1971-10-01

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF MR. SPEAKER DHILLON OF THE LOK SABHA OF INDIA

Mr. Speaker:: I have particular pleasure in bringing to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of an eminent visitor to our country, Mr. Speaker Dhillon of the Lok Sabha of India.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Speaker Dhillon's visit to Canada as the official guest of the House of Commons honours us greatly. I am pleased that his presence here today provides an opportunity to thank him for the most generous hospitality which he personally extended to our colleagues who, last year, attended Interparliamentary Union and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meetings in New Delhi.
As you prepare to return home, Mr. Speaker, we ask you to take with you our message of friendship and of good will to the members of the Lok Sabha and to the people of India. .


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Last evening at the very end of the sitting the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bechard), speaking for his minister in reply to a question that had been put to him by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), declined to answer the question or to comment on it because of a situation that has developed.
The parliamentary secretary read the terms of a notice of motion filed in the Federal Court of Canada at Regina having to do with the government's position under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. The parliamentary secretary took the position that matters related to that situation are now sub judice and therefore cannot be the subject of comment in the House of Commons.
Points of order are not usually raised during the adjournment debate. Therefore there was no objection taken last night and no ruling given. But I feel I must at the earliest opportunity call to Your Honour's attention the fact that yesterday the government House leader indicated that the business to be placed before the House
on Monday would be Bill C-244. I remind you, Sir, that that bill includes a provision for the repeal, effective July 31, 1970, of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act.
It seems to me that at some point we must have a ruling on this matter. Either it is sub judice and, if so, we cannot proceed to discuss Bill C-244, or it is not sub judice, in which case questions and discussions on this matter are still in order.
I felt I should raise the point of order at the earliest opportunity, though perhaps Your Honour will feel you should not be called upon to rule on it until the issue is before us again. In any event, if it is not raised earlier I shall raise it on Monday when Bill C-244 is called. I hope that in case Your Honour finds the sub judice contention is correct the government will be ready to proceed with some other item of business.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief statement providing further information on agricultural assistance programs designed to cover unprocessed agricultural products which will not be eligible for assistance under Bill C-262, the Employment Support Act. You will recall that I gave notice of this assistance when I spoke on second reading of Bill C-262 on September 7, 1971.
I can advise that the Agricultural Stabilization Board and the Agricultural Products Board have been authorized to come forward with individual commodity programs designed to help producers adversely affected by the surtax. The programs will take any one of several forms, namely, purchase of the product, deficiency payments or payment to distributors for the benefit of producers. In this latter connection distributors to be eligible must have been exporters of the unprocessed product to the United States in the base period, must demonstrate that the price paid to farmers for raw products was maintained at a level consistent with that which would have been expected in the absence of surtax, that distribution volume and employment were maintained. I say the latter because employment in the agricultural distributing industry is important as well as in the agricultural processing industry.
As with processed products there will be no requirement that exports to the United States be maintained.

October 1, 1971
Agricultural Assistance Programs
I am issuing a press release today inviting applications from the agricultural industry both from producer groups and distributors. Applicants are asked to provide basic data relative to the criteria and on the impact of the surtax on their operations to supplement the information already accumulated by the department.
In conclusion, I want to say that I am very conscious of the need to put these programs in place promptly and consistent with the need of those affected and the international situation.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased, as we always are, when at least some token recognition, no matter how small, is given to the agricultural industry. It is unfortunate that over the past year the government has not seen fit to maintain farmers' incomes at a realistic level by using the mechanics of the existing Agricultural Stabilization Act which received Royal Assent on January 1, 1958, I believe. Far more use could have been made of that act to keep farmers' incomes at realistic levels. It will be interesting, and we will all be watching, to see the extent to which the assistance indicated by the minister will filter down to the actual producer.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Briefly, Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement indicates that he is keeping the commitment he made earlier to provide some support and assistance for farm products affected by the United States surtax. He says that it will be up to those concerned to make application. I suppose the procedure will be clarified as we go along. For example, I am not sure who would make application on behalf of barley growers. Would it be the Canadian Wheat Board or one of the farm organizations? It would be fairly clear, of course, who would make application on behalf of meat packers or other processors. I hope the procedures will be clarified and that the minister will advise the House what the process will be for different products having in mind the various ways in which they are marketed.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43 arising out of last night's CBC program "Midweek" during which Mr. Eadie, his father, and several other young men denied almost every detail of the Solicitor General's statement in the House on the Eadie case. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell):
That this House, being deeply concerned by the conflict between statements made in this House by the Solicitor General and the participants in the CBC program "Midweek", instructs the Solicitor General, the officials involved in the Cornwall informers investigation, and the program participants to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for an investigation of the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and the hon. member's motion cannot be put.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I ask the House to give unanimous consent to a motion based upon urgent and pressing necessity. I call the attention of the House, if that is needed after the vicious kidnapping and killing of an innocent boy within a mile or two of this chamber, to one of the most horrible symptoms of the permissive society. That symptom is the licence to kill attitude of an increasing number of criminals since the abolition of hanging by the Criminal Code amendment of four years ago coupled with the total and indiscriminate use of the power to pardon. I therefore propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott):
This House calls upon the government to act immediately to restore capital punishment for the crime of premeditated murder.


Mr. Speaker:: Again, this is a motion proposed to the House under Standing Order 43 and as such requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.



BROADCASTING


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I request the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion under Standing Order 43 in a case of urgent and pressing necessity. This matter concerns a threat to the television service provided to the rural population of Manitoba. The Canadian Radio-Television Commission has recommended that stations in neighbouring states be prevented from effectively serving Canadians by making their continued operation economically impractical. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey):
That in regions served inadequately by alternative broadcasting media, the government shall not by tax legislation, amendment or other subterfuge, cause the level of broadcasting service, or the diversity of program choice, to be reduced in rural Manitoba or in any other part of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member. Is there unanimous consent?
October 1, 1971


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not and the motion will not be put.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the withdrawal of Indian school children from schools in northeastern Alberta. In view of the escalation of difficulties that has occurred in the past two days and in view of the failure of the minister to take effective action in the matter, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the House do instruct the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to travel to northeastern Alberta for consultation with the chiefs of the Saddle Lake-Athabasca district about this problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Athabasca. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture, knowing that he is fully conversant with the topic I am about to raise. In light of the Prime Minister's admission that the government is breaking the law and is anxious to rectify the situation by passing Bill C-244, is the government now prepared to accept any of the 15 amendments proposed by the opposition parties or is the government prepared to put forth any amendments of its own which will make the bill more acceptable and workable for prairie farmers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, when the bill was before the House there could have been discussions of this kind and there can be when it is again
Inquiries of the Ministry
brought forward. I do not think that in the question period we should discuss what amendments might be made when the bill is properly before the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can the minister advise if any new proposals or amendments will be put forward as a result of the meeting this morning between the prairie Ministers of Agriculture and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and if there will be a statement made to the House today with regard to that meeting?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member address that question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board when he is in the House. I am not even sure if that meeting has yet concluded.



IMMEDIATE PAYMENTS UNDER TEMPORARY WHEAT RESERVES ACT

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I shall direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's statement as reported on radio and television in western Canada that the government admits it is in default on payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, can the Acting Prime Minister inform the House that by virtue of a directive either from the Prime Minister or the cabinet the payments now due are going forward to the Canadian Wheat Board?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister made it perfectly clear with regard to this particular interview, as he has previously on a number of occasions in the House, that the government will be proceeding as rapidly as it can to do justice to the prairie farmers and with the alternative conditions which are offered to them.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Canadian people have no doubt that justice will be done, but I asked whether the government is taking the necessary action through the Treasury Board or regular channels to make these payments to the Canadian Wheat Board in view of the admission that they are due and payable and are now in default?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member and the House are aware that the government is proposing a payment to the farmers at the earliest possible moment of some $100 million. If the assent of the opposition to this cannot be obtained, we will proceed with a much lesser payment under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Alexander:: Pay your bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are three or four supplementaries on the same subject. I wonder if we should have all of them at this time. For the moment the Chair will return to the original questioner, the hon. member for Vegreville.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: My supplementary question is for the Acting Prime Minister. If the government is still of the

October 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
opinion that Bill C-244 in its present form is such good legislation, can the minister advise the House why it will not allow the bill to stand on its own merits and pay out the $100 million-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That, of course, is
argument.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the only minister present who might have information of this kind. The question arises out of a statement made by Secretary Connally. In his statement Secretary Connally suggested that the United States import surtax would be removed as soon as certain conditions were fulfilled and bilateral discussions, as well as multilateral discussions, concerning some of the conditions take place. Has the Canadian government received any bill of particulars as to the kind of action the United States wants Canada to take on the road to the removal of the 10 per cent import surcharge?


Hon. lean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge, anyway; it might have come more recently but I have no knowledge of any bill of particulars, as the hon. member calls it. In discussions with the United States Secretaries we have, as was stated in the House by the Prime Minister, talked about a number of issues which have been referred to by the Americans as irritants, ranging from the automobile agreement to the use of bourbon. We have also put in our own list of irritants, and that goes from the de facto embargo on the export of uranium to the conditions of the United States copyright act. There will be discussion on these matters in due course. I must admit that the present circumstances may not be the most favourable, but in my discussion with Secretary Stans, for example, we made plans for bilateral meetings on all these matters.


David Lewis: I would have thought it dangerous to couple automobiles with bourbon, Mr. Speaker. If I may say so, however, that is not the question. Secretary Connally stated that he wanted certain barriers removed by all the trading partners of the United States as a condition. What I think the House should know, and what the minister should tell us now or, if not, at the earliest possible moment, is this: what barriers do the Americans want Canada to remove? Are we talking about the safeguards in the auto pact or about other things as well?


Jean-Luc Pepin: My answer is simple, then. There has been no formal request by the United States along the lines suggested by the hon. member.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Since the United States Secretary of the Treasury has made it very clear that the surcharge will not be removed until bilateral consultations between the countries concerned have

taken place, when does the government intend to sit down with the United States and participate in such bilateral negotiations to the end that the surcharge may be got rid of as soon as possible?


Jean-Luc Pepin: We did that very early after the announcement of the United States economic measures. I recall there were a number of people on the opposition side, supporters of the party to which the hon. member belongs, who suggested we rushed to Washington too early to debate this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Since then, either within the framework of international organizations or bilaterally-I referred a moment ago to my conversations with Mr. Scans, for example-these discussions have been going on.


George Harris Hees: As the discussions which have been going on so far have been completely useless in getting anything done, when does the government intend to talk in a factual way with the United States government so that something can be done?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman always speaks on the basis of ignorance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


George Harris Hees: If I am speaking from ignorance, will the minister advise the House what the situation is and how close we are to seeing the 10 per cent surcharge removed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order.


George Harris Hees: If I speak from ignorance, tell me about it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Come on!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REMOVAL OF AUTO PACT SAFEGUARDS AS PRECONDITION TO REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES IMPORT SURTAX

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that Mr. John Petty, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, called a press conference three days ago at which he specifically said that the removal of the transitional safeguards in the auto pact was a precondition to removal of the 10 per cent import surcharge, may I ask the minister whether he or any member of the Canadian government has been in touch with the government of the United States to ascertain whether or not Mr. Petty was speaking on behalf of the United States government, and that this is indeed a precondition to removal of the surtax?
October 1, 1971


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, there has been no transcript made of the conversation between Mr. Petty and some Canadian newspapermen so it is very difficult for me to know exactly what he said. I really do not know whether-


George Harris Hees: Are you admitting that you are ignorant?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious that I have touched a delicate nerve.


George Harris Hees: Come on, smiling boy, let us have some information if you are so smart.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was saying-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. minister kindly resume his seat. Obviously we are not making much headway on the supplementary question asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. The minister was attempting to reply but no one could hear his reply because of the interruptions. I suggest that this might be the time to pass to another subject and return to this matter, if we can, before the end of the question period.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I asked a question of the minister who indicated his willingness to reply. Surely any disturbance in the House should not preclude the minister from making a reply and giving the House a statement which I think would be of considerable interest to the people of this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It was my impression that the minister had attempted to reply and had completed his reply. If not, he will be allowed to complete it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that it is very difficult to know what Mr. Petty said because we have no transcript. I have read reports in some newspapers but I do not know whether the reporting was totally accurate. That is no reflection on the press, but sometimes one person will hear something differently from the person standing next to him. So, as I say, it is difficult to comment. However, to my knowledge there has been no sine qua non condition vis-a-vis the auto pact agreement and the removal of the surcharge.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I ask hon. members to co-operate with the Chair. I think in all justice we should now go to the hon. member for Abitibi. About 15 minutes have gone by and a representative of his party has not had the chance to ask a question in the first series of questions. I now recognize the hon. member for Abitibi.



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-STUDY OF ECOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES BY FEDERAL AND QUEBEC GOVERNMENTS

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Could he say whether joint studies or research have been made, or shall be made eventually, by the federal and Quebec governments so as to determine the possible effects of the hydroelectric development of the eastern basin of James Bay on hunting, fishing, wildlife, recreation activities, etc.?


Hon. lean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether such studies are being made now, but I do know that the provincial government is carrying out studies to that effect, and we are following the situation very closely, because we know that this could affect the Indian people of the area. This is why we are concerned by this matter.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Can the Minister, who stated some time ago that studies were performed on the possibility of moving the Indian people from that area, tell us if those studies are effectively under way and if he will soon report to the House about that matter?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether a report will soon be made to the House, but I know that the Indian Association met with the Quebec premier some ten days ago and that the officials of my department will in the near future hold a meeting with the Indians in Ottawa in that connection.



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT- OBSERVANCE OF PROVISIONS OF NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT

['Mr. Speaker, the understanding that the arrangements are not yet completed is a correct one. As soon as conveniently appropriate a statement will be made.']
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statement made by the Minister of the Environment regarding the ill effects caused in the Peace River and Athabasca area because the Navigable Waters Protection Act was not adhered to, is the Acting Prime Minister able to assure the House that the provisions of that act will be directly adhered to in the case of the project in the James Bay area?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not personally aware of what applicability the Navigable Waters Protection Act has to the James Bay project, but I am certainly convinced that the Minister of the Environment will see that that act is applied to that particular project.



Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns the agreement announced outside the House which provides for a new basis for structuring the delegation to plenary sessions of meetings of Francophone countries. Can the minister advise whether it is
8350

October 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
intended that in voting Canada is bound to abstain on any question not acceptable to the Quebec members of the delegation; and is it also the intention that at Francophone meetings both the flag of Canada and that of Quebec will be flown?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, while the arrangements are not yet entirely complete, it is our intention to pursue a format or modus operandi similar to that successfully employed at the last meeting.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Can the Acting Prime Minister advise if and when it is intended to bring this fundamental diminution of the national government's primacy in the field of foreign affairs before the House for consideration?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the premise of the question. I do not think there has been over the course of the past year a diminution but rather an appreciation.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Can the Acting Prime Minister give the House an assurance that the government, at the same time as it is adopting a one-China policy in the international scene, is not abandoning a one-Canada policy?


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. Out of recognition of the rights of the other provinces in the fields of language and culture, will the flags of those provinces be flown at these and similar conferences? Will the other provinces be invited to participate and will they have the same right of veto?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think all provinces that are interested in the question of Francophonie have been invited to attend and their presence will be welcomed. At such a conference the rights of all provinces will be similar.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a supplementary. In view of the fact that reports on this subject are necessarily conjectures at this time, and in view of the likelihood that there may be very undesirable misunderstandings of any arrangement that is arrived at, would the Acting Prime Minister undertake to see that the government at the earliest opportunity makes a full statement to the House on the exact arrangements arrived at as soon as negotiations are completed? It is my understanding that they are not yet completed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the understanding that the arrangements are not yet completed is a correct one. As soon as conveniently appropriate a statement will be made.



PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have an urgent question for the Acting Prime Minister which has reference to the upholding of Canadian law. Has the Acting Prime Minister checked with the legal officers of the Crown to determine whether the appoint-

ment of the present 27 parliamentary secretaries announced recently satisfies sections 4 and 5 of the Government Organization Act, 1970, particularly as that act pertains to the legal status of the Postmaster General, in order to see whether there still is not an extra parliamentary secretary appointed?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that a legal check has been made which resulted in the announcement of the Prime Minister last evening, and that the situation is now in order.


John Howard Lundrigan: Perhaps the Acting Prime Minister did not understand my question. I was not talking about the 28 appointed illegally yesterday but rather about the 27 appointed as of today. On the basis of the 27 now appointed, not on the basis of the 28, has the minister checked to determine whether they come within the law under sections 4 and 5 of the Government Organization Act, 1970? If not, will he investigate and make a statement to the House before this day is over regarding the legality of the present 27 parliamentary secretaries, keeping in mind the status of the Postmaster General under this act?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to check into this and, if there is any illegality, report to the House.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Joseph P. Guay (St. Boniface):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of radio and news reports pertaining to the fact that the city of Calgary has been chosen by the federal government for the development of an experimental public transportation system using special buses travelling in special lanes, will the minister indicate whether this will be made available to other cities in Canada, particularly to the greater Winnipeg area?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: Joe for parliamentary secretary.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that in respect of all of these pilot projects taking place the information is made available to other cities. I might point out to the hon. member that the results of the expensive pilot project regarding rail line abandonment now under way in Winnipeg will be made available to other cities.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of
October 1, 1971

the extreme doubt now placed on the veracity of the statements of the Solicitor General, will the Prime Minister initiate an independent inquiry into the allegations of Mr. Eadie and others?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Solicitor General has yet had an opportunity to familiarize himself with last night's program and until such time as he has I do not think it would be appropriate to make a response.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. Is he going to repudiate the statements made last night on the CBC program "Mid-Week" and, if not, is he now prepared to appear before the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee along with those officials involved in the Cornwall informers investigation?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, last night I had the opportunity of speaking to the Maritimes Corrections Association in Prince Edward Island, and did not have time, as the hon. member probably had, to watch television, but I have asked for a copy of the speech.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, will the Solicitor General undertake to the House to inform himself and then reply to the question I have asked him?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not only a lawyer but an expert in that field; he should know, therefore, that he should refer to facts before asking that type of question.



INCREASING USE OF HEROIN IN ONTARIO CITIES- DISCUSSION WITH ONTARIO OF JOINT PROGRAM TO COPE WITH PROBLEM

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of very serious drug problems, particularly the widespread use of heroin in Ontario cities as indicated in the report prepared by a committee appointed by that department, is the department taking steps to discuss with the government of Ontario the planning of a joint program in order to deal with this situation?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. This report has just recently come to my attention. There is no doubt that not only in Ontario but in other provinces there is mounting evidence of increasing inflows of heroin and of people resorting to its use. We have endeavoured to upgrade, on an emergency basis, various aspects of our drug abuse program. As we analyse the findings we are certainly entertaining a course of action such as the hon. member has suggested.
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am not critical of the number of expensive studies undertaken by the minister's department, but there is not much point in carrying out studies unless they are followed by action. Will the minister consider discussing what can be done about this very serious problem with the province of Ontario and other provinces?


John Carr Munro: I have already answered the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that we are considering adopting that very course. These studies can be justified by the fact that we have already expended considerable money to combat this problem. These studies have indicated to us how this money can be most usefully directed.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: In
view of the reported widespread lay-offs throughout our economy, particularly in the pulp and paper industry, which are beyond the scope of the Employment Support Act, will the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce advise the House whether the government intends to introduce a comprehensive employment support program to overcome this disaster?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the pulp and paper industry singled out by the hon. member, I have already indicated a number of things that are being done at the federal and provincial levels, in the case of Quebec. A few days ago I indicated to the hon. member that we were looking into other possibilities. I also indicated that a meeting is to take place between the leaders of that sector of Canadian industry and members of the cabinet.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, could the minister advise whether these support or relief programs will include assistance to the pulp and paper industry in respect of the $700 million cost of anti-pollution measures and other types of programs?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that some of the measures announced in the last budget would accomplish this, as well as some measures being taken by the Quebec government. I have indicated also that we are looking into other ways of helping in this very difficult situation. My hon. friend is perhaps aware of the fact that the pulp and paper industry is picking up a little. Sales in August were 3 or 4 per cent higher than they were last year at the same time, and with regard to the United States they were 9 to 10 per cent higher than they were in August last year.


Jack Marshall: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that at this point we should perhaps limit the number of supplementary questions because we will be running short of time in a few minutes.

October 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



PULP AND PAPER-SUGGESTED MISSION TO ASSESS WORLD MARKET CONDITIONS

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to send a mission abroad to examine world market conditions for Canadian paper products, especially with a view to assessing the market for Canadian newsprint? While he is composing this mission, perhaps he might engage the assistance of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings who was so successful in this field.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In respect of the last part of the question, Mr. Speaker, last night I did recognize during my speech the good work of my hon. friend when he was the minister.


George Harris Hees: All is forgiven.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Thank you very much. I always take with a smile the remarks the hon. member makes about me and I hope he does the same in the future. Now I have forgotten the question.


An hon. Member:: That's not a compliment.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the sort of thing recommended by the hon. member is already taking place. We send missions going abroad. A few days ago a German mission came to Canada to look at the possibility of trade in respect of newsprint and other forest products. The government of Newfoundland recently gave us some advice in this respect, and we are trying to accommodate them with some-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to answer the question posed yesterday by the hon. member for Kent-Essex regarding the availability of spare parts for tractors of Russian manufacture purchased by some Canadians?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I made inquiries and have been advised that, notwithstanding the difficulties of the distributor, there is an ample supply of parts available for these tractors. If anyone who requires them would get in touch with my office I can provide them with phone numbers in Montreal so they can have immediate access to these parts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister were here I would be

putting this question to him, but perhaps it is even more appropriate that I put it to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as President of the Treasury Board.
In view of the action of the government in appointing 27 parliamentary secretaries, the largest number in history, and in view of the large staffs that are available to ministers in their office establishments, is the government also considering increasing the assistance available to private Members of Parliament in all parties to enable them to cope with the ever-increasing workload?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: think we did examine this particular problem briefly during the discussion of the bill under which these parliamentary secretaries were appointed. The conclusion was reached then that perhaps the balance was not too inappropriate but that certainly some time in the future it should be subject to review.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if, in his capacity as a member of the Internal Economy Commission, he would raise in that body the whole question of providing adequate assistance to Members of Parliament? I am referring to private members in all parties.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I will be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: While this discussion is going on, may I ask what the attitude of the government is to the fact that the research staffs supplied to all parties are on a fixed budget and therefore the staffs are not entitled to any of the increments that other employees of the House receive? How is this problem to be solved?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: think this is perhaps rather more a question for the House. However, if I may venture an opinion, while the budget for research is a stipulated amount there is no such restriction on the movement within that budget of individual salaries.


Mr. Fairweather:: This is a semantic argument on the part of the minister. Is it not true that the amounts supplied to the research people have not increased and therefore those employed at the beginning of the program have not participated in the increments which everybody else in this establishment has received?



SHIPPING


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has any up to date information on the United States
October 1, 1971

longshoremen's strike spreading on the east coast and in particular if he has had any meetings or been active himself in connection with the whole matter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In so
far as the east coast strike is concerned, I have simply asked for an up to date report. It is much too early to assess the benefits or the disadvantages insofar as Canadian east coast ports are concerned. I will have something on it later today.
On the matter of the strike on the west coast which is affecting the port of Vancouver, I am meeting this afternoon with representatives of the Canadian Importers Association to see if there is any way out of what is presently a most difficult situation all round.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I have a question for the Solicitor General. Did he or the security planning group in his department request Channel 10 television, Montreal, and Radio-Canada to cover a press conference by Robert Lemieux and to report to the department?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, this certainly occurred without the knowledge or the participation of my officials. If this originated from an employee of my department and is contrary to freedom of the press, I think that Radio-Canada and private stations were justified in objecting to this kind of practice. I have asked the deputy minister to inform me of what happened.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: This question has become urgent and pressing because of the lack of government action.


An hon. Member:: So what's new?


Robert Muir: I should like to direct it to the honourable and genial Postmaster General. In view of the fact that postmasters in staff post offices receive less salary than their assistants, when will steps be taken to correct this anomaly?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I can point out that the rates of pay of our postmasters are related to those of their subordinates and that some of these subordinates have already negotiated new rates. This is why the anomaly exists. A new contract is being negotiated which includes the postmasters, and when an agreement is signed the rates will be retroactive to Octo-
Inquiries of the Ministry
ber, 1970, which will do away with the anomaly. I think that a settlement is imminent.


Robert Muir: I thank the minister for his frank and kind reply. Can he assure me that if this does not take place cabinet ministers will receive less salary than their parliamentary secretaries?



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the minister's recent statement about not proceeding with the Yukon minerals bill this session, will the land use regulations for the north also be held up until the Yukon minerals bill is proceeded with?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker.


Randolph Harding: When does the minister expect the proposed land use regulations to become operative in the north?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In 15 days, Mr. Speaker.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put my question to the Solicitor General.
Since there is a law which prohibits the sale and use of certain drugs in Canada and since very strong pressure is applied in schools, at least in the province of Quebec, to sell dope to students, could the minister tell us if agents of the R.C.M.P. are tracking these dope peddlers?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: We try to
enforce the law with the co-operation of provincial and municipal police forces.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Will the policy of pay differentials in the regions of Canada, which has been presented as the federal position in the case of nurses be extended as a matter of policy to other categories in the Public Service?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The
policy of pay differentials for people not required to have

October 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
a high degree of mobility has been progressively introduced or proceeded with over the past four years. It is the intention of the government to continue in this direction as it produces a much better relativity and a much greater sense of fairness than attempts to equate unequal parts.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



BANK OF CANADA


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to answer a question regarding the new currency issue, of which the Minister of Finance took notice on Wednesday.
The Bank of Canada is not yet certain about the exact time of release for the next bill in the new series. However, I am informed that on grounds of security the announcement would in any event be withheld until just prior to release. Counterfeiters have the best chance of success in passing bogus bills when a new design is still unfamiliar to the public, and it is not intended to give them a headstart.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In view of my patience I hope the Speaker will allow me two questions to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
In light of the mayor of Toronto's criticism that the federal government has not come up with funds for winter works projects, can the minister at least assure the House that there will be federal funds available for municipal winter works projects?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: The Prime Minister has dealt with this question on several occasions in the House in the last few days and I would not wish to add to his comments at this stage.
noon)


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In spite of the minister's tri-level conferences which have been held and which the Prime Minister seems to indicate have not been too successful, and in view of the fact that the federal government is now attempting to meet with the provinces, I ask the Minister of State for Urban Affairs this question. Inasmuch as Toronto feels it will now be necessary to prepare to go it alone, would the minister call a meeting of representatives of the cities and the provinces this month to discuss winter works programs so that there can be some co-ordination of efforts this winter? I ask this question because it seems to me necessary to have involvement of the municipalities in any discussions regarding winter works

or winter programs that the government intends to introduce.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it will be no surprise to the hon. member when I say that I subscribe to the principle of having the municipalities involved in such discussions. It will also be no surprise to him when I say that the inclusion of the municipalities in such discussions is basically a decision that must be taken by the provinces, and there have been some difficulties in that area in the last few months.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: One last supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about run out of time. I hope the hon. member will allow me to recognize the hon. member for Palliser.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if Your Honour will bear with me the answers the Minister of State for Urban Affairs gave to the House in reply to the questions I asked are, of course, important, but I also think it is important, in view of the fact that the municipalities have been frustrated in terms of bilateral agreements being forced upon them, that I ask whether Your Honour would allow me to ask the minister if he will assure that there is some participation by representatives of the municipalities in the scheme of things, in order that they will know-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -just what type of program-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is not for the Speaker to allow the hon. member to ask a further supplementary following the expiry of the question period five minutes ago. But I have no objection whatsoever if the House will allow the minister to reply to the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I could not possibly give the assurance to the hon. member that all those events will take place. I totally agree that the participation of the municipalities is necessary to come to any sound arrangements with regard to that or any other problems facing urban Canada. We have placed on record with the provinces our willingness, indeed our desire, to see tri-level consultation on this and many other matters, but all is not as smooth sailing as I would like, and in the end the provinces must themselves make that decision to include the municipalities. We cannot force that decision on them.



LIFT PROGRAM-ALLEGED REQUESTS FOR RETURN OF PAYMENTS

Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the great number of demands now being made by his department for the return of payments made to prairie
October 1, 1971

Income Tax Act
farmers under the Lift program, can the minister say why these demands are being made?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not hear the hon. member. Which payments is he talking about?


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the great number of demands being made by the minister's department for the return of payments made to prairie farmers under the Lift program. I would like to know why these demands are being made?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, if it is a question of a return outlining what has been done under the Lift program, this is no problem, but I am not quite sure what the other matter is. Sometimes overpayments are discovered when the auditing or inspection is done, and if we find that an overpayment has been made in relation to the acreage then, of course, we are obliged to demand a return of that overpayment.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the report in the Canadian Press two days ago reviewing some 9,000 lay-offs that are already in effect or else planned for the very near future, can he say whether he is aware of that report and, if so, can he say whether or not that report is correct?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the particular report referred to and therefore cannot say whether it is correct.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, can the Acting Prime Minister say whether or not the government has its own agencies compiling this information? If so, can he say how many lay-offs we can expect in the near future, and what the government is doing to stop this trend?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I entirely understand the question. I shall read it in Hansard and see if it can be answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there has been some discussion among House leaders as to the order of business for next Monday with regard to motions and other House business, could the Minister of Agriculture possibly tell us precisely what will be done on Monday, both in the afternoon and evening?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have not been party to any such discussions but so far as I know there is no change from the announcement that has been made.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, September 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray (for Mr. Benson) that Bill C-259, to amend the Income Tax Act and to make certain provisions and alterations in the statute law relating to or consequent upon the amendments to that act, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (p. 7763).
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose on Wednesday, I was speaking about the danger of taxation burdens increasing at a greater rate than either our population or our gross national product. I said that this increase is a geometric progression which expands at an ever increasing rate as time goes by. With that background, I now wish to turn to the necessity for a meaningful tax reform.
I think it is regrettable that so many years have been spent in studying this matter of so-called tax reform and that the end product has been the bill which we have now before us, with many amendments, which does not result in a reduction or a control of the expansion of the tax load. Certainly, there is a great deal of tinkering and shifting of the tax burden from one group to another, but the net result is not an appreciable decrease in the general tax burden and I maintain that that is a necessary objective for any government in this country, in the federal field at least, and in the provincial field as well so far as that goes. It may be said that this is just one person's opinion stacked against the collective wisdom of the government and all its advisers. I beg to differ, and say that I am not alone in this view. I think that in the United States the situation is roughly the same as here, but it is not so likely that in that country they have already passed the point of diminishing returns so far as tax rates are concerned.
I wish to quote briefly from the text of a speech made by President Nixon on September 9 when, addressing a joint session of the U.S. Congress, he said this:
I ordered a $4.7 billion cut in federal spending, to allow for tax cuts to create new jobs.
I think that makes sense. I think that is something we Canadians should carefully consider. The President went on to say:
I ask the Congress to consider as its first priority, before all other business, the enactment of three tax proposals that are essential to the new prosperity. These three measures will create 500,000 new jobs in the coming year.
First, I urge the congress to remove the 7 per cent excise tax on automobiles, so that the more than eight million people in this country who will buy new American-built cars in the next year will save an average of $200 each. This is a sales tax, paid by the consumer. Its removal will stimulate sales, and every 100,000 additional automobiles sold will mean 25,000 additional jobs for America's workers.
I believe that this kind of stimulation of the Canadian economy by the reduction of the tax load is overdue, Mr. Speaker. I would recommend that in the Canadian setting it is most urgent that there be an immediate reduction in

October 1, 1971
Income Tax Act
income tax. I recognize that the exemptions will be raised by this bill, but I am talking about an immediate cut in the rates of income tax to individuals and corporations.
Second, I would recommend most seriously, as a further stimulant to the economy, the removal of the sales tax on building materials. I believe the situation is neatly summed up in an editorial which appeared in the Montreal Gazette on September 25, which reads:
The essential question, of course, is how much longer taxes can be raised faster than the country's ability to pay them. At some point, the law of diminishing returns begins to take effect. Indeed, in the relatively slow recovery from the recession induced in the name of inflation restraint suggests that point may have already been reached.
In the last five years, the net revenues of all governments have been increased by more than 75 per cent. Over the same period, the gross national product-a basic measure of the country's ability to create taxable resources-has increased by only 48 per cent.
That is as far as I shall quote but that editorial indicates the vital importance of getting government expenditures under control so that they are not increasing faster than both the population and the GNP. That curve which is going so rapidly upward must be brought under control while it is still controllable. Of course, we may not realize the magnitude of the growth of taxation. At the present time, this federal government taxes the Canadian people at the rate of about $35 million a day every day of the year, including Sundays and holidays. This tribute has to be paid by Canadian initiative, individuals and industry to keep the huge governmental machinery operative but that machinery has grown too rapidly in proportion to the general growth of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: In his heyday, Mr. Speaker, Genghis Khan was noted for the tribute he extracted from the people he brought under his domination but $35 million a day makes Genghis Khan look like a piker.


Thomas Miller Bell: Benson looks like Genghis, doesn't he?


John Angus MacLean: The suggestion that not only must the growth in government expenditures and expansion be controlled but that savings must be made is always answered by the response, "What would you cut out of the services the government now provides?" I do not think it is necessary to cut out anything, because I believe that by cutting taxation we would stimulate industry enough that the net payment of taxes would increase.


George Harris Hees: It would stimulate buying power as well.


John Angus MacLean: As I said already, the rates have passed the point of diminishing return. I do not subscribe to this counsel of despair that things are so out of hand you cannot cut anything out or down or control anything. We are faced with this dilemma and we must accept it and act like the proverbial lemmings approaching the cliff activated by some primeval urge that they do not understand. I do not think Canadians have reached that point. Surely, even yet Canadians have a right to say, "I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul". Surely, we can decide that we are not going to allow ourselves to be so heavily taxed that we are no longer able to compete in world markets. It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that

I urge the government as a short term measure to introduce an immediate cut in income tax and to remove the sales tax on building materials.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I would make the following recommendations: First, I recommend immediate cuts in income tax and sales tax on selected items to stimulate the economy. The tax burden is slowing the economy and the rates have passed the point of diminishing return. Second, as a long term program, the rate of growth of government spending should be curbed in order to bring it below the rate of growth of the GNP. Third, government borrowing should be curbed in order to lessen demand on the money market because that demand is forcing interest rates to rise. Fourth, the government should pursue every means open to it to encourage people to be industrious and efficient, thus improving our ability to compete in world markets.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, as I see it, this is a bill designed to give the impression that it provides something for everyone. It presents the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in the role of the benevolent father of his people impartially concerned in providing gifts for all. Closer examination reveals that beneath the tinsel and glitter of the packages one firm rule has been followed, and that is that this bill contains big goodies for big people and little goodies for little people.
The most disappointing feature of the government's tax bill for us in this part of the House is the fact that the tax changes reject the main principle of the Carter Commission report; that is, that taxes should be based on ability to pay and that taxation should be determined by what a person earns rather than how he got it; that a dollar is a dollar and should be taxed as such no matter what its source. The government has progressively watered down this recommendation in the Carter report in successive investigations and inquiries, and has finally abandoned the principle altogether in this tax bill. The result is that this tax bill continues to widen the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" in this country. It increases the comfortable insulation of the top 20 per cent of our population who enjoy 40 per cent of the good things of this world, and of Canada in particular, and makes more acute the humiliating poverty of the lowest 20 per cent, who try hard to cling to their portion of only 7 per cent of the national income. Their position has not changed very much or, if at all, only for the worse. Somewhere in between are the middle 60 per cent who are trying to climb the slippery slope to security while those at the bottom of the slope are sliding to the ragged edge of poverty.
In my riding as in most other ridings, and I can hardly think of a riding where the picture is different, large numbers of people are concerned about the tax bill. Large numbers of elderly people have come to me saying that this tax bill does nothing for them. Those are the people who helped to build the country. They worked on the roads, on the construction jobs, in plants, offices and factories. They are the ones who raised families and brought up properly our younger people who are now carrying on the work of this country in every field. They
October 1, 1971

saved and scrimped to provide a reasonable measure of comfort and security for their old age, something to which they were entitled as a result of their hard work. Today, under the hammer blows of repeated increases in the cost of living, they find themselves defenceless. Actually, many, many of them have come to me, as no doubt they have come to other hon. members, asking what they can do in order to keep their homes for which they sacrificed so much and which many of them could not secure for many years because they had not accumulated the tiny savings which allowed them to obtain those homes. Now, those savings have shrunk almost to vanishing point. Yet those same tiny savings prevent those elderly people from applying for the guaranteed income supplement. What are they to do? Those who talk to me remind me of people who have had a terrible blow. They are weak from shock. They cannot believe that this government is not ready with programs that will help them. So, they wait and wait and wait, and many of them finish out their lives still waiting. Those who remain cannot believe that the government does not intend to help them.
The same situation applies to our veterans in my riding, and in every other riding of this country. The rising cost of living has robbed them of that dignity and security to which they had a right as men and women who had risked everything for their country. They have asked for help to meet those conditions for which they are not responsible and they have been sent away with empty hands.
So it is for those other thousands of people who must live on small pensions and fixed incomes. This bill ought to have provided them with the means of living out the rest of their lives in the dignity and comfort which they have the right to expect. By taxing those at the upper levels of income as they should have been taxed, that is, on the basis of their ability to pay as recommended by the Carter report and on the basis of fairness and justice, this government could have secured revenues to make possible a large measure of security for those on low incomes. There is no need for me to review the figures. A number of my colleagues have already done so.
Harsh measures are understandable when they are needed. People understand that they are needed and will put up with them. Yet, people will not put up with unfair measures that discriminate against those who are in the low income brackets. During the second world war, when Britain was desperately fighting against Hitler, the British authorities knew that if the war against Hitler was to be won, harsh measures had to be imposed on everybody according to their ability to bear those measures. That was done. If we could do that in these difficult times, the government would be a great deal happier and have to resort much less to semantics than it has at present. After all, it could depend on the good will of the people of the country and impose whatever harsh measures are necessary. What the people will not forgive, Mr. Speaker, is comfort for the elite but misery for those in the lower income brackets.
The least this government ought to do now is amend this bill in order to secure sufficient extra revenue with which to review all government pensions and allowances with a view to establishing a floor at a level consistent with a modern standard of living. All pensions and allowances should then be set in relation to that level, and none
Income Tax Act
should be permitted to sink below it. An escalator clause should be built into the new program, with provision for proper review in accordance with increasing living costs. That, I suggest, ought to have been envisaged in this tax bill and provision made for it.
My colleague, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) has advocated a program of "Opportunities for Age". I endorse it heartily. In my opinion, its foremost objective should be the provision of sufficient income to permit elderly people to be properly nourished, to have a comfortable place to live, to have the wherewithal with which to buy the drugs they need and the little comforts that are so necessary and, above all, to have the opportunity to hold their heads high against the meanness and indignity of handouts.
It should be the same for veterans and their families. Frankly, I am completely sickened by watching the penny pinching that goes on, especially when some of these people who need help come to see me, like the veteran's widow. So urgently was she in need of assistance that she was willing to have her husband's body exhumed, because she hoped to prove that she was entitled to a little more help as a result of the sacrifices he had made in his war service. It is this sort of situation, repeated over and over again in essence, that makes me less and less enchanted with this tax bill, the provisions of which bear so lightly on the wealthy and crack down so heavily on the poor.
Actually, of course, we should have a floor under income for every individual and family in Canada. Several years ago we had reached the point where not only sociologists and government officials, but also cabinet ministers and, at one point I believe, even the Prime Minister, were playing with the idea. However, with their usual expedition in these matters, the wealthy got to the government first with the "most" and this tax bill is the result. It has been left to the New Democratic government in Manitoba to go ahead with a pilot project to demonstrate the feasibility of the guaranteed income. I trust that this federal government will at least be willing to co-operate in providing a large portion of the necessary funds for this project of great social significance. Actually, the NDP government has had to provide a great deal of the leadership which this government has followed belatedly. I am referring to 20 years of experimental projects carried on under the CCF government in Saskatchewan which was the forerunner of the NDP. From those programs this government picked up some of its ideas. It is making a belated attempt to carry out some of those programs in a much more attenuated form.
Much is made of the fact that the tax bill now before us will remove about one million people from the tax rolls. That big figure is calculated to look impressive and to underline the government's generosity towards those on low income. However, let us examine this proposal. My colleague, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) referred in his speech to the long years of promises in which we were told that we were to have real tax reform when the government finally got around to it. My colleague asked the question-and this is not particularly with reference to the one million taken off the tax rolls but the people above that level-how real are the tax benefits in this bill for most Canadians? He calculated that in terms of their effect on income, the tax proposals

October 1, 1971
Income Tax Act
for most people represent a yearly saving of about $100. This would amount to $25 each for a family of four or, reduced to less astronomical terms, approximately 50 cents a week each. How far will this go in meeting the grocery bill when the cost of living is increasing month by month? When the ordinary citizen starts thinking about Canada's natural wealth, productive capacity and the income of the not inconsiderable numbers of the elite in this country, he will begin to wonder.
I wish now to deal with the one million people to be removed from the tax rolls. Why are they being removed? The simple reason is that they do not receive enough income to pay any taxes. What greater indictment of the policies of this government could be found? One million Canadians will be removed from the tax rolls because they do not receive enough income to pay income tax. The people being removed from the tax rolls will still have to pay all kinds of other taxes such as sales tax, which bears most heavily on those with the least income. In addition to their lack of income, these people are now going to suffer a great wrong. A democracy is supposed to be a country in which all the people take part in the affairs of that country. The ability to pay taxes means that one has a stake in how the country is run and participates effectively, according to a proper share of one's income in carrying on the activities of the country. Because they have so little income, one million Canadians will have lost that right. They will have been shunted aside as surplus to the mainstream of life in Canada just as surely as many others have been shunted aside before them, those with insufficient income. Thousands and thousands of young people have apparently been shunted aside forever as far as this government is concerned because they are considered surplus to the mainstream in Canada at this time. In my view, getting enough income to live properly and still have enough money to pay taxes should be a basic right of every citizen.
There are certain features of this tax bill which represent an improvement over the present situation, such as the $500 allowance for child care, the provision of up to $150 a year to enable a wage earner to equip himself for his job and the increased exemptions for individuals and dependents. However, in comparison with the benefits provided for those in higher income levels, these improvements, welcome as they will be, pale into insignificance.
When we know that the cost of proper child care is several times the $500 allotted by the tax bill, we realize how much better off a person is whose taxes taper off as he reaches the higher levels of income where there is plenty of money available for proper child care. When we know that business executives and self-employed people are permitted almost unlimited deductions for expenses incurred as a result of their occupation, the $150 allowed the wage earner for equipment appears insignificant indeed. When we realize that many still on the tax rolls are below the poverty level determined by the Economic Council of Canada, while many others who have acquired great wealth can transfer this to relatives or friends without paying either a gift or inheritance tax, we can only ask: Whatever happened to the idea of the Just Society? How can the government justify a policy which permits

the handing over of accumulated wealth to those who have not done anything to earn it while the ordinary wage earner must pay tax on every cent he earns, apart from his deductions?
Speaking of exemptions, this party deplores the government's rejection of the Carter commission's finding that it is more fair and just to provide tax relief in the form of tax credits than through increased exemptions. A system of exemptions provides a greater benefit to those in the higher income brackets than those in the lower ones. Tax credits, on the other hand, provide the same benefit to all. In the hands of a government anxious to help those in lower income brackets, tax credits could be designed to give greater benefit to those whose need is greatest. However, this government at every turn insists on giving proof of the observation in the Bible that "To him who hath shall be given and from him who hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." This government is adept at trying to squeeze out the last drop of blood and cut off the last pound of flesh from the have-nots. The have-nots are beginning to find out the truth, even though they have been led to believe the contrary from the propaganda that this government has been turning out in such vast amounts ever since it has been elected. People all across this country are beginning to notice the way in which this government favours the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the small taxpayer. They are beginning to resent a taxation system that permits large commercial interests to pay only 50 per cent tax on their capital gains while small savers, without much left to go on, must pay 100. per cent tax rates on the small amounts they have been able to lay aside.
I wish to read a pungent comment by a woman taxpayer in Gloucester County, New Brunswick. One does not think of New Brunswick as being a place which fosters radicals in vast numbers, but this woman has hit the nail right on the head. She writes:
Apparently, there is no provision whatever to encourage the small saver. It is mostly certain that a capital gains tax will be introduced. Thus, a person receiving a gain in shares, for example $100.00 will be taxed on half of the amount, that is, on $50.00 only. However, the small investor, due to lack of knowledge about shares, or because he is just too poor to risk his money on the stock market, usually invests in Canada Savings Bonds or handles a savings account in a bank. However, if this person receives, for example, $100.00 in interest, he is subjected to pay income tax on the full amount at full personal rate. It is definitely unfair and illogical! Is this the fair taxation system preconized by the Trudeau Government?
I suggest it will take many months of communication on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government to convince this woman and thousands like her that this tax bill is heading toward the Just Society. They know where it is heading. It is heading in exactly the opposite direction.
One of the positively bad features of this tax bill was dealt with at some length by my colleague, the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton). I want to deal with it briefly now. I refer to the unfair way in which the tax bill bears down on co-operatives and credit unions. Although members of co-operatives pay full tax on dividends received and full tax on retained earnings, previous tax measures levied on them in addition a 3 per cent tax for capital employed. This tax has now been increased to
October 1, 1971

5 per cent under the terms of the new bill. Surely, this is not the action of a government which genuinely believes in participatory democracy. Co-operatives and credit unions are among the few business organizations where the members carry on their affairs-and membership is open to all-for the sole purpose of providing goods and services at cost on a non-profit basis and whose operations are directed solely by those who use them. At this time when we are threatened by the growth of huge commercial monopolies, home-grown and foreign, it is dismaying to find the government introducing policies whose effect will be to restrict if not seriously damage these co-operative institutions which have proved themselves capable of surviving and standing up to the practices of private business.
It seems to me that if the government were serious about providing ways and means of developing Canadian identity, Canadian strength and the Canadian economy, it should not choose this moment in which to find ways of wiping out or seriously endangering the life of organizations which have proven themselves capable of standing up to the commercial private monopolies which in their most monopolistic form come from the other side of the border.
There are many other features of the tax bill with which I should like to deal individually, but this can be done during the clause by clause study. I have tried to explain some of the reasons I must oppose this tax bill on general principle. As hon. members will gather, I do so for two main reasons. First, the bill is unjust, and, in the second place, it is self-defeating in that it widens the gap between the haves and the have-nots with all the surrounding implications of waste and inefficiency. To sum up, the bill reminds me of the story of the small boy who came home crying from school. When his mother asked him what had happened he told her he had been punished for telling a lie. "But Johnny," his mother said, "you knew it was wrong to tell a lie." "Yes," he sobbed, "I knew it was wrong. But it was worse than that. It didn't work." That is the size of this tax bill. It is not only wrong, but it won't work.
The people of this country have been led to believe that the government would reform the taxation system to make it more just and more efficient. They have been patient. They realized that the government had problems of all kinds with which to deal. But they had confidence. They believed the government would honour its undertaking to introduce a taxation measure which would lead toward a more just and more fair society. They have been deceived on both counts. You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. The New Democratic Party and its supporters throughout the country have never been fooled by this government's protestations about wanting a just society. Every bit of their legislation takes from the poor and gives to the rich as far as it is possible so to do by act of Parliament. The people of this country we run into from one province to another, the people who were well-wishers and boosters of the government are beginning now to forget about the rhetoric, the charisma, the halos and the flood of government propa-
Income Tax Act
ganda which goes out through every one of the media and are starting to look at the actual measures which are being ground out by the legislative mill.
The House has recently been considering one clear example. All the farmers of western Canada, all three Prairie governments all the farm organizations, have said: we do not want the legislation which is being put forward. The government has insisted that papa knows better. But papa will not get away with it in this instance. Papa does not know best. The farmers know what they want and they are determined to get it. Similarly, the taxpapers generally know what they will put up with and what they will not put up with. The bill before us is another piece of pure evidence of unjust, unfair and unworkable policies. This is why I shall vote against this measure, and I am confident that more and more of the Canadian people share my point of view.


Mr. McBride:: Will the hon. member permit a question? I followed her speech with much interest. She said the government had promised a bill which would be more just and more fair. Is it her opinion and the opinion of her party that the bill is, in fact, less just and less fair than the present tax system? After all, it is one thing to talk about an Utopian ideal. I ask the concrete question: are we making a significant step in the right direction? Everyone realizes there is always room for improvement; we live in an imperfect society, and we realize that the tax bill is not a perfect one. But is it, in fact, less just and less fair than the present system?


Winona Grace MacInnis: The people of this country are not interested in hair-splitting of that kind.


Murray Arndell McBride: It is not hair-splitting.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I am speaking for the people in my constituency. The people in my constituency are not interested in finding out whether this bill is one inch better than the last. They are interested in the policies of a Prime Minister who said he intended to bring about a just taxation system, who led them to believe that the recommendation in the Carter Report that taxation should be levied in accordance with ability to pay was to be implemented. These proposals crack down on the poor, who are heavily taxed as compared with the wealthy. I shall not argue about whether this measure is better than the present act in one particular or another. There are some respects in which it may be an improvement. But basically it is not what was promised.


Murray Arndell McBride: Is there any area where it is not an improvement. Is this a step forward or not?


Winona Grace MacInnis: The hon. member has my answer. It is not what was promised, and I am not interested in weighing whether it is better or worse in some of its particulars.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I wonder whether, having regard to the closeness of the luncheon adjournment, we could call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: The opposition forces us to "blow" a good deal of time. I do not see why we should "blow" another ten minutes.

October 1, 1971
Income Tax Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Obviously there is not unanimous consent. I recognize the hon. member for Frontenac-Len-nox and Addington.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I rise to speak in this debate in ominous and perilous national circumstances. Canada, as this House and all its citizens know, is in a perilous economic and social position. Recent headlines tell us, for example, that 42 per cent of the gross national product goes for taxes. At this rate, no citizen in the category of the average Canadian can protect his or her solvency with any assurance of success. At the present rate of drain on the economy through taxation no business can be assured of freedom to function, of being able to employ the labour it usually requires, of being able to take care of its load of overhead and inventory and hope for a profit at the end of the year.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), his cabinet and the administration in general will go down in history in a surge of superlatives. First, the Canadian people will tag them as the most expensive; second, as the most careless of the Canadian general good; third, as the most arrogant; fourth as the government that accomplished the least at the greatest expense to the taxpayer. Then this morning, Mr. Speaker, we had evidence that they will also be tagged the "captains of confusion", as shown by the affair exposed this morning regarding the appointment of parliamentary secretaries, 28 yesterday, 27 today, and the law calls for not more than 26.
The Trudeaumania that swept the country has now turned to Trudeauphobia.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: You will not convince the public of that.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: But the Gallup poll will convince them. After all, the Gallup poll has been an instrument dear to the heart of the Liberal party.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What does the Gallup poll have to say about the Conservative party?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: The Gallup poll proves my statement that Trudeaumania has changed to Trudeauphobia. As I say, the Gallup poll is an instrument dear to the Liberal party and has been frequently abused by them in the past to attain their own power-seeking ends. According to a Gallup poll published in the Montreal Star on September 22:
Mr. Trudeau's economic policies may well cause him some trouble at the next federal election, for, to date, the voting public is not impressed with them. Little more than one in ten-


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. parliamentary secretary rising on a point of order?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Would the hon. member permit a question, either now or at the conclusion of his remarks?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I will deal with the questions at the end of my speech, Mr. Speaker.
Little more than one in ten (13 per cent) believe they are sound, while twice as many (27 per cent) claim they are not. Less than

half the electorate (47 per cent) give them the faint praise of calling them fairly sound.
Moreover, it is among the largest segment of the working force, labour, where the greatest criticism lies, as only one in ten believes they have been good-but three times as many are very critical. Executives and professional men and women, are more inclined to describe them as fair than other segments.
That attests to what a poll reveals when the man in the factory, the man behind the plough and the man in the street is interviewed.
I had planned to bring a copy of Bill C-259 to my desk in the House, Mr. Speaker; not that I had intended to read parts of it to the House, but rather to remind me that this government continues to confuse quantity with quality. All of us can remember the ballyhoo and the fanfare that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) engaged in when he inflicted this so-called tax reform bill on this Parliament. I am reminded of my childhood days when circuses were in vogue, or at least more so than they are today. When a circus was due to arrive in my town, or a town nearby, we were alerted to the fact by what was called the advance man. This advance man swept into town with a great flourish and in no time at all he had all of us entranced. He pasted up posters and handed out a few free tickets. We held our breath while he talked of the elephants and the bearded ladies and the tallest or the strongest man on earth. More often than not, the spiel was better than the circus. Very often we learned that the elephant caught the flu and had to be left behind in Peoria. And sometimes the tallest man on earth lost his balance and we discovered that he was wearing stilts under his trousers.
What I am trying to say is that the Minister of Finance is the best advance man I have ever seen in this House. I am often entranced by his spiel, but I have found so far that his predictions and ballyhoo are better than his circus. In respect of Bill C-259, I must admit that the finance minister did not deceive us on one fundamental point. He did not say that there was anything of any great significance in this bill, at least not in the beginning. He told us that the combined budget-tax reform package weighed about 30 pounds. He told us that, to his knowledge, it was the heaviest package of legislation ever tabled in this House.
In my opening statement I mentioned the fact that I had planned to bring my copy into the House. However, I had second thoughts when I heard the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle) say that he had to rest three times when he brought his copy down from the fifth floor. I would have had to bring mine from the west block, and when you consider how little there is in that weighty volume that is worth while you can understand why I had second thoughts.
Another member of this House has already noted that the finance minister has obviously failed to look up the definition of the word "reform" in the dictionary. The meaning is altogether different from the definition attributed to it by the government. It is equally obvious that the minister has confused the word "reform" with the word "proliferation", which is understandable since the present government is confused on most things. Understandable, Mr. Speaker, but certainly not excusable.
May I call it one o'clock?
October 1, 1971


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair to resume the same at 2 o'clock p.m. At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Just before lunch, Mr. Speaker, we were talking about some of the sins of omission and commission on the part of this government, and some of my remarks aroused criticism from the government benches. I had reference to the arrogance and ineptitude of this government as evidenced by this flouting of the law. Since that time some newspapers have put today's editions on the streets. Let me point out that if the government is otherwise, at least we have an active, fair-minded and enlightened press. Let me read what the press states today regarding the flouting of the law as contained in the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, and the government's precipitant rush to pass Bill C-244 in face of the demands of the country that it pay what it owes the farmers. Today's Globe and Mail states:
The cause of any present obstruction is the government;
The government has been accusing the Official Opposition and all other opposition parties of obstruction, but the Globe and Mail says today that the cause of this obstruction is the government. The Globe and Mail also states:
The government, rather, should deal frankly and conscientiously with the points the opposition has raised with regard to the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. It should accept the law as it is on the books until the law has been changed: a touch of humility would give it an unexpected and refreshingly new complexion.
I believe I made my point just before one o'clock when I referred in no uncertain terms to the government's arrogance toward Parliament and the Canadian people; in this case the arrogance is toward that large and important sector, the wheat growers of western Canada. The Globe and Mail goes on to state:
After that it should get on with the job of facing the real issues that confront and frighten Canadians.
That is why I said at the beginning of my remarks that we are living in ominous and perilous times, which the government seems to completely ignore. We should get on with the real issues that confront and frighten Canadians. These issues are large and important, and they are immediate. The Globe and Mail then states:
What the government does about them will be the real basis on which the country will judge the performance of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau on Parliament Hill.
The Ottawa Journal, which was delivered a few minutes ago, has an article under the heading "Farmers suing Benson for grain funds". This is a fine situation the government has created for Canadians today. The article reads:
The cloud surrounding the Prairie Grains Income Stabilization Act has become a thunderhead.
The farmers seek a writ of mandamus against Finance Minister Edgar Benson, and their application was filed in Regina Wednesday and is to be heard on October 6.
Income Tax Act
I just digressed for a few minutes from the gist of my speech in order to make those points. I was talking about how the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister have confused the word "reform" with the word "proliferation". The Finance Minister and his hirelings have done an excellent job of proliferating in the tax field, just as the Prime Minister is doing a glaringly excellent job in the proliferation of parliamentary secretaries as of yesterday and today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: A very worthy group.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: The government have touched on virtually every aspect of taxation, but they have settled nothing. Behind the flurry, behind the smokescreen of alleged reform, we see that the same people will carry the tax burden. True, a million and half people will be relieved of some of that tax burden, but they were not in the first place the ones who were carrying the main load.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Five and a half million.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: So we see that the people in the categories above those who will now be relieved will carry that burden, and indeed a greater burden. We see that instead of true reform, the government will be taking a still larger bite out of those who are told by the government that they will be spared.
The Finance Minister is quick to state that some one and a quarter million taxpayers will be removed from the taxrolls under the proposed tax reforms in Bill C-259, and we are told that our magnanimous government itself will stand the loss. We have been told that Big Brother will pick up the tab. This is one area where I would be safe in charging that the Finance Minister has resorted to deception. There is no way in which a spendthrift government like this one would remove a million people from the taxrolls without knowing in advance that at least an equal amount of money would be coming from another source. The clear fact is that a very large percentage of those taxpayers will not be removed from the rolls, and this was pointed out graphically by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in the last session of Parliament.
While the Finance Minister makes much of the increased exemptions for single and married persons, he avoids mentioning the fact that the increased rate of taxation will wipe out that advantage for a large percentage of taxpayers in the lower income brackets.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Nonsense.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: The Finance Minister has also neglected to point out that the new sliding scale of taxation will catch up very soon with another large group of taxpayers within two or three years. Thus, we learn that Big Brother is not picking up the tab at all. We learn that the increased taxes which will flow into the federal coffers will originate from the very same source. We learn that the same people who are paying the shot right now will just keep on paying the shot.
I can understand how the Minister of Finance could stray so far off the path so consistently when he attempts

October 1, 1971
Income Tax Act
to formulate economic and fiscal policies. It is a question of training and experience or the lack of it, and with all due respect to the minister's good intentions he just does not have these attributes or these intentions. The minister is a chartered accountant, and I know very well that he was a competent and successful chartered accountant when he was employed in that milieu. However, we all know that an accountant examines other people's books and checks to see that the fives and the sixes are in the right column and he checks to ensure that the additions and subtractions have been done properly. I would expect that he even checks to see whether or not the figures have been juggled to conceal a fraud. Accountancy is an exact science, and I would be the first to concede that governments, business and industry could not endure without the help of chartered accountants.
However, I suggest it is a far cry from the desk of a chartered accountant to the office of finance minister. In the latter case, the minister is responsible to the people of Canada for a national budget that has now climbed to some $15 billion to run the country for one year I suggest again that it is one thing to check the books of a business or a corporation and yet another thing to formulate policy, and I think the answer comes loudly and clearly in the so-called tax reform package and its companion piece, the budget.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What background does the minister have?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Disenchantment is not felt or
expressed only on this side of the House. The only economist in the cabinet, the former minister of communications, left the government in disgust when he could no longer stomach the futile posturing of the Prime Minister and his so-called geniuses in the economic and related portfolios.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Now, this sounds like Mr. Stanfield's speech.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I am glad that my strong statement is receiving some response, because if it does nothing else it might alert the rank and file of the Liberal party members behind the front benches to becoming more conscious of the dire effects that this cabinet is having upon the economy, the morale and the social welfare of the Canadian people. I suggest that because of the rate at which some of the ministers are spending money-particularly the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand)-the Finance Minister has been instructed to administer the karate chop on any and all Canadians who cannot defend themselves.
I asked yesterday for some assistance for a youth group in my riding which is in financial difficulty and which is doing a good job in its work among youth in one particular community in the south of my riding. However, I was told that the money was all gone. It did not take long for funds allotted for that purpose to completely disappear, did it?
The ever expanding spending spree, particularly in Quebec, must be matched by an ever-expanding tax bite; that is only a natural thing. The more they spend the more they have to demand from the Canadian people, and all the finance minister's protestations to the contrary, we

are witnessing the most sinister and menacing tax bite in the history of North America. Compared with the incredibly expensive war in which the United States is involved at present-their government has cut personal income taxes twice in the last three years-compared with the serious economic problems faced by the United States, we in Canada should find it easy to make adjustments in our tax laws in order to help the people who are working but who are earning less than they need to live properly. You will notice that I did not say "to live comfortably" although I cannot see why it is so difficult to ensure that most Canadians are able to live comfortably.
At this point I should like to draw the government's attention to a parable which appears in a number of places in the New Testament and which is familiar to most if not all members of the House. I refer to the parable which I paraphrase as follows: "You have done those things that you ought not to have done, and you have not have done those things that you ought to have done". This parable attempts to convey to all men that it is often, if not always, just as easy to neglect the things that you ought to do as it is to do the things that you know to be wrong.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is far clearer in the Bible.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: In other words, sins or crimes of omission are just as serious as sins or crimes of commission. When one is charged with a responsibility, such as the responsibility to govern, then it is a serious offence against all the people being governed when a government neglects to do everything in its power to ensure equality of opportunity, equality of justice and obedience to the statutes.
When the Prime Minister was campaigning throughout Ontario this past summer he remarked that politics was fun. In the case of the Prime Minister it may well be that politics is a ball, a real gas, as the saying goes. But I say to him that while he is having a ball there are millions of Canadians who are living at or below the poverty line. While he is having a ball I would point out to him that there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians unemployed. He knows that. Lately, he is beginning to realize it. And every day a larger percentage of them is running out of unemployment insurance benefits. I am sure I speak on behalf of all private members of the House when I point out that a great deal of our time every day is spent trying to get unemployment insurance benefits straightened out or obtained on behalf of our constituents. I do not hear any contradiction of that statement, and so I am sure all hon. members have had this experience.


Mr. Osier:: Will the hon. member permit a question, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member knows that a question has to be allowed by the hon. member who has the floor.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, when I have finished the time that you have allotted to me then I will deal with questions.
October 1, 1971

While the Prime Minister is laughing, inflation is once again getting out of hand. I would also say that with this latest ploy on the part of the government to hide the problem behind a smokescreen, and I refer to this 30 pounds of tax reform legislation, the tax burden remains right where it has always been.
With Your Honour's indulgence I should like to quote from the motion moved on September 13 by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert):
This House, deeply concerned with unacceptable levels of inflation, persisting unemployment and stagnant industry and conscious of the necessity for meaningful tax reform, declines to give second reading to a bill which does not provide sufficient stimulus to the economy of Canada with appropriate tax cuts and incentives, does not contain adequate tax exemptions and is not calculated to materially improve business and labour conditions in Canada now or in the foreseeable future.
This is a serious indictment of what the Minister of Finance has called the heaviest piece of legislation ever tabled in this House. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that this is not tax reform but rather tax juggling. It is a serious offence against the public trust vested in the Minister of Finance to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps millions of dollars, on a long series of futile manoeuvres leading up to what we are told is a tax reform package.
A few days ago the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) noted in his speech that all the discussion about Tax reform started with the Royal Commission on Taxation called the Carter Commission, from which flowed the Carter report. Then, we were introduced with much fanfare to the government's white paper on tax reform. I would like to inject a comment here concerning the white paper on taxation. Hon. members on this side of the House, and more than a few on the government side, will remember with some little satisfaction that the Minister of Finance was thoroughly roasted by a few segments of the population when he went to the people with that particular gem, and the white paper was truly a gem. After the white paper was referred to a committee of the other place as well as to a committee of this House, it was reported upon. These reports were appended to the white paper, along with reams of representations from individuals and groups throughout Canada. Presumably this massive accumulation of data was sent to the same group of experts who, over the past three years, produced those budgets that have so effectively stagnated the Canadian economy.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, the casual onlooker would immediately exclaim, "I know what happened next. The whole package was fed into the furnace, and the Finance Minister started all over again." Not a bit of it, Mr. Speaker. That is what one would naturally assume, but the Minister of Finance had learned by then that he had the Canadian people squarely on the rack. All he had to do was to turn the wheel and the cries of anguish would rise to a beautiful crescendo. The Minister of Finance knew without a doubt that he had created a monster equally as bad as any of his previous budgets. He had here a tax reform bill that was devoid of reforms. He had here a tax bill that was devoid of any of the measures that the country needs so desperately at this time-tax cuts, increases in exemptions, and a removal of the crippling 11
Income Tax Act
per cent sales tax on building materials, among other things.
I am also reminded that the Minister of Finance was smilingly complacent last year and the year before when the Official Opposition warned repeatedly in this House that the government's fiscal policies, or the lack of them, were cooling the national economy at an alarming rate. When questioned about the danger of fighting inflation by deliberately creating a high level of unemployment, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister both said that they could and would accept a much higher level of unemployment in order to beat inflation. We now have the highest level of unemployment in more than a decade, and inflation is still very much with us. In fact it is still climbing. Considering the dismal record compiled by the Minister of Finance in managing the national economy, it is easy for me to understand how he could put his stamp of approval on this monstrosity, Bill C-259.
In the last few days another development has come to light which will make it imperative for the federal government to wring still more taxes out of the wage earners in the provinces that are self-supporting, such as Ontario and a few others. Thank God we do have some provinces which are self-supporting. I just wonder if the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance knew in advance of the announcement by the welfare minister of the province of Quebec that he has dusted off one of the old Duplessis canards, specifically that his province would pay a premium to families with large numbers of children. The idea is that a married couple should be encouraged to have a large family whether or not they can afford it, and where necessary their annual income would be guaranteed at a level that at least would permit them to survive. I mention this, Mr. Speaker, because the money would obviously have to come from taxpayers in other parts of Canada. At a time when Quebec is already getting a disproportionate amount of tax revenues from other provinces in equalization payments, this scheme cannot be allowed to go into operation without full debate on the issue in this House.
The Quebec government says that it is launching the scheme in order to off-set the decline in the birth rate among French Canadian families in that province, and that there is a danger that the decline will result in a lower proportion of French Canadians to other Canadians in future years. Whatever the Quebec government chooses to do in order to increase the birth rate of French Canadians is its own business, but when such schemes are financed with revenues of other provinces, when such schemes are financed with taxes from Canadians who live and work in other parts of Canada, then they become the business of this House. I strongly condemn the government for not giving us notice that the Quebec government had decided to take this selfish and unilateral step.
The point I am making is that the amount provided in family allowances should be comparative and equal in different parts of Canada. The severity of the tax load should fall in an equitable way on the shoulders of all Canadians, and the tax revenues paid out by the federal government should be paid out in an equitable way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I hope the derision from the other side of the House explains my point.

October 1, 1971
Income Tax Act
Still on the subject of taxes, Mr. Speaker, I wonder how much longer the people of Canada are going to accept the present government's policies with respect to language training and the imposition of the French language on aspects of Canadian life far removed from the French fact. Reference has been made on numerous occasions to Brockville and Landsdowne. I live just west of that district but I will pass on to some other aspects. French language aspects of Canadian life seem rather far removed from the French fact. Reports that come to us almost daily convince me that morale in the federal public service has never been lower in the history of the service, and it is largely due to the destruction of the public service merit system in order to accommodate French Canadians, both inside and outside the service.
The Chairman of the Public Service Commission has long ago destroyed his credibility and the objectivity of his office by going along with the government's policy to bring French Canadians into the public service in large numbers, whether or not they are qualified to hold the jobs they are given, and whether or not English Canadians are displaced arbitrarily to accommodate the newcomers. There are cases of people resigning from the public service after more than 20 years service rather than to be shunted aside, and in many cases subjected to abuse by new supervisors who have been parachuted into the service in senior positions. There are cases, and they are increasing daily, where promotion boards are now composed entirely of French Canadians, and where French Canadians are given an advantage when they appear before the boards for promotion.
One might argue that this is against the merit principle, and that it is in fact against the law. Of course, this is not the first time that this government has flouted the law. When an English Canadian is denied a promotion that he or she has earned-I am just using the term English Canadian here for want of a better description, I do not really mean English born, but English speaking-


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Anglophone.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: That is a much abused and favourite word of the Liberal party. There is provision for appealing the promotion to the board. This sounds like a valid and logical answer to the problem, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately even the appeal system in the public service has broken down. Resort to it is, in most cases, the best way to ensure that you will be barred forever from promotion. In other words, if you appeal the promotion it is the kiss of death for further promotion. In some cases, people who appeal promotion board decisions have their jobs declared redundant. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics is being converted to a French department, and there is so much unrest, so much dissention and so much animosity being generated in DBS over the French-English issue that I plan to undertake a thorough examination of the situation with some of my colleagues. There are things going on in DBS that would make the infamous situation in the National Museums Branch in the past few months look like child's play.
Many years ago I worked for the Bureau of Statistics on: the 1931 census and of course that dates me. We had no
(Mr. Alkenbrack.]
such trouble then. Over 3,000 people were in our office for a period starting in the summer of 1930 until the end of 1931. The Dominion statistician was Mr. R. H. Coates, a man who served Canada well and long. I recall that my supervisor was named Lemieux and came from around Montreal. We worked two at a desk and my seatmate was a boy from Lac St. Jean in Quebec. He spoke very little English and I spoke a little high school French but during the time we were employed he taught me French and I taught him English. There was a spirit of harmony in that office and we got a lot of work done. There was no French-English question and no bilinqual or unilingual contention either.
I am deeply disturbed about what is being done to our public service and to the Canadian Armed Forces by some of the ministers across the floor, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) in particular. This is tax money we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, taxes collected from every part of this country and from Canadians of every ethnic origin that one can name. It is time we directed some of those funds and some of our efforts to Canada and to Canadians, and forgot about hyphens. I am not a hyphenated Canadian, and I do not accept the superficial and outdated concept of hyphenated Canadians. I do not need a hyphen in my name to preserve or retain my identity. If my identity were so fragile that I had to embrace artificiality or superficiality in order to preserve it, I would stop and take a good look' at just what it was that I was trying to preserve. If the present government would take the advice it is feeding the country hourly on the radio stations and start thinking Canadian, then perhaps we would start to get somewhere.
I have one more word for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down. If Bill C-259 is the best he can salvage from the lengthy and costly process the government has followed for the past two years, then I think it is time he looked around for a job that better suits his talents. I would suggest that he try to get a job as advance man for a circus, a small circus. It would not pay as well as his present job, but I am sure that he would find it most satisfying and it would be honest employment. The minister would be able to start out with a backlog of the hoopla and ballyhoo he has employed over the years trying to sell his budgets to this House and to Canadians who are forced to pay for his experiments in economic planning. If the finance minister would step down, Mr. Speaker, we might get lucky and have the present cabinet resign en masse.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Order, please. I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. Is the hon. parliamentary secretary rising on a point of order?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before lunch the hon. member indicated that he would accept a question. I am sure he would not want to renege on that and I am sure the House would give him the opportunity.


George Harris Hees: His time has expired.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member , knows that he requires the unanimous consent of the House to ask a question if the time allotted to the hon.
October 1, 1971

member has expired. Unless the House gives unanimous consent the question cannot be put. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Harris Hees: His time has expired.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: You are not very confident that he can handle it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. There is not unanimous consent and all the Chair can do is call upon the next speaker, the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe).


Mr. Forrestall:: If there had been more than one minister in the House we would have allowed it-I am sorry there are two ministers.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity this afternoon of making some comments on the amendment under study and on the tax reform proposals of the government.
The true solutions to economic problems have not been found yet, and the proposed tax reform is not satisfactory to us. Canadians are not only asking for increases in taxes but for a fairer distribution of such taxes. They are not asking for distribution at the expense of the average wage earners, as is the case under the present fiscal system, but for a fair tax table for all.
Every citizen now knows, especially hon. members, that there are two tax tables: one to protect one sector of the population, the upper society, and the other to apply to the low and medium income people in order to deprive them of their purchasing power. The government is making the middle class, those earning $7,000 or more a year bear 75 per cent of the burden.
Former rules have lead us to the present situation, to this economic unbalance where wealthy people continue to grow richer to the detriment of the poor who become more and more destitute and miserable. The past does not exist anymore; the future of Canada is now in the making. The present is now, not yesterday nor tomorrow. Let us not forget the story of Lot's wife who was turned into a pillar of salt because she looked back while the other members of the family were moving ahead toward freedom and the horn of plenty.
Let me point out that a grievous lack comes with this wonderful progress, and it is getting urgent to correct it in order to avoid the disasters which are likely to be irreparable if we do not immediately take the obviously needed steps.
Modern progress that helped increase production and capitalization must now take a sharp turn toward progress in correlation with consumer spending, distribution of purchasing power, necessarily bearing in mind the essential needs of each Canadian, while we plan the expansion of production and capitalization of large corporations in Canada.
Income Tax Act
The solution is not to be found in excessive taxation that deprives taxpayers of 50 per cent of their purchasing power.
Promises, hopes, wishes, words, legislation, numerous surveys, white papers or slogans, which have been costing millions of dollars, are not what the people want, but fair distribution of the tremendous annual production in Canada according to the needs of all those who live in Canada, and then, according to the merits of the Canadians who work. To make all those things possible, the cost of living must be reduced through tax cuts, and not through galoping increases that ruin the builders of this country as fast as they develop it to satisfy the voracious appetite of a few financiers who callously take over everything.
They speak about a just society, a united Canada, about fight against poverty, but by means of legislative measures they very often produce something aimed at reducing the purchasing power of the people and increasing the cost of living, the prices, the interest rates on capital and on wages. By means of legislative tactics they boost the income of individuals and companies whose financial position is already satisfactory and they further deteriorate the situation of those without sufficient income or without any income at all.
That is the real picture and there are nevertheless all kinds of increases in all sectors of the economy. Since interest rates are so high, since during the last years, and especially during the last decade, the government has sold bonds to the banks, in view of the fact that those banks have taken over the powers of the Bank of Canada in order to sell those bonds back to the government and receive cash in return, although this did not cost them anything, considering we pay $2 billion in interest a year to service the public debt, the government should immediately introduce legislation to lower the cost of servicing the public debt to $1 billion by redeeming all bonds issued at excessively high interest rates, thus saving the Canadian people $1 billion in interest on the public debt. With this $1 billion, we could solve many of the problems affecting the Canadian people. We could solve unemployment by undertaking extensive public works, not by increasing taxes but quite simply by lowering interest rates, redeeming bonds through the Bank of Canada and paying reasonable interest rates instead of the extravagant rates which we now pay. It does not make sense to spend $2 billion in interest on public debt in a country like Canada, with a population of only 22 million.
The federal government proposed amendments to the present tax system in order to eliminate serious injustices while continuing to promote economic growth. I have here an article from La Presse which reports comments made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene). This minister is responsible, honest with himself and with his beliefs that all Canadians should have an adequate standard of living. I quote:
When the federal government proposed to amend the existing tax structure to eliminate serious injustices while continuing to promote economic growth, the only response came from those who felt they were affected by these amendments.
The minister, who was addressing accountants of the oil industry in western Canada, noted that according to the Carter report, 70 per cent of the tax burden in Canada was placed upon those citizens earning less than $7,000 annually. Sometimes, he added,

October 1, 1971
Income Tax Act
large companies with no financial problems do not pay any corporate income tax. The government was hoping that its white paper on tax reform would create a lot of interest in several sectors, but only the mighty voiced their opinions.
-those who earn less than $7,000 a year, those to whom Mr. Carter's opinion and the white paper would have been the most profitable-
That voice remained silent or very weak. The debate remained a purely academic one, which can result in one-way decisions; without the participation of the expert in such a field, namely the producer, Mr. Greene added, there can be no balance in the decision process.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, where is the balance mechanism? We must find a way to establish it, otherwise the whole society will break up into small groups with conflicting interests, pulling in opposite directions and going against each other.
To overcome difficulties, we must get back to the technical and moral values that have already been tested in the taxation field. Every citizen should know that work is the normal source of wealth. It is the excess of production over consumption that represents new capital; steady savings lead to sufficiency, security and real independence. Is it not desirable that a large number of young people should be willing to enjoy life according to such a marvelous formula? So that young people may be able to save money, let us not at least take away from them 50 per cent of their earnings. As for credit, it is a tremendously efficient invention, but it is also a double-edged instrument. To borrow in order to produce becomes a benefit for the national community, although the high interests increase the cost of products and consequently the cost of living.
But such is not the case anymore. When unbounded borrowing goes on for unproductive consumption purposes, when governments borrow in all kinds of way, especially on the bonds market, at excessive rates of interest, when they buy back bonds issued at a 2 or 3 per cent interest, in order to pay 8 or 9 per cent, there is no logic in that. Unfortunately the Canadian government is doing such things in order to make the rich richer, to the detriment of poor people.
They redeem bonds because they were not able to pay for them. If they were not able to pay for 3 per cent bonds, can one believe that they will be more able to pay 9 and 10 per cent as was done recently in order to pay for old debts?
A hole is dug only to fill up another one. The best means to fight inflation effectively is to revert to tried moral values such as devotion to duty, thrift, efficiency, rather than to save only in favour of government, school boards, municipalities. One must save for himself in order to develop one's heritage, build his own house and manage to pay for it. When people save only for government and large public enterprises, have no dwelling but the street or build houses at interest rates of 9 or 10 per cent, or pay for such houses four or five times their worth over a period of some 30 years, this is neither logical nor normal for a government. Such a state of affairs cannot last indefinitely, for the ferments of revolt are already showing up.
How can we find solutions to problems whose nature has not yet been diagnosed? We do not know where the problem lies. People work here and there or do this and

that, but everything is being done besides the real issue. We have not yet managed to diagnose the problems, yet that would be so easy. It is quite easy to find out that production involves no problems.
Considering that the surplus production will amount to $41 billion by 1971, the buying power is obviously not high enough, is not distributed to the right people namely to the true consumers. There lies the problem and not elsewhere. We should not try to produce more since we already produce too much for our population.
It is not a production problem which needs to be solved but a distribution problem. Interest rates on the capital held by millionaires are increased. They are being paid 7 per cent instead of 5 per cent, that is $20,000 more per $1 million per year. I say 7 per cent but it is rather 8, 9 or even 10 per cent. Anyway, it was only an example I wanted to quote.
Mr. Speaker, we should avoid taxing even more our taxpayers and mainly the poorest and we should not increase the salaries of the best paid people: those earning $50,000 per year are granted $75,000; those earning $35,000 per year are granted $45,000; those earning $26,000 per year are granted $35,000 while the postmen who earn only $6,500 per year are granted $8,000. It is hoped problems will be solved by increasing salaries and taxes to meet the inadmissible commitments that exist in Canada today and the only result is to increase the cost of living for everybody. Meanwhile, pensioners, housewives and more than 13 million citizens without income have to pay more for all necessities. That is not how to solve the problem.
At the same time, salaries and interest rates have increased.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, some 9 million citizens are deriving increasingly large annual incomes from salaries and interest and more than 13 million are victims of the rising cost of living, without their obtaining any increase in the income which is being doled out to them in driblets by welfare officers.
I am not accusing anyone. I am merely showing the flagrant and obvious results of our economic policy which goes back to approximately 1944, the end of World War II, the Bretton Woods agreement, the inception of family allowances that have remained at the same level for 25 years.
Now, we are trying to reform family allowances but this will only reduce the present purchasing power because less money will be handed out. In fact, a great number of children of a certain age will no longer receive family allowances while others will be receiving more, but at any rate the government will be reducing the purchasing power. That is one of the tax reform proposals. As to the way these family allowances will be distributed, it is not reassuring at all for those who see the light.
It is obvious to me that there are profound discomforts and that the remedies are readily available.
The ministers and members of this House represent a population of 22 million citizens. They should, if but for a moment, forsake their political allegiance and remember that they too are part of these 22 million Canadians and that all of us, as such, have to endure or enjoy the administration which is reflected in every sphere of socie-
October 1, 1971

ty, whether we live in Montreal, Toronto, Halifax or Vancouver.
Mr. Speaker, what should be done to restore balance to the economy? We have to strike a balance between family and corporate incomes as between taxes and reserves, which is not presently the case. Today, reserves are piling up to the tune of billions of dollars and the organizations which accumulate such reserves are not taxed. No tax is levied on the billions of dollars of accumulated reserves and profits therefrom are also tax free.
A balance must be struck between needs, costs and prices; there is no balance between needs, costs and prices, between employers, workers and dependents; there is no balance between the various classes of society. Above all, there should be a balance between capital, labour and essential right. Here again, there is an imbalance and nobody is really interested in solving this problem.
Briefly, we are witnessing all the uneasiness and seeing in which areas we should act to solve the problems. We must in the first place solve the problem of production, consumption and capitalization.
Here are three things which the Minister of Finance should have taken into account: production, consumption and capitalization. Order and justice should prevail in those areas.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, the effects of the present system are obvious. We see that farms are being abandoned, family businesses are going bankrupt, small towns are dying, the unemployment rate is increasing and poverty is rampant in large cities.
Such are the obvious signs of the impending decline and the total ruin of a system. Yet, we praise the magnificence of its leaders, whose self-complacency is equalled only by their laissez-faire.
The system is collapsing and is dragging everything down to ultimate ruin. But, we refuse to see that. We refuse to heed any benevolent warning. It seems that governments, even those with the best intentions, are content with feverish activity, but always beside the real solutions and the real problems, which they refuse to see.
All leaders talk about increasing production. But we already produce too much, and products are much too expensive as compared with the purchasing power of the population, which live in want and insecurity because it is taxed and overtaxed by governments which at all levels always end up with deficits.
For forty years, since the 1929 crash, we have been seeking solutions to the economic lack of balance in the whole capitalist world. Ten years of recession, five years of war, 25 post-war years, nothing has yet succeeded in opening the eyes of the capitalist world. We have only increased our production, retrained the labour force, brought automation into the industries, and made larger benefits by paying lower wages, employing fewer wage earners, ruining small entreprises, destroying the buying power, upsetting the order established in business and services, in the labour force, in the economic, urban and rural life and in the life of all human beings unable to grasp the unattainable world of capital, shares and bonds.
Income Tax Act
Millions are certainly important in the whole economic life of a nation. But the nation is not made entirely of a few wealthy people, scientists and powerful capitalists, professionals and politicians at the head of the 22 million Canadians who make up the whole of Canada.
Why wait for the present crisis to worsen, for the coming world war which is inevitable in view of the constant skirmishes throughout the world beyond the boundaries of our beautiful country.
Let us gather our wits about us. Let us look around us. We are not alone; there are some 10,000 millionaires in Canada, some 10,000 presidents and directors of the 800 largest companies or millionaire institutions, with or without securities listed on the stock exchange. And even if we were alone, what could we do with our millions of dollars?
Just for one moment, let us imagine that the 7 million Canadian children under 16 have disappeared, that colleges and universities are empty, that our professors are no longer needed, that there are no more unemployed to train, that all the vicars, curates, businessmen and doctors have become unemployed and are seeking decent new jobs.
Inflation, foreign trade, exports and war are no longer sufficient means to satisfy the forbearing and shrewd people who know how to read between the lines. Let us wake up, recover, regain our consciousness and react as soon as possible because, Mr. Speaker, it is high time that we act in a humanitarian way. It is more than high time that we wake up to organize all together a sound economic system where the cost of living would be reduced-


Jean-Luc Pepin: A real earthly paradise!


Henry P. Latulippe: -and where we could compete with other countries.
We could also help Canadians by reducing prices. To reduce them, we must lower interest rates and to do so, we must make loans if we want to achieve full employment.
This can only be done, Mr. Speaker, with massive investment. The Industrial Development Bank is now lending money at 10, 11 and 12 per cent to develop trade. Is it by paying 10 or 12 per cent to the Industrial Bank and more especially the 11 per cent tax on building materials, as well as the 12 per cent excise tax, etc., that we can think of competing on other foreign markets and reducing the cost of living?
These are the areas where reforms should be made. So, I ask the minister, who is really doing his best in the present economic situation, to do all he can to solve present problems.
We should not be content with only routine work or bandaid treatments. We must apply them where they are needed, that is in the distribution. The real disease comes from exorbitant interest rates, from excessive cost of living. Those are the factors that must be restricted in order to restore balance to the economy, which in turn will work out as a corrective measure to solve the real problem.
In 1969, out of a production of 72 billion, it is noted that the consumption is only 44 billion, or 60 per cent, while individuals and corporations can capitalize surpluses of 28 billion, or 40 per cent of the production. However, in

October 1, 1971
Income Tax Act
1971, they will capitalize 50 per cent of the production, which is nonsense. This is where the minister should intervene. There is too much capitalization in relation to the volume of our production and consumption.
On the one hand consumption is too low, and on the other hand capitalization is too high, which results in lack of balance between production, consumption and capitalization. Once again, it is not production which is at fault, and yet all the efforts of our governments are directed at encouraging production, automation, and manpower retraining. As a consequence, we produce more but consumption is low among certain social classes. We refuse to acknowledge the real cause of inflation. We try to produce and export more rather than promote an increase in the purchasing power of the people, who go on living in poverty and insecurity. In fact, about 60 per cent of Canadians are unable to make both ends meet.
When the government attempts to balance its budget it does so at the expense of family budgets. These budgets must show a deficit so that the government's budget be balanced. That is not a logical principle of government, Mr. Speaker.
Therefore I urge hon. members not just to be critical this year and during the coming year. I am not just being critical, I am trying to find what is wrong. We must work in order to reform our inadequate institutions which are all out of kilter. We have to restore normal and sound balance in order to provide Canadians with a decent life within a country which is bursting with great riches.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. jerome: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government House leader announced that Monday's business would be Bill C-244. I think everyone in this House knows that discussions are taking place between the federal agricultural minister and the agricultural ministers of the western provinces. I wish to report to the House-and I have so advised the House leaders opposite-that these discussions may continue. In that case, rather than call the agricultural bill on Monday we will continue with the measure now before the House. The House leader will endeavour to notify opposition House leaders as early as possible on Monday.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray (for Mr. Benson) that Bill C-259, to amend the Income Tax Act and to make certain provisions and alterations in the statute law relating to or consequent upon the amendments to that act, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (p. 7763).
Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I want to

enter the debate today and say a few words about the tax bill on which so far I have been silent, a course of action I thought I might follow to limit debate on this subject. However, I find hon. members on the other side of the House talking on and on and I think it is time something was said about bringing this debate to a close.
It is ten years since the Carter commission was first formed. In that ten-year period there has been a full and complete examination of the taxation system in Canada. We Canadians have gone through a good deal of agony as we have performed one of the most painful of all selfexaminations, that of pulling out our wallets to see the condition they are in. It upsets Canadians. While the examination has been salutary, it is time we got on with the business we set about ten years ago.
We have heard in the last few weeks in the House arguments from members of the Tory party on the evils of taxation. We have heard for many months, if not years, moralizing and inaccuracies from the New Democratic Party on this subject. We have had lectures from the Social Credit Party on monetary theory. I suggest it is time to bring these specious arguments to a close and to get on with the business for which we are here.
This bill is designed to provide alleviation or elimination of tax for about 5.5 million Canadians. I suggest that this alone makes the discussion and the study we have conducted more than worthy to complete consideration of the measure. There are some legitimate arguments to be made about the bill. Matters need discussing in committee. It has been suggested the bill is complex, that it will be difficult to administer and understand. I think that is a legitimate argument and complaint about which we have had full discussion.
I think it is obvious that any tax bill is complex. The people who make such a point are those who never look at taxation bills. They have never tried to understand the complexities that exist in them and the ins and outs that it takes an expert to understand. They are not aware that Canadians who have engaged in the business of advising other Canadians on tax law have had to engage in years of study to become knowledgeable of the law and its loopholes. The basic training of a chartered accountant takes in the neighbourhood of 5, 6 or even 7 years. About the same length of time is required to train a tax lawyer. After all this formal training it takes further years of practical application and specialization to become knowledgeable about some parts of tax bills, and even then the most expert of experts are only knowledgeable about certain parts of a tax bill.
Therefore, I am not surprised that the bill is complex or that hon. members find difficulty in understanding it. I have the same problem. I am not surprised that tax lawyers or tax accountants are annoyed that they will have to relearn their professions all over again. This is unfortunate, but we must contend with it. It is a necessity arising out of changing such a large and difficult piece of legislation. Nevertheless, if we are to bring about the reforms that Canadians demand and are asking for, and if we are to provide an alleviation of the tax of 5) million Canadians, the effort involved in creating the changes is worth our attention.
October 1, 1971

In the course of the arguments that have been made, in addition to some useful points there have been some inaccurate statements which need correcting. For instance, the former leader of the New Democratic Party has been going around the country for some time now talking about the wonderful things the Carter commission would do for Canadians. One of his inaccurate statements, which I think it is about time was laid to rest, is this. On numerous occasions he has stated that a person who receives an income of $6,000 as dividends from taxable Canadian corporations would receive much better treatment under the old system, or under the new system, than he would under Carter; that he would receive a great deal of benefit which a person earning the same income from salary would not receive.
I should like to remind the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas)-I am sorry he is not in the House this afternoon; I see only one member of that party here for this important debate-that if we had followed the Carter formula, a person earning $6,000 in income by way of tax dividends from a taxable Canadian corporation not only would not have paid tax on those dividends, but would have received a refund. This refund would be chargeable against his other tax. The Carter formula would bring complete integration of the tax system and a credit carried over from what the corporation has paid would be applied against one's personal tax.
The new system and formula in the bill before us will not only alleviate that discrepancy in the Carter formula but will provide a graduated scale for people who will receive these benefits, in such a way that those with lower incomes will receive a greater benefit than those with higher incomes. I suggest that is a benefit to the taxpayers of Canada. It is worth saying, at the same time, that this country needs the investment of risk money which Canadians are prepared to put up in order to expand Canadian industry and provide the jobs Canadians need. This is worth saying over and over again.
Let me say, for the benefit of the NDP-which professes to show concern about the unemployed in Canada-that the things they protest about most are those things which bring about greater employment. I refer to the profit on investment in Canadian industry. Unless there is some hope of return on investment, Canadians will keep their money in their socks. I remind hon. members of the NDP party, using the argument of the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), that the man who makes $6,000 profit on investment in Canadian corporations probably has had to save something like $150,000 or $200,000 and has deferred the benefits of that money by lending it to a corporation in order to get the $6,000. I do not think that is an exorbitant profit, and certainly it provides a useful service to all Canadians.
I wish to endorse some arguments which have been presented in the course of the debate. There should be some changes in the bill regarding the tax on co-operatives and credit unions. This is an important source of savings in Canada. It is important to the small savers in our society who put money into credit unions in many rural communities. This is perhaps the only source of savings available for business expansion, and I suggest to
Income Tax Act
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson)-I hope his Parliamentary Secretary is listening very carefully-that there should be a change in the provisions regarding co-operatives and credit unions.


Erik Nielsen: Call him on the telephone.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: I want to say something about the changes in the tax law in respect of expenses allowed on apartment construction under the proposed formula. There has been a change from the original white paper formula, allowing income from another occupation to be written off as interest and property taxes charged against apartment dwellings. This is an improvement over the white paper formula. I argue that the failure to allow depreciation as write-off against other income, while in some ways it may appear to be inequitable may in the long run result in fewer apartment buildings or rental properties being made available to Canadians. I ask the Minister of Finance and his parliamentary secretary if that is really what they want. If a man takes money from one occupation and is willing to invest it in an apartment operation, from which there has been little return-and an examination of the returns on apartment investments will show that the returns have been very small-


Erik Nielsen: Ask your minister to listen to you.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: -if there is some way of increasing that return it will redound to the benefit of the people who want to inhabit these apartments. Anything we do that lessens the return on that kind of investment will increase the cost of apartment accommodation. This will apply over the whole range of apartment dwellings: it will apply not only to expensive apartments but to the full range of apartments from top to bottom. I hope the parliamentary secretary will give more consideration to this point and that when we come to a clause by clause study of this bill an amendment will be made to remove what I think is an unfortunate provision.
I do not want to speak at length on this bill because I recognize the urgency of passing it. I recognize, also, that the reforms contained in the bill are worthy of implementation and we should get on with the job as quickly as possible. I said earlier we did not need stories from the Conservative party to the effect that taxation will cause cancer, sexual impotency and all the other evils associated with that subject. We do not need further lectures about peculiar monetary theories to help us understand this tax bill. We do need tax stability in Canada-and we need a quieting down of the discussion that has taken place.
The businessman wants to know where he stands. The longer we discuss this matter and the longer we put off our decision and vote on third reading of the bill, the longer stability will be prevented to the detriment of all Canadians. I say to the hon. members on the other side of the House that Christmas is not far away.


Erik Nielsen: But Santa Claus is.


Mr. Paproski:: You are no Santa Claus and neither is the government.

October 1, 1971
Income Tax Act


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Let me say to the
hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) that this side of the House is prepared to offer a Christmas present to 5.5 million Canadians.


Erik Nielsen: Ho, ho, ho!


Steve Eugene Paproski: All Benson has to do is get up and offer it.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The offering is there and is spelled out for all who can read.


Erik Nielsen: That is the problem.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Even your minister does not believe that.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: If the hon. member would only take the time to read the Minister of Finance's little red book-


Steve Eugene Paproski: I have read this bill, the Liberal bible.


Erik Nielsen: "Red" is right.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: -he would be able to understand the benefits all Canadians will receive when we pass second reading of the bill and get on to clause by clause study of the specific things which need changing. Let us get on with the preparation of the Christmas present for our fellow Canadians.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we have heard many astonishing things in the House during our debates, but none more astonishing than we have heard today. The parliamentary secretary to the minister-and the minister is sitting in the House-has been appealing to his minister to talk, not to his colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) but to that minister's parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney). He only opens his mouth in respect of these matters to change his feet.
I should think there would be a more effective line of communication than has obviously been established by this government over the past 3J years. Even when the parliamentary secretary was speaking-and he made a rather doubtful contribution to this debate-he was not appealing to his own minister, who was not listening in any event, but to a colleague.
When I look around at the number of experts in the House on the other side listening to the suggestions being made in this important debate, I see the hon. gentleman who suggested our economy is in such a rosy state that we need worry no longer. He suggests employment will go up in the forthcoming winter months and that the cost of living will go down. He said we have nothing to worry about as far as the Canadian economy is concerned, notwithstanding the warning of the Economic Council and economists throughout the country that we are facing a serious situation. We have that parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Calgary South, who stands up and tells us not to worry, everything is rosy and things will turn out all right.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: That's not true.


Erik Nielsen: In addition, we have that other expert who appeared rather touchy this morning during the question

period. Obviously, something has worried him. But he is the only minister in the chamber at this time, apart from the newly-appointed minister who is an expert on science. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has been sitting here but has not been listening to the suggestions of his parliamentary secretary. I do not think he even heard the changes the parliamentary secretary has been advocating to the bill.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I can read.


Erik Nielsen: The minister says he can read. That is an assurance to members on this side of the House, because in the past we have had some doubts as to whether he really could.
Of course, there are other experts over there apart from the hon. member for Calgary South. We have the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome). That expert has disappeared for the moment. Then we have another expert, the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger). He is an expert on these matters and no doubt will be participating in this debate. He has a great deal to say outside of this debate, and we will be looking forward with great interest to his contribution.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) got rid of him.


Erik Nielsen: Then, of course, there are at least-


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Why don't you move that the House adjourn?


Erik Nielsen: Members supporting the government sometimes have constructive suggestions to make, but the suggestion that has just been made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, that the House adjourn, is one of his less constructive suggestions because there are some things members on this side of the House have to say that, given time, might filter through to the government and be found embodied in this bill. The hon. member for Calgary South seems to indicate, as do members on the other side generally: What the hell is the point of talking in this House. We are not going to get through to them anyway, because there is only one man who rules this country. He said the other day on the television program "Encounter", "I do not govern to please the opposition".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: They are applauding. I invite hon. members opposite to pay attention to the personal pronoun that was used. What happened to the cabinet system? He said, "I do not govern to please the opposition"-and the question asked was, "Who do you govern to please?". Unfortunately, the program finished at that point so we were unable to hear his answer.
But that is the situation. No matter what is said over here with respect to this or any other measure, it is that man who governs and that man who makes the decision. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howard), instead of trying to go through the ineffective channel of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance might try writing a
October 1, 1971

letter to the fifteenth secretary of the Prime Minister. He might find himself further ahead. He might even speak to the individual who is responsible for the regional desk in his riding.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) is rising on a point of order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: This will be great.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering whether the hon. gentleman who is speaking would observe the rules of relevancy. I do not understand what his remarks have to do with the matter under discussion today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I have been asking myself the same question. There is some latitude under the motion and the amendment now before us, and hon. members have been allowed a more or less open debate on the matter. Perhaps the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was about to stray too far from the subject matter before us, but I am sure he is coming back to the question before the House.


Erik Nielsen: That interjection by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is as useful as his usual interjections. I suppose he wanted it on the record.
I want to speak about some of the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since he raised these points, I presume my comments will be relevant. He criticized every contribution made by the opposition. He said that every argument put forward from this side of the House was specious, and he said he was tired of hearing lectures by the Social Credit party with respect to their economic theories. Every statement that he made is indicative of the mental attitude over there that none of the things said from this side of the House, whether with respect to this bill or anything else that arises in debate, has any substance. In other words, every argument is specious except those made by persons like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Every argument advanced on this side with respect to real reform of taxation legislation is either lecturing, specious, or else something else is wrong with it-it has no substance. The people over there, Sir, are the divine rulers. Only they can be right, only they can be capable, only they are men of ability. Therefore, what is the purpose of listening to the opposition?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have you just found that out?


Erik Nielsen: No, but I think these things have to be said. They are not being said enough; they are not being exposed enough.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: They laugh over there. The ubiquitous ex-Liberal leader of the province of British Columbia, who is progressing nowhere except at minus 70 miles an hour-


Mr. Perrault:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Will he at some point attempt to refer to the matter before the House.
Income Tax Act


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is a great statement.


Thomas Miller Bell: Terrific.


Erik Nielsen: I wonder, in the reply to that rather empty and useless interjection, whether the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault), who had the privilege of visiting my riding on one brief occasion, will make any useful contribution to this debate. I very much doubt it because I suspect, along with all other hon. members, that they have been told, with the exception of a very privileged few, to keep quiet because if they speak they might lose their parliamentary secretaryships.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.


Raymond J. Perrault: You are speaking from experience under the previous government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Perhaps this time the Chair should intervene and ask the hon. member for Yukon to try to stay within the scope of the motion and the amendment before the House.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about mining and the effect that these tax measures will have on the mining industry. The so-called tax reform would knock out the prospector in this country who heretofore has had all his discoveries free of taxation. A man who has spent 10, 15 or 20 years searching for minerals has been free of taxation on the sale of his property if he has been lucky enough to make any discoveries. Now he is to be taxed. This is inimical to the growth of exploration and mining activities.
In my view, the reforms so far as they apply to the mining industry, taken together with other measures such as the new Yukon minerals act and the land use regulations which will be coming into force in 15 days in the Northwest Territories, will effectively destroy the incentive which has heretofore existed with respect to the mining industry. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce speaks of reforms. But these so-called reforms are a masquerade; they are really an unrestricted march for a concentration of power in this government. The government wants to control industry, including the mining industry, to the ultimate degree.
The parliamentary secretary says that employment comes about by investment in Canadian industry, yet by these so-called reforms changes are being made in the law which absolutely limit investment in Canadian industry. A good example of that is the foreign-ownership clause contained in the changes that are proposed to the mineral legislation in respect of the Yukon.
With regard to experts, again the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has lectured us about the length of time it takes a lawyer to become a tax expert and about how long it takes a chartered accountant to become a tax expert. Then he says, "Let us get on with this because these experts have come down with their decisions. Those decisions are embodied

October 1, 1971
Income Tax Act
in the legislation. Let us pass it and rely on the recommendations of the experts."
However, he failed to mention that the associations of which these experts are members have all advocated delay. They have said it is a much too complex piece of legislation, a much too bulky and lengthy piece of legislation on which to pass immediate judgment. They themselves, the experts of whom the parliamentary secretary speaks, say, "Let us have some time to make a detailed study of what the government has brought in, which is such a radical departure from that very radical document, the white paper on taxation."
Somebody at one stage called it the black paper on taxation and others called it the red paper on taxation. After a discussion of the white paper, the mining industry of Canada and other concerned institutions, at a series of public hearings submitted their interpretation of the tax reforms and of how they will affect the mining industry. The findings by those institutions suggest very strongly that the tax reform proposals will not only slow down mining activity in Canada but, more importantly, will make the Canadian mining industry less competitive in international markets.
To divert for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised that the representations-if any-made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) found so little sympathy in the cabinet committee which undoubtedly considered this tax reform legislation. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has travelled extensively enough in the northern parts of Canada to know the economic problems there. Either he knows them as a result of these travels or he is deliberately choosing to ignore them in the making of his recommendations to the cabinet committee which considered this legislation.
That minister has travelled in Russia and in Australia. Both those countries make special exemptions to people who populate and settle their northern areas. For years the residents of Canada's north have been asking for no better treatment than is accorded to the employees of the government who reside in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. They have asked for increased personal exemptions in order to attract people to settle permanently in the north and partly to compensate for the high cost of living there. They do this in Australia, and the minister knows it. They do this in Russia, and the minister knows it. That policy works in both of those countries. I am rather surprised that he has been unable to get across to his cabinet colleagues the desirability of instituting such a reform in Canadian tax policy.
After appraisals by the government of the submissions by industries in respect of the white paper, the Minister of Finance announced three modifications of the tax proposals last fall and these are now embodied in the bill before us. The important point to consider is that despite the modifications to the white paper, the mining tax reform proposals as they now stand in the bill will affect the way of life of each and every Canadian in an adverse manner.
There has been too little said about the multiplier effect of the mining industry in Canada. The lack of adequate reforms illustrates this. The mining industry is one of those industries upon which a great many Canadians

depend for their livelihood. Canada has in the past depended on a variety of primary natural resources as a cornerstone for its economy and now the mining industry is really coming into its own as one of the two major primary industries in Canada. From furs, to lumber, to minerals, Canadians have prospered from the export of these natural resources. Today the dependence of the Canadian economy on mining is even more striking.
The mining industry, as distinct from oil and gas, employs directly about 140,000 people in its mining, refining and smelting activities. The mining industry is unique in Canada in its widespread ripple impact on indirect job creation. I need not cite any more striking example than that of Thompson, Manitoba. Mining products represent about 40 per cent of all railroad and inland waterways tonnage, thus providing a high base-load and reducing transportation costs for other industries. Annual repair expenditures on construction, machinery and equipment amount to about $300 million. New capital expenditures in mining are now more than $1 billion.
The mining industry has promoted the development of secondary industry in Canada. The performance of the Canadian steel industry provides an excellent example. Mining has contributed significantly to the growth and development of our more northerly areas. In many instances it is the only activity for northern communities. No more striking example can be found in this regard than the whole of the economy of the riding that I have the honour to represent.
The current tax reform proposals in Bill C-259 will have many, varied effects on the mining industry. Among some of these is the fact that the bill will make the Canadian mining industry less competitive on the international scene. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should realize how serious a matter that is, having viewed some-I am sure only a fraction-of the Australian mining industry and the mushrooming development that is occurring there. Since no other major industrial nation has such restrictive taxation laws as are incorporated in Bill C-259, this will force Canada's mining industry into a period of slow and restricted growth.
Nothing can better illustrate this than the recent studies prepared by Price Waterhouse and Company, for the Mining Association of British Columbia, on the Yukon and the British Columbia mining industries. With respect to the financing of the industry, that study came up with the following finding:
The total net inflow in 1970 was $15,608,000, down $40,100,000 or 72 per cent from 1969, and less than in any year since 1965-
The industry paid $5,745,000 in interest in 1970, an increase of 47 per cent over 1969-
Total expenditures for exploration and development were $9,411,000 in 1970, down 42 per cent or more than $6,800,000 from the record level of 1969, and slightly less than the amount spent in 1968.
With respect to taxes, the report makes these findings:
Total federal, territorial and municipal taxes paid by the Yukon mining industry reached almost $4,700,000 in 1970, an increase of 23 per cent over 1969 and four times the amount paid in 1966.
We never hear of this kind of contribution to the economic fabric of the nation when we hear the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tell us so often that we can never expect any autonomy in the Yukon, any
October 1, 1971

further responsible government reform in the Yukon, because we don't pay our way. We do not hear that kind of statistic, with respect to the contribution in taxes which that industry makes to the federal treasury, when the minister uses these arguments. The findings also show.
The major share of tax contributions was paid to the federal government, which received $4,086 million in 1970, 22 per cent more than in 1969.
Employee income taxes withheld reached $3,350 million in 1970, an increase of 39 per cent from 1969.
This is the kind of statistic which the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development does not use when it suits his purpose. With respect to British Columbia, of course, the growth is the other way around because a lot of the exploration and development activity is being siphoned off into that province precisely because of the legislation and regulations introduced by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Canada is not the only nation endowed with mineral resources. I have spoken of the mushrooming development of that industry in Australia and its close proximity to the markets of large users of raw mineral resources. If this bill is implemented international money will look elsewhere for investment opportunities and Canadians will suffer because of it. Regional and northern development in Canada will come to a halt as exploration ceases and as fewer companies are willing to explore in Canada. The dramatic drop in the number of exploration companies which have usually been active in the Yukon is a good example of the truth of this conclusion. Under the excessive tax burden proposed by this bill, Canada's mining industry will have to tighten its belt. If and when this happens, many Canadians will feel the pinch because the multiplier effect can be just as effective in a reverse sense.
The tax reform proposals affecting the mining industry must be modified to take into consideration some of the special characteristics of the mineral industries and their importance to the Canadian economy. A fruitful area for modification of this bill would be in broadening the base by which mining industries can benefit from earned depletion. As the reform proposals now stand, earned depletion can be used only for expenses such as machinery and mining equipment. Because many mining companies also have large expenses for infrastructure development at the mine site, the bill should take into consideration associated mining expenses other than machinery and equipment which could be used under the earned depletion proposal.
I have spoken briefly of the treatment accorded the two northern territories in this tax reform legislation. No more important area to occupy the concern of those responsible for considering the changes in this bill can be found than the mining industry. Both northern territories in the long run are going to depend for their economic base on a sound, developing mineral industry. I have not spoken of oil and gas at all, because there is no time-but a strong case can be made for the proposition that the Canadian government in its tax legislation and taxation approach is discriminating against the development of this industry
Income Tax Act
and greatly permitting its absorption by foreign control by its lack of vision in tax policies.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is quite correct when he says that employment comes about by investment in Canadian industry. But it is no way to bring about employment in Canadian industry by saying to foreign investment capital, "You are not welcome". However, that is precisely what this government is doing. For a long time to come we are going to depend on investment capital from outside our boundaries in order to develop industries such as mining.
Before I conclude these remarks I should like to refer briefly to a statement made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with respect to employment in the Yukon, employment brought about, or not brought about, directly as a result of the policies, or lack of them, of this government. In response to a question which I put to him last week, the minister said that there was no unemployment in the Yukon; and the next day, of course, he had smuggled the word "almost" into Hansard, a word which he did not utter when answering my question.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Erik Nielsen: For a minister who has travelled in the north to come back and tell the members of this House that there is no unemployment, or even almost no unemployment, in the Yukon or indeed in the Northwest Territories is misleading hon. members as to the true situation that exists. I should like the minister and the government to explain how these tax reform proposals can possibly help the hundreds of unemployed Indian and Eskimo people in the north.
The majority of the population of these two territories is simply not getting along at the poverty level. These people in fact earn so little, and are so far below the so-called poverty line compared with the national average, that it would be shocking to most Canadians to see the conditions under which they live. In my estimation, 70 per cent, 80 per cent or more of the natives are living in a state of permanent welfare handouts because of the failure of the government to institute policies, taxation and otherwise, which would integrate the indigenous populations of our northern territories into the economic fabric of the country.
Since the establishment of articulate and forceful voices for the native in Canada there is no reason why the government should not be following their recommendations. But instead they proceed on their merry, unilateral way controlled by one man, their dictator, who has control of this country. Any reference to the legitimate desires and aspirations of a people who have not only been invaded and whose territory has been inhabited by outsiders is completely ignored, and the people continue to live in a state of perpetual poverty.
In the limited time available to me I have tried to cover some of the problems that I think should be considered in these tax reform proposals. I have little hope that they will find fruition in actual amendments. But should they not, then the government, far from fulfilling the hopes of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry,
8374

October 1, 1971
Criminal Code
Trade and Commerce for quick passage, will find itself confronted with amendments in an effort to bring about these changes which are surely justly due to northern residents if we are, indeed, to have a just society.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace) moved: that Bill C-50, to amend the Criminal Code (adjournment for accused to obtain legal representation), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to force the federal and provincial governments to adopt an effective legal aid system. As hon. members know, a private member is limited with respect to the introduction of private bills. We cannot introduce bills which will entail the spending of money, and we must operate within the sphere of federal jurisdiction. As a result, even though this bill deals with legal aid I have been limited in respect of the provisions I could have brought forward.
This bill is an attempt to deal with the problem of legal aid in the best way that I feel is possible. At present, many people throughout Canada are charged, tried and convicted without benefit of legal counsel, either because they cannot afford a lawyer, are not familiar with the system of legal aid or do not know where lawyers are available. My proposed amendment to the Criminal Code would make it obligatory for a judge to ask an accused if he has legal counsel. If he has not, the judge would adjourn the case for one day to allow the accused to find counsel. It would also obligate the judge to advise the accused as to how he might avail himself of the legal aid available in the district. I realize that this type of bill is not the answer to the problem. As I said, considering the restrictions placed upon private members this is the best type of bill that I feel can be introduced in order to force upon the provincial and federal governments a better legal aid system.
As a lawyer who practised in Montreal before being elected to Parliament, I had occasion to observe many instances where individuals were hauled before the criminal courts, charged with offences they could not understand and then urged by policemen present to plead guilty. Many of them did plead guilty. In many cases they were sent to prison for several years. In some cases they did not deserve to be so sentenced. This was a shocking experience to witness. One wonders how even the wisest and best educated of men could, on coming into a courtroom atmosphere with which they are not familiar, properly understand the charge and make the right plea. I suggest that this type of situation, which is probably repeated today in many courts across Canada, constitutes a complete travesty of justice and should not exist in this country.
The same could be said of many civil cases, of cases involving family matters, of landlord and tenant litigation, of consumer cases, of small debt cases, of disputes between employer and employee, and so on. It is not always the big case that makes people think justice is not being done; it could be a small case such as one I experienced. I remember the case of a housewife, who was not too experienced in these things, who took a dress to a cleaning establishment and the cleaning establishment ruined it. The woman thought she could not claim compensation for the damage and could not go to court because the cleaning establishment had presented her with a ticket saying that it was not liable for any damage. This woman felt that a serious injustice had taken place.
I met her after the matter was over and told her that this type of statement on such tickets was not legally binding, and that she probably had a good case. The fact is that she did not have enough money to retain a lawyer. Legal aid was not available. She accepted what happened, but developed a very bad conception of our system of justice. It is because of such experiences that many Canadians are suspicious of our system and are cynical about our lawyers, our courts, the law and our entire democratic process.
The Quebec Commission on the Administration of Justice, the Prevost commission, conducted a survey four years ago among Quebec citizens regarding attitudes towards lawyers, judges and the legal system. I should like to tell the House what many people of Quebec thought about the legal system in that province. I have before me an article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of March 10, 1970, which quotes some of the findings of the Prevost commission. It reads in part:
Most Quebecers have a low opinion of the province's system of criminal justice. They think the lawyers are hypocritical and that in court the odds are stacked against the poor.
These facts came out in a survey released yesterday by the Quebec Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Administration of Justice-the Prevost commission.
The survey reveals that 62.4 per cent of the population considers the province's criminal lawyers hypocritical and 43.1 per cent think they are dishonest. Another 34.4 per cent think lawyers are outright thieves and a little over 20 per cent think they are totally useless to society.
The newspaper report goes on to say that the people of Quebec do not have a much higher opinion of judges in the province. Apparently, 1,098 people were polled in that province. Some other remarkable statements about the system of justice are made. The newspaper article continues:
The courts were condemned by 78.1 per cent as discriminatory against the poor and 72.4 per cent said criminal proceedings were too slow. Slightly more than 40 per cent felt that chances of a fair trial in Quebec were less than 50-50.
I could go on reading the findings of that survey. The few results I have put on record will show the House, I think, the sort of impression a great many of our people harbour with respect to our system of justice. This arises

October 1, 1971

from the fact that our legal system and our lawyers are primarily geared, in my opinion-and I am a lawyer-to serve the rich and not the poor. Although we have made improvements in certain areas and other improvements are under way, we still have a long, long way to go.
Few provinces in Canada have legal aid systems which can be considered adequate. Ontario, perhaps, has the best system. In my own province, Quebec, the situation is deplorable. Legal aid in Montreal is carried out by the Bar Association. Less than 20 lawyers work on a full-time basis on matters involving legal aid in Montreal. They are paid through the Bar Association and also receive some money from the Quebec Department of Justice. I submit that that number is completely inadequate. In addition, each lawyer in the Montreal area is supposed to take on one legal aid case a year. In most instances lawyers take on cases but give them very little attention. Some lawyers, of course, give these cases their full attention, but, in the majority of cases it is fair to say that the system is poor. The government of Quebec has promised the people a legal aid system. I believe that one is to be put into effect. From my distant place in the federal Parliament I urge the Quebec government to do this soon.
There have been other signs of improvement. The federal government has introduced a legal aid system for the Northwest Territories. It appears to be a comprehensive system of legal aid. I refer to the announcement made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) when he introduced that legal aid system on August 17 last. Page 3 of the release reads:
Legal aid in criminal cases is to be available in any of the following matters:
(1)	An offence under a statute of Parliament (which includes the Criminal Code) and is to be proceeded with by indictment;
(2)	An offence under a federal statute or regulation, or under a Territorial ordinance or regulation, where the Crown proceeds by summary conviction and the accused is subject to a sentence of imprisonment or to a penalty that, in the committee's opinion, will interfere substantially with his livelihood;
(3)	Proceedings under the Juvenile Deliquents Act;
(4)	In any other case where, in the opinion of the court or the committee, the accused is not capable of making an informed decision as to his proper course of action or where he may be subject to a jail term or a sentence which would affect his
livelihood-
With regard to the provision of legal aid services, the system is in some ways similar to the Ontario system. In addition to the system which the federal government has started in the Northwest Territories, the Minister of Justice announced this fall at the Canadian Bar Convention in Banff, Alberta, that he was considering establishing a nationwide legal aid system. I read from a report of September 2, 1971:
Justice Minister John Turner said here that he hopes a federally-financed coast to coast legal aid system will be operating in Canada within a year.
In an interview, he said he has put forward a proposal for such a system to the attorneys general of the ten provinces and has received a generally favorable response.
Turner said he put the proposals to the provinces "two or three months" ago and has received replies from most of them. Those answering had "some reservations," he said, but were nevertheless uniformly favourable."
Criminal Code
This is to be a complete legal aid system covering both civil and criminal cases. If such a system could be put into operation it would be a great step forward. If the provinces do not agree to such a system with the federal government, legal aid services should at least be provided in both territories in the meantime. I understand that they have now been established in the Northwest Territories. They should be established in both territories. This should cover all federal courts, including the new Federal Court, federal boards of commission and cases under the Criminal Code and other statutes which can be considered criminal statutes. It is true we have allowed the administration of criminal justice to be carried on by the provincial authorities, but the constitutional basis of that is not soundly established. If it wishes, the federal government could provide a legal aid system for all cases coming under the Criminal Code and criminal statutes.
I would like to make reference to some very encouraging developments which have taken place in the last year, particularly with regard to the opening of store-front law offices and legal aid clinics associated with anti-poverty committees. These store-front law offices and legal aid clinics have to a great extent been initiated by students of different law schools across the country. This was done by students of Dalhousie University in Halifax, McGill, the University of Montreal, and Toronto. There may be other cases but I am not familiar with them.
I visited some of the store-front law offices during the past summer. Some were assisted by the Opportunities for Youth program. They have done a very good job. Montreal has the two with which I am most familiar. One is an office of the juvenile legal services operating in the northeast end of Montreal near the family welfare court. It is in the area of St. Denis Street and Bellechasse. This legal aid clinic provided services to young people who were being brought before the juvenile court in Montreal. It had one full-time lawyer who was being paid out of money that was raised by the office. It also had a number of student lawyers who worked during the summer under the Opportunities for Youth program. In addition, there were two students who were being trained in social work and other types of services for young people.
The other clinic in Montreal, which was very impressive, was known as Community Legal Services, Point St. Charles. It operated in conjunction with the Point St. Charles poverty committee. This group had the services of one fully qualified lawyer. It was also assisted by law students working under the provisions of the Opportunities for Youth program. Very valuable work was done in both cases. A service was provided to the community that would not have been available under ordinary circumstances.
In conclusion, I make a plea for federally-financed legal aid services. I hope the Minister of Justice is successful in carrying through the program which he presented to the Canadian Bar Association at Banff. If not, I hope he will introduce a legal aid service pertaining to federal courts and federal laws. The bill which I have before the House is minimal, but if it is put into operation great pressure will be applied to the provinces and the federal government to do something about the legal aid system and to ensure that no person in Canada is denied justice because he cannot afford legal services.
8376

October 1, 1971
Criminal Code


Mr. Pierre de Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say at first that the bill introduced by my colleague and friend the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) is a fine bill. I feel that it is essentially based on the concept of the availability of justice. Indeed, in spite of the legal system now in force in Canada, especially the legal services mentioned in the Canadian Bill of Rights, we can state that a large part of the people with small means are far from being assured of obtaining legal services.
I would like at first to make some technical comments. In my opinion, the inclusion of that section after section 20 would not be as satisfactory as if it appeared at the beginning of Part XIV of the Criminal Code which deals with appearances, that is section 434 and the following ones.
Then, at line 8, in the French version, instead of the words
-afin d'etre accuse-
I would rather put -pour repondresince at his first appearance, he should be called upon to make a choice rather than face a charge.
At line 9, instead of the word
-infraction-
I would use -offense-
-which includes "infractions" and criminal acts. Finally, at line 10, instead of -le juge-
I would prefer -le president du tribunalsince it may well be a magistrate rather than a judge.
Finally, at line 17, the term -le proces- should read instead -les proceduressince the "proces" has not started yet. To avoid any doubt, any uncertainty, I would add at line 23, the following:
-and he may rule on the temporary release of the accused.
Mr. Speaker, I believe, as I said in my opining remarks, that the bill introduced by my colleague is essential because, as he himself pointed out, legal aid services are not yet widespread throughout the land.
In Ontario, the Legal Aid Act is intended strictly for the poor.
It is true that the duty counsellor is always in attendance at the court when there are appearances. Evidently, he does not have time to inquire about the financial means of the people brought before the court, but he can then at least help them.
In Quebec, for many years, only the bar was concerned with judicial assistance. It was paid out of the lawyers' contributions without any help from the provincial gov-

ernment. Today, it is fortunate that the government and particularly the present Minister of Justice in Quebec are greatly interested in that matter. I notice that seven lawyers work full time on legal aid in Quebec City, and about twenty in Montreal.
This has been made possible in Quebec through an agreement between the government of Quebec and the bar association of that province. This year, for instance, the Quebec government will grant $1.8 million for the Quebec City and Montreal offices and the opening of others in every part of the province.
I point out that the purpose of those offices will not be only to assist the persons accused of criminal offences, but also to help those who have legal family problems, such as divorce, separation, social welfare, etc.
Of course, the amount may seem enormous, but according to the information I have gathered, it will hardly be enough to meet 20 per cent of present needs.
Thus the area I represent-the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe-does not have any legal aid service. When people from this area or from peripheral areas have to cope with a legal problem, they cannot appeal to any legal aid service.
This bill is essential if we really want to acknowledge that we are part of a just society. Let us imagine a needy person or anybody appearing before a tribunal. The man has spent the night in prison, and was unable to shave or wash; he already has one strike against him. It is the first time he sees the austere and strange decor of a court and he is already flabbergasted by his arrest. After the clerk has read the indictment, the judge asks whether he wants to appear before a magistrate without a jury, a judge without a jury or a judge with a jury-with a preliminary enquiry in the two latter cases. He is asked whether he has well understood, but he will certainly not say no because he does not want to look like a dope. He has to say yes even if he has not understood a single word. Everything is proceeding in an atmosphere reminiscent of Kafka's books. If one considers the problems of law students themselves in understanding these distinctions, one can readily imagine how lost a layman must be when he hears these uncanny and esoteric words.
This reminds me of a story, obviously fictitious, which appeared in an issue of the Criminal Law Quarterly.
A person charged with drunken driving appears before a judge who asks the defendant if he has a lawyer. The latter says that he does not and the judge tells him that drunken driving carries a minimum penalty of fourteen days in jail. But if the defendant pleads not guilty and is convicted of impaired driving, he can get off with a lighter sentence. Such is British fair-play. Consequently, the defendant agrees to a trial before a judge and without a jury and the case proceeds at once before the judge. Policemen submit evidence and the judge then says to the defendant that as such he does not have to testify but he can do so if he wishes. The trial ends with a conviction for a lesser offense, impaired, not drunken driving. The judge then says that the many people who drive while impaired constitute a public danger.
So, I shall sentence you to 30 days in jail.
Obviously, this is a fictitious story related in the Criminal Law Quarterly, but it illustrates pretty well how dif-
October 1, 1971

ficult it is to protect the interests of citizens appearing before the courts when they do not have the help of counsel.
If Canada truly wants to establish a just society, we absolutely must include in the constitution the sacred right of the citizen to counsel as soon as he is arrested. Until such time as this right is provided for in the Canadian constitution, civil liberties in Canada will be threatened.
I personally have had too much experience, in my Quebec legal practice, of people arrested by the police whose prison whereabouts were not known. They were held incommunicado several days and although I had been retained by their relatives or their spouses I was unable to communicate with them. Sometimes, after a week or two of detention, they appeared in court disfigured, having signed full confessions in jail. I consider such methods to be absolutely vile and unworthy of a so-called just society.
That is why I was so grieved to see that on the occasion of the attempt of partial reshaping of the Canadian constitution in Victoria last June there was practically no reference to the right of the accused to have the services of a lawyer immediately upon his arrest.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the principle we are discussing today is the principle which is underlying Bill C-50 introduced by the hon. member for Notre-DAme-de-Grace. That is a basic principle in a democratic society: the principle of access to the courts and of democratization of justice.


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join the hon. member who has just spoken in supporting the bill in the name of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand).
Any society which aspires to social justice is deficient if it does not possess an adequate legal aid system. Canada, with the exception of one or two provincial jurisdictions, does not possess such a system. The province of Quebec has announced that within the next few months it will, hopefully, inaugurate a better and more comprehensive legal aid system.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has given an indication of sympathy for some kind of national system of legal aid. I heartily endorse this proposal, as I am sure does every member of this House. The Department of Justice, through its minister, took an important step in promoting a federal initiative when it inaugurated the legal aid system in the Northwest Territories by signing an agreement in August with the commissioner of the territories. Unfortunately, the federal system as proposed and implemented in the Northwest Territories has come under what I would call unfair attack.
A few days ago in the Globe and Mail an argument was presented to the effect that the method of appointing counsel as proposed under the legal aid plan in the Northwest Territories was improper and inadequate. The argument appearing in the editorial was that the assignment of counsel provision appeared to be based on the fear that the system would result in one or two lawyers getting the
Criminal Code
bulk of the legal aid business, and since there are only a handful of lawyers in the territories this might cause the demoralization of the remaining lawyers, causing them to leave, and dissuading new lawyers from coming to the territories. The Globe and Mail suggested this was the apparent reason for the inclusion in the agreement for legal aid in the Northwest Territories of the provision that lawyers providing legal aid would be chosen by a committee rather than by the person needing legal aid.
As provided for in the agreement, this committee would be appointed by the commissioner and by lawyers, and would name certain lawyers on a rotating basis as the judge made his circuit of communities in the Northwest Territories. The reasoning behind the decision to have a committee appoint lawyers in the Northwest Territories, for legal aid cases in all but the most serious cases in which individual accused would be entitled to their own lawyers, was based on logistics. It would be almost impossible if every accused in the Northwest Territories who was unable to pay for legal services was given a choice of the lawyers in the territories. It would mean that practically every attorney would have to accompany the judge on circuit. One can well imagine the logistical problem facing the court each time the judge flew to Frobisher in the eastern Arctic, returning through the central Arctic, back to Inuvik and down to Yellowknife. There is no possible way in which this could be handled, for it would disrupt the normal legal proceedings of the entire territories each time it occurred.
The fear expressed in the Globe and Mail is based on a misinterpretation of the reasoning for the provision in the agreement that lawyers be appointed by the committee. The committee is independent and is one that will reflect the views of most of the lawyers in the Northwest Territories. It will have the requirement to divide cases as fairly as possible among all practising lawyers in the territories. The Yukon territory up to now has, unfortunately, not seen fit to inaugurate an agreement of this kind with the government of Canada. I understand the Minister of Justice has been attempting to persuade the commissioner and the council there that this would be in the interest of Yukoners. I understand there is a fear among territorial councillors that the cost involved may be considerably more than initially appears to be the case. If it is simply a question of cost, I would hope a formula for cost-sharing could be worked out somewhat along the lines of that in the Northwest Territories provision, perhaps with some slight changes.
The 50-50 proposal which formed part of the Northwest Territories agreement would appear to be at least a good starting point. I urge the Yukon territorial council to reconsider its position in this case. There is no doubt in my mind that the implementation of a legal aid agreement in the Yukon would be a real step forward. If this important social reform, which I feel is one of the most important proposed in the Yukon for some time, is being prevented from implementation for purely financial reasons, I am convinced there must be a solution.
If, however, it is simply a question of the commissioner of the Yukon, who is an appointee of this government, resisting or impeding the social reform proposal that has

October 1, 1971
Criminal Code
been made by the government, then the matter is much more serious and I hope that the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), who have ultimate responsibility for the Yukon, will get together and discuss the matter.
It seems to me that there is no excuse whatsoever, now that the program has been implemented in the Northwest Territories and if reasonable terms are being offered to the Yukon, for the matter to be held up indefinitely. If the reason is simply financial, I am sure it can be worked out to the Yukon's satisfaction. But if there are other reasons involved in holding up the social reform proposed by this government, then I do not like it and I am sure members of the House would agree with me that all necessary pressure should be applied to ensure that this social reform in the Yukon is carried through. I hope, also, that the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), whom I know is favourable to the principle of legal aid in the Yukon, will exert on the commissioner the considerable amount of pressure which is available to him to assure that this reform is carried through.
In conclusion, I would urge that the bill proposed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace be accepted. I urge that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs where it could be discussed more fully and where, hopefully, we could consider its inclusion in our Criminal Code within the not-too-distant future. Without taking any more time of the House, let me just say that I hope we can agree to having this bill referred to the committee this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in my view, this bill in the name of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) is a good one and I hope the House will this afternoon either pass the bill on second reading and send it to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs or, if that is too much, agree to send the subject matter of the bill to the committee.
Having looked at the bill itself and the explanatory note, it strikes me that this is one of those cases where the bill is so clear, even in its legal language, that the explanatory note was hardly necessary. I do not think that anyone who has preceded me in this debate has put the actual text of the bill into the Hansard record, and therefore I should like to do so. The bill proposes that there be written into the Criminal Code these words:
As soon as an accused is brought before a court to be charged with an offence under this act, the judge must immediately ask him if he is represented by legal counsel, and if not, if he wishes an adjournment in order to obtain such legal counsel. If the accused replies in the affirmative, the judge will adjourn the appearance for one day. If the accused replies in the negative, the case shall proceed in the usual way.
When the judge adjourns a case under this section he will immediately advise the accused of any and all methods of legal aid within the jurisdiction.
It seems to me that that is a progressive proposal, that it is in line with our concepts of civil liberties and justice for all, and I hope the bill will not receive the treatment that bills sometimes receive in private members' hour. I see my good friend and fellow member of the Friday afternoon club, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), is here. I hope he has not been given instructions

to talk out this bill. Perhaps he will move that its subject matter be referred to the committee.


Murray Arndell McBride: He has just become a "P.S."


Stanley Howard Knowles: A "P.S."? You mean he is a postscript to somebody? At any rate, even though we on this side of the House have difficulty getting the subject matter of bills of ours referred to committee, that will not stop us from thinking that it should be done when there is a good bill before us, even when it comes from the government's side of the House. This is a good one and I hope it will be approved this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to catch the eye of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I listened very carefully to any comments he had to make about me, my attitude or the actions I take in the House, and I concur with the comment he made that the subject matter of this bill should be referred to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I give that proposal my 100 per cent support.
I believe this is the second occasion in the last month that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) has brought a subject matter before the House during private members' hour. I was happy to second his previous motion. It had to be made in the form of a notice of motion, because I know the careful study and research that this hon. member carries out before he places anything on the order paper for debate in the House.
As a result of this debate there may be a feeling that no legal aid is available in Canada. Of course, that is not true. I was a practising lawyer in the province of Ontario before I became a Member of Parliament. In that province, long before the government got into the act, the benchers, who are in effect the board of directors of the lawyers in our province, saw fit to organize and set up special committees. Their purpose was to ensure that anyone who needed a lawyer in the province of Ontario could get one, and not only could they get a lawyer but they could get one of their own choice at no cost to the taxpayer or to the individual who sought legal advice. In recent years that has been changed; the provincial government saw fit to build upon the administrative expertise. The benchers' directors and members of the Upper Canada Law Society have developed the situation where we now have legal aid directors in communities who receive a percentage of the fees set down in a particular scale.
I endorse the admonition that is recommended in this bill. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace may not feel that his bill will be passed by the House or that its subject matter will be referred to committee, but I think he is hoping in this way to impress on the provinces which have the responsibility of administering justice the fact that this is a question they should be considering; and if legal aid is not available in all the provinces now, it should in fact be made available.
I think we have a good legal aid scheme in the province of Ontario. Hopefully, this program can be improved upon, because one of the arguments constantly faced by
October 1, 1971

lawyers, judges and used by those who criticize our system of justice is that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. I think a legal aid system goes a long way toward dissuading people from speaking in that manner and from taking this attitude.
I was a little disturbed when the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace quoted statistics, not so much because he read them but because, unhappily, that seems to be the true picture. Although he was only quoting from 1,000 returns, I think it would be generally true of the attitude of the general public to the legal profession. I do not blame the public for this; I blame members of the legal profession who should spend more time on public relations' work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: What struck me particularly was that the public felt criminal lawyers were hypocritical. Yet to my way of thinking no one who practises before the courts has a more difficult task than the individual who practices criminal law. To illustrate, take the case of a child who is sexually assaulted, killed, or beaten. Someone is accused and charged with an offence. Invariably you hear the comment, "How could anybody defend a monster like that?" Unhappily, that attitude is becoming all too prevalent in discussions that you hear on the street. Yet that individual, if we believe what we preach, is innocent until proven guilty: he is entitled not only to a defence but to the best possible defence available.
I am proud to be a member of the legal profession because among our profession we have dedicated men who are prepared to risk rust or stain on their reputations by ensuring that an individual is adequately protected before the courts. I take my hat off to any criminal lawyer in this province, because I know the difficulties he goes through. It is the freedom of the individual that he has to protect, and sometimes he has to associate with those who might be called shady characters. He has to associate with them to the extent that they come into his office and seek his help. He is not pleading his case, his position; he is pleading the case of the individual he is called upon to defend. In this respect, I believe the gentlemen who had the most difficult cases in recent history were those who defended the Nazi war criminals. It had been suggested by many people that those monsters should be given kangaroo court justice, taken out and shot. But they were given the benefit of a true court hearing. Before people begin to criticize criminal lawyers I hope they will think about the fantastic job that these men are called upon to do.
Another individual who criticizes the courts, Mr. Speaker, is the person who loses a law suit that he thinks he should have won, or the individual who convinces himself that he has done no wrong and that the other party involved is completely wrong, only to find the judge decides that the responsibility must be shared, perhaps on a 50-50 basis. That individual will be even more critical if he is found to be 70 per cent at fault. He will be critical of the court and perhaps his lawyer for not doing a sufficient amount of work or background study before taking the case. He may even criticize the fact that the lawyer, in his
Criminal Code
opinion, did not have a sufficient degree of expertise to cope with the case. We will always have that kind of criticism.
If I had the time I would speak to every one of the thousand people who returned the paper to which the hon. member for Notre-Dame-De-Grace referred and find out why they feel as strongly as they do. I would like to find out whether they have a strong feeling about capital punishment. Do they feel that once a policeman picks somebody up it is game over; that the police have arrested the right man and he should automatically go to jail? People who feel that way will not be convinced that a lawyer has a role to play in the courts. I would like to interview those people individually. I maintain that those who wrote this report should follow it up and find out why people have such ideas. Are they ideas that have been foisted upon them by others, or do they sincerely believe there is something wrong with what they call the "rotten Bar" and even with the judges who preside over it?
I do not wish to speak longer on this motion. I support the bill. I doubt that it will be carried in its present form, but its subject matter should be discussed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate and I must say that I agree with the principle expressed in the bill. In fact, there does not appear to be any fundamental disagreement with it. But a bill like this should be examined on its merits, and carefully examined. In this respect I have been a little disappointed by the debate from the other side of the House. I welcomed the intervention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I think he spoke for only three minutes. However, we have had no contribution from hon. members on that side of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We don't want to talk out the bill.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The purpose of this House is to examine matters that come before it, and I shall put forward one or two reasons why I think there should be further debate on the bill before it goes to committee. I agree with the principle of the bill. I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, ordinarily a judge before whom an accused appears for the first time will be asked if he is represented by counsel and, if not, whether he wishes time to instruct counsel. If the answer is yes, a reasonable adjournment will usually be granted.
Judges are very conscious of this aspect in the case of a person who is in custody, perhaps having been arrested only the night before. If such a person desires counsel and is unable to retain counsel privately, the judge will usually inform him of whatever legal aid may be available. In provinces where legal aid is more highly organized, there may even be duty counsel present in the court. On the other hand, where the accused simply appears in response to a summons and where he has had ample time to retain and instruct counsel prior to his appearance, the court may be less willing to grant a lengthy adjournment in order to secure counsel unless there appears to be good reason why the accused was unable to do so.

October 1, 1971
Criminal Code
One aspect of Bill C-50 which gives me some concern is that it would oblige the judge to grant an adjournment of one day only where the accused indicates that he wishes to be represented by counsel. Sometimes this may be insufficient. The effect would be to deprive the judge of the discretion to grant any reasonable adjournment when an accused wishes to retain counsel and has been unable to do so up to the time of his appearance.
The last aspect of the matter which I think is worthy of consideration is that the system of legal aid varies very considerably from one province to another. This is something which should be discussed by the Attorneys General of the provinces and by the federal Minister of Justice
(Mr. Turner), because this bill proposes an amendment to a federal statute. Before the federal government enacts such legislation in the form of an amendment to the Criminal Code there should be good and sufficient prior discussion with the provinces which also have a major constitutional responsibility in the administration of justice.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. It being five o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, October 4, 1971