9

Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the hon. member and other hon. members that I have been asked by the Minister of Finance particularly to pay very close attention to remarks being made so that their value, which undoubtedly is high, will not be lost. It is now five minutes to six. The minister was in the house until two or three minutes ago. I hope that answers the hon. member's complaint.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, I have some responsibility in this matter. The Minister of Finance mentioned to some of us that he had to go away on urgent business. I say nothing about other ministers. The hon. member who has been speaking did not know that fact, since he was probably outside the chamber preparing his speech. I repeat that the minister said he had to go away on important business.


Mr.   Kees@: Speaking to the hon. member's point of order, I submit it has been recognized practice in any government that if a minister himself cannot be present in the chamber to pilot a bill a colleague of his will take his place in the house. I find it shocking that no minister has been present for some time in the house. That shows the lack of interest of the government in this matter.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, I accept the statement of the parliamentary secretary. As the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) suggested, it is the duty of the
minister to delegate responsibility to a colleague who should be present in this chamber. I do not suggest my remarks are of earthshaking importance, but they represent views held by many in my constituency. The hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) who preceded me made an informative speech. I hope my comments are equally worthy of note.
In view of action being taken or to be taken by certain provinces in the field of estate taxes I urge the government to reconsider its position in this field. The present estate tax formula represents a retrograde step. The government should not introduce legislation which may have the effect of eliminating the family farm or small business. Although my remarks apply particularly to western Canada they also apply to the rest of Canada. Industrial areas of the country may not be concerned about the provisions of this legislation but the people of the rural areas feel that the proposed legislation will perpetrate injustices. I therefore submit that the bill should not be given passage in its present form.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As it is six o'clock this house stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 20, I960