1971-10-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I wish to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the government's announcement last night that it has decided not to intervene in the proposed takeover of Supertest by British Petroleum Company Limited. May I be permitted a brief statement before submitting my motion.
Foreign control of the production, refining and distribution of petroleum products has been accelerating at an alarming rate. Canadians are increasingly excluded from the ownership and control of the petroleum and gas industry. The government's inaction can only result in allowing one of our most vital and potentially richest resources falling under foreign domination. Supertest constitutes one of the few remaining Canadian owned outlets for the distribution of petroleum products and steps should be taken to keep it in Canadian hands.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urges the government to reconsider its decision and take whatever steps are necessary to prevent the takeover of Supertest by the British Petroleum Co. Ltd. in order that the continued acquisition of the petroleum industry by foreign corporations may be brought to a halt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. This motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister but in his absence perhaps I could direct it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police uncovered definite evidence of plots to assassinate Premier Kosygin when he was in Canada and, if so, is a statement to be made in the House?


Hon. lean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, there has been much speculation such as that referred to by the hon. member. Many reports have been received by the R.C.M.P. before and after the visit and each one was considered on its merits by the police authorities concerned.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The minister's answer, Mr. Speaker, did not reveal very much but perhaps I could put a supplementary. In light of the events during the visit of Premier Kosygin has the government been able to assure President Tito of his safety in Canada during his forthcoming visit, and are security arrangements being reviewed?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I think that if we attach too much importance to security, when the Canadian government invites some personalities to meet government authorities and the Canadian people, we would completely distort the purpose of such visits which is, I believe, to make exchanges in the political and economic fields. Indeed, I think that we should call instead the attention of the Canadian people to the positive objectives rather than on security matters which are, of course, considered on their merits.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand from the Solicitor General that security arrangements are not being given first priority?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member has misunderstood my remarks. I said that security matters are certainly assessed according to their significance and that is important, but I think that what is more important, is that Canadians should be concerned with

October 29, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
policy discussions held at the level of various departments.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Privy Council who is the government House leader, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence in his capacity as acting government House leader. Would the minister take up with the government House leader the possibility of calling a meeting, say on Monday, of the House leaders of the various parties to see if arrangements can be made for a telegram to be sent to President Nixon making one last appeal to stop the Amchitka test, with special arrangements being made for all Members of Parliament who wish to do so to sign such a telegram?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to bring that suggestion to the attention of my colleague, the President of the Privy Council.


AMCHITKA NUCLEAR TEST-ALERTING OF EMERGENCY MEASURES ORGANIZATION
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Defence. Despite the fact that the dangers of a physical disaster resulting from the nuclear blast at Amchitka are minimal, has the minister placed the Emergency Measures Organization on alert to meet even the minimal possibility of such a disaster? If so, can the minister give us some idea of that organization's plans?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Emergency Measures Organization, as the hon. member knows, is continually on alert and on these questions in particular they have effective liaison with the provincial emergency measures organizations. As to the actual measures to be taken, I am afraid I cannot report on that this morning.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of National Defence whether the rescue co-ordination centre in Victoria, in co-operation with the coastguard and the Emergency Measures Organization, is making heightened preparations to give advance warning and to take action if it becomes necessary as a result of the Amchitka blast?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the rescue coordination centre, as the hon. member suggests, is on a state of alert.


Mr. Nystrom:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville for one more supple-

mentary at this time, and then recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has he been given formal notification of the precise hour of the Amchitka test?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for national parks.
The Temiscamingue regional Chamber of Commerce held a meeting last night to discuss the development of a national park in Temiscamingue.
Is the minister aware of the action taken by the Chamber of Commerce and has his department come to any conclusion about the matter?


Hon. lean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the action taken by the Chambers of Commerce in the area. We are presently studying the problem, but, as hon. members know, no decision can be made with regard to a problem like this one without consultation with the provincial government.


David Réal Caouette: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development holding discussions with the provincial authorities regarding the development of a national park in Temiscamingue?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: A supplementary question. Is the province of Ontario involved in this national park which will involve an interprovincial boundary and affect both provinces?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We are considering that possibility, Mr. Speaker, We believe it might be beneficial to have a park in an area astride the two provinces, which would prove that we can be good neighbours.
October 29, 1971


INDUSTRY
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: My question is for the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce but in his absence I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Has a meeting been held with a group of mayors of municipalities who have expressed a desire for such a meeting and whose economy is very much dependent on the automobile industry and will suffer hardship following any changes in the automobile pact which result in export of jobs to the United States? Have assurances been given that such changes will be opposed by the government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I answer this question? The government, as hon. members know, has been attempting to maintain the favourable features of the automobile agreement that was so strongly criticized by the opposition in the past. I hope we will continue to have the support of the opposition in maintaining these features.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the question concerns the proposals of the United States in connection with the transitional features of the safeguards. This is the question that is at issue, not the automobile pact. Has the government arranged to meet the mayors of these various municipalies and, if so, what is the date of the meeting?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is arranging to meet the mayors. I did want to assure the House, however, that the government is fully aware of the advantages of the automobile agreement and has been negotiating to have the best possible rearrangement of the agreement to preserve the advantages to Canada.


Harold Warren Danforth: Are these various parties who are so concerned being invited to express their opinions as to a solution or is the problem going to be left in the main in the hands of the government in the continuing negotiations which the government insists are taking place with regard to this important pact?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will agree that negotiations between governments must necessarily be in the hands of the Canadian government and the United States government. We are, of course, seeking useful advice that will enable us to support our case in negotiations with the Americans from wherever we can get it.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In their absence, possibly the parliamentary secretary will obtain an answer for
Inquiries of the Ministry
me. A well-known and respected scientist, Dr. P. D. McTaggart-Cowan, stated that it was the policy of the federal Department of Agriculture to monopolize millions of dollars in research funds and as a result starved research scientists at universities. Will the Minister of Agriculture discuss this matter with his colleague, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, to see whether this money can be given to universities for research, particularly to the University of Guelph faculty of agriculture?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think the question is in the form of a representation.




Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns Canada's foreign aid program. Will the minister ensure that arrangements for shipment of our substantial gifts abroad are made through Canadian brokers rather than New York brokers and that, hopefully, the shipments are made on our Canadian foreign freighter fleet, all two of them, which otherwise will be tied up in Halifax harbour for lack of business?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire into these
representations.


PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF REPORT ON ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Will he make public the review which his department is conducting on the ecological effects on northeastern Quebec, James Bay and Hudson Bay that will result from the building of the proposed hydroelectric project on rivers running into James Bay?


Hon. lack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: The
answer would be yes, Mr. Speaker, if substantial reports are completed. However, I should mention that this work is being carried out in close co-operation with the government of the province of Quebec. Where we are working co-operatively I would think the concurrence of the province of Quebec would be required as well.


David Orlikow: Would the minister give consideration to permitting interested organizations such as conservation groups, wildlife groups and ecologists to make representations on their views with regard to the proposed plan after the view of the department has been made public and

October 29, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
before the department approves proceeding with this tremendous project?


John (Jack) Davis: I doubt very much whether the federal Department of the Environment would ever be in the position to approve that project in all its details since it is specifically one within the confines of the province of Quebec. However, we would certainly be glad to co-operate with those private groups and make information available as long as this was consistent with our liaison with the province of Quebec.


PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT- FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR INDIANS TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION
David Orlikow: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. If the Indians who are living in the area concerned and who have already expressed their opposition to this project were to decide to go to court to seek an injunction to prohibit the project, would the hon. gentleman's department help to finance such a legal appeal?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the question as asked is hypothetical. In those terms I would not think it is in order.


COMBINES
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: In view of the cessation of the publication of the Toronto Telegram and the disappearance of three more independently-owned Ontario daily newspapers into chain ownership, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister, whether he can inform the House about the position of the investigation of the combines branch with respect to the sale of subscription lists and whether we can soon expect a policy of federal aid to Canadian publications and perhaps the establishment of a press review board as recommended by the Senate media committee?


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps I would be permitted to take that question as notice.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Along with many others, the Premier of Alberta has asked the government to delay for one year implementation of the proposed tax bill, C-259. Is the government open to consider such a suggestion at this time and at the conference which is to be held with the provinces?

Hon. E. }. Benson (Minister of Finance): We shall, of course, consider any representations that are made but it is not our intention to postpone the enactment of the bill.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Does the minister agree with Toronto lawyer J. S. Peterson who has described the tax measures affecting foreign business operations as "a nightmare of overkill"-


Mr. Benson:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member knows the reservations I have about questions of that type. He is inviting the minister to express an opinion. I have to reiterate my contention that such questions are not acceptable from a procedural standpoint.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, I regret that the question was not worded properly, Mr. Speaker, but I have other questions for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and for the Postmaster General and it takes a little time to formulate them properly. I regret that I asked that question.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In light of the fact that last week the minister indicated in a press release that two of the recommendations of the Atlantic Development Council were going to be implemented, and since the parliamentary secretary suggested last night in answer to a question of mine that some of the criticisms contained in the recent report of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council were constructive, when can we expect some kind of detailed elaboration by the minister with regard to possible changes and his own response to very important criticisms of the program and, in particular, some comment with respect to the over-all strategy of the Atlantic Development Council.


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is not expecting me to indicate today all the changes that will be made but I think he will become aware of them gradually, both in the House and elsewhere. I shall no doubt have an opportunity to indicate not the change in strategy, as I do in the House, but insofar as other changes are concerned I shall make them known as and when they are made or considered.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the minister's speech last week in which he talked about the total number of jobs created under the incentives program, I wonder whether he is in a position to indicate if this total number of jobs, which was said to be 37,524, represents jobs that have been created or will be created by the end of this year? Could the minister also indicate whether monitoring procedures are in effect to determine that this
October 29, 1971

number of jobs will be sustained during the next time period of the manufacturing industry's operations, and whether it will be more than one year?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the figure of
37,000	stands for the number of jobs which will be created if all the applications approved effectively result in implementation of projects covered by those applications.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to remind hon. members of the suggestion I made to them yesterday that we should try to limit supplementaries if we are to have as many questioners as possible during the question period. The hon. member for Egmont.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, since it is always difficult to know from these releases by the minister whether we are talking about jobs which have been created or which will be created, will he be in a position, perhaps at the first of the week, to indicate the exact number of jobs that have been created and those that he expects to be created within a reasonable period of time?


Jean Marchand: I shall see, Mr. Speaker, whether this can be calculated. If it is possible, I shall gladly do so.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, this question follows earlier questions directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In light of the government's understandable delicacy about burdening us with statistics, would the minister be prepared to table the figures on unemployment goals and what the minister projects those to be for this winter and next year? This will be very helpful to us when we consider his departmental estimates and other aspects of government policy.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if these are figures on unemployment in Canada or only in regions that-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is not the same thing.


Jean Marchand: This is not the same thing indeed, as indicated by the hon. member for Edmonton West. This is therefore in designated areas.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


EXPULSION OF TAIWAN FROM UNITED NATIONS- CONTINUATION OF COMMERCIAL RELATIONS BY CANADA
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Now that Communist China has been admitted to the United Nations and that the Taiwan government has been expelled, does the government intend to maintain its trade relations with Taiwan and to have a permanent attache there? Will Canada still keep certain relations with the Taiwan government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when we established diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China we could not, of course, maintain relations with the government that claimed to have authority over the same area, namely, the Republic of China government which happens to be located at the moment in Taiwan. We did make it clear to the representatives of the People's Republic of China that we would, however, continue to trade with the people of Taiwan; but since we do not recognize another government of China we cannot have any formal relations with the Republic of China government.


David Réal Caouette: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Since the Canadian government has extended considerable assistance to certain industries in Taiwan, will it continue to do so in view of the fact that they were made financially possible owing to the Canadian government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of the sort of assistance to which the hon. gentleman is referring.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It arises out of the difficulties emanating from the Keeheewin Indian reservation in northeastern Alberta where there was a sit-in yesterday by a number of Indians at the department's regional headquarters. Will the minister advise the House in view of what Chief Goodchild, I believe that is his name, the leader of the Indians, said, to the effect that all employees, both Indian and white, of the regional office were on the side of the Indians, where the block or difference of opinion is between the Indians and the department, and is it true that the local officials are on the side of the Indians?

October 29, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that after the beginning of the difficulties I made concrete proposals to the Indians, and we have put $250,000 aside to help ameliorate the conditions. I indicated it was not possible under the present budget to build six new schools on these reserves. We have increased our contribution to quite a large extent, but it is not physically possible to build six schools. The Indians have now said to me that I have to meet all their demands before they will send their children back to school. I have indicated to them that it is impossible to meet their demands and it is absolutely unacceptable for the parents to keep their children out of school. I hope they will reconsider and send their children back to school and then we will be able to negotiate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, what steps are being taken by the minister to negotiate a relaxation of this sit-in at the regional office of the department in Edmonton which is being occupied by members of the band and sympathizers on a 24-hour basis?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I made many concessions at the beginning of this matter. I have offered to put up three temporary schools on the reserve, I have sent some people to repair the water system and I have sent carpenters to repair the schools, but each step I take seems to form another platform for new demands. I have said it is unacceptable for the parents to keep their children out of school, and when they return to school I will be ready to negotiate. My door is open and if they want to come they will be welcome any time. I am willing to meet them any time they want to meet with me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I must seek the cooperation of hon. members. We will be reaching the end of the question period very shortly and if we allow five or six supplementary questions on the same matter we will be in difficulty.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my last supplementary question is similar to the question I originally posed. Is there anything being done by the minister to negotiate the end of this sit-in at the regional office? That is the immediate problem; we are aware of the other problems that exist.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my special assistant talked with the two chiefs yesterday and asked whether there was any possibility of a compromise. They said the only thing they will accept is an answer by the minister and that he will build six schools, but that is impossible. I have very good people in the field in whom I have every confidence. There are responsible officials of my department who are able to deal with problems in the field. Three are Indians and I will not pull the rug out from under them.


ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT OF REGIONAL AND DISTRICT
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he has been made aware of an allegation or accusation by the chief of the Saddle Lake action

committee on behalf of the people of the Saddle Lake reservation that departmental staff in the Alberta regional office and the Saddle Lake-Athabasca district office have become involved in the internal politics of the Saddle Lake band? Has he examined the matter to see whether this is true and, if it is, does he not feel there is some need to perhaps pull the rug out from under them?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am aware that some parents would like very badly to send their children back to school. Some have been in touch with my officers, but my officers are not putting their noses into Indian politics on the reserve. They have certainly indicated to me that some parents want to discuss the possibility of sending their children back to school.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Skeena for the purpose of making one last supplementary question and then we will move on to another subject.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister whether he was aware that the Saddle Lake band had made the accusation that the staff of the regional office and of the Saddle Lake-Athabasca district office had been interfering in the internal politics of that band and whether he would examine that situation. I did not ask him to go into a dissertation about what he hopes to do.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that accusation and I have been discussing the situation with my officials each day. I will be talking with them again today and will ask whether this is true, but the information I have so far would indicate that it is not.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the House I should like to recognize Chief Dan George in the Speaker's gallery, who is to be honoured with the Order of Canada later today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that the Liberal ship is sinking in Newfoundland, is the minister contemplating throwing a lifebuoy in the form of increased economic assistance to that province?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
STE. THfiRilSE, QUEBEC-LAY-OFF OF EMPLOYEES BY GENERAL MOTORS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, following the meeting of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion
October 29, 1971

with representatives of the United Auto Workers from Ste. Therese, Quebec, concerning the lay-off of 600 men to take place on Monday, November 1, will he inform the House whether the government is able to do anything to hold off these proposed lay-offs?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister oi Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I had a long discussion with the representatives of the Ste. Therese union. I indicated to them ways and means of helping those who would be laid off, particularly in contacting Canada Manpower Centres; I also mentioned that under the new programs announced by the honourable Minister of Finance, employment might be found for a large number of the people laid-off.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, would the minister consider urging the Quebec Minister of Labour to consider the UAW proposal that the number of hours worked per man be reduced slightly as one means of avoiding the proposed lay-offs?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the union members made that suggestion to me. To my mind, it is not realistic, because if we did so for the people in Sainte-Therese, we would also have to do it for all the unemployed: I would like the hon. member to figure out how much that would cost.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State who reports to the House for the CBC, may I direct this question to the Acting Prime Minister. Would he be good enough to relay to the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and all those who had anything to do with the first program in the series, "The Tenth Decade", a commendation which I am sure would be supported by millions of Canadians for the portrayal of the lives of two great Canadians, and express the hope that the following sequences will be equally as interesting and factual?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HOUSING
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. As Ottawa has the lowest vacancy rate in Canada for rental accommodation, about one per cent, and CMHC officials have stated that some low income families can find absolutely no shelter, is the government going to take direct and immediate action to supplement low income housing in
Inquiries of the Ministry
areas such as Ottawa and, if so, when will a statement be made?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we are doing this on a regular basis and we will be delighted to enlist the services and assistance of the hon. member in dealing with the government of Ontario which has a more direct relationship with the kind of housing he is talking about for the Ottawa area. It really depends very much on their decision on priorities within the provinces, using federal money placed at their disposal.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Has the minister contacted the province of Ontario about this particular problem?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are in regular communication with them, although there has been a slight impediment in getting through over the past few weeks.




Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the large number of members of this House including the Minister of the Environment, I understand, who have today put their names to the Ottawa "Blast-o-Gram" which is to be sent to President Nixon, will the minister indicate what additional action is now contemplated?


John (Jack) Davis: As the
hon. member knows, this House has spoken out very effectively. We have all individually done the best we can. I do not think I can say any more.


AMCHITKA NUCLEAR TEST-STEPS TO DEAL WITH POSSIBLE ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, because the probable effect on the ecology from the Amchitka blast is a very real consideration, can the Minister of the Environment tell us what steps his department has in mind in case the blast does proceed in order to deal with the ecological damage either directly within the department's authority or in conjunction with international agencies?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the situation is that the ecological damage at a distance of more than a few hundred miles from the site is likely to be very small. Our concern has to be about the effects a few miles off Amchitka within international waters and over a long period of time.
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING

October 29, 1971


ROCHDALE COLLEGE-ISSUANCE OF FINAL ORDER OF FORECLOSURE-REFERENCE OF MATTER TO COMMITTEE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In light of the fact that the minister has issued a writ of foreclosure against Rochdale College-I know he cannot make a statement at this time because of the legal niceties-can he at least advise the House whether a final order of foreclosure has been signed and issued?


Robert Knight Andras: As I have indicated on previous occasions, a writ of foreclosure was sought on August 17, I believe. It was our forecast at that time that it could take up to 18 months or two years before total legal possession is surrendered to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I think the hon. member is aware there are at least three or four other mortgagors or creditors to be dealt with and that there are legal processes by which this thing must be solved. We cannot hurry up the process. We have financial and management control of the operation at this time, but there is no way the process can be speeded up except through the courts.


An hon. Member:: What about the suicides?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have one supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I shall not go into the legal-


Robert Knight Andras: On a question of privilege-


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


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there was an aside which suggested something about suicide. I think that casual reference to this kind of very sad events is not really helpful and I would wonder how CMHC could be assigned the responsibility for law and order in such a situation or in fact to impose itself upon all the personal decisions that would go into such a tragic event.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps it might be a different question of privilege because I doubt whether that was a question of privilege.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that I started this conversation I hope the Minister of State for Urban Affairs knows that the hon. member for Hamilton West did not make that interjection. In any event, without getting into the niceties of the legal argument to which the minister referred, can the minister assure the House that once legal title is placed in the hands of the government of Canada he would refer this whole matter to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs so it can look into it and come up with a report which will perhaps help to prevent the type of situation he is faced with now?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether there would be a necessity for any such reference to be made, but I

also would take no steps to prevent discussion of the matter before the committee on an appropriate occasion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize a last supplementary because we are running short of time.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of State for Urban Affairs tell us, with respect to the action against Rochdale on the first mortgage of CMHC, whether a writ of possession has been obtained from the courts and a judgment signed with reference to subsequent encumbrances on the title?


Robert Knight Andras: I do not think I can make any further legal interpretation or comment on the affair other than what I have already stated in response to the hon. member for Hamilton West.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the lack of responsiveness of the United States on matters of concern to Canada as evidenced by the recent Amchitka test announcement, is the government considering withdrawing its authorization for U.S. B-52 bomber training flights over southern Manitoba and Saskatchewan and reviewing other arrangements such as NORAD?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, sir.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with regard to the longstanding concern about the construction of a permanent link between the Lennox Island Indian reserve and the mainland of Prince Edward Island. In view of the acceleration in the projected cost of construction of this permanent link, can the minister inform the House whether he has reached a successful conclusion with other departments in order to have sufficient money available to start this project either late this year or early next year?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Public Works has something to announce in that regard.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be most grateful to hear from the Minister of Public Works because there is a great deal of concern.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know everything is in order. The
October 29, 1971

viaduct, as I call it, is going to be built and I think it is on time. I know of no trouble.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It is extremely good news that the project is to go ahead. Can the minister give some indication when tenders will be called and an approximate date when construction may commence?


Arthur Laing: Yes. We want to do as much work as possible before winter sets in.


HOUSING
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Is the minister now in a position to say if he has determined whether or not the National Housing Act will permit the making of loans for the building or renovation of day-care premises in places not directly connected with low-rent housing.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I regret I am not in a position to make a definitibve statement on that matter at this time.


Winona Grace MacInnis: When the minister has made an investigation, will he be introducing legislation to make it possible for this to be done?


Robert Knight Andras: That factor is being considered as well as the basic decision, Mr. Speaker.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary to the questions of the hon. member for Egmont and the hon. member for Fundy-Royal and is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion stated that the recent tax cuts will help us maintain the unemployment rate at an acceptable level. Is that the policy of the Minister of Finance and, if so, what is the acceptable level of unemployment the government wants to maintain-the 6.4 per cent average of last year?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member .for Comox-Alberni.


NATIONAL PARKS
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is the minister or his department looking into the recent report made by the Canadian Wildlife Service on the ecology of the Suffield
Income Tax Act
military reserve and, if so, are they considering the possibility of it becoming a national park possibly in connection with the Cypress Hills area?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my department, like the others, is studying the report of the Canadian Wildlife Service. We have yet to reach conclusions on the subject. We have made commitments elsewhere which might achieve the same results.


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 28, consideration in committee of Bill C-259, to amend the Income Tax Act and to make certain provisions and alterations in the statute law related to or consequential upon the amendments to that act-Mr. Benson-Mr. Laniel in the Chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening section 4 was before the committee. Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 have been grouped with Section 4 for the purpose of debate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I gather there have been discussions, which I am reporting upon although I was not privy to them, which have led to an agreement among the parties that the amendments which the Minister of Finance laid on the table yesterday, and which may be found appended to issue No. 200 of Votes and Proceedings, should be moved at this time notwithstanding the fact that they may relate to sections that are not yet under consideration, so that they can in due course be before the committee when they are called. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to confirm that that is the understanding. Perhaps the committee can make an order accordingly, and on the basis of that I could move the amendments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to confirm that that was the agreement we reached, namely, that a minister would move the amendments at this time, just to put them into Hansard so we will have them before us, in the same way as was done last Friday with the first batch of amendments.


Gérald Laniel: Does the committee give consent for the minister to move the amendments found in Votes and Proceedings, in the same way as was done previously, and does it agree that this be an order of the committee at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Then, I move:

October 29, 1971
Income Tax Act


AMENDMENTS TO PART I OF BILL C-259
[Stage Direction]
Section No. as set forth in Page(s) Number(s) clause 1	of Bill
Section 49 Section 89 Section 98 Section 137
228
361 and 363
To be added to amendment moved on October 22, 1971
Page 112
That section 49 as set forth in clause 1 of the said Bill be further amended
(a)	by striking out lines 15 to 17 on page 112 and substituting the following:
'(ii) in computing the cost to the purchaser of the property, the adjusted cost base to him of the option; and'
this subsection referred to as a "continuing partnership interest") shall, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, be deemed not to have been disposed of by the taxpayer and to continue to be an interest in the partnership;
(b)	a person who has a continuing partnership interest in the partnership shall, for the purposes of this Act (except subsections 97(2) to (4), subsections (3) to (6) of this section, subsection 100(2) and section 102), be deemed to be a member of the partnership in respect of his continuing partnership interest therein; and
(c)	in its application to any property that is a continuing partnership interest in the partnership, paragraph 40(3) (a) shall be read without reference to the words "(except paragraph (c) thereof)" therein.'
To be added to amendment moved on October 22, 1971
(b)	by striking out lines 20 to 22 on page 112 and substituting the following:
* (i) in computing the vendor's proceeds of disposition of the property, the adjusted cost base to him
of the option, and'
To be added to amendment; moved on October 22, 1971
Page 228
That section 89 as set forth in clause 1 of the said Bill be further amended by striking out lines 25 to 29 on page 228 and substituting the following:
'were allowed under paragraph 11(1) (a) of this Act as it so read in computing the income of the corporation for taxation years ending before 1972,'
Pages 361 and 363
That section 137 as set forth in clause 1 of the said Bill be further amended
(a)	by striking out the heading immediately preceding section 137, on page 361, and substituting the following:
'Credit Unions and Savings and Credit Unions'
(b)	by striking out lines 1 and 2 on page 361 and substituting the following:
Deductions 137. (1) In computing the income for a in comput- taxation year of a credit union or a savings and credit union (in this Act referred to as a "credit union"),
To be added to amendment moved on October 22, 1971
Page 25 0
That section 98 as set forth in clause 1 of the said Bill be further amended by adding, immediately after subsection (1) on page 250, the following subsection:
(1.1)	Where at any time after 1971 a taxpayer would, but for this subsection, be regarded as having ceased to be a member of a partnership of which he was a member immediately before that time,
(a)	until such time as all rights to receive any property of or from the partnership in satisfaction of the taxpayer's interest in the partnership immediately before that time are satisfied in full, such interest (in
'Continuing
partnership
interest
(c)	by adding, immediately after subsection (4.1), the following subsection:
'Computation of cumulative deduction account
(4.2)	For the purposes of subparagraph 125(6) (b) (i), the amount of a credit union's taxable income for a taxation year shall be deemed to be the amount, if any, by which its taxable income for the year otherwise determined exceeds the lesser of $25,000 and \ of its taxable income for the year otherwise determined.'
(d)	by striking out lines 8 to 10 on page 363 and substituting the following:
[DOT]'*Credit	(b) "credit union" means a corporation,
union"	association or federation incorporated or
organized as a credit union or cooperative credit society if'
October 29, 1971
[Stage Direction]
Income Tax Act

[Stage Direction]
Clause No. of Bill
Page(s) Number(s) of Bill
Clause 6-new	clause	6.1	600Clause 9-new	clause	9.1	600Clause 10	601
Clause 11 (French version only)
Clause 19 Clause 20 Clause 22 Clause 23 Clause 26
'Equalization
amount
607
608	and 610 615
619, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625, 626, 627 and 628
Clause 29 (French version
only)			650	
Clause	32	653	Clause	33	654	Clause	34	657 and	658Clause	35	659	Clause	49	679	Clause	50	679 and	680Clause	51	680 and	681Clause	57.1	(new)	689	Clause	58	690, 691,	692 and 693Clause	59	693 and	694Clause	62	696	Clause	64.1	(new)	697	Clause	65	698 and	699Clause	65.1	(new)	699	New clause	6.1 (page 600)	
That the said Bill be amended by adding, immediately after clause 6 on page 600, the following clause:
6.1 (1) The definition "basic tax" in subsection 2(1) of the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act is repealed.
'Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act
(4)	All that portion of subsection 8(2) of the said Act immediately preceding paragraph (a) thereof is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
(2) The unit equalization value mentioned in subsection (1) that is applicable to a province in respect of a standing program is the amount, if any, that, when added to the amount, as determined by the Minister of Finance, representing one per cent of the aggregate amount obtained from the tax otherwise payable in the province in respect of a calendar year coinciding with or ending in an operating year of the standing program, will cause'
(5)	Subparagraph 8(2)(b)(i) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
'(i) the amount, as determined by the Minister of Finance, representing one per cent of the aggregate amount obtained from the tax otherwise payable in the two provinces in which the per capita amount obtained from the tax otherwise payable in respect of that calendar year is greatest'
(6)	This section is applicable in respect of the 1972 and subsequent taxation years.'
Clause 9 (page 600)
That the said Bill be amended by adding, immediately after clause 9 on page 600, the following clause:
' "tax
abatement"
' "tax
otherwise
payable"
(2)	The definition "tax abatement" in subsection 2(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"tax abatement" means the percentage that is applied to the tax otherwise payable to determine the amount that may be deducted under subsection 120(2) of the Income Tax Act for a taxation year by an individual;'
(3)	Subsection 2(1) of the said Act is further amended by adding thereto, the following definition:
"tax otherwise payable" has the meaning given to the expression "tax otherwise payable under this Part" by paragraph 120(4) (c) of the Income Tax Act;'
'Application of Part VIII of amended Act
9.1 Part VIII of the amended Act is applicable to dividends paid by a corporation (in this section referred to as the "payer corporation") where the control of the payer corporation was acquired after 1954, except where the control was acquired after 1954 by a non-resident corporation from another non-resident person that acquired control of the payer corporation before 1955.'
Clause 10 (page 601)
That clause 10 of the said Bill be amended by adding, immediately after subclause (4) on page 601, the following subclause:
'Certificates
(5) Any certificate of exemption issued by the Minister under subsection 106(9) of the former Act that is in force on December 31, 1971 shall, for the purposes of subparagraph 212(1) (b) (iv) of the amended Act,
[Stage Direction]
October 29, 1971
Income Tax Act
(a)	be deemed, tor greater certainty, to have been issued under subsection 212(14) of the amended Act, and
(b)	be deemed to be in force on January 1, 1972 and thereafter without interruption until the end of 1974, at which time it ceases to be in force, except that if at any time before the end of 1974 the person to whom the certificate was issued has ceased to be exempt, under the laws of the country of which he is a resident, from the payment of income tax to the government of that country, the certificate ceases to be in force on the later of
(i)	January 1, 1972, and
(ii)	the day on which he so ceased to be exempt.'
Clause 11 (page 602)
That the French version of clause 11 of the said Bill be amended by striking out line 15 on page 602 and substituting the following:
'suit le debut de 1976, l'impot payable par elle'
Clause 19 (page 607)
That clause 19 of the said Bill be amended
(a) by striking out line 1 on page 607 and substituting
the following:
'Income
maintenance
payments
19. U_) Notwithstanding section 9, paragraph'
(b) by adding, immediately after clause 19 on page 607 the following subclause:
'Effect of certain changes made in plan established before June 19,1971
(2) For the purposes of this section, a plan described in paragraph 6(1) (/) of the amended Act that was in existence before June 19, 1971 does not cease to be a plan established before that date by reason only of changes made therein on or after that date for the purpose of ensuring that the plan qualifies as one entitling the employer of persons covered under the plan to a deduction, as provided for by subsection 64(4) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, in the amount of the employer's premium payable under that Act in respect of insured persons covered under the plan.'
Clause 20 (pages 608 and 610)
That clause 20 of the said Bill be amended
(a) by adding, immediately after subclause (1) on page 608 of the Bill, the following subclauses:
(1.1) Subsection (1) is not applicable in any case in which subsection 70(6) or 73(1) of the amended Act is applicable in respect of the disposition by a taxpayer of any depreciable property of a prescribed class to the spouse or trust, as the case may be, referred to therein, except that where the spouse or trust,
'Where depreciable property disposed of to spouse or trust
as the case may be, subsequently disposes of the property at any time, subsection (1) is applicable as if the spouse or trust, as the case may be, had acquired the property before 1972 and owned it without interruption from December 31, 1971 until that time.
Other transfers of depreciable property
Transfers before 1972 not at arm's length
(1.2)	Where, by virtue of a transaction to which any of subsections 85(1), (2) or (3), 87 (2), 97(2), 98(3) or (5) or 107(2) or section 88 of the amended Act applies, a taxpayer has at any particular time after 1971 acquired any depreciable property of a prescribed class from a person who acquired the property before 1972 and owned it without interruption from December 31, 1971 until the particular time, for the purposes of subsection (1) the taxpayer shall be deemed to have acquired the property before 1972 and to have owned it without interruption from December 31, 1971 until such time after 1971 as he disposed of it.
(1.3)	Without restricting the generality of section 18, where any depreciable property has been transferred before 1972 in circumstances such that subsection 20(4) of the former Act would, if that provision were applicable to transfers of property made in the 1972 taxation year, be applicable, paragraph 69(1) (b) of the amended Act is not applicable to the transfer and subsection 20(4) of the former Act is applicable thereto.'
(b) by striking out lines 32 to 40 on page 610 and substituting the following:
'(d) notwithstanding paragraph (c), a person who became a member of the partnership after June 18, 1971 and who was a member of the partnership thereafter without interruption until December 31, 1971 shall be deemed to be a person described in paragraph (c) and the amount may be claimed by him thereunder as a deduction in computing his income for any taxation year should not exceed 10% of the aggregate of the amounts determined under subparagraphs (c)(i) and (ii).'
Clause 22 (page 615)
That clause 22 of the said Bill be amended by striking out lines 1 to 3 on page 615 and substituting the following:
'Deduction of interest by certain corporations
22. (JJ Notwithstanding section 9, subsections 18(4) to (7) of the amended Act are applicable to taxation years commencing after 1971.
(2) In its application to the first taxation year of a corporation commencing after 1971 and to the immediately following taxation year, subsection 18(4) of the amended Act shall be read as if
October 29, 1971
[Stage Direction]
Income Tax Act
(a)	subparagraph (a) (i) thereof were read as follows:
"(i) the greatest amount that the corporation's outstanding debts to specified non-residents was at any time in the year, less the amount, if any, by which
(A)	the least amount that the corporation's outstanding debts to specified non-residents was at any time in the last taxation year of the corporation commencing before June 19, 1971 (in this subparagraph referred to as the corporation's "base year")
exceeds 3 times the aggregate of
(B)	the paid-up capital of the corporation at the end of its taxation year immediately preceding its base year in respect of all of the shares of. its capital stock, and
(C)	the corporation's undistributed income on hand (within the meaning assigned by this Act as it read in its application to the 1971 taxation year) at the end of its taxation year immediately preceding its base year,", and
(b)	paragraph (b) thereof were read as follows:
"(b) the greatest amount that the corporation's outstanding debts to specified non-residents was at any time in the year".'
Clause 23 (page 617)
That clause 23 of the said Bill be amended by striking out lines 15 to 19 on page 617 and substituting the following:
'(ii) in respect of each such partnership the adjusted cost base to the taxpayer of his interest in the partnership immediately after the end of the fiscal period of the partnership ending in the year;'
Clause 26 (pages 619, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625, 626, 627 and 628)
That clause 26 of the said Bill be amended
(a)	by adding thereto, immediately after subclause (1) on page 619, the following subclause:
(1.1)	For the purposes of subsection 39(3) and section 80 of the amended Act, the principal amount of any debt or other obligation of a taxpayer to pay an amount that was outstanding on January 1, 1972 (in this subsection referred to as an "obligation") shall be deemed to be the lesser of
'Principal amount of certain obligations
(a)	the principal amount, otherwise determined for the purposes of the amended Act, of the obligation, and
(b)	the fair market value, on valuation day, of the obligation,
and in its application to any obligation, paragraph 39(3)(a) of the amended Act shall be read as if the reference therein to "the amount for which the obligation was issued" were read as a reference to "the lesser of the principal amount of the obligation and the amount for which the obligation was issued".'
(b)	by striking out lines 24 to 27 on page 621 and substituting the following:
'January 1, 1972 shall be deemed to be the amount that was its actual cost or its amortized cost on January 1, 1972, as the case may be, to the original owner; and'
(c)	by striking out lines 30 to 39 on page 621 and substituting the following:
'(i) there shall be added the amount, if any, by which
(A)	the actual cost to the subsequent owner of th$ property
exceeds
(B)	the cost to the original owner of the property,
determined under the provisions of this section, and'
(d)	by striking out lines 1 to 13 on page 622 and substituting the following:
'Idem	(5.1) For the purposes of subsection (5), an
amalgamation (within the meaning assigned by section 87 of the amended Act) of two or more Canadian corporations shall be deemed to be a transaction between persons not dealing at arm's length.
Reacquired (6) Where a taxpayer has, at any time after property June 18, 1971 and before 1972, disposed of any property owned by him on that day and has, within 30 days after that time, reacquired the same property or acquired a substantially identical property, for the purposes of this section
(a)	he shall be deemed to have owned the property so reacquired or the substantially identical property so acquired, as the case may be, on June 18, 1971 and thereafter wifhout interruption until the time when he so reacquired or acquired it, as the case may be;
(b)	where the property was property so reacquired, its actual cost or its amortized cost on January 1, 1972, as the case may be, to him shall be determined as if he had not so disposed of and so reacquired it; and
[Stage Direction]
October 29, 1971
Income Tax Act
(c)	v'here the property was substantially identical property so acquired, its actual cost or its amortized cost on January 1, 1972, as the case may be, to him shall be deemed to be the amount that was the actual cost or the amortized cost on January 1, 1972, as the case may be, to him of the property so disposed of by him.'
(e)	by striking out lines 2 to 5 on page 623 and substituting the following:
'(i) for the purpose of paragraph (3)(a), its amortized cost to him on January 1, 1972 shall be deemed to be that proportion of the aggregate of the amortized costs to him on January 1, 1972 of all obligations'
(f)	by striking out lines 1 to 48 on page 624, lines 1 to 45 on page 625 and lines 1 to 39 on page 626 and substituting the following:
'Cost of	(9) For the purpose of computing, at any
interest particular time after 1971, the adjusted cost partnership base to a taxpayer of an interest in a partnership of which he was a member on December 31, 1971 and thereafter without interruption until the particular time, the cost to him of the interest shall be deemed to be the amount that is neither the greatest nor the least of the following three amounts, namely:
(a)	its actual cost to him as of the particular time,
(b)	the amount determined under subsection (9.1) in respect of the interest as of the particular time, and
(c)	the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of the fair market value of the interest at the particular time and all amounts required by subsection 53(2) of the amended Act to be deducted in computing its adjusted cost base to him immediately before the particular time exceeds the aggregate of all amounts required by subsection 53(1) of the amended Act to be added in computing its adjusted cost base to him immediately before the particular time,
Determination of amount for purposes of ss. (9)
except that where two or more of the amounts determined under paragraphs (a) to (c) in respect of the interest are the same amounts, that amount shall be deemed to be its cost to the taxpayer.
(9.1)	For the purposes of subsection (9), the amount determined under this subsection in respect of a taxpayer's interest in a partnership as of a particular time is the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of
(a)	his share, determined at the commencement of the first fiscal period of the partnership ending after 1971, of the tax equity of the partnership at the particular time,
Where
interest
acquired
before
and after commencement of 1st fiscal period ending after 1971
Amounts deemed to be
required to be deducted in respect of interest in partnership
(b)	such part of any contribution of capital made by the taxpayer to the partnership (otherwise than by way of loan) before 1972 and after the commencement of the partnership's first fiscal period ending after 1971, as cannot reasonably be regarded as a gift made to, or for the benefit of, any other member of the partnership who was related to the taxpayer, and
(c)	the amount of any consideration that became payable by the taxpayer after 1971 to any other person to acquire, after 1971, any right in respect of the partnership, the sole purpose of the acquisition of which was to increase the taxpayer's interest in the partnership,
exceeds the aggregate of
(d)	all amounts received by the taxpayer before 1972 and after the commencement of the partnership's first fiscal period ending after 1971 as, on account or in lieu of payment of, or in satisfaction of a distribution of his share of the partnership profits or partnership capital, and
(e)	all amounts each of which is an amount in respect of the disposition by the taxpayer after 1971 and before the particular time of a part of his interest in the partnership, equal to such portion of the adjusted cost base to him of the interest immediately before the disposition as may reasonably be regarded as attributable to the part so disposed of.
(9.2)	Where a taxpayer has, before 1972 and after the commencement of the first fiscal period of a partnership ending after 1971, acquired an interest in the partnership from another person, subsection (9.1) is applicable as if, for the purposes of paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) thereof, the taxpayer had had in respect of the interest, throughout the period commencing at the commencement of that fiscal period and ending at the time he acquired the interest, the same position in relation to the partnership as that which he would have had in relation thereto if, throughout that period, he had been the owner of the interest.
(9.3)	For the purpose of computing, at any particular time after 1971, the adjusted cost base to a taxpayer of an interest in a partnership of which he was a member on December 31, 1971 and thereafter without interruption until the particular time, the lesser of
(a)	the amount, if any, by which
(i)	all amounts in respect of the interest determined under paragraph (9.1) (d) exceed
October 29, 1971
[Stage Direction]
(ii)	the aggregate of
(A)	his share, determined at the commencement of the first fiscal period of the partnership ending after 1971, of the tax equity of the partnership at the particular time, and
(B)	the amount in respect of the interest determined under paragraph
(9.1)	(b), and
(b)	the amount, if any, by which
(i)	the aggregate of amounts in respect of the interest determined as of the particular time under paragraphs (14) (e) to (g)
exceeds
(ii)	the aggregate of amounts in respect of the interest determined as of the particular time under paragraphs (14) (a) to (d),
shall be deemed to be required by subsection 53(2) of the amended Act to be deducted.
(9.4)	For the purpose of computing, at any particular time after 1971, the adjusted cost base to a taxpayer of an interest in a partnership of which he was a member on December 31, 1971 and thereafter without interruption until the particular time,
(a)	clause 53(1) (e) (i) (B) of the amended Act shall be read as if the reference therein to "relating to" were read as a reference to "relating to section 14 or to"; and
(b)	clause 53 (2) (c) (i) (B) of the amended Act shall be read as follows:
"(B) section 31, subsection 40(2), section 55 and the provisions of the Income Tax Application Rules, 1971 relating to section 14".'
striking out lines 21 to 26 on page 627 and substituting the following:
'(iii) in any other case, the actual cost to him of the obligation, plus that proportion of the discount, or minus that proportion of the premium, as the case may be, in respect thereof that'
(h) by striking out the word "and" at the end of line 17 on page 628, and by striking out line 22 on page 628 and substituting the following:
-Tax (3) exceeds the principal amount thereof; equity" and
(g)	"tax equity" of a partnership at any particular time means the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of amounts each of which is
(i)	the amount of any money of the partnership on hand at the commencement of its first fiscal period ending after 1971,
Application of section 53 of amended Act in respect of interest in partnership
(9) by
Income Tax Act
(ii)	the cost amount to the partnership, at the commencement of that fiscal period, of any partnership property other than capital property or eligible capital property,
(iii)	an amount in respect of any property (other than depreciable property) that was, at the commencement of that fiscal period, capital property of the partnership, equal to,
(A)	where the property was disposed of before 1972, the proceeds of disposition thereof,
(B)	where the property was disposed of after 1971 and before the particular time, the amount determined under this section to be its cost to the partnership for the purposes of computing its adjusted cost base to the partnership immediately before it was disposed of, and
(C)	in any other case, the amount determined under this section to be its cost to the partnership for the purposes of computing its adjusted cost base to the partnership immediately before the particular time,
(iv)	an amount in respect of any prescribed class of depreciable property of the partnership, equal to the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of the undepreciated capital cost to the partnership of property of that class as of January 1, 1972 exceeds the capital cost to the partnership of property of that class acquired by it after the commencement of that fiscal period and before 1972,
(v)	an amount in respect of any property that was, at the commencement of that fiscal period, partnership property that was depreciable property of a prescribed class, equal to,
(A)	where the property was disposed of before 1972, the proceeds of disposition thereof minus the amount, if any, by which the lesser of
1.	the proceeds of disposition thereof, and
2.	the capital cost of the property, exceeds the undepreciated capital cost of all of the property of that class at the time of the disposition,
(B)	where the property was disposed of after 1971 and before the particular time, the amount, if any, by which the lesser of
[Stage Direction]
October 29, 1971
Income Tax Act
1.	the proceeds of disposition thereof, and
2.	the fair market value of the property on valuation day,
exceeds the capital cost to the partnership of the property, and
(C)	in any other case, the amount, if any, by which
1.	the lesser of the fair market value of the property on valuation day and its fair market value at the particular time
exceeds
2.	the capital cost to the partnership of the property, or
(vi)	an amount in respect of any business carried on by the partnership in its 1971 fiscal period and thereafter without interruption until the particular time, equal to the percentage of
(A)	2 times the eligible capital amounts (within the meaning assigned by section 14 of the amended Act) in respect of the business (computed without reference to section 21 of this Act) that would have become payable to the partnership if it had disposed of the business at the particular time for an amount equal to its fair market value at that time,
that is equal to
(B)	60% minus the percentage obtained when 5% is multiplied by the number of full calendar years ending after 1971 and before the particular time,
exceeds the aggregate of amounts each of which is the amount of any debt owing by the partnership or of any other obligation of the partnership to pay an amount, that was outstanding at the commencement of the partnership's first fiscal period ending after 1971, minus such part, if any, thereof as would, if the amount had been paid by the partnership in that fiscal period, have been deductible in computing its income for that fiscal period.
Meaning of "actual cost"
Idem
(13)	For the purposes of this section, the "actual cost" to a person of any property means, except as expressly otherwise provided in this section, its cost to him computed without regard to the provisions of this section.
(14)	For the purposes of this section, the "actual cost" to a taxpayer, as of any particular time after 1971, of an interest in a partnership of which the taxpayer was a
member on December 31, 1971 and thereafter without interruption until the particular time means the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of
(a)	the cost to him of the interest, computed as of the particular time without regard to the provisions of this section,
(b)	all amounts each of which is an amount in respect of a fiscal period of the partnership that ended before 1972, equal to the aggregate of
(i)	the amount that the taxpayer's income from the partnership for the taxation year of the taxpayer in which the period ended would have been, if the former Act had been read without reference to subsection 83(5) thereof, and
(ii)	the taxpayer's share, determined at the end of the period, of all profits made from dispositions in the period of capital assets that were partnership property of the partnership, to the extent that such profits were not included in computing the income or loss, as the case may be, from the partnership, of any member thereof,
(c)	where the taxpayer had, before 1972, made a contribution of capital to the partnership otherwise than by way of loan, such part of the contribution as cannot reasonably be regarded as a gift made to, or for the benefit of, any other member of the partnership who was related to the taxpayer, and
(d)	where, by means of the partnership, the taxpayer carried on before 1972 a business that was a profession, the amount that his 1971 receivables (within the meaning assigned by subsection 23(5)) in respect of the business would have been if, before 1972, he had carried on no businesses except by means of the partnership,
exceeds the aggregate of
(e)	all amounts each of which is an amount in respect of the disposition by the taxpayer before the particular time of a part of his interest in the partnership, equal to such portion of,
(i)	where the disposition was made before 1972, the actual cost to him of the interest, and
(ii)	in any other case, the adjusted cost base to him of the interest immediately before the disposition,
as may reasonably be regarded as attributable to the parts so disposed of,
(/) all amounts each of which is an amount in respect of a fiscal period of the

October 29, 1971
[Stage Direction]
partnership that ended before 1972, equal to the aggregate of
(i)	the amount that the taxpayer's loss from the partnership for the taxation year of the taxpayer in which the period ended would have been, if the former Act had been read without reference to subsection 83(5) thereof,
(ii)	the taxpayers' share, determined at the end of the period, of all losses sustained from dispositions in the period of capital assets that were partnership property of the partnership, to the extent that such losses were not included in computing the loss or income, as the case may be, from the partnership, of any member thereof, and
(iii)	the taxpayer's share, determined at the end of the period, of such of the drilling and exploration expenses, including all general geological and geophysical expenses incurred by the partnership while he was a member thereof, on or in respect of exploring or drilling for petroleum or natural gas in Canada as were incurred in the period and after 1948, to the extent that such expenses were not deducted in computing his income from the partnership for his 1971 or any previous taxation year, and
(g) all amounts received by the taxpayer before 1972 as, on account or in lieu of payment of, or in satisfaction of, a distribution of his share of the partnership profits or partnership capital.
Clause 29 (page 650)
That the French version of clause 29 of the said Bill be amended by striking out line 24 on page 650 and substituting the following:
'par le present article ou l'article 66 de la loi modifiee,
Clause 32 (page 653)
That clause 32 of the said Bill be amended (a) by striking out line 11 on page 653 and substituting the following:
'Application 32. (1) Paragraph 69 (1) (a) of the amended of ss. 69 (1) of amended Act
(b) by adding, immediately after line 20 on page 653, the following subclauses:
'Idem
(2)	Paragraph 69(1) (b) of the amended Act does not apply to deem a taxpayer by whom anything has been disposed of at any time before the 1972 taxation year to have received proceeds of disposition therefor equal to its fair market value at that time.
Income Tax Act
(3)	For greater certainty, paragraph 69(1)
(c)	of the amended Act is applicable to property acquired by a taxpayer either before or after the end of 1971.'
Clause 33 (page 654)
That clause 33 of the said Bill be amended by striking out lines 21 to 24 on page 654 and substituting the following:
'of the former Act, a new corporation) was incorporated in 1971 and its 1972 taxation year was its first taxation year, for the purposes of computing its paid-up'
Clause 34 (pages 657 and 658)
That clause 34 of the said Bill be amended
(a)	by striking out line 42 on page 657 and substituting the following:
'its income under Part I of the amended Act for a taxation year,'
(b)	by striking out lines 28 to 31 on page 658 and substituting the following:
'Tax	(5)Where there has been an amalgamation
payable 0f two or more corporations before 1972 and the first taxation year of the new corporation is its 1972 taxation year, if any amount is required by paragraph 851(2) (k) of the former Act to be added to the'
Clause 35 (page 659)
That clause 35 of the said Bill be amended by striking out lines 30 to 37 on page 659 and substituting the following:
'idem	(3) Section 91 of the amended Act shall be
read as if
(a)	the reference in paragraph (l)(a) thereof to "for each taxation year of the affiliate ending in the taxation year of the taxpayer" were read as a reference to "for each taxation year of the affiliate commencing after 1972 and ending in the taxation year of the taxpayer", and
(b)	paragraph 1(b) thereof were not applicable in respect of any amount received by a foreign affiliate of a taxpayer during any taxation year of the taxpayer commencing before 1973.'
Clause 49 (page 679)
That clause 49 of the said Bill be amended by adding thereto, immediately after subclause (2) on page 679, the following subclause:
[Stage Direction]
October 29, 1971
Income Tax Act
'Computation of tax deemed payable under amended Act
(3) In computing, under any provision of sections 39 to 48, any tax that is payable in addition to or in lieu of any amount of tax payable under Part I of the amended Act by an individual for a taxation year,
(a)	a reference to section 120 of the amended Act does not include a reference to paragraph 33(1) (a) of the former Act, and
(b)	for the purposes of paragraph 33(l)(a) of the former Act and subsection 120(1) of the amended Act, all of the income of the individual for that or any previous taxation year shall be deemed to have been income earned in the year in a province.'
Clause 50 (page 679 and 680)
That clause 50 of the said Bill be amended
(a) by striking out line 40 on page 679 and substituting the following:
Status of so. (l) For the purposes of the amended certain cor-	
[Stage Direction]
porations Act, a
(b) by adding, immediately after line 5 on page 680, the following subclauses:
(2) For the purposes of paragraph 89(l)(p) of the amended Act, where at any particular time before August, 1972 a corporation has elected in the manner referred to in clause (ii) (A) thereof to be a public corporation, and at the time of the election the corporation complied with the conditions referred to in that clause, the corporation shall,
(a)	at such time after 1971 and before the particular time as is specified in the election to be the effective date thereof, or
(b)	where no time described in paragraph (a)is specified in the election to he the effective date thereof, at the particular time,
be deemed to have elected in the manner referred to in that clause to be a public corporation and to have complied with the conditions referred to therein.
Designation (3) For the purposes of paragraph 89(l)(p) of by Minister the amended Act, where at any particular time before the 90th day after the day this Act is assented to the Minister has, by notice in writing to a corporation, designated the corporation to be a public corporation or not to be a public corporation, as the case may be, and at the time of the designation the corporation complied with the conditions referred to in clause (ii)(A) thereof or (iii)(A) thereof, as the case may be, the corporation shall, at such time as is specified by the Minister in the notice, be deemed
(a) to have been designated by the Minister, by notice in writing to the corporation, to be
'Election to be public corporation
a public corporation or not to be a public corporation, as the case may be, and
(b) to have complied with the conditions referred to in clause (ii) (A) thereof or
(iii)(A) thereof, as the case may be.'
Clause 51 (pages 680 and 681)
That clause 51 of the said Bill be amended
(a)	by striking out lines 14 and 15 on page 680 and substituting the following:
'(a) determine the tax under Part I of the amended Act that, but for this subsection, would be payable by it'
(b)	by striking out lines 27 to 35 on page 680 and substituting the following:
'(b) determine the tax under Part I of the amended Act that, but for this subsection, would be payable by it for its 1972 taxation year on the assumption that
(i) its amount taxable for the year were an amount equal to the amount, if any, by which its amount taxable for the year, determined without regard to the provisions of this subsection, exceeds its net capital gains for the year, and'
(c)	by striking out lines 6 and 7 on page 681 and substituting the following:
'(d) determine the aggregate of the taxes that, but for this subsection, would be payable by the corporation'
New Clause 57.1 (page 689)
That the said Bill be amended by adding, immediately after clause 57 on page 689, the following clause:
'Coopera- 57.1 (1) Notwithstanding any other pro-tive .	vision of this Act, the tax under Part I of the
corporations amenc|e(j Act payable by a cooperative corporation (within the meaning assigned by section 136 of the amended Act) for a taxation year ending after 1971 and before 1981 is the aggregate of
(a) the tax under that Part that, but for this subsection, would be payable by the corporation for the year if
(i)	subsection 75(3) and paragraph 75(4) (b) of the former Act were applicable and subsection 135(3) and paragraph 135(4) (f) of the amended Act were not applicable, and
(ii)	the references in subsection 75(3) and paragraph 75(4)(b) of the former Act to section 27 of that Act and to paragraph 62(1) (k) of that Act were references to section 111 and to paragraph 137(6) (b) respectively, of the amended Act, and
October 29, 1971
[Stage Direction]
Income Tax Act
(b) an amount in respect of the taxation year equal to
(i)	where the year is the corporation's
1972	taxation year, 1/10
(ii)	where the year is the corporation's
1973	taxation year, 2/10
(iii)	where the year is the corporation's
1974	taxation year, 3/10
(iv)	where the year is the corporation's
1975	taxation year, 4/10
(v)	where the year is the corporation's
1976	taxation year, 5/10
(vi)	where the year is the corporation's
1977	taxation year, 6/10
(vii)	where the year is the corporation's
1978	taxation year, 7/10
(viii)	where the year is the corporation's
1979	taxation year, 8/10
(ix)	where the year is the corporation's
1980	taxation year, 9/10
of the amount, if any, by which the tax under Part I of the amended Act that, but for this subsection, would be payable by the corporation for the year exceeds the amount determined under paragraph (a) in respect of the corporation for the year.
Ss. 51(1) not (2) Subsection 51(1) does not apply for applicable the purpose of computing the tax payable by a cooperative corporation (within the meaning assigned by section 136 of the amended Act) for its 1972 taxation year.'
Clause 58 (pages 690, 691, 692 and 693)
That clause 58 of the said Bill be amended
(a)	by striking out lines 20 and 21 on page 690 and substituting the following:
'the product obtained when the number of full taxation years in the period'
(b)	by striking out lines 35 and 36 on page 690 and substituting the following:
'of such improvement or addition, as the case may be, exceeded $10,000),'
(c)	by striking out lines 30 to 49 on .page 691 and lines 1 to 27 on page 692 and substituting the following:
'Deemed	(2) For the purposes of paragraph 137(1)
deductions (c) 0f the amended Act, a credit union shall be deemed to have deducted, in computing its income for its 1971 taxation year
(a) under paragraph 137(1) (a) thereof, the maximum amount determined in prescribed manner that would have been claimable by the credit union under that paragraph as a reserve in respect of property described therein in computing its income
for its 1971 taxation year if section 137 of the amended Act had been applicable to that year, and
(b)	under paragraph 137 (1) (b) thereof, the maximum amount determined in prescribed manner that would have been claimable by the credit union under that paragraph as a reserve in respect of debts described therein in computing its income for its 1971 taxation year if section 137 of the amended Act had been applicable to that year,
except that where the amount of the credit union's 1971 reserve is less than the aggregate of the amounts described in paragraph (a) and (b), it shall be deemed to have deducted in computing its income for its 1971 taxation year,
(c) under paragraph 137(1) (a) of the amended Act, such portion of its 1971 reserve as it may claim, not exceeding the amount described in paragraph (a), and
(d) under paragraph 137(1) (b) of the amended Act, such portion of the amount, if any, by which its 1971 reserve exceeds the amount determined under paragraph
(c), as does not exceed the amount described in paragraph (b).
Tax for 1972 to 1980 taxation years
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act except subsection (3.1), the tax under Part I of the amended Act payable by a credit union (within the meaning assigned by section 137 of the amended Act) for a taxation year ending after 1971 and before 1981 is the aggregate of
(a)	the tax under that Part that, but for this subsection and subsection (3.1), would be payable by a credit union for the year if section 137 of the amended Act were read without reference to subsections (3) and (4) thereof, and
(b)	an amount in respect of the taxation year equal to
(i)	where the year is the credit union's
1972	taxation year, 1/10
(ii)	where the year is the credit union's
1973	taxation year, 2/10
(iii)	where the year is the credit union's
1974	taxation year, 3/10
(iv)	where the year is the credit union's
1975	taxation year, 4/10
(v)	where the year is the credit union's
1976	taxation year, 5/10
(vi)	where the year is the credit union's
1977	taxation year, 6/10
[Stage Direction]
October 29, 1971
Income Tax Act
(vii)	where the year is the credit union's
1978	taxation year, 7/10
(viii)	where the year is the credit union's
1979	taxation year, 8/10
(ix)	where the year is the credit union's
1980	taxation year, 9/10
of the amount, if any, by which the tax under Part I of the amended Act that, but for this subsection and subsection (3.1), would be payable by the credit union for the year exceeds the amount determined under paragraph (a) in respect of the credit union for the year.
Special rule applicable to 1972 taxation year
(3.1)	Where a credit union has a taxation year part of which is before and part of which is after the commencement of 1972, the tax under Part I of the amended Act payable by it for that taxation year is that proportion of the amount thereof computed under subsection (3) that the number of days in that portion of the taxation year that is in 1972 is of the number of days in the whole taxation year.'
(d)	by adding, immediately after subclause (4) on page 692, the following subclause:
'Amount of (4.1) The amount, if any, by which 5oss"CaPltal <a>
*he aSSreSa^e of amounts each of which is the amount, as of the commencement of the credit union's 1972 taxation year, of any share in the credit union of any member thereof, exceeds
(b) the amount that would be the credit union's 1971 reserve if paragraph (5)(c) were read with reference to subparagraph (vi) thereof
shall, for the purposes of section 111 of the amended Act, be deemed to have been the credit union's non-capital loss for its 1971 taxation year, and, for greater certainty, section 37 does not apply for the purpose of computing a credit union's taxable income for any taxation year.'
(e)	by striking out lines 13 to 23 on page 693 and substituting the following:
[Stage Direction]
reserve"
(c)	"1971 reserve" of a credit union means the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of amounts each of which is
(i)	the amount of any money of the credit union on hand at the commencement of its 1972 taxation year,
(ii)	an amount in respect of any property described in paragraph (l)(a) or (b), equal to the amount at which it is required by those paragraphs to be valued at the commencement of its 1972 taxation year,
(iii)	an amount in respect of depreciable property of a prescribed class owned by
the credit union on the first day of its 1972 taxation year, equal to the amount determined under paragraph (1) d) to be the undepreciated capital cost thereof to the credit union as of that day, or
(iv)	an amount in respect of any capital property (other than depreciable property) owned by the credit union at the commencement of its 1972 taxation year, equal to its cost to the credit union computed without reference to the provisions of section 26,
exceeds the aggregate of amounts each of
which is
(v)	the amount of any debt owing by the credit union or of any other obligation of the credit union to pay an amount, that was outstanding at the commencement of its 1972 taxation year, excluding, for greater certainty, any share in the credit union of any member thereof, or
(vi)	the amount, as of the commencement of the credit union's 1972 taxation year, of any share in the credit union of any member thereof.'
Clause 59 (.Pages 693 and 694)
That clause 59 of the said Bill be amended by striking out lines 24 to 47 on page 693 and lines 1 to 9 on page 694 and substituting the following:
'Non-resi- 59. (i) in its application to the 1972 to 1975 mvestment"1 taxation years of a corporation, section 133 of corporation the amended Act shall be read as if
(a) subsection (3) thereof were read as follows:
"(3) The tax payable under this Part by a corporation for a taxation year when it was a non-resident-owned investment corporation is the aggregate of
(a)	25% of the lesser of
(i)	the corporation's taxable income for the year, and
(ii)	the amount determined under subparagraph (9)(b)(iii) in respect of the corporation for the year, and
(b)	15% of the amount, if any, by which the amount determined under subparagraph (a)(i) exceeds the amount determined under subparagraph (a)(ii).", and
Idem
(b) the references in subsection (9) thereof to "1/3", and "4/3" were read as references to "15/85" and "100/85" respectively.
(2) In its application to the 1972 and subsequent taxation years of a corporation, section 133 of the amended Act shall be read as if, in respect of such portion of any period described in paragraph 133(8)(d) as ended before the
October 29, 1971
[Stage Direction]
commencement of the corporation's 1976 taxation year, subparagraph 133(8)(d)(i) were read as follows:
"(i) at least 95% of the aggregate value of its issued shares, and all of its bonds, debentures and other funded indebtedness, were
(A)	beneficially owned by non-resident persons (other than any foreign affiliate of a taxpayer resident in Canada),
(B)	owned by trustees for the benefit of non-resident persons or their unborn issue, or
(C)	owned by a corporation, whether incorporated in Canada or elsewhere, at least 95% of the aggregate value of the issued shares of which and all of the bonds, debentures and other funded indebtedness of which were beneficially owned by non-resident persons or owned by trustees for the benefit of non-resident persons or their unborn issue, or by two or more such corporations;".'
Clause 62 (page 696)
That clause 62 of the said Bill be amended by striking out lines 1 and 2 on page 696 and substituting the following:
Assessments
62. (1) Subsections 152(4) and (5) of the amended Act are applicable in respect of any assessment made after the coming into force of this Act, except that subsection 152(5) thereof is not applicable in respect of any such assessment made in consequence of a waiver filed with the Minister before the coming into force of this Act in the form and within the time referred to in subsection 152(4) thereof.
Interest
Penalties
Appeals
(2)	Subsections 161(1) and (2), 164(3) and (4), 183(2), 195(1), 202(5) and 227(8) and (9) of the amended Act, in so far as those subsections relate to the rate of interest payable thereunder, are applicable in respect of interest payable in respect of any period after the coming into force of this Act.
(3)	Subsection 163(1) of the amended Act is applicable in respect of any return of income required to be filed after 1971 and subsection 163(3) thereof is applicable in respect of any appeal instituted after the coming into force of this Act.
(4)	Subsection 165(3) of the amended Act is applicable in respect of any notice of objection served on the Minister after the coming into force of this Act.
Income Tax Act
Idem
Appeals to
Federal
Court
(5)	Division J of Part I of the amended Act is applicable in respect of any appeal or application instituted or made, as the case may be, after the coming into force of this Act.
(6)	Any appeal to the Federal Court instituted within 2 years after the coming into force'
New Clause 64.1 (page 697)
That the said Bill be amended by adding, immediately after clause 64 on page 697, the following clause:
'Life
insurance
corporation's
control
period
earnings
64.1 Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection 192(10.1) of the amended Act, the amount of a life insurance corporation's earnings for a control period that was available for payment of dividends at a particular time is the aggregate of the amount thereof determined under that subsection and all income or profits taxes paid or payable by the corporation, for taxation years ending after 1968 and before 1971 that are in the control period, to a government of a country other than Canada or to a state, province or other political subdivision of a country other than Canada.'
Clause 65 (pages 698 and 699)
That clause 65 of the said Bill be amended
(a) by adding, immediately after subclause (1) on page 698, the following subclause:
'Idem
(1.1) Where, at any particular time after October 13, 1971 and before 1972, a taxpayer to whom Part XI of the amended Act applies has acquired a foreign property that was a share of the capital stock of a corporation that would be an investment corporation if subparagraph 130(3) (a) (i) of the amended Act were read without reference to the words "that was a public corporation", for the purposes of subsection (1) the share so acquired shall be deemed to be a share described in paragraph (l)(a).'
(b) by adding, immediately after subclause (2) on page 699, the following subclauses:
'Foreign
property
acquired by
registered
retirement
savings
plan
(3) Where, at any particular time after 1971 and before 1974, a trust governed by a registered retirement savings plan has acquired a foreign property described in paragraph (l)(a) or (b) or a foreign property that would be described in paragraph (1) (c) if the references therein to the "1971 taxation year" of the trust were read as references to the "1972 and 1973 taxation years" of the trust, the property shall, to the extent that the cost to the trust thereof does not exceed the amount, if any, by which the trust's foreign reinvestment limit exceeds
9170
[Stage Direction]
October 29, 1971
Income Tax Act
"he aggregate of the cost to it of all such ioreign properties so acquired by it after 1971 and before the particular time, be teemed
(a)	for the purposes of Part XI of the amended Act, to have been acquired before June 19, 1971 and not to have been acquired after June 18, 1971, and
(b)	notwithstanding paragraph 146(1) (g) of the amended Act, to have been a qualified investment for the purposes of section 146 of that Act.
"Foreign reinvestment limit" defined
(4)	In subsection (3), "foreign reinvestment limit" of a trust governed by a registered retirement savings plan means such portion of the aggregate of
(a)	the trust's income from property for its 1972 and 1973 taxation years, and
(b)	all amounts each of which is such portion of any premium paid in 1972 or 1973 by the annuitant under the plan as was deductible under subsection 146(5) of the amended Act in computing the annuitant's income for the 1972 or 1973 taxation years,
as was, under the terms and conditions of
the plan as fixed on or before June 18, 1971,
required to be invested by the trust in foreign property described in paragraph (1) (a) or (b) or foreign property that would be described in paragraph (l)(c) if the references therein to the "1971 taxation year" of the trust were read as references to the "1971 and 1972 taxation years" of the trust.'
New clause 65.1 (page 699)
That the said Bill be amended by adding, immediately after clause 65, on page 699, the following clause:
'Part XV of
amended
Act
65.1	For greater certainty,
(a)	section 9 is not applicable in respect of the repeal, by section 1, of Part V of the former Act and the substitution therefor, by that section, of Part XV of the amended Act, and
(b)	in its application in respect of any offence described in subsection 239(1) of the amended Act that was committed before the coming into force of this Act, paragraph 239(1) (/) of the amended Act shall be read as follows:
"(/) a fine of not less than $25 and not exceeding $10,000 plus, in an appropriate case, an amount not exceeding double the amount of the tax that should have been shown to be payable or that was sought to be evaded, or".'
Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, was it not also agreed that at
this point the Acting House Leader, or someone, would put on the record the agreement that we reached regarding the groups of sections that we will ask the committee to consider after we have finished this group known as 4 to 8?


Mr. Mahoney:: Mr. Chairman, again it is my understanding that the House leaders agreed this morning that the following three groupings would be considered in sequence immediately following the disposition of the sections now before the Committee. The first grouping will be sections 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62 and 63. The second grouping will be sections 117, 118, 119, 120, 146, 147 and 204. The third grouping will be sections 9 to 13 inclusive, 15, 18, 20, 28 and 29.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I just confirm that these are the numbers of the sections we agreed to group for consideration, and it was also understood that in each case we will be doing what we have been doing thus far. Your Honour will call the first one in each group and the discussion will be permitted to range over all the others in that group.


Gérald Laniel: Is it agreed by the committee that we will follow the same procedure we have previously followed, calling the first section in each of the three categories but allowing discussion on all the other ones mentioned in the groupings outlined by the parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and may I point out that this is a preliminary grouping. I believe there may be some ancillary ones that may come in subsequently with regard to personal income. However, this is the grouping that has been made now. It is being put on the record so there may be some coherence in the discussion and to take pity on the parliamentary secretary, the minister and his officials, so they will not have to check back and forth too far in replying to questions. When discussion is finished on a grouping, the question can then be put with regard to the various sections.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 4 carry?
On clause 1-Section 4: Income or loss from a source or from sources in a place.
October 29, 1971


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, yesterday afternoon and last night, we were discussing the question of the $150 exemption which is being permitted to all people for expenses incurred in connection with their work. Members of this party, and some members of the Official Opposition, tired to make the parliamentary secretary understand our concern about what we consider to be the inequities. We tried to point out to the parliamentary secretary that $150 may be too much for some people, but may be much too little for many people.
A number of our members, and also I think the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, pointed out that there are many workers who, because of the housing situation and because of the way in which industries may close factories in one city and open them in another city 25, 50 or 75 miles away, have to travel that distance to and from work. It is not a question of choice for them. Short of disrupting their home life by moving their homes, they have to travel considerable distances to and from work, and this costs them substantially more than $150 a year.
We compared this unfavourably with the treatment given to professional people such as doctors and lawyers. The parliamentary secretary tried to answer our argument on a number of occasions. I do not often quote from Hansard, Mr. Chairman, but here is just one of his statements which summarizes what he tried to tell us. I quote from page 9142 of yesterday's Hansard where the parliamentary secretary was reported as saying:
If hon. members opposite wish to continue to perpetuate the fiction that somehow or other wage and salary earners are discriminated against in that they cannot deduct the cost of travelling to a mill or factory, while professional people are favoured in that they can deduct the cost of going from their homes to their offices, there is nothing I can do to stop them. But it simply is not true.
We never said that we wanted people to be able to deduct their expenses for travelling just for the sake of travelling. We were talking about travel which is necessary if a working man is to do his job. I would like the parliamentary secretary to come to Winnipeg, get up early one morning with me, and drive out to St. Boniface where there are three major packing plants. The first shift starts at seven o'clock in the morning. If a worker is to be at his bench at seven o'clock in the morning, he has got to be in the plant by 6.30 in the morning in order to change clothes and get ready.
This is just one of thousands of examples that I can give. I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain to me how that worker can get to work without using his car. Of course, the parliamentary secretary said somewhat facetiously yesterday that the worker could not charge expenses for the car since it would be sitting out in front of the plant for the rest of the day. Of course, the car sits outside the plant for the rest of the day while the worker is at work. We have tried to make the point again and again that the worker has a problem getting to his job if he does not use his car. His expenses are there.
noon)
I have already put on the record one of the parliamentary secretary's statements to the effect that we are wrong when we say doctors and lawyers can charge car expenses for travelling from home to the office. The parliamentary secretary may be technically correct, but only
Income Tax Act
technically. Doctors are permitted to charge the expenses of their car if they are making calls or going to the hospital. I submit there is no difference between the doctor and the worker who has to drive a considerable distance to work.
I am not an expert in this field so last night I consulted with one of my friends who is an accountant, not with the Department of Finance, but a working accountant who helps doctors, lawyers and others like myself make up their income tax returns. I would like the parliamentary secretary to listen to what my friend told me because I would like an answer. He said that the parliamentary secretary is right, that in recent years the government has become much tougher with regard to doctors and lawyers. Not too many years ago a doctor in any city, Winnipeg, Ottawa or Toronto say, could charge 80 per cent of the expense of his car when calculating his income tax. My friend says that at the present time in Winnipeg, and the same is true of any city in Canada though maybe they are a little easier on rural doctors if there are any left, doctors are permitted to charge 25 per cent of the cost of operating a car.
What does that mean, Mr. Chairman? The cost of operating the car for which they permit the doctor to charge 25 per cent includes gas, oil and automobile insurance. I estimate all this to be in the neighbourhood of $600 or $700 a year. The doctor is also allowed to charge depreciation. My friend the accountant was perhaps a little conservative when he said a doctor may drive a car which costs around $5,000. Most of the doctors I know drive big Buicks and Cadillacs, but let's take that $5,000. In any year the 25 per cent depreciation comes to about $1,250; add the $600 or $700 for gas, oil, maintenance and auto insurance and the doctor is being permitted a deduction of $2,000 a year for his car when calculating his income tax.
I have not got the figures for the average income of doctors in front of me, but as I remember the figures published each year by the Department of National Revenue it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $30,000. Many make much more than that, and I estimate that most doctors are in the 40 per cent income tax bracket. By permitting a doctor to charge $2,000 for car expenses he is being given an allowance in the calculation of his income tax not of $150 but more in the neighbourhood of $800. Now, Mr. Chairman, nobody has ever questioned the right of the doctor who wears a white coat or jacket in his office to charge off the cost of buying that, or of laundering it. Yesterday my friend the hon. member for Timis-kaming mentioned the cost of the doctor's scalpel. I am sure doctors use much more sophisticated instruments than scalpels today, Mr. Chairman. That expense is quite legitimate and I am not questioning it. I would not want any member of this House to think that I am questioning the right of the doctor to deduct legitimate expenses when calculating his income tax. What I am saying to the parliamentary secretary, what I said yesterday and what I think the figures I put on the record today demonstrate very clearly, is that in permitting the $150 deduction for everybody for expenses connected with work without the requirement of filing receipts and statements, we do not have any more equity than we have had in the last 25 years or more.
24372-21{

October 29, 1971
Income Tax Act
The government is continuing its policy of giving to those who have and taking from those who have not. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that is not good enough.


Mr. Saltsman:: Mr. Chairman-


William Arnold Peters: How about letting the parliamentary secretary answer?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: They are the same questions as were asked yesterday.


Max Saltsman: The parliamentary secretary did answer last night, and I regret to say that his answers were very unsatisfactory. It seems to me that he is making some assumptions about the nature of work and the expenses that people incur which do not jibe with the facts of life. Perhaps the people he knows are different from the people I know. I should like to refer to his remarks as recorded at page 9140 of Hansard:
The government makes no attempt to dictate to people where they should live in relation to their place of work.
That is quite true, but as you read the parliamentary secretary's remarks you become aware he assumed that people are quite free to live where they please or to work where they please and therefore if they have to drive to work it is their own fault. It is a very Calvinist kind of attitude to the situation and does not relate to what is happening. Most of the people I know would like to live reasonably close to their place of work. They would also like to have public transportation but the fact is that they cannot have either.
Offices and plants shift, and this government makes no provision for that or for plants shutting down or consolidating. They just say that is the way our society works. But a man cannot shift around that quickly. If he has a house which costs a considerable amount of money it might cost him from $1,000 to $1,800 to sell that house. Perhaps he does not know how long he will be in the next job, so he is caught in the situation where he follows the plant around. It may shift from Galt to Hespeler and from Hespeler to Guelph and often it shifts from one province to another. Today workmen are very specialized which means that they have to secure work in another shop sometimes if their particular shop contracts out part of its operations. The worker does not really have the kind of freedom to choose where he is going to work or where he is going to live that the parliamentary secretary infers. This creates problems because under these circumstances the car becomes an instrument of work just as much as the hard hat or safety shoes.
I am not happy to see this kind of thing take place. I am very much in favour of public transport and I would not want to see any further encouragement of private transport because of all the problems it creates, but nevertheless this anomaly exists in the government. They display one attitude towards the self-employed and professionals and another towards the ordinary workman. I know the government does not take into account the cost of going to and from work, no matter whether professionals or working people are involved. So far, our income tax regulations have not recognized such costs. Those who observe the scene in this country know that it is almost impossible
to say whether a car is being used for professional reasons or for going to work. I realize that the government faces difficulties in this regard, as do those who administer our income tax regulations. Nevertheless, let us admit that fringe benefits so far as automobile use is concerned accrue to some people and do not accrue to others. Let us find a realistic solution to this problem. Let us say, "That is the way the system works for some. In all equity we must give all elements of our population these advantages, regardless of the type of work involved". Let us do that instead of moralizing and saying that it is a workman's fault if he does not live near his job.
Few workmen can choose where they may live in relation to their place of work, particularly in these days of high unemployment. A workman cannot guarantee that he will be working tomorrow; he does not even know where he will be working. He takes a job when it comes up and then looks for ways and means of getting there. It is often difficult for a man to travel to his work. I know of many families that spend 20 per cent of their total budgets on necessary transportation so that the breadwinner can hold down a job. He must spend that much because, without transportation, he cannot hold down the job. Surely, considering all the wisdom that is supposed to reside on the government side of the House which has at its disposal the great brains of the civil service, it ought to be possible to bring in some measure of equity in this regard in order that all persons in our society may be fairly treated under our taxation system.
The grievance I have mentioned will not vanish after passage of this clause. This is a long standing grievance and has been a constant source of irritation to people who must work for a living in the factory or mill, to use the words of the parliamentary secretary. The grievance will continue until some decent arrangement is made with regard to the deduction from taxable income of transportation costs involved in going to work. I am glad to see the parliamentary secretary taking notes. He appears to be listening. The other day he said that he was pleased workmen need no longer live close to the smelly factories in which they must work. What kind of suggestion was he making? Does he think that by moving to the suburbs our people can escape from smog and gasoline fumes? Does he not know that you cannot run away from the effects of air pollution simply by moving away from the factory? His attitude is typical of the sort of Liberal moralizing we have heard in the past. Instead of asking people to move away from the factory, why does the government not remedy the pollution at its source? The effects of pollution are not confined to any geographic area.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: What has the Clean Air Act to do with income tax?


Max Saltsman: Why not stop factories polluting? After all, there is some relationship between where a person lives and where he works, and I do not think the answer lies in asking people to travel vast distances between where they live and work. In some ways the worker's condition when he lived beside the mill was an unhappy one; yet, in others, it was good. If the mill is polluting the environment, stop the pollution. Do not ask people to
October 29, 1971

move away from the mill. If they move away they will encounter transportation problems. We ought to deal with the problem of pollution at its source. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks at this time. I was prompted to make them by what I thought was a somewhat insensitive response by the parliamentary secretary to matters we had raised. I admit I was most surprised to hear what he said.


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Chairman, I thought that the parliamentary secretary would answer some of the questions and concerns which have been raised by my two colleagues who have spoken. I have noted the parliamentary secretary's answer with regard to subparagraph (e) on page 17 of the bill, which has to do with, "telegrapher or station agent's expenses". It appears that the parliamentary secretary is still not familiar with that which I tried to draw to his attention yesterday. I know that railway terminology is not easy to understand and the parliamentary secretary, coming from Calgary, probably has not talked with many railroaders to any extent. He may not be aware of the concerns which have been raised with respect to this subparagraph. May I read in part what the parliamentary secretary said yesterday about the point I was trying to bring to his attention. He said, as recorded at page 9137 of Hansard:
I should point out that under section 62 the transfer costs of the employee moving from one location to another are covered when he actually moves his home to the site of his new employment.
I was not talking about employees moving to new employment. I was talking about a situation over which they have no control. Sometimes the company instructs the employee to go to a particular location and to assume certain duties, which might be of a non-operating or operating nature. The employee must go to that location as directed and fulfil the directive of the company. This is not a case of the employee moving to that location and to that employment of his own free will, so to speak. I do not think the parliamentary secretary quite realizes the significance of what I was trying to bring to his attention. I think he missed the point.
May I quote, in part, another answer of the parliamentary secretary, as recorded at page 9137 of Hansard:
I must say I question very much the thesis that a particular group of taxpayers who because of collective bargaining arrangements have a certain problem, should have preference over other taxpayers.
I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that a provision of the law at present covers telegrapher's and station agent's expenses in this regard, as is proper. These people, however, are in exactly the same position as other groups of employees who, as I am trying to emphasize, are not being treated fairly. Would the parliamentary secretary explain why their expenses could not be allowed as deductions? The parliamentary secretary went on to say:
I do not think the fact that this problem may be enshrined in a collective agreement is a good reason for the government to make an exception in the income tax provisions.
The collective agreement has nothing to do with the type of arrangement to which I refer. You cannot e..pect a company to hire a new set of employees every time that company needs employees with certain skills and expertise at a different location.
Income Tax Act


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I wonder if the hon. member would clarify something for me. I may have misunderstood him last evening. It was my impression from the hon. member's remarks that the necessity for a particular railway employee to drive, for example, from Moose Jaw to Regina arose from the seniority rights that he had. It was also my impression that those rights flow from the collective agreement.


John Leroy Skoberg: The first part of the parliamentary secretary's statement is correct. He was mistaken, however, with regard to our system of seniority rights which do not involve questions of ability or the lack of it. If the question of ability were part of the picture, management personnel could place their sons and daughters in certain jobs. What I raised was a separate issue. I used the example of an employee driving between Moose Jaw and Regina merely to show that some employees do not have job opportunities at their respective places of residence. They must then move elsewhere to try to obtain employment. This does not have anything to do with the collective agreement. In that particular case, they have to go wherever the job is. It is not a case of saying they will stay at this point and work. There is no work, so they have to move. This is where the seniority provision comes in under the collective agreement.
In this case, the situation is exactly the same as the one which is already covered by this section in two areas, telegraphers' and agents' expenses. These people live at a terminal, whether they be non-ops, maintenance, crane operators, bridge builders, engineers, firemen, trainmen or brakemen. These people have to go outside on an assignment for the company. They are not exercising seniority but are acting upon the instructions of the railway company. The words contained in paragraph (e) should include other railway employees who are affected in the same way as those referred to in that paragraph. I agree there could be a point of discussion when a man exercises seniority to move to another point.
I appreciate the fact that the parliamentary secretary pointed out the provisions of section 62. I am sure many are pleased to see this wording put into the bill. This is a new section. If we do not allow those people to whom I am referring the same concession as that contained in the bill, we will have two sets of rulings for the same type of people working for the same company. This has been a bone of contention for a long time. I cannot understand how we can have two sets of rules and regulations for the same area of concern.
We should look at the various areas across the country. The hon. member for London East is fully aware of this problem to which I am referring. There are railway people in his constituency. He is a railway man, just as I am. He knows the concern of these people who, through no fault of their own, are forced away from home on an assignment for the railway company. These are the people whose problems I am trying to emphasize to the parliamentary secretary. They should receive equal treatment under paragraph (e). The hon. member for Bourassa, the hon. member for Labelle and the hon. member for Lachine must have received the same type of approach. We are all familiar with it.

October 29, 1971
Income Tax Act
If it were possible to acquire new employees at a certain location to fill the job requirements of management, possibly there would be room for argument. In each and every case I am referring to, these people have long-standing seniority. They have long-time service records with the railway companies. In many cases, they have to leave their homes and work away from home for a limited length of time. They should be entitled to the same deduction as the two other groups of railway employees. The deduction should be allowed to all employees whose working conditions are the same. I wish to emphasize that point. At this time, I move:
That Bill C-259 be amended at page 17, in line 6, by inserting therein immediately after the word "work" the following words:
"or any employee working away from his home terminal."


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. It is the feeling of the Chair at this time that the amendment just put by the hon. member for Moose Jaw is acceptable to the Chair. Unless members have opinions as to the procedural acceptability, the Chair is ready to put the amendment.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I am very much afraid that I cannot accept the logic in the hon. member's argument. The section in which he proposes to insert this clause deals with relieving station agents, telegraphers and people on maintenance and repair work on the railway who, in the course of their employment, are ordinarily away from their home base. By the very nature of their work, these people are required to travel away from home base.
The hon. member has described a situation that has arisen in many parts of western Canada at least. I am aware of many situations where the location of a man's permanent job shifts away from the place he has been accustomed to living. By this amendment, the hon. member is attempting to allow people to be reimbursed for expenses involved in commuting from their ordinary residence to their ordinary place of employment, which is one location, not a man travelling as a relieving telegrapher or maintenance-of-way employee to point A this week, point B next week and so on. It is not the same situation at all. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the government cannot accept the amendment.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I think this could have been expressed in somewhat neater language. If the hon. member had moved to delete certain words, the section would read: "amounts disbursed by the taxpayer in the year for meals and lodging while employed by a railway company away from his ordinary place of residence to the extent that he has not been reimbursed, etc." Be that as it may, I think the wording is cumbersome. The point is quite clear. I think it states a principle which my colleagues can support. We intend to do so.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary has again failed to grasp the significance of what I am trying to bring to his attention. There is absolutely no difference between an operator or telegrapher relieving at various points throughout his particular seniority (district) and a trainman, bridgeman, sectionman, engineer, conductor and all railway employees who are also relieving for temporary periods of time. I agree that he has a point. If I were trying to create two home terminals, there

would be no argument. But all I am asking is that the same consideration be given in this case as is given to two groups of people already. And all they are doing is relieving. Relieving in the industry as it is today may be for four days, or for a week, or for two weeks. The holiday relief system has assumed increasing importance in recent years. When staff are relieving, they are not exercising seniority. It is not by choice. They are directed by management to go to a particular place to fulfil an obligation the company has undertaken.
I am not asking for the world. All I am suggesting is that we should be consistent-that there should not be two sets of rulings affecting the same people. I wish the hon. member for London East would rise to speak in support of the argument I am putting forward. He knows that this is what happens. We have seen it happen year in and year out, all along the line. I am not asking that special consideration be given to one particular group. I would not try to do that. All I am asking is that consideration be given to people in the railway industry who through no fault of their own are assigned by the company to work away from home. I hope that instead of rejecting this plea out of hand, the parliamentary secretary will agree to take it under further advisement. If he will agree to do so I will certainly be prepared to allow my amendment to stand while he takes a further look at this question.


David Orlikow: As a member for the City of Winnipeg, the home of such a large number of railway workers, I rise to join my hon. friend from Moose Jaw in his plea. I was interested to note that this time the parliamentary secretary did not reject the idea which my hon. friend has put forward. He contented himself by observing that it was out of place, that it was advanced at the wrong place in our proceedings.
The railway industry has gone through a revolution since the end of the second world war. The number of employees both in the operating and in the non-operating phase has declined each year. This has often meant major moves for those who have been able to keep their jobs. In his amendment, my hon. friend deals with the case of employees who are required to relieve on a job for a few days or a couple of weeks. I can refer to cases of employees in the dining car department who have lived in Winnipeg for 20 years or more. Because of the reduction in railway service during part of the year, they have been required to work out of Prince Rupert or Vancouver. Nobody has suggested they ought to move their families, because in the summer when business picks up, they are back on the run out of Winnipeg. But for part of the year they must leave their families and move to Vancouver, or anywhere else where employment is awaiting them, not because they wish to move but simply because this is the only way in which they can earn a living.
So the situation arises in which for a certain period, four or five days, two weeks, or even longer, a railway worker whose family is living in one city and incurring expenses for rent and food, must live in another city and bear similar expenses. I could refer to cases where this situation has lasted not for two weeks but for four or five months. There should be equity between different groups of railway workers, equity as between people. No one
October 29, 1971

questions the right of a salesman to travel across Canada from Winnipeg to Regina, to Calgary, to Vancouver, back to Edmonton and Saskatoon and back to Winnipeg, to charge his expenses for hotel accommodation and meals. He needs to visit those cities in order to earn a living. Why do we not permit the railway worker who needs to be away from home in order to earn a living to do exactly what my hon. friend has proposed? I urge the parliamentary secretary and the government to consider favourably what seems to me to be a very reasonable and modest proposal.


Mr. Harding:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to endorse the amendment which is before the committee. It seems to me to be a clear and sensible amendment. It seems to me it is good policy, in so far as both labour and taxes are concerned, to be consistent. I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that the privileges given to others should be extended to those who are forced to go away from their home bases.
May I outline some examples from my own area and from adjacent areas? To the north, in the riding of Okana-gan-Kootenay, there is the City of Revelstoke. A large number of engineers and other people are forced to leave Revelstoke and go to the east and the west. For example, they might go to Golden and work out of Golden for a number of days. They should be allowed to write off the expenses which they will be obliged to incur as a result of this change of base. I see nothing wrong about this proposition and I urge the parliamentary secretary to take a fresh look at the proposal.
In my own area there is a railway centre at Nelson employing a large number of people. The same situation prevails there. In many instances, men are required to leave Nelson and spend several days outside their home bases. It is far more costly for them than working from home. Again, it comes back to the old story. We have set up privileged groups in our tax society. One of them is doctors. I am not complaining about doctors having exemptions when they use cars to visit patients or hospitals. But the same treatment should apply to other workers, and this is an example. In following their employment at the wishes of the company these railway workers are obliged to incur additional expenses and in my opinion these should be deductible. Once again I urge the parliamentary secretary to look at this amendment. It is a good one and will eliminate one of the anomalies that exist in the bill.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to reiterate the arguments of my colleague in defending the logic of this amendment; I simply appeal to the parliamentary secretary. This bill is 700 pages or more in length and obviously the parliamentary secretary is not so well acquainted with it that he knows all its details. This particular provision deals with railroaders. My colleague from Moose Jaw knows railroading; he was once a railroader himself.
The hon. member has proposed an amendment which seeks to give equal treatment to all railroaders. I suggest that is a proposition worth examining. I would hate to see this amendment cast aside simply because it is close to the
Income Tax Act
lunch hour. Why cannot the parliamentary secretary stand this particular clause of the bill until he has discussed the amendment with his departmental officials over the lunch hour and decided whether or not the argument advanced by my colleague from Moose Jaw is correct? The parliamentary secretary makes no response. I do not know whether we shall be obliged to talk until one o'clock so that he will have an hour over the lunch period to examine it with his officials. Could we not stand this section and have the amendment examined as I have suggested?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I have no reason to agree to standing it at this point.


Mr. Turner (London East):: Mr. Chairman, as a former railway employee I was many times on the "spare board", which means I had to work on extra jobs. I have been forced to go from London to Toronto, to Windsor, to Fort Erie and to live out at different terminals. I could be at these places for one week or sometimes for two months, and all I received from the company was a place to sleep, which they call a rooming house. I had to supply my own meals. Other groups of railway employees, such as telegraphers and sectionmen, are forced to move around quite a bit in the course of their employment. The system is this: If a telegrapher, for example, at a station becomes sick, you have to replace him with a spare man who is based at the main terminal. I support the amendment because these people are constantly on the go. Sometimes they are on the spare board for ten or 12 years. Their expenses are constantly building up and they receive no relief from the company. In addition to that, their expenses at home are increasing. Therefore, these workers should have some relief from the expenses they incur while constantly moving around while they are on the spare board.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, the example given by the hon. member for London East is that of a telegrapher. A relieving telegrapher is, of course, provided for in section 8(l)(e) of the bill. I should like to hear whether he has any other examples that are not covered of people who ordinarily are required to move around and incur additional expense of this sort.
I should also like to inquire whether the hon. member can tell me why it is that the railway employees find themselves in this particular situation. Ordinarily, when an employee of a company is sent away from his home base to do a particular job he expects to receive compensation from his employer for his hotel, meals and extra expenses on the road. Why is it that in the case of railway employees this is not so, or is it?


Charles Robert Turner: Mr. Chairman, if I may answer the parliamentary secretary, this is one of the issues over which the unions have been fighting for many years. They have been trying to recover the expenses incurred when these men are forced to work away from home. This moving away occurs because of the very nature of the work-the railroads run from coast to coast and serve many areas. These people cannot always work at the same terminal because, for example, business might be slack. Naturally, when someone has to work away from home it is the youngest or most junior worker who has to move. But we have never been able to get

October 29, 1971
Income Tax Act
anything into a contract that will take care of expenses incurred when away from home.
I was away in Mimico for approximately a year. At that time I had a young family and I found that keeping two homes going was hard on the pocket book. Once I returned home, naturally I was relieved of this extra expense. In the old days I could have worked 20 hours a day in Mimico if I has wanted to double up, and I had to do this to take care of the extra expense. Today you work eight hours and that is all. Of course, it is expensive to live in Toronto compared with a small place outside. I think this amendment is definitely a step in the right direction and deserves serious consideration.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that since last night we have pretty well come full circle. I cannot see that this question is anything that could not be covered by the provisions of collective bargaining agreements existing between the railway companies and some of the trade unions in the railroad industry. A round trip, as the defence minister has just commented. To suggest that the general tax law of the country should be changed to accommodate an anomaly existing in collective agreements in a particular industry just does not make sense.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the parliamentary secretary appreciates what it is we are trying to bring to his attention. He asked the hon. member for London East why the railway workers find themselves in this situation. Samuel Freedman discovered that railway workers were in a particular situation, and he had to write a report about it. His report well documented the fact that workers in the railway industry are in a situation that is not found anywhere else.
If I may reply to what the parliamentary secretary said, I am not trying to use one group in a particular industry against another group. I am not trying to have them given favourable recognition under the tax laws which others do not have. Nevertheless, at the present time the expenses of telegraphers and station agents are considered to be a legitimate deduction, as they should be. All I am suggesting is that railway workers should have the same consideration. They are working in every area that serves the needs of their customers. By serving the needs of the customers they are serving the needs of management.
Whether or not this obligation should be placed upon management is something I am sure the collective bargaining process will have to decide at some other time. By the same token, these two classifications are bracketed together in the same collective agreement, and there is no question that they are permanently based at home; they have to move at times in order to serve the needs of management. The situation is the same for this classification of employees as for those we have been speaking about this morning. I contend this group of employees should receive the same treatment. If we were asking for something that was completely unacceptable, or if we were just trying to make a point for the sake of trying to do something for the railway workers, then I could understand the bull-headedness of the parliamentary secretary. But we are not. All we suggest is that there be across the board consideration given to all those railway employees who find themselves in the same situation.
It was suggested a while ago that relieving workers away from home base is something that is particularly akin to telegraphers and station agents but not other classifications of employees, and if that were so I would buy the argument. But it is not so. The number of people who have to move away from home temporarily for a short period is not that high. As suggested by the hon. member for Selkirk, perhaps if the parliamentary secretary could stand this particular item over until after lunch we could make some progress. In fact, if he would stand in his place and indicate what possible difference there is between that group of people who are included and the group of employees to which I and other members have referred, perhaps we could accept his argument. I suggest he is playing with words when he says that one group is relieving from home base and the other group is not relieving from home base. The people now covered are relieving from home base and this is a legitimate deduction. The people we are talking about are also relieving from home base. They all start from the home base, whatever their classification. Those people relieving from home base are in exactly the same situation as those who are covered by the provisions of the act, and they should receive the same consideration in so far as deductions are concerned.
Surely, the parliamentary secretary and his two advisers could come up with a better answer than the suggestion that this amendment is not acceptable to the government because we are not talking about the same thing. We are not talking about employees from airlines but rather employees of railway companies. These employees have to accept an assignment away from home base in order to fulfil an obligation of the company. We are not talking about expenses, and whether expense deductions should be allowed for all employees of the railway companies. I would urge the parliamentary secretary to stand this part of the section and give it serious thought over the noon hour. We are not asking for special concessions for one individual group in the railway industry, but rather the same type of consideration and deductions for all railway employees who are involved in exactly the same type of relief operation.
We are not talking about a transfer to another point or travelling expenses; we are talking about those people who are forced to go 150 miles away from home to man an assignment of the railway company but who receive no consideration for this. They cannot even stay in the bunk-houses any more. They must provide their own accommodation in a private rooming house, a hotel or a motel and pay their own expenses out of their own pockets. This type of deduction is allowed in respect of salesmen and other individuals, and by accepting this amendment we could close a gap that should be closed.
I cannot understand why the parliamentary secretary is trying to confuse this issue by suggesting there are different classifications involved. We are talking about employees in exactly the same circumstances, namely those relieving at a terminal away from home areas where the company requires their services. The provision of these services is in the interest of the entire travelling public and the nation, whether they are provided at the

October 29, 1971

little individual whistle stops or elsewhere. People have to assume these assignments which may involve switching at a brickyard or somewhere else, and we feel the same type of consideration should be given those people involved in relief operations.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, there have been some discussions about the business this afternoon, and I wonder if the committee would be agreeable to rising now and reporting progress in order that I might put forward a proposal to the chamber in respect of that business a little later today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the business I was discussing, which I understand was agreed to, relates to Bill S-9, an act to amend the Copyright Act. It is item No. 91 on the order paper. The arrangement is that the business under consideration at three o'clock this afternoon will be interrupted, Bill S-9 will be called and, notwithstanding the provisions of the Standing Orders, all questions necessary to dispose of the bill will be put at this sitting. I wonder whether that is a correct understanding. If it is, perhaps that could be made an order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, Mr. Speaker, that was not the understanding. We urged that Bill S-9 come on at three o'clock, but it was very clearly understood that private members' hour would not be interfered with this afternoon. I know who is proposing the motion this afternoon, but that was a clear understanding. There is the expectation that the bill will be dealt with in the allotted time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that there was an agreement which would apply to second reading only, and that during the hour from three to four the bill would be disposed of on second reading.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there seems to have been some breakdown in communication. There was an agreement that we would call this bill at three o'clock. It was also agreed that if it was possible to get it through in that hour we would waive any rule about second reading, the committee stage and third reading taking place the same day. However, there was no iron-clad agreement that the bill would get through in that hour. There was every expectation it would, but certainly there was no agreement that we would stay with it under any order to finish it, at today's sitting.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, apparently the understanding on this side is not the same, so at this point
Income Tax Act
all I can do is announce that at three o'clock there will be a proposal to adjourn the committee at that point and call Bill S-9.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The House has heard the proposal made by the minister that the committee will report progress at three o'clock for the purpose of resuming the study of Bill S-9. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is so ordered.



INCOME TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-259, to amend the Income Tax Act and to make certain provisions and alterations in the statute law related to or consequential upon the amendments to that act-Mr. Benson-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
On clause 1-section 4: Income or loss from a source or from sources in a place.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering whether the parliamentary secretary has had time to consider the amendment a little more over the one-hour break and whether or not he could possibly give some explanation now concerning why he considers these people should not be covered by this section of the act so far as deductions are concerned.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might add my plea. Earlier I indicated that my colleagues would accept the amendment which has been moved although we thought perhaps it was a rather cumbersome way of arriving at a result which could be arrived at in short order. It is not a question of procedure with which we are dealing now but rather a question of substance and of justice. For the life of me, I cannot see why the government should be obdurate about something which, from a revenue standpoint, is not apt to be substantial.
From the standpoint of the way in which we deal with the expenses involved in being able to earn a dollar in Canada, this is probably as important and as basic an issue as we can have. The fact is that what is being asked in this amendment, as I understand it, is that if a person should be wrenched away from the family table as it were-and the hon. member for London East I thought put it very well because he had gone through this and the hon. member for Moose Jaw put it very well because he had gone through it also-he should not have to suffer a disability as a result of being forced to go out and get his meals, his living and everything else. We have made a provision for ourselves in this regard in this Parliament. It is recognized. I am not allowed to sit down at my table in Halifax or my hon. friend is not allowed to sit down at his
9178

October 29, 1971
Income Tax Act
table in Calgary during much of the year. This is part of the handicap we suffer. He does not have his wife's good cooking and I do not have my wife's good cooking, either. We have to eat our meals out and have to pay for them. What is being proposed here relates to a similar situation.
The railway people do have their own bunkhouses, but probably the employees should be paid danger pay to live in them. I shall not deal with that aspect of the question. Simply from the point of very elementary justice, however, I really would hope if the question is too involved to be answered today this item could be allowed to stand so that the cabinet, would have a chance to consider what has been said by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, and all the other people, and deal with it as a basic issue on which I believe most Members of Parliament feel very strongly, even though some of them are on orders to stand up and vote against it. I think a sufficiently strong case has been established here today that, as a matter of elementary justice, we should pass everything else and let this stand, even if we have to hold it back for a month so that people will have a chance to examine it. Let us do it in that way and then get a reasoned response. If we are turned down, we are turned down; if we win, we win. Surely, we do not want to just shoot off opinions from the tops of our heads and make judgments on very short notice when perhaps some pretty lengthy deliberation is needed.
The other point I should like to make to my friend the parliamentary secretary, who is a pretty human fellow, is that we are not being asked to overturn the world by accepting a proposition such as this. We are simply being asked to give justice to people who, because of the way in which they earn a living, have to accept a rather different way of life than that of perhaps the parliamentary secretary who would go to his law office in Calgary or I would go to mine if I were practising law at home. These people have to move about. I think these people deserve some extra consideration, and I would hope we would immediately get on to the job of passing sections 4 to 8, while leaving this open for some extra consideration. Mind you, we may come back and still have the government say no, but it is so important an issue that I make this request.


Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on this matter since it relates in a small way to the area I represent. The establishment of servo centres for the movement of freight by the railway systems will require a great many employees to travel beyond the communities in which they have established homes, and this is a fundamental, basic reason the government should yield on this point.
It would be no disgrace for the government to admit that members of the opposition once in a while do have some sound ideas, and some pretty basic principles of justice to put forward. I can only add my voice to the many others who have spoken on this. I urge the parliamentary secretary not to force a vote on it, but to yield to reason and allow the amendment to pass.


Mr. Anderson:: Mr. Chairman, the views already
expressed in this part of the debate lead me to say a few words. It seems to me that once again we, on behalf of the people of Canada, are giving in to some of the most

powerful organizations in the country, the railways. The hon. member for London East graphically explained the difficulty that he, as an individual, faced. I just cannot understand why the railway companies, on the general principle of fair treatment of their employees, would not take care of this type of problem themselves. Here we are being asked to expand an exception, one which I regard as doubtful in principle. Perhaps instead of expanding section 8(l)(e) we should be restricting it. I fail to see why we should be encouraging through our tax law, a situation in which people are not being given their fair expenses by the companies that employ them. I hope the parliamentary secretary will deal with this matter. I feel that this exception in the statute with respect to telegraphers and station agents is basically wrong in principle, should not be extended further, but should be scrapped. The railway companies, which are probably Canada's most powerful organizations, should not be placed in the position of being able to continue what apparently are very poor labour-management practices.
I also wish to speak on section 8(l)(c) dealing with clergymen's residences. As is well known, there are many large tracts of land in Canada which are held by the churches. One of the reasons they are held in this way is the peculiar tax provisions which we allow to churches and clergymen. If the public which supports churches is willing to pay for a residence, and I think members of that public should, I do not see why we, in turn, after providing a tax deduction for charitable donations to churches, should again give another exception with respect to the residence. I think we should try to put all of this on as fair a basis as possible, so that the tax burden falls more equitably on all members, In that way, members of a congregation can themselves decide, based more on the true cost of a clergyman's residence, to what degree the residence should be supported.
I raise this because of one particular community in Gaspe which I have visited. I know a number of people there. Only 35 per cent of the buildings, residences and property in the town is taxable. All of the other property is either in the hands of the church or of educational institutions. There is a tremendous warping of the tax structure of a municipality when you make all these exceptions for religious and educational purposes. I believe that the people who directly support these establishments should be given a tax rebate for such support. They should not be in a position of getting two sets of tax rebates, as apparently we are providing in section 8(l)(c). It is not my intention to propose an amendment to strike this out, but I think this is a view that should be expressed. It is one that is rarely expressed when we are dealing with taxes that affect church property. Again, I think the parliamentary secretary should comment on why there is this peculiar exception with respect to telegraphers and station agents. I think that in the interests of rationalization it, too, should be struck out.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether this is a tribute, or the reverse of a tribute, to the eloquence of the hon. member for Moose Jaw, but the longer he talks the longer he seems to take to get his message through clearly, at least to me. Perhaps that is a commentary on my own situation, but I would very much like an oppor-
October 29, 1971

tunity to read the record of the debate this morning to see if I do understand the point that is being made. I think there has been some element of inequity demonstrated. I think this is an element of inequity as between certain classes of railway employees, that privileges are being granted to telegraphers and relieving station agents, and not to other employees who, in the circumstances and under the conditions mentioned by the hon. member, might merit the same sort of tax treatment. However, I would like an opportunity to be able to look at the record, and then return to the debate on clause 8(l)(e). I do not know whether we are on clauses now or paragraphs, but I suggest that we allow 8(l)(e) to stand over, and proceed to deal with the other items in this block of sections.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, in the light of the suggestion or offer made by the parliamentary secretary, I wonder if I may make a procedural proposal? Technically speaking, you have put section 4 before us. My understanding so far as my colleagues are concerned is that on this group of 4 to 8 my hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands is the only one left who has something to say on any of them, and that is on section 6. May I suggest that we carry 4 and 5, have a brief discussion on 6, dispose of it, carry 7, and then let 8 stand until Monday?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I raised this particular subject a couple of days ago and am glad that it has been followed up. I certainly think this section should be allowed to stand, as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and that we dispose of the other sections.


Gérald Laniel: Order. Shall section 4 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. MacKay:: This is on section 8(l)(e), Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: Perhaps the hon. member did not listen to what was suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. There seems to be agreement to move on through the different sections. As we get to one on which some hon. members still wish to make comments we can allow further discussion. It was also understood that clause 8 could be stood until Monday when we would have another discussion on it.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: As I understand it, this particular section with which the parliamentary secretary dealt a few moments ago will be brought up again on Monday.


Gérald Laniel: This is the agreement. If the hon. member wishes to speak at this time on section 8 he will more or less negate that agreement. Nobody can prevent him from speaking at this time, but if he agrees with what has been put forward the Chair will make sure that he has an opportunity to speak on this clause when it is next before the committee.
Clause 1-Sections 4 and 5-agreed to.
On clause 1-Section 6: Amounts to be included as income from office or employment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I want once again to raise this matter of the deductions for expenses which workers
Income Tax Act
incur as a result of their employment. For at least 15 or 20 years this has been a matter of great concern to organized workers and has been discussed in the House many times. It is recognized that there is an inequity between wage and salary earners with respect to their right to deduct such expenses from their income tax, and professional groups, travelling salesmen, insurance agents, book agents and others who are able to deduct such expenses.
I must congratulate the government on having finally recognized this problem and trying to do something about it. Our complaint is that the government has followed the usual procedure of bureaucrats in solving the problem by saying that the $150 exemption will be granted to every employee irrespective of what their expenses are in connection with their employment. This $150 exemption will apply where the only thing a man has to buy in order to do his work is a ball point pen as compared to a logger who has to buy a power saw which could cost anywhere from $300 to $600. It will apply equally to a man who lives a few blocks from a plant and can get there by bus and to a man who has to drive 30 or 40 miles. It seems to me that the government could have done a much better job in resolving this problem This is the Procrustean bed theory. You force everybody into the same bed; if they are too short, you stretch them and if they are too long, you lop a piece off without any regard to the circumstances, equity or justice.
I want to draw the minister's attention to two groups in my constituency who will be adversely affected by the inequities of this provision. The first is the men who work in the logging camps. They have to buy special equipment, hard hats, special work boots and they have to provide their own power saws in most cases. This involves an expenditure far in excess of $150 a year. In addition, many have to drive very long distances to work. I know that in subsection 7 there is a definition of a special work site. Under certain conditions a man may claim travelling expenses as an exemption. The special site is confined either to something of a temporary nature, which I take it means simply a construction site and would not cover a logging camp which could operate for several years, or some place where the taxpayer could not reasonably be expected to establish and maintain a domestic establishment. This is going to raise a good deal of controversy.
In my constituency there are logging camps where accommodation is provided for single men. There is limited accommodation for families so men drive 20, 30 or 40 miles morning and night to these camps. They really have no choice in the matter, as it is doubtful that they could get accommodation at the camps. In many cases they already own a home. It is surely not suggested that they try to dispose of their home and move into a bunkhouse in a logging camp. It seems to me that some provision should be made for such a group.
The second group of employees for whom this provision constitutes an injustice is the longshoremen. They have no choice of where their operation may be. A man may live in Chemainus and then he has just the ordinary travelling expenses of going to the docks. But at any time he can be ordered to a port 50, 70 or 80 miles away; he must travel there, work all day, and return at night. Certainly, a port 50 miles away will not constitute a special work site because it is not temporary. He could get housing accom-
24372-22J

October 29, 1971
Income Tax Act
modation there but he may only work there for two or three days.
Considering all the thought the government has given to this tax reform legislation, I would have expected the tax experts to come up with something much better than this uniform exemption of $150. In some cases it is unnecessary and in the cases I have cited, as well as many others, it is grossly inadequate and certainly unfair. I can only conclude that either the personnel of the Department of Finance and the minister and his parliamentary secretary have not consulted at all with the people who are familiar with the working conditions of Canadians or they would surely have proposed a better provision than the one presently before us.
I should like to appeal to the minister to revise the definition of the circumstances under which a worker would be entitled to travelling expenses and to board and lodging. The limitation is too narrow. A great many workers have to travel long distances and be absent from home, but they will not qualify under this legislation and will not be allowed to deduct the expenses incurred as a proper exemption under the Income Tax Act. .
I hope that before section 6 is allowed to pass the government will undertake to make some changes in order to increase the number of persons to whom exemption will be granted with respect to board and lodging and travelling expenses necessarily incurred in order to carry out the duties related to their employment.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, following the remarks of the previous speaker, I should like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) that all told this $150 maximum amount of expenses allowed for tax deduction will represent for the ordinary worker a tax reduction of only $20 or $25, which I believe totally inadequate.
Besides, we have begged for many years in the House for such a taxation relief, and the government always turned a deaf ear when it came to workers. In fact, I stated myself in this House that there was shameless discrimination against the worker. One must consider that other professional groups, such as insurance agents, businessmen, doctors and dentists have the right to deduct from their gross income the cost of their equipment and all travelling expenses incurred in the discharge of their duties.
Workers are right to protest against injustice because I believe that the lumbermen, both in my constituency and throughout Canada, are entitled to a better treatment. Everyone knows that today the lumberman's work is so mechanized that he must spend thousands of dollars to buy machines such as mechanical saws, etc., but he will be allowed to deduct only $150 from his total income. I ask the parliamentary secretary to give more consideration to this group of workers who make up almost 85 per cent of the labour force in the area. In fact, only 15 per cent of the workers will get anything out of this while an injustice will be committed against the others who quite often are the most in need because they earn less.

For example, I am thinking of the plumber or mechanics whose tools may cost up to $1,000 or $1,500. These tools must be constantly renewed so that the amount of $1,000 which could be deducted for tax purposes would be over a period of two or three years. This gives you an idea of the cost of those workers' tools, which I call third-class workers, in relation to those who have been granted advantages by the government and who managed to have special laws passed to enjoy tax exemptions. I wonder whether this was not due to their influence in this Parliament against the workers of our regions.
I believe they exerted a great influence and had great supporters. I have no grudge against them! I have nothing against the professional classes because I myself as a merchant am very happy to be able to deduct travelling expenses incurred while looking after my business.
However, I want as much fairness for everybody and I want those workers to be in a position to deduct the cost of their tools and their transportation. It must be realized that the worker no longer lives in a lumber camp today, that he uses his car in the morning to cover 70, 75 or even 80 miles in order to cut wood the whole day long and returns at night, because lumber camps are no longer maintained, as in the past, when the lumberman "hibernated" for four, five or six months, in short, as long as the contract lasted.
Today, because work stops on Friday afternoon, the worker must come back to town, return home on the weekend because there is no cook at the camp.
He cannot even be repaid, if only one third of the expenses related to his work.
I could talk about all the other trades which do not seem to be considered in this bill. It seems to me that this would have given the minister a unique opportunity to say: At last, justice will be done to them. For the last seven or eight years, the government has been urged to try and give justice to this group of workers who will be voting in a proportion of 85 per cent in the next election.
This group is large enough, Mr. Chairman, for the minister and his parliamentary secretary to give them consideration, and I urge the government, before passage of those sections, to give them a second thought and not to think only of themselves but also of those who elected them. They deserve some sort of tax relief once in a while.
I do not want to take up too much time, but I could not let this section be passed without calling upon the minister and asking him to amend it so that all will be treated equally. All I am asking for is an act of social justice. In fact, we heard it so often said during the last election campaign: Fellow Canadians, from now on, we will have a just society.
We are calling for a positive act of social justice for the workers. We are not asking for special exemptions but only what has been always granted to the others. They have a right to an equal treatment and let us stop making this group that makes up 95 per cent of the population a group of underprivileged citizens, a third class group in our society.
I hope the parliamentary secretary will note those remarks and that before passage of this section, he will introduce something more sensible, more positive and more equitable.
October 29, 1971


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two about subparagraph (e) of subsection 6(1) and about subsection 6(2), entitled respectively, "standby charge for automobile" and "reasonable standby charge minimum amount". I want to relate my remarks to people employed particularly as salesmen for automobile firms. I will not go into the question of whether there should be such a charge or not. It has been brought to my attention that some salesmen employed by automobile firms are required, as part of their duties, to drive cars as demonstrators. The value of these cars may vary greatly. One day a car salesman may demonstrate a car selling for $2,000 and the next day he may demonstrate one selling for $7,000 or $8,000. In the case of salesmen of this type it would be impossible to apply these provisions in any equitable way.
Also, salesmen like these are in a different position from, say, salesmen selling products for Burns & Company, a furniture company, or some company like that. In other words, the vehicle supplied to such salesmen for their own use is the vehicle which they are selling. It is the merchandise which they are selling and they are, therefore, in a position different from that of a salesmen to whom automobiles are supplied. As a result, there ought to be included in the bill a provision exempting them from the particular subsections I have referred to; or some type of special provision ought to be introduced to make sure they will not be unfairly discriminated against and placed in an impossible situation in determining what they ought to pay. I hope the government will make a modification along the line I have suggested. I should like to hear what the parliamentary secretary has to say about this matter.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, the particular matter raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre was brought to the government's attention yesterday by a delegation, perhaps the same group which saw the hon. member. Certainly, it is recognized there is a genuine problem here. We are looking at it. At this time, I cannot indicate what the solution might be. However, I can assure the hon. member that it is being given very serious consideration. As I say, unfortunately it was only flagged for us very recently.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, might I ask if we can take it for granted that this section will not be finally passed until some amendment is introduced in connection with the matter?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is an agreeable solution to the problem. We intend to face up to it. It is going to require some study in order to determine the magnitude of the problem. As the hon. member may know, the suggestion has come forward from the people who are concerned with this problem that a flat amount of some sort or other be assessed each month or each year in order to take care of the situation where the gentleman is driving a Cadillac one day and a Volkswagen the next, because the computation problems would obviously be somewhat horrendous. I can only say at this point I am not prepared to suggest we will necessarily have the solution by the time we feel that the bill should be passed. I do
Income Tax Act
not think this solves the problem, but we will look for a solution.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak briefly on this. This is a classic example of the way the government trys to deal with something. They think they have a problem and, in dealing with it, they create more problems. There is one other area on which I would like to speak very briefly. I will refer back to section 74(3) and (4) and also section 63; this deals with the worker's employment allowance. A married woman working for a firm which is owned by her spouse, one that is not incorporated or in which her spouse is a partner, provides the services of an employee but will be denied the worker's allowance because she is not considered to be an employee. As I said, by trying to do something, the government is creating more problems.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I wish to return for a few minutes to the subject matter recently raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and followed up by the hon. member for Roberval. If the congenial parliamentary secretary is becoming a little weary over the persistence with which this matter is being discussed, I remind him that this Pandora's box, if that is what he regards it as being, was opened by the government in the white paper.
The provision in the white paper of this flat rate $150 deduction for those in receipt of employment income was put forward and at that time was hailed by the Minister of Finance as being a great reform in the tax system. If I recall correctly, when we had the discussion on the white paper, I was the first member in the House to jump on that proposal with both feet. I remember the rather startled look on the faces of some of the government members when I condemned it out of hand. I concede that as I read the white paper, it appeared to me that this $150 proposal was being put forward as a substitute for the partial recognition of board, lodging and travelling expenses which exist in the present Section 5 of the Income Tax Act which had reference only to construction workers. Some hon. members will recall that particular proposal was brought forward and put into the act in 1957 by the first Conservative Minister of Finance when the right hon. member for Prince Albert was Prime Minister. It has remained in that position ever since.
As one read the white paper, it appeared that that concept, partially recognized in the present Section 5 of the act, was to be removed and this $150 flat rate was to be put in its place. As I said in the committee discussion yesterday, I am happy that that surmise on my part has not proven to be correct when the bill came forward, whether or not, as a result of the representations made concerning it at the time. However, recognition was given to what I consider to be the grossest discrimination against people whose income comes from employment. I remind the parliamentary secretary through you, Mr. Chairman, that it was on the initiative of the government that this proposal was put forward. The more one talks about it, the more unrealistic and unfair that proposal is in its present form. As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands pointed out, some workers will really get a bonanza as a result of this proposal. When we were discussing the white paper, I said it brought in a new

October 29, 1971
Income Tax Act
form of discrimination against some of the people who are self-employed. To that extent at least, one can regard it as a retrogressive step.
Last night I listened to some members of my party and members in other parts of the House who come from urban areas discussing this particular proposal. They tried to point out this weakness. The parliamentary secretary attempted to provide a rationale for the proposal as it stands. I admit he made a valiant attempt, but he certainly did not convince me he was on the right track in his thinking in the arguments he presented.
I wish to come back to the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre at the very outset of this current phase of discussion on the bill. He quite properly drew a parallel between the $150 proposal as a basic exemption and the existing plan with regard to medical expenses. All taxpayers are able to claim a $100 fait rate if that, in fact, covers the incidental medical expenses they have incurred. However, if they have the documentation necessary under the regulations, they can claim an additional amount if, in fact, they have incurred additional expenses over and above the minimum amount. It seems to me that when it brought forward this $150 proposal in the white paper the government failed to recognize the principle which has been generally accepted as being reasonable, fair and just with respect to medical expenses. For the life of me, I cannot see why the government is not prepared to recognize the same principle in the case of transportation expenses.
When arguments have been presented in the past in favour of improvements in the law, they have often been resisted on the grounds that administration would be difficult or costly. This used to be the reply to proposals which some of us put forward in the House for the establishment of a pension plan. The position today is that a great many calculations, including calculations in respect of income tax returns, are put through computers and this has opened up a whole new range of administrative possibilities when dealing with large numbers of forms. In the light of this development, I believe that properly vouchered claims for transportation expenses should not be too difficult for the administration to handle. Having gone so far as to make this $150 flat rate proposal, the government should now be prepared to go the rest of the way to make it possible for workers who have a bona fide claim to expenses above that level to receive proper consideration.
The parliamentary secretary can advance all the arguments he likes about it not being the responsibility of the government to decide where a person should live in relation to his job. But the fact of the matter remains that in both urban and rural areas workers who may be able to stay in their own homes every night must, of necessity, incur substantial travelling expenses. This is the only way in which our industrial machine can continue to operate. I am sure it is possible for those who devise the working rules under which the Income Tax Act is administered to work out the necessary regulations and requirements with regard to documentation so that a proposal which would meet the situation outlined by my hon. friend from Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands could be put forward.

In my view, it would be more equitable for the government to withdraw this $150 flat rate proposal altogether than to leave the clause as it is, because it is simply not fair that all workers should be put into this same box; it is simply not fair that this formula of the 3 per cent or $150 maximum should be attached. As the arrangement stands, it means that the lower income workers will suffer the heaviest discrimination. I have in mind workers who must travel long distances in order to secure or to hang on to a job. It will be the least well established members of the work force who are likely to be the most heavily penalized under this proposal. I do not know whether my hon. friends agree with me or not, but I would personally prefer to see the whole thing forgotten rather than write this $150 thing into the bill as it now stands.


William Arnold Peters: It is obvious that the minister and the parliamentary secretary will, in any case, have an opportunity to consider this question overnight, at least. I should like to know what we are talking about. How much money are we talking about? Is it a sizeable sum? The sum of $150 has been used as a cut-off. What does the 3 per cent amount to? Are predictions as to the probable cost available? What escalation has there been during the last ten years in this field? Are we getting into it deeper, or getting into it less than was the case previously and, if so, what is the cost of this proposition to the treasury? I am sure this just did not come out of a hat, this figure of $150 or the 3 per cent figure. On second thought I am not so sure but, hopefully, the department does have some figures as to what this proposal would cost.
We have drawn an analogy between professionals and the labour force with regard to the tools of their trade. And we have pointed out that not all the returns made are beyond question. The minister is always sending inspectors around the country to assess the validity of some of the claims made by those in the self-employed and professional fields. So I ask the parliamentary secretary to tell us, if he can, whether or not the proposal advanced from this corner of the House can be adopted without great cost to the treasury.


Gérald Laniel: It being three o'clock, pursuant to the order previously adopted by the House, it is my duty to report progress and ask leave to consider the bill again at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.



COPYRIGHT ACT


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill S-9 to amend the Copyright Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I think this bill merits some brief explanation here, although I recognize there is a general disposition in the House to deal with it expedi-
October 29, 1971

tiously because of some deadlines of which all hon. members are aware.
The purpose of this bill is to remove any legal right that may exist for record manufacturers to obtain royalties through the use of a performing right on their records. As hon. members may know, composers, authors and publishers of music have a right to charge for the public performance of their works. This is an inherent part of the Copyright Act and results in substantial annual payments being made to these groups of persons. Each year the performing rights societies file a proposed tariff of fees with the Copyright Appeal Board which in turn assesses and fixes the fees that are to be paid to them by users for the public performance of their works. This right allows these societies to examine the financial records of the users and to extract a fee based on the gross revenue, in many cases, of the user.
Four years ago an additional performing rights society was created, that of Sound Recording Licenses Ltd. This society consisted of a group of some 18 Canadian record companies, approximately 90 per cent of the record manufacturers in Canada but which are principally subsidiaries of foreign corporations. In due course they claimed a "performing right" in their sound recordings, a right that is distinct and apart from any right they had to prevent the copying of their records by others. The result would be to exact from the Canadian broadcasting industry rather substantial fees for their use of recorded music.
Their claim to a performing right is based on a technical and complex provision of the present Copyright Act which the bill now before the House amends. While the original tariff of fees filed with the Copyright Appeal Board would have resulted in fees payable somewhere in excess of $3 million per year, the Copyright Appeal Board allowed a somewhat lower fee. However, the question is really one of the principle that no performing right should exist in a record, that is, the purely mechanical apparatus upon which sound or images are recorded, as distinct from the intellectual and human input to those products. They are already taken care of by the other performing rights societies.
In 1966 the government asked the Economic Council to study the law of copyright and its economic effect upon Canadians. Subsequently they were specifically asked to consider the question of performing rights for record manufacturers. The Economic Council reported its findings this spring and it reaffirmed the recommendations of the Ilsley Commission in its report on copyright in 1957 which recommended that the act be amended to ensure that no such performing right could be claimed. While the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford) would have preferred to await a complete overhaul of the Copyright Act before considering this matter, the fact is that the Copyright Appeal Board awarded a tariff to SRL this spring and it is the government's feeling that such a tariff is in principle wrong.
It should be pointed out that there is no conflict with any international obligations we may have under copyright, nor does the United States, where the parent companies of SRL's member firms are located, have such a provision in its copyright legislation, although there is at
Copyright Act
present and has been for some years a bill before the United States Congress which would change that. I am led to believe that it has little likelihood of passage.
SRL has offered to keep a substantial part of the money in Canada and has also offered to pay a part of any fees collected to the musicians who record the music. While this is admirable, it is an attempt to evade the issue. If the singers and musicians who make a recording should have a performing right, that is something that should be dealt with on its own and not through the back door of providing a performing right and a tariff for the record companies.
It should be made clear that the government is not denying copyright protection to records. The protection of records against copying exists in our law and will continue to exist. Bill S-9 does not affect the protection provided record companies against copying or against piracy. However, in the government's view that is all the record companies are entitled to. It is the government's position that even though the Copyright Appeal Board allows only a small fee now, SRL recently filed a new tariff of fees and applied for a substantial increase in its tariff. It is wrong, therefore, to allow a totally new vested interest to be built up at this time and it is now that appropriate steps must be taken. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, the government asks the co-operation of the House in disposing of this very important item of legislation.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, the government, as is usual, of course, will have the co-operation that it seeks in processing this legislation. However, it is something of an anomaly that in the case of the grain stabilization act the excuse given for not proceeding with the bill was that there was a court action, while in the case of this bill a court action is to be nullified by statute. I suppose it depends which band you play in.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: The court action is not against the government in this case.


Mr. Fairweather:: I am not going to waste part of Friday afternoon on an argument of semantics; I should just like the anomaly brought to the attention of the House. We are going to co-operate because we feel that this is really a matter for debate by, or a battle to be fought between two very large and important interests, interests that the government has to adjudicate upon or with regard to which it must act as referee.
I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) that it is a very great pity that the fundamental reform of the Copyright Act has not yet seen the light of day in spite of the fact that since the Copyright Act of 1921 there have been numerous royal commissions and studies, the latest of which was a most excellent report published by the Economic Council of Canada. This was a report on intellectual and industrial property which at page 258 gives a very lucid exposition of the principle that this bill is designed to embody.
As the parliamentary secretary said, we are not dealing here with the fundamental rights of singers and musicians; hopefully, their rights will be underlined in legislation that will have to come before the House at a later date. However, when the bill gets to committee, presumably the rights of singers, musicians and performers as

October 29, 1971
Copyright Act
enunciated by ACTRA and other trades union organizations will be aired, and doubtless SRL and other such organizations will also want to appear before the committee.
Copyright consists of an exclusive right in a musical, literary or dramatic work. A necessary consequence is that such work may not be reproduced except by permission of the copyright owner. Secondly, copyright consists of a performing right in the work so that no one may perform the work except upon payment of a royalty to the copyright owner.
In 1921, upon a revision of the Canadian Copyright Act, parliament enacted in subsection (3) of section 4-the provision we are dealing with here-that copyright should subsist in records, perforated rolls and other contrivances by means of which sounds may be mechanically reproduced in like manner as if such contrivances were musical, literary or dramatic works. This provision was copied from the United Kingdom prototype and, as the parliamentary secretary has reminded us, there is no such provision in the copyright law of the United States.
It is my understanding-I think the parliamentary secretary mentioned this in his brief remarks-that there has been for some time a bill on this issue before the United States Congress. I presume that if this Parliament did deal with the issue it would mean that increasing pressure would be brought to bear to move along the bill in the United States Congress. No one appeared to assert performing rights under the provision, which is perhaps not strange because it really has something to do with the whole expansion of the recording industry. There was no assertion of the right from 1921 until 1968. In that year, Sound Recording Licenses-a consortium of the eight major record companies in Canada of which six are subsidiaries of United States companies-a Canadian company, filed an application with the Copyright Appeal Board for approval of a tariff. The parliamentary secretary has told us of the outcome.
[DOT] <3:10 p.m.)
In 1968 the government introduced Bill S-20. I am sorry to take a minute or two on this matter but I think that the bill having come to us from the Senate, when future historians are trying to discover what we were doing on October 29, 1971, they will need some historical perspective in this regard. I will take a minute or two to bring the House up to date on the various emphases, and so on, placed on this question. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that there will be no difficulty, in so far as this party is concerned, in giving the bill second reading in the time allocated.
The government introduced in the Senate Bill S-20, the prototype of Bill S-9 which we are discussing. There was an explanation given in the records of the other place. I am not going to use that cliche any longer. I prefer to call the Senate, the Senate because that is a perfectly sensible word. I will hereinafter refer to the Senate as the Senate and to Senators as Senators. I believe that the ancient system of discussing that part of Parliament as "the other place" is unnecessary.
There was a short debate on second reading during which the opposition House leader questioned the principle of the action the government was taking, and on

February 6, 1969, the government withdrew the bill. This action was taken in agreement with SRL, which undertook not to proceed with its tariff application until the Economic Council of Canada reported on the reference made to it to study the question. The government was anxious to have the advice of the Economic Council. That advice covered many aspects but in particular the government was seeking advice about the whole copyright field.
It might be of interest to recall that in June, 1954, a royal commission under distinguished Chief Justice Ilsley, a great Nova Scotia parliamentarian, had been appointed to inquire into patents, copyright, trademarks and industrial designs. This report was printed in 1957, but unfortunately very little action followed. In other words, there was the usual non-action on the part of successive governments to the activities of royal commissions. The commission recommended that copyright subsisting in a sound recording should continue to subsist but for a period of 40 rather than 50 years from the first publication, but that record manufacturers' performing rights and broadcasting rights in records or in the recording embodied in the record should be abolished.
The Economic Council reference was ordered in July, 1966, and it reported five years later. The Economic Council recommended that the performing right in a sound recording should be removed. However, the chairman of the council, in a preface to the report, advised that two members of the council could not concur completely with the analysis and recommendations on copyright. Then, as the parliamentary secretary has said, SRL revised its application to the Copyright Appeal Board applicable to the year beginning January, 1971. Then in December of 1970 the government introduced Bill S-9. It will be rioted that clause 2 provides that the bill is to take effect January 1, 1971. So the principle embodied in the bill has had a rather chequered career; it came forward and was dropped almost as fast as Parliaments come and go.
The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. At the second meeting of the committee the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) appeared for the purpose of announcing that the Copyright Appeal Board had granted the SRL claim and fixed a scale of tariffs. That is really the chronology, although other members may be interested in different aspects of this matter which they will want to discuss. I want to underline on behalf of this party the comment of the parliamentary secretary, that in no way does the Official Opposition wish to see the right of a singer or musician circumscribed or nullified in any way by this bill, and that issue must be faced in spite of what Parliament may do with this legislation.
There is a second aspect which I am sure will grip the attention of hon. members even more than those first few minutes of chronological presentation. I refer to the constitutional aspect of the bill. Under the British North America Act, copyright comes under paragraph 23 of section 91-that great division of powers-but there it simply states that it is, in legal effect, a subtraction from the exclusive provincial authority to legislate upon property and civil rights in the province. We are advised in this regard, although the courts are not allowed to look to the draftsmen for help in interpreting the constitution-and
October 29, 1971

this is an anomaly that some day Parliament might get around to reforming.
The draftsmen of the BNA Act had before them for guidance two existing constitutions, that of the United Kingdom and, equally important to the draftsmen, the federal system as it was in effect in the United States. The United Kingdom, because of its unitary nature, has authority over property and civil rights. Within this broad scope the United Kingdom Parliament can define "copyright" in its own terms, either limited to the accepted conceptual idea of copyright or artificially and, therefore, conceptually inexact.
The attention of the draftsmen of the BNA Act was no doubt also directed to article 1, section 8 paragraph 8 of the Constitution of the United States. That paragraph empowers Congress to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their restrictive writings and discoveries. Whatever the inspiration, however, in respect of the copyright part of the British North America Act, I think it is important to take a minute or two to remember this bit of historical background when considering the bill before us.
Parliament, in the definition in the bill that we are considering today, appears to be saying that sound recordings are not original musical, literary, dramatic or artistic works as defined in section 2 of the Copyright Act. The point of taking an extra minute or two was only to once again emphasize how essential it is for us to consider at an early date the whole matter of the right of a singer, a musician or other artist. The philosophy, if I can put it that way, of this bill has had fairly thorough examination by the Senate. It also has the merit of being reinforced by the report on intellectual and industrial property.
There is one other aspect which I should like to discuss in a sentence or two to remind the House that the SRL's dividing the spoils, if I can put it this way, really does not mean that those spoils accrue to the benefit of Canada. As a matter of fact, the division will largely be made by the American Union of Musicians. I am not entering into a philosophical debate on international unionism but am reminding the House that the division of those funds will take place under a formula worked out by the American Union of Musicians and the various other trade unions and groups representing not only musicians but the technical people who are involved in the making of recordings.
Therefore, when we think about the bill I believe we should ask ourselves where the benefit will accrue, or what I might call the windfall. In other words, there would be a windfall if this legislation is not passed. A substantial part of this windfall would accrue to the United States of America. Here, as a caveat, I say I am not conducting a rather unpleasant discussion such as has been going on in this country vis-a-vis the United States; I am just saying that a very large amount of money which until 1968 had never been the subject of an assertion would accrue and be distributed to the benefit largely of another country.
I urge the government with its experience and, as the parliamentary secretary said, having to meet a deadline,
Copyright Act
to let the whole subject matter of copyright law be subject to a good and progressive piece of reform legislation. With that admonition and with the suggestion that we are really dealing with an adjudication between two variable interests, I may say that we support the bill. We hope that these large interests will have an opportunity for their day in court, so to speak, before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and that the fundamental right of those whom we should seek to help-that is, the performers-will be kept very much in mind.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the explanation of the government's position by the parliamentary secretary and the rather interesting subcommentary by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) I am inclined to support the motion that the bill receive second reading and go to committee. I was worried for a while when the negotiations were under way that perhaps the bill would not go to a standing committee for examination and that it was the intention of the government to seek to have all stages concluded in the House. I would think, despite the impression I have that justice lies essentially with the performers and that on balance we should be supporting their position rather than that of the recording companies, the recording companies have a right to appeal to the Commons directly and to have their case heard.
There is an interesting aspect to this bill. The Commons really is being asked to adjudicate between two conflicting pecuniary claims. The government has taken the position that the income of performers should be protected and should not be diminished by the inclusion of the recording companies in this field. I have stated our feelings on the matter and we are quite prepared to see the bill go to committee and receive quick passage thereafter.


Mr.   J.-T. Richard@Ottawa East: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this bill. I take this opportunity to remind the government, as I have on many occasions in the past, that it is high time we got down to serious business and revised not only the Copyright Act, which is about 60 years old, but also the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Industrial Design and Union Label Act.
We talk a great deal about the economy, labour and finance of this country, but the Acts to which I refer are all restrictive to our economy. They make it possible for Canadians to export as royalties or otherwise about 60 per cent, 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the income derived under them to foreign countries, and to restrict the use by Canadians of patents of inventions, processes of manufacturing, and so on; trademarks in the use of words and copyrights to perform or to use reading matter in the case of books. I would have hoped, especially after all the royal commissions that were in action 10, 12 or 15 years ago, and after the reports of these commissions and of the Economic Council of Canada, that at this time we would seriously be discussing not a simple amendment, important as it may be, but new legislation which would be drafted in the interest of Canadian citizens.
A great deal has been made about everyone wanting to be a great Canadian nationalist; but we are still servants, under so many of these acts, to our foreign competitors and producers. I hope the government will look at this

October 29, 1971
Copyright Act
particular type of legislation as well as the other legislation which affects our lives but perhaps not as directly from an economic point of view as the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act, the Industrial Design and Union Label Act and the Copyright Act. In the meantime I would remind the government that it is well for it to participate in some of the international meetings relating to the protection of industrial property but not to be in too much of a hurry to sign agreements which would make it impossible at a future time to draft laws relating to copyright which should be in the interest of Canadians. I have already attended a number of such conferences. Our hands are already tied in respect of many international agreements. Let us not be in too much of a hurry in the future to agree until we have drafted an act which is in the interest of all Canadians.
This legislation apparently is necessary because action by the SRL would impose another burden on broadcasters in Canada, and surely any burden on them means more expense on the part of our citizens who will have to contribute to the expenses of the broadcasters. For these reasons I hope this bill will be given second reading immediately and be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions about the order of business. In view of advanced hour of the afternoon I think agreement has been reached that the time is ripe now to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on his private member's bill. I think there is an upswell of sentiment that rather than divert to anything else we should go into private members' hour right away so that we could have the advantage of the hon. member's particular wisdom. Could that be agreed?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I thought the minister was going to rise in connection with the bill that we have just concluded. There is some anxiety to have that bill brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible. I merely want to indicate that our party is anxious to get the committee proceedings concluded quickly and get it back into the House for third reading. Hopefully, this can be done before the time limit which has been mentioned.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to my comments on the order of business and while we look forward to hearing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I suggest that the period for private members' hour be only one hour from the time we commence, rather than one hour and 25 minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there agreement that by leave it shall be called four o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Stanley Howard Knowles: that Bill C-52, respecting the designation of the Speaker of the House of Common as the member for the electoral district of Parliament Hill, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting afternoon. I shall certainly underline the things that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) said about me when I get a copy of today's Hansard. I also want to express my thanks to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) for once again seconding my motion with respect to this bill.
Another preliminary remark I should like to make is that I hope I can be permitted, for the sake of the record, to draw attention to the fact that when during the course of this debate we address you, Sir, as Mr. Speaker, it is Your Honour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who is in the chair at this time. In other words, I am drawing attention to the fact that we are debating this matter in the absence of His Honour the Speaker himself, and I think that is as it should be.
The purpose of this bill, as hon. members are fully aware, is to open the question of finding a way to provide for a continuing Speakership. This is a matter that has been discussed a good many times over the years. It gets the most serious discussion when we have in the chair an occupant such as the present Speaker. I am sure that all of us in this House feel that this institution itself is the better for the kind of leadership being given to us by today's occupant of the chair-and because of that leadership, because of what His Honour does for us, I suggest that right now there is even more discussion than usual on the desirability of finding a way to provide for a continuing Speakership.
I confess I have to express some regret that with the next election probably not more than a year away, no formal steps seem to have been taken to make sure that the present incumbent will be in the chair when we come back after the next election. I still hope that some way may be found to make this possible, and in particular I would hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the leader of this House, would meet for discussions with the leaders of the other parties to see if something cannot be done to achieve this desirable end.
Sir, with respect to the bill itself I should like to say that I have given the matter a good deal of thought and I have discussed it with a good many people. I have no hesitation in saying that I think the provisions that are spelled out in my bill meet the various problems and that my bill represents the best solution of this matter that has yet been put forward. At the same time, I want to say that my concern is not with the details that I have put into this bill but with the principle. It will not offend me at all if persons speaking on this bill find details in it that they think should and could be improved. Indeed, I would welcome any other
October 29, 1971

device that might be brought forward as a means of achieving the purpose. However, I hope that if anyone is going to propose another device or another bill it will be something that is better than this one, something that copes with the problems that in my bill I have endeavoured to resolve.
Having said that may I, just for the purposes of the Hansard record, indicate the way my bill would provide for a continuing Speakership. The bill is entitled, "An act respecting the designation of the Speaker of the House of Commons as the member for the electoral district of Parliament Hill." It would provide that when a Member of Parliament has been elected in the normal way and has subsequently been elected to the chair by the House of Commons-the way we have done it for over 100 years as spelled out in the British North America Act-that that incumbent once he had two full sessions in the chair could, by a resolution of the House of Commons, be designated as the member for Parliament Hill.
May I make the point that that is an optional provision; the House would not have to do it. It would be free to do it if it was satisfied, as we are in this Parliament, with the job being done by the person in the chair. But in any case, the resolution to declare an incumbent of the chair the hon. member for the electoral district of Parliament Hill could be made only in the case of a member who had been in the chair for two full sessions. The present occupant has many more sessions than that. If this bill were to become law, of course it could be applied immediately in this case.
The step that would immediately follow from the designation of Mr. Speaker as the member for the electoral district of Parliament Hill would be that the constituency that had elected him at the previous election would be declared vacant and a by-election would be called there in the normal way. This is achieved in my bill by having, in addition to the amendments it makes to the British North America Act, the amendment that it makes to the Canada Elections Act. Thus, a vacancy having been declared in the constituency from which His Honour the Speaker had come, that constituency could hold a by-election and elect another member who would be a voice for that constituency on the floor of the House of Commons.
My bill expressly provides that in that circumstance Mr. Speaker, as the member for the electoral district of Parliament Hill, is a full member of the House of Commons in every other way. Indeed, it provides that the number of members of the House of Commons would be one more than is normally the case. In other words, if this bill were made law and came into effect at the present time, a new member would be elected for Stormont-Dundas and there would be a total of 265 seats in the House of Commons.
This bill goes on to provide that at the time of dissolution Mr. Speaker, who even under the present law continues in his office as the person in charge of staff and other arrangements in the House of Commons, would continue to be the member for the electoral district of Parliament Hill. He would not have to run anywhere to continue to hold that membership. He would be that member until the day the next Parliament, following an intervening election, meets as required by law to elect its Speaker. At that
Designation of Speaker
point my bill provides that he would be an eligible candidate for the Speakership of that new Parliament.
I trust it is clear from the way I put it that it would not be automatic; he would not be forced upon the succeeding Parliament. Presumably he would know and everyone else would know from what had happened in the previous Parliament whether it was likely he would be wanted. That being the case, the incumbent of the chair could carry on. He would be free, if he did not want to exercise that right, to run in a normal constituency and revert to the more normal role of us ordinary mortals who make up this chamber.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, while there are arguments about whether Mr. Speaker throughout his time in the chair should be a member in the sense that the rest of us are, having connections with a constituency, the argument comes down on the side of the proposition that the Speaker should in the first place be an ordinary Member of Parliament, should know what it is to run and get elected, perhaps run and get defeated and all the rest. But I think there comes a time when the incumbent of the chair has done such a good job, as is the case with the present incumbent, that it means more to Parliament as a whole to have him continue in that role than to put him in the position of having to go back and run in a partisan contest at a succeeding election.
I said earlier, and perhaps I may be permitted to repeat it, that the time when one considers this sort of thing, the time when it is most desirable to consider it, is when one has a person in the chair concerning whom there is a unanimous feeling of support and respect. You do not get a continuing Speaker-and you note that I prefer that word to the word "permanent", a bit of semantics I suppose but I cannot see anyone being a permanent fixture although I can see a continuing operation-by just deciding to one day go out and pick up a university professor or a worn-out politician, or a brand new one either, and put him in the chair. He might succeed or fail, no matter what his recommendations may have been.
You get a satisfactory continuing Speakership by seizing the moment when you have someone in the chair who is doing the job, who has proven his capacity, and saying that now is the time to continue this relationship. That is why I think there is a fair amount of discussion about the matter at the present time and I hope the discussion this afternoon will indicate that there is support for finding a way of putting this idea into practice before the next election.
As I have already said, I think my bill meets the various problems and meets them well. However, I do not have the kind of pride of authorship that would make me offended if changes in the details are proposed. I hope there will be some discussion, and I hope it will be favourable, of the general principle of finding a way to provide for the Canadian House of Commons a continuing Speakership and I hope we can find a way to keep in the chair the illustrious occupant we have at the present time.
May I conclude my remarks by simply pointing out that there are four things in particular that I believe are problems related to this whole question, all four of them being problems that my bill solves. In the first place, to become a continuing Speaker one cannot be just a choice that was

October 29, 1971
Designation of Speaker
picked out somewhere; he has to have been a Member of Parliament elected in the first place in the ordinary way. My bill so provides.
In the second place a Speaker, once elected to the chair, does not automatically become a continuing Speaker; he has to prove himself through at least two sessions. This is called for in my bill.
In the third place, although my bill makes provision for a continuing situation it does not deny the right of each succeeding Parliament to make its choice. The good Speaker of one Parliament is there for the next Parliament to choose, but that new Parliament does not have to take him unless it, too, is satisfied.
My final point is that my bill makes it possible for a constituency that has done so well by electing a person who can fill the chair also to be a constituency that would have the right, in two years or so, to choose a member who would speak for it on the floor. This is achieved by the vacancy that is declared and the by-election that is to be held, as set out in Bill C-52.
I present the bill and its various points believing it is a matter that is of interest not only to members but to all Canadians who are concerned with the good image and the good functioning of Parliament, and I hope the debate on the bill this afternoon will be in that vein.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question to the hon. member?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Albert Béchard: Under Bill C-52 introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre regarding the designation of a permanent Speaker, an hon. member must have acted in that capacity for at least two sessions. What would happen should the occupant of that office die or resign? Should the same procedure be started over? I do not see at all the permanency that can exist in such a case. [English]
Must we have a member sitting as the Speaker for two years before he can be appointed permanent Speaker?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is a probationary period.


Stanley Howard Knowles: First of all, may I revert to my reference to semantics and say that I do not like the word "permanent". I prefer "continuing". Perhaps the difference is not as meaningful to my hon. friend as it is to me.
The second point is that we have that situation now. Somebody excellent occupies the chair. A Parliament lasts for two, three or four years. Parliament is dissolved and the Speaker is out, so to speak, and we must go through the process of electing another Speaker. I think that giving ourselves the right to arrange for the Speaker to continue from Parliament to Parliament makes good sense, both for the Speaker and for ourselves. There must be what my parliamentary secretary to my right calls a probationary period in which we make sure that the

person we have chosen is as good as we thought he would be.


Mr. Hogarth:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question. My question relates to the second Parliament in which Mr. Speaker might serve. Let us suppose the first Parliament lasts for two sessions, Mr. Speaker is confirmed and then Parliament is dissolved and a new Parliament is formed. If he is not elected in that second Parliament he will be without a seat.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right, and that is a query a number of people have put to me. My answer to them is this. At the end of a Parliament or when Parliament has reached the point of dissolution, surely the members of that Parliament, the leaders of the parties and Mr. Speaker will know whether he is the sort of man who will be wanted for the next Parliament. If the relationship has not been good, he will know it and make other plans. Otherwise, he gambles. He does not run. He is the member for Parliament Hill, and even though there might be a change and somebody else might be chosen, even from his point of view it will be worth taking the gamble to maintain his independence.


An hon. Member:: But he cannot run.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not think you should impose upon the new Parliament a choice that it has the right to make.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it might be considered an impropriety for me to speak here, since I held the position of Speaker of this House. I would approach this question with, shall we say, equanimity and impartiality.


An hon. Member:: You lost the job.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member was not given the full probationary period.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I say right from the start that I am unequivocally opposed to the idea of this bill. Let me make that clear from the beginning. I realize what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is trying to achieve, yet somehow there is a fatal flaw in the whole idea. First, although I should like to read copiously from a certain book I hold I shall content myself with reading part of what is printed inside the dust-jacket. It ought to be on the record, and reads as follows:
The Speaker is the representative of an institution which is a mocrocosm of the British nation and his prestige is immense. As the historic guardian of its privileges and its spokesman in its relations with the Crown, the House of Lords and authorities and persons outside Parliament, he is approached with ceremony and deference. His is a high and lonely office, above sectional interests and immune from party influences, and an extremely onerous one. He presides over debates, maintains discipline, interprets Standing Orders and gives rulings, and in addition has many administrative duties.
The idea of an impartial Speaker is a modern one.
That is the point I want to emphasize.
From the end of the fourteenth century, when the Speaker's name first appeared in records, he was for more than 250 years the King's man and as such liable to sudden rises to power and even quicker, sometimes fatal, falls.
October 29, 1971

If I may interpose, seven of them lost their heads.
After the Civil War the office became the perquisite of the government of the day and things began to improve, though of one Speaker it could still be said that 'nothing can exceed the badness of his character even in this bad age'. Great Speakers stalk the pages: Onslow, who served for a record thirty-three years in the eighteenth century and who is largely responsible for the modem concept of the Speaker; and Peel who, with his austere personality and splendid figure, dominated the House like a great actor and whose very presence was sufficient to quell disorder. Less happily, there was Speaker Gully who, in one of the House's worst moments, called in the police in 1901 to remove some recalcitrant Irish members.
There have been included in the Hansard of Westminster, in the Hansard of this House, in the Australian Hansard and the New Zealand Hansard very fine passages about the duties and responsibilities of the Chair. I have a quote from one of the recent Speakers of the New Zealand House on this point. It is noteworthy, however, that most of those speeches were made by members who did not occupy the chair. One ought to know that such paragons of virtue are exceedingly rare. One of the best descriptions of the duties, responsibilities and qualities of the Speaker is to be found in the Hansard record of this House for the year 1935. It is recorded in an exchange that took place between the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Bennett, and the returning Prime Minister, Mr. King, during the only really contested election for the office of Speaker. The contest had arisen as the result of some action taken rather precipitously by the Speaker-designate.
I hope the House will forgive me if some of my views are subjective. May I say that Mr. Speaker derives his authority and the respect of the members of this House from essentially being one of them. To my mind he is the first among peers, and to be first among peers he must be one of the peers; he must be one of the members of the House. I have always believed that.
There have been motions and bills presented in the British House and elsewhere supporting the idea that has been advanced, with some variations, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In Britain they wanted to call the Speaker the hon. member for St. Stephen's Hall. However, as soon as a member is elected to a position in which he is not one of the members of the House he becomes a super-official and is not one of the members. To my mind that is a fatal flaw. Even though the Speaker may represent a pseudo constituency, that is only a thin camouflage. Saying that he is elected to represent the constituency of Parliament Hill only thinly camouflages what he is.
One quality that we want of a Speaker is that he shall be scrupulously impartial. To be scrupulously impartial he must be independent-independent of government and independent of the opposition. This independence is fairly apparent in many ways in the United Kingdom where the custom has grown up that changes in government do not bring changes in the Speaker's office unless the Speaker has conducted himself in a completely unacceptable manner; otherwise he is expected to continue in office.
I recall what happened when the Labour government came to power in 1945. There is a famous story about the then Speaker. He was at King's Cross railway station, on his way home, and met Mr. Ernest Bevin, a minister in the Labour government. Mr. Bevin asked the Speaker,
Designation of Speaker
"Where are you going?" The Speaker replied, "I am going home to my constituency." "And what are you going to do there?" Mr. Bevin asked. The Speaker said, "Well, I am no longer wanted; isn't that so?" Mr. Bevin, who was a senior member of the then new Labour government, said, "Of course not. Don't be silly. Go back to your office; that is where you belong." I have paraphrased the story.
A little over a year ago I had the pleasure of seeing the only Labour Speaker of the House of Commons elected under a Conservative government. At that time there was no question that there would be any change. There has now been a change. The Speaker was nominated from government ranks only because Dr. King, the former Speaker, resigned for reasons of health. There is only one minor flaw in the British House. For the past year or two it has been said that at the end of a Speaker's term if is automatic that he shall be given a peerage. However, there is also the determination of his pension. What shall be the quantum of his pension? There has been a natural inclination to be rather pleasant to all members so that Mr. Speaker's pension will go through without any difficulty. I suggest it is a human failing, but that has been a trait.
Let us follow the procedures suggested by Bill C-252. An hon. member elected as Speaker of this House has, shall we say, a probationary period of two years. He must then wait and see whether the shoe fits. Will there be a resolution on the order paper proposing him as the hon. member for Parliament Hill? What will assure him of that? The bill is silent. Whose resolution will it be? Will it be that Mr. Speaker is appointed by government resolution? Mr. Speaker is the presiding officer of this House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So it cannot be a government resolution.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: How does a resolution get on the order paper to guarantee debate and that it will be taken up? Does it have precedence at the time of an election? Parliament will have met but the new session will not have started. There are some procedural difficulties. Will the resolution come after informal discussions through normal channels between the opposition and the government? This is a point. Human nature being what it is, there is a very grave danger that we will see in that section some equivocal acts in the mind of the occupant of the chair to guarantee that resolution appearing on the order paper next year.
During the first two years, is Mr. Speaker going to be independent of government? He may incur the wrath of the government or even the wrath of the opposition. He may incur the wrath of the government by a tough decision which is right. In recent years we have seen some reactions from government as the result of decisions by the Chair. Displeasure has been expressed in no uncertain terms. As a result, the House will suffer. I am concerned about the effect on the House and the protection of members on both sides, the protection of members one against the other, the private member from the government and the government from the opposition.
It is quite a job to protect the rights of this House. Mr. Speaker must not merely act as a referee and let the

October 29, 1971
Designation of Speaker
players slug one another as long as they do so above the belt. That is not the position of Mr. Speaker: he is much more than that. He must protect one member from another on both sides of the House. I wish to read what was said by Mr. Speaker Algie of the New Zealand House:
Since I have been in this House, I have listened with pleasure to a very great number of extremely able debaters and I have noted that the best of them are brief, terse, concise, relevant, and constructive. I have noted also that in their best moments they have been supremely polite, courteous, and free from personalities. That is the standard, honourable members, that we would like to attain and which the public would like us to reach.
I subscribe to that view. In order to achieve it, Mr. Speaker must take that attitude toward hon. members. By qualifying through a probationary period, Mr. Speaker's position might be very difficult. I come to a very practical problem, namely, the decision of an hon. member to accept an invitation to become Mr. Speaker. It has always been difficult. I assure hon. members that I wrestled with the problem. For a younger man it means a political derailment. Once Mr. Speaker takes the first step to the chair he must put aside partisan politics. There is no caucus, no special friends in any caucus and no political meetings. He becomes like Caesar's wife; there cannot be a finger of reproach pointed at him in this regard. This affects a person. Having occupied the chair I can assure hon. members that it still affects me in many ways.
Where does a man relatively young in service go from the chair unless there is to be a continuation? Is it going to be from the chair to the other place? That has been the record of a number of Speakers in this House, men of senior years. Is it going to be as some, myself included, who because of circumstances went from the chair into the cabinet? There is nothing wrong with that. I have seen the reverse, from the cabinet into the chair. The Speaker of the British House is a former cabinet minister. Former Speakers of this House have been chief whips of the government party.
What is to be the Speaker's career after the chair? One of the most serious deficiencies is that nothing is provided at the end of the road for Mr. Speaker. The pension scheme was thin; it is even thinner now. I think what we do is scandalous. Mr. Speaker as to abandon his private career. Being Speaker is a 150 per cent job. If Mr. Speaker is a young man he must consider his family, the future of his wife and himself. These are all factors to be considered.
But under this bill an hon. member who accepted the invitation to go into the chair would pass the probationary period, be elected by resolution, named to be the member for Parliament Hill and his constituency would disappear as far as he was concerned because his constituency would be represented by another member. We then have a general election. He is the representative for Parliament Hill. He does not go through a general election. There is a change of government, and where is he? There is no guarantee that he is going to continue, and he is out of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: His guarantee is the decency of Parliament.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He is out of the House when he has taken the step that all hon. members have taken. They have made a conscious decision in many instances to give up business or professional careers. They have dedicated themselves to becoming Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents, to a career in Parliament, that is, a career in public life. Again, the Speaker does not know. How is he to know he is going to carry on? There is a new administration. Remember, if this bill becomes law there is no alternative open to him, no certainty that a new administration would come along and accept Mr. Speaker. I much prefer the British system which we have seen put into practice following the last election, the steps which were taken at that time, albeit tentative.
It seems to me that now Parliament is a year-round proposition and has been for some years, and we have taken this tentative step, if Mr. Speaker indicates he wishes to continue as a member of a constituency he is not officially opposed and he does not contest the election. And let me tell you that the status of Mr. Speaker in his constituency during election time is very high. Other people can campaign on his behalf. It seems to me this does not put him at a disadvantage as far as the election is concerned.
So on a number of grounds I cannot endorse the proposal before us. First, I find that the last part of the probationary period would be very difficult for Mr. Speaker and I think deleterious to the interests of this House. I wish to be perfectly objective here without considering the personality of any man who has been in the chair.
Second, when we see a change in administration or even if there were a continuance of the same administration, what guarantee is there that the man who is in the position of the member for Parliament Hill, the outgoing Speaker, will be asked by the new administration to resume the chair? Suppose he has been called upon to make some very hard decisions-and sometimes they are very hard, decisions which incurred the wrath of the leader of the government party? That has happened and it will happen again in the future. It seems to me that by developing a system where by if Mr. Speaker has been conducting his office to the best of his ability and if, by reason of health and so forth, he is willing to continue, and if we also make sure in due course, as a major reform to come, that there is a proper pension available for him, we shall achieve what we want to achieve by way of an independent, continuing Speaker.


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members have had the benefits of listening to a good discussion by two of the most experienced members of this House. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has not sought to retreat from the difficulties of the proposal he is advancing. His solutions to some of those difficulties are ingenious. On the other hand, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has not only portrayed for us the intrinsic difficulties of this proposal but has made specific comments critical of the solutions proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I begin my remarks by suggesting that we are discussing something which is highly important to the work of
October 29, 1971

this chamber and to parliamentary government in this country. It seems to me that this is the kind of proposal which should be referred to a committee in order that it may be studied further. I am surprised that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has suggested it should go to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs rather than to the distinguished committee of which we both are members. But I attribute this to his well known modesty.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the hon. member would permit me to point out that the decision as to the committee to which a bill is referred after second reading is made not by the member concerned but by the Chair and the officers at the table.


Duncan Gordon Blair: In this debate today, above all others, one should not say anything which could be considered as the least critical of the decision of the Chair and the officers of the House.
All hon. members are aware that we have made many important and constructive changes affecting the office of the Speakership even in the brief time during which I and others who first came here in 1968 have been in the House. To begin with, an important tradition has been supplanted. Formerly it was a tradition of Parliament that, after an election, a new Speaker should be chosen. I understand that it was also a tradition that the Speakership should alternate between a person whose mother tongue was English and a person whose mother tongue was French. But if I am not mistaken, it was determined for the first time before the election of 1968 that it would be advantageous to ask Mr. Speaker to continue in office. Arrangements were made between the parties during the election of 1968 which permitted Mr. Speaker to continue in office unembarrassed by a major political contest.
Other changes have been made which have increased the independence and the role of Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the most significant was the change in the rules which prohibited appeals from the Speaker's rulings. We know that the terms of Standing Order 26-a great favourite of hon. members opposite-having to do with emergency debate have also been revised so as to place much greater discretion in the hands of Mr. Speaker when determining which debates shall be allowed and the manner in which those decisions should be reached. One could mention other important changes which have been made in the rules conferring greater discretion on Mr. Speaker-for example, those dealing with the question period.
As we approach this debate we must realize that the force of recent opinion in this Parliament and, I suggest, also in the country has been in favour of creating a situation where the independence of the Speakership can be assured. This is the occasion that gave rise to the present debate and I think we are all equally concerned to find the best method of achieving this independence in the future.
I believe that the rules of this House, if not the rules of good manners, prevent me from saying anything more than the hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre and Edmonton West have said about the present Speaker, but perhaps I might just say this. His distinction in his office
Designation of Speaker
is an added reason why all members of the House are now seeking and striving to find a way of ensuring the continuity of an independent Speakership of excellence and great quality. We must realize that, more than any other member of the House, the Speaker faces certain problems of membership. He is detached from many of the concerns of ordinary life. Under present circumstances, where Parliament sits for many months of the year, the Speakership itself is more than a year-round office.
In addition to this, in his office as Speaker he is deprived of any of the usual political arrangements that maintain contact in his constituency. At each election he faces the problem of determining how to go to the people and seek reaffirmation of his mandate when, by the very nature of his office, he is prevented during his term from participating in any of the usual activities associated with membership of this House.
If I might be permitted a personal observation, it has been my privilege as a member of this House to represent a constituency which lies beside that of Mr. Speaker. In addition, my provincial colleague during most of my term has been Speaker of the Ontario House. I am well aware of the feeling-which is not entirely justified, I must say- on the part of the people in the constituencies that a person who is Speaker is not representative of his constituents in the same sense as an ordinary member. I say that this feeling is not entirely justified because I have been able to observe rather closely how well the respective Speakers of this House and of the Ontario House have represented their constituents. But none the less the feeling persists and it is one which in a democratic society has to be recognized.
Coming more directly to the motion before us, we are all well aware of the history and traditions of the British Speakership. At least, we are well aware of them in general, though I think there is a certain mythology which attaches to the Speakership at Westminster. There are a great number of people in this country who believe there is a permanent Speakership at Westminster. People believe that there is a seat that is set aside for the Speaker. We know that this is not so. In fact, the independence of the Speakership at Westminster is the product of a long history, some of which might be regarded as fortuitous.
It happens that no Speaker since, I think, the year 1710 has been defeated in an election at Westminster. It also happens that for more than 180 years there has never been a contest in the House of Commons at Westminster over the election of a Speaker. As I understand it, this has been removed from all types of partisan consideration. In each election in the United Kingdom the Speaker stands as a candidate in his constituency and a determination has to be made by all political parties whether or not there will be a contest or whether there will be an acclamation. In the early years of this century, perhaps for almost 50 years, Speakers were acclaimed, but I believe the practice which has prevailed since 1945 is that British Speakers have gone through contested elections.
It is said, and I think not without reason, that the situation that prevails in the United Kingdom is rather different from that which prevails in this country. There the territory is smaller, the opportunity of people who may be represented by the Speaker to have access to other Members of Parliament is much more apparent than it might

October 29, 1971
Designation of Speaker
be here. This is the reason for the added weight given to the arguments in this country for the creation of what might be called a fictitious constituency which Mr. Speaker might represent.
This matter, as hon. members I am sure know, has been studied in a number of different areas. The British Parliament in 1939 had a very select committee consider this problem, the members of which included Winston Churchill, David Lloyd George and other parliamentarians of great reputation. They concluded in their report that it was an artificial solution to create a fictitious constituency for the Speaker. This conclusion appears to have been reinforced by a short debate that occurred in the United Kingdom Parliament on April 24, 1963.
In our own Parliament, as all hon. members are aware, extensive consideration was given to procedural matters prior to the election of 1968 and a great deal of work was done by our predecessors and by various people who contributed to their deliberations. Professor Denis Smith of Trent University filed a report entitled, "The Speakership of the Canadian House of Commons: Some Proposals", published as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings for June 2, 1965. There we find in a full blown way- unhappily, I cannot refer to the report except briefly-the argument for the creation of a permanent Speakership in which the Speaker would represent an artificial constituency, perhaps called the constituency of Parliament Hill.
Another important academic contribution was made by Professor J. H. Aitchison, who gave extensive attention to the office of Speaker and whose findings were published and reported, among other places, in the Ottawa Citizen for April 19, 1963. His conclusions are roughly the same as those of Professor Smith and both of their studies are entitled, I think, to great weight in any consideration that we give to this question.
On the other hand, I might mention the views of two distinguished parliamentarians of our generation which are to the opposite effect. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), speaking in this House on May 20, 1965, as reported at page 1517 of Hansard, declared himself firmly against this idea. He said:
I do not believe in the principle that a constituency should be set up for the purpose of providing a Speaker. He would then cease to be the first Commoner that he is, because he would be there by choice and not election.
To the same effect are the words spoken by the then Prime Minister, Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, on May 19, 1965, as reported at page 1483 of Hansard as follows:
This possibility has its attractions, but it seems to me that it also has its disadvantages, and I am not sure that it would achieve the objective it was desired to achieve in putting it into effect. This device would certainly transform the Speaker from being an equal with his fellow members over whose deliberations he presides into-I say this in no derogatory sense-some type of parliamentary functionary, and I suggest that the change might even reduce the prestige of*your office.
Finally, I should like to refer to the important words spoken by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) at the time of the election of Mr. Speaker on September 12, 1968, as reported at page 3 of Hansard of that day. The Leader of the Opposition said:
The appointment of a permanent Speaker remains one of the necessary objectives of parliamentary procedure and parliamentary improvement. I hope we can all agree upon the urgency of taking action in this regard ... is urgent in that respect as well as for the regulation of parliamentary procedure that early consideration be given to alternative methods of removing the election of the Speaker from partisan considerations.
We face a difficult problem. The best method of providing continuity of the independent Speakership of this House is one which we should earnestly seek and search for. We should also seek a method which would guarantee to the person who holds the onerous responsibility of our Speaker the greatest measure of security and independence. For this reason I urge all hon. members to support this motion so that it may be more fully considered in committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
At 4.35 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday. November 1, 1971