1971-12-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of Standing Committee on Miscellenous Estimates, in the two official languages-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, I spent several hours yesterday with President Nixon in Washington. I should like to take a few moments of the time of the House to report on those meetings and on the discussions which took place concurrently between the Ministers of Finance and Industry, Trade and Commerce, with their officials, and the United States Secretaries of the Treasury and of Commerce and their officials.
One of the purposes of my visit was to seek reassurance from the President, and it can only come from him, that it is neither the intention nor the desire of the United States that the economy of Canada become so dependent upon the United States in terms of a deficit trading pattern that Canadians will inevitably lose independence of economic decisions. I stated to the President as candidly as I was able the concern which had been expressed in Canada, and indeed by some hon. members, with respect to the character of the U.S.-Canadian relationship. That concern was precipitated, of course, by the introduction on August 15 of the new United States economic policies, but it has been reflected increasingly in recent years by the continuing flow to Canada of American investment with its inherent advantages and disadvantages.
I cannot emphasize too strongly the warmth and the understanding with which President Nixon responded to my questions and the candid attitude which he revealed. He assured me that it was in the clear interests of the United States to have a Canadian neighbour not only independent both politically and economically but also one which was confident that the decisions and policies in each of these sectors would be taken by Canadians in their own interests, in defence of their own values, and in pursuit of their own goals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The century-old desire of Canadians to benefit from our North American neighbourhood and to profit from our relations with the United States, while at the same time remaining Canadian to the degree and extent that we choose, was put to the President by me and accepted by him without hesitation or qualification.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are a distinct country, we are a distinct people, and our remaining as such is, I was assured, in the interests of the United States and is a fundamental tenet of the foreign policies of that country as expressed by the Nixon administration.
I should add that the President was sensitive to the suggestion that his August 15 policies could be interpreted as evidence that the United States was unable to accept a Canada with a strong trading and current account position vis-a-vis the United States. This interpretation he could understand, but he stated to me forcefully that it was incorrect. I have not the slightest doubt, having spoken to him, that his interpretation is the correct one and will be borne out by events.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: I am not so sure about that. [Translation]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If I may turn for a moment to the specific question of reforms in the monetary and trading practices of the world, the President and I agreed that no benefit would be gained by any short-sighted attempt on the part of any single country-the United States included-to gain immediate advantage. If the world trading nations and the international monetary community are unable to support with confidence whatever agreements are reached, then no progress will have been made. The same inherent instability and uncertainty which precipitated the August crisis will return, but with a viciousness not so far present because governments and the private sector will have lost confidence in their ability to come to grips with problems of this importance and this magnitude.
In short, Mr. Speaker, while the state of negotiations on specific points does not permit me to reveal to the House the precise state of play on any of the items which are understandably of interest to all hon. members, I am able to say that I have not the slightest doubt that those negotiations will be culminated soon, that the economic issues outstanding between Canada and the United States will be resolved, and that Canada will emerge in a healthier state. Much of the credit for progress in the process is due to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), and to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) for the skillful, tough and professional manner in which they have led the Canadian team of negotiators.

December 7, 1971
Prime Minister's Meeting in U.S.
I have emphasized in these remarks those parts of my discussion with the President which were directed to economic issues and to Canadian-American relations. I hasten to add, however, that we spent a good deal of time on broader international matters-on the tragedy which is now unfolding on the Indian subcontinent, on the steps which are being pursued in the United Nations to arrest the hostilities and create a measure of confidence that the grievances in that area can be redressed, and on East-West relations generally. In keeping with the President's desire to inform the major allies of the United States about his pending visits to the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union, we talked of the initiatives taken by both Canada and the United States to lessen tension and contribute positively to an orderly international climate.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform hon. members that the President told me with what pleasure he and Mrs. Nixon were looking forward to their visit to Canada this spring.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I assured him that the warmth of the reception which I knew awaited them would be a clear indication of the friendship between the peoples of our two countries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me state that it will not surprise the Prime Minister to hear me say that I was very pleased he had this talk with the President of the United States. I am also very pleased that the Prime Minister has returned home reassured as to the essential good will of the President of the United States toward our country, and reassured too as to the intention and firm determination of the President of the United States to see our country develop in independence and in accordance with our own priorities. I am pleased too that the feelings of uncertainty the Prime Minister expressed publicly some time ago to the Canadian people as to the intentions of the President and the intentions of the American people toward Canada, his feelings of uncertainty about the basic attitudes that the President might have as to the role of Canada in North America and as to the direction that the Canadian economy should take in the future, have been relieved and that some of the general feeling of uncertainty is now eliminated in his own mind and presumably, as a result of his statement, in the minds of the Canadian people.
I had hoped, of course, that the Prime Minister would have taken steps some time ago to try to remove these uncertainties somewhat earlier than he has done, but I am pleased that this has happened.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Then congratulate him.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am even pleased to see the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) in his usual form.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Former St. Boniface.


Mr. McGrath:: Idiot form.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, unquestionably it should be emphasized that good relations between our two countries and a clear understanding between our two countries are very important to us. However, in addition to general assurances from the President of the United States as to his views about the relationships between our two countries and his firm resolve to respect our independence, political and economic, and to respect our decisions as to what course of action we might take-and I do not doubt their sincerity for a moment-surely we have to get down to specifics when the relationship between our two countries is so interdependent. It is the attitude and the response of the United States administration on specific issues that will really affect this country. It never occurred to me seriously that the United States had any desire to pursue policies intentionally designed to cripple this country. The question really is, what view does the United States administration have with regard to balance of trade and terms of trade? What view does the United States administration regard as consistent with its own interests? What view does the United States administration have as to when its actions might impinge upon the independence or autonomy of Canada? It is also important to us to know specifically how the administration regards the value of the Canadian dollar in relation to the United States dollar. Are the views of the United States administration on this subject likely to impinge in any way upon our independence? These are matters upon which we will receive further enlightenment in due course.
I am pleased to hear the very optimistic statement made by the Prime Minister this afternoon as to the manner in which he believes these problems-presumably the value of our currency in relation to the United States dollar, the auto pact, the general attitude of the United States toward trading relationships, the balance of trade between our two countries, the attitude toward Canada manufacturing rather than being basically a supplier of raw materials to the United States-will be solved. It is these specific matters that we have to be concerned about, Mr. Speaker, in view of the high degree of interdependence between our two countries. While we are pleased to receive a general assurance as to the good and firm intentions of the United States, the question really is how the United States administration will interpret its interests and our interests on any particular matter.
In view of the degree of interdependence between our two countries it is my belief that we must not only have a statement of general intention, which we welcome, but we must also work out some guidelines between our two countries which will assure us in a specific way that decisions are not going to be taken unilaterally in Washington that could have a very detrimental effect upon our economy and its development. I realize such guidelines cannot be worked out in the course of a single visit. I do not expect that. I am glad the process has been started. I am pleased-I do not know what is going on with my hon. friends at the back on the other side, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps they would like me to attack the government. I am trying to be reasonably positive and constructive in light
December 7, 1971

of what I regard as a constructive move on the part of the Prime Minister.
I emphasize that as a Canadian, and my feeling is widely shared in many quarters of this House, I am concerned about the degree of interdependence between our two countries and the extent to which decisions taken in Washington can affect us. I consequently believe it is important for us to try to establish guidelines between our two countries for governing our behaviour toward each other which will at least reduce to a minimum the possibility of unilateral decisions being taken that can affect us very significantly. I repeat that one cannot expect this to be achieved in one visit. I am pleased that President Nixon is to come to Ottawa in the spring. I hope the Prime Minister will regard sympathetically the suggestion that the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States should meet frequently and regularly and that one of their objectives at least ought to be the achievement of significant and specific guidelines on how we are to behave toward each other.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot join in this-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot join in this song of praise over the visit of the Prime Minister to Washington and his statement on returning.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I suggest to you, Sir, and to the Prime Minister that this is one of the most distressing declarations by any Prime Minister of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: What the Prime Minister has said is that he visited Washington and that he has the assurance of the President of the United States that Canada can remain independent. Is that not wonderful, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: What else did the Prime Minister expect the President of the United States to say to him? I say to the Prime Minister that it is not assurances from the President of the United States or the administration of the United States regarding the independence of Canada that Canadians need. They need to be assured by this government that it will not continue to sell Canada out to the multinational corporations and thus continue to endanger our independence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: The same old stuff!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order in the House. The hon. member for York South has the floor.
Prime Minister's Meeting in U.S.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, hon. members can yell or scream or yelp. I intend to say what I think I must say as a Canadian. If hon. members, by interrupting me, want me to take longer, that is fine by me. I have lots of patience and I hope you have too, Mr. Speaker. I suggest it is humiliating for Canada and Canadians for the leader of their country to have to go to Washington to be reassured about Canada's independence, to be reassured by the President of the United States that he does not intend to treat us like a colony, as I heard the Prime Minister suggest at the press conference.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


David Lewis: I think this is a measure of the kind of continentalist thinking that has been going on in Liberal ranks and, indeed, in Tory ranks in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have never had any doubt-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: I have never had any doubt that Canada's dependence on the United States is not due to the Americans raping us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: I have said more than once that there cannot be rape where there is invitation and consent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Canada's dependence on the United States Canada's dependence in trade, in monetary policy, in the control of our economy-


Some hon. Members:: In unions.


David Lewis: And in unions, Mr. Speaker. Obviously I must be saying something that has some truth in it, from the pain it has caused. Canada's dependence on the United States has not been the result of any decision by Presidents of the United States of America. It has been the result of decisions by Canadian political and business leaders to hand over our resources to the American corporations and to ask American capital to come into this country to build branch plants as subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Therefore the statement of the Prime Minister to the House today, as well as his statement before the press conference in Washington, is a humiliating admission of the bankruptcy of the Liberal party's attitude and policies toward Canada's development and the development of Canada's identity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: It is not anything more than that. It is not of the slightest help to Canada. I hope that in the very near future the Prime Minister or some member of the government will rise in his place and tell us what the government's policy is with regard to foreign investment and with regard to regaining control of Canada's economy. I

December 7, 1971
Prime Minister's Meeting in U.S.
hope the government will tell us exactly what it intends to do. Because of one statement the Prime Minister made at the press conference, I am worried that the government's policy will not only be too late but too little for Canada's future independence as a nation.
We need to know, and I hope we will in the very near future, the results of the negotiations between our ministers and the relevant secretaries of the United States. How much are we giving away with regard to the auto pact? How much are we giving away with regard to defence purchases? How much are we giving away as concessions? If I remember correctly, the Prime Minister clearly said during his press conference that Canada will make concessions to the United States to assist them in their present position but we will extract some concessions from them. This Parliament and the people of Canada are entitled to know precisely what concessions Canada is making and what concessions it will be getting from the United States, if any. We want to know what our energy policy is with regard to the Americans, whether we will continue to sell our natural resources to American multinational corporations as we have done until now. I know this will be considered offensive, but I have to speak the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Before anyone gets excited, let me put it this way. I have to speak the truth as I see it, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. I am not pressing the hon. member at this point, but I should like to remind him that according to the Standing Order comments made in response to ministerial statements ought to be brief and should not be of such a nature as to give rise to controversy. I am not sure whether the hon. member's last statement is on all fours with the Standing Order. As I said, I am not pressing the matter, but I think we should try to proceed with a view to the termination of comments on the statement made by the Prime Minister.


David Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have not been keeping my eye on the time, but I hope you have given me credit for some of the time taken up by interruptions.
I was saying that in my opinion the declaration by the Prime Minister is in no sense a reassurance to Canada. It is in our opinion a mark of humiliating thinking by the government of this country with respect to Canada's independence. We shall not be satisfied that Canada's future independence is in any way safe in the hands of this government unless we have a policy on foreign investment and foreign economic control which has teeth in it and will reverse the continuing sell-out of resources and manufacturing facilities to United States corporations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, we were fortunate this morning to be able to hear the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), on the occasion of a press conference in Washington, state something like this: "The

Prime Minister of Canada and the President of United States have agreed that they should each guide their own political and economic destinies while respecting the freedom of the other."
Today, at the opening of the House, he is still using this most diplomatic phraseology which, in any event, will solve nothing and bring absolutely nothing to the people of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that will have to be said in the House one of these days, and it is that this government is a past master in creating artificial crises in order to manipulate more easily Canadian public opinion. For instance, There were an economic depression and an extremely high unemployment rate in Canada long before imposition of the American surcharge on imports. At that time, the government put the blame on the United States in an effort to disclaim responsibility, thus finding an excellent scapegoat.
Mr. Speaker, I shall remind hon. members on the other side of some statements made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in October last, and particularly in a newspaper article titled: "Benson anticipates danger of return to the glommy thirties."
People get scared and that's the way the government seeks to get them grovelling on all fours before Finance.
That is what they are trying to do to Canadian public opinion in order to make it forget the government's inefficiency and administrative fiasco.
And at the same time, our foreign policy is taking another direction. The government is opening friendly negotiations with socialist and communist countries. It is also allowing our relations with the United States to deteriorate. Indeed, without warning and at the cost of millions of dollars, the government is taking steps to give some impetus to our economy in order to impress Canadians; and those funds will be borrowed from the Americans or from other countries.
This artificial crisis in our relations with the United States has been entirely created to justify a rapprochement with communist countries. The Prime Minister has spent whole weeks in these countries, but only two hours in Washington. Today he comes back with empty hands. He says that good understanding has been restored, that all is well and yet, there is an increasingly persistent rumour-newspapers have reported it this morning-that Canada is about to purchase more weapons from the United States. However, the Canadian government boasts that it is working for peace.
This morning again, I heard-this is serious and I shall end on this-that Retail Credit of Atlanta, Georgia, in the United States is purchasing all Canadian credit offices and that so far those of Montreal, Winnipeg, Toronto, Vancouver and Regina have already been handed over to American interests, which means, to all intents and purposes, that from now on the Americans are going to decide about the financial situation of thousands of Canadians.
The right hon. Prime Minister said: We come back with the assurance that in the future we can freely orient our own economic and political destinies, and this with the respect of others.
December 7, 1971

Mr. Speaker, I say this is bluff. This is a put-up job by the government to make us forget their administrative failure, to make the Canadian people gobble up more easily communist socialism. We protest energetically against such dishonest tactics; the future will surely prove us right.
The problem will certainly not be solved by two hours' negotiations. If the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) was so right in October, then today the Prime Minister is wrong. One or the other is lying and, to my mind, the last one who went over is.


Mr. lames Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table in both official languages an evaluation report regarding the Opportunities for Youth program.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe there was an undertaking given earlier this session by the Secretary of State that at the appropriate time, when he was introducing this document, he would also have something to say with reference to the government's own position. Since an extensive amount of work has been done in connection with this important evaluation, I find it surprising that the parliamentary secretary would merely table the document without commenting on the government's position so that opposition spokesmen might have an opportunity to express their views.


James Hugh Faulkner: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the only undertaking made by the Secretary of State was that he would table the evaluation report. This has been done. One would think it would be more sensible to hear statements from representatives of the opposition after they had read the report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There should really not be a debate on the matter. The rules are clear. Is the hon. member rising on a further point of order?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order or a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. As the opposition spokesman on this important subject I issued a report some weeks ago dealing with this matter, as is well known to the parliamentary secretary and others. I am most anxious to have the opportunity to respond to whatever initiatives the government may be taking but it is obvious they have no initiatives.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Assistance to Small Farmers AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under Standing Order 43 to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture announced a $150 million program which it appears he intends to proceed with without giving farm organizations, representatives of the farmers or, indeed, members of this House an opportunity to express their opinions. Having regard to the record of the government as far as farm legislative programs are concerned, it is imperative that this proposal be thoroughly debated and examined by the House and the standing committee. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight):
That the matter of the $150 million program announced by the Minister of Agriculture yesterday in Winnipeg be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture so that representatives of provincial governments, farm organizations and others may have an opportunity to express their views on the details of the program.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: 

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I would like to know why we still have not received the French version of yesterday's Hansard. I presume there is some reason for it, but I would not like this to occur every day, as it is very interesting for members of this House to be able to read Hansard before the House meets.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the hon. member that unfortunately there have been printing problems which are entirely beyond the control of House of Commons authorities. We are, of course, sorry for the delay, but cannot take responsibility for it.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime
10210

December 7, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Minister. The Prime Minister has indicated he feels that the world's monetary crisis will be settled and that the United States surtax will be removed following the next meeting of the Group of Ten or the subsequent meeting some time in January. When the Prime Minister formulated his opinion that these matters would be resolved within this time, what were the factors upon which he based this very optimistic opinion that he has expressed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe I was interpreting what I understood Secretary Connally's position to be, that he was hoping the December meeting would be a conclusive one and that we would see an adjustment and a movement toward greater stability. But he did concede that if it was not successful this time he had very high hopes for January. I was mainly reflecting the thoughts and desires of the main actor in this particular scene.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In other words, this optimism of the Prime Minister was not based on any particular information that he received in Washington.



REPRESENTATIONS BY PRIME MINISTER TO PRESIDENT


Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask the Prime Minister what representations he made to the President on behalf of the government of Canada on the subject of the appropriate level of Canada's currency in relation to that of the United States. What representations did the Prime Minister make with regard to the view sometimes expressed in the United States that Canada is expected to permit a further upward revaluation of our dollar? Can the Prime Minister indicate what representations he made on this subject and what assurances he received?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the President did not convey to me any such hope or representation; therefore I found no need to destroy what would have been a straw man in this particular case.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the Prime Minister regard the views expressed by Secretary of the Treasury Connally as creating a straw man? In any event, the Prime Minister has answered my question. I should like to ask him what representations he made on behalf of the government of Canada to President Nixon regarding the DISC proposal which has been very much in the forefront in the United States and, again, what assurances, if any, he received from the President.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, our conversation on this point did not go beyond the statements which have been made in the House last week by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and by myself, the effect of which-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Surely there was something more than that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition thinks otherwise, but I am reporting to him what the conversation between us was.



DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MINISTERS OF FINANCE AND INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE AND U.S. SECRETARIES OF TREASURY AND COMMERCE-SUBJECTS COVERED

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with regard to the discussions that he and the Minister of Finance had with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce of the United States. Would the minister be good enough to inform the House what specific areas were discussed with his and the Minister of Finance's counterparts in Washington?


Hon. Iean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, my involvement was mostly one having to do with the solution of irritants.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We know all about irritants on this side.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I used a word that everybody in Canada knows the meaning of. If the Leader of the Opposition is still unfamiliar with the word, let me describe them as the "so-called irritants".


Mr. Baldwin:: What did you use on them, vanishing cream?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The essence of the exercise was to try to obtain a balanced package of irritants, if that is clear to the Leader of the Opposition. I would say that we know now what we can do in terms of solving the irritants that the United States has identified. My feeling is also that they now know fairly well what we can do.


Mr. Paproski:: Did they tell you what you can do?


Jean-Luc Pepin: We have also indicated to them a number of irritants we have with the United States and have suggested a number of things that they might do. We suggested that they might move on a number of these items. They are considering that possibility now and hopefully in coming days there will be another meeting at which more efforts are going to be made in order to find a balanced package in the solution of these irritants. A solution to these irritants is considered by both sides as being useful in the present circumstances.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that the minister is obviously suffering from some irritant, may I ask him this question. On numerous occasions we were informed that the United States felt there were irritants in the direction of the auto pact, defence purchases and one or two other matters such as tourist exemptions, and that we felt there were irritants with respect to uranium and a number of things of that sort. Were any other questions laid on the table in these discussions, or were they confined to those matters that the minister and the Prime Minister have on various occasions informed the House about?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a fairly good idea of what was talked about. He could add a few others such as some difficulties we have had with antidumping legislation in the United States, some difficulties we have had with respect to tariff items on agricultural machinery, and that sort of thing. Balancing the package is the very essence of the present exercise. I cannot say

December 7, 1971

today what we would be willing to give but it is quite understood by the United States side that we can only give in return for something given. This is the philosophy of the balanced package.


David Lewis: Is one right in assuming that the Canadian government has indicated to the United States authorities a willingness to make some concessions in the area of the auto pact, defence purchases and tourist exemptions, that the Canadian government has in fact informed United States authorities of its readiness to make concessions in at least those three areas?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, if I may quote a former minister of defence on these matters, they know fairly well what we could do and we know what they should do in order for them to find out what we would do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: That was a most eloquent answer.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am very much impressed with the singsong of the minister, but I would ask him now to give us a catalogue of the irritants Canada spoke of and the counter-irritants raised by the United States. Do not serialize it, and just answer the question and at the same time let us know whether or not the question of the upward valuation of gold was discussed and what was Canada's attitude thereto.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, any two countries dealing with each other in trade matters at the level at which Canada and the United States are, which is more than $19 billion, are bound to have difficulties. It is surprising how relatively few we have and how few we cannot solve in the proper way. Nevertheless the catalogue is fairly long on both sides but being terribly intelligent, both sides have identified a selected number of irritants and have concentrated their attention on these. We are working with a short catalogue of seven, eight, nine or ten. That is about it now. On currency and the relationship of gold, I would prefer the Minister of Finance to answer that one.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the minister was no clearer yesterday when he spoke to the Americans than he is today I can understand that everybody would be perfectly satisfied. I am asking him now, will he give us a catalogue of these irritants and not the generality. What did he say? What were the points which were raised, or does he not know?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Leader of the New Democratic Party mentioned two or three or four and I added two or three to that. That gives a fairly good indication of what it was all about.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. gentleman rises on a question of privilege. The Chair will hear him and then recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere. I think we should try to complete the first round of questioning.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I simply rise to say that playing with the House like this-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: -is not in keeping with the dignity of this House. I asked a simple question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister wants to plead ignorance, he has certainly established it.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
Since consideration of Bill C-259 in committee of the whole will end tomorrow, can the parliamentary secretary tell us if the government intends to amend section 8 of this bill in order to recognize for income tax purposes expenses incurred by mechanics, lumbermen, construction workers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order! I suggest to the hon. member that he is putting a question related to a bill now before the House. I think that this question should be put when the House sits in committee of the whole to examine the bill. It is certainly out of order to put such a question during the question period.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, if I did put such a question, it is because the amendments to be made today in favour of co-operatives and credit unions were announced yesterday. I thought that the same thing could be done in the case of workers.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Statistics Canada figures indicate that unemployment is up for November over the previous month, may I ask the Prime Minister if the government is reviewing its policies to stimulate employment and if the government anticipates any other further stimulants to create jobs in view of the significantly high figures?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I notice the member is now reverting to the unadjusted figures after a long period during which the opposition has used the adjusted figures. I can merely respond as I have previously by saying we are trying to watch the trend to see if it is moving in the right direction. By the
24726-18!

December 7, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
seasonally adjusted figures unemployment is down, albeit only slightly. We are hopeful that the measures announced by the Minister of Finance some weeks ago, which have not all taken effect yet, will take effect as soon as possible.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, adjusted or unadjusted, the figures are that 503,000 Canadians are jobless, or 27,000 more than in the previous month. In view of that very startling fact may I ask whether the government plans to introduce reforms or changes to the Canada Assistance Plan in order to provide greater assistance to the provinces where unemployment is greatest and where the burden of welfare payments is the greatest?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will look at the measures announced a few weeks ago by the Minister of Finance he will see they were conceived in terms of helping those provinces where unemployment was highest.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact that unemployment is greatest in the urban areas of the country and hence the burden of welfare is the greatest there, may I ask if the government proposes to establish any special aid programs for the cities to help alleviate the welfare loads this winter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I can announce today in this respect.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Spadina for the moment and then recognize the hon. member for Sainte-Marie.



HOUSING


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Was the Minister of State for Urban Affairs expressing government policy in Toronto last week when he stated that one way to control increasing housing costs is public ownership of land for housing?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member for Spadina-I do not know whether knowingly or unknowingly-has misquoted me and taken a statement out of context. What I did say was-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that it is irregular to refer to statements made outside the House by a minister except to ask whether that statement represents government policy. I appreciate there is difficulty when the minister claims he was misquoted, but certainly there is not much purpose to be achieved by having discussions on speeches made outside the House.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Urban Affairs. The quotation may have been out a word or two but the sense of it was there. Is the

government doing research on public ownership of land for housing and the growing cost of land and, if so, are these studies being done with the involvement of the provinces and will they be made public soon?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of land policy as it relates to federal jurisdiction is under study. The results of these studies when they are available unquestionably will be placed before the provinces and hopefully the municipalities at tri-level consultation meetings which are being negotiated now.



AGRICULTURE


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture may I ask a question of his parliamentary secretary. Would the parliamentary secretary inform the House under what procedure the government or the minister intends to introduce the $150 million program which is purported to be of assistance to the small farmers of Canada? Is the minister prepared to bring legislation into the House, and will he refer the subject matter of the proposal to the Standing Committee on Agriculture so there may be adequate discussion and examination?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. However, when we read and re-read the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture yesterday, we realize that such a policy is now under discussion, and that a special committee has been set up, in co-operation with the provinces, to provide the terms for its application.
With regard to the $150 million, it is noted that it will be spent over a seven-year period and that the amounts will have to be voted by the House of Commons.
I would also like to point out to hon. members that a while ago $16 million had been provided in the department's budget for the establishment of some kind of retirement fund for agriculture. Unless I am mistaken, this program is directly related to that retirement fund which was to help farmers.
With regard to the consideration of that program by the Standing Committee on Agriculture I shall discuss it with the minister. If such a procedure is to be followed I think the order will be given in due course.



PROGRAM TO ASSIST SMALL FARMERS-NATURE OF PLAN-ADJUSTMENTS FOR SIMILAR PROVINCIAL PROJECTS

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I want to address a supplementary question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. Would he say whether the cost
December 7, 1971

of the program referred to in the previous question will be borne entirely by the federal government or will it be a cost-sharing program with the provinces? What adjustments will be made with regard to provinces where similar projects now exist, such as Prince Edward Island?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that this program is entirely a federal program, and we are presently holding discussions with the provinces to adjust our program with their existing programs so we can achieve better success on the whole.


Mr. William Knight (Assiniboia):: My question is for the
parliamentary secretary. Is the minister prepared to proceed with the announced program without having such vital questions as the definition of small farms debated in the House first?


Marcel Lessard: With regard to the definition of a small farm, if we have to start a debate on that in the House I am afraid it will be many months and years before we will be able to proceed with our program.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question. This question is complementary to that one asked by my colleague concerning unemployment. If it is true that there was an increase in unemployment in Quebec during the last month and that the number of people employed decreased notably from October to November, what does the government then intend to do to increase the number of jobs in that province?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Again, Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the hon. member makes the same error his colleague made earlier. If you look at the seasonally adjusted rate for Quebec, you will notice that there was a decrease last month.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sainte-Marie on a point of order.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken of available jobs and workers in the province of Quebec. As, on the whole, the number of available workers and jobs has decreased, rather than the unemployment index, would the Prime Minister tell the House what action the government intends to take in order to increase the number of jobs available in Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member does not appear to understand is that, when we speak of available jobs, we are talking in absolute terms and, when we speak of unemployment or of the unemployment rate, we are not using absolute figures but a percentage. And that percentage, I repeat-because it is adjusted to take sea-
Inquiries of the Ministry
sonal variations into account-has decreased in Quebec in the last month.



UNEMPLOYMENT-SUGGESTED LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO ENABLE MANPOWER OFFICIALS TO ASSIST CHRONICALLY UNEMPLOYED

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact there are now 123,000 people who have been unemployed for six months or longer, and the fact that many of these people are unable to participate in present manpower programs on a continuing basis, I wonder whether the minister has looked at these figures or whether he has begun to consider some amendments to the present legislation so that the Canada Manpower officials may be able to be of greater assistance in terms of either programs or other opportunities for people who are in this chronically unemployed group?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Of course we are always looking at ways in which our rules may be amended to make our services more available. The recent changes in our offering of training programs, particularly on-the-job training programs, is one example of the positive steps in this direction, and others will certainly be examined.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Egmont, but may I take the opportunity, as I do from day to day, to remind hon. members that we are running short of time and that I am still hoping to recognize this afternoon a number of hon. members who tried to ask questions yesterday. I see them smiling at me, but I hope to be able to give them a chance to ask their questions later during the question period.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the fact that over the months this problem has grown and the minister has been unable to give us little more than general statements, would he agree to provide within the next week specific facts and figures about how effectively these programs are operating with regard to the growing number of people who are chronically unemployed?


Otto Emil Lang: We will be providing reports from time to time on the special employment programs particularly. I would hardly think that the $498 million being spent under these programs can be considered a general statement.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister did not answer my question. He referred to specific programs. I asked him a question with regard to facts and figures respecting the chronically unemployed and whether he would speak to this matter in terms of his own departmental responsibility.

December 7, 1971
Inquiries o f the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



DISCUSSION OF ENERGY AT MEETING OF PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT NIXON

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. It is really supplementary to questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members regarding the agenda and the subjects that were discussed with the President of the United States. Was the question of energy discussed with the president? Who raised the matter, and what was said in reference to Canada on this subject if it was discussed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we did not discuss the subject of energy.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I just read something to the Prime Minister with your leave, Mr. Speaker. I asked the following question on December 3, 1971:
Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister consider as one of the priorities that he will discuss with the President of the United States the subject of energy, in light of the fact that before a standing committee this morning it was admitted by the Energy Board that reserves in the Arctic were not taken into consideration when the board vetoed the four applications for licences to export natural gas to the United States?
The Prime Minister answered:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
So I take it that even though he stated in the House that he would the Prime Minister did not discuss that subject.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer was that I would take it into consideration, which I did.


John George Diefenbaker: Was it not one of the irritants?



MANPOWER


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Could he say whether, under the training and retraining program that has been set up and to which a few million dollars were added, it will be possible for a greater number of people to get the benefit of courses and whether acceptance or refusal of applicants come under provincial jurisdiction or not? If so, could we here in Parliament nonetheless know what the criterions are?


Otto Emil Lang: I would be glad at some time to discuss with the hon. member the detailed criteria for placing people in courses. Essentially, it is a matter of placing in courses those people who, in the opinion of manpower counsellors, seem to be likely to benefit most from them in the way of being able to obtain a job with the additional skill or training which the programs can provide. The addition-

al money has been allotted for supplementary training to be offered in the various provinces across the country.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a supplementary question.
Is he aware of the fact that many applicants have been turned down supposedly because no space is available and registration is complete?


Otto Emil Lang: That is one of the reasons for refusing candidates training. On such occasions it has nothing to do with the individual. A limited amount of money is provided each year and this money is used in the best possible way for training programs. At that point, no further training programs can be offered.



REGULATIONS TO PROTECT FARMERS WITH CROP STILL IN SWATH AGAINST POSSIBLE LOSS OF QUOTAS

Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, on November 15, as recorded at page 9557 of Hansard, I directed the following question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board:
Because of the amount of crop still out in swath in western Canada and particularly in Manitoba, and as this grain will not be combined until spring, and because under the new quota system these farmers will not be able to take advantage of the earlier specified delivery dates, does the government intend to introduce regulations so these farmers will be protected against possible loss of quota under these circumstances?
The acting minister took the question as notice. Is the minister now in a position to answer it?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it would not be a matter requiring any change in the regulations. It would be a matter requiring further discussion with the Canadian Wheat Board, and a decision by them on whether anything can be done in the particular circumstances to help individual farmers. I will report to the House further.



MANPOWER


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is a supplementary question, although it might be an ancillary question. The minister has been dealing with programs that will assist employment and one of them is the local initiatives program. I have received representations, as I am sure have other hon. members, from various church organizations across Canada asking whether or not they qualify because there have been cases in which their applications have been turned down. I ask the minister whether he will see to it, if it is not already the case, that church organizations will come within the provisions
December 7, 1971

of the program because they have a lot of work they can undertake which would provide assistance for those who are unemployed?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, church organizations do indeed qualify among the groups of responsible community organizations which can apply. There have been some approvals, I know, with regard to these organizations. I would have to look at specific cases to know if there have been any problems in the refusals to which the right hon. gentleman refers.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, will the minister give his assurance that church organizations, with regard to construction, fixing up of premises and the like, do come within the provisions of the program in question?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the criteria as such which excludes them. In general, of course in making approvals the attempt is made to prefer those projects which have as broad a community betterment in them as possible, but that is more a matter of preference than of rigid eligibility.
*



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Is it the intention of the chairman to recommend changes in the party standings within the Public Accounts Committee consistent with his erroneous statement over CBO radio this morning when he said that the Liberals constituted a majority on this committee?


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may wish to rise on a point of order, but he will appreciate that the Chair cannot allow a question asked in this way of the chairman of a committee. That is not in order.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of privilege. I would be happy to say that if I did state the number of government members of the committee in error, I apologize. I gave the number of the members on the government side as 12, I believe, and the number is ten. I apologize. I gave them the benefit of the doubt of two more members. The correct standings in the committee are ten Liberals, six Conservatives, two NDP, and two Social Credit.



IMMIGRATION


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the announced total of some 7,500
Inquiries of the Ministry
appeals outstanding before the Immigration Appeal Board, a total that is increasing each week, is it the intention of the government to bring in legislation in the very near future to deal with the problem of appeals or the method by which the board deals with these appeals? Otherwise we will be in a terrible position.


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



SEDGWICK REPORT-INQUIRY AS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise the House as to the whereabouts of the Sedgwick report, whether or not in fact any of the recommendations in that report have been accepted by the government and, if so, when does the minister expect them to be implemented?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the report was tabled and I am sure the hon. member can find a copy of it somewhere. The report was taken into consideration by the department in looking at the question of appropriate changes to be made in our immigration appeal procedures, and of course this work will be reflected in the legislation to be brought forward.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister arising out of his optimism regarding a settlement of the international currency exchange rates problem. I want to ask if the American government has accepted the Canadian position that the unpegging of the Canadian dollar represents full compliance by Canada with the request of the United States, or whether any additional demands are being made on Canada with respect to the exchange rate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I really would not venture to talk for the American government on this. I believe that, much as we are taking cautious negotiating positions and not stating our final aims and objectives, they are doing the same thing. My information from the Minister of Finance is that there has been some talk that they want Canada to do more, but as I told the Leader of the Opposition, I believe, this is not a subject that the President pressed on me.



BALANCE OF PAYMENTS-POSSIBLE ACCEPTANCE BY UNITED STATES OF CANADIAN POSITION

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister if the United States government has accepted the Canadian position, in light of Secretary Connally's demand that there be a

December 7, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
balance of trade, that the balance of payments ought to be the criterion as otherwise the invisible payments by Canada may leave her in a deficit position regarding the balance of payments? Has the American government accepted the Canadian position with respect to that situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to convey to the House was that on this general subject-and I am sure they know the difference between the over-all balance of payments and current accounts-the Americans did not have any preconceived notion as regards Canada. Secretary Connally did state publicly before several of us at the working dinner last night that one of the objectives of the United States was to reach a position of balanced trade with the world. He did not go further to comment on current accounts but he did make this statement on the side, and the President in talks with me did indicate he had no preconceived notion of how the current accounts should go with Canada.



CANADIAN CULTURE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
As the Quebec Premier has expressed serious reservations about the policy on multiculturalism and as the French-Canada Chambers of Commerce last Sunday spoke against setting up a single bilingual district in Quebec, can he tell us whether he intends to consider the arguments of Quebec as well as those of the Chambers of Commerce with a view to changing the policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I shall consider any reasonable representation and study the arguments to be presented to me in the future by the Quebec Premier, or which he has already set forth in the past as he did in a letter written to me some time ago; but I must say that, for the time being, I see no reason for changing the policy on multiculturalism the federal government now advocates.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General which is perhaps not as earthshaking as some of the others today. It involves an individual in Collins Bay penitentiary. Will the minister take action to rectify an injustice apparently done to Ronald Statford, an inmate of Collins Bay, who lost privileges to work on a theatrical production simply because he spoke to a reporter about his plans after his release from prison, and will the minister take into account that many politicians could be caught the same way?


Mr. lerome:: Except they are not in prison for it.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the inmate in question had been told that he would be allowed to work outside the penitentiary on the express condition that he would not meet representatives of the press. He broke his word; so, this privilege was taken away from him.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. M. ForrestalKDartmouth-Halifax East): My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker, and concerns the regrettable and deplorable incidents that are taking place in Pakistan with respect to Canadian efforts under United Nations sponsorship to get Canadian nationals and United Nations personnel out of that war area. I wonder if the minister can give us some report, particularly as to the authenticity of reports that Canadian military aircraft were fired on?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the report the aircraft had been damaged was false, but we cannot determine conclusively whether the aircraft was deliberately fired upon. There was at least one anti-aircraft burst close enough to the aircraft that it was heard by the crew when it was in the vicinity of three naval vessels in the area.
I can advise the House that negotiations have been resumed through U.N. headquarters in New York to try to get assurances from the different parties involved that the Hercules aircraft will be able to fly into Dacca for the purpose of bringing out U.N. personnel and other foreign nationals. We hope to get an agreement, if not a 24-hour truce, at least one from dawn to dusk to ensure that the operation would be effective.


Mr. Forrestall:: A brief supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the minister would want to give us some indication as to the particular situation with which Canadian nationals in that country are faced. Are they in any danger?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, would like to comment on that. I can comment with regard to the armed forces personnel with the United Nations military observer group for Indian and Pakistan. While communications are not good, the information we receive is that they are not in any danger. Perhaps my colleague could comment on other nationals.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we are now taking steps to evacuate Canadians from West Pakistan. We believe the time has come when measures should be taken to remove some of
December 7, 1971

them to a safer location. Arrangements are now being made which we hope will achieve this purpose.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about reached the end of the question period, but the hon. member for Lambton-Kent might be given an opportunity to ask his question.



SECRETARY OF STATE


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Kent):: My question is for the Secretary of State but I wonder if I may direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Can he advise the House during what months this winter the 12 employees of the minister's department will be making their study of German hostels? Further, can he explain why only 12 persons are required on this junket?



INDUSTRY


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: My
question is for the Minister of Transport. As a result of his meetings yesterday with the pulp and paper industry, I wonder if the minister could indicate to the House what the main problems presented were and what aid was offered by the government?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think the question might more appropriately be answered by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who was the chairman for the delegation, but in brief I can say that we ranged over virtually all the problems facing the industry and a number of specific proposals were put forward which will be considered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must apologize to the House. I did not understand the purport of the question. I would suggest to the hon. member that the question ought to have been directed primarily to the minister responsible rather than to the Minister of Transport who, I assume, did not attend the meeting in the capacity of Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. If the hon. member has a supplementary it might be directed to the minister who has administrative responsibility.



POLLUTION


Jack Marshall: should like to direct my supplementary to the Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry
the Environment who has some responsibility. In view of the willingness of the government to consider aid to the pulp and paper industry, would the minister indicate whether he will accede to requests from the industry to relieve the high cost of implementing pollution control measures which can affect the future of the industry?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is under close study jointly with the industry.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now that the Pakistan-Indian war has been referred to the General Assembly, is the Canadian government consulting with other members of the assembly with regard to the possibility of formulating ceasefire and peacekeeping operations? Has the minister anything to report on this?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. Our delegate to the United Nations has been consulting closely with all the countries concerned. We are not at all satisfied that the kind of resolution that is likely to be put forward is one that is realistic, or has very much chance of being complied with, but we are doing our best to make it more realistic. We are hopeful that the assembly will take quick action.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General.
Recently a female student leader stated that the RCMP had infiltrated Quebec universities to keep an eye on political activities of students. It has even been said that the federal police is paying students to watch the activities of their fellow students.
Faced with this serious charge, would the minister be in a position to inform the House about federal police activities on Quebec university campuses?


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the minister can reply briefly, as the hon. member's question is one which I feel should normally be answered on motions. If the minister can reply very briefly, the Chair will allow him to do so. Otherwise, I will have to remind hon. members that we have to proceed with orders of the day.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I have met on two recent occasions with representa-

December 7, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
tives of the Canadian Association of University Professors to inform them that basically the policy announced by Mr. Pearson in 1963 has not changed. As for the details of those meetings, I suppose they will appear in the Association's official publications.
I must say that for some time now I have been reading quite a number of paranoid statements made on this issue by certain university professors and students.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With the consent of the House, the hon. member for Greenwood might be allowed to ask the supplementary he has been trying to ask for a while.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The minister implied yesterday in reply to a question from my colleague, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, that the Canadian contribution to the relief of refugees from East Pakistan would be continued. I should like to ask the minister whether he would make it explicit that aid to the innocent victims will not be diminished by political events as long as it is possible to make sure that they are the actual recipients of the aid?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that position and add that it is one of the purposes of the Canadian government to try to keep politics out of humanitarian endeavours.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe rises on a point of order.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify my position, may I say that the reason I asked the Minister of Transport the question on pulp and paper was an article in the Globe and Mail indicating that he did make a statement on the matter, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was out of the country.


James Aloysius McGrath: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it places members of this House at a decided disadvantage when ministers assume responsibilities outside the House other than those required by statute. This is especially apparent with the Minister of Transport who speaks for every department of government in his own province, but we are confined to asking him questions on his own responsibility as Minister of Transport. In this particular instance, the Minister of Transport negotiated with the pulp and paper industry on behalf of the government of Canada, and I think that members of the House should be allowed to direct questions to him in that capacity.


Mr. Speaker:: I merely stated the rule which has existed for a long time. Although I am not expert in political matters, it may well be that the practice of ministers making that kind of statement has been in effect for many years. I would think that both situations have prevailed

for a while and that ministers have sometimes been known to make statements about matters other than their own administrative responsibilities, but even in these circumstances the rule has applied. I have to apply the rule as it exists. Perhaps it is not justified in certain instances, but the rule is there and I would not think hon. members would think the Chair is authorized to make exceptions to it even in special circumstances. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, December 6, 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 amendments to that act-Mr. Benson-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. In view of the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance to be found at page 10199 of Hansard for December 6, 1971, the committee will now resume consideration of clauses 57(1) and 58 as well as sections 135, 136 and 137 of clause 1. May I bring to the attention of the committee the amendment proposed by the President of the Privy Council to clause 57, as indicated at page 10178 of Hansard for December 6, 1971.
On clause 57-Specified personal corporations-


Mr. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Chairman, we, on this side of the House, look on the amendment proposed by the President of the Privy Council with a great deal of satisfaction for two reasons. First, it is encouraging to know that a government even as bullheaded and arrogant as this government can be persuaded finally to think that, possibly, it has been wrong. This is a major breakthrough and it gives us much satisfaction. The amendments also disprove many statements which members on the government side of the House have made on radio, television and in the press, as well as in the House.


An hon. Member:: And through leaks.


Charles Humbert Thomas: I am not talking about leaks; that is another matter. Those hon. members have suggested that we are wasting time debating this bill because government experts have studied the bill and everything is fine. They have said that we are obstructing, and holding up the passage of legislation. We, on this side, have always held that legislation should not be put through simply because the government has proposed it, because Liberal government legislation is not, per se, good legislation. We have always made that point. Now, by bringing in these amendments, the government has proved the necessity and the value of debate in the functioning of a free Parliament. If any proof were needed that it is the function of the opposition to point out flaws in the legislation, the proof has been supplied by the government. We must point out that legislation is bad and let the people know what is happening. That is why we debate bills like this
December 7, 1971

one, and that is what parliament is all about. As I said, if any proof were needed of the value of Parliament and parliamentary functions, that proof is supplied by these amendments we have been asked to consider.
The opposition attacked this legislation from the beginning. As early as September 14, in the second reading debate, the Leader of the Opposition, in referring to these sections of the tax legislation, said that the co-operative and credit union movements must not be killed. They must not be crippled by hasty and ill conceived legislation and we, in the opposition, must make certain that this does not happen. Well, if we had listened to our friends opposite, we should not have discussed these particular sections of the bill. They told us that this was great legislation, that it has been studied by their experts, by civil servants who sit in ivory towers, read text books and draw up legislation, and that everything about the bill was fine. How much do these civil servants know about the world of farming and business? They do not know much about running businesses and, obviously, they did not appreciate the true function of the co-operative and credit union movements. If it had not been for the work of the opposition in this House, these sections would have been rushed through by the rubberstamp members on the other side. That is what they were told to do.
You know, it is amusing for members on this side to see how government supporters can swallow their own words. I remember that on the finance committee the government had a majority. The committee gave its rubberstamp approval to the co-op sections, as they were then drafted. When the bill came into the House, the opposition had a chance to point out the inequities in these particular sections. All the backbenchers on the government side, and I will exclude the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton and the hon. member for Ottawa West, because early in the debate they said that these sections were bad and should be changed, accepted the Liberal philosophy. They had been told to do so by the Minister of Finance, by the Prime Minister or by others in that party.
Suddenly, after the debate in Parliament made people aware of this bad legislation, we find the trained seals on the other side wanting to get into the act. Now, they are beginning to tell us what they think about the legislation. Why did they not speak up in committee and in the second reading debate? Why were they all, except the two hon. members to whom I referred, silent? Suddenly, however, they realize that something is wrong with the bill and they think that perhaps they had better get in on the act. If we have accomplished nothing else during the present session, we have at least proved the real value of parliamentary debate. The members on the other side, whose leaders seem to think that they run a sausage machine type of operation and that it would be a mistake to permit their supporters to speak their minds, are now speaking up. They were the people who were complaining most about the opposition wasting time in debating this bill in Parliament. I can only say to those people, if that time was wasted it was well wasted. We have amendments now that will correct a great deal-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. There is too much noise in the chamber. I have wanted to interrupt the hon. member for the last little while. I do not think I ought to
Income Tax Act
allow him to pursue his remarks in the present vein. As the hon. member knows, we are at this time studying a specific part of the bill in committee. I was hoping that he would relate his remarks more closely to the clauses that are now in front of the committee. I do not think the Chair should allow an open debate on the principles of the bill or the principles of debate at this time.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Moncton and I feel that he was dealing with the amendments before the committee.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I do not feel it is correct to say that he has in any way departed from the subject before the committee this afternoon.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member must understand that the Chair has also been listening carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Moncton.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Mr. Chairman, apparently we are not speaking the same language. I have been talking about the amendments to these particular sections dealing with co-ops. That is all I have been talking about, and I do not know how I could make my remarks any clearer. I will try. I was saying that the opposition recognized right from the beginning, with the introduction of the white paper, that these sections dealing with co-ops were bad. We opposed this part of the legislation from the beginning. I am now saying that we may take some small satisfaction from having prevailed on this bullheaded, stubborn government to make some necessary changes.
We do not agree entirely with the new provisions but, at least, they are much better than the original sections of the bill. We pointed out from the beginning that the arbitrary method of taxing co-ops was unique in the world. It was something that had been pulled out of the hat. No one on the government side, so far as I know, spoke on the capital employed concept after I had spoken on second reading and in committee. I suggested that the government should consider seriously deleting these particular sections of the bill or, at least, giving; them further, serious study and deciding whether there was not some better way of taxing co-ops than under the capital employed concept.
I do not think anybody has suggested, and certainly the co-ops have not, that the co-operatives are not prepared to pay their fair share of income tax. We have heard the suggestion from people who oppose co-ops that they were not paying their fair share of tax. However, never in any of my conversations with members of co-ops have I ever heard them suggest they were trying to avoid taxation. They have always been prepared to pay their fair share of taxation, given the peculiar nature of the co-op as distinct from other incorporated companies.
We suggested that these sections be removed from the bill and some satisfactory way of taxing co-ops and credit unions be devised. I realize these amendments tie in pretty well with the presentation of the co-ops to the finance committee and the minister. I presume, therefore, that the

December 7, 1971
Income Tax Act
co-ops and credit unions are quite happy with them. I do not say that I am completely satisfied with these amendments. However, since they are so much better than the original sections in the bill, I think I speak for my party when I say we will wholeheartedly support these amendments.


Mr. Whelan:: Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not say a few words at this time about these amendments-


An hon. Member:: You are not on yet.


Eugene Whelan: I am on now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I would be remiss at this time if I did not say a few words about these amendments submitted by the President of the Privy Council on behalf of the Minister of Finance. First, I say, to him and the government, thanks on behalf of all the credit unions, caisses populai-res and co-ops in Canada, if I can be so vain as to take that right unto myself. I wanted to make it plain that I am not saying this because I will not have to resign or because of any statements that I made at that time, but because of the great assistance these amendments will be to over 5J million people in Canada. These Canadians believe in helping themselves and, in turn, by the very type of their operation, help Canada as a nation. I have talked to some of the credit union, caisse populaire and co-operative people since these amendments have been submitted to the House. I have been informed that they are quite happy with them. If they are happy and satisfied, Mr. Chairman, so am I.
At this time I would like to compliment the officials of the caisse populaire, credit unions and co-operatives for the way they made their representations to Members of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: At all times their representations were made in a very responsible, reasonable, respectable and informative manner. Other groups who make representations to Members of Parliament should take a lesson from them as to how it should be done. To the many members of credit unions, co-operatives and caisses populaires, as well as people from all parts of Canada who wrote us letters and made other forms of representation by telephone or personally, the same remarks apply to them. At this time I want to say that all the representations I made to the government in the normal form in caucus and so on were received in a good fashion. They were always ready to listen. I did not know how far their amendments would go. Some said I made too strong a representation on behalf of the co-operatives and other organizations affected by this legislation. I do not think I did. I do not think I have ever felt so strong about any issue that I have been confronted with since becoming a Member of Parliament.
I meant every word I said.
We on this side of the House, regardless of what people on the other side of the House and in other parts of the country may think, have feelings for people. The government has proved it has feelings for people by its action in bringing in these amendments.
[Mr. Thomas (Moncton).l


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I received telegrams and so on from people across Canada, from my own area and Ontario, complimenting the government upon bringing in these amendments. In my opinion, these amendments are a new charter to co-ops, credit unions and caisses populaires. It might be said that this is a magna carta for these associations.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I wish to state that we support the amendments introduced yesterday by the President of the Privy Council. They are in line with the amendment I moved on November 18 on behalf of the members of the New Democratic Party. We are happy that the Minister of Finance has at last seen the light or had a change of heart. If this amendment is not the result of the minister seeing the light or having a change of heart, then someone else got to him and successfully twisted his arm.
It is important to note that this is an historic day for the co-operative and credit union movement in Canada. In fact, it has been said they are receiving a new charter. This is a new day for them, since a taxation provision which has been on the statute books of Canada for 25 years, one which can only be classified as discriminatory and iniquitous as it applied to co-operatives, has at last been repealed. It might be interesting to note that it is 25 years since the capital employed concept of taxing cooperatives was introduced. It was in the summer of 1946 when, following considerable study of the subject and after a good deal of pressure from organizations that I need not name at this moment, the government buckled and introduced a piece of legislation which set the stage for discrimination against the co-operative movement in Canada.
When this subject was debated in the summer of 1946, I had the opportunity of sitting in the gallery of this House of Commons and listening to some of the debate on the subject. I recall listening to Mr. T. J. Bentley, the late member for Swift Current, outlining the operation of co-operatives in a very simple fashion. It should have been very simple for anyone to understand but, even at that time, it was apparent that some members of the government had a great deal of difficulty understanding some of the elementary concepts involved. Later in the House of Commons, I listened to my late father, Mr. J. W. Burton, the member for Humboldt, speaking on this same subject. I took note of some of the remarks he made at that time, along with the late Mr. Bentley. One sentence my father used in the debate at that time is as relevant today as then. He made this statement, and I quote:
There is the other factor, the minister's attempt to force all cooperatives into paying a return on the invested capital. I ask: Where is their so-called free enterprise when they are forcing those who find good in the cooperative movement to accept their pagan philosophy that the wages of money must receive the first consideration? That is a vital question in so far as those of us who are in the cooperative movement are concerned.
That statement is as relevant today as when it was made on July 18, 1946, 25 years ago. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre was here at the time.


An hon. Member:: He has been here since the olden days.
December 7, 1971


John Stratford Burton: This subject was debated in committee of the whole on November 18 and 19. The discussion centred on the inequity involved in the government's proposals as contained in Bill C-259. I wish to place on record the fact that there were objections from both sides of the House. Members of the New Democratic Party were unequivocal in their stand. They made it clear they were opposed to the government's proposals as they were first put forward, and even to the later modifications, because those amounted simply to a change in degree, not to a change in principle. I moved an amendment to strike out the capital employed concept for taxing co-operatives. I noted that consequential amendments would be required to give effect to such a change and to introduce the alternative of a withholding tax as had been proposed by the co-operative movement and by the Co-operative Union of Canada in particular. The New Democratic Party was unanimous in its opposition to the proposals in the bill and in calling upon the government to accept the proposals which had been placed before it by the Co-operative Union of Canada. We are happy that at last the government has seen fit to accept those proposals.
It is interesting to note the changes which have been made in the government's position on this matter during the past year. In the white paper originally submitted late in 1969, it was proposed to retain the capital employment concept as applied to co-operatives and to extend it to the credit union movement, which was obviously ridiculous. In addition, it called for an increase in the level of capital employed which would be used to calculate the taxation of co-operatives and credit unions-there would be an increase from 3 per cent to 7 per cent. Objection was taken to this and the government thought it was responding by saying: Well, the old legislation fixed it at 3 per cent, the white paper said 7 per cent, so let us split the difference. The result will be a nice compromise. It is a question, Mr. Chairman, whether slow strangulation is preferable to quick strangulation. That is the only difference. Later, the government was forced to admit that its proposals were still not good enough.
The administration came up with a third proposal under which an option would be given to the co-operatives: they could be taxed at the lesser of the 5 per cent capital employed formula or one-third of taxable income in the way any normal corporation operates. This proposition, too, was unacceptable because it opened the door to further changes which might destroy the movement. Now, a fundamental change has been proposed and placed before the committee. We are happy that this change has been made by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Stratford Burton: I was particularly interested in one statement made by the President of the Privy Council when he introduced this new proposal yesterday afternoon. He said that rather than modify the old system, a system which was inappropriate to start with, the government would seek a new and more appropriate method which would recognize that a co-operative was a group of people who had organized to help themselves. I agree with that point of view. I took particular note of the comment "a system which was inappropriate to start with." It seems to me it is not a case of someone suddenly seeing the light.
Income Tax Act
This must have been known to some people in the government for a long time before the minister made his statement yesterday, and I can only conclude there must have been tremendous pressures on the government from behind the scenes which prevented them making such a necessary change before the minister made his statement yesterday.
The amendments which have been introduced recognize that co-operatives and credit unions are non profit-making institutions designed to provide a service to members at the lowest possible cost. The rule for taxation should be the proper taxation of refunds in the hands of recipients. The proposals now introduced do include coverage of two points which the co-operative and credit union movement has fully acknowledged. The first is that there should be full taxation of earnings by non-members. There is no question about this. Second, there should also be taxation of undistributed earnings. These are important points which need to be kept in mind. We are very happy with the provision for the taxation of patronage funds in the hands of recipients, taxation to be confined to refunds which are associated with the individual's business in earning a living; in other words, directly related to business rather than to consumer purchase.
As a result of these changes which, I am sure, will be approved, the co-operative and credit union movement is faced with a new challenge to do even more in our society than has been done in the past. Taxation impediments have now been removed. This opens the door to new opportunities for the movement. The co-operative and credit union movement has already made a significant contribution to the welfare of the Canadian people. It is also making a significant contribution on the international scene. In the developing countries of the world, the co-operative and credit union movement is considered an important tool in improving conditions and providing for a greater measure of equity between nations. There is a continuing role for the movement to play in Canada and on the world scene. New opportunities will emerge, new challenges will have to be faced. I certainly hope that both the co-operatives and the credit unions can accept these challenges and play the full role which they must play if we are to see a better Canada. They can make a significant contribution toward achieving greater equity among the Canadian people; and doing away with the injustices which have been so rife in our society. And, as I say, they can make a significant contribution to national development. All these things are part of the job which the movement must carry out. Now, let us get on with the job. The Parliament of Canada has gone a good deal in introducing and implementing these amendments as they affect the co-operative and the credit union movements.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this amendment which has at last been brought before the House, not without difficulties, because yesterday I attended the discussion on the amendments and subamendments which had to be withdrawn in favour of the one presently under study.
Frankly I was disappointed to note that the department was confused and seemed to wonder what the officials

December 7, 1971
Income Tax Act
had put in the wording of the bill for things to be mixed up that way. We wondered if the amendment would be read or moved. Some Liberal members yelled not to do anything nor talk about it. We simply had to read the amendment since there were only two days left. Two days! One day of debate in Parliament represents four hours only, and often much less. Which means that we have approximately seven or eight hours of debate left and then it will be said that the opposition carried on a filibuster for four, five or six days, which is absolutely untrue. I would like the Canadian people to know that a day in Parliament is not eight hours long, but more often lasts only two hours. We therefore have only seven hours to discuss that bill of 700 pages with amendments and subamendments covering over 300 pages and we will have to pass it, because we are now under closure.
Those amendments were read yesterday and I arrived here early this morning to examine them. Unfortunately, they have just been distributed to us which means it will be quite difficult for us to study them. All I read on the matter was the report published this morning in the newspaper Le Devoir and I quote:
New Amendments in favour of Co-operatives and Credit Unions
I object against those misleading headlines, especially since they refer to "amendments in favour of co-operatives and credit unions".
In order to encourage co-operatives and credit unions, the government should have left them as they are. I would have supported that but I am objecting now because we are destroying something that made no sense to replace it with something else that does not make much more sense either.
Mr. Chairman, I quote from the paper's article:



NEW AMENDMENTS IN FAVOUR OF CO-OPERATIVES AND CREDIT UNIONS

[Stage Direction]
The government leader in the House, Mr. Allan MacEachen, announced yesterday during the debate on the tax reform bill that the "employed capital" concept will be abandoned with regard to co-operatives.
Thus, the income of co-operatives resulting from business transacted with their members and which is distributed in the form of patronage dividends will not be taxed. The ceiling on admissible deductions for such patronage dividends will be removed.
As a substitute, the government has proposed that the patronage dividends be subject to a withholding tax of 15 per cent to be applied to any amount in excess of $100 paid to a member in a given year. The withholding tax collected will be reimbursable to the extent that it exceeds the amount of tax owed by the taxpayer.
Mr. MacEachen has indicated that those receiving patronage dividends will be treated as they were before, that is to say if the dividend is related to the business of the man receiving it, it will be included in his income for income tax purposes.
In the case of the small credit unions and the caisses populaires, the government has decided to tax their income at the rate of 25 per cent as long as their reserves exceeding those allowed under the Income Tax Act do not exceed by more than 5 per cent the deposits and capital stock.
In the opinion of Mr. MacEachen this special prerogative to use an effective taxe rate of 25 per cent on corporate income may well be insufficient for the small credit unions and the caisses populaires which would require reserves upward of 5 per cent to ensure there financial stability.

I will stop here Mr. Chairman, because the minister admits it may not be enough for small credit unions. But he does not give a darn about it. Small credit unions may disappear or keep on losing ground, he does not care. That is exactly what the government wants in proposing those amendments.
We have always stood by the principle that whenever obligations are imposed upon the caisses populaires, they should be granted at least the same benefits as others. If we compare the caisses populaires to the chartered banks and if, at the outset, we wish to tax them as much as chartered banks, they should get the same benefits as the chartered banks and should be able to create as much credit as those banks. If the caisses populaires could, whenever they have $6, lend $100, we would not have anything to say. The caisses populaires would then say that they can pay their taxes. But that is not what happens: it is even worse because the caisses populaires are not given the right to have hidden reserves like the ones the chartered banks have had for years. Those hidden reserves amount to one, two, three, four or five billion dollars. Chartered banks never paid and will never pay any tax on that. Nothing is said about it; small caisses populaires and credit unions have to pay, we try to collect a few cents from them, sparing the big shots who have everything for nothing and who are undermining our economy. And Canadians must pay for that.
Mr. Chairman, I have realized since I came to this House, that there are two ways of having a tax accepted. First of all, the government confronts us with an apparently inoffensive bill, but later progressively increases taxation each year or twice a year. In that way, it reaches its goal, which is taxation at the rate of 100 per cent. In the past, several governments resorted to such a method.
However, this government is using another strategy in order to have its proposed taxes accepted. It stuns its victim with white papers in which the 100 per cent tax rate is suggested. No doubt it was noted that each time a white paper is published, Canadians react with rage, precisely, because it proposes maximum taxation. After the first shock, hon. members consider the white paper, express criticism, point to the drawbacks and finally propose amendments. Therefore this means that opposition members have endorsed its principle whereas, at the outset, we simply stated that we rejected the principle of both the tax and the omnibus bill. In other words, most of the opposition members have accepted the principle once the first fight has been won. This is precisely the government's intention: have the taxation principle accepted so as to appear more conciliatory while reaching its original objective, namely the desired taxation level. I agree this is quite clever on the part of the senior officials who often spend three or four years studying the method they will use before tabling a bill in the House. This is how the government manages to have the House adopt as a lesser evil an unfair and unpopular tax.
The caisses populaires have accepted that as a lesser evil: instead of having their throat cut, they will have their hand cut. This government goes even further since it has the absolute majority. In order to disguise its indigestible measures, it invents omnibus bills like Bill C-259 with its
December 7, 1971
[Stage Direction]
700 pages, not to mention the amendments that cover 300 additional pages.
Of course, the public will not be able to say that those thousands of top civil servants who are lavishly paid from our taxes are doing nothing. It is their job to cheat us in a clever manner and they manage to do that. The proof is that the majority of this House will carry Bill C-259 which will extort an additional $1.5 billion or more from our workers by resorting to closure. Again, whatever the minister might say, this notorious bill will enrich the treasury by more than $1.5 billion through taxes.
You can't work over such a long period on a bill seeking to extract a few more billion dollars without everyone noticing it. That is the purpose of the bill. Let us hope that the days of the "tax-happy people" are numbered. That is my heartfelt hope so that there may be a change of policy before our population is plunged into the blood-bath of a civil war mongered by the finance hawks who exercise a dictatorship over our country.
In the meantime, I tell government members: Tax away, go ahead, and hurry up before you are thrown out.
We of the Social Credit Party, who have long identified the real thieves of our vast national wealth, we tell the puppets of finance that their act has come to an end and our group was not taken in. That is why we have never recognized even the principle of this notorious omnibus bill. We have never accepted that monstruosity of a bill and we will vote against it. As for the caisses populaires, instead of cutting their throat they will cut their hand. We shall tolerate the amendments as a lesser evil but we will vote against the very principle of the bill.
Mr. McBride:: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak today until a moment ago when I heard the hon. member for Moncton. It is very difficult indeed to remain seated after the vitriolic nonsense couched in typical negative verbiage that he heaped upon our heads over here with his typical pompous scorn.


An hon. Member:: Now, we are to hear some more.


Murray Arndell McBride: It may well be that it is the role of the opposition, as he pointed out, to complain, and then if something useful is done to jump on the bandwagon and say, "Look, Canada, what we have done for you". It is unfortunate the hon. member is not here because I hate to speak about an hon. member who is absent. But be that as it may, I have rarely heard such negative nonsense as we were privileged to hear this afternoon from the hon. member for Moncton.
So far as these amendments are concerned, he attempted to create the impression that somehow the government and the House of Commons, all of us to whom he referred as trained seals, had no idea there was anything wrong until the Official Opposition pointed out to us that there should be a change made concerning co-operatives and credit unions. That was done, I suppose, to get some political Brownie points, to quote the distinguished hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, and to convince at least the supporters of the opposition, who I understand are meeting this afternoon at the Chateau Laurier, that this was the case which it was not.
Income Tax Act
So far as co-operatives in particular are concerned- and I am not so familiar with credit unions-we have been subjected in recent weeks to one of the ablest lobbies that has ever been mounted since I have been a member of this House. I think the credit ought to go to the representatives of the co-operative movement, and I must refer to those I know best, in the province of Ontario, who were sufficiently responsible citizens to come here not for political gain or to create a lot of turmoil and get a lot of notice in the press, but rather with cogent and concise arguments. They came forward and said to many of us, "Look, I think you might take another look at these sections which are before you because we think changes ought to be made." They made their case well and, more than any other single factor are responsible for the results we see before us today. The hon. member for Essex explained this very well as he can so ably do. I wish to concur with what he said when he pointed out that the credit should go to the leaders of the co-operative movement.
There is another thing I am delighted to say which refers directly to the hon. member for Essex. All of us know that very few members are as diligent in pursuing things about which they feel strongly as is this particular member. One day, if changes were not made, he threatened to kick up a storm in this House, and elsewhere I presume, the like of which we had never seen and would never see again. We all know that the respected leader of the Official Opposition commands the name of "Big Thunder" in many circles in Canada, but I want to suggest to the House that even "Big Thunder" himself would be like a Pacific breeze in a tropical island compared to the tornado that could be kicked up by the hon. member for Essex if he so decided to do.
The point I am trying to make is that for the sake of peace, order and good government, if for no other reason, those of us on this side of the House who hold in awe and respect the hon. member for Essex had to work very hard to see if we could give him what he wanted. I think it is extremely important to note that the hon. member for Regina East points out that he has been asking for this sort of thing for a long time, too, and that his party is fully behind these amendments. When action such as this is taken, I suppose we should expect a lot of me-tooism. In a sense, I suppose, this is always the weakness of any government which attempts to listen to the people. Certainly, it is the weakness of the white paper technique of participatory democracy, because if you do listen to the people and do respond to what the people request there are always some political opportunists who will use that fact against you for political gain. However, I think we ought not to be disheartened by people like the hon. member for Regina East, but rather essentially ignore them and take seriously into consideration the fact that a good government ought to listen to people who have a case to make, as the co-operatives have done so ably, and then go on to take action which takes their position seriously.
It is for that reason of course that the government has decided to abandon the idea of capital employed. From this point forward, co-operatives will not be taxed on income from business which is distributed to members in the form of patronage dividends. I could go on, but all members are quite familiar with this. I want to conclude

December 7, 1971
Income Tax Act
by saying one other thing. I, like many other members, have had a good deal of correspondence on this subject. I want to take the time to read two short paragraphs from a letter which came to me from a Mr. Plewes of Carp, Ontario which read as follows:
Credit unions are non profit organizations which help low income people to borrow at reasonable rates. We need them today as we always have, more so indeed. The proposed tax will wipe out many credit unions, if you do not believe this you will have to prove it for yourselves, by which time it will be too late to right matters.
I am bringing this to your attention in the naive hope that you will see the truth of it and do something about it. I must say that it always seems to me an exercise in futility to write to a member of parliament about anything whatsoever, but hope springs eternal.
The point I want to make is that too few Canadians recognize the pressure they can bring to bear on the democratic process by putting their views forward to their representatives. I want this citizen to learn that his views have played a small part in effecting a big change. But we must all recognize that, in spite of the very negative attitude of the hon. member for Moncton, his obvious hostility toward what the government is and what it represents, in spite of the kind of position that he took even on an amendment that he wanted to approve, and in spite of the obvious political disadvantage of the kind of me-tooism represented by the hon. member for Regina East, this is a good government doing what a good government should do. We have introduced amendments which will help the co-operative movement in all parts of Canada, even in the riding that is represented, either capably or incapably as you wish to judge, by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville who is giving a mini-speech while remaining seated as I am addressing the Committee. I think the credit for what has happened must go to the co-operative movement, to the minister and his representatives, who were willing to listen to the representations that were made from many quarters. Among those who most ably made representations were the hon. member for Essex, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton and a great many others.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: How unctuous can you get.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, we are grateful for the reminder that has been given to us by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton this afternoon indicating to us just how difficult it has been to persuade the Prime Minister and his colleagues of the wisdom of the action they have finally taken. He pointed out, along with other members of the House, the lengths to which not only opposition members but government members such as the distinguished member for Essex were prepared to go in order to set on the correct path a government that seemed to be completely oblivious of such an important issue. I think all hon. members should be grateful to the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton for putting that on the record again, because, quite frankly, in these dying hours of debate we have an opportunity to reflect, not only on how we have arrived at our present situation with respect to an important piece of legislation which is now being forced upon the country because of the govern-

ment's imposition of closure, but on what is perhaps the overriding characteristic of this government.
I think perhaps the hon. member was so caught up in his own oratorical skills that he inadvertently contradicted himself by saying at one point that it must be the weakness of this government that it listens to the people. Whatever the weaknesses of this government are, it will never be criticized for being weak to the point of listening to the people, and no one will be able to say that more objectively and more enthusiastically than the thousands of members of co-operatives and credit union movements who have agonized over the utterly inept performance of this government in dealing with one of the economic keystones of our country.
We all agree this afternoon, government and opposition alike, because the government has finally come to its senses. The important question is not to score brownie points on the issue, whether it is the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton or anyone else, but to realize substantially what lies behind the days of debate that have taken place in the committee which would have been totally unnecessary had this government responded to the reasonable requests put forward not only last summer following the introduction of the taxation bill by the Minister of Finance but put forward months and years ahead of that and which were seemingly extremely sensible to all members except those on the government side.
Surely, it is quite clear, and it should be clear to the people of this country, that the imposition of closure is contrary to the interests of the people and this has been demonstrated by the fact the government has responded to the requests for these amendments. The government has said that it is necessary to use closure in order to get this legislation adopted, while at the same time, as I pointed out to the House leader last week, it had to bring in further amendments in order to deal with the incredible situation in which the government has placed itself. Why did this happen? Why was it necessary for the government-


Mr. Gibson:: This is participatory democracy and it works.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: This is participatory democracy which refuses to listen until every last ounce of pressure is exerted.


Colin David Gibson: Your speech is out of date now.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am not concerned about whether or not my speech is out of date.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I would like to hear what is being said by the hon. member for Egmont, so I will ask the hon. member to take his seat to allow the hon. member for Egmont to continue.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I think there is more than arrogance-


Colin David Gibson: Repetitive nonsense.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I hope that it will be possible at some time to give a medical examination to the hon. member opposite who finds it impossible-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
December 7, 1971


Gérald Laniel: Is the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth rising on a point of order?


Colin David Gibson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I should like to say that my wife found me to be rather cranky the other day. I did go to a doctor and I received a clean bill of health, but I think it is high time that the Conservative party organized a research team to investigate some of their members.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member for Egmont has the floor.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am glad that at least the hon. member is on the right track, Mr. Chairman. I hope that they will find out what causes the disability which makes him speak more efficiently while seated than on his feet, and once that is corrected perhaps he will be serviceable to the House.
I think it was more than insensitivity, arrogance or some kind of death wish that propelled the government to continue its policies, almost to the final hour, with regard to the taxation of co-operatives and credit unions.


Mr. Mahoney:: This is an expert analysis.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: As expert as any the hon. member opposite presented with regard to this matter.
I think that the heart of the matter here is that the government, whether it is the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance, has never really taken the time and trouble to consider what the co-operative and credit union movement was all about. I am glad that the Prime Minister is making one of his rare visits this afternoon during the debate, because perhaps, unlike last week when he was not prepared to listen, he might be prepared to listen this afternoon. I notice he is not listening at the moment, but that is not unusual for this Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you listen?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am endeavouring to listen but some people would rather speak while remaining seated than on their feet.


An hon. Member:: They make more sense.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The problem from the beginning, from last June, was an unwillingness to accept the unique economic and social role played by the co-op and credit union movement. It was obvious, even to a layman such as myself-I am not an active member either of a co-op or a credit union-that the government, in some kind of ham-handed way, had tried to deal with the co-op and credit union movement on the same basis as it would deal with any corporation or business enterprise. That has been the essence of the problem.
Somehow or other members of the government got themselves convinced, and it must be assumed not with a great deal of thought, that they could simply enact the same kind of tax laws to apply to co-ops and credit unions that apply to other forms of economic activity. There was no willingness to consider what has been a basic principle from the beginning of the co-op and credit union movement, the principle of member participation and of equity
Income Tax Act
in terms of that participation. As long as members of the government were looking at this in terms of what I would call a completely austere and unrealistic economic outlook, they were in effect willing to destroy the heart and soul of the co-op and credit union movement.


An hon. Member:: That is illusory.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: If it is illusory I would like to know why the Minister of Finance has finally agreed to these changes.


Colin David Gibson: Isn't that what you want him to do?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Exactly. You are not
listening.


Colin David Gibson: Yes, I am. This is a lot of nonsense.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: If you can control that space below your nose you will be able to listen more carefully.


Colin David Gibson: I am listening carefully, and it is all nonsense.


Gérald Laniel: Order. I wish that the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth would please let the hon. member finish his speech.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I don't really mind. A good speech always needs a little comic relief and the hon. member is providing that. It is obvious that it took the government some months to understand that there is something important about member participation in the co-op and credit union movement. It is obvious that that is such a basic principle that members on both sides of the House were willing to go to rather extreme lengths to preserve that principle, in the belief that failure to adhere to it in terms of our tax laws would ultimately destroy the co-op and credit union movement.
Much has been said in this chamber with respect to what would have happened had the government not taken the advice offered from all sides and by a variety of individuals. That principle has now been preserved, and we must be careful to prevent a possible future reversal through some further blunderous excursion, either by this government or any successor of it, which could destroy the unique contribution that is continuously made every day by the co-op and credit union movement.
I think it is important for the people of the country to realize that this House performs a very vital function in the democratic exercise in protecting their rights and privileges. In this instance, we have seen a clear example of the importance of debate on the dangerous changes that the government had advocated for so many months for co-ops and credit unions. Lamentably, Mr. Chairman, we are only a few hours away from the time when debate will be cut off on this bill, and I shudder to think of how many other areas, in terms of the taxation laws of the country, will be adversely affected by too little participation in this debate, both by members of the committee and by the public at large. I do not think one needs to be very much of a prophet to suggest, as I do, that in a very short period of time, perhaps early next year, we will be faced with another series of amendments to this major tax

December 7, 1971
Income Tax Act
measure because the government has blundered in the direction that it has taken in this tax bill.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Assiniboia.


Colin David Gibson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I was hoping that a government member would be recognized.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Assiniboia.


William George Knight: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to have an opportunity to express my opinions on these amendments and the co-op and credit union movement. May I take this opportunity to compliment the government on introducing these amendments. I would like to agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton that the co-op and credit union movement did an excellent job of what he called lobbying, but what I would call stating their case against the legislation as originally proposed by the government. It is because of the case stated by the co-op and credit union movement, and because of the case stated by the NDP in the House of Commons, that the legislation has been changed.
I am sure that the legislation is not being amended just to comply with the philosophy of cabinet ministers. All hon. members of this House received much correspondence with respect to the legislation, and many personal calls and petitions. Mr. Chairman, I represent a riding where 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the population are members of co-ops and credit unions. That riding contains the largest credit union in the world and, Mr. Chairman, I had an opportunity to have a better reading of public opinion recently than other hon. members. On November 8, that public opinion told the government in no uncertain terms that this legislation, as it then stood, was unacceptable. May I compliment the citizens of Assiniboia for delivering the message to the government that its legislation was inadequate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William George Knight: There was another issue in that by-election, Mr. Chairman, the government's grains stabilization policy. In that connection, I would point out that last Friday the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton had some comments to make about the government's legislation designed to implement that policy. May I suggest to him that his comments on Friday had about the same effect as his comments in the riding of Assiniboia prior to November 8.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, in all seriousness may I compliment my colleagues who spoke out against the government's attack on the co-op and credit union movement. I want to complement them for the excellent job they did in offering alternatives to the government's position. And I want to compliment the odd individual in the Liberal party who stood up in defence of the co-op and credit union movement. Those of us in this party from Saskatchewan who are members of co-ops and credit unions are pleased with the amendments that the government has introduced. We hope they will remain in force for a long time, and will not be suddenly changed a year
[Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).l
after the next election. Once again, Mr. Chairman, may I thank the government for changing its position on these sections. Since they accepted the message on November 8 and changed their position on the taxation of co-operatives and credit unions, we hope they will take the same position on the grain stabilization policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Chairman, after hearing the last speaker praise the government it may be repetitive to speak for any length of time on this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!


Colin David Gibson: However, Mr. Chairman, it is not often in this place that one has the opportunity to urge an amendment, as I did and many of my colleagues too, in this House ten days ago when I urged the government not to be like a football team that is known to get to the ten yard line and then fumble the ball. We urged the Minister of Finance to go forward and score a touchdown, as the famous Calgary Stampeders did, rather than to fumble as the Toronto Argonauts did.
I urged the government to change the provisions in the Income Tax Act which taxed co-operatives and credit unions. I received many requests from my constituency that we should take a strong line on this and try and have these amendments made. Having supported the credit union movement as we have, I want to commend the government for these excellent amendments which encourage the supporters of the credit unions, the cooperatives and the caisses populaires. I feel that by encouraging the lending of money through these organizations in a responsible way to individuals who are often caught in emergency situations, we have assured an extraordinary measure of support for this kind of venture.


Mr. Matte:: Mr. Chairman, as pointed out so aptly by my colleague for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), we may perhaps rejoice in the fact that the government has agreed at long last to lessen the disastrous effects of the famous Bill C-259, particularly with regard to the caisses populaires.
Indeed, the bill in its original form simply threatened to assassinate those institutions which have been, and still are a sort of backbone, especially in the province of Quebec. Caught and included in this heavy but lightly treated tax reform, the caisses had no choice but to insist with the members that at least amendments be moved to make some of the sections a bit more palatable. The amendments moved by the minister prove how right we were in criticizing those responsible as well as the bill itself.
There was no dely in debates, nor was there any filibustering from the opposition. We are rather confused by a thick, heavy, mixed up, incomprehensible and incoherent bill which embarrasses everybody, beginning with the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the ministers and their parliamentary secretaries.
December 7, 1971

Mr. Chairman, one is confused by a jumble of sections which are supposed to constitute a reform. When you say "reform", you generally mean "improvement"; if you change something, it is to better it, to make it more profitable for those concerned with it. But such is not the case, because the amendment which we are now considering means that the government itself has to redraft, bit by bit, its own legislation, and this, over a certain period of time, since the duration of the debate has been limited.
Mr. Chairman, it is important that the people know that the object of closure is "presumably" to accelerate the business of the House. I say "presumably", as closure was applied because the opposition was annoying or worrying the government. Obviously, that is completely false. Considering that each one of those sections requires a lot of consideration and study, how can the work be done rapidly? It is physically impossible, and the proof lies in the fact that section 137 has gone by the wayside.
Now, Mr. Chairman, If some sections are so badly written that they have to be completely revamped, we must say that in the 700 pages of the bill, dozens of clauses should also be modified.
That is why we feel that it was absolutely necessary to take all the time required to carry out the tax reform. It would have been easy-as many hon. members and many of my colleagues have repeatedly pointed out-to divide the bill in two and adopt immediately the sections that were not contested. There was no reason to submit a package bill that is badly written, incomprehensible and incoherent. But just the same, we must be happy that the government is nevertheless willing to lighten the much too heavy burden which the savings and credit unions have had to carry.
Mr. Chairman, this does not mean that in itself-as my colleague from Roberval said it so well-the reform is good. We do not want to help in the passing of legislation drawn up haphazardly, without any consideration being given to the views of the people.
In any case, this bill will be passed, whether it is good or bad. It must be admitted that when this bill was outlined in the White paper, the officers of Caisses populaires and co-operatives found out that high officials, or even the minister himself, had overlooked credit unions. If they had been forgotten at the time of the drafting of the bill, we must say that despite studies deemed to have been made and the publication of the white paper, a reform was considered much too soon. It is not that reform is not needed, as we of the Social Credit know very well-and we say so loud and clear-that there must be real economic reforms in order to get a proper financial and fiscal system. But to make reforms and speedily pass a tax measure for the sake of it, or to expect to go before voters at the next general election and be able to say that a certain thing has been done is illogical and most of all frustrating for the whole Canadian population.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief this afternoon. I want to make a few comments in connection with the amendments which we are studying. When the parliamentary secretary resumes his seat, I want to ask
Income Tax Act
him a question or two about one of these sections. At the outset, may I say that I am completely happy for the co-ops because they have made their point. I am also happy, of course, because the hon. member for Essex will still be with us, at least for a little while.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Generally speaking, I think it is fair to say that all of us approve the amendments submitted yesterday by the government House leader. We are most relieved to be rid of these provisions as they were originally drafted, because they were most regressive. I think we ought to remember, however, that they had not been accepted by government supporters until the time the co-ops, credit unions and caisses populaires mounted their very, very effective lobby. My friend for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton complimented the credit unions and the co-ops on their most effective lobby. There has been much bantering back and forth-it seemed a little silly to me-about who should get the credit for the changes that the government finally saw fit to introduce. I will say nothing regarding credit. I opposed the restrictive regulations affecting co-ops right from the beginning. However,
I think it is fair to point out that the one thing we have discovered in this country is this: this government will respond to pressure. In that there is an object lesson for the rest of Canada. Canadians must remember that old adage, the squeaking wheel gets the grease. I compliment the co-ops on their very large, very active and totally justified lobby.
Having said that, I must bring up one other subject which members of this House ought to consider. What about the individual businessman? What about private owners of business? I have a message for them, and that message is coming through loud and clear. If private individuals and private businessmen want any consideration from this government, they will have to organize themselves as they were never organized before. They must do that to be heard. I am suggesting to the retail merchants, who in their submission asked for some parts of this bill to be deferred, that they had better beef-up their organization and make it as good as the organization behind the lobby of the co-ops.
Theoretically, no private business can compete with an efficiently run co-op. Yet, Mr. Chairman, they do compete and compete quite successfully. How is that, I wonder? Again, as I say, much has been said this afternoon about where the credit lies for causing the about-face of the government. That is not important, because the reason for the about-face is pretty apparent. The reason lies in the 2,373 co-ops in Canada with 1,690,000 members who are potential voters. That is the answer. The old power of the ballot box was suddenly felt. What about the other distasteful sections of the bill affecting those individuals in this country who are not organized?
I should like the parliamentary secretary to explain and make just a little clearer the effect of proposed section 135(7), as set out on page 10175 of Hansard for December 6, yesterday's Hansard. The proposed subsection reads in part:
(7) Where a payment pursuant to an allocation in proportion to patronage (other than an allocation in respect of consumer goods or services)-

December 7, 1971
Income Tax Act
This wording leaves me just a little bewildered. I am thinking of a very well run and effective co-op in my area. They have a feed mill, buy grain and do all manner of things. They run a retail department where farmers can buy farm supplies, fence posts, wire, hog waterers, cattle waterers, and all those things that are incidental to the successful operation of a farm. I wish to ask a question, and I know the parliamentary secretary will be able to answer it. I am a little concerned about what happens to patronage dividends in that particular area that are available to members of that co-op. Of course, I am delighted to see less red tape. The less red tape we have in this country, the better. I am all for that.
However, let me point out an anomaly in this area which fortifies my argument regarding the protection for the individual. Let us say that we have a customer who deals with a co-op. Let us say that he gets $99.99 worth of patronage dividend. There is no withholding tax, as I understand it, and there is no record or anything like that. Let us compare that situation with that pertaining to a poor, dear little old widow who has $200 in her savings account, on which the bank pays her 5 per cent. So, what happens? She gets a T4 income tax form for her income of $10 from that source.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I do not think that is quite 100 per cent satisfactory. I will be the first to admit that no tax is withheld. However, these two examples show how inconsistent these provisions are. It is all right to have a $100 patronage dividend if you are a member of an organization, but if you are just a plain, ordinary, unprotected, unorganized Canadian without a strong lobby, forget it.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, before I commence, I am willing to have the parliamentary secretary answer the questions of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent asked a couple of specific questions. First, the distinction between patronage dividends that consumer co-operatives issue and other types. Of course, the person who patronizes a co-operative store for his groceries is buying those goods with after tax dollars and any patronage dividend that he receives is a reduction in the price of those consumer goods and, accordingly, is not intended to be taxable. That is the reason for the distinction raised in section 135(7). This distinction exists in the present act as well.
Where the consumer is a farmer who buys binder twine, barbed wire and the other goods the hon. member mentioned, he is receiving a refund of payments he has made that he will presumably claim as business expenses as a result of his farming operation. The expenses that he claims must be reduced by the amount of the patronage dividend to determine his business income. Accordingly, the patronage dividend will be included in income in that case.
The fact that the withholding tax does not apply until the patronage dividends reach the $100 mark does not mean the patronage dividends are not taxable or that the amount should not be included in income. Co-operatives

will be required to issue slips, analogous to the ones the hon. member mentioned in connection with the poor little old lady and her savings account, to their patrons with regard to their patronage dividends, whether they amount to $100 or not and whether or not the withholding tax has been applied.
The onus is placed on the taxpayer to decide whether the type of business he does with the co-op is of a consumer nature and hence the rebate or patronage dividend is not an income item. Alternatively, if it is a patronage dividend with respect to business expenses he has claimed, the onus is on the taxpayer to report that as income. However, the fact that a withholding tax is not required until the $100 amount is reached does not affect the obligation of the co-operative to issue a statement to the taxpayer. That statement, of course, is verifiable by inspection by the Department of National Revenue. I do not think there is an unfairness here, as the hon. member suggested there might be.


Gérald Laniel: Order. Before I recognize the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform hon. members that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Haidasz)-Combines-Sale of Toronto "Telegram" subscription list to Toronto "Star"-Federal aid policy for Canadian publications-Press review board; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Family income security-Family allowances- Negotiations with Quebec-Increases; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave)-Grain-Use and leasing of interior elevator facilities.


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, the members of the New Democratic Party welcome the changes with regard to co-ops and credit unions. I will direct my remarks to credit unions because the hon. member for Regina East and the hon. member for Assiniboia have related their remarks to co-ops. That does not mean I have not been interested in co-ops. I have the honour of being a member of a consumer co-op in Toronto as well as a credit union. One of the reasons the consumer co-op failed in Toronto was the keen competition from the chain stores and some of their purchasing methods which denied co-ops certain buying privileges. Be that as it may, the co-ops have a very impressive record across the country, especially in the west. With regard to credit unions, I join with the many members in the House who have given credit to the co-ops and credit unions for the way they persuaded the government to bring about these changes.
One may ask, why the change? I can only relate my remarks to my experience while a member of the finance committee during the last Parliament. We were making changes to the Bank Act. I will always remember the tremendous persuasiveness of the banks with regard to taking the 6 per cent ceiling off loans. They were successful in doing it. One of their arguments was the intrusion of credit unions into the field of lending money to people across the country. There is quite a difference between a banking institution and a credit union. The philosophy of a credit union has been underlined many times. Its pur-
December 7, 1971

Income Tax Act
pose is not profit or charity, but service. I received many letters from credit unions in Toronto, particularly one which is called So-Use. It has a very impressive record of lending to new Canadians and has done well over the years. I quote from their letter of September 24, 1971:
New arrivals to Canada needed loans to establish themselves in this country; others were still paying their homes off, rehabilitating themselves after the depression and war. Lending institutions of all descriptions were demanding high securities and/or high interest rates, both of which were rather burdensome for most of the consumers. Therefore the Credit Unions flourished with the appealing slogans of low cost loans, loan and savings life insurance and mutual assistance for one another. Everybody felt like his brother's keeper. We had no direct access to the money from the Bank of Canada at the lowest rates of interest. We had to depend on the understanding and loyalty of our members. Warmth and confidence of our members to and in one another are the causative factors of our growth. It didn't just happen.
Those words are from one of the successful credit unions in Toronto. I wish to read the words of a credit union in my constituency. It is called the Woodgreen Credit Union Limited. In a letter to me, the president of that credit union said:
There are 92 credit unions in your riding. They all provide very worthwhile services to their members. I am in constant contact with their officers and believe me, John, only a half dozen out of 92 could survive.
He meant survive under the provisions the government originally introduced. When I think of the caisse populaire which have flourished in Quebec, I am impressed with the excellent record they have obtained. I wonder if conditions would not be much worse in Quebec if the caisse populaire had not filled the gap which banks and other financial institutions left through their failure to provide loans to people who did not have the necessary securities and credit rating that the banks demanded. I have heard it said many times that one of the reasons the credit unions are comparable to the banks is that they charge 1 per cent per month on the unpaid balance on loans. On the example of borrowing $1,200 at 1 per cent a month on the unpaid balance over a period of 12 months if $100 a month were repaid, the total sum paid in interest would be $78 and if you divide the $1200 borrowed by 78 the effective interest rate amounts to 6.5 per cent. Account must then be taken of the fact that the effective rate is likely to be even lower when the credit union declares its interest rebates to those who have borrowed money. Is it any wonder that the banks and other financial institutions put such strong pressure in the Finance Committee when changes were being made to the Bank Act? They realized that the fine motive of the credit unions was not profit or charity but service to the people.
I cannot avoid the conclusion that when the original provisions of this act were determined the government was corporation-oriented; it had been directly influenced by the large corporations, the banks and the financial institutions. Otherwise it would not have brought down the provisions which are contained in Bill C-259. Who would have thought of the capital employed concept which the Minister of Finance attempted to apply, not only to the co-operatives but to the credit unions? It certainly was not dreamed up after consultation with the credit unions. It was certainly arrived at after pressure from banking and other financial institutions.
I give very little credit to the government for bringing in these amendments. We welcome them, but I do not give them credit. In the first instance, the minister and his colleagues were influenced totally by the corporations. It was only after members from all parties had spoken out against the proposals that the government yielded. Incidentally, I found it passing strange that during the discussion of the personal exemption rates, the changes from $1,000 to $1,500 in the case of single persons and from $2,000 to $2,850 in the case of married couples, very few supporters of the government pointed out that 20 per cent of all Canadians would still be living below the poverty line. I am disturbed that supporters of the Liberal party did not rise on other sections and allow their voices to be heard in favour of necessary changes. I notice the parliamentary secretary giving me a slight smile. I can recall that when we were discussing the expenses to be allowed to workers there was a cemetery-like silence from the benches opposite, and that no criticism was levelled against the bill when we were discussing the expense accounts which are to be allowed to members of the boards of corporations in connection with their business.
We have a proud history in Canada in connection with credit unions. Back in 1900 Alphonse Desjardins of Levis, Quebec, began the credit union movement in Canada. From that humble beginning credit unions have spread across the country and served a most useful purpose. It disturbs me that the government should have brought forward provisions which would have strangled the growth of the movement. It took the efforts of members of all parties to persuade the administration of the necessity of credit unions and of their social usefulness. The argument which the credit unions put forward respecting the necessity for statutory provisions relating to reserves, the argument in support of their inability to distribute reserves to their members in the same way as corporations distribute their reserves to shareholders must have had some impact upon the government, because the changes made in the legislation reflect this point of view.
I trust that never again will the government be persuaded by the banks and financial institutions that credit unions do not play a vital part in improving the living conditions of most Canadians. When I read the statement by the Prime Minister, the remarks he made on National Credit Union Day, I realize he was setting forth the true philosophy of the credit unions. He said, then:
Credit unions have experienced enormous success because they encourage both regular savings and the wise use of credit. But even more important, credit unionism encourages self help, mutual assistance, and personal involvement. In this sense credit unions are more than financial institutions, they are a positive social force within our communities.
I hope the other members of the cabinet will take to heart the message the Prime Minister sent to all Canadians and never again be persuaded by the corporate interests of this country to bring forward such proposals as they first brought forward in Bill C-259. If they do that we shall succeed as we have never succeeded before in bringing about some of the social improvements which are necessary in this country.

December 7, 1971
Income Tax Act


Mr. Haidasz:: Mr. Chairman, we have just heard the praise which the hon. member for Broadview has rightly heaped upon the Prime Minister. As one who has been associated very closely with many cabinet ministers, I should like to assure the hon. member for Broadview that the cabinet ministers do strive very hard to emulate the Prime Minister in that regard.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Stanley Haidasz: I have been a member since its inception, 26 years ago, of the St. Stanislaus Credit Union, the largest in Ontario, with more than 12,000 members with its headquarters in Parkdale. I, too, was pleased to make representations in this House in favour of appropriate amendments to Bill C-259, and today I wish to express to the Minister of Finance, to his parliamentary secretary and to their officials, the appreciation of all credit union members in Canada for their patience and understanding in drafting the amendments which were announced yesterday. As hon. members know, the income of credit unions and caisses populaires will now be taxed at the rate of 25 per cent as long as reserves in excess of those allowed against income do not exceed 5 per cent of deposits and share capital. A further amendment will also mark the abandonment of the notion of capital employed and embodies the proposal that the limit on interest rebates related to capital employed be deleted. These amendments will go a long way to enabling credit unions to grow and assist their members, and, consequently, to further the growth of the Canadian economy.
I should also like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the credit union movement which has rendered assistance to numerous immigrants, especially in helping them to procure loans to buy houses. This is a great service indeed. For some reason or other, these immigrants have found it much easier to get a loan for a home from the credit union than from other sources. I am delighted to join the hon. member for Essex and my other colleagues in the House in expressing once again to the Minister of Finance our appreciation and also to congratulate the credit union representatives who have presented their case to us in a very reasonable, courteous and effective manner. We have seen participatory democracy work and succeed.


Mr. Rodrigue:: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my colleagues, I would like to point out that we support the amendments proposed by the government House leader to sections 57, 58, 135 and 137 which deal particularly with co-operatives and credit unions.
I am very happy that the representations of the co-operatives and credit unions and the reiterated requests of hon. members of all parties have been heeded.
As for us, of the Social Credit party, I know that we have not been very soft on the government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) when we asked that the sections I have just mentioned be amended. This is why I reiterate our appreciation for the proposed amendments. These are amendments which I think are much more equitable that the initial proposals. It seems to me follow-

ing the talks my colleagues have had in these amendments.
Everyone will try to interpret the tabling of amendments in their own way. Some will say that the government has taken a backward step, others that it has made a gain. I myself consider that the amendments to the clauses concerning co-operatives and credit unions are the result of numerous negotiations and pressures exercised by those organizations which stated their views in an intelligent manner but without kicking up a shindy. It therefore proves that it is possible to obtain results from a government when the people exercise the right amount of pressure and make themselves heard.
However, people should be in a position to make themselves heard. The government follows too easily the advice of officials who tend to try and settle problems with over-simple methods, without paying too much attention to justice. Our agreement to the amendments brought forward in regard to co-operatives and credit unions does not mean that we approve the bill as a whole. The latter contains a lot of nonsense, such as the inequitable way in which it sought to deal with credit unions and co-operatives. Several other amendments would therefore be in order.
The concept of capital utilized which has been incorporated in the Income Tax Act for the past 23 years, and which was the basis for taxing co-operatives, is a striking instance of the errors and inequities contained in the bill before us. I am happy that representations made to the minister have succeeded in moving him to bring forward amendments to correct an inequity which was about to be sanctioned.
Co-operatives and caisses populaires will now know what they are faced with. They are faced with a new challenge: that of taking a greater part in the Canadian economy and of having their members participate in the many services which they provide for five million people.
The co-operative movement is still new in Canada. In fact, it is only starting, after groping its way for a long time. I think that it has acquired valuable experience during those last few weeks' discussions and will be in a position to take up the challenge.
I do not intend to retrace the history of the co-operative movement in Canada, as others have done so before me- with great competence. I am glad of the turn events have taken and I hope this will serve as a lesson not only to members of co-operatives and caisses populaires, but to all Canadians.
That is a striking example which shows that solutions can be found when there is the will to talk business seriously. This is an important lesson for the government which will have to pay more attention to the wishes of the people.
In the course of the debates ahead further amendments to this bill will be introduced and I hope that the minister will welcome those proposals.


Mr. Ritchie:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on the significance of these changes to the bill. The government has moved from a substantial widening of the capital employed formula on which it taxed co-operatives
December 7, 1971

to a complete elimination of it. This is a change that goes further than most of us expected, but which I think is basic to the co-operative movement. The capital employed formula did not seem to have much basis in fact; it was a formula that was made use of during wartime in order to replace the excess profits tax. We are now returning to a straight 15 per cent withholding tax. The capital employed formula was a very poor way of taxing co-operatives, and as I say it is significant that this formula has now been changed.
I should like to make some comments on the effect of this proposed change on the western grain handling companies, which are divided roughly into three groups. There are the three western pools; the United Grain Growers, which operates under a somewhat different structure but is still to some extent a co-operative; and the private line elevator companies. It is significant that this change is made at this time because the grain handling system in western Canada is being reorganized. Even though the United Grain Growers has been in operation for 60 years and the pools have been operating for 40 years, the line elevator companies are still able to get between 30 and 40 per cent of the grain that passes through the system each year, in spite of the fact that in general I think they are at a disadvantage to their competitors, particularly the pools.
The elimination of the capital employed formula should substantially increase the competitiveness of the pools, and to some extent the United Grain Growers, vis-a-vis the line elevator companies. Whether this will see the growth of a monopoly in this area remains to be seen, but I think it is a definite possibility. We must wait and see how these changes to the corporation tax affect the value of this tax as a means of raising money.
We have seen a downgrading of the corporation tax in the last few years. The 7 per cent reduction mentioned by the Minister of Finance a few weeks ago and the dropping of the 1 per cent corporation tax each year for four years means that the government is moving away from corporation tax as a means of raising money for the treasury and is placing more emphasis on income tax. These changes with respect to co-operatives should further increase the revenue of the government through personal income tax. So I believe we must look at these changes to see if the corporation tax is to be reduced significantly over the years in line with the amendments in respect of co-operatives. If not, there may well be significant changes in our economic structure particularly in rural areas involving producer co-operatives.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Chairman, first of all, like some other hon. members I wish to commend the Minister of Finance and his parliamentary secretary for bringing in the amendments they did yesterday. I can assure them that in a constituency like mine, which has dozens of small and large co-operatives, this is most welcome. The fact that the government has moved on this issue is a credit to the Parliament of Canada, as is the fact that members of this House realized that co-operatives would be strangled by this bill and have been able to convince the powers that be that changes ought to be made.
Income Tax Act
The New Democratic Party, as everyone knows, was committed to fight as hard as it could to change the mind of the government. I am very pleased that the Minister of Finance and the government have recognized this. I know also that many members of the Liberal party, particularly the hon. member for Essex, made their intentions very clear and because of this the government changed its mind.
More important, however, I believe is the fact that the co-operative movement itself deserves credit for the changes before us. I think we should all congratulate them for the tremendous job they did in articulating their cause and in convincing members who had not been convinced about the reason co-operatives exist and why this bill as first presented would have been very injurious to them. They should be complimented at the national and local levels.
I received 50 or 60 telegrams, letters and resolutions from co-operatives in my constituency, wheat pools and credit unions. I congratulate these people for coming forward and persuading the government it should change the legislation as originally presented to the House. In a democratic system I believe government should listen to the people and be flexible enough to amend legislation to coincide with the wishes of any sector of our society.
I believe all of us felt that if the bill had gone through in its original form it would have eventually strangled the co-operative movement. I think it is essential that government recognize that co-operatives served a very significant purpose in the history of this country. This is particularly true in a province such as Saskatchewan where the co-operative movement is a vital part of the way of life. Co-operatives are an integral part of the community. Back in the thirties when the farmers faced the great depression they had to band together by forming co-operatives in order to protect themselves from corporate businesses which did not care about them. In every town and village across the province of Saskatchewan hundreds of people are active at the grassroots level in co-operatives, not as a profit-making venture but as a service to themselves, to their families and their communities. This is the type of thing I believe should be encouraged in Canadian life.
I think we should note that our party, in 1945, in Saskatchewan about a year after it formed the government established the first department of co-operation in history and appointed a minister of co-operation. This is the type of leadership we should have in all parts of Canada. As I have said before, the co-operative movement is not a profit-making operation but, as the hon. member for Broadview pointed out, is a movement controlled by the people who use the co-operatives. You have one member with one vote, and not a few directors sitting on a board in some smoke-filled room behind closed doors making decisions which affect the people.
This is the direction in which we should be moving and I am thankful the President of the Privy Council presented these amendments. I hope they will stay with us in the years ahead because they will be of great benefit to the co-operative movement. I appreciate, as do my constituents, this step in the right direction in the decision of the government in amending the original bill.

December 7, 1971
Income Tax Act


Mr. Osier:: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few words to say this afternoon. They are not particularly weighty or well thought-out. I am very pleased to hear the tenor of the remarks of all hon. members who have spoken. They all agree, as I do, that it is a great thing to see these amendments and the changes made, since the future of co-operatives and credit unions is assured because of them. I certainly agree with the hon. member for Essex who first brought out the idea which has been repeated by other hon. members, that those who should be given credit for this are the credit unions themselves who did an excellent job in a very legitimate lobby. I would say this is a classic example, of which opposition members are not always aware or willing to recognize, that in a democracy if a story is told clearly, logically and cogently to enough Members of Parliament, people will change their mind and take a slightly different course in order to accommodate them. That is what Parliament is supposed to be all about.
I am very pleased that in this aspect we are proving, as we have at other times, that Parliament does have life and is not dominated by a bunch of dictatorial technocrats. This is the language of members of the opposition.
This procedure has shown that we have a future as a democratic state and that Parliament has an important place in a democratic state. We did not have television cameras in the House this afternoon. I am opposed to their being here because I think we do enough grandstanding without being encouraged to do more television. If the Canadian people were to have seen the great workings of this democratic, this almost sacred institution, this afternoon what would they have seen? They would have seen everybody agreeing to amendments to a bill, which shows the good sense of hon. members. Also they would have seen everybody here doing something that nobody in Canada can understand. They would have seen members wasting a whole afternoon saying, "You should have done it sooner," or "I was the guy who suggested it," or "It was me too"-a whole bunch of extraneous garbage which has nothing to do with the fact that Parliament has changed its mind and is passing a constructive measure. As the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River said a while ago, for grown men to be fighting over Brownie points all the time is not something that the people of Canada find very stimulating.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Then why are you on your feet?


Edmund Boyd Osler: This afternoon we have wasted a lot of time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Then why don't you sit down?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I wish that some members who most need instruction would listen to a little instruction from time to time. I suppose the fact that there are so few Conservatives in the chamber makes them want to make a great deal of noise. There are only four here now and the rest are away, thinking about how they will save the nation. I have not yet seen any blood on the street in front of the Chateau Laurier, but I think there must be some by now because they have been meeting for a day and a half.
The ghoulish glee that people have been expressing all afternoon, seeing that there is a time limitation on this

important bill, is a waste of time. Everybody on the opposition side says that time limitation is a crime and that they should be able to talk forever on this important subject. Yet we have four days during which to talk on it and we waste all one afternoon hearing people say, "I should get the Brownie points, not you". Surely we should have spent our time talking about other things. Great screams were heard last week when we said the time had come to pass this bill. But we have spent all afternoon listening to nothing more than ghoulish glee from hon. members on the opposite side.
After a perfectly legitimate process of tax investigation has been completed, we should now get on with the legislation. I should like to know whether members of the opposition are seriously preparing, when this tax measure is out of the way, to give us their views on poverty, on a guaranteed annual income and on how we are to attack our other problems. The fact is that all the old problems of regional disparity have not yet been solved in Canada's 100 years of existence and these are problems to which this government, and indeed any other government, must address itself.
Another matter for discussion is the development of trade on the Pacific rim, which our Prime Minister foresaw was the next big springboard for this country and which he has helped to encourage. Some people, in their ignorance, accuse him of taking off and flying all over the world. It so happens that when he flies all over the world we get an order for something, and if we do not have an order we will not eat.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You have an order-the 10 per cent surcharge.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That is enough from you. What we should hear is some truth and logic. You do not sell to the Japanese without making friends with them. You do not trade with emerging countries such as Malaysia without talking to them. You do not get anywhere without developing relationships so that people get to understand and trust you. Because we are the biggest trading nation, per capita, in the world, someone must do these things. But instead of members of the opposition coming forth with their viewpoints on how trade should be developing, they go around with whispering campaigns like a bunch of schoolboys. They say that the Prime Minister is out of the country too much.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why don't you read what our leader said as reported in the newspapers?


Edmund Boyd Osler: That is another thing that is pitiful-Brownie points made with newspaper columns. We take our responsibility of trying to run this country under the mandate that has been given to us. We are not afraid to find newspapers sometimes a little behind us. We do not look over our shoulders all the time, nor do we ask some guy whether we could vet the particular thing he is writing, and please will he make it nice. What we are trying to do is to get things done. We have developed more trade than any other government. We have sold more wheat to more people than any other government, and we have employed more people than any other government. But all we get from you people is raspberries and screaming all afternoon.
December 7, 1971


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Chairman:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has the floor.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I will not be too long, Mr. Chairman, because it is obviously useless to waste any further time of Parliament trying to put fresh ideas into their heads. As I said, trade development is important. Let us hear some views on that matter when this tax measure is passed. It is almost passed now. Ten years have come to an end and the country is ready to go on to the next task, but all the opposition is doing is bellyaching about the fact that it is too bad that an amendment regarding co-operatives was not put in by one guy instead of another guy. That is real statesmanship!
The problem of the native peoples is a very difficult one which I do not suppose any of us understands as well as he could. But, by God, this government has tried to advance the lot of the native peoples as no other government has. It has a lot to learn and it has to grope its way ahead. It would be great if you people helped us.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We will.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Another matter is international relations. Instead of complaining that we are not friendly enough with the Americans, or we are too friendly with the U.S.S.R., or some other damn thing ad infinitum-


Steve Eugene Paproski: You said that.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I said, instead of complaining give us your views about what international relations should be. All we have heard all afternoon is talk on one point, namely, who should or should not have brought in an amendment to a particular section in the tax bill which is 700 pages long. I have been listening very hard and that is all I got out of it. The hon. member for Dauphin was most constructive, but he was speaking in the past so that it was educational without advancing an argument. However, he spoke very intelligently and I learned a lot from him.
But the main point is that this sort of procedure, as I said, is not a tragedy for either a Liberal or a Conservative government, or indeed an NDP or a Social Credit government if there ever should be such an animal. The tragedy, which nobody here seems to understand, is that if we had television here this afternoon the people of Canada would completely lose their faith in the parliamentary system, and then where would we be? There is no way in which the people of Canada will buy this kind of stalling and fiddling about. They do not understand it.
The one thing I have heard for weeks is, why the devil have we not applied time allocation since we have a majority? We are asked why we do not get on with the job and do something. People do not want this stuff. The only time in my parliamentary career that I regret we do not have television here is this afternoon, because it would be illuminating if the people of Canada could see for once how time is wasted by the very people who are shedding crocodile tears all over the country about this government that has imposed closure, which it did not do. What it did was to impose time allocation.
I hope that in the next ten minutes some member of the opposition will talk some sense and will address himself more closely to the subject.
Income Tax Act


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I intend to intervene only briefly in the discussion this afternoon. I begin by congratulating the government for introducing these amendments which should go a long way toward meeting the requests of the co-operatives and credit unions of Canada. There is one aspect that amazes me, and that is why the government has taken so long in bringing forward its policies and why it has been so inconsistent. When I say inconsistent, I refer to the different attitude that was shown by the Department of Finance on the one hand in the bill which they introduced and, on the other hand, the activities of several other departments.
For years the Department of Fisheries encouraged marketing co-ops among fisherman and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development encouraged the development of co-ops in the north for various purposes. While this bill was being drafted that department was commemorating the establishment in my riding of the first credit union in North America, although at the time it was not called that. I believe this was a wise decision on the part of the National Historic Sites service, commemorating the establishment of The Farmers' Bank of Rustico which is in my constituency. A plaque was placed on the building which still exists, and it reads as follows:
Under the leadership of Rev. G.-A. Belcourt, a former pioneer missionary in the West, his parishioners erected this building to house one of the first people's banks in Canada. Chartered in 1864, and directed by farmers and fishermen, it continued to operate until 1894 and foreshadowed the development of the credit union movement. The bank, by providing cheap credit, enabled the people of this predominantly Acadian community to gain economic independence.
These types of self-help organizations have been a very vital factor in my province and in fact in many parts of the Atlantic region over the years. It is fitting that that sort of self-help when it is exhibited by Canadians, in the form of banding together either in co-ops or credit unions, should be encouraged. I want to congratulate their national organizations, their regional organizations and their local organizations for the very excellent job they did, not in lobbying-because I think that term has connotations which are slightly derogatory-but in educating the Canadian people on what they were requesting and informing Members of Parliament of their objective view of the matter.
They wanted nothing but a fair competitive position with respect to other types of organizations. I think that the work done by co-ops and credit unions in informing Members of Parliament and the government was a very useful exercise, and I congratulate the government for finally reacting favourably to their submissions. I must admit that it is not very reassuring that it took the government so long to react favourably. If I were concerned with the life expectancy of the government, which at present seems to be rather short, I would suggest that it react more quickly and more sensitively to the wishes of the Canadian people with respect to changes in policy.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think the amendments will meet the requirements of both the co-ops and credit unions in my province where they have done a great deal of good work over the years.
10234

December 7, 1971
Income Tax Act


Mrs. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few words in connection with these amendments because I think that no one from the west coast has yet spoken and a great many people out there have been sending letters and communications to us for a long time with respect to this matter. Those people will now be as happy as the rest of us to see amendments introduced which they have wanted for so long.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre spoke of tragedy and indicated that it was a great waste of time to discuss these amendments. In reply I say that for many of us this is not a day of tragedy but of triumph, because for a long time we have been trying to get across to the government the fact that co-ops are not ordinary business or commercial concerns in the private enterprise sense. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre should be patient enough to let us discuss just how these amendments happen to have been proposed.
As the hon. member for Regina East pointed out, it is 25 years since the government of the day, which I believe was also a Liberal government, succumbed to the pressure of big corporate concerns and enacted a type of tax legislation for co-ops to which they should never have been subjected simply because they have never been the ordinary type of business concern. For 25 years we have been going down the wrong road and now the government seems prepared to change direction. This is something for which we should be profoundly thankful.
However, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to be fulsome in my praise of the government and say it was a sudden burst of enlightenment on its part that caused this change to be made. That does not represent the facts. There are members on the government side of the House, just as there are in all parties, who fought for the co-ops. But over the years those government members were a very tiny minority, and so far as converting the government to introduce the right type of tax laws for co-ops was concerned, they were simply fighting a hopeless battle because the majority in their party did not agree with the co-operative way of thinking or the co-operative philosophy.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Russell Clayton Honey: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I was saying when the House adjourned at six o'clock that I think it is pretty important that we recognize how we got these amendments relating to co-operatives and credit unions. I believe that the credit must go to those organizations. In this House there were spokesmen who believed in and worked for amendments of this kind, but it was mainly the solid work of the co-operatives and credit union members and organizations outside this House that brought about the change.

I think it is important to understand what happened because in my view this is participatory democracy. I do not think any government by itself, no matter of what party, can do the job of governing without having counterpoise and counterweight from outside in the form of organizations to keep it informed and, if need be, to put pressure on it. I firmly believe this. The credit unions and co-operatives brought this pressure to bear on the government which did, in quite a proper manner, bring about the changes that were required. This is participatory democracy in the real sense. It is not people turning out to acclaim a leader or to admire images and that sort of thing; it is people who know what they want, who are well organized and bring pressure of the right sort on Parliament and the government in order to get the changes they need.
This is exactly what happened to bring about the changes in those sections of the bill relating to co-operatives and credit unions. I am very glad to see this happen, and far from being censorious of the government for having changed its mind, I think it deserves credit. When you get a government or individual who is afraid to change his mind, you have a dinosaur or something which is no longer in tune with the needs of the day. I think the government did the right thing in changing its mind. I am almost tempted to name the individuals who had a lot to do with changing it, but I will not.
These amendments mean that the government now definitely recognizes that co-operatives and credit unions are different from the ordinary run of private business. Some time ago I picked out an editorial from The Western Producer of September 30, 1971. This is a time-honoured organ of the Prairies. I should like to quote the editorial as follows:
There is a fundamental difference between a co-operative and a privately-owned enterprise: the co-operative principle means that member-patrons share earnings according to the extent of their patronage of their own business, but in the private corporation, earnings are paid out to shareholders, who may or may not have the slightest interest in the corporation in which they invest, beyond the collection of dividends on their shares.
The member of a co-operative, on the other hand, has interests in common with his fellow members. They set up their co-ops to provide themselves with goods and services at cost; they do not expect any return on whatever they have invested in their own business.
I think that is basically the difference and I am very glad that the government has recognized it. The co-operatives and credit unions are comprised of people working together to secure goods and services for themselves. The co-operative movement, whether it be through co-operatives or credit unions, is a way of living, a philosophy of life. In this House we worry a lot about poverty and low income groups, but I think the co-operative movement has done more for low income people than almost any other movement which can be mentioned-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: -from the days of Father Tompkins in the maritime provinces and the friends of the fishermen. The government House leader knows very well the work that was done by his own university, St. Francis Xavier. That university did tremendous work in eastern Canada and its students went overseas to help the underdeveloped
December 7, 1971

countries. One of their slogans was to the effect that if you give a man a fish he will be able to live for a day, but if you teach him to fish he will make his own living. I know that those are not the exact words, but the spirit of them is exact.
On the western plains the co-operatives have done tremendous work for farm people and have taught them rugged initiative and individual enterprise. If this government will recall its experience with its recent farm legislation it will realize that in western Canada it was up against a breed of people who had no intention of doing something just because somebody told them to do it. The co-operative movement had a good deal to do with teaching them to work together to serve the interests of their own group.
In England and Scotland the co-operative movement began with poor people, the 28 weavers who started it, and it moved into Scandinavia and other countries. In the underdeveloped parts of the world the movement is teaching people to work together as a group to achieve their own interests and not to pay toll to any other interests that stand between them and the things they need. I think the co-operative movement could play a very great role in North America. It could be a counterpoise to those great business corporations which are becoming larger and larger and more monopolistic as time goes on.
In Scandinavia co-operatives have been able to stand up to big corporations and compete with them in a way that other business competitors have never been able to do. I remember years ago visiting Sweden and seeing the Luma electric light factory. Previously only General Electric had been operating in the area. General Electric had been increasing the price of its light bulbs until finally the co-op stepped in and built the Luma electric light factory. Even while the factory walls were rising, General Electric cut the price of its light bulbs in an effort to deter the building of the factory. That did not work, and the result is that through the co-operative movement the people of Sweden have broken the monopoly of General Electric and are able to buy electric light bulbs for considerably less than they paid before the co-ops got busy.
That story has been repeated over and over again. That is why I want to end my remarks tonight by saying to the government that, far from scolding them for changing their mind, I am very glad they did so and that the co-operatives and credit unions have been able to bring this charge about with the help of people in all parties who believed in the necessity for change such as the co-ops wanted, and who believed in the co-operative and credit union movements. For these amendments the government will not need to apply closure. There will be no difficulty regarding passage; these sections will go through easily. As I say, the government was expecting too much if it thought we would pass these sections without taking time to hail them as a triumph for the co-operative and credit union movements of this country.


Mr. Breau:: Mr. Chairman, I want to take up only a few minutes of the time of the committee to say that I wholeheartedly approve of the amendments the President of the
Income Tax Act
Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) proposed to the bill we are studying tonight and which deal with the taxation of co-operatives and caisses populaires.
This afternoon, I heard several members of the opposition, notably of the Progressive Conservative party, say that the government has simply betrayed the co-operatives by equivocating.
Mr. Chairman, it seems those members did not understand the proposals of the co-operatives last summer, when they appeared before the Committee of Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in connection with the white paper on tax reform, as they probably did not understand either the amendments proposed by the government.
When the representatives of the co-operatives first came to testify, their original request referred to a withholding in the case of members receiving patronage dividends. The government rejected that proposal, because it thought-I agree with that as well as several other members-that the members of co-operatives who received patronage dividends for the purchase of consumer goods should not pay income tax on those patronage dividends. It is only as a result of discussions, specific proposals and serious studies by co-operatives and the Canadian Cooperative Council that an administrative formula was devised and that it was agreed, in accordance with statistics for the last few years, that a tax would only be levied when the patronage dividend would be over $100, so that only the members of co-operatives who would receive such patronage dividends, to be deducted from expenditures already claimed for income tax purposes, would pay income tax.
The opposition members-particularly those of the Progressive Conservative Party, including the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) and the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-who said that this afternoon did not seem to fathom the consequences of the first proposal by co-operatives, and probably not these either.
I wish to thank the government for introducing these amendments, thus showing it understands and appreciates the benefits the co-operative system and caisses populaires bring the country. Several times I spoke in the House of the social and economic implications of the co-operative movement in my riding, and I do not think it would be useful to state the arguments all over again. However, I would like to say that what the government did will have happy results in my riding where co-operatives are strong, not only because they enroll people in a certain socio-economic movement but because where they are active, mostly in the fishing sector and other industrial fields, producers obtain more for their goods. I think it is a recognized fact that wherever there are co-operatives, companies set their prices in accordance with the prices established by those co-operatives-which means that not only members of co-operatives, but all fishermen, benefit from it. The same phenomenon can be seen in the farming industry.
Before concluding, I would like to express my gratitude to members of the opposition, and particularly members of the New Democratic Party, who, I feel, have co-operated with the government during the debate on co-operatives in order to make sure that if the debate was to end with the application of Standing Order 75C, the amend-
10236

December 7, 1971
Income Tax Act
ments concerning co-operatives and caisses populaires would be introduced and passed.
Several members know of the discussions and negotiations which have taken place concerning this issue. We must admit that but for the co-operation of opposition members, those amendments could not have been brought forward. I would like to thank them, and to say once again that I support the government in this move which I feel is a victory for the rural economy of Canada.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, I grew up in a part of Canads where poverty was a very great problem and where it still is somewhat of a problem. I have seen the effects of certain social measures that have been instrumental in overcoming that poverty and I can fairly say that the work of the co-operatives, both in selling basic supplies to people and in providing marketing outlets for their catches, has probably been the most worth-while work of economic value that I have seen.
I make no apology for my remarks. Indeed, I am proud to support any tax change that will add to this process. Accordingly, I welcome the announcement made the other day by the President of the Privy Council and wonder at the hon. gentleman's ability to horse-trade. He indicated to us that not only were the co-ops getting all that they had asked for, which must have come as a delightful surprise to them, but they were getting even more than they had asked for. So they wound up with all their own horses that they were willing to trade in this business as well as with some of the government's horses. I give the minister full marks for that.
The co-op movement mounted a most effective lobby. I think we should note that here "lobby" is used in its pure sense. They came to us, put their arguments before us and have reaped the harvest they deserve. When I spoke on this matter earlier I said that co-operatives were a chance for the ordinary Canadian to have some piece of the action in this country. I reiterate that remark.
I would add that there is generally a limit to the extent to which people wish to co-operate with each other in order to form an effective co-operative. I say this in answer to those who bring their concerns to us through correspondence. They are concerned about the growth of the co-operative movement in Canada. As far as co-operatives in the food business are concerned, they will continue to grow. However, in my city of Halifax an attempt very recently along those lines fell flat on its face. I suspect that where there is a community interest there will more likely be development in the co-operative field.
I have tried to interest people in solving their housing problems by the co-operative method. There is a limit to the number of people who will sit down together to work out a common plan. Some people go for co-operative building and others do not. If I had any suggestion to make in this field as a counter-measure to what is proposed by the government, it would be that the issue is of such intensity that it would better have been separated from the measure with which we are dealing. It deserves substantial consideration in view of the storm that was raised involving not only the government but all of us as
[Mr. Breau.l
parliamentarians. In other words, as a compromise in a difficult situation I would suggest that we leave the law where it stands, a law that both sides are accustomed to living with, until we take a longer look at the situation.
As it is now, the government has made its position known. There will not be much opportunity to examine all the implications from the side of the co-operatives and from the side of the business companies. The government has taken that risk. I am not prepared to quibble with it. I will vote in favour of the proposed amendments.


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Chairman, a number of members have today quoted statements about co-operatives lobbying. The previous speaker used the word lobby. He said he did so in a kind way. I wonder whether it is a kind word when you see the lobbying of Colin M. Brown of London, Ontario, when he placed full-page ads in newspapers trying to blast the situation now before Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leroy Skoberg: Anyone who uses the word lobbying with regard to the co-operative movement has failed to realize he is also including the wheat pools in the prairie provinces, the credit union, the fisheries marketing agencies and the like. The activity the co-operative movement has undertaken in this case has been well reasoned and well documented. They have gone about it in such a way that everyone is familiar with their reasoning and documentation.
I quote from the propaganda of the Equitable Income Tax Foundation with regard to the amendments affecting co-operatives:
-which in our view is misleading and designed to portray co-operatives as the unwitting victims of tax reform.
That is what I call lobbying on the part of a well heeled, well organized campaign under the authorship of Colin M. Brown of London, Ontario. When we talk about lobbying we should talk about the well heeled people who pay for these ads in the newspapers of this country. They are not concerned about the co-operative movement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leroy Skoberg: The co-operative movement made no bones about it when they replied to the propaganda published by the Equitable Income Tax Foundation. They said:
Co-operatives have not asked and do not ask that they should not pay corporate tax on any earnings voluntarily retained by them. They merely ask that there be no arbitrary formula imposed which requires the compulsory retention of earnings.
That is over the signature of the president of the Cooperative Union of Canada on behalf of other co-ops.
I also wonder about the position of the official opposition. I quote from page 7762 of Hansard of September 13, 1971:
We have had quite a reaction to this bill from the co-ops. I do not know what the House is going to decide, but it seems to me that the government has advanced its proposals after looking at some of the largest co-ops in the country, organizations which have lost their co-operative origins, that operate in the hundreds of millions of dollars class, their boards of directors being far removed from the ordinary members, in the same way as the boards of the biggest multinational corporations are far removed from the shareholders.
December 7, 1971

Those words were spoken by the financial critic of the Progressive Conservative party, the hon. member for Edmonton West. The amendments which have been brought in are over the signature of the President of the Privy Council, not the Minister of Finance or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. They take care of some of the concerns and worries of the co-operative movement. When the hon. member for Edmonton West associates co-operatives with the biggest multinational corporations, I suggest he is unfamiliar with what co-operatives are all about. He is not familiar with the fact that today the wheat pools must have active members on their boards of directors. It is strange to hear members of the Progressive Conservative party extol the virtues and good work of the co-operatives. No doubt they come from areas which recognize the importance of co-operatives. However, the official spokesman for the Progressive Conservative party stood in his place and associated co-ops with multinational corporations.


Gerald William Baldwin: It shows what a lively party we are.


John Leroy Skoberg: I am sure all hon. members are pleased with these amendments. There may be doubts in the minds of some members as to how far the amendments go. The co-operative movement has made its views known. It is unfortunate that some of the other points about which we are all concerned and which affect the agricultural economy have not been taken into consideration in the same way as the co-operative movement amendments.
I am sure that all members of the co-operative movement recognize the importance of the amendments that have been introduced. The hon. member for Regina East was pleased to withdraw his amendment to make room for the government's amendments in order to bring about an improvement so far as taxation is concerned. We are all pleased to support that type of amendment. We would like the goverment to bring in other amendments before this bill comes to a vote tomorrow afternoon. As we look at some of the proposals made by recognized farm organizations, surely the government recognizes that proposals and amendments should be brought in to look after other situations about which people are just as concerned.


Mr. Whiting:: Mr. Chairman, I like all other members of the House received representations from credit unions in connection with this section of Bill C-259. When I began to receive these letters I felt it was my duty to meet with the credit union organizations in my riding because I must admit, as I freely admitted to them, that I am not as knowledgeable on this subject as I should be. One of the first things they pointed out in their attempt to educate me on this subject was the motto of credit unions-"Not for profit, not for charity, but for service." I believe this mottc clearly spells out their purpose.
A credit union is not a money-making or commercial organization. Many of them are small groups of individuals sometimes organized in a parish or a church. In many cases it is a group within a manufacturing or commercial establishment which has banded together. It is a form of mutual aid which has grown to a social force. We have heard some hon. members tell the House how they, as
Income Tax Act
members of credit unions, have been enabled to buy implements to start them off as young farmers. I know of men who through their membership in a credit union have been able to acquire sufficient capital to make a start in buying a home.
I know of another case where a man was able to obtain far more desirable employment simply because money loaned to him by his credit union enabled him to buy a car to provide suitable transportation. Credit unions, even the larger ones, have a humanitarian aspect to their operations which is often absent when dealing with the strictly commercial organizations. They fill a definite need.
A credit union is a classic example of man helping man, not through charity but through co-operation one man with another. It is a form of brotherhood. Because credit unions faithfully played a part and have been instrumental in the creation and development of opportunities as well as providing the wherewithal for many to take advantage of opportunities, their membership has grown throughout Canada. In Ontario alone there are now over 1,400 credit unions in operation. But with this growth has come bigness, which has led to the need and development of central credit unions whose function, according to provincial legislation, is to act as the bankers for local credit unions and in this capacity they are the depositories of substantially all of the liquidity reserves of the locals. Centrals are bankers, too, for the operating bank accounts of the locals and in this capacity act as the clearing agents for the credit union movement which function is the means by which payment is effected for credit unions orders negotiated by banks and the cheques negotiated by the locals.
Coming back to the motto of the credit union movement, "Not for profit, not for charity, but for service," a good many of the credit unions in Ontario are operated by a group of voluntary helpers with minimum operating costs. The profits are then distributed through (a) patronage dividends, which really amounts to a reduction in the interest rate charged on the loans to members; (b) dividends-that is, interest-to members; (c) additions to reserve funds; (d) 20 per cent, in Ontario, of the net profits are set aside as a guaranteed fund established by statutory requirement by the government of Ontario.
The dividends issued to members are reported and tax collected through the issuing of T-5 forms. The only tax money, therefore, which the government is now seeking to obtain is the money set aside for reserves and the money set aside by statutory requirement in excess of that allowable under Bill C-259. According to information available to me, it has in the past rarely exceeded 20 per cent of the net profit of the union. This is the point which has been obscured by the discussion. In the House we are led to believe, not through any intention to deceive on the part of any hon. member, that credit unions do not pay taxes. In reality the amount not being taxed is the amount required by law to be put into reserves. The rest is paid through the members themselves in their private tax returns. Although there is a strong legal case for tax exemption, with supporting precedents, credit unions have interpreted the white paper and the tax act as pronouncements of government policy and have from the outset agreed to pay their fair share of taxation.

December 7, 1971
Income Tax Act
I return now to the social importance of credit unions and the part they play in the betterment of living for many people, and maintain that it is just too much to ask voluntary workers in small credit unions to administer the complicated taxation formulas proposed. I agree with many credit union men that it would mean the winding up of many credit unions throughout Canada. The law would be the master, not the servant.
I was not in the House yesterday when the amendments were made to the sections dealing with credit unions, but during the weekend I had an idea which I should like to put forward now. It is that the formula proposed in Bill C-259 with respect to credit unions be scrapped and in its place rules should be established whereby a credit union must allocate its profit to its members. Each member would receive a T-5 form reflecting his share of the profit, being the equivalent of interest on his deposit with the credit union, which he will include in his taxable income. The profit so allocated would be the profit after all allowable operating expenses and "patronage" dividends. Further allowance should be made with respect to such amounts as are required to set up a reserve to provide for anticipated uncollectable loans, such a reserve to be based on a reasonable percentage of loans outstanding. The remaining profit is the amount to be allocated to members.
This is substantially what is done by the amendments which were introduced in the committee yesterday. Interest on deposits are taxed at personal rates. Dividends on shares are also taxed at personal rates. The amount transferred to reserves because of statutory provisions will be generally taxed at 25 per cent. This is not an unreasonable tax rate. Really, the government has now considered credit unions as a true agent of the members of the Credit union and is dealing with them as such for taxation purposes. It is true that these new rules are somewhat complicated but I believe the complicated period will not last longer than a year. After that, the government's formula should be simple for all credit unions to follow.
In conclusion I should like, along with other hon. members, to compliment the credit union movement and cooperatives for the very sane and sensible way they presented their case to all members of this House and to commend the government for taking the steps it did in bringing in the necessary amendments to Bill C-259 as it affects them.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member for Halton put forward the thoughts he had collected over the weekend in a most eloquent way, I am wondering whether he intends to move his suggestion as an amendment to the amendment put forward by the President of the Privy Council. Would the hon. member answer that question?


Rutherford (Rud) Lester Whiting: Mr. Chairman, I am quite satisfied with the amendments that were brought forth by the minister yesterday, which I think substantially cover what I said in my remarks.


Mr. Dupras:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take part in this debate in order to make a few points. I want first to join with those many members of one of the opposition

parties who have praised the government for its wisdom in bringing this debate to a close. It seems that my hon. friends from Moose Jaw and Fraser Valley West agree with me, since in their speeches they mentioned how happy they were that this debate Was being brought to a close.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that the opposition parties have run out of things to say and, after so many days of debate, can no longer discuss this legislation.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) for some twenty minutes yesterday talked about everything but this legislation and the amendments thereto.
The amendments introduced yesterday in order to give a break to the Caisses populaires and co-operatives were highly welcomed by all hon. members. I also wish to say that I recognize the great importance of this Caisse popu-laire movement which has allowed a host of my fellow-citizens in St. Jerome to become home owners. I can remember that during the years 1935-40, mortgages were hard to get and people had to resort to usurers to get a mortgage to realize a life-long dream.
The Caisse populaire movement allowed people of modest means to become home owners. In fact, the number of home owners in Quebec, which represented only 17 per cent of the population in 1946, today exceeds 50 per cent.
The Caisse populaire movement is extremely important for the labourer and the small wage earner. It is also important in many other respects. It was largely responsible for the education provided the workers and union members, as it encouraged them to save money. That movement should have been embraced by the labour unions, and I have always blamed them for not worrying about what went on in the plants; even during the 40's, they should have started training their members to save in the hope of sharing later on in the ownership of the businesses which employed them. But such is the task that the Caisses populaires and credit unions set for themselves; to get the small wage-earner to save money.
The Canadian people, from what we read and hear, have been relieved to learn that the period of uncertainty caused by the introduction of this bill as well as by the study which has been going on for almost 10 years, if the Carter Commission and the white paper are taken into account, will end shortly. The bill will be put to a vote and quite obviously passed tomorrow Wednesday at the committee stage.
Those are the few remarks I wanted to make. I urge the opposition members who have not yet spoken to follow my example, namely to be brief!


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 57 carry?


Mr. Thomson:: Mr. Chairman, your haste is understandable, but I can assure you I shall not keep the committee long. It seems to me that at the moment all hon. members are trying to claim some credit for the changes made to the bill in order to benefit co-operatives. At least I am not going to do that; I shall give the credit for that to somebody else. Over the weekend I was at a convention in Regina and the subject of taxation of co-operatives came
December 7, 1971

up. I assured the questioner that the hon. member for Regina East had quite a bit to do with having these changes made.
I have one other comment to make. When a number of people wrote to me about this bill some time ago, I suggested to them one appropriate remedy was to lobby, which quite frankly I think is now part of our political process. The co-operatives have done that and they now see the result. This committee has in its wisdom made some changes to the bill that I think benefit those who need protection, such as small investors who have dealings with co-operatives. Those who have to pay tax under the bill can well afford to do so, but I am happy to see that the small individual will benefit from the proposed deductions from his income tax.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Chairman, though I intend to be brief I would like to express my satisfaction about the amendments presented since yesterday. I am under the impression that I have been living one of the most pathetic days of my parliamentary career. In fact, in three and a half years I never witnessed a warmer climate than today when congratulations are coming from everywhere and when the minister is being commended whereas he was condemned not even two weeks ago. This demonstrates that the arguments raised a few days ago, the briefs submitted by various organizations and the speeches of members made the minister understand how important these changes are. In addition, I am glad to recognize the understanding and the broadness of mind of the minister who considered the arguments and the briefs in such a fair way and agreed, considering the turn of events to review his position and allow those organizations to enjoy a very special status considering their aims.
I believe it would be a waste of time to go over all the arguments heard last week during the day spent to ask those changes from the minister, but I cannot help saying how pleased I am to support such movements, considering their work, their achievements and the objective which they had in mind until now and which they can maintain in order to expand in the interest of thousands of citizens who believe in those co-operative movements, in the Desjardins movement and who, rightly so, have known fantastic results.
I was wondering a while ago why the government seemed to create a climate of anxiety during a few months. Was it necessary for us to wait so long for those movements to hear the good news they heard yesterday? Was it necessary for these organizations to make these representations which are always quite expensive? Fortunately, it is the results that count. These, I think, have been satisfactory. It appears from comments received from both the Desjardins movement and other such organizations, that the amendments introduced by the minister yesterday are quite acceptable. The responsible authorities of these institutions stated today that they were very happy about them.
I would have been derelict in my duty had I not acquainted the minister of my complete satisfaction in the hope that representations in the same vein will be made in the future with as much objectivity. It should be acknowledged that the briefs submitted were most unbiased and
Income Tax Act
very serious. I believe that this had much to do with the minister's decision and I hope that such realistic briefs will be submitted in the future to make the government understand the needs of the community. I think this is the way we will be able to obtain favorable answers for the organizations concerned.
Mr. Chairman, I will simply express the wish to see again great days like the one we had today because it seems that the climate which exists today could generate faith among the population..


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Chairman, I am moved to speak after hearing so many voluble supporters, members and sympathizers of the co-operative and credit union movement from all sides of the House. It leads me to ask the members of this House where they were when they were needed a few weeks ago. I find it passing strange that when in committee of the whole any member of this House may at any time move an amendment that would coincide with the speeches they have been making all day today-


Mr. Nielsen:: All of a sudden.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: All of a sudden. I am glad the hon. member for Yukon said that, because when the financial critic of the official opposition spoke about the credit union and co-operative movement in this country he was all for letting the little co-operatives survive. It was all right, and they should not be taxed too much. But once they become too big, whatever that means, they should be treated the same as any other corporation.
In view of those remarks by the financial critic of the official opposition I find it passing strange that the Conservative party has yet to move one amendment. They did not speak up until everything was over and done with. My question to them is, where were they when the co-operative and credit union movement needed them in this chamber? However, they did speak today. Also, none of the voluble Liberal backbenchers who have been catching hell from the credit unions in their constituencies failed to move any amendments in committee of the whole. However, I am happy the government has brought in these amendments. I think this is a good illustration of how a government can act positively and responsibly on an issue.


Winona Grace MacInnis: When it has to.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When it has to and has no other choice. I would hope as a result of this experience and the experience the government had on another matter two weeks ago, for example, that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, will have learned some lessons about how to bring in amendments to legislation, about how to accept representations from organizations and Members of Parliament, and about how to quit being stubborn.
Mr. Chairman, if this House and members of the government have learned nothing else from this experience-

December 7, 1971
Income Tax Act


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Gloucester rising on a point of order?


Herb Breau: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Of course.


Herb Breau: Would he now agree, in view of his reasoning, that it would be advantageous to Saskatchewan to have Liberal members in that province so we could amend the legislation which affects Saskatchewan?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I am glad the hon. member asked that question because it provides an opportunity for me to say something that otherwise you would rule out of order. If the hon. member and his colleague from Saskatoon-Humboldt learned anything from the Assiniboia by-election, they should have learned that three-quarters of the people in that constituency belong to a credit union, a co-operative or the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. One Liberal from Saskatchewan now is one too many.
I ask the parliamentary secretary why the original proposals in this tax bill were included in the first place. If all his colleagues are such ardent supporters and believers in the co-operative and credit union movement, why were these provisions put in the legislation in the first place?
After the issuance of the Carter commission report a campaign was launched by the Income Tax Foundation, which hon. members on the other side and in the official opposition know something about, to destroy and discredit the co-operative and credit union movement in this country. Much of what was in the original tax bill was in the promotion of that breed of cat. When one looks at the representations made to this government, to the cabinet and to the caucuses of this House prior to and since the bill was proposed, one finds it passing strange that there were no protests from the official opposition, from the government backbenchers and from independent members. There was not a word.
Let this be a lesson to everybody in this place that when there are organizations that are part and parcel of the movement of the people of our country, whatever section it might be, any government moves at its peril to destroy that. Thank goodness this government and the happy parliamentary secretary, who has a lucky football team, did this, because the fight would have had to go on.
Let us also learn that these amendments which the government brought in are to undo what an outfit like the Equitable Income Tax Foundation were party to, headed by one Cecil Lamonte who used to be head of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. He has some friends in this place. The membership of that outfit consists of the private grain trade and the private lumber industry. They have exerted all their efforts and hundreds of thousands of dollars to destroy the wheat pools and to destroy the consumer co-operatives which handle lumber and other hardware products. I did not hear a word on this from any member of the official opposition or from the back-

bench Liberals who today are so happy about these amendments.
If the parliamentary secretary did what I think would be perfectly proper, he would discriminate in favour of the co-operative and credit union movement. It is very possible that these amendments will mean less revenue for the Minister of Finance: it is possible, if not likely. I think this is very good. If there is any other way of doing something about the kind of activity of the corporate people in Canada who have been hiding in tax havens for years and have been making incomes without lifting a shovelful of dirt, so to speak, or doing a decent day's work out of which they paid no taxes, then it is about time we discriminated in favour of a sector of our economy that does do something for and about the needs of people in our system.


Erik Nielsen: What are you shovelling now?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If the amendments of the parliamentary secretary do nothing else-and I hope they will-they will make it possible for the co-operatives and credit unions to become larger, more numerous and stronger, because if they do not then an area will be left in our economy into which the state will have to move. They play a necessary and needed role in our economy if for no other reason than that they serve as a check upon the private corporate interests in this country, if for no other reason than to show that those who talk about competition will have to do more than just talk a good fight; they will have to compete.
When the private grain trade says, "We give you as good a price for your non-Wheat Board grains in the elevators as the co-operative does," that is perfectly true-but it would not be true if the co-operatives were not there, as farmers learned through bitter experience for too many years. When I walk into my consumer co-operative and it costs me perhaps two cents a pound more for peanut butter than it does in the local private enterprise operation, there is a perfectly good reason for it, that is, that the private enterprise operation has some competition for a change and has had to reduce prices.
I hope that the amendments of the parliamentary secretary will mean that the government of Canada and this Parliament will discriminate, for a change, in this small way in favour of the co-operative and credit union movement. If this kind of co-operation arises again on another item of legislation, may I leave one further message for the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt. There is a way to bring in amendments as a result of representations and as a result of what Members of Parliament say, and there is a way to cease being stubborn and to do something that needs to be done in terms of the grains industry, and that includes the three prairie wheat pools and United Grain Growers who in my opinion should be the only ones handling grain in the three prairie provinces.
Let me conclude by saying that there has been a great deal of posing going on today. I do not apply this word personally to any individual member, but there have been many members in the House who have posed today. I have felt sad and disappointed with them on a personal basis because they are people of whom I am proud and of whom I think a great deal. Many of those who posed today were not here when we needed them earlier. Had they
December 7, 1971

been here, the original proposals in the tax bill would never have been in the legislation. We would not have had to go through this exercise had there been genuine and sincere interest in the support and growth of the co-operative and credit union movement in this country.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was delighted to hear the hon. member speak. He is usually very meek and mild, and it was nice to see him gather his courage together to make that sort of speech. However, I must correct him in one or two instances. He, together with other hon. members of his party, always views with alarm and is dreadfully frightened of things. This reminds me of a teacher I once had who was not quite able to put his phrases together. His way of expressing alarm was to say, "I smell a rat. I see it floating in the air. I shall nip it in the bud". The trouble with the hon. members of the party to my left is that one never knows where they stand. You have your full waffle, you have your half waffle, you have your quarter waffle and you have your non-waffle.


Erik Nielsen: Waffleburgers!


Gerald William Baldwin: We are never sure how they are going to vote and where they are going. We had an example of that a short while ago on the motion moved with respect to closure, when some members of the NDP voted to impose closure. I am sure they did so in full belief of the rightness of their cause, although we know that they were wrong and I think by now they know they were wrong.
I want to correct the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre who spoke of the official spokesman of our party on this measure. The official spokesman with respect to co-operatives is the hon. member for Moncton, who was the first speaker on this issue when these sections were called. The hon. member for Moncton was put forward by our party as our spokesman and to indicate our party's position. Until that time my impression, on listening to the members of the NDP, was that they were confused and did not know which way to go. But those of us who are in the House heard the brilliant and eloquent speech made by the hon. member for Moncton when he indicated quite plainly his position, which was our position, with regard to co-operatives and made certain proposals. I was glad to see that he had such a tremendous effect on the hon. member for Regina Lake Centre and on other hon. members that they were able to accept his views. For the first time they came to a common position on co-ops and I compliment them for listening to reason.
As a result of that they moved an amendment which I thought was a good one. We would have been prepared to vote for it, but because the government put forward the present amendment they have withdrawn theirs. I say this with all due kindness, far more in sorrow than in anger. Having disposed of the New Democratic Party I would now like to turn to the Liberal party, those mice who roared today for the first time.
Why was this amendment put forward, Mr. Chairman? It is very interesting. Just a few weeks ago, in fact on November 10, some correspondence passed between the Alberta Wheat Pool and the Minister of Finance. The Alberta Wheat Pool, aided and comforted by the Conser-
Income Tax Act
vative party, the official opposition, was attempting to secure certain amendments to the legislation. Knowing they had our support, the members of the Alberta Wheat Pool had been in communication both verbally and through correspondence with the Minister of Finance. On November 10 the minister replied to the Alberta Wheat Pool and this is what his letter said in part:
The status of co-operatives was carefully considered during preparation of the tax reform bill. Originally these were small organizations, local in application, serving limited groups of people on a non-profit basis. However, many have now grown to a point where they compete with normal commercial enterprises while still benefiting from preferential tax treatment.
His letter concluded:
The government considers that the proposed new tax bill, as amended, will result in a fairer distribution of the tax burden while helping co-operatives in the transition from exempt to taxable status.
Some five or six months after this bill first came to the cabinet, and three or four months after it was first distributed to members of the House-I will not go into the issue of when members of this party received copies of it; hon. members opposite may have got theirs early but we did not get ours until September, and some hon. members opposite, judging from their speeches, still have not read it-the Minister of Finance gave his firm and considered opinion that there would be no change in the bill with respect to co-ops. I repeat that he gave that as his opinion on November 10.
This shows the value and the efficacy of parliamentary debate. There has been a great deal of loose talk tonight about who was responsible for these changes. I join with those who say that the representatives of the co-ops, pursuant to their duty and instructions, laid their case before Members of Parliament, before the respective caucuses and before the Minister of Finance. But they were getting nowhere until the Members of Parliament, and I include one or two members opposite-the hon. member for Windsor should stand up and take a bow; he had an opportunity to listen to the hon. member for Moncton and his doubts were changed into full support for the position of the official opposition and I give him great credit for that-


Mr. Hogarth:: Everybody has a mental lapse.


Gerald William Baldwin: If more of his colleagues would follow us, this would be a better Parliament, a better government and a better country. When we see what happens with a determined opposition, with some slight help voiced in a very determined way by a member on the government side, it shows how essential it is to have effective, sustained and lengthy parliamentary debate. And when this vicious and savage government, in pursuance of its desire to have its own way, imposes the guillotine-it will probably also be considering imposing the guillotine with regard to third reading-it shows the fallacy of its own actions.
As I stand here today I venture to say that there will be dozens, possibly 100 or 150 amendments to the bill brought forward next session. There is no question about that. Earlier I challenged members of the government to stand up and deny that. They have not done so, nor can they do so because they know I am correct. For this
10242

December 7, 1971
Income Tax Act
reason it is essential for the democratic process to have the kind of debate which produced this change, and the course of the debate yesterday was responsible for producing additional changes.
I am convinced that if closure had not been imposed and this debate had maintained its normal, reasonable length we would have been successful in compelling the government to bring in more changes, the changes that we need. Those are the facts. I think they must be accepted. I hope, Mr. Chairman, having disposed of the Liberal party we can now have the question put and vote on it.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to intervene in this interesting riposte between the has-beens in the official opposition and the never-will-be's in the NDP-


Mr. Bell:: And the never-should-have-been's over there.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: It has been a most interesting evening. However, the hon. member for Peace River has raised the matter of the time allocation and I think today's debate presents an excellent demonstration of just why that had to happen. At 3.32 this afternoon orders of the day were called and we started to debate five sections of the bill and the amendments that were introduced to those sections yesterday by the government. We have now spent almost three and a half hours in the House of Commons during which members on all sides have congratulated each other, have congratulated the co-op and credit union movements, and a few have even congratulated the government for the amendments that have been introduced.
There has been no suggestion that the amendments that have been introduced with respect to co-ops and credit unions have not been adequate. There has been no suggestion by any member that he wishes to introduce a further amendment to improve them. There has been no suggestion by any member of the House that he opposes those amendments. And so, Mr. Chairman, three and a half hours later we are still congratulating each other. This has reminded me of about the longest private members' hour I have experienced. Are we trying to talk out this bill? Are we trying to talk out these particular amendments? Or is there some possibility that having congratulated each other as often and as frequently as we have, having taken all the credit-surely more credit than is due to us- having given the co-op movement all the credit that is due to them, we might gratify them and the country and do some dignity to this House in committee of the whole by bringing the matter to a vote?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman-


Russell Clayton Honey: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Erik Nielsen: I am rising to speak, Sir.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member for Laval.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to take part in this debate, but in view of what has been said about the bill and the amendments, I feel I must join with

my colleague, the honourable member for Essex (Mr. Whelan), who has expressed very well the feelings of the members on the government side. I think that all of us wish to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Mahoney) for having accepted to amend Bill C-259 through amendments which are important especially for the urban caisses populaires.
We are aware of the services rendered by the caisses populaires to the small investors. Before I entered politics, I sat on the credit committee of a caisse populaire and, having received many letters, I must congratulate the executive of the caisses populaires on the manner in which they made their representations, informed the Liberal members of their grievances and of the possible solutions.
Mr. Chairman, the caisses populaires are an asset in the province of Quebec and, in my view, the action taken tonight by the government confirms the extent to which it will welcome the suggestions of movements or organizations which have views or solutions to offer.
I should like also to suggest that the 50,000 farmers in the province of Quebec who are members of the 227 agricultural co-operatives of the province, are happy to see the extent to which the government has really dealt with the problem of small investors in regard to the caisses populaires and the various farm co-operatives in the rural community.
Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary said that for the past three and a half hours, we have heard praise from both sides of this House. I think that a certain member must be most unhappy about the speech he made this afternoon and which I followed closely. In fact, I believe that after reading Hansard, tomorrow, he will be ashamed of his speech. It is a disgrace, in the eyes of the whole agricultural community in the province of Quebec. I am thinking of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier).
He was speaking on behalf of the Social Credit, but I hope he reads tomorrow morning the speech he made this afternoon. I hope the Quebec farmers will see once again that the government members from Quebec deal with farming problems, that when briefs are presented to those responsible for the government administration here in Ottawa, they fall into the hands of people who do not want to make politics at the expense of private investors, the caisses populaires or the members of farm co-operatives.
Mr. Chairman, the statement of the member for Rober-val is a disgrace for the Social Credit.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, the remarks of the parliamentary secretary a moment ago are a typical example of why this Parliament does not get things done in an efficient and effective manner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: He has that Liberal syndrome: This is our legislation. It is good. You shut up in the opposition and let us pass it.
The same thing applies to the amendments. Simply because they were brought in, the parliamentary secre-
December 7, 1971

tary expects everybody on this side to shut up because everything they do is good and so there is no way they can be criticized.


An hon. Member:: After 40 days?


Erik Nielsen: Those backbenchers over there who are so silent in this debate are all of a sudden on their feet. Why is it, Mr. Chairman? It is because closure has been invoked and all of a sudden they are turned loose to take up our time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Even the arithmetic of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is bad. He says we have spent three and a half hours on the debate today. A more accurate count is four hours, but in that time there were 11 interventions by Liberal members. How many of them have risen to their feet during this debate? Not one. Everybody was silent, and all of a sudden they are saviours of the co-operative movement and the caisses populates. What phoniness, what hypocrisy!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: How many guys have you got in the gallery?


Erik Nielsen: The gentleman from Regina talks about posing and posturing, yet spokesmen on this side from first reading onward have been advocating changes to the sections dealing with co-operatives and caisses populai-res. Just look at the record.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, look at it.


Erik Nielsen: This chamber is for debate. This chamber is for the violent exchange of opinion, for the violent clash of differing viewpoints. We are not here to be silent, as are the backbenchers on the other side.


An hon. Member:: You were not even here.


Erik Nielsen: They say, "Be quiet or out you go to the woodshed and you won't get any of these nice parliamentary secretaryships that are waiting in the wings." They know on which side their bread is buttered, and if they dare speak up while the debate is in progress they are put at the bottom of the list for the goodies. They are told to be quiet and they are quiet.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: They can't tell you; you are never here.


Erik Nielsen: The parliamentary secretary knows that is not true.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: It is.


Erik Nielsen: All he has to do is look at the index to Hansard to find out how many times I have participated in debate. I am willing to lay that against the record of any of those backbenchers. I see the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is sitting behind the parliamentary secretary. He came up to my riding. When making his first political speech during his visit there he
Income Tax Act
said that he is in the Yukon more than I am in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I can tell him that I am in the House of Commons more than he is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You can, but it would not be true.


Erik Nielsen: When he is told to be gone, he is gone; and when he is told to come in and sit down in his seat, he is there. The same thing applies to all the cabinet ministers; they are told to be there and say what they are told to say and nothing more. That is exactly what goes on behind those closed cabinet doors-You be good boys in the cabinet or out you go.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Where did that speech come from?


Erik Nielsen: After this debate is over and after the great guillotine is brought crashing down on free speech, let us see on the next measure how many of these voluble Grits will be critical of government measures which they criticize so vehemently in caucus and which they criticize so vehemently and so hypocritically in their ridings. This is sad stuff. Mr. Chairman, it would be really humorous if it were not so sad-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: -to see this display of hypocrisy and phoniness, and to see Grit members who believe in saying one thing in this House and then travelling home and saying something else. Mr. Chairman, this simply makes me sick.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Prud'homme:: It is obvious, Mr. Chairman, that we did not intend to take part in the debate. I know that this is the usual excuse of those who want to make a speech.
The few notes I have are a good indication that it was not my intention to enter into the debate, but following the remarks of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Center (Mr. Benjamin) and more especially those of the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and perhaps those of the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney), I feel I must make a few comments. It seems that in the House the rules of the parliamentary game are ignored although they are frequently used. It is well known that those we call backbenchers do not participate in the debates as often as they would like to. The reason is they have ample opportunity of doing so. I do not know what happens in the other parties' caucuses, but I know that ours is called regional or national caucus of the Liberal party and I have had complete freedom to express myself there since 1968. And the real representations that can be made-the most effective and often the least obvious, from the standpoint of publicity-are very surely those made by the private members during the caucuses held every week and attended by the ministers concerned, the Prime Minister and all hon. members.
24725-20?

December 7, 1971
Income Tax Act
The hon. member for the Yukon states that we have obtained the authorization, no doubt a special one, of the whip and of the government leader to speak tonight. For my part, I believe that, in the House-with all due respect for parliamentary institutions-an abundance of useless speeches are made, considering the amount of work to be done. But to be told by the hon. member for the Yukon that we were authorized to speak is surely for us an invitation to answer him, always in the parliamentary style that he cherishes, that is on a very high level.
I say to the hon. member for Yukon that we are facing a dilemma. Either, as he says, we are permitted to speak now and are not talking or backbenchers never open their mouth. It seems that many hon. members are frustrated. For instance, during the oral question period, some government members can rise as many as 30, 32 and 34 times to ask questions. I recall my own case because I have taken note of the number of times I rose without being recognized by the Speaker. I certainly respect him as well as his rulings since the question period is reserved to the opposition members. I would also add that with regard to the oral questions asked from September 7, 1971 to November 5, 1971, 63 were from Liberals, 781 from Progressive Conservatives, 343 from NDP members, 77 from Creditistes and 18 from the two Independents. So it might be a good idea some day to explain clearly to the Canadian people how parliamentary rules work in the House of Commons, so that they may understand why backbenchers speak less frequently while they have the best opportunity to voice their views in caucus. This is what we have done and will continue to do. I do not intend to disclose the secrets of the caucus-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


George Albert Proud: I will come to the hon. member and refer to the by-election in Assiniboia, if he wants me to do so. But the fact remains, Mr. Chairman, that it is sometimes difficult for members to remain silent-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


George Albert Proud: I will answer the hon. member in a while, because there are some political matters which I would like to raise with him not in private but in public.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the representations made by ordinary members in caucus have certainly moved the government to reconsider the amendment now before us.
I also know-an essential thing-that the representations made by the Caisses populaires, the credit unions and the co-operatives have been an example of dignity and co-operation. That could easily be given as an example of the co-operation that can take place between people who fight for the same interests.

Regardless of what has been said, I wish to say that I have admired the co-operation that has gone on between the caisses populaires and the credit unions and co-operatives. They have worked hand in hand because they have a lot in common-


An hon. Member:: Not with the Liberals.


George Albert Proud: They had a lot in common with certain representatives who did not necessarily belong to the opposition.


An hon. Member:: But not with the Liberals.


George Albert Proud: At times I am afraid that I honestly and consciously believe that people like the hon. member who is trying to interrupt me have adopted their positions strictly for partisan, political purposes.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


George Albert Proud: I remember other debates in which we dealt with the question of American deserters. We cooperated closely with the members of the hon. member's party and succeeded in working together in that instance. I think it is time for us to consider what is at stake. It is time for those who want to be thought of as defending the caisses populaires, credit unions and co-operatives to stop saying that these changes have been brought in because of their representations or their party's representations. They should not downgrade those who really made this possible. After all, no matter whether some people like it or not, the party I support is still the government and will be until given notice by the Canadian people. Therefore, representations made before our caucus still count for much. I strongly believe that representations made by our members have had a great deal of effect.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to remonstrate with the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre who talked of the efforts being made by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Had the voters in Assiniboia elected one or two more members to support the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang), that might have helped him. But what can one man in a province do? If he says a bill is excellent, people are prepared to believe him, but right after that the leader of the Saskatchewan Progressive Conservative party, the former Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefen-baker), the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis), formerly leader of the Saskatchewan New Democratic Party and former minister of Saskatchewan say the bill is inadequate, followed by the whole horde of Progressive Conservative and New Democratic members, also saying it is inadequate.
Of course, the hon. member has managed to confuse the people to such a point that they finally thought it was no good. But I would like him to repeat in his riding all the congratulations he offered a while ago to the government, because in any event I can assure the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) that if he repeats to his constituents in Saskatchewan what he has just said in the House, namely that this bill is an excellent one and that the government was well advised to make a new attempt, I will see to it to put things straight when I go to Saskatchewan. But what can I do when I go to Saskatchewan? However, I know one thing, and that is that the people of that province will soon realize that the Quebecers and the people of the Prairies have a lot in common in the economic field and that they will get excellent measures if they try to understand each other.
I know that if the hon. member keeps on trying to destroy all measures that the minister attemps to implement-
December 7, 1971



I am surprised. Most of the policies the minister is bringing forward are long-range and should be acceptable to the members of the New Democratic Party. However, because they come from the minister or someone in the Liberal party they have to be bad. I think sometimes we become too involved in politics. What is important is that we have in common the best interests of the Canadian people. When we have that in mind, I am convinced that the members of the New Democratic Party and the members of the Liberal party can work together in the best interest of the Canadian public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I waited until tonight before taking the floor in the hope that we would have a chance to discuss section 8, as everybody welcomes the proposed amendments-not that they are perfect, but because they are real improvement to the bill. We have an amendment to section 8 to propose in order to try and bring this country closer to the just society which has been promised but never achieved. However, judging from the verbiage which we have been hearing from both sides, it seems that tonight, again, political parties will take precedence over the working man.
Mr. Chairman, I am extremely surprised by the attitude of those very people who were going to strangle the cais-ses populaires and credit unions, and who prepared this 790 page Bill C-259-that is to say, the Liberals. They are the ones who were ready to strangle in the caisses populaires, namely the Liberals.
Mr. Chairman, let us clear matters up. We are not talking here for the sake of politics, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy), who was talking politics instead of giving his opinion on the bill. We are here to clear matters up. I will take only five minutes but everything will be clear.
The Creditistes, contrary to what the hon. member for Laval said, were the only ones to rise to call for real improvement of the sections of the bill concerning the caisses populaires and the credit unions. I will say to this House-and I call the House leaders to witness-that when we tackled Bill C-259 at meetings of the House leaders the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEac-hen) asked everyone of us: What part of the bill do you want to discuss? For your party, what is the most important part of the bill? The minister is my witness that I said three things on behalf of our party. The one who speaks on behalf of our party is not the hon. member for Laval, who finds it hard to speak on behalf of his own electors and who never takes the floor.
At that time, I replied to the President of the Privy Council, on behalf of our party, that the three things we wanted to discuss were: personal income tax, capital gains and the problem concerning the caisses populaires and the credit unions, created by the government's bill.
Whereas the other parties had prepared long lists, we centered our effort on the more modest, the more deprived members of society, the more forgotten by this government in order that this tax reform may bring them a ray of hope and justice.
Income Tax Act
Mr. Chairman, this is why we avoided petty politics.
I was astounded to hear what was said on the other side of the House. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras), who never takes the floor, got on his feet and with great fanfare said that he numbered among those who had contributed to loosen a bit the noose that was to choke the caisses populaires.
Finally, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) also indulged into such glib talk. I just came from his constituency where I met the leaders of "CRAN". I need add nothing else; he will understand. I urge him to repeat in his constituency, the poorest in Canada, the remarks he makes in the House. Strangely enough, when the beginning of this clause was discussed, the hon. member was not there to discuss it but today, when amendments are being brought forward and the government is amending the bill in compliance with the valuable representations made by the caisses populaires, he gets on his feet to say something.
Such are the facts. I shall say no more.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The hon. member for Gloucester is rising on a point of order.
Is the hon. member for Gloucester rising on a point of order?


Herb Breau: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on a question of privilege. The member for Lotbiniere (M. Fortin) was imputing motives to me. I was in the House discussing the bill on second reading and in committee of the whole and asking the government to introduce amendments while my hon. friend was politicking throughout the country.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, whatever the hon. member says, he is not talking the same language in his constituency.
Anyway, I will end my remarks with this. If those members are so in favor of the assistance for which they have been asking for such a long time so that a degree of equity may prevail, I would refer them to their own studies on poverty in Canada. My colleague from Bellechasse (M. Lambert), if hon. members can refrain from politicking in the House, is prepared to take the floor on section 8. The Chairman of the Privy Council will testify that we are not among those who took up too much time. The hon. member for Bellechasse intends to introduce an amendment to help the working man and to get him a better deal. When this amendment is put we shall see whether these members were sincere or were indulging in party politics!


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr.   Chairman@: The hon. member for Laval on a question of privilege.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take the time of the House but I would simply like to suggest to the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) that he read in Hansard tomorrow the speech made by his colleague the

December 7, 1971
Income Tax Act
hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier). Then he will see that my interjection was logical and warranted.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


Mr.   Chairman@: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I would refer you to the rules of this House and remind you that an hon. member has the privilege to say honestly what he thinks, and my colleague for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) was entirely right in saying what he did. For the benefit of the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) who was in the House at the time it is not our fault if he did not understand anything. This is nothing new.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
I would like to ask the hon. member who just spoke to abide by the same principles. In fact he said that our hon. friend for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) was not saying the same things in his riding that he was saying here. So he was accusing him of being a liar. I think the hon. member should apply the same rules-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. The Chair has to rule that the hon. member for Laval, the hon. member for Lotbiniere and the hon. parliamentary secretary are really engaged in argument; they do not have points of order or questions of privilege. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Broadview.


John Gilbert: I wish to address a short question to the Minister of Finance, one which I forgot to ask this afternoon. What is the estimated amount of tax the government had hoped to collect from the co-operatives and credit unions under the old section of the bill, and what would be the amount of tax the government hopes to collect as a result of the new provisions?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I do not have those figures. Some rough estimates have been made but I do not regard them as being very authoritative. The revenue implications have never been of primary concern here. It has been a matter of trying to achieve a proper method of taxation for these particular bodies. The revenue consequences have never been foremost in the mind of the government.


John Stratford Burton: I want to make two comments with respect to some of the things which have been said in the debate today. Members from all parties have taken part in the discussion and I hope this will have the effect of ensuring that the provisions we are now enacting will remain in the law for a long time to come and that we shall ensure fair treatment for the co-operatives and credit unions.
I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Calgary South, the parliamentary secretary, have missed the significance of today's debate. The members who spoke in favour of what is proposed by the government, commending themselves or each other as the case may be, wanted to make sure that these provisions stay in force not only this year, next year or until the next election but on a permanent basis and

are not removed after the next election. That is part of the function the debate today served.
The hon. member for Calgary South did the committee a poor service when he referred in the terms he did to the time taken by this discussion. Since the white paper was published we have spent days and days talking about capital gains, corporations and their shareholders, mining companies and things of that sort. Today we are talking about people. It is people who make up credit unions and co-operatives. It is their interest we are concerned about, and there is something wrong with our parliamentary institution if we cannot afford a day to talk about people as we have today.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. member for Saint-Denis made some remarks which require me to say that while he was in Assiniboia helping to defeat the Liberal candidate by not saying anything about the co-operative and credit union movement as affected by the government's income tax law, those people told everybody else, even if he was not listening, what kind of amendments were needed.


George Albert Proud: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. It is true I participated in the election in Assiniboia but I wish to remind the hon. member, very humbly and kindly, because he raised the question, that we won the six polls in which I was working.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And may I add that the Liberal vote was 200 votes lower in those six polls? If the argument used by the hon. member for Saint-Denis were logical, he has just put forward the case for a one-party government because according to him the only way to get amendments to government legislation is to be a member of a government caucus; anything anybody else says does not count.
His reference to what Liberal backbenchers did in their caucus is not relevant to this debate on co-operatives and credit unions. If he really believes that argument, what he is saying is that Members of Parliament need not say or do anything in this chamber because only backbenchers belonging to the government party can get the law changed.


Eugene Whelan: He did not say that.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 57 carry?
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 1, section 135 carry?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Put the amendment first.


Russell Clayton Honey: There is an amendment to section 135 moved by Mr. MacEachen on December 6, 1971, appearing at page 10175 of Hansard. Hon. members are familiar with it. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. MacEachen) agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall section 135 as amended, carry?
Clause 1, section 135, as amended, agreed to.
December 7, 1971


Russell Clayton Honey: On section 136 an amendment was moved by Mr. MacEachen on December 6, reported at page 10178 of Hansard.
Amendment (Mr. MacEachen) agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall section 136 as amended carry?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: There is also an amendment to section 136 in the name of the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton which should be called.


Russell Clayton Honey: As the parliamentary secretary has pointed out, there is an amendment by Mr. Blair to section 136.
Amendment (Mr. Blair) agreed to.
Clause 1, section 136, as amended, agreed to.
On clause 1-section 137: Deductions in computing income.


Russell Clayton Honey: Members of the committee will know there is an amendment to section 137 of clause 1, moved by the President of the Privy Council on December 6, which appears at page 10176 of Hansard. Hon. members are familiar with it. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Amendment (Mr. MacEachen) agreed to.
Clause 1, section 137, as amended, agreed to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, there was an amendment to clause 58 before the committee and I am not sure whether Your Honour called it before calling the clause itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, that was my point of order. I think that includes both clauses 57 and 58.


Russell Clayton Honey: I beg the committee's pardon. Is it the wish of the committee to revert firstly to clause 57 to deal with the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 57: Specified personal corporations.


Russell Clayton Honey: There is an amendment to clause 57 moved by the President of the Privy Council on December 6, 1971, which appears at page 10178 of Hansard. Hon. members are familiar with it. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Amendment (Mr. MacEachen) agreed to.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is it the wish of the committee to revert to clause 58 to deal with the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 58: Credit Unions.


Russell Clayton Honey: There is an amendment to clause 58 moved by the President of the Privy Council on December
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
6, 1971 which appears at page 10178 of Hansard. Hon. members are familiar with the amendment. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Amendment (Mr. MacEachen) agreed to.
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to consider the bill again at the next sitting of the House. Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I believe we all agree that ideally the publishing of newspapers, magazines and books in Canada should be Canadian-owned as well as competitive and financially healthy. I also believe that Canadians today are more and more alarmed to hear that newspapers and publishing companies are going bankrupt or coming under foreign ownership or, even worse, developing into a monopoly.
In December, 1970, when the special committee of the Senate on the mass media reported to Parliament, 77 of 116 daily newspapers in Canada were already owned by newspaper chains or groups. The very recent sales of three independently owned Ontario dailies to newspaper chains have further increased this concentration of ownership. The three newspapers involved are the Belleville Intelligencer, sold to Thomson Newspapers Limited, and the Brantford Expositor and Windsor Star, sold to South-am Press Limited. In addition, it is believed that Southam Press is negotiating to purchase two other unidentified newspapers.
The decision of publisher John Bassett to stop printing on October 30 the 95-year old Toronto Telegram must have chilled the blood of many publishers across our country. Earlier today we learned that Thomson Newspapers Limited has bought the Cape Breton Post, Sydney's only daily newspaper. This purchase brings the number of Thomson newspapers in Canada to 32. This means that almost half of the daily newspaper circulation in Canada is owned and controlled by three chains, Southam Press, F. P. Publications and Thomson newspapers. The Desmarais group controls four of the nine dailies, plus 13 weeklies in Quebec and K. C. Irving has acquired all the English language dailies in New Brunswick.
What is most disturbing about this concentration of ownership is the fact that in less than five cities all the chain-owned newspapers are published in single newspa-

December 7, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
per towns. There is no local competitor to stimulate their enterprise in covering the news or to provide a diversity of opinion. We hear that dailies in Calgary, Winnipeg, Quebec City, Moncton and St. John's are apparently experiencing financial difficulties.
From available evidence it would appear that, given the competition from other news media such as radio and television, the advertising revenue available to the newspaper industry is often insufficient to support competition within a specific readership market. However, when a natural monopoly exists, such as only one newspaper in a city, there is a profit to be made. This being the case, many Canadians believe the public interest would be better served by an independent, locally oriented newspaper rather than a group, chain-owned newspaper.
If true competition cannot be sustained, then concentration of ownership must be avoided as much as possible because a combination of both circumstances may not always be in the public interest. A variety of forces have combined to produce a growing concentration of press ownership. Technology and economics may be the dominant force since they undoubtedly favour the development of increasingly large units of newspapers. But there are other factors also. These include laws and regulations involving income tax and succession duties and the apparent ineffectiveness of existing legislation governing mergers, trusts and monopolies.
It is desirable to study these factors deeply and as quickly as possible. Only seldom in recent Canadian experience has a newspaper merger come under official scrutiny. The Combines Investigation Act applies to products. Newspapers are a service industry. However, in 1957 the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission investigated the amalgamation of the Vancouver Sun with the Vancouver Province to form Pacific Press Limited and found that the merger did not constitute a restrictive monopoly but recommended that no further ownership change should be made without court approval. It also stated that a further decline in the number of independent dailies would be prejudicial to the public interest.
In view of the difficulties encountered by daily newspapers, the ethnic press, the church press and others, there is need for involvement by the federal government and its agencies to ensure that the Canadian press will be in a better position to serve the Canadian reading public in a better way. The federal government and other levels of government as well should take steps to preserve the existing independent papers by all proper means. Canadians are waiting impatiently for an announcement of a federal policy on Canadian publications.
In the formulation of this policy the government should give serious consideration to the recommendation of the Senate committee on mass media, such as a press ownership review board and a publications development loan fund.


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: In accordance with section 27 of the Combines Investigation Act all inquiries under the act shall be conducted in private. For this reason, no statements can be made about the progress of

any investigation until a report is made by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission or until proceedings are commenced by the Attorney General of Canada. However, as was indicated in the House on an earlier occasion, the matter was being looked into by the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act.
The government is studying the issue of assistance to Canadian publications and will announce first steps in assisting book publishing within a few months. The recommendations of the Senate media committee are now under study and the government has not yet prepared its position with respect to these recommendations.



FAMILY INCOME SECURITY-FAMILY ALLOWANCES- NEGOTIATIONS WITH QUEBEC ON ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS-DATE OF PAYMENT OF INCREASES

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, while I apologize for bringing the parliamentary secretary back to the House tonight I find that I must do so because of the difficulty in getting straightforward answers in the House or being able to continue a line of questioning to extract answers. Be that as it may, I am becoming increasingly concerned with the evasiveness of answers with regard to the government's proposal to increase family allowances under the family income security plan introduced in the House under Bill C-264. Last year, under the policy proposals indicated in the white paper on income security for Canadians, the government said:
It is expected that legislation will be introduced in Parliament early in 1971, so that the program may go into effect September,
1971.
As is my duty as a Member of Parliament, I sent notice of this good news to all my constituents, especially those who are in dire need of assistance in order to provide a few necessities for their children. I am sure that many other members did likewise. You can imagine my disappointment and that of many Canadians across the country when the government suddenly announced subsequently that in view of advice from various agencies the program would have to be revised to include families beyond the proposed cut off at the income level of $10,000.
However, giving the government the benefit of the doubt and knowing that even with all the expert advice they profess to have they can make mistakes, my faith was restored when they introduced Bill C-264 for first reading on September 13, 1971, and indicated that the target date for the repeal of the old act would be May 1,
1972.	The answers given to me to questions in the past few days, especially in view of the ambiguity regarding special agreements on social security with the province of Quebec, renew my suspicion that another delay may be in the offing and this worries me very much.
On one hand the Premier of Quebec expresses confidence that agreement will be reached, and on the other hand all I can extract from the minister and some of his colleagues is that discussions are ongoing. But I wonder if they realize that many hundreds of thousands of Canadian families in the low and no income brackets who depend on family allowances for extra food and clothing
December 7, 1971

for their children have been waiting since the 1940s for some show of sympathy and understanding of their needs.
It is very obvious, also, that in spite of tales of woe that the opposition are holding up the enactment of legislation, Bill C-264 could be introduced for second reading and passed with little or no delay-within a couple of days. Surely the bill could be completed in committee in another couple of sittings and third reading could be completed in another day or so. This would mean that if the government were really sincere in solving poverty in the country, since they are faced with massive unemployment, and if they are concerned about poverty stricken Canadians they would get immediate agreement from all opposition parties to pass the bill with the least possible delay.
In order to assure the people of Canada that the family income security plan will be dealt with, I ask the minister the following simple questions:
1.	In view of the hardships being experienced by many hundreds of thousands of poor Canadians, will the minister assure them on behalf of the government that they can expect increases in benefits as indicated in Bill C-264, on May 1, 1972?
2.	Does the decision as to putting into effect these increases depend upon the discussions with the province of Quebec and, if no agreement is reached, will it delay implementing the benefits to the other nine provinces?
3.	In view of the compounding unemployment situation which cannot be resolved, even with the many measures introduced by the government, can the minister say if the government will consider introducing Bill C-264 immediately with a view to having it passed as an emergency measure, and thereby enable the government to update the payment of family allowance increases as soon as possible, even before May 1, 1972?


Mr. Andre Ouellet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to reassure the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe by telling him that he did not have to call me back in the House tonight because I spent the evening here listening to the speeches of my colleagues.
I have noted the questions which the hon. member has just put. In reply to his first question, I can say that that it is certainly the intention of the government to proceed as soon as possible with the implementation of the bill which will provide low income families with benefits far more substantial than at present.
As regards his second question, I would like to state that the discussions now taking place with the government of Quebec have certainly not delayed passage of this bill. I think that the hon. member is aware that the proceedings of the House are unfortunately slow and he will understand that the government would have wished to introduce this bill earlier. It has unfortunately been unable to do so by reason of the crowded agenda of the House.
As to his third question, I would like to state that the government would certainly like to give priority to this bill when the order of the day allows it to do so.
In any event, I think that the government's forthrightness cannot be challenged in terms of its desire to help
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Canadian families and all Canadians increase their income. That the government wishes to combat poverty is obvious. On the one hand, it has acted quite quickly on the question of increasing old age pensions and granting additional income to senior citizens who have no other sources of income. It has considerably improved the unemployment insurance legislation and it proposes also to increase the benefits for large families, with low income.
I think that the hon. member should be commended for granting the government the benefit of the doubt when he said a few moments ago that he understood very well that it had intended to improve the bill by introducing certain amendments to the original proposal included in the white paper which was published two years ago. The amendments which were introduced between the time of publication of the white paper and the introduction of the bill by the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) are evidence that the bill has been substantially improved.



GRAIN-REQUEST FOR POLICY STATEMENT ON USE AND LEASING OF INTERIOR ELEVATOR FACILITIES

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this matter which is almost as much a question of privilege as it is one of simple discussion. On November 25, as recorded at page 9875 of Hansard, I asked this question of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson):
Can the minister inform the House if and when bids were called for the purchase of the Canadian government interior elevator at Lethbridge? Will the minister also inform the House which grain company is acting as agent at the government elevator at Moose Jaw, and whether the elevator has been leased, is under contract, or under what terms it operates?
I did not get a proper answer to that question; Mr. Speaker called me to order. I asked again, with the permission of the Speaker:
Will the minister make a statement on motions in the near future informing the House what the policy of his department is, and indeed of the federal government, in regard to the use and leasing of interior grain facilities in western Canada, and explaining the basis upon which the grain will be handled in these facilities?
The Minister of Agriculture answered:
No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think so, but I would be very happy to answer the hon. member's question if it is put on the order paper, and perhaps to expand on it a little.
These questions arose in the miscellaneous estimates committee and some questions I put to the deputy minister as to what arrangements they were making regarding the contract for these elevators. I could not get a straight answer from the deputy minister. He said that he believed it was a written agreement. I asked if it was an agreement between Pioneer Grain and the Board of Grain Commissioners and he replied that he could not speak on behalf of the Wheat Board and Pioneer Grain. I asked a further question, and he replied:
No, but you asked for arrangements that the Wheat Board and Pioneer Grain had. I am making the reservation that I am not in a position to make any commitment in tabling such documents.
That was in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates on November 24, 1971, at page 44 of the report.

December 7, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
On November 19, Mr. Speaker, Pioneer Grain Company Limited sent a circular letter to all elevator managers of its company headed, "Re: Arrangements finalized for using Canadian government elevators at Moose Jaw and Saskatoon". This came from its head office at the Richardson Building, Lombard Place, Winnipeg, Manitoba. It outlined the arrangements and agreement reached with the elevators. The second paragraph reads as follows:
Producers who named Moose Jaw or Saskatoon as their primary or alternate delivery point can now haul grain on quotas authorized by the Canadian Wheat Board directly to the Canadian government elevator at either of the locations mentioned and make use of 5 i million bushels of space available at each of these grain handling facilities.
Yet the Minister of Agriculture who is responsible for the Board of Grain Commissioners refuses to answer a simple question about what is being done as to the disposition of these grain handling facilities. He refuses to say what sort of arrangements are available to other elevator companies. He also refuses to table in the House what are in effect the studies into grain handling in western Canada which have been made available, as I understand it, to the grains council, to the railroads and to other institutions. He does not make the information available to this House.
At the same time, a deal has been made with one grain company with headquarters in the Richardson building in Winnipeg to have handling facilities out of the interior terminals in Saskatchewan. Why the secrecy, Mr. Speaker? Why, when on November 19 the grain company was circularizing its agents in western Canada, could not the people responsible in this House answer a simple question put on November 24 and 25? Do they not know, or are they afraid to tell what they are doing?
I know that very recently they moved a trainload of grain directly out of the facilities in Saskatoon. I know they spent money upgrading the facilities so that grain could be delivered by truck. I am not opposed to this. I am merely saying that this House and the farmers of Saskatchewan should be advised of the policy of this government, what they are doing and how they are proposing to use these interior elevators which are paid for and operated by the taxpayers of this country. If they are paid for and operated by the taxpayers of this country, then I submit those taxpayers are entitled to know the manner and type of agreement which has been entered into under which these facilities are operated.
I am dumbfounded at the minister not being able to answer a simple question and give simple information to this House and preferring to say, as recorded at page 9875
of Hansard, "No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think so, but I would be very happy to answer the hon. member's question if it is put on the order paper." The minister should long ago have made a statement to the House on how these interior elevators were to be operated.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, first, the question raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) cannot be all that simple, even though he might say it is. After all, it took him ten minutes to explain his point. As I listened to him it seemed that he took strong objection to the minister not answering his question and to the minister's suggestion on November 25 that the question be put on the order paper. When the minister said, "No, I do not think so," he was answering the part of the question in which the hon. member asked if the minister would make a statement on motions.
May I suggest to the hon. member that he follow the minister's recommendation, if he has not already done so, and put his request for more information on the order paper in the form of a question. Or he could write directly to the minister, if he has not done so already, and in that way perhaps learn a great deal about the whole matter.
May I now attempt to answer the questions the hon. member has raised at this time. According to my information, in the case of the elevator at Lethbridge there has been an offer to sell and bids were called for in the press on November 3, the bids closing at noon on November 26. Applications have been received and are under consideration pending a decision. As for the elevator in Moose Jaw, to answer the other points the hon. member raised a few moments ago, I am informed that our policy has not changed there and that the elevator still operates under the Canadian Grain Commission. It receives grain for the account of grain companies, as has been the standard practice for years. I do not know if anything has changed there recently.
The hon. member mentioned Pioneer Grain Company Limited and the agreement that company has entered into. That company, I suggest, is doing the same thing as any other company. It has entered into an agreement with the government for using limited facilities. It seems that that has been the practice for years and will very likely continue. After all, the commission is accepting deliveries of grain on behalf of grain companies. That has been the practice in the past; that is the practice now. As to whether the practice has changed, I am not informed. I suggest to the hon. member that if he wants a complete answer he should write to the minister. I am sure he would be pleased to give a proper and complete answer.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Wednesday, December 8, 1971