1969-02-20

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer certificate of the election and return of T. C. Douglas, Esquire, for the electoral district of Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.



NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
T. C. Douglas, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands introduced by Mr. David Lewis and Mr. Harold E. Winch.

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government I welcome back to this house an hon. member who has enjoyed one of the longest active political careers in Canada. Perhaps a few months have been missing here and there but, by and large, I believe he has been sitting in legislative chambers or parliaments since 1935.
We must all face the hazards of political life. The hon. member who has returned to this house has shown that he persists in the pursuit of his ideals, that he has great sticking power and that he believes strongly in the principles he follows. These are virtues we admire in him.
He is also welcome because he has a great sense of humour and conducts himself in a lively fashion in debates. Of course the hon. members of his caucus will welcome the additional leadership he will bring to their united ranks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We know he brings to the house an intimate knowledge of his new constituency, where he has been meeting his constituents for some months. He will find the
house a welcome place in which to be. It has changed a little. We now have a permanent or enduring Speaker, we have changed the rules a little, and some of the ministers are in the house, off and on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The one thing that has not changed, however, Mr. Speaker, is the courtesy of hon. members and the friendships which develop among members of all parties. As a human being and as a man devoted to principle, the hon. member stands second to none. Because of this we welcome him back to the house.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in warmly welcoming back to the house the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), the leader of the New Democratic party.
The hon. gentleman has always enjoyed the highest regard and respect of his colleagues. He has always been in the public life of the country, first in the House of Commons as the hon. member for Weyburn, then as premier of a province, then in the house as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and now as the hon. member representing the constituency of Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. His return to parliament is welcomed by all, and especially by those on the left-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am glad they rise to that. Of course, I really mean to the left of you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure I can group most of us who are sitting to your left, Mr. Speaker, as being to the left of the government, as it is virtually impossible to be to the right of this government-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -unless, of course, we were prepared to adopt the principles of Genghis Khan or somebody of that sort.


An hon. Member:: Don't suggest it!

February 20, 1969'
New Member


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope I am not out of place, Mr. Speaker, in suggesting to the hon. member, who is taking his seat today, that his colleague the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) has conducted himself eloquently and effectively as the acting parliamentary leader of his party. I hope this is not the kiss of death for the coming days. The hon. member for York South was so effective that the other day he was accused of demagoguery by the Prime Minister. I interpret that as being complimentary.
These are very strenuous days for parliament and the country. We all know the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands will continue to make a very informed and constructive contribution to parliament and the country. It is a great pleasure indeed for me personally and on behalf of my colleagues to welcome him back to this house.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shetford):: Mr. Speaker, we in this corner of the house congratulate the new member and leader of the New Democratic party on his election; we notice that though he has not been too fortunate in general elections, he seems to have become an expert in by-elections.
Mr. Speaker, we will now have the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas) on our right, and even though we do not always endorse his ideas because they lean to the left, we nevertheless appreciate his many qualities as a parliamentarian. I have had the opportunity of knowing him personally in 1962. During all the debates, he was a credit to the House of Commons, by putting forward the ideas of his party which he represented very well.
I take the opportunity to commend those who, during his absence, assumed the leadership of the New Democratic party in parliamentary matters. Even though their leader was not here, they were able to hold out and set forth the ideas which prompted their constituents to elect them to the House of Commons.
We therefore join our verbal flowers to the natural flowers Which have been placed on the hon. member's desk; we assure him of our respect and wish him good luck for the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, as the devil said when

he was sworn in as a member of the cabinet, "It's nice to be home."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want, sir, through you to express my very sincere appreciation of the warm welcome which has been extended to me by members in all parts of the house, and particularly to say how deeply touched I am by the fine tributes which have been paid by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), and the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), speaking on behalf of the Ralliement du Creditiste. I have been associated with politicians so long that I do not take too seriously what they say in their moments of euphoria; nevertheless I know from long experience and from having worked with members in all parties in this house that their tributes are sincere, and their welcome is a genuine one.
I am very happy to be able to resume my place in the house. As the Prime Minister has said, I have had many months away from the house in which to learn many things. I would even recommend it to some members of the house and of the government. I think that visiting logging camps, sawmills and pulp-mills, fishermen on their boats, businessmen and consumer groups is a very valuable experience for one who has been a long time in public life. I am deeply indebted to the house for its kindness, and to the people of Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands for the vote of confidence they gave to me and to my colleagues in sending me here.
I would like to express my appreciation to the members of the New Democratic party who sit in this house for the fine job they have done during my absence. I am glad the Prime Minister has noted the degree of unity which obtains. I have had no difficulty with some of them wanting to get out of NATO, and some wanting to stay in NATO.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They have managed to develop a degree of unity which I have found most comforting.
It was a great experience, coming back last night; when I got off the plane some of my colleagues and supporters met me and presented me with a book called, "The Sayings of Chairman Diefenbaker." When I got into our apartment I found sitting on the table, a book my wife had been reading, one by the Prime
February 20, 1969

Minister on federalism. In spite of those two very inauspicious beginnings I decided to take my seat, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank the members for their kindness and to say that at this very critical stage in Canada's history, when we are shaping the future of the country, I am very happy to be a member of the house. I have had the privilege over the years of serving in this house and serving in a provincial legislature. I hope that something of the experience which I have gathered may be of some value as we face the critical days ahead.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement with regard to the business of the house for the balance of the session. I believe that the house may find useful some information that I have drawn together about the work remaining to be done between now and the beginning of the summer adjournment.
My proposal is that the house adjourn for Easter at the conclusion of the sitting on Wednesday, April 2 and sit again on Monday, April 14. I am proposing also that we should try to be ready to adjourn for the summer on Friday, June 27. On that basis, after yesterday, taking into account the two additional holidays prescribed by Standing Order 2, we now have 83 sitting days in which to complete our work.
Of those days a total of 18 are committed as allotted days for the business of supply with, I assume, an additional three days for the final supplementary estimates. I am reserving six days for a budget debate. Naturally, I cannot say whether the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will want to initiate such a debate or, if he does, whether any budget bills will eventuate from his statement. This means that 27 days are committed. Any days that might be required for budget bills would be over and above that number. In other words, the maximum number of days that we can count on for the legislative business about which we now know is 56.
The House of Commons has before it, at some stage of the legislative process, a total
Business of the House
of 19 bills. In the other place there are four bills with which the House of Commons has not yet dealt. On the basis of the list put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on September 12, and my best knowledge at this moment, I can foresee 21 additional bills. This means that to the 19 bills now before this house at various stages we should add a total of 25 bills not yet before this house. There is also the matter of a proposed resolution dealing with Canada's anthems.
The following is a list of the bills not yet before the house and I should indicate that no significance should be attached, one way or another, to the order of this list: Investment companies Bill, S-17; Criminal Code (Hate propaganda) amendment, Bill S-21; Canada Shipping Act amendment, Bill S-23; Oil and Gas Productions and Conservation, Bill S-29; Canadian Educational Broadcasting Agency bill; Income Tax Act amendment-from the October 22, 1968 budget; Dominion Coal Board dissolution bill; Yukon Minerals bill; Canada Corporations Act amendment; National Housing Act amendment; Satellite Communications Corporation bill; Export Development Corporation bill; Federal Co-operatives bill; Old Age Security Act amendment; Loan Companies Act amendment; Trust Companies Act amendment; Canada Development Corporation bill; Indian Claims bill; Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act amendment; Foreign Insurance Companies Act amendment; Expropriation Act amendment; Statute Law (Superannuation) Amendment Act amendment; Fisheries Improvement Loans Act amendment (No. 2); Expo Winding-up bill; Patent Act (fees) amendment.
We also hope to introduce an industrial incentives bill in respect of the department of my colleague, the minister of regional and economic expansion, a Canada water bill and a securities bill, but it would not be our intention that these should be passed during the course of this session.
This schedule means that we are confronted with about 45 items to fill our remaining 56 days for legislation. I have made available to the house leaders of parties opposite a list showing the bills passed, the bills in progress in this house and the work to come.
Let me conclude by saying two things. First, it is always possible that emergencies will require the government to come to the house with additional legislative proposals not now anticipated. Secondly, if we finish our work before June 27 I will be more than

February 20, 1969
Business of the House
happy to join in a lobby for an earlier summer adjournment.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure-perhaps I should correct that word of "opportunity"-of reading the list which has been placed before us by the President of the Privy Council. The government has the assurance of this party that, within the limits of our capacity and our right to discharge our responsibility as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, we will co-operate with the government in attempting to meet, as best we can, the schedule to deal with these legislative proposals within the time named. We do not however intend to be in any sense deficient in doing those things which as an opposition we have to do in the discharge of those responsibilities. I think I should make that quite plain, and I do so in no controversial spirit at all.
It is a fact that this has been an unusual session. There is the possibility of our having two budgets, at least time has been provided by the president of the Privy Council for this eventuality. There are a number of legislative proposals-and I am not going to be controversial about this either-which have been left over, but might well have been concluded in the normal course of events if the election had not been held. That was of course the right of the government.
If we can get all these things done by June 27, that is fine. If we have to stay a little longer, I and my colleagues will be very regretful, but we do not intend to be delinquent in the discharge of our responsibilities.
It is my hope that we can work out arrangements for business of the house. For today, for example, I am quite happy to propose that the legislation now before the house be completed today. This estate tax amendment legislation has had a great deal of consideration, and there has been an exceedingly good opportunity for debate. It has been canvassed from all sides of the house. I for one on behalf of this party would agree to an order, if the house is agreeable, to complete second reading, and go through the committee stage and third reading by staying today to complete this bill.
I would refer also to some of the other legislation before the house. For example I have in mind the Criminal Code amendment legislation. I understand from my colleagues who will be serving on the standing committee that when that measure goes to the standing committee it should not be impossible to work out an agreement, through consultation,

as to the length of time with which the committee should be seized of that bill. Once it has been before the standing committee, and the government is ready to report the bill, we will know what amendments there are.
In accordance with our views as expressed earlier in this house, once through the usual consultative processes among the house leaders we know what will be involved and what amendments will be brought back to the house we can decide without inhibition what period of time will be required at the report stage in the house.
Finally, before I sit down may I suggest that when we look at the bills we have been through, and look at the peripatetic progress that has been made, while I realize that members of the government must from time to time be away from this house-and I would not want to inhibit their right-under such circumstances it would facilitate the progress of legislation in the house, and other measures placed before us by the government, if when a measure was initiated and brought into the house for debate, the debate could be completed without having to suspend it, as has happened from time to time, and resume it at a later date. I think that more orderly and reasonable progress could be made if this were done. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to co-operate and we hope the target dates will be achieved. We wish the government success in at least reaching those target dates.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), I wish to thank the government house leader for having supplied us with a copy of the memorandum which he was using when he made his remarks. We believe it is very useful for us to know what legislation the government has in mind for the balance of the session. We also think it is useful and helpful to have a program so far as the calendar is concerned. I agree with the hon. member for Peace River that the important thing for this parliament to do is attend to its business even if we have to stay here, but we think it is a good idea to try and plan our time so we will get the important business done within reasonable time.
I should like to congratulate the government house leader upon including in the time schedule the necessary days for a budget presentation. He had to protect himself with respect to that matter, but we feel, because the
February 20, 1969
country deserves a statement as to our financial position and because it is important to the new program that we worked out as part of our procedures to have the budget in the spring, it would be a good idea to have the budget presentation at that time.
I am interested, of course, in noting that the government house leader has included the proposed Income Tax Act amendment so as to make an honest man out of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), who is presently collecting a 2 per cent social disillusionment tax that has not yet been passed by parliament. In looking over the list of bills that we have before us, I am inclined to say that the important thing is not the number of pieces of legislation with which we are presented but the quality and value of those pieces of legislation. There are some notably missing. May I say a word or two about two or three which are on the list.
There is a reference to the Canada Development Corporation. This reminds me of the millions of times people pray "Thy kingdom come" but never expect it to happen. I hope that this time the government is going to go ahead with the Canada Development Corporation that has been mentioned so often. We trust that the housing legislation will have some real substance, some real content in it. I hope, too, that the reference to the Old Age Security Act and to the Statute Law (Superannuation) Amendment Act amendment means that we will not just be tidying up a few anomalies, but that the important needs which must be met under these acts will be dealt with at this session. I refer to the need for increased pensions.
I draw the minister's attention to the fact that there is not in the list any reference to the omnibus bill No. 2 to which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) referred yesterday, nor is there any reference to any legislation arising out of the Woods report which is being considered by the Committee on Veterans Affairs. Consequently there is no reference to war veterans allowance under such legislation. We think this matter ought to be dealt with at this session. I have one other comment, Mr. Speaker. We welcome the reference to the Indian claims legislation that is to be dealt with at this session but, as has been stated on previous occasions, we feel that this legislation should not be proceeded with until the views of the native people of Canada have been heard with respect to it.
The government will have our co-operation in trying to get this program of legislation
Reference of votes to Standing Committees through within the target dates that have been suggested, but we urge, again, that what is important is the quality of the legislation. We plead for quality and substance in the legislation referring to the Canada Development Corporation, as well as in the legislation dealing with housing and matters related to pensions and to our war veterans.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, we, of the Ralliement Creditiste, can assure the government house leader of our entire co-operation regarding the legislative program we shall have to pass before the summer recess.
We have had the opportunity to become acquainted with the proposals already before us. Some bills require more careful consideration than others. That is why it is so difficult to come to a decision in advance as to the many pieces of legislation that the government intends to introduce and which have not as yet been tabled in this house, as we do not know yet their exact content.
At all events, according to the agenda submitted in conformity with the procedure, we shall have approximately 58 days, I think, to study the bills already before the house and those who are listed on the program we approved yesterday, and which was suggested in the house today.
Is it not strange that Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day which falls before June 27 is not mentioned before the adjournment of the house for the summer recess? Will we have to sit on June 24?
The government house leader did not mention this great feast day to which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) attached so much importance last year, before the elections, and which was celebrated with great pomp in Montreal. I wonder whether we should attach a special importance to the celebration of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day this year.
[English] e (2:30 p.m.)



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That the Estimates of sums required for the
service for Canada for the year ending March 31.

February 20, 1969

Reference of votes to Standing Committees 1970, be referred to the several standing committees of the House, as follows:
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture
Votes 1, 5, 10, 12, 15, 17, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 and 51 relating to the Department of Agriculture.
Vote 55 relating to the Canadian Dairy Commission.
Votes 60 and 65 relating to the Canadian Livestock Feed Board.
Vote 70 relating to the Farm Credit Corporation.
To the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts	.
Votes 1, 5, 10 and L5 relating to the Department of Communications.
Vote 15 relating to the Post Office.
Vote L10 relating to the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation.
Votes 1, 3, 5 and 10 relating to the Department of the Secretary of State.
Vote 25 relating to the Canada Council.
Votes 30 and L145 relating to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Vote 40 relating to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission.
Vote 48 relating to the Company of Young Canadians .
Vote 50 relating to the National Arts Centre Corporation.
Votes 55 and 60 relating to the National Film Board.
Vote 65 relating to the National Library.
Vote 70 relating to the National Museums of Canada.
Vote 75 relating to the Public Archives.
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence
Votes 1, 10, and 15 relating to the Department of External Affairs.
Votes 30, 35, and L35 relating to the Canadian International Devel. Agency.
Vote 40 relating to the International Joint Commission.
Votes 1, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15 , 20, 25, 30, 35 , 45, 48, and 50 relating to the Department of National Defence.
Vote 55 relating to Defence Construction (1951) Limited.
To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs
Votes 1, 3, 10, 15, and 25 relating to the Department of Finance.
Vote 55 relating to the Department of Insurance.
Votes 1, 10, 20, 25, 30, 35, L95, L100, L105, and L110 relating to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Vote	40	relating	to	the Dominion Bureau	of
Statistics.
Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Department of National Revenue.
Vote 10 relating to the Tax Appeal Board.
Vote	25	relating	to	the Economic Council	of
Canada.
To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 relating to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry.

To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs
Votes 68 and L175 relating to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corp.
Votes 1, 5, 10, and 15 relating to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Votes 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 41, and 45 relating to the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Votes 50 and 55 relating to the Medical Research Council.
To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Votes 1, 5, 10, 20, 25, 30, 33, 34, 35, 40, L40, L45, L50, L55, L60, L65, L70, L75, L80, L85, and L90 relating to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Vote 45 relating to the National Battlefields Commission.
To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works
Votes 1, 5, 15, 20, 25, 40, 45, and 50 relating to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Votes 55 and 60 relating to the Atomic Energy Control Board.
Votes 65, 70, L15, L20, L25, and L30 relating to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (Research Program).
Vote 75 relating to the Dominion Coal Board.
Vote 80 relating to the National Energy Board.
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 50, 55, and 60 relating to the Department of Public Works.
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs
Vote 1 relating to the Department of Justice.
Vote 1 relating to the Department of the Solicitor General.
Votes 5 and 10 relating to the Correctional Services.
Votes 15 and 20 relating to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration
Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Department of Labour.
Vote 10 relating to the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and L115 relating to the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
Vote 30 relating to the Immigration Appeal Board.
To the Standing Committee on Regional Development
Votes 1, 5, 10, L120, L125, and L130 relating to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
Vote 35 relating to the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
To the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications
Votes 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, L150, L155, L160, and L165 relating to the Department of Transport.
Vote 45 relating to the Canadian National Railways.
Votes 50, 55, 60, and 65 relating to the Canadian Transport Commission.
February 20, 1969

Votes 70, 75, 77, 80, and L180 relating to the National Harbours Board.
Votes 85, 90, and L185 relating to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority.
To the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections
Vote 45 relating to the Chief Electoral Officer.
To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs
Votes 1, 5, 10, 20, 25, 30, 35, 38, 40, and 45 relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates
Vote 50 relating to the Auditor General.
Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Governor General and Lieutenant-Governors.
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 relating to the Senate and the House of Commons.
Vote 25 relating to Library of Parliament.
Votes 1, 5, 10, and 15 relating to the Privy Council.
Vote 20 relating to the Science Council.
Vote 30 relating to the Public Service Staff Relations Board.
Votes 20, 25, L135, and L140 relating to the National Capital Commission.
Votes 80 and 85 relating to the Public Service Commission.
Votes 1, 5, 15, and 20 relating to the Department of Supply and Services.
Votes 30 and 35 relating to Canadian Arsenals Limited.
Vote 40 relating to the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
Votes 1, 5, and 10 relating to the Treasury Board.
Votes 15, 20, 25, and 30 relating to the National Research Council.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we in this party do not intend to oppose the basis of the allocation. We have some reservations about some of the detail, particularly in respect of the new departments being set up. I can only add we hope that when the government has come to the stage when it concludes that the problem will be solved by means other than the creating of new departments we might not need quite as many of these references to committees.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, our Canadian groundfish industry, as many hon. members know, is in difficulties. It is in difficulties because the export price for a number of our frozen groundfish products has declined sharply since 1967. This industry, which sells close to
DEBATES	5747
Stabilization of Frozen Groundfish Market 90 per cent of its output in the United States, is caught in a serious cost-price squeeze.
It is important to note that this squeeze has occurred despite the fact that the retail price for many of these products has continued to rise in the United States and elsewhere.
It is apparent, therefore, that the government's main objective must be to do what it can to bring about a permanent improvement in the marketing outlook for Canadian frozen groundfish products by reinforcing the industry's competitive position abroad. Such a program will be far more beneficial than shortterm subsidies. The latter can create serious difficulties because of Canada's international agreements on tariffs and trade. Also, experience has shown that subsidies cause few, if any, long-term improvements in incomes and working conditions in the industry.
The government therefore proposes, by taking advantage of our fisheries prices support legislation, to enter the market itself. It proposes, in other words, to initiate a purchase program designed to strengthen and stabilize market prices for frozen groundfish products. Supplies accumulated in this way will eventually be sold through ordinary commercial channels. They will not be released, however, at prices less than those paid for these stocks in the first instance. Nor will they be sold until their export price is high enough to cover our basic costs of production in Canada.
These costs must include an adequate price to our Canadian fishermen. The government is not prepared to enter into any plan to assist the industry unless appropriate measures are taken to ensure that the fishermen share in the benefits. Close to 15,000 fishermen and plant workers, and their families, depend upon the Canadian groundfishery, and their welfare must be of primary concern to the government.
It is our intention to maintain a close and continuing liaison with representatives of the fishermen and the trade in order to devise means whereby fishermen can be assured of prices that will not fall below the average for the years 1965, 1966 and 1967.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The low market prices of recent years have put many plants in the position where they lack working capital. Some have had to close for this reason. Others are in a precarious position at present and lack the necessary funds to modernize their operations and to cut costs by improving productivity.
February 20, 1969
5748	COMMONS
Stabilization of Frozen Groundfish Market
In order to overcome this problem of a shortage of working capital, and in order to ensure adequate returns to fishermen, the government also proposes, as a special emergency measure, to make loans available to fishing and processing firms in 1969. The government is furthermore prepared to waive repayment of these loans until after the market price for our principal groundfish products reaches a figure which will ensure adequate returns to our Canadian fishermen and to the companies involved in our Canadian groundfishery.
Mid-term and long-term measures are also contemplated. Advice which the government has received from its consultants indicates that important economies can soon be achieved, both at sea and in our processing plants. Our Canadian groundfish industry will therefore be encouraged to avail itself of the financial assistance which is also available under our general adjustment assistance program. This program, as hon. members will recall, was instituted in order to help Canadian producers take advantage of growing export opportunities resulting from the Kennedy Round of tariff negotiations. Assistance under this program is available to firms which are prepared to restructure their operations in order to improve their competitive position between now and the early 1970s.
The results of this three-way approach must have an immediately beneficial effect on the frozen groundfish industry. The provision of loans under the conditions already outlined will help with the immediate problem of finding working capital. Use of the fisheries prices support legislation will strengthen the industry's hand in the market. And this, coupled with the greater efficiencies made possible through the adjustment assistance program will narrow the gap between production costs and market prices.
Looking even further ahead we must plan for greater rationalization in the industry. Certain plants will have to specialize in selected operations, and greater diversification in terms of products will be encouraged. It is apparent also that beginning in the early 1970s our frozen groundfish operations will have to be centralized in fewer growth centres. Such trends, though economically desirable, create related social and other problems. These must be resolved by taking advantage of companion programs being developed by our new federal departments of regional expansion and manpower. Also there
IMr. Davis.]

must be close liaison with the provinces
concerned.
The government, in co-operation with the industry, will continue to intensify its efforts to encourage greater use of our fishery products in both our domestic and export markets. Even a small increase in the per capita consumption of fish at home and in the United States can produce significant results. It is encouraging to note that consumption of frozen groundfish products has, in fact, been rising steadily on this continent. Also, as I said earlier, the ultimate consumer has been prepared to pay more for our fish.
There is therefore reason for optimism. This is especially true because fish stocks are definitely limited from the long term point of view. It follows that as production begins to level off, particularly in the North Atlantic, and as consumption continues to rise, prices should firm up as well.
This is why the government has decided to enter the market itself. Our objective is to firm up the price of Canadian produced fish to a level, or levels, more in line with long term trends. We believe, also, that through the operations of our fisheries prices support legislation we can help to stabilize the output of our Canadian groundfishery and achieve permanent improvements in the economics of an industry which shows every indication of being able to stand on its own feet in the long run.
This statement has dealt exclusively with the frozen groundfish industry. The government is also studying, very carefully, the problems of the salt cod industry, again from both a short and a long term point of view. As stated previously, there is now under way an examination of the possible advantages of a salt cod marketing board. I hope to be able to make an announcement regarding assistance for this important sector of our Canadian fishery in a few weeks time.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members on this side of the house listened with considerable interest to the statement made today by the Minister of Fisheries concerning the government's overall policy and program for the continued development of the fishing industry in Canada, with special reference to the development of the fisheries in the Atlantic provinces.
While we welcome the minister's belated announcement, I say to him in all seriousness that it is a statement which is long overdue. The groundfish industry in the Atlantic provinces has now experienced almost three years
February 20, 1969

of declining revenues and increasing costs. This condition has prevented any expansion in the earnings of fishermen and has resulted in operating losses for the processing industry which have been so heavy that a number of companies in the Atlantic provinces have been forced to close their doors.
I would point out that this period of difficult and disappointing financial experience followed one of expansion and modernization which began in 1958. From that year, up to 1966, investments in plants and fishing vessels was quite extensive and the optimism of our people was supported by strong demand and rising prices for the products of our industry.
The reversal of this expansionary trend is not due in my opinion to any weakening of consumer demand in our traditional markets or to any significant increase in raw material supplied to those markets. The causes of the serious financial dilemma faced by the freezing and the salt fish sectors of the Canadian groundfish industry are international tensions and the devaluation of foreign currencies, resulting in lower prices in our traditional markets. In the intense competition to sell frozen fishery products in the American market, our Canadian exporters were able to hold their own in terms of quality and quantity, but our position was retained only at tremendous financial cost. In fact, if the deficiency payment program had not been implemented from May to October in 1968, there is little doubt that still more of our fish processing companies would have found it necessary to close their doors.
This situation only serves to create further unrest and concern among thousands of our fishermen and their families who must depend upon processors to purchase their production, and their concern is sharpened by the knowledge that in hundreds of fishing communities there are no alternative occupational opportunities.
The government has proposed, by taking advantage of the fisheries prices support legislation, to initiate a purchase program designed to strengthen and stabilize market prices for frozen groundfish products. There is no indication in the minister's statement of the prices to be paid, or of the arrangements which will be made to hold these stocks. I would point out that fisheries products are not wheat. We are dealing here with a highly perishable commodity, one which must be kept in well controlled refrigerated conditions. I therefore suggest that to make this program effective it will be necessary to place
Stabilization of Frozen Groundfish Market greater emphasis upon the marketing of frozen fish. I hope the minister will enlist the good offices of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who will be able to discuss this matter at the United Nations.
I hope, also, that he will enlist the aid of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, because if this part of the stated program is to be effective much greater emphasis will need to be placed on marketing. I wonder whether the minister has given any thought to discussing with representatives of the industry the possibility of co-operative marketing.
The minister also told us that the government proposes as a special emergency measure to make loans available to fishing and processing firms, and that it is prepared to waive repayment of these loans until after the market price for our principal groundfish products has reached a figure which will ensure adequate returns to our Canadian fishermen and to the companies involved in the groundfish sector of the industry. This particular statement is somewhat vague. I can only express the hope that the interest rates to be charged on these loans will not be so high that the means will destroy the end which the government hopes to achieve.
The minister also stated that beginning in the early 1970s frozen groundfish operations will have to be centralized in fewer growth centres. This, I hope, will not necessarily be the same growth centres used by the minister of resource development. It may well be that by using this measure to develop some of the outlying areas of the Atlantic provinces this could well be of assistance to the over-all development of the entire industry. It is obvious that in implementing any program the government's prime concern should be the price that is received by the Canadian fisherman. It should be adequate enough to enable him to provide for the needs of his family in today's inflated, high cost society.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Finally, I note that the government is preparing a study of the salt fish industry. Looking at it from the short and the long term point of view, I would recommend that the minister study the previous report made on this matter by a royal commission. I am sure he will find that very helpful. It is a very complex problem and I hope he can resolve it favourably on behalf of the fishermen and the processors. In any event, the minister has now weighed anchor and set a course. Like
February 20, 1969
5750	COMMONS
Stabilization of Frozen Groundfish Market any other voyage, to be successful there must be fair winds and a good crew. We on this side of the house hope that the voyage that has been embarked upon by the Minister of Fisheries will be helpful to Canadian fishermen.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to emphasize that while the statement has been lengthy the fishing industry, especially on the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts, is so terribly important to the total Canadian economy that the necessity for such a lengthy statement outweighs the disadvantage of having to go through it in detail. The announcement of the minister, as I see it, envisages the prospect of the government's entering into the buying and marketing of fisheries products, with an extension of the machinery for making loans to the industry in order to help it over a difficult period.
One aspect indicates a relatively new venture and proves, I think, what we have been alleging for a long time, namely that about the only element of our society that can protect the economic and social position of people who find themselves harshly done by in this so-called free enterprise system is the government. The minister has finally realized that this is also the case in this situation.
Regretfully I fear that the attempt to try to see that the income of fishermen does not fall below the average for the years 1965, 1966 and 1967 will not be that helpful, because this particular industry has been in great difficulty for a very long time. It is simply an attempt to maintain the income of fishermen at its present poverty level. Some more dramatic moves are required in this regard in addition to those announced by the minister.
The minister stated that this step has been necessary because the industry and the fishermen in the industry found themselves caught in the cost price squeeze. One result of this has been the problems faced by the groundfish industry.
Not too many weeks ago a number of mergers, takeovers and closures on the west coast were announced in the fishing industry. The Weston Corporation virtually owns, controls and dominates the fishing industry on the west coast. The reason given for the closing of certain canneries and plants on the Pacific coast, for certain mergers of companies, purchase of their assets and so on, was that the industry there found itself in the cost price squeeze and could not operate economically any longer in the manner it had in the past.


In Prince Rupert alone, because certain canneries have closed down and will not be operating this year, and as a result of the mergers that have taken place, there is a good prospect that 1,500-that figure is arguable, but it has been used as a round figure- shore workers, people working in and around the canneries, will be unable to find employment in the fishing and the salmon industries this summer. There is a great necessity for the minister, this new department of regional and economic expansion and the department of Indian affairs, to do something immediately with respect to the situation on the west coast.
Whether the venture that is being entered into, as announced by the minister, is going to do something that is really worth while, as far as the fisherman is concerned, is rather doubtful because the (Objective has simply been to see that the income of the fisherman does not fall below the 1965, 1966, and 1967 average income for fishermen. As I say, as far as we are concerned it is merely maintaining their income at the poverty level; nothing is being done to bring the real fruits of a just society to these people. If the minister had accepted but one small part of the ideas that party has advocated for years, the fishing industry would be a lot better off than it is now.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, although you had made recommendations regarding the length of comments following the minister's statement, we have just heard endless speeches and I noticed that you were getting fidgety. Therefore, I shall be very brief and say only that we fully welcome the minister's excellent initiative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



INCOME TAX ACT AND ESTATE TAX ACT


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) indicated that he and his colleagues would be prepared to co-operate in the making of a special order for the purpose of ensuring that the estate tax bill will be disposed of at all stages by the close of business today. I wonder whether the house would be
February 20, 1969	COMMONS
agreeable to making an order somewhat along these lines.
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 72, all remaining stages of Bill C-165 shall be permitted to advance beyond more than one reading today and that, if not dealt with earlier, all questions necessary to pass the said bill shall be put immediately at the ordinary time of adjournment this evening; and that the sitting of the house be extended so as to permit the putting of those questions.
If the house were generally agreeable to that proposition it could be made an order so as to deal with today's business.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, usually these matters are dealt with by negotiation through the usual channels before they are proposed in the house. The first we heard of this suggestion was when the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) proposed it earlier today. I suggest that the motion be not put at this time. We can discuss it behind the curtains- but without prejudice, please.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it understood that the proposal is not to be put at this time? There is no agreement.


Gerald William Baldwin: The motion stands adjourned.



INTERPRETATION ACT


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-174, entitled an Act to amend the Interpretation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I shall not be long.
The purpose of this bill is to amend subsection 1 of clause 4 of the Interpretation Act, which reads as follows:
The enacting clause of a statute may be in the following form:-"Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada enacts as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment seeks to substitute the words "The Parliament of Canada" to the following: "Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada".
In our opinion, it is high time we got rid of such archaic British wording.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
DEBATES	5751
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read
the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting of the house.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-175, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, under section 58 of the unemployment insurance regulations, employment of a person in agriculture or horticulture shall not be included in insurable employment if the said person is related to his employer. The purpose of this bill is to eliminate such discrimination. It is intended that everyone in this industry, as in other industries, shall have the same opportunity to benefit from existing legislation since everyone is expected to pay taxes such as estate taxes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Do his statements made outside the house yesterday indicate that the government has finally decided to stay within NATO? If not, do those remarks constitute only a continuation of the dialogue that has been going on in public?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I expressed a good deal of disagreement with the representations of the Voice of Women. I thought I was quite justified in so doing and I think that has contributed to the debate.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: But does
the Prime Minister think so?
February 20, 19G9

Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We ought to know the government's position. Are we to assume from the statements made that the minister was announcing a decision? If not, when may we expect an announcement of government policy on this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. gentleman that the foreign policy of Canada will not be that which has been recommended by the Voice of Women.


Mr. Bell:: The minister is very brave.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the tenor of the representations, did the delegation from the Voice of Women perchance include the Postmaster General?


Gerald William Baldwin: He is an honorary member.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On Tuesday last I asked him about regulations I described as degrading which had been issued or promulgated in respect of Akaitcho Hall, Yellowknife. The minister said he would look into the matter. Has he had an opportunity to do so?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have received telegrams from most of the students of that institution, but I have not received a complete report in this connection. I would beg the house to allow me to put the matter off until tomorrow when I shall be in a position to make a report.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister reports to the house on this matter will he be good enough to include the results of an investigation into the way the telegram he says he received and which I received-I imagine the telegram he received is a copy of the one I received-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I assure hon. members that I had a reason for putting my

question the way I did. If that telegram is the one that has been signed by more than 100 students who live in the hall, will the minister be good enough to investigate the way in which it was sent?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not the hon. member has received a telegram, but I know I have. These regulations were adopted by the students themselves and I shall inquire to find out whether they were forced upon them by the officials of the institution or whether the students had a chance to exercise their democratic rights in this matter.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the educational policies and programs pursued by those who live in these northern hostels, will the minister or his department consider investigating the conditions in all hostels in the north? That may be necessary.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that the incident which he mentioned has been spurred by a comment allegedly made on a television program by someone who apparently has never set foot in the institution involved. I do not like to have doubts raised as to the merit of the institutions of the Canadian North, as I am sure they are generally well administered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we have reached the realm of debate. Perhaps we might go on to another subject.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General, in his capacity as minister responsible for telecommunications.
Since 84 countries will be represented at the satellite conference due to open on February 24 in Washington, has the federal government appointed representatives of all political parties to represent Canada?
February 20. 1969	COMMONS


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, a team of high officials from my department and the External Affairs Department will represent Canada next week. EXHIBITIONS



INQUIRY AS TO CONTINUING MAN AND HIS WORLD

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Can the minister tell us if he has considered in cabinet this morning the situation of "Man and His World" and if a decision has been taken? If so, what is the nature of this decision?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The decision will be announced in a few days, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since it was not included in the list of bills to be dealt with during the present session, presented earlier today by the President of the Privy Council, does the government intend to reintroduce a measure that was before the previous parliament, Bill C-186, which would divide labour jurisdiction between the province of Quebec and the rest of Canada, and was strongly urged on the government by the C.N.T.U. at its meeting with the cabinet earlier this week as well as having been strongly advocated by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration during the last election campaign?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall that that measure was announced in the Speech from the Throne.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May we take it that the government has decided to abandon that legislation after speaking of it so favourably in the previous parliament? Is this part of the government's hearts and flowers approach to the C.L.C.?
DEBATES	5753
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



MAINLAND CHINA-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON OFFER OF RECOGNITION

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether any word has been received yet from communist China in connection with the projected offer of the government of Canada to recognize that country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. I expect that negotiations or discussions will proceed normally.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the minister whether, in terms requisite to the recognition of Communist China, are included the cancellation of the debt of $12 million owing to Canada and the sacrifice of Taiwan?


Mitchell William Sharp: On the first part of the question, as I said the other day I think that matter can be dealt with much more efficaciously when we have diplomats in both our capitals. On the second point, the question of Taiwan really revolves around the aspirations of the nationalist government to speak for China as a whole. As I said before, if we recognize Peking as the government of China, it will certainly affect the status of the nationalist government which makes the same claim.


John George Diefenbaker: When did the minister and the Prime Minister find that out? During the election campaign they said that under such circumstances recognition would not take place.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to the right hon. gentleman that the supplementary question was in the nature of an argument.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a point of order. I cannot see anything wrong with asking when the government changed its mind and decided to sacrifice Nationalist China.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
February 20, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Postmaster General.
Could he inform the house if he is aware that the employees of Rod Service Limited in Montreal are threatening to strike? If so, are any negotiations going on in order to avoid this strike?


Eric William Kierans: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is exactly for this reason that I shall spend all day tomorrow in Montreal.



ST. ROMUALD, QUE.-COMPETITIVE POSITION OF FLOW FROM WESTERN CANADA

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the department conducted studies to determine the competitive position of western Canadian oil in supplying the refinery just announced for St. Romuald near Quebec City? If so, does the minister see any prospect of this refinery being supplied with Canadian oil?


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, opportunities for the sale of western oil in any part of Canada are well known to the particular companies and interests involved. I am sure they will take steps to obtain oil in the way that is most beneficial to Canadian interests.


John Stratford Burton: Have any government studies been conducted independent of studies made by oil companies?


Otto Emil Lang: In relation to economic and industrial conditions in the country generally, the government is always studying the question of marketing products from one part of the country to the other as well as foreign markets.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. A government task force of three civil servants has recently been set up to study the impact of the oil supply of Alaska on the supply of oil

in America. What is the name of the chairman? Will that report be presented to the house and, if so, how soon?


Otto Emil Lang: The then Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced in the house some time ago the composition of this task force. The work of the task force is going on. I cannot at this point give a time for delivery of any final report, when it will be available to the government or when further information will be available for the house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister care to comment on whether the task force will be having discussions with high level United States authorities on this subject?


Otto Emil Lang: The task force will be exploring issues in all directions to gather the necessary information to advise the government with regard to oil policy. It may well be that members of the task force, in their capacity as members of the task force or as government officials, will be in touch with United States officials regarding these matters.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the minister. As part of the government's review of Canadian oil policy, is consideration being given to renegotiating the agreement with the Panarctic Oil exploration venture where it has 50 per cent of the risk capital and only one director on a board of 14?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to hon. members that perhaps we are getting too deeply into this question. I would think that the supplementary asked by the hon. member might be placed on the order paper.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wished to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration but, in his absence, I shall address it to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Would he tell the house which action the government intends to take to remedy the weaknesses of government policy in matters
February 20, 1969	COMMONS
of unemployment, industrial wind ups and price stability?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that the hon. member's question is of too general a nature to be asked now.



HISTORIC SITES


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs following a telephone call I received from France this week, from a Canadian government employee in Vimy.
Could the minister tell the house if it is true that the administration and maintenance of the Vimy monument and park have been transferred to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and, if so, what are the implications of such a decision?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt that the question can be asked now. If there is any urgency, it could be debated at the time of adjournment.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday I asked two questions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In answer to both questions he said he would take them as notice. I wonder whether he has the answers now? They have to do with the provisions of our collective alliance agreements with the United States and other countries.


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I could find an occasion to answer later in the question period.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet may I answer a question put to me by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. The reason I have not yet been able to answer is that it is a highly technical question that requires us to examine many agreements before I can give the hon. member an answer.
DEBATES	5755
Inquiries of the Ministry INCOME TAX


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Minister of Finance and also the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I would appreciate it if I could have a reply tomorrow to question 1,200 placed on the order paper on January 20. Industry, business and amateur sport consider this matter very urgent and important.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. In view of the related importance of the industrial incentives bill to be introduced shortly, would the minister consider presenting this bill for first reading or tabling it in order that its implications may be considered, together with the government reorganization bill?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I said that this bill would be tabled soon. I said that I would like it to be tabled during this session.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a further question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development who is to accept responsibility for regional economic expansion. In view of the fact he indicated that the bill having to do with the important area of regional development may not be ready for some time, will he make a statement on motions shortly with regard to the implications of the bill so that a full understanding can be reached and a full debate had when we get to that part of the bill dealing with government reorganization in respect of economic expansion?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we should have the opportunity, no later than
5756
February 20, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry next week, to clarify this matter on second reading of the bill. I intend to give some explanations to avoid any confusion.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Economic Development.
I should like to ask him if in his report he intends to deal with the problem of employment for university students during the summer holidays.


Jean Marchand: I shall deal with all matters relating to the bill, Mr. Speaker.



FRED-PLAN FOR NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development a question. In view of his statement yesterday, has he changed his mind with regard to the announcement that an agreement between Newfoundland and the federal government would be ratified, as reported in yesterday's Hansard?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I tried to clarify this point yesterday by saying that no agreement had been negotiated by the federal government and the government of Newfoundland. I was referring to the Prince Edward Island FRED agreement which I hope will be signed shortly.


John Howard Lundrigan: Yesterday I asked the minister if there would be ratification of a new agreement in view of his clarification of the mistake he made as to region and the minister indicated there would be a signed agreement within the week. It is reported in Hansard to the contrary. Did the minister have a change of mind?


Jean Marchand: I was referring to the P. E. I. agreement and nothing else.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Frank Howard: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can he disclose to the house what has happened to part 2 or the second volume of the Hawthorn report?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting for the French translation. I hope to receive it within a few weeks. I was promised it this month. As soon as I get it, I shall be glad to table the report in the house.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Could the minister tell us if he has received an official request from the Quebec government asking for assistance in proceeding to the arrest of the terrorists who are presently active in Montreal?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Solicitor General has already answered that the R.C.M.P. had been in touch with the Attorney General of the Province of Quebec, as well as with the Quebec provincial police and the Montreal police, with a view to helping them as much as possible.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the government be making a decision in regard to membership in NATO prior to the NATO meeting that is going to be held in Washington on April 10?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, that is the target date that we have in mind now. If possible we would like to make the decision even earlier than that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, don't strain yourself.


Norman Augustine Cafik: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, will the government await the report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, which is studying this matter, before making a final decision?
February 20, 1969	COMMONS


Mitchell William Sharp: I would hope that the committee will speed up its deliberations because it is most desirable that we reach a decision well in advance of the NATO meeting.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Will the minister say when he expects to introduce the amendments he suggested yesterday will be made to the official languages bill?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to review carefully the discussions I had with the four western Attorneys General in Victoria on Monday. I also want an opportunity to visit the Prime Minister and the Attorney General of Quebec the week after next. Then I will be discussing the matter fully with the Prime Minister and my colleagues. After that, if any amendments are judged appropriate they would be introduced at the committee stage.


William Gordon Ritchie: As a supplementary question, can the minister say what help the federal government will be offering to provinces faced with the problem of providing bilingual facilities in some of their courts?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member is not attempting at this time to debate the bill which may eventually come before the house. The hon. member for Saint John -Lancaster.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister with respect to his remarks earlier today on the cabinet roster system, which he made with some satisfaction. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister of Labour is bragging publicly that on his non-attendance days he has a long, leisurely lunch in a French restaurant and is not in his office-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
DEBATES	5757
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would be quite pleased to invite the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Mackasey:: -to enjoy good cooking in an atmosphere of French culture.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This matter cannot be continued except as a point of privilege.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Randoph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has his department reached a decision in regard to the feed grain subsidy situation in the Creston, B.C. area and, if not, when is it expected that a decision will be brought down?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there was a very important change made in this program beginning in July, 1968. We are studying the effects of the feed freight assistance program, and there is no specific date that could be set with respect to any amendments to it.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State, but in view of the fact that he is on an important mission abroad, I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary.

Could the parliamentary secretary inform the house whether Radio Canada, this Crown corporation which is always at the forefront in headlines, has mobilized its star reporters to greet and interview extensively that princess of separatism, Miss Pauline Julien, when she lands at Dorval shortly?


Mr. Robert Sianbury (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of Stale):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
February 20, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry UNITED NATIONS



BIAFRA-SUGGESTED INVESTIGATION OF BOMBINGS

['Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to go into an analysis of the political situation in Nigeria. I do not know there is a delegation visiting there from the Soviet Union. I think this is one of the reasons that it is highly desirable that this war should be brought to an end as quickly as possible, and I hope that all those who have influence on either side will use their influence to that end. A ceasefire is not the answer. The answer is a basis of agreement for peace talks. Until that is reached there is little hope.\n[Mr. Speaker.)']
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of constant reports of bombing, rocketing and strafing of hospitals and marketplaces and of children in feeding centres in Biafra, will the Canadian government consider asking the United Nations, or some other international agency acceptable to both sides, to investigate these allegations in the hope of alleviating the situation for the people involved?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
gentleman knows, there is no way by which the United Nations can investigate these reports unless there are allegations of genocide. A civil war is going on, and the sooner there is agreement on the basis on which negotiations can take place the better. The delay is not because of lack of mediators. It is because of lack of agreement as to whether Biafra is going to be part of Nigeria.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: As a supplementary question, can the government of Canada help promote such negotiations by setting up some kind of indirect negotiation with the Biafra government?



David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to direct a question to the minister. In view of the alarming reports today of a high level military delegation from the Soviet Union visiting Nigeria, is the minister able to report the implications of this visit to the house?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to go into an analysis of the political situation in Nigeria. I do not know there is a delegation visiting there from the Soviet Union. I think this is one of the reasons that it is highly desirable that this war should be brought to an end as quickly as possible, and I hope that all those who have influence on either side will use their influence to that end. A ceasefire is not the answer. The answer is a basis of agreement for peace talks. Until that is reached there is little hope.
[Mr. Speaker.)



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question dealing with the matter of a truce and the conditions existing at the moment. In the light of the continuing threat of mass starvation in Nigeria, will the Canadian government reconsider giving assistance in the construction of an airstrip within the Biafran occupied territory, which could be used with the consent of all parties for the delivery of mercy supplies by day or by night?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is not opposed to the building of another airstrip, but I think everyone will agree that the best way to get supplies in immediately is by agreement for day flights to the airport that now exists.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's remarks to the effect that there must be peace at the earliest possible date and that members should use what influence they have on all sides to this end, would the minister on behalf of the government use his good offices to urge the federal government of Nigeria to initiate at least initial discussions without preconditions?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be very difficult to urge upon the federal government of Nigeria a solution that contemplated the secession of Biafra.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I did not say
that.



HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I welcome him back from his interesting and different experience in the other place. Does the minister propose to bring in Bill S-26 with amendments to deal with the very interesting change proposed in the other place?
February 20, 1969


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker. I intend to have the bill referred in accordance with the rules to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. I am quite sure the committee will want to look very carefully at the issue raised by the Senate. The committee may well, within the rules of the house, make some amendments to the bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the hon. member for York East be on the committee?



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
In view of the fact that the pension of disabled veterans was increased by the government on September 1, 1964, would the minister say why several of those pensioned veterans are still waiting to get that increase?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see what this is about. Pensions for veterans were increased last year, and all the people eligible for pension got it. If the hon. member wants to submit some particular cases to me, I shall be glad to hear him.



FARM MACHINERY


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that a group of farmers has purchased 16 tractors from the United Kingdom at a price about half the Canadian list price, will the minister assure the house that the Barber commission is looking into this aspect of the pricing policies of the farm machinery industry in Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that Dr. Barber is looking at the claim or allegation made by the federation which is arranging these sales.
Business of the House



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might make the weekly statement of business. On Friday we propose to call for third reading the two agricultural bills, C-156 and C-157. Then we would call for second reading the bill to amend the Financial Administration Act. Next we would call the report stage and third reading of the bill to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, and that would be followed by the report stage and third reading of the bill to amend the Customs Act.
On Monday we propose to call the National Library bill for second reading and then the second reading of the Co-operative Credit Associations bill and the hazardous products bill.
On Tuesday we would return to the omnibus Criminal Code bill. Having already had five days of debate I would hope we would continue that stage to completion. Afterwards we would have the report stage of the drug prices bill.
On Wednesday we propose to begin the second reading debate on the government reorganization bill and continue with that measure at advanced stages on Thursday next.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 19, 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).
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief remarks in respect of this bill in order to pull together the ideas or criticisms put forward by my colleagues during this debate. I want to say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) that my colleagues and I have given very careful attention to this bill and have come to the conclusion that it is not possible for us to support it for reasons which I will shortly indicate.
5760	COMMONS
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act
First, in order to make very clear the difference in our position from that of the Conservative party and its spokesmen who have taken part in this debate, may I say that we of the New Democratic Party are in favour of appropriate and equitable estate taxes. We regard a proper and equitable taxation system as being one that should serve three purposes. First, it should, of course, raise the revenue necessary to pay for the public services. Second, it should do this in such a way as to redistribute income and wealth. Third, it should be a system which would assist economic growth.
We believe, and I have always believed, that an estate tax is a necessary tax for the purpose of redistributing income and wealth in society. No one benefits more from the collective efforts of our total society than the son or daughter of a father who, no doubt through his own efforts, his capacity and hard work but also no doubt as a result of the organization of society as a whole and the organization of its economy, has been able to amass some savings, large or small, which he hands over to his children. When a child inherits wealth at an adequate level there is no reason in the world that that child should not pay taxes toward keeping the collective society going for all the people of this country in which he or she lives and works.
So we wish to make very clear and underline as strongly as I can that we favour an equitable and fair estate tax. When a person inherits considerable wealth that person ought to pay a fair share of that wealth in order to help carry on the business of the country and maintain all the other amenities from which he and his late father benefited in order to have the wealth which is now being distributed to the child.
We also make very clear that we are strongly in favour of the amendment to the estate tax contained in the bill which refers to elimination of the tax when the inheritance goes to the spouse. We recognize that it is useful when a spouse inherits from her husband, or indeed when a husband inherits from his wife, that there should not be a tax at that point and that the estate is more appropriately taxed when it passes to a stranger or the children. So we are in favour of an estate tax and very strongly support this amendment in so far as it removes the tax from the spouse who inherits the estate.
There are other aspects of the bill, however, which we cannot support. There are other aspects with regard to the reform of our taxation structure which must be taken into

DEBATES	February 20, 1969
account. We cannot support the minister's bill because contrary to what he and many members of his party have said during this debate the bill is not truly progressive and the rate structure is not equitable. That is the reason the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) moved the amendment to the bill that it be not read the second time. We want an investigation of the entire estate tax structure to provide truly progressive and equitable rates in that structure.
The minister can talk for as long as he likes and hon. members behind him can speak for as long as they like but the fact remains that it is the low value estates in respect of wjhich we should be concerned, the estates involving amounts between $50,000 and $100,-
000.	These are the estates about which I am most concerned. I am much less concerned about the people who inherit from estates involving half a million dollars, $1 million or $2 million. They are not constituents of many members of the house; there are not very many of them. As a result of the progress made in the economy and more particularly as a result of collective bargaining there is a growing number of people in this country who, because they now have pension plans and life insurance policies which they did not previously have, are in the group of working people who may have estates valued at over $50,000.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Benson:: Would the hon. member permit a question? I just understood him to say pension plans were involved in this. Under the estate tax, if a pension benefit went to a wife it would, of course, be entirely exempt.


David Lewis: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but I am not talking about wives at this point. I am talking about the point at which the estate, having been first given to the wife, is distributed on her death to the children.


Edgar John Benson: The pension is gone.


David Lewis: The pension may be gone but the estate is distributed to the children and may involve homes and whatnot. As a result of these developments-and whether or not the pension is entirely gone depends on whether the pension is taken in a lump sum- it may become part of the wife's estate. It may be taken in monthly payments, but if it is taken in a lump sum then by some kind of actuarially related lump sum it forms part of the wife's estate which may later be handed over.
What I am saying, without arguing with the minister about the details-and I am
February 20. 1969

happy to say, this-is that there will be greater numbers of people in Canada in the future than has been the case in the past leaving relatively small estates of $60,000, $65,000 or $70,000. The total number of people who will likely leave estates-I think the minister used this figure and I am told by other advisers perhaps not as competent as he but competent-which will be taxable is only about 5 per cent. So we are still talking about a very small number of people. Of that proportion there will be an increasing number of lower value estates included.
No matter how much the minister may argue about it, the fact is that his own tables, copies of which he supplied us, show that in the $50,000 to $150,000 level of estates, as a result of his amendment, the rate is higher and the amount paid is higher. In the case of a $60,000 estate, and I am doing this from memory but I am sure I remember correctly, the amount paid becomes $4,800 instead of $2,600 when the estate is eventually handed over.
The minister and hon. members sitting behind him continue to refer to the case where the estate is first deeded to the wife and when she dies goes to one child. If he looks at his tables he will find that in the case of a $60,000 estate it does not relate only to one child. If it involves one child the amount is $4,800 compared with $2,600. If there are two children the amount is $3,000 as against $2,600. The rate is increasing.
The other case to which the minister and the members behind him constantly point is the case where a stranger is involved in part of the bequest. Certainly the case here involves an estate left outright to a widow or stranger and an estate divided equally among the adult children. I am not going to argue with the minister across the floor because I would be out of order in any case, but I am satisfied after a careful study of these figures, as my colleagues are satisfied, that the tax which the minister is proposing is regressive at the bottom end of the scale. In some of the more important cases where the estate would be handed over the rate would be higher at the bottom end and the tax again would be higher. Let us relate that to what the economists call the effective rate rather than the marginal rate.
I hope you will forgive me for explaining that the marginal rate is the lowest rate applicable to the particular size of estate with which we are concerned. The effective rate is the rate of tax which in fact is being imposed on the taxable part of the
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act estate after you have taken off the $50,000, let us say, and whatever other exemptions you may have the right to deduct. If you look at the effect of this tax structure the minister has presented to the house in terms of the effective rate, in other words, the rate which is applied to the taxable part of the estate, you will discover a really scandalous result.
If the taxable part of the estate is $1,000, $5,000 or $10,000, the effective rate is 50 per cent of those taxable amounts. If you get to the point where the taxable part of the estate is $30,000, the effective rate is 36 per cent. When you get to $50,000 the rate is 31.2 per cent. When you have a taxable part which is $100,000 the rate is only 29.7 per cent. If it is $150,000 the rate is only 23.4 per cent. After that it begins to climb again. So this is a regressive structure in terms of the rate that applies to the taxable part of the estate which, after all, is the part of the estate that is relevant in these discussions.
Despite the valuable parts of the amendments in respect of not taxing the spouse and having a six-year period for instalment payments, which is probably too short a period for small businessmen and farmers who do not have any cash but at least is a useful amendment, the first point we make after careful study is that it is still a fact that the rate is regressive at the bottom and in some cases it is equally regressive at the top. In some cases estates of $1 million or $1,500,000 will carry less tax as a result of this amendment than was the case under the old law.
I think the minister got himself into this position, and I give him the benefit of the doubt by thinking he was trying to make a genuine reform in this area of our tax structure, by making an a priori decision, the reason for which I cannot understand unless it was the result of pure conservatism with a small "c", if the Leader of the Opposition will permit me to use that word in respect of the Minister of Finance. He made an a priori decision that he would not raise any more from this tax under his new rates than he raised before. I think he said he would raise $2 billion altogether but would not raise any more through this tax. So when he came to the top, in order to achieve that totally undesirable purpose, he reduced the rate from 54 per cent to 50 per cent and then had to increase the rate at the bottom in order to make up the differences that might arise. In my opinion and in the opinion of all my colleagues, there is no reason in the world this tax should not raise this revenue for the government so long as the lower value estates
5762	COMMONS
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act are protected, so long as the spouse is protected and so long as the rates are genuinely progressive and equitable-lower at the bottom and higher at the top as rates ought to be.
The minister set himself what is to me the anti-social goal that he must not raise any more when he reforms the tax system than he did before, and for this reason, also we cannot support the bill. Above all, Mr. Speaker, we cannot support it because it shows the intention of the minister to amend our taxation structure piecemeal.
The minister has had the Carter report for a long time. He not only rejected the basic idea of the Carter report but he said in the house the other day that he does not accept the principle that a buck is a buck is a buck. We do accept that principle. We may not be able to treat every buck in the same way, but a buck in the hands of a widow with only X number of dollars cannot be treated the same way as a buck in the hands of someone with X million dollars. But the principle that the recipient of any income, whether it comes from an estate or anywhere else, ought to pay a tax relative to his total income is surely correct and just.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
When you have an estate tax structure such as the minister now proposes, you do not take into account the income of the legatee. If one member of a family has been successful in his profession and already has half a million dollars and another member of the family has been unsuccessful in his work in a factory, and each gets $100,000 from the estate, under this proposal they each pay the same tax. It is unrelated to the total income of the man who already has half a million dollars. He gets an additional $100,000 and has a total of $600,000, but the other one may have nothing and gets the $100,000 and that is all he has. The rate of tax on each $100,000 is the same.
The minister gets himself into that box because he is saying he is reforming our tax structure. But he is doing it piecemeal. He is dealing with the estate tax now, and I understand from something I read the other day that he will probably deal with income tax next. I do not know whether this means that at that time he will not deal with any other tax such as a capital gains tax or any of the other taxes that may be involved.
We in this party are convinced, and I would be very surprised if most members of the house did not agree, that one of the bases of any decent and just society is a just taxation structure. There is nothing more signifi-
[Mr. Lewis.!
DEBATES	February 20, 1969
cant about the criterion of equity in a society than the tax structure which the people have to bear. If the tax structure is unfair and inequitable, if it falls on the lower incomes unfairly, if it hits the working people and the low income farmers unfairly, if it is a tax on property which is regressive, then you have one of the major unjust components in a society. If the tax structure is genuinely progressive, if you take it off the back of the home owner, if you make the tax on the lower income people equitable so that anyone with a family who is making about $4,000, which is what we have suggested, should pay no tax at all, so that there is a minimum amount on which the family may live, if the tax structure is built from there on up in order to genuinely redistribute income and wealth, then you have one of the important elements of a decent and just society. That is what we ask for.
I have a philosophy which tells me that no one person in our present society makes economic gains or economic progress on his own. I reject the notion which I have heard repeated time and time again by hon. members of the Conservative party in this house, that this fellow worked hard. Sure he did. And for every fellow who works hard and makes a million dollars there are five million fellows who work hard and cannot make a million cents. So it is not merely the hard work that produces wealth; there are other things that produce it-the total environment of society and all the tools that society gives a person with which to make wealth.
If I am a successful lawyer-assume that I am for the moment-it was not done by my own efforts. I used a law school that was built for me. I used the law libraries that were built for me, and the whole wisdom and experience of generations that somebody attempted to put into my dull head. It is the collection of all this experience over the ages, the school which was collectively provided for me and the libraries which I used which were collectively provided for me, and all that goes with them that taught me my profession. I am talking nonsense if I stand up and say I make X thousands of dollars a year by my own efforts. The deuce I do. I do it as a result of the total social environment of which I am a product, which gave me the opportunity to get the kind of education and training that enables me to command a higher income. That is no reason why I should hang on to it. On the contrary, it is a very good reason why I should pay a large part of it to the state, to society, to make up for those
February 20, 1969	COMMONS
millions of others who mainly for economic and social reasons were unable to get the same education and the same training so that they might make a higher economic income and have a higher standard of living.
It is in that context, as well as in many others, that we are determined to demand a proper reform of our taxation system, the application of the basic principles of Carter, the application of those principles which will make the tax structure a component, as I have said, of a just and decent society instead, as it is now in many instances, of a burden on those least able to bear it.
The Minister of Finance and the government cannot do that kind of job and will not do that kind of job because (a) they apparently do not believe in it, (b) they do not intend to, and (c) the minister is going about it in a piecemeal way. That is not the way to reform the tax structure. The greatness of the Carter report, whether or not one agrees with every word in it, is that it looked at the tax structure as a whole. It related each part. It related the question of what it called vertical equity to horizontal equity and all the other matters that go into a proper tax structure. The minister has not done that.
Certainly there are some improvements in the amendments before the house. There are many instances where one has to support a bill, even though one is not satisfied with it, because it makes some improvement. But that is not the case here. The improvements are not good enough, and as part of a total revision of our tax system the bill is a miniscule crumb. I did not say the minister was crummy. I leave it to other members of this house to describe people that way. I just said the bill was a miniscule crumb. We in this party do not intend to vote for so small and so ineffective an amendment. Indeed, we will fight, not only in this case but later when other reforms to our tax structure are put forward, for a genuine tax revision, for a really equitable tax structure. We do not intend to accept amendments such as these which do not accomplish anything in the way of fundamental justice for the people of Canada, except for the spouse, and that is not good enough for us to support the bill as a whole.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to speak on this bill because many hon. members have spoken on it who are much more capable than I am to express opinions about such an important
DEBATES	5763
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act subject as the one before us. However, after listening to much of the criticism that has been made-as a matter of fact I have not heard any opposition speaker say that the minister has done very much to improve the situation at all-a fellow like myself can remain quiet for only so long without rising to express the thoughts that are in his mind. If no one else in this house congratulates the minister on doing a good job, I want to be one who does. I am not saying that because I happen to be a member on the government side. I am speaking now from the viewpoint of common sense. In the last few minutes we have listened to a speech by one of the finest speakers in the House of Commons. It was delivered in lovely English, but I want to say through you, Mr. Speaker, that what we just heard was the old story of socialism.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Normally, when the socialists talk they want to give money away for this or that purpose, whether the cause is just or not. Up with the poor, and down with the rich is their motto. However, the speech to which we listened in the last few minutes was a plea to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to take all he could from the rich because they do not deserve to be wealthy. It does not matter whether they work hard to get it. Take it away from them, and if you cannot get it from them while they are alive, get it as soon as they are dead.
Surely the people in that corner of the house have learned from history that although socialism may be all right in theory it does not work out in this tough old world. Take a country like England. My goodness, fifty years ago that little island in the Atlantic ocean controlled, whether rightly or wrongly, about a quarter of the whole world. Many of the things we hold dear in Canada have their roots in that island. Many of the customs, traditions and ties which are cherished in the United States and all over the world have their roots in that island, with its splendid history. I come from English parentage and I certainly make no apology for it. I feel sorry for Britain today. I say this because it has an anchor around its neck, an anchor called socialism. Speeches of the kind made this afternoon have been made in the House of Commons at Westminster on many occasions, and that is why poor little Britain has almost drowned in the waters of socialism.
February 20. 1969

Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act
I find myself wondering how any member in the government ranks or in the Conservative ranks can put up with this nonsense. No doubt the sentiments we have just heard were phrased in the best of English. No doubt they were put forward sincerely. But let us not drown Canada in socialism. Let us stick up for it. Let us remember that being rich is no sin in this world. I agree there are some who have fallen into riches, but there are many more who have worked hard for what they possess. Thank heavens we still have a few rich people to pay the taxes, because the way we are spending at all levels across Canada today we need some of these people.
I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance. It was suggested yesterday by one hon. member that we who support the government are under instructions to vote as the government directs. Let me tell the house that I have never received any such instruction.
I say to hon. members that if changes had not been made in the earlier proposals I would have been glad to stand up for my constituents and vote against the government on this measure. Changes have been made, however. They are changes which should probably have been introduced years ago, but the fact is that they were not introduced and now they have been. The situation for years, under both Liberal and Conservative governments, was that if a man died leaving money which both he and his wife had accumulated in partnership, the wife had to pay estate duty. This was the position not only in Canada but in many other countries. Now, for the first time, the Minister of Finance has recognized the fact that a husband and wife are a team who accumulate their estates together. In future, no matter how much the one leaves the other will have to pay no succession duty whatsoever. I congratulate the Minister of Finance on making this possible, and members of the opposition should congratulate him too.
I listened yesterday to hon. members on my immediate left in the Conservative party criticizing this measure. I could hardly continue to sit in my place because I never heard so much unadulterated nonsense in my life. Succession duties, they argued, should be abolished altogether, yet this terrible government, this terrible Minister of Finance, had refused to do so. But I notice that in advocating the removal of this tax they were careful not to suggest alternative ways of raising

revenue or cutting expenditure. Do they want to reduce old age pensions or family allowances? Do they wish to reduce the amount we spend trying to aid nations abroad? Do they wish to cut down the defence budget, or the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs? No. All they want is to do away immediately with the succession duty.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservatives had their chance to do away with succession duties. Unfortunately for the country they were in power for five years not too long ago. Those who are criticizing today could have made it possible for the wife to inherit her husband's estate without paying succession duty at all. They had the opportunity to provide that estates worth less than $50,000 would escape tax. But did they take any action? No. They sat in their places and did nothing. Yet today they rise one after another to criticize the Minister of Finance for the terrible things he has done.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Would my hon. friend permit a question? Does he know that it was the Diefenbaker government which introduced the Estate Tax Act?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I am glad the minister has brought that to my attention. It was to have been my next statement. There are very few things about the Diefenbaker government and taxation which escape my memory.


Mr. MacEwan:: What memory?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The hon. member said something but I did not catch it. Here is an example, Mr. Speaker. I am sure even those with Catholic views would agree that in some instances we should permit birth control. In fact I would not mind if it was made retroactive.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The Minister of Finance has made possible something which was not possible before. He has given people faced with payment of estate tax six years in which to meet their obligation. Perhaps this should have been done before. Perhaps the Conservatives could have done it when they had the opportunity. There is no doubt about the fact that they failed to take advantage of that opportunity. I say to members of the opposition that they should not be afraid of saying on occasion that the government has done a good job. The Minister of Finance has helped
February 20, 1969

those who have taxable estates; he is trying to keep men of wealth in Canada so we can afford to maintain the level of our services to people who need them.
I noted the statement of the hon. member for York South that he was not supporting this bill because if a man left an estate worth a million dollars the percentage of tax applied was less than in the case of estates worth between $50,000 and $200,000. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to get more but the fact is that men of substantial wealth are leaving Canada simply because their estates will escape death duty, either altogether or to a great extent, in the countries in which they intend to live. You can only go so far in soaking the rich. There is a point of no return.
I want to say this to my Conservative friends. As many of them know, I have had the experience of being in the Ontario legislature under the Conservative regime for many years. Before I got there a certain thing happened in Ontario of which I am sure they are not very proud. I welcome to this house, as did the leaders of the various parties earlier this afternoon, an hon. gentleman who as yet I have not had the pleasure of meeting, though I know him by reputation. I am sure the hon. member, a politician of many years standing, will understand what I mean when I refer to an act passed by the Ontario legislature known as the charitable gifts act. That act was passed by the Conservatives in Ontario to extract $2 million or $3 million from the estate of the owner of the Toronto Star because he was head of a Liberal paper. They did not pass that act before he died; he died first and its provisions were made retroactive. If the Minister of Finance made the provisions of this bill retroactive, you would hear these people howl, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Why do these members not stand up and say that they have not been perfect in the past? If they had been we would not need this bill; neither would we need succession duties. They, along with the rest of us, want the elderly people, and I want my father and mother, to get the old age pension. I want my kids to get family allowances and our veterans to be properly looked after, within reason. We can make a country that is second to none.
In spite of the fact that we all kick about taxes. I have never met any person who had
29180-366J
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act returned from France, Nigeria, Biafra, Great Britain, Russia or Germany who was not extremely happy to get back to Canada and help pay these taxes. I hope that whoever is Minister of Finance when I die will get a whole neap of succession duties. I will not kick about that one single bit, and I am sure my hon. friends in this house will not either.
I think I have spoken for long enough, and I am sure there are some people here who think I have spoken too long. It really depends upon where one sits. The Tories in Ontario got after Mr. Atkinson after he died and took from him $2 million or $3 million under their charitable gifts act. The Tories in this house had the opportunity for five years to change the provisions of the succession duty law but did not do so; all they did was make enemies in the United States. They are not in power today so it is nice to stand up and hit the big men, whether in Canada or in foreign countries. I am glad to say that in my opinion, and in the opinion of most Canadians, the Minister of Finance is a pretty big man who has done a good job as far as this bill is concerned.
I want to close with this point. The last speaker criticized this measure as piecemeal taxation. I agree with that. I have heard the Minister of Finance make speeches not only in this house but in other places, and he has agreed that there is a lot of piecemeal taxation in Canada. For that reason he has told the members of this house and people in other places that there is going to be a complete review of the taxation methods used in Canada during the next few months or during the next year, and all of us welcome this. I should like to inform the Minister of Finance that he is certainly going to get my vote on this measure, and he can call it any time he wants.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, it is often said these days that there are no real differences between the political parties in the country. We are told that ideology is dead. I think that the legislation before this house and the attitude taken toward it by the different parties proves exactly the contrary. It reveals a wide difference of political philosophy on the part of members of this house.
The Conservatives, if I judge correctly from their remarks, basically seem to be against an inheritance or estate tax. On the
February 20, 1969

Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act other hand, the Liberals, in the name oi reform, bring in some minor improvements to a regressive and inadequate tax system and reject any basic change in the system. The New Democratic Party stands for a new taxation system which would be demonstrably fairer, that would secure the additional revenue urgently needed if there were a reduction to be made in the crushing burden of taxation on people in the lower income groups.
We are opposed to this legislation not because we are opposed to an estate tax; quite the contrary. We believe that an inheritance or estate tax is one of the fairest means available to raise revenue. Generally speaking, an inheritance tax falls on those best able to pay, especially if we make sure, as we should, that widows and dependants are totally exempt and that the family is treated, as it ought to be, as a unit. It is also true that an inheritance tax with these exemptions falls due precisely at the time it can most easily be paid without hardship to anyone.
We in this party are opposed to the tax proposed in the bill because it deliberately repudiates the basic philosophy of using the tax system as an instrument of social justice, as an instrument to promote equality between Canadians. We oppose this legislation because it jettisons some of the main proposals contained in the Carter commission report for a fairer, more equitable system of taxation.
There has been a lot of talk about the Carter system. What, in effect, was the system recommended by the Royal Commission on Taxation? It will be remembered that it was a six-volume report of some 2566 pages. It was the product of four and a half years study by more than 150 tax experts. Some people may sneer at the accountants, tax lawyers, economists and others who prepared the report. I do not. I respect them for producing detailed proposals to create a completely new system of taxation in Canada based on equity and fairness. They were not doctrinaire socialists. Nor, as a matter of fact, do I consider myself to be a doctrinaire socialist. They took a careful look to see what was required to give Canada a tax system that would remove the undue burden of the existing tax system from the poor and place a greater burden upon those who can afford to pay, a burden on those who can afford to pay, without exemptions or chiselling.

The basic proposal of the commission was that all forms of income, regardless of source, should be treated alike for tax purposes, whether that income comes to the recipient in the form of gifts or inheritances, in the form of capital gains, in the form of earned income or income earned on property. Whatever was received would then be taxed on a progressive basis with generous exemptions at the lower level and a rising scale at the higher level.
I suggest that this is simple justice. Indeed, it is recognized in our present income tax structure. But very limited effect is given to this principle. In cases where income is earned from such sources as capital gains, gifts or inheritances, or from profits from certain tax-exempted income, there is either no tax at all-a complete exemption from tax- or there is a regressive rather than progressive taxation. Applying this general principle to the field of estate and inheritance taxes and taxes on gifts, the report of the royal commission on taxation recommended that the existing estate and gift tax acts be repealed. It also recommended that henceforth all gifts ought to be brought under the recipient's comprehensive income tax base and taxed at full, progressive rates in the same way as salaries, wages, business income, dividends, interest, capital gains, and windfalls ought to be taxed. To that proposal I say: Why not implement it? To use a crude but current expression, a buck is a buck, no matter what its source. The Minister of Finance says no. In my view the Royal Commission on Taxation was perfectly correct in saying that a buck is a buck, and the minister is wrong. A buck is a buck and ought to be treated as such.
Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. My party supports the contention that no gifts or inheritances between members of a family unit, between husband, wife and dependent children, ought to be taxable. The commission proposed that existing, gaping holes in the tax network ought to be patched so as to Capture certain large gifts made by wealthy people. The result of adopting these proposals would have been a substantial increase in government revenue. The commission estimated that revenue from these sources of $140 million annually would be increased to $350 million if certain of its proposals were adopted.
February 20, 1969
I ask this question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister despise raising money from wealthy people? Does he not wish to create the means or powers that will permit him to relax the burden of taxation crushing the small wage earner or home owner? He would have acquired these powers if he had adopted the commission's proposals. What does the minister say to the royal commission's proposals? What does he say ought to be done to put taxes in this country on an equitable basis? Although I have read the minister's speeches, I have not seen in those speeches any explanation of this point.
In the debate of February 5 the minister said that once the government had decided to retain the estate tax it was necessary for it to decide whether that tax, under its proposals, was being levied in the fairest possible way. The government considered but rejected the recommendations of the Carter Royal Commission on Taxation and rejected the suggestions regarding inheritance taxes. During that debate the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) interjected and asked why the government was adopting that position and the minister replied in words to this effect: Because we have decided a buck is not a buck and because we have decided to keep the revenue yield about the same while instituting reforms to help widows, widowers and young children.
These reforms, Mr. Speaker, may have already helped some widows, widowers and young children of ample resources. The minister has already provided for generous exemptions on estates. Yet these reforms mean absolutely nothing for those earning less than $5,000 a year. If the recommendations of the commission had been implemented all taxes paid by those earning between $5,000 and $7,000 a year could have been reduced by 7 per cent. Those earning under $5,000 a year would have had their taxes reduced by 10 per cent. Farmers with incomes in the lower brackets would have benefited from these reforms. Speaking purely of income tax, it is estimated that if the commission's report were implemented those in the lower income brackets could save up to 40 per cent of their tax bills. Farmers in low income brackets would benefit particularly from such reforms.
Is it wrong to sympathize with those in the lower income brackets who must pay income
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act tax on a modest income and not to sympathize so much with those who are more prosperous and accumulate enough to pay estate taxes on death? I wish to make it clear that I consider special circumstances require special administrative remedies. I do not suggest for a moment that measures ought to be adopted which would, in some instances, cause the forced sale of farms to be undertaken. Implementing the recommendations of the royal commission would mean that farmers at the lower end of the income scale would pay lower income taxes.
In rejecting the recommendations of the commission the government is helping the rich. Because of pressures from special interests it seems that the government is not able to reduce taxes for those in the lower income scales who already are heavily burdened. The government has chosen to act in favour of the rich, who need its help least of all. We therefore feel obliged to reject this measure although it contains a modicum of reform. Indeed, the proposals before us seem to me to be unprincipled in the sense no principle is discernible behind them. They are regressive in their general application.
In voting in this house we all bear in mind the interests of those who elected us. The interests of most of my constituents, no doubt, are opposed to this bill-and here I am not thinking of the handful within the constituency of Greenwood who will accumulate or inherit estates large enough to attract inheritance taxes. Most of my constituents are working people earning between $4,000 and $7,000 a year. When one considers today's cost of living and the burden of taxation such people have to sustain, it is clear they cannot accumulate estates on which succession duty must be paid. But that does not mean they are not vitally concerned about the matter we are dealing with here. They are being crushed by the present taxation system which has been described, and rightly so, as illogical, inequitable and inadequate. If the government ignores the proposals of the royal commission it will have to raise most of its revenue from sources other than the rich. It will have to continue the time-honoured system, illogical, inadequate and unfair as it is, of soaking the small and moderate income earner and not soaking those who are best able to pay. I cannot vote for a measure containing such a glaring and explicit message, that the government rejects a fairer and more just taxation system.

5768	COMMONS
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In my judgment the words "just society" and "credibility gap" have been overworked.
I conclude by saying that we cannot have a just society without a lair and equitable taxation system. We cannot have a fair and equitable tax system if under pressure of special interest we disregard the advice of experts on how to achieve this fair system. The credibility gap will be expanded until the Canadian people wake up to the fact there are real differences between political parties and political philosophies and that there is no justice without a serious search for greater equality.


John George Diefenbaker: As we approach the end of this debate, Mr. Speaker, the fact that there are less than 25 members in the house indicates there is very little which can be said that is new. It also indicates the general feeling of frustration members of parliament have been developing in the last year as a result of some of the actions of the present government.
I want to refer to the amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party. It reads:
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.
Far be it from me to suggest reasons for the adoption of this amendment. I recall during the election campaign in the province of Saskatchewan that without exception the N.D.P. candidates were entirely in favour of this legislation. They said it represented their thinking through and through and criticized me as strongly as possible for daring to criticize this anticipated legislation. They find themselves in a difficult position today. I have some of their quotations here. They quoted from one another in their opposition to the suggestion which I put forward on behalf of this party that this legislation would be detrimental to Canada. The people remember that. I remember. I recall that in Prince Albert the N.D.P. candidate said I was speaking for the rich, was devoted to supporting the rich and because of that I was opposed to this legislation.
It is of interest now that with the development of strong opposition to this bill in the intervening months there have been changes in viewpoints. So far as the government is concerned, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) said over and over: "We are not going to

DEBATES	February 20, 1969
make any change. We stand together. What we have decided will be followed. This is the most equitable bill ever presented in connection with estates and their taxation."
An avalanche of objections was received in the minister's office as well as by the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). This caused some second thought. The Minister of Finance, who has not been a very good prophet in the past, kept his record. He prophesied no change but he made a slight change, one that was designed to fool the people into believing that the detrimental effects of the original legislation had been obliterated by his suggested amendment.
I cannot say that today we have a government plagued by cabinet leaks because that would not describe the situation. The question has been asked, when is a leak not a leak? The answer is, when it is a flood from the cabinet of today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: While the Minister of Finance stood on the burning deck just like Casabianca, those around him sought refuge. No doubt in caucus these matters are discussed. It is surprising that today there are no leaks from the caucus but the cabinet is an open flood.
The minister stood, he would not move. Finally there was an alteration in the legislation. The people of Canada were advised: All is well, everything has been taken care of. There is no cause for any further complaint.
I am only going to make a few references to the bill. With the exception of the minor changes it is as bad as when originally concocted and presented to the house. Yesterday the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) quoted from a statement made by the Liberal member for York East (Mr. Otto). No doubt members of parliament criticized. They knew what was wrong because their constituents said so. It became necessary to apply pressure. The government whip is a gentleman with a very happy disposition, but he just cannot line them up. He was unable to convince them they were on the way to disaster unless changes were made. This system was evaluated and there was no change by anyone with a sense of responsibility.
I quote from the statement made by the hon. member for York East:
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 can just see him. Were these changes as a result of the hon. member's ideas? I was
February 20, 1969	COMMONS
raised in that area. I admire anyone who comes from that area, particularly when he has this capacity. I continue quoting:
I am pleased to report that the business of the House of Commons will at long last progress with some efficiency. There have been some disappointments-
One can imagine his thoughts when he used those words.
-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, and to vote exactly as they are told by the government.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
That is what you call letting the cat out of the bag. He revealed the facts. This member valiantly stood for six long years and fought to bring about a new efficiency in parliament, but when the changes were put through this arbitrary government said to Liberal members: "This is the way you will vote." The government could have saved a lot of time if it had provided a ballot for its supporters to fill in. That would have saved a lot of discussion in the standing committees.
If the bill before us were sent to a standing committee people from all over Canada would appear to criticize it, people from all walks of life, even those represented by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford). I was out in his area and everybody I met there asked: "Where are we going in this country with a government that spends and spends and spends, and taxes and taxes and taxes?"


Stanley Ronald Basford: They have not been writing that to me.


John George Diefenbaker: They are beginning to realize the situation. Now we hear today that there is to be another budget.


Edgar John Benson: Who said that?


John George Diefenbaker: At least time is set aside for one. The only hope the Canadian people have is that there will not be another budget because if there is the Minister of Finance will take another crack at them with taxes. The Minister of Finance has established for himself one of the most unenviable records for prophesy of any minister of finance in Canadian history. He prophesied that there would be a balanced budget. He was out by hundreds of millions of dollars. He prophesied that there would be only one budget. We got two within a year or a year and a half, and we are going to get another.
DEBATES	5769
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act
All across Canada people are asking, "When are we going to put an end to this spendthrift government?" I remember that when I was prime minister we spent $6 billion annually and it was said that was something terrible. Now the estimated expenditure is $13 billion. It rises all the time. But the ministers claim that they are a saving government. They save on those things where the savings are of no importance. When the Prime Minister decided that we were not going to fire guns off any more to honour the members of the royal family, all gave their acclaim. They said, "Isn't this wonderful? We are going to save $40,000. After all, there are better ways in which Canadians can show loyalty and devotion."
But then they added to the salaries of the highest paid civil servants tens and tens of thousands of dollars, and also added 50 per cent to the salary of the Governor of the Bank of Canada. "Be restrained, don't overspend, but let us go on and on," is their theory. That is what they are doing. But it is a surprising thing that while they do all these things they forget about the retired civil servants. Apparently they are not entitled to consideration. They forget about the veterans. They postpone and procrastinate but other expenditures mount and mount.
I shall be brief so that a vote can be taken at the earliest possible moment. I have tried through the years to follow a reasonably consistent course. I see an editorial in the Globe and Mail that has been subjected to some misinterpretation. It is entitled, "First-A Few Questions," and reads in part:
The members of the legislature think they need a raise in pay. Conservative Party Whip Leonard Reilly said last week that it was an all-party desire (naturally: this is the one area which only a John Diefenbaker would fail to recognize as non-partisan).
Some people have misinterpreted that. My attitude was clear and definite in 1963 when we raised our indemnities that the raise should not come into effect until an election enabled the Canadian people to approve. Some others had the same view, but I followed my vocal support of the principle that there should be no increases except after an election by actually doing something to which I have not referred previously. I repaid or made a grant to the government of Canada of the excess. In the year 1963 the gift amounted to $5,589.22, and in 1964 to $8,000. I returned those amounts to the Crown believing in a principle which apparently does not receive the support of the Globe and Mail if that
February 20, 1969

Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act editorial is to be interpreted as apparently it was intended.
Surely we in parliament must give an example to the Canadian people. I have followed this course. It was not to my own benefit. But when I speak here I speak according to my conscience. The present government is increasing salaries in the high echelons while unemployment is mounting at a very high rate, at an inexcuseable rate because in the United States the trend is all the other way.
We had unemployment when I was in office, but the United States rate of unemployment was higher than ours. Today we have unemployment mounting when there is a general level of economic advance. People are beginning to ask, "Isn't it about time for Canadians as a whole to join in a tax revolution?" They do not mean a revolution in the ordinary sense of the term but rather to say to the government: "You have gone as far as you are going. You have increased our income tax twice. You hit us with this 2 per cent social development tax, which is a complete misnomer."
According to the premiers of the various provinces who spoke at the conference last week, the 2 per cent tax is the equivalent of seven or eight points in income tax. Where is all this going to stop? The government gives no indication that it will stop. The Minister of Finance showed a lot of courage and determination in refusing to permit amendments to his proposals until he was inundated with protests and forced to back up. Then he produced the monstrosity which we have before us today and which is designed to deceive the Canadian people. They tell us now, "You are going to have a $50,000 exemption." That is the story that is spread across the country by Liberal members-


Edgar John Benson: That is not true.


John George Diefenbaker: -and the Minister of Finance has done nothing to half that unjust suggestion of a $50,000 exemption. If you have an estate of $49,999 you pay nothing. If you have an estate of $50,001 you pay on $30,001, as I understand it. In other words, they are taking the people of Canada for another ride while pretending that they have done something to help them.
Mention was made by a previous speaker that this is a tax on the poor, and that is what it is. Those in the lower income brackets who save during their lifetime are going to be pillaged in death. That is what it amounts to, and I for one will not support this bill in

any particular. I summarize its provisions as follows: the gift tax is greatly increased, from a present maximum of 28 per cent and accelerating to 75 per cent. Canadians do not realize yet what a ride they will get when this comes into effect because the government expects that those who might raise objection will be dead. They will be dead before there is a realization on the part of their legatees concerning the degree of taxation to which they will be subjected.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
This bill in no way alters the views I expressed in April, May and June last when my friends of the N.D.P. in speeches all over the province of Saskatchewan said that this is great legislation, that it is lovely. I have the speeches here. I do not want to spoil Hansard by reading them. I shall epitomize them in this way: It is the finest thing ever; it will hit the rich. Let us see how it will hit the rich.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Were those speeches not in support of the Carter commission report? There might be a difference.


John George Diefenbaker: They were in support of this particular legislation.


Edgar John Benson: It did not exist.


John George Diefenbaker: It was the estate tax that they were supporting. The hon. member is now trying to twist things. That is the reason for the N.D.P. amendment. It is for the purpose of getting themselves out of the cul de sac in which they find themselves as a result of subsequent events. They say, "tax the rich". This bill will strike a serious and widespread blow at Canadians everywhere. As I said a moment ago many people have been lulled into a false sense of security in the belief that it is confined to those with very large estates. As a matter of fact, on an estate of $6 million the amount paid will be less now than it was before. But who will pay the piper? It will be the smaller estates represented by the 5,700 Canadian estates taxed in the last year of record available. Eighty-two per cent of these estates are in the range of $50,000 to $300,000. These are the estates that will get hooked. When an estate reaches the figure $50,001 it is taxed on everything over $20,000.
February 20, 1969

Division
To show how the little man will take the ride as I have stated 82 per cent of estates are between $50,000 and $300,000. Indeed, 70 per cent of that succession duty taxation has been levied on estates valued at less than $100,000. What does that mean? It means that a person who has saved or a farmer whose prices have been inflated will be subject to heavy taxation. The minister thought he had reduced something. First he said he would not change it and then he backed down and said, "Now you see it; it is fine; nobody is going to pay on anything up to $50,000". That is right. But when it reaches $50,001 that is when they catch them. This legislation will mean a drastic increase in taxes in respect of those who have saved during their lifetime to provide better opportunities for their families. This government has taxed and taxed.
The minister says there is no longer any danger that family and other small businesses will be ended. He says they are not going to allow these businesses to be sold. He says he will give them five years in which to pay. In other words, they will have five years of freedom from disaster; that is all. They are going to extend the extinction period by five years with regard to small businesses.
This legislation will spell the end of the family farm. A farmer's estate consists mainly of land and on that basis it will be almost impossible for most sons and daughters to inherit their father's farm. This is ridiculous. Here we have one minister spending money to keep young men and women on the farms and another minister taxing them off the farm. This legislation will seriously reduce the amount of funds available for investment and will unfavourably affect the development of Canadian industry by Canadians. If this bill becomes law it will diminish incentive, impoverish the provident who have worked a lifet'me to give their children better opportunities in life than they have had, and will ultimately virtually socialize the Canadian economy.
Apparently this is one of the phases of the government's plan for a just society. All I can say is th-t it is just for the benefit of the government that it is extorting and extracting further taxation from the people. It is the act of a money-grabbing government which has been on a spending spree. I should like to hear the minister say that he will put an end to this. Some of the ministers have suggested that the government should be careful not to go on spending and spending. The government did away with the firing of $40,000 worth of gunpowder. This was done really for
anti-monarchical reasons under the guise of being a saving of expenditure. I wish the minister would tell his co-spenders that this is the end and there is going to be no more increased taxation. I should like him to carry out his promise and that of his predecessors about a balanced budget, which we have not seen.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Mr. Speaker:: Do hon. members want the			Messrs:
vote on the main motion to be taken without	Alexander	Forrestallthe bells being rung?	i	Alkenbrack	FortinAsselin	Gauthier


Some hon. Members:: Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act
Lambert (Bellechasse) Lambert (Edmonton West)
Laprise La Salle Latulippe Lundrtgan
MacDonald (Egmont) MacEwan
Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond) Maclnnis (Mrs.)
(Vancouver-Kingsway)
MacLean
Macquarrie
McCutcheon
McIntosh
Matte
Monteith
Moore (Wetaskiwin)
Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Muir (Lisgar)
Noble
Orlikow
Paproski
Peters
Ricard
Ritchie
Rodrigue
Rondeau
Saltsman
Simpson
Southam
Stanfield
Thompson (Red Deer) Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley)
Valade Woolliams Yewchuk-70.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations at long range and I think there might be a disposition to call it six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.




[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill C-165, to amend the Income Tax Act and the Estate Tax Act-Mr. Benson-Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
On clause 1-tax.
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, wishes to move an amendment to clause 1. This is one of four amendments to various clauses of the bill which were brought to the attention of opposition financial critics a day or two ago. The amendments result from our having gone over the bill with prominent estate tax lawyers. We discussed the difficulties that might arise from changes in the Estate Tax Act, and the amendments incorporate several suggestions.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The amendment in the minister's hand is voluminous. He was good enough to furnish certain hon. members with copies of it. I shall be content if we take it as read. With the consent of the house, those amendments might appear in Hansard.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.