1971-12-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the International Joint Commission's report on the environmental and ecological consequences in Canada of raising Ross Lake in the Skagit Valley on the west coast.
As hon. members know, the International Joint Commission was asked earlier this year to study a proposal to flood the Upper Skagit Valley in British Columbia. The commission's report, which I have just tabled, has been submitted to the governments of Canada and the United States in response to a request from Ottawa and Washington to review the environmental consequences of raising the Ross dam in the state of Washington on the other side of the border. I would like to thank the six-member International Joint Commission for preparing its report on such short notice. Since April, 1971, it has held hearings on the west coast and carried out various studies, the results of which are being made public in our two national capitals today.
The commissioners report that the High Ross reservoir, were it to be filled, would flood 10 of the 15 miles of the reach of the Skagit River that is the most suitable for fishing and recreational pursuits. It would inundate approximately 5,180 acres in Canada. This is more than 40 per cent of the 10,550 acres of reasonably flat land in the valley.
The commission finds that the Skagit Valley is an uncommon and non-restorable area and has important social values. It also finds that this flooding will result in the loss, in varying degrees, of some important elements of the local environment and, to use its own words, a simplification of the ecology. The commission also tells us that:
The time limitations of this study precluded obtaining information on the cost of mitigating the effects of flooding in the valley.
The quotation continues:
In the absence of knowledge of the costs of protection and enhancement and having only rough estimates of the benefits that might accrue, the commission recommends that these mitigative measures be fully studied before the Ross dam is raised, and that they be undertaken to the extent that the government agencies concerned find them feasible.
Finally, the International Joint Commission tells us that:
Under normal conditions, a study of environmental and ecological conditions should encompass three full years. In contrast, this study was conducted over a period of four months, from early June when public hearings were held, to early October. Therefore, the investigation of the advisory group consisted mainly of an interpretation of raw, and sometimes incomplete, data collected by others and to a review of published reports.
The Canadian government's position is that these environmental and ecological conditions should be fully understood and carefully assessed before any additional flooding is contemplated in the Upper Skagit Valley in British Columbia.
We shall, of course, be examining the International Joint Commission's report in detail, as will the government of British Columbia and the relevant authorities in the United States. After we have completed this review, we will again be discussing the future of the Skagit Valley with our opposite numbers in Victoria and Washington, D.C. The government will be making a further report to the House at that time.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the excerpts from the International Joint Commission's report quoted by the minister confirm the impression widely held in British Columbia, which I share, that the Skagit Valley is an uncommon and nonrestorable area which has important social values. It also finds that flooding will result in the loss in varying degrees of some important elements of the local environment and a simplification of the ecology. In other words, the study confirms the impressions generally held in that region concerning the importance of preserving the environment in the Skagit Valley and the damage that would be done by flooding.
My impression from the brief excerpts the minister has read from the IJC report is that the commission did not consider banning or recommending indefinite postponement of the actual flooding. The commission did not consider recommending the deferment of the hydroelectric development. The commission's recommendations seem to be confined to the scope of measures which might be taken to mitigate the damage that would be done to the environment in the Skagit Valley. As I say, this is the impression one gets from the excerpts given us by the minister. It is disappointing to many, including myself, that the International Joint Commission did not recommend abandonment of the flooding and seems to confine its recommendations simply to mitigating the damages that might be caused by such flooding. However, the commission has emphasized the importance of preserving the valley. It has emphasized that the damage which it predicts would be done would be irreparable.
10562

December 17, 1971
Flooding of Skagit River Valley
In these circumstances I think it is urgent that the minister and the government act with great vigour. When the minister speaks about studying the report and then taking action, quite frankly this does not suggest very much to me in the way of vigour. I would have thought the minister would promptly study the report and would have come before the House with a definite recommendation on how he and the government intend to proceed. It is necessary to act with vigour to preserve a valley that the International Joint Commission has recognized as important, a valley that it has recognized as being threatened. I hope, therefore, that the minister will in fact act with more vigour than his statement to the House this morning seems to indicate. Indeed, now that the Prime Minister has demonstrated that he has great success with President Nixon and he has been able to make breakthroughs there and to persuade the President to give fantastic assurances to Canada, perhaps the minister may be able to persuade the Prime Minister to take up the case directly with the President.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, the issue of the Skagit Valley has been before the House for almost two years now and today the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) has presented us with a very attractively wrapped Christmas present. Our problem is that we like the wrapping but we are not certain at the moment what is inside. We hope that some time we can open it up and perhaps even ventilate the whole issue. That would be nice.
The statement of the minister seems to be hopeful. The government seems to be saying rather piously that at the moment the flooding should not be proceeded with. The statement also seems to confirm what the people of British Columbia have felt for some time, that since this valley is one of the last remaining unspoiled recreational resources adjacent to a large population centre it should not be flooded.
Unfortunately, when the agreement of 1942 was reached and the decision to go ahead was made, environmental and recreational matters were not of the consequence that they are today. There was not general public appreciation of the value of this kind of unspoiled resource. The International Joint Commission because of the terms of reference given to it on April 7, 1971, could hardly reverse its position of 1942 even though it may have genuinely felt that the earlier decision was in error. The commission was locked in by government terms of reference so narrow that all it could comment on was the extent of the environmental consequences. I felt last April that this was a delaying tactic and that ultimately the axe would fall on the Skagit Valley and we were just going to be let down easily. I suppose today I am still suspicious or at least fearful that the flooding will occur eventually. I hope we can have an end to or at least an amelioration of the environmental irritants-that seems to be a popular word lately-in Canada-U.S. relations. There have been several environmental irritants lately, as well as economic ones, involving such things as nuclear blasts, oil tankers and the Skagit Valley.
I think it is important that the government indicate frankly what it is going to do. The minister's statement

seems to say that more time is required to study this matter, that the government is going to wind it down, and diffuse the issue. It will not satisfy the people of British Columbia to learn before too long that the minister has allowed the flooding to be proceeded with. What BC citizens want to know is What the government is going to do to stop it. That is really the only solution that will be acceptable in British Columbia.
Perhaps the minister, as he hints in the last paragraph of the statement, might be encouraged to open up bilateral talks with the United States in the hope that the people in Washington, who are also aware of the public concern for environmental matters these days, will realize it is sheer lunacy to continue to flood recreational areas near large urban centres. This will be in keeping with the sentiment in Canada that as Canadians we are no longer content to be hewers of wood and storers of water.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I received at the very last minute the text of the report the minister has just tabled, and in English only. However, I shall not deprive myself of my right to congratulate the International Joint Commission on its study and on the report it has submitted.
We are glad the hon. minister has, according to his statement, committed himself to follow closely the consequences of construction of the dam and, if possible, to prevent it in order not to deprive the people of Canada again of their environment, their heritage and to ensure a sound environment for the future.



WAYS AND MEANS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, pursuant to Standing Order 60 I am laying on the table two notices of ways and means motions which follow from the statement by the minister on October 14, 1971, and which supersede the notice of ways and means tabled that day.
One of these notices of ways and means relates to the 1971 taxation year and the other relates to the 1972 taxation year. I would be obliged, Mr. Speaker, if you would designate an order of the day for consideration on Monday of the notice of ways and means relating to the 1971 taxation year.


SUGGESTED PRESENCE OF MADAME DEFARGE FOR TAX BILL VOTE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask
December 17, 1971

unanimous consent for the purpose of presenting a motion the necessity of which is related to an event that will take place later this day. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That the officers of the House be asked to make arrangements for the admission to the House of Commons gallery this afternoon at 3.45 of Madame Defarge, and that she be allowed to bring her knitting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I would not think this is a motion which the Chair should be required to put to the House. I think the hon. member would agree with a ruling from the Chair in that direction.


AVAILABILITY OF NATURAL GAS TO CANADIANS- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I wish to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Panarctic Oil Company, of which the government is the largest single shareholder, has recently brought in its fourth gas well which indicates the presence of a major gas field in the Arctic. This company is reported to have entered into an agreement giving certain United States companies first refusal of this gas despite the misgivings of the National Energy Board regarding the availability of sufficient natural gas to meet anticipated Canadian requirements. If there is unanimous consent I propose to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the whole matter of making Canadian natural gas available to the Canadian people at the lowest possible price and the role of the Panarctic Oil Company in such a policy be referred to the Committee on National Resources and Public Works with instructions to report back its findings to this House at the earliest possible date.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to seek
Inquiries of the Ministry
consent under the terms of Standing Order 43 to move a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland), in the following terms:
That the present cost-price crisis in the winter season fishery of the Northwest Territories and the role of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in this situation, as outlined by Great Slave Lake Fishermen's Federation in a submission to the Minister of Fisheries on November 24, 1971, be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry for investigation and report.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister if he can tell the House what topics he wishes to discuss with Prime Minister Heath today and if he has received any indication from Prime Minister Heath of the topics he would like to raise?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in exchanges between officials the decision was put to us and we agreed that there be no specific agenda. The indication was given to me that on the British Prime Minister's part he would want to talk somewhat about Commonwealth problems. Particularly, he would want to talk to me about Rhodesia and the recent settlement for which they have been striving. We would want to talk about the British entry into the Common Market. On my side I want to report to him on Canada's progress in its negotiations with the Americans. We also decided to talk about Canada's position in some of the international moves toward disarmament in Europe.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to seek the support of Mr. Heath for the Canadian position with regard to the floating of the Canadian dollar-I apologize to the hon. member for St. Boniface, Mr. Speaker-and the desire of the Canadian authorities to maintain an appropriate relationship between our dollar and the United States dollar? Does the Prime Minister intend to seek the support of Mr. Heath for the Canadian view?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated I shall be discussing at some length Canada's position in these international monetary problems, and I hope that my arguments will appear convincing enough that the British will want to support our position.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the Prime Minister be discussing with Mr. Heath the India-Pakistan problem and, in par-

December 17, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
ticular, can the Prime Minister tell the House the position that he will be taking in the discussion of this question with regard to the recognition of Bangla Desh?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will obviously be discussing that question and perhaps exchanging what information we have on our positions on the future of that part of the world.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister feel confident that he will be able to wring from Mr. Heath one of those fantastic assurances that Britain has no intention of taking Canada over economically?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who is on the roster but unfortunately not able to be here today, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Since the Canadian government is the largest single shareholder in Panarctic Oils Limited, may I ask whether the Canadian government concurred in the agreement which that company entered into to give first refusal of the gas discovered in the Arctic Islands by Panarctic to a consortium of American companies consisting of Tenneco Oils and Minerals Ltd., Columbia Gas Systems Inc., Texas Eastern Transmission Co., and Northern Natural Gas Co. Did the Canadian government representative on the board of Panarctic Oils Limited concur in this agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, for a more complete answer I will take notice of the question on behalf of the minister. But I must point out to the hon. member that, to my recollection, this does not apply to first refusal on all gas produced. For instance, gas for Canadian use would not be affected by this first refusal. It would be gas for export. I repeat, that is my recollection of the matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the concern contained in the report of the National Energy Board regarding the availability of gas to meet foreseeable Canadian requirements, would the Prime Minister undertake to have the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development make a statement to the House on what the government's policy is with respect to gas and, particularly, whether or not all or part of the gas produced by Panarctic has been hypothecated to the American consortium to which I referred?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as to the first part of the question, I will bring it to the minister's attention and perhaps he will make a statement. Perhaps the opposition would prefer to ask questions on specific points. Answering the other part of the question I reiterate that the

negotiations with these American companies concern gas to be exported. This does not affect gas to be used in Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since there seems to be some difference between the Prime Minister's statement and the reports on this agreement, would the Prime Minister undertake to have a copy of this agreement tabled in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take notice of the question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. We have referred before to the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has been ill, unfortunately, and absent from the House. This is an important subject, and I would hope that a definite statement would be made on the appointment of a new minister. Until such time, perhaps the Prime Minister can answer this question which I think is very important. Is a feasibility study now being undertaken, in the interests of the people of Canada, to determine the feasibility of conveying and transporting natural gas from the Arctic, taking into consideration the ecological problems of the north, which the Prime Minister is aware of, and the economics of the project having in mind Canada's need to be able to export various commodities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of that question on behalf of the minister.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister whether, as head of the government, he will use his position to recommend the setting up of such a study at this time that is so necessary for the benefit of Canada and Canadians. I am asking whether he, as the head of the government, will do that, not the minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that we have at various times reported that some studies were made in this regard. The reason I said I would take notice of the question was that it was a bit involved and I am not quite sure whether the hon. member is suggesting that we study things we already are or some others.



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My question is for the Postmaster General. Has the Postmaster General replied to a letter from five western carriers outlining their complaints about inadequate compensation when
December 17, 1971

the Post Office takes over their businesses in 1972? If not, can the minister assure the House that a positive reply will be sent shortly in order to avert an unnecessary discruption of service at this time?


Hon. lean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I receive the letter, I shall answer it. However, I must remind the House that I have already said that we intended to be as fair as possible with the contractors, that we would give them a three-month notice and that we would purchase the equipment and trucks. However, we must also abide by the law as regards requests which they may submit to us concerning what they call "goodwill".


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Does the compensation contemplated by the minister include what is usually included in transactions of this kind, consideration for the good will of an ongoing business?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I have just answered, Mr. Speaker, that we must abide by the law concerning what they call "goodwill".



INTEGRATION OF URBAN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES- RETENTION OF WORKING CONDITIONS BY PRIVATE CARRIERS' EMPLOYEES

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: I have a supplementary question for the Postmaster General. What steps are being taken to ensure that the employees of these contractors retain their same standard of living and the same seniority and wages they had before these contracts became subject to cancellation?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or better. [Translation]


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, all the contractors' permanent staff will be integrated into the Post Office Department. As for union employees, we are currently negotiating and discussing with them the terms of their integration, as well as the services and benefits which they will enjoy.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister about a matter we were pursuing yesterday. In light of the admissions by Canadian immigration officials and American immigration officials that weaknesses, difficulties and slackness in Canadian laws and regulations are contributing to large-scale smuggling of aliens into the United States, does the government intend to do anything about this either by changing the law or by changing the regulations?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the Prime Minister indicate whether this will be in the form of a statute or an amendment to a statute to be introduced in the next session?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are giving that very serious thought, Mr. Speaker. We are looking at a memorandum for a new statute. I cannot say at this time whether it will be in that form, but we are looking at the question.



HOUSING


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the momentarily displaced Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Will the minister advise whether the prediction of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada that rent increases for 1972 will vary between 5 per cent and 15 per cent is consistent with government predictions and government policy? In any case, can he advise whether the government intends to enter into discussions with the provinces to the end that these very high increases might be forestalled?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by Mr. Shipp, the president of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, was made the other day. I have not had a chance to analyse the basis for his comments. We shall certainly do that. If indeed such increases are apparent which are not necessarily supported by our own studies at the moment, we will be very happy to sit down with the provinces to see what might be done. Essentially, though, it would primarily be the responsibility of the provinces to act.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT ON RATIONALIZATION OF HANDLING AND TRANSPORTATION

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: My
question is for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Agriculture. I am sure he can give us the information. Will the long-awaited report on studies into Canada's grain handling and transportation system by the grains group be released before the end of the year and, if not, when can we expect this report to be made public?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, that question has been asked a number of times in the House and the minister responsible for the Wheat Board has replied to it in the House.

December 17, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR TRANSPORT



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES-LIMITATION OF PASSENGER SERVICE UNDER CLASS 4 LICENCES

Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: In view of representations made to the Prime Minister by persons in the Northwest Territories concerning the changes by the air transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission limiting the passenger carrying service of class four licen-cees in the Mackenzie river area because of first and second class licences, will the minister consider holding up this order until hearings can be held in that area because of the dislocation that has taken place in both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that the question was directed to me. The hon. member did not indicate it was addressed to the Minister of Transport. I am not sure what my authority is in this regard. As of yesterday, however, I made some inquiries of the Canadian Transport Commission asking for a full explanation. If I can accommodate in the way suggested by the hon. member or in some other way, I will be pleased to consider it.


William Arnold Peters: I apologize for not mentioning the minister, who is the genial answerer of questions on that side. Will the minister assure the House that he will hold up the application of this regulation at least until hearings can be held in the Northwest Territories?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I have the authority to hold it up, but I am certainly disposed to do so or to ensure that there is no serious disruption of service.



TRANSPORT


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: My question is to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with preliminary meetings with representatives of the Canadian Transport Commission that are taking place in the Prairie provinces in connection with applications by the CNR and CPR for an almost wholesale closure of stations on the Prairies. Some meetings having taken place; there is a feeling from what has been said at these meetings that the transport commission may well be disposed to allow the applications. This would create a serious situation on the Prairies. Realizing that the minister has no power of direction over the Canadian Transport Commission, I ask him whether the government will appoint counsel on behalf of the government to argue against this wholesale closure and support closures restricted to a very few cases where there is no excuse for the continuance of the stations?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider the representation, but the right hon. member should know, perhaps better than anyone in this House, that it is unwise to anticipate the

chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission. I have no way of knowing what the recommendation is going to be, but I will be glad to take the matter under advisement.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, members of the opposition are in full agreement with the statement concerning the chairman of that board after our experience in the House of Commons with him. I am not trying to anticipate the eccentricities in which his mind will operate. I am suggesting that the government should consider appointing counsel on behalf of the government of Canada so the western Prairies will not become a series of ghost towns.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider it and see if there is something I can do.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: I wish to ask the Minister of Transport whether he will announce this year the site of a second airport for the greater Toronto region. If not, will he inform the House who or what is the cause of this indecision?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I was in conversation this morning with the Minister of Transport and Communications for the province of Ontario. As I have explained in the House on a number of occasions, the reason for the delay is the question of federal participation in the provision of some of the support services which may be required for such an airport. I have indicated in principle we are not opposed to this but that we have to make some determination as to the site before we can be more specific. I shall be meeting with the Ontario Minister of Transport and Communications on Wednesday night of next week, I believe. I hope we can make considerable progress at that time. I might emphasize that our conversations are amiable and we are both anxious to make progress as fast as possible.



SUGGESTED NEW POLICY TO ASSIST MANUFACTURERS TO IMPROVE DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN SALES

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is based on representations made to the minister by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. Since this important segment of our economy is seriously concerned that the methods employed by the government will not solve some of the problems of domestic sales and the penetration of foreign markets, can the minister tell us whether it is his intention, before the recess or early in the new year, to make a statement in the House defining some new and vigorous policy in which the manufacturers can have more confidence?
December 17, 1971


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: I do not think I can do that, Mr. Speaker, but when the hon. member returns to his office he will find there two news releases, one concerning an extension of the GAAP program, and one on a new feature of export market development which has to do with cost-sharing incentives for market identification and market assessment. So by a number of-I agree-limited supplementary moves, we are providing more and more support for Canadian industry and for Canadian exporters in particular. I expect to receive congratulations from the hon. member on these two moves.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is the point at which I usually appeal for the co-operation of hon. members, not necessarily with the Chair but with one another, to try to limit supplementaries so as to allow as many hon. members as possible to ask their questions.



SUGGESTED INCREASE IN MISSIONS TO GREAT BRITAIN AND EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

George Harris Hees: As
Canadian exports have increased over all by only 5 per cent this year, and as there has been a very sharp decline in our exports to the European Economic Community and to Great Britain, markets which should have been expanding-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was recognized for the purpose of asking a supplementary, not to make a speech, even though it might be a brief speech.


George Harris Hees: I was just filling in the minister, Mr. Speaker. Are the minister and the department planning to increase greatly the number of trade missions they will be sending to these important areas during the next 12 months to give Canadian exporters the best possible chance to increase exports to these important markets?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think we have done very well in this regard, Mr. Speaker, although, of course, there is always room for improvement. In the last 12 months I have led missions to Germany, China, the Soviet Union and Algeria, and I am leaving tonight for Morocco. I expect to lead a mission to Japan in January. This just gives an idea of the number of missions we have sent abroad.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Supplementary!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want the minister to miss the departure of his next trip. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


George Harris Hees: May I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: We are running short of time. The minister and the hon. member might continue their debate after the question period.


Mr. Broadbent:: I hate to interrupt the minister's speech but I should like to ask him a supplementary.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair refused a supplementary to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings in order that we might pursue the asking of questions. The hon. member might wait a moment or so. I will come to him in due course. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I am not sure whether she wishes to ask a question.



FINANCE


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will. I was about to say this was so sudden. I wanted to address a question to the Minister of Finance yesterday who is not here today, but his parliamentary secretary is present. In view of the fact that the total amount of British Columbia's share of the money available under the special development loan program was allocated before the cities of Vancouver and Victoria could put in their applications, and in view of the fact that these two cities have about two-fifths of all those unemployed in British Columbia, will the parliamentary secretary ask the minister to consider increasing the amount of the special development loan fund so that these and other municipalities can be included in the program? Will he also ask him to make a statement on the matter before Christmas?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that this question has been asked previously. If not, it will be considered as a representation to the minister.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: I would point out that I addressed it before to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration but I learned subsequently that he was simply administering the money and that the pursestrings were held by the Minister of Finance. That is why I addressed my question to that ministry.



EXPERIMENTAL MOVEMENT BY UNIT HOPPER CAR TRAIN-AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Will a report be made available to all members of the House and interested parties on all aspects of the experimental grain handling project which took place recently between an inland terminal and the port of Vancouver with a unit hopper car train? Will this report be available soon?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do
not recall this particular experiment. I know that a number of experiments were carried out in connection with grain handling. I suspect they are part of the over-all study which is still going on. If there are data which we

December 17, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
can make available to the hon. member and to others, I will see what we can do.



STUDY OF OFFSHORE STORAGE AND CONTAINER TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Does the government have any investigation under way into the merits of offshore storage of Canadian grain, or any study of the entire area of ocean transportation which would include container transportation of Canadian grain?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: believe that every aspect of transportation and all new ideas that have come forward are being examined, but whether the specific ones mentioned by the hon. member, which appear to be forward-looking to say the least, have been considered is something I will have to check.



POSSIBLE ABANDONMENT BY UNITED STATES OF JOB DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE CREDIT PROGRAM

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since the Minister of Finance has said that one of the consequences of achieving an agreement on currency realignment will be that the Americans will abandon their job development incentive credit program, can the minister say whether the government has received a firm commitment on this point, or is it the case that the United States government has simply indicated that it might move in this direction?


Jean-Luc Pepin: My understanding is that the elimination of the surcharge will carry the elimination of the discriminatory aspects of the job development tax credit, that is, the advantage given to U.S. producers under the "buy American" aspect of that incentive. That has been my understanding.



AGRICULTURE


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, when I asked the Minister of Agriculture last Wednesday whether in preparing Bill C-176 the government had taken into consideration an almost similar bill which is to be implemented in the United States, he replied in the affirmative.
Did the minister mean by this that he would introduce certain amendments to Bill C-176 in order to provide appropriate instruments for controlling import and export of Canadian farm products?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Obviously Bill C-176 was prepared long before the United States bill

to which the hon. member refers. When I said we had taken into account the laws of other countries and, indeed, our international commitments and treaties respecting trade, that was the case.



SPREAD OF RABIES AMONG DOMESTIC ANIMALS- PROVISION FOR MANDATORY SHOTS

Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the widespread concern about the spread of rabies among domestic animals, especially household pets and particularly in the province of Ontario, may I ask whether the federal government intends to make it mandatory that all such animals receive rabies shots?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we are extremely concerned about the increase in the incidence of this disease. We have a joint program with Ontario with respect to controlling this disease. I shall certainly take the hon. member's suggestion into consideration and ascertain whether it can be helpful in bringing this disease under control.



FEEDER CATTLE-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON INVESTIGATION OF DEATH OF ANIMALS IN TRANSIT

Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. I asked it some time ago and he said he would make a report. It has to do with the heavy losses of cattle shipped from western Canada, and his parliamentary secretary said that if necessary a report on the cruelty to dumb animals would be made to the House.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we have attempted to get some additional information about some of the carloads that were shipped from western to eastern Canada. In the over-all average there is not a great increase in losses, but there were particular incidents where there were long delays and travelling time about which we would like a further explanation. When we have that I will try to make it available to the hon. member.



FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
1973 LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE-ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION OF INDUSTRY ON CANADIAN DELEGATION
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Present plans call for a Law of the Sea conference to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1973. In view of the importance of this conference to fishermen in Atlantic Canada, will the minister give his assurance that the Canadian fishing industry will be adequately represented not only at the 1973 conference but also at all preparatory meetings?
December 17, 1971


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member knows, we always make provision for representatives of the industry to accompany our delegations abroad.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can he shed some light on the directive from his department to Canadian Armed Forces base newspapers restricting them from using news emanating from the Public Service Alliance?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it has been a longstanding practice in the Canadian Armed Forces orders and regulations that service newspapers not be used either for polemics or political controversy but exclusively to inform members of the armed forces. The decision was taken by the director general of information services of my department that this particular documentation, which was very polemical in nature, should not be included in station newspapers. I might indicate that the polemics in it were primarily directed against the Canadian news media. I did notice one particular omission, and that was that the gentleman who wrote it did not refer to the survey conducted on this subject by the hon. member.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, would the minister be prepared to admit that in 1971 members of the Canadian Armed Forces are intelligent enough-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this is debate.



PROPOSED TAPS TANKER ROUTE-POSSIBLE PUBLIC HEARING ON WEST COAST

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the serious environmental threat to our west coast posed by the proposed oil tanker route from Valdez, Alaska, to Cherry Point in the state of Washington, is the government planning to hold a public hearing on the west coast on this very important issue?


John (Jack) Davis: Possibly, Mr. Speaker, but a number of studies are under way and until we have the results of these studies I doubt very much that a public hearing would provide all the information to the public that it should.
Inquiries of the Ministry ENERGY



NATURAL GAS-POSSIBLE PRIORITY TO PANARCTIC OVER ALBERTA IN EXPORT TO UNITED STATES

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In the matter of the export of natural gas to the United States, is it now government policy to give the Panarctic consortium priority over Alberta producers and to reserve for Alberta producers the eastern Canada market?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by these questions since they imply that the National Energy Board does not exist any more. The National Energy Board is there to make this kind of decision regarding the export of gas which is surplus to Canadian needs, so it really does not matter who gets it after that. The board decides what is surplus and can be exported. The decision is made and it is then compiled in a book which is distributed across Canada and which the hon. member can read. It is all very open.
In regard to studies of a pipeline from the north, a number of ministers have stated on a number of occasions that such studies, private and governmental were going on. The hon. member for Calgary North is aware that the National Energy Board has studied the matter of reserves in depth in recent weeks and has accordingly made a number of decisions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time.



LIFT PROGRAM-DEADLINE FOR REPAYMENTS BY FARMERS-SUGGESTED INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to ask him whether his department has set a deadline for repayments by some 4,500 farmers under the Lift program before they proceed with legal action, and has an independent review board been set up to study the cases of the farmers in question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we already have guidelines in this regard, and we are obliged to attempt to collect any money paid out improperly under the law. Therefore we are going to try to collect any overpayments that were made which were at variance with the regulations. I do not think we need a board of inquiry. We will certainly be as lenient as we can but we also have to obey the law.


Stanley James Korchinski: Has a deadline for collection been set?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think a deadline arises. When money is owing it is owing at that time.

December 17, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



TOBERMORY-SOUTH BAY MOUTH FERRY SERVICE-AGREEMENT WITH ONTARIO FOR IMPROVEMENT

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the continuing problem of traffic congestion and long waits on the Tobermory-South Bay Mouth motor car ferry service, can the minister say whether any agreement has been reached in the negotiations between the federal government and the government of the province of Ontario to improve this service?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, a firm offer has been made to the government of the province of Ontario with regard to this particular service. So far we have not received a reply.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Because of the fact that the government is at the present time producing marijuana on an experimental basis, may I ask the hon. gentleman whether this is being done in co-operation with commercial interests in an attempt to make it available as an economic agricultural crop?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the hon. gentleman is aware that all of the marijuana that was grown was for the Department of National Health and Welfare for research purposes.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Has the minister met with our native people this morning regarding an incident at Williams Lake, B.C., involving the death of an Indian, which death is attributed to a beating administered by a Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer? Has the minister a statement to make in this regard?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I met with this delegation and we discussed various matters, including the one mentioned by the hon. member. I shall study it immediately and see what is the usual practice in such cases and what I can do about it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: During the investigation that will be carried on by the minister, is it the intention of the minister to relieve the officer involved from his duties until such time as the investigation has been completed?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I shall see what has been done in similar cases. Offhand, I do not wish to commit myself as to whether or not we shall relieve those who took part in that incident.
He *	*



NATURAL GAS-STUDIES OF AMOUNT AVAILABLE IN ARCTIC

Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Dauphin of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It arises from the fact that two weeks ago today, the chairman of the National Energy Board appeared before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee and said that his board had no way of estimating the amount of gas situated in the Arctic. I am wondering whether the government has in fact some studies in this regard because the answer given to the hon. member for Dauphin would indicate this information is all available.
noon)


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I meant to say that studies are now being conducted on the ecological and other aspects, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has reported fully on that a few months ago. I will find the page reference and give it to my hon. friend if he needs it. These studies are going on now. They will take the necessary number of years because the phenomena to be studied can only be observed over a period of time. Now, if someone wants to build a pipeline from the north through Canada he will have to have the authorization of the National Energy Board, and in order to obtain it he will have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that the gas is surplus to Canadian needs. It will also have to be demonstrated that the pipeline would not damage the Canadian ecology. This will have to be demonstrated to the National Energy Board. All this is very regular, very normal, according to plan, and according to the law.



EXPORT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM-POSSIBILITY OF UNITED STATES SUBSIDIARIES SHARING IN ASSISTANCE

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the announcement made yesterday by the minister to the effect that his department is increasing its contribution to the export market development program by $250,000 this fiscal year, and by a further $1.5 million in 1972-73, and in view of the fact that these grants will be used for the purpose of exploring foreign markets outside of the United States, would the minister inform the House whether or not this assistance will be available to United States-owned subsidiaries operating in Canada?
December 17, 1971


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, we do not discriminate in my department on these matters. Should we or should we not is a debatable point. We have taken the position that what we want is Canadian exports and Canadian industrial production, so we do not make a distinction in respect of who brings it about, "it" being in the interest of Canada.



INFLUENCE OF DISC PROGRAM ON EXPORT POLICY OF UNITED STATES SUBSIDIARIES

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. In view of the fact that firms operating in the United States are now qualified for assistance under the DISC program and the job incentive program, assistance which will likely run into billions of dollars, would the minister give the House his reasons for believing that the newly announced subsidy, amounting to not quite $2 million, would influence the United States parent companies to shift their export strategy from United States plants to subsidiaries which operate in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is really one which invites debate. I do not think in those terms it is in order. I apologize to hon. members who have not yet had an opportunity to ask questions or supplementaries. We have now run out of time. I do not believe we should go too far beyond the time allotted to the question period this morning because of the allocation of time for the balance of this morning and this afternoon. Orders of the day.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order which affects every member of this House. I wanted to ask the Prime Minister about this but since the Prime Minister is not here I will ask the Acting Prime Minister. This morning the CBC started wheeling up a fantastic number of heavy trucks and equipment and setting up in order to film the end of the government's disgraceful performance in imposing closure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


George Harris Hees: They have now been dispatched. We are interested in this and I want to know who is responsible for the despicable order to send them away so that the government's shame will not be seen by the people of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


George Harris Hees: You are ashamed of what you are doing and do not want the people of Canada to see it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, December 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson for the third reading of Bill C-259, to amend the Income Tax Act and to make certain provisions and alterations in the statute law related to or consequential upon the amendments to that
Income Tax Act
act, and the amendment thereto of Mr. McCleave (P. 10547).
Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is not able to be present. I understand this is not possible in view of the meetings with Prime Minister Heath. I wish he were present because I would rather say some of the things I am going to say in his presence than in his absence. I think I should begin by thanking the Prime Minister for his graciousness in delivering his speech to the House of Commons yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I was looking forward to the experience with great pleasure, since the Prime Minister speaks to us so rarely. But I was disappointed because I expected the right hon. gentleman to do better than read some excerpts from old speeches by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), with a little prologue on heavy water which seemed to have been written by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay). The Prime Minister dilated considerably on the length of time the tax reform process had taken and said the only thing that dragged on so slowly in the country in recent years was the heavy water plant at Glace Bay. Obviously, Sir, the goal of attaining a just society has disappeared completely from the Prime Minister's mind. I, too, regret the time and cost involved in the heavy water plant, but I regret particularly that the Prime Minister of Canada has added years of time and tens of millions of dollars to the cost of completing that plant by refusing, for purely partisan reasons, to enter into an arrangement with a Conservative premier of Nova Scotia similar to the arrangement he has now made with the Liberal premier of Nova Scotia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Indeed, in order to find a comparably narrow, partisan behaviour on the part of a Canadian Prime Minister I think one would have to go back at least as far as Mackenzie King's famous "not one five-cent" speech. I regret, too, the length of time the tax reform process has taken. Not only do I regret the length of time, but also the completely inexcusable result of that process which we are now discussing. Both this monstrous bill and the behaviour of the government leading up to the presentation to this House of Bill C-259 are inexcusable.
Back in the fall of 1967 when I first entered this House I asked the then Minister of Finance, the now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), when we were going to receive the white paper on tax reform arising out of the report of the Carter Commission. He said a white paper would be presented near the beginning of 1968. He later made the same kind of statement to the then leader of the NDP in the House that this white paper would be presented as nearly as possible to the commencement of 1968. But, of course, nothing happened.
Then we had a change of ministers of finance, and instead of the white paper on tax reform we had what you

December 17, 1971
Income Tax Act
might call a mini tax reform package from the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) involving in particular consideration of estate and gift taxation. The Minister of Finance started this process late in 1968 when he overhauled and greatly increased the gift and estate taxes. The proposals were made in the mini-budget in the fall of 1968. There was a tremendous row in the country, a tremendous unsettlement, particularly among the backbenchers of the Liberal party, and following the Christmas recess, during which Liberal backbenchers consulted with their constituents, the minister modified his proposals to some degree. Nevertheless, he pushed through complex and rigid gift and estate tax changes, and obviously he put these forward very earnestly as an important reform in the permanent tax laws of this country.
Bear in mind that these changes came about 18 months after the previous minister of finance had promised a white paper on tax reform, and they came less than a year prior to the white paper of the present Minister of Finance. These changes in gift and estate taxes were put forward and fought for very earnestly by the minister as very significant changes in the tax laws of this country. Now, some two years later, the same minister introduces a bill repealing all federal gift and estate taxes, doing away with all of what he put before the House two years previously and all that he had fought for in the House. In other words, all the trouble to which the Minister of Finance put the House and the country with his gift and estate tax changes early in 1969 were a complete waste of the time of the House and of the time of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yet, on the other side of the House they talk about the opposition wasting the time of the House. There you have a so-called mini tax reform which was completely abolished within two years-a complete waste of time. The Minister of Finance has been behaving like a whirling dervish.
Then, in the fall of 1969, nearly two years after the previous minister of finance had pledged the white paper on taxation, we get a white paper on so-called tax reform which was presented to us as one of the finest conceptions of the human mind, about the greatest document since Magna Carta, backed by a tremendous public relations effort. Pretty soon criticism developed.


Mr. Mahoney:: This is an old speech.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would not want to cut off the parliamentary secretary because his time to interrupt anyone in the House is exceedingly limited.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Criticism of the white paper on tax reform developed very quickly. The minister portrayed himself as the guardian of the common people fighting the big interests, and fighting for reform required for the ordinary people in Canada. In the main he defended his proposals for about a year and a half, and then he capitulated. I have never seen a capitulation to equal this one in this country. To whom did he capitulate? Did he capitulate to the big interests who he said originally criticized the white paper?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: No.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Was it to the big interests that he capitulated? It is very difficult to say. I would hope not. The extent of the folly of the white paper on tax reform and the long defence conducted by the Minister of Finance, the extent of the abandonment of the basic concept put forward as being the fundamental wisdom, the whole business about narrowly and widely held corporations, the whole concept of the integration of corporate income and taxpayers income, were all abandoned. They talk about the time taken. They put forward a white paper on tax reform nearly two years after it was promised. They fought for it across the country for a year and a half, and then they abandoned most of it. When the Minister of Finance retreated last spring from the white paper I do not think there were many people on the other side of the House who thought he would retreat into something like this massive bill which we all have on our desks. I think it was as nasty a shock to them as it was to anybody else when it appeared.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So, I say that the time taken down to last June when the government retreated, and when it introduced this bill, was time taken by the government, nearly four years of time, first by the delay in putting forward a program of reform, and then by putting out a white paper on reform which was most inappropriate to conditions in Canada and which was nothing more than a technocrat's dream to which the government expected the Canadian economy and the Canadian people to conform, rather than a reform appropriate to the priorities and complexities of Canadian economy and life.
When the minister retreated, the master minds on the other side of the House produced Bill C-259, another technocratic creation. Now, we are involved with a new monstrosity. I do not want to be too hard on the private members opposite because I am sure they had no idea that after they had succeeded-because I think they played a part along with the rest of us-in forcing the Minister of Finance to retreat from the white paper that this would be hung round their necks.
So far as the time taken is concerned, Mr. Speaker, we have had years of procrastination to start with, years of delay, followed by years of the white paper and the present bill, years which I would describe as years of folly on the part of the government, consuming untold energy so far as the Canadian people are concerned, creating continual uncertainty in the country, and doing terrible damage to the economy of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Pushing this bill through now cannot be justified in the name of tax reform. It is true the government took years to produce this bill. It is true we have discussed it for many weeks. But that it was ill-conceived is apparent from its very length and bulk, from its complexity, from the incomprehensibility of many of its parts. That the government did not know what it was doing is shown in the number of amendments that the government
December 17, 1971

has produced this fall since the bill was introduced. There were some amendments very recently, and some amendments which the government has now promised it will have to pass to meet already recognized serious defects in the bill.
What does the Minister of Finance say, Mr. Speaker? In effect he says, "We don't know how badly this bill will work until we try it out on the Canadian people."


George Harris Hees: And the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says fuddle duddle.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, so far as the subject of tax reform is concerned, the Minister of Finance has been jumping around ever since he became Minister of Finance. He has been jumping around like a flea, if you can imagine it.


Mr. Bell:: A funny looking flea.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As an example, I refer to the great fuss he made back in 1968 and 1969 about reforming estate and gift taxation, and the tremendous importance he attached to those changes at that time. Now, he has scrapped all that. When this bill comes into operation-I say when, not if, because I think the government is obviously determined to bull it through-there will be no estate or gift taxation imposed by the government. There will be no federal gift taxation or estate taxation.
I know some people have the impression that the recipient of a gift is the recipient of a capital gain, but that is completely erroneous, Mr. Speaker. There will be no gift taxation imposed upon a donor or donee under this bill. And no doubt, Sir, there will be hundreds of millions of dollars in Canada transferred or given away in the early part of 1972 because it will be possible to do so without any federal taxation.


George Harris Hees: They are looking after their rich contributors.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yet in 1969, it was vitally important to the Minister of Finance and his colleagues that gifts should be taxed. It was basic to the tax philosophy of the government. One has to ask the question, Sir, when were the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance right, in 1968 and 1969 or in 1971? Were they right in proposing rigid, strict and complex tax laws with regard to gifts, putting this forward as a great tax reform two years ago, and now in what they describe as a great tax reform bill doing exactly the opposite, just within two years? When were they right, then or now? I say neither.
Clearly their behavior in putting forward this bill indicates they now think they were wrong in 1968 and 1969. And I think they are wrong in 1971. I doubt very much if any member on the other side of the House will rise to defend the taxation situation that will actually exist in 1972 with regard to gifts.


Mr. Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: We will.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Who has been wasting the time of the House and the country since 1969?


George Harris Hees: The Liberal party.
Income Tax Act


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I just mention one example, the time taken by the government on estate and gift taxation. What about all the time spent on discussing the integration of corporate and shareholders' income, which the government has now completely abandoned? Again I ask, who has been wasting the time? But the saddest thing of all is not only that the government has wasted all this time but that we have wound up in the end with an abortion, if something the size of this bill could be called an abortion. If this bill passes this House today in its present form we will be making a pretty poor Christmas present to the Canadian people. It is the sort of package that not only won't look very good under the tree but it is liable to blow apart in the face of the person who opens it up.
The arguments have been gone over and over, Mr. Speaker, and there should be no need to repeat them today. There would not be any need if the government were willing to look at the situation with even a minimum amount of logic. I said it before, and I make no excuse for saying it here again because it is true, that most of this bill is incomprehensible, that much of it is irrelevant to the immediate problems facing the economy today; not only irrelevant but worse than that because when the bill comes into effect it will create a mountain of confusion in this country and in the economy of Canada, confusion this country can ill afford at this time. That is not the kind of present the government has any right to be giving to the Canadian people at the end of a session of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yesterday the Prime Minister said the bill was quite comprehensible to the taxpayers of Canada. If he were here, Sir, I would suggest to him: "Tell that to the tax experts, Buster."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Much of the bill is irrelevant, confusing and harmful. Indeed it is a sham. It is a sham because, after years of study, the Canadian people have a right to expect something that is tax reform rather than something that the government is calling tax reform. It is a sham because once the bill is passed the government will be able to make the claim that it has instituted tax reform when in fact it has done nothing of the kind. I say now, and I said before, that of course there are parts of the bill that are very welcome to everybody in this country. Basically, those are the parts which alleviate to some extent the burden on the lower income people of this country.
There are other provisions in the bill that deserve support, but you do not need this whole incomprehensible mess in order to achieve the things that are in the bill that are clearly of value. We have been willing and are still willing for the valuable aspects of this bill to go into effect immediately. It is a matter of simple justice and it would also add a stimulus to the economy. That is why I suggested splitting the bill for the purposes of proclaiming it and that is why I repeat that offer today. I am repeating it, Mr. Speaker. I think it is only sensible. When there are some points upon which there is agreement why not put them into effect? When there are other points on which even the government admits defects, and where even the government admits that changes have to be made, why not keep those points aside for future consideration and further

December 17, 1971
Income Tax Act
discussion? That is what the provinces request and it is the only sensible course in order to avoid a tax jungle in this country. It would seem to be the logical way to proceed.
I suggest that this tax legislation has one thing in common with a good bottle of wine-the longer it stays unopened the better it will be for all concerned. I think our suggestions is the logical way to proceed but I would hardly expect a government preoccupied with claiming political points to worry very much about logic or common sense. Beyond logical procedure, this government is not even concerned about the parliamentary procedure. After brutally stopping debate in this House, this government is now stepping on all the toes it can find to stop the debate in the other place before that debate has even started.


Mr. McGrath:: Just like it is denying the people of N ewf o undland.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is what you call a really good dose of participatory democracy.


George Harris Hees: Just like their treatment of the poor, if you speak up you get your grants cut off.


An hon. Member:: Who is making the speech?


An hon. Member:: Let your leader speak, George. You will have your chance.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We are able to participate over here; it is a joint effort.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: We are allowed to speak, we are not muzzled like you are.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It needs to be a joint effort over here when the government seems to be determined to walk on the face of everybody they can find. Consider the effrontery. It does not surprise me that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) would do this because it is his natural disposition, but consider the effrontery of the government when it presents the Senate with this tax bill, presumably later today-


Mr. Gibson:: After two years with the people.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -and says it must go into effect on January 1. As I said, Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the Minister of National Defence does not surprise me at all, I would only be surprised if he were to take a different attitude.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Why don't you tell the truth?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I cannot think of anything more insulting to the other place, or of any effort by any government more designed to try to reduce the role of the other place to that of a farce.


An hon. Member:: Poor old Paul Martin!


Mr. Whelan:: Nobody in a non-elected body should ever tell an elected body what to do.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has the floor.


Robert Muir: Remember yesterday?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, if I were a Liberal Senator right now, which of course I am not and it is something I could never hope to be, I would be considering not my status in the party, I hope-


George Harris Hees: Because that is assured.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -I would be considering my reputation as a member of that institution, which has a record of some independence and should be particularly anxious to maintain it at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Despite some of the comments opposite, this is not a question of a non-elected body trying to hold up the will of an elected body in this country, Mr. Speaker. This House has been prevented by closure from examining this bill fully.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


James Aloysius McGrath: Black Friday again.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is sad, Mr. Speaker. There are many sad aspects of this whole thing and the saddest is the frustration of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: You sail your hydrofoil, Don.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not want the Minister of National Defence to get too excited. I have not seen him so excited since he was ramming rule 75C through the House.


George Harris Hees: Tell us about the hydrofoil, Don.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The only time I see any sign of vitality in the hon. gentleman is when he is trying to push somebody around.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: When he is trying to get his hydrofoil off the water.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Minister of National Defence on a point of order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think that the Leader of the Opposition should be permitted to make his own speech without the intervention of his own members.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, when I feel that I need the support of the Minister of National Defence I think it will be time for me to leave this place-that is if he does not succeed in getting it closed down altogether in the meantime.
December 17, 1971


Robert Muir: Better go and look after your uniforms, Don.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the Senate does not have to run according to any strict timetable set by my hon. friends opposite. I hope it will not permit itself to be tied down to some political timetable that this government has prescribed. I hope it does not do that, Mr. Speaker.
Last Monday I explained why we were opposed to this bill and I will do so again.


Colin David Gibson: That is repetition. It does not do any good.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: You would know all about repetition.


George Harris Hees: Please listen to Mr. Speaker.


Colin David Gibson: Make it perfectly clear.


James Aloysius McGrath: Don't get pushed aside by a mosquito.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I don't think it is fair to compare a mosquito to the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill which does nothing for the Canadian economy. I want to repeat, there are aspects of the bill that are desirable from every point of view, including stimulus to the economy, but the bulk of this bill does absolutely nothing for the Canadian economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It does nothing to help it. It is a bill that can adversely affect federal-provincial relations in this country. The two largest provinces in the country have asked for deferment, time to study, time to adjust and presumably time to make further representation after they succeed in understanding the bill. It is a bill that, in large measure, has been badly thought out and obviously badly drafted in view of the number of amendments that have been introduced, and badly presented. This bill, in the interest of the Canadian people, must be thought out again in large measure to ensure that it does not further damage the sense of initiative and the spirit of incentive upon which this country depends. We need tax reform in the interests of justice; we need it in the interests of economic progress; we need it in the interests of our national independence; and we certainly need to consider tax reform in the interests of ensuring full employment.
Again, I say, that is our No. 1 priority in this country. There are vast sections of this bill which not only do not help in the employment situation but which will discourage and militate against successful efforts to bring about full employment in this country. We may very well need tax reform in the interests of justice, independence and economic progress, but much of this bill, Sir, we just do not need. Above all we do not need and do not want a bill which will compound and increase confusion and uncertainty in this country.
That, in summary, is why I oppose this bill and that is why I support the amendment before the House at this
Income Tax Act
time. I hope all other hon. members will do likewise, Mr. Speaker, and that even at the eleventh hour reasonable members on the government side will resist the despotic tendencies of the Minister of Finance and others in the government. I hope they will consider their position, accept the proposal, which is sensible, for splitting the bill for purposes of proclamation and thereby serve the country rather than trying to serve themselves.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to participate on this last day of debate on the tax bill, partly because it is the last day and partly because of the number of issues of a parliamentary character that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) raised in his speech. The government, to my knowledge, has never accused the opposition of wasting time, and neither has the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Then, what is the purpose of the government's motion?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Neither the government nor the country have accused the opposition of wasting time in discussing the all important question of tax reform. We, on this side of the House, believe that the passing of this bill will put an end to the uncertainty which bothers the Leader of the Opposition.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: What about the amendment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We also believe that the passing of the bill will restore and produce greater equity in our taxing system, and that it will provide for greater growth and employment in the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: What about the amendments?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Speaking on the merits of the bill may I say that we, on this side of the House, are satisfied that we have produced the best possible product as a result of-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -the intensive investigation by the royal commission appointed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), which was followed by investigation by parliamentary committees in this House and in the other place, the results of which are in this bill.
The Leader of the Opposition says to us, "Split the bill. We will pass those parts that are popular and put off the other parts, and some time later we may be able, as a party, to make up our minds about the other parts."


Mr. Ricard:: That is nonsense.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I submit that the purpose of a further delay is merely to give the opposition an opportunity to reconcile its differences and to overcome the indecisiveness that has characterized the position of that party on tax reform. The Leader of the Opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

December 17, 1971
Income Tax Act


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: What about all the amendments the minister promised?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Leader of the Opposition-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What about all the amendments?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Your Honour, I do not mind being "barracked" like this in the House. I have made it my policy, as a member of the House, to listen very carefully to every hon. member and I expect that courtesy to be extended to me occasionally. Every time I have risen in this House since this debate has commenced I have been "barracked" and shouted down by an opposition that talks about a free Parliament but that does everything possible to prevent this member from exercising his right to speak as a member of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Come now; you are tougher than that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I can take all you can give.


George Harris Hees: Well, you do not seem to be able to.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like to be heard and to put my thoughts on the record, and I cannot do it against noise. Nobody can in this House, and that is why I am all for letting everyone have his say.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We do not seem to be making much progress. The minister has the floor.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Allan, don't lose your cool, baby. It is all right.


George Harris Hees: We will not bite you, Allan; keep going.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Leader of the Opposition has stated that we, on this side, are not concerned about the parliamentary process. We believe that hon. members in the House have had plenty of opportunity to debate the tax bill. We believe that the long period of debate on second reading, the long period in committee of the whole and now, this further period for debate on third reading, have given members of the House ample opportunity to say everything that can properly be said on this particular subject. In the last ten days I have been trying to find out whether any new ideas or any new proposals would emerge from the debate, or if somebody would have a bright idea that had not been expressed before. If somebody can find a new idea or a new thought or a new proposal that has been expressed in the last ten days, please tell me what that idea, thought or proposal is-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -because every important idea, every important subject has been brought before the House and I doubt whether further discussion will help any member

in making up his mind. We have been totally respectful of the parliamentary process.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has the floor. I see an hon. member standing. Obviously, the minister sees him also. If he will permit the hon. member to ask a question, the Chair will recognize the hon. member. For the sake of the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton), I will inquire whether the minister is prepared to receive a question at this time.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister asked a question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member knows about rhetorical questions that one does not expect to be answered, at least not at the moment they are asked.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Leader of the Opposition says-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the minister who has the floor. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond rises on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Here is that original thought.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is a simple one and merely requires the minister and members on his side of the House to do a little arithmetic. If the minister will consider the time allotted for the third reading debate of this bill and divide into that period the average time that an hon. member takes to make a speech, he will realize that not enough time has been allotted on third reading to enable all members to participate in the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order. I suggest to hon. members that the minister should be allowed to continue making his speech.


Donald MacInnis: I raised a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have ruled the hon. member out of order. That is not a point of order, that is a point of debate.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on another point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: If hon. members feel this is the way the debate should be conducted, I will recognize the hon. member for all the points of order he wants.


Donald MacInnis: I raised the other point of order because the minister made a statement to the effect that all members had an opportunity to participate in third reading. That is not the case.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows as well as I do that that is not a point of order. It is a point of debate. Hon. members who are trying to make a speech in the last
December 17, 1971

lew minutes of this debate should have a chance to make their speeches.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has stated that no member of the House understands the bill. When the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) spoke the other day, he took exception to that view expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, as I take exception to it. I believe it is an insulting comment to make about Members of Parliament who, gifted with ordinary intelligence, are capable of understanding and comprehending this bill.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) spoke 40 times in major interventions in the House. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) spoke about 18 times. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) spoke 12 or 14 times. To my knowledge, none of these members prefaced their comments by saying "Mr. Speaker, I wish to address the House, but take note that I do not understand what I am talking about."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They have been talking about this bill and making important contributions to the substance of the tax debate because they understand the bill all too well. They understand it because they have proposed amendments. The Leader of the Opposition understands it because he has decided that one part of the bill should go into law and the rest should be canned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Is he telling us now "I really do not know what I want to postpone. I do not understand it, but give me a little more time and I may understand it."? We know that is really not a serious commentary to make on the progress of the debate. We know that hon. members understand the bill and that the issues are clear in principle and crisp. When confronted with issues about which hon. members are uncertain as to which way to go, they say "Let us put if off." The members of the New Democratic Party are not more intelligent than my hon. friends opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: That is the only correct thing you have said all day.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They do not want any more time. They are ready to vote. They will vote against the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition because they know, as we know, that a decision ought to be taken now. The Leader of the Opposition said "Let's put it off because two provinces want it postponed."


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I invite hon. members to use Parliamentary language. I am not referring to the minister who has the floor who seems to be worried about what I am saying. I will not pursue the matter further. Without referring to anyone in particular, I invite hon. members to not make these comments from the sidelines.
Income Tax Act


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear what any hon. member said. I rely on Your Honour to deal with any comments which are in any way unparliamentary. I did not hear them.


Donald MacInnis: They were said before.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Leader of the Opposition told us that the bill ought to be held off because two provinces want it to be held off.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Six.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: All right, let's make it six. Will the hon. member now undertake to pass Bill C-176 because nine provinces want to have it passed?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If that is the criterion to be applied to this legislation, we can get out of this session very fast because that group will pass Bill C-176 very fast since nine provinces want that bill and want it as agreed at the recent federal provincial conference.
The Leader of the Opposition stated that we are in some way denying the Senate an opportunity to discuss the whole question of tax reform, and that we have imposed upon the Senate some sort of political timetable. That is quite untrue and inaccurate. It has been dealt with in the other place by the government leader speaking to his colleagues in that place. When the white paper was produced in 1970, 60 meetings were held by the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce in that place. Over 100 briefs were received. Following the receipt of well over 100 briefs, the Senate published its report.
Last September the tax bill in draft form was submitted to the Senate Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce. That committee has been seized of the very subject matter of tax reform in all its details since last September 14.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the minister. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment for lunch I was dealing with the question of the consideration of this tax bill in the other place.
The suggestion had been made, indeed, I believe, a charge had been made by the Leader of the Opposition, that the government had imposed a political timetable on the other place with its respect to the consideration of the bill. Of course, that suggestion is totally unjustified. As the leader of the government in the other place has stated, and as was stated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) when he appeared before the Banking and Commerce Committee of the other place, the Senate is the master of its own procedures, the master of its own rules and the

December 17. 1971
Income Tax Act
master of what it will do with respect to the tax bill which, hopefully, it will receive later this day.
Moreover, I think that in considering at this time what opportunity for the study of this measure has already been available in the other place, one has to remember that the Senate Committee on Banking and Commerce examined the white paper, held 60 meetings, six of them in camera, heard 118 briefs involving 471 witnesses and, in addition, received 225 briefs which were not read aloud and in respect of which witnesses were not called. But the Senate Committee did publish its report. We know that in September of this year the Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce was authorized to study the summary of the 1971 tax reform legislation and the budget bills. This means that the substance of tax reform has been before that committee under extensive study. The committee began its deliberations on September 14 and the final report was presented by the chairman on December 13. Thirty briefs were presented and 139 witnesses were called, including the Minister of Finance.
This is an impressive record. The other place has been seized with the question of tax reform, the substance of the bill now before us, because it realized it would be a good thing to conduct a simultaneous study of the issue there while similar studies were proceeding in the House of Commons. So, I wonder why the Leader of the Opposition is weeping crocodile tears for the other place, defending the rights of the Senate. His reasons, whatever they are, are unknown to me. That body has already had a substantial opportunity to study all the issues involved in tax reform, and it will have a further opportunity when this bill has been given third reading here.


Gerald William Baldwin: Under threat from the government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Under no threat from the government! I deny categorically that the government has exercised any pressure whatever on the other place in terms of placing, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, a political timetable upon the Senate.
It was probably inevitable that at some time the Leader of the Opposition and I should tangle on the question of heavy water. Probably because of a self-denying ordinance, we have so far resisted that temptation. But I think today the Leader of the Opposition made some unjustified and, to my mind, vicious charges against the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) which must be answered here and now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have observed the Leader of the Opposition for many years and I have a healthy respect for his ability to strike at the jugular. At times, even though he presents a reasonable exterior, there is within his soul a ruthless capacity in the political field. I have held this view when members of his own party were saying that this leader certainly had no real instinct for political in-fighting. Today, the Leader of the Opposition said the Prime Minister had offered to the Premier of Nova Scotia, Mr. Regan, assistance which he had denied to the previous premier of Nova Scotia, Mr. Smith, and that he had done so for political reasons. This was analogous in its political cruelty to a speech made many years ago by a former prime minister of this country. I say that

the charge of the Leader of the Opposition is inaccurate, unjustified and vicious in the extreme.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond rises on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege with documentary evidence to support the statement made by my leader and to categorically deny the statement which has just been made by the President of the Privy Council. I have in my hand-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I do not want the hon. member to open a debate on this point. If he has a point of order to raise, I invite him to raise it.


Donald MacInnis: On that very point, Mr. Speaker, I continue to indicate to the House and to Your Honour that I now have in my hand a transcript concerning a program participated in by the Liberal House leader on October 11, 1970, to refresh his memory, with Dr. Stuart Marsh and Mr. Sandy Campbell of the Cape Breton Highlander-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I rise on a question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: There is one before us now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. minister on a question of privilege.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The effort of hon. members on the other side is obvious. It is to prevent me from participating properly in this debate. The hon. member has no point of order. He is raising a dispute over the facts as a point of order and by doing so he is denying me one of the privileges I enjoy in the House, that is, of addressing the chamber at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I am sure hon. members will agree with me that the point made by the minister is valid, in the sense that if hon. members disagree or disapprove of remarks made by other members they should seek the floor and make their own speech. Unless the hon. member has a real point of privilege or point of order in the sense that either the rules of the House have not been abided by or that a substantial element of the speech of the minister constitutes more than just a disagreement and might adversely affect the House of Commons, the members of the House or civil servants, I do not think we should spend the time of the House listening to all kinds of disapproving comments that are not points of privilege or points of order.


Donald MacInnis: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I now ask for the guidance of the Chair. I ask the Chair whether it is proper, when a point of order is being put forward by one hon. member, for a second member to get up and put forward another point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: If the hon. member wants an answer to that, to my mind points of privilege take precedence over points of order; and the minister raised a point of privilege.
December 17, 1971


Donald MacInnis: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker, I raised it as a point of privilege and, with the guidance of the Chair, moved to a point of order because the Chair had suggested that I raise it as such. If we are now back on a point of privilege I shall continue it as such, since you have indicated to me that I am permitted to continue my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald MacInnis: My point of privilege arises from the fact that I have a transcript of the minister's own words which support my leader and deny the statement the minister has just made. As further proof of that, on October 19, 1970 this House dealt with a bill that further denies the allegations made by the Liberal House leader in this very program on the eve of an election in Nova Scotia. If the Chair wishes to deny me this opportunity, there will be many other occasions for me to contradict the statement made by the House leader and to show he has told lies to this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Donald MacInnis: He is lying to the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. First of all, I must say to the hon. member that I still feel his point is basically one of disagreement. It is impossible for the Chair to judge the situation on the affirmation of one member or another. The Chair is here to apply the rules of the House. In applying these rules, I think the hon. member should withdraw his last remark, unless he wants to substantiate them by a charge against the minister. This would involve the House as a whole. I do not think that Mr. Speaker or any occupant of the chair, in applying the rules of the House, can allow such language to be used in this House.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Donald MacInnis: You suckers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald MacInnis: The Chair is now asking me to withdraw-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Again the hon. member, for what reason I do not know, is making things very difficult for the Chair. As I have told hon. members many times, it is impossible for the Chair to apply the rules unless it has the co-operation of hon. members. Offensive language has never been tolerated in this House and has not been tolerated by its members. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) should be the first to regret such remarks. I would invite him to withdraw what he has said.


Donald MacInnis: In co-operation with the Chair, Mr. Speaker-I hope that one word will get me a bit of silence from the other side of the House-Your Honour did refer to my choice of language and said that the Chair and the members of the House do not permit such language and
Income Tax Act
that it has never been allowed. I would draw your attention to page 392 of Hansard for October 20, 1970. I should like to quote as authority, both the Chair and hon. members opposite, the bottom of the second column where the following appears:


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -or is he just interested in telling lies to the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton West.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is it a lie or not?
I stand on the same right as that accorded to the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister yesterday was permitted to read every word of a speech and also permitted to use that kind of language, then so am I. The rules of the House which are applied by the Chair apply just as much to the Prime Minister as to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


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


Donald MacInnis: The House leader of the Liberal party is now lying.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald MacInnis: I have no intention of retracting my remarks in view of the precedent established by the party opposite.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. In occupying the Chair while the hon. member has the floor, I am not here to judge what happened in one particular case. I am here to apply the rules of the House, and that is my first duty. As I said before, I cannot do it without the co-operation of hon. members. If the members of the House or the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond wants to destroy the institution which we all love and praise, that is his business; but I do not think he is helping the prestige of this institution by failing to agree with the Chair when the Chair tries to invite him to make his point clearly, and to do so in a way that is in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of this House.


Donald MacInnis: Again in co-operation with the Chair, Mr. Speaker, may I say just this. I have quoted Hansard for October 20, 1970 which reports the language the Prime Minister used on that occasion, and no point of order was raised at that time. Having said that, I leave it to the Chair, and I apologize to the Chair for the conduct of the members on the other side of the House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for his apology. As I understand it, we are disputing facts. That is the purpose of debate in the House of Commons. The hon. member is entitled to dispute my facts, but at the same time I am entitled to put them on the record. I am not replying to any argument raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond-


Donald MacInnis: You cannot.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -but I am replying to a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition this morning in which he said that the Prime Minister of this government had for political reasons accepted a request from Premier Regan of Nova Scotia having refused a similar request by

December 17, 1971
Income Tax Act
the former Conservative premier of the province. I regard that as a very serious charge, and I want to answer it.
On March 4, 1970 the Premier of Nova Scotia, who was then Premier Smith, put in final form to the government of Canada a definite proposal for assistance in the rehabilitation of the heavy water plant at Glace Bay. In that proposal there was absolutely no request to the government of Canada to take over ownership and operation of the plant. On April 10 the Prime Minister announced in the House the full acceptance of the request made by Premier Smith of Nova Scotia. Later on in the same month, when the matter was discussed in the provincial legislature, Premier Smith made the following statement:
Once more I wish to express warm appreciation and thanks for the assistance to be made available by the federal government. It will be a very substantial help indeed. I want to thank the Hon. A. J. MacEachen for his help in the matter. I know he spent a good deal of time and effort on behalf of the province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I did for Premier Smith and the province of Nova Scotia on that occasion what I did later for Premier Regan. I supported the proposals which Premier Smith made to the government of Canada. They were accepted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Later on there was an election in Nova Scotia. The new government considered the situation, abandoned the former plan and made an entirely new and fresh approach to the government of Canada, and we accepted that. We treated both governments fairly and equally, and it is vicious and untrue to say we treated Premier Smith differently or unfairly for political reasons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I was drawn into that detour because, as I said earlier, it is probably inevitable that the Leader of the Opposition and I should tangle on the question of heavy water. The occasion arose today. The next time he attempts to misinterpret the situation I will rise to answer him as I do now.
However, I want to get back to the amendment.
The amendment has been moved in all solemnity by the official opposition and today, in the final address made to the House by the Leader of the Opposition, he calls upon us to support that amendment. It is a motion of non-confidence in the government. If that amendment were carried we would be defeated and we do not intend to support that amendment. Not only would we be defeated, but the tax bill would probably be defeated. I want to tell the House why we cannot accept the amendment.
First of all, it is an incredible amendment. It belies any proper belief in the capacity of the opposition to formulate any reasonable proposition for the consideration of the House. For example, if this amendment were accepted, the provisions that we developed and which were approved in committee for the co-operatives and credit unions would not come into effect. Members of the official opposition have been crying to the government, and mem-

bers of the NDP party have been crying to the government, to bring in new provisions. We did. We brought in good provisions which have been accepted by the co-operatives and credit unions. If this amendment were accepted,those provisions would be postponed until the government decided to proclaim them. Are they really serious? Were they really serious and are they serious now?


An hon. Member:: No.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is what I wonder about when I say that we cannot accept this amendment. The NDP Party knows the consequence of accepting this amendment. I said earlier they would probably vote against it because they had enough time for debate. I must revise that because they do not think this. They will vote against the substance of the amendment because, among other things, it would deny to the co-operatives and credit unions the immediate relief under the tax law of this country. If they vote for the amendment they will be voting against the tax relief for the co-operatives. They will be saying, put if off into limbo, put it off until we the official opposition can make up our minds on the real difficulties of tax reform.
When I look at the amendment I think it is a nothing, it is a sham. It is a sham because it pretends to do something it does not do. If we as a government said that we would accept the amendment as written, then we would accept it and the bill would pass as written. The bill would receive Royal Assent. This amendment gives the government the power to proclaim all the rest of the bill the day after it receives Royal Assent. That is the effect of the amendment. We would go through all this and then they give the government the power by proclamation the day after Royal Assent to bring all the bill into effect. What a sham. What a bankrupt opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Waterloo. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond wishes to rise on a question of privilege. Before the hon. member rises on his question of privilege, I think I ought to remind him and all hon. members that there is just a little more than an hour before the end of the debate. No representative of the New Democratic Party has had an opportunity to speak since yesterday afternoon, and there is also a representative of the independent party who has been wanting to speak for the last four or five days. I think we should give them a chance to speak. I believe the hon. member for Simcoe North is also waiting for an opportunity to speak. For the moment, however, I will recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond on a question of privilege.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, may I say I am very sorry that the fact that I rise on questions of privilege from time to time is denying other members an opportunity to take part in this debate. One would think from the remarks made from the other side of the House that all the time in the world had
December 17, 1971

been available. My question of privilege arises from the statement of the minister and the fact that the heavy water plant in my hometown is of great importance to the people in my constituency.
I want to show that the assistance available to the Smith government and later on to the Regan government was not the same. I have the transcript. The amount of the assistance was $40 million plus, but as the minister went on to say certain conditions were stipulated. The main one for my purpose at the moment is that the government of Nova Scotia would get a new operator, a new organization. He went on to say it was absolutely essential that a new organization be obtained to do this job. Yet, Mr. Speaker, you and I and the House are aware of the fact that on October 19, six days following the election in Nova Scotia, there was a plan before this House, a bill, which made available financial assistance to the same old organization.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will now recognize the hon. member for Waterloo.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the minister that this is debate between members. The minister himself a moment ago expressed his view about debate between people who may have different opinions concerning certain situations. I really think we should give an opportunity to other members who have been waiting for this opportunity. The hon. member for Waterloo.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, the NDP will not be able to support the amendment before the House for two reasons. The first is that to the extent that it might be effective, and there is considerable doubt that it would be, it is a tremendous act of favouritism; second, it is probably not effective in the least, and therefore makes no sense and has no meaning in the examination of the bill before us.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) seemed to have directed his chief attack against the official opposition and seemed to have looked at this corner with some degree of favour. I am sorry that we will not be able to reciprocate. This debate has taken on the aspect of an auction sale between the Liberal and the Conservative parties to see who can give this country away faster to big business. It has been a complete disgrace. If we were to examine the course of this debate, read the minutes of the committee-and those volumes make a pile almost three or four feet high-we would see how much attention has been devoted to the problems of the ordinary taxpayer in this country, and how many briefs have been presented to the committee that dealt with the ordinary taxpayers of Canada. There were not many such briefs. If you were to examine Hansard, and I have not had a chance to comb through each line because it would be such a tremendous task, you would see how many words by either the government or the official opposition have been devoted to the problems of the ordinary people in this country and how many speeches were directed toward the problems of big business in Canada. There is a smell of an election in the air, and both the Liberals and the Conservatives are
Income Tax Act
falling over each other to see who can most please the bagmen of the giant industries who pay their expenses. I know I am being political, but I also know that this is a political arena.


An hon. Member:: The unions are paying your way.


Max Saltsman: I am quite happy to have the unions pay our way. I am quite happy to receive whatever donations the unions wish to give to this party.
When I listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) yesterday delivering one of his rare speeches I noted that in three of his opening paragraphs he used the word "fair" at least six times in a desperate attempt to convince himself-he was not convincing anyone else-that the just society he talked about was being supported by this tax bill. In my view those words were hollow; they had no meaning whatsoever, and simply using the word "fair" does not make this bill fair at all. Essentially, we are continuing the same kind of tax system we have always had. The Liberal party does not need the Conservatives in to tell them of the dangers facing the country in trying to tax business. The Liberals have their own backbenchers who will do that. They have been running to the minister and making him back off from any such provision contained in the legislation. People in this country who have hoped for some significant tax reform cannot help but be disappointed with the bill that will come to a vote later on this day.
After nine years of study, reports and discussions, Canada has wound up with a tax system which is still grossly unfair and bears much too heavily on the lower and middle income groups. It does that, not because we have to tax these groups so heavily for government revenues but because we are giving benefits to many people, to the resource industries and to the investors of this country in order to make their lot in life much easier.
Last evening we heard the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) indicate the significant tax savings that could be effected, how rates could be lowered for the middle and lower income groups if special tax privileges were taken away from the mining and resource industries and the investors of Canada. To the extent that these benefits are being given to the privileged groups in Canada, every wage and salary earner must pay considerably more than the government is entitled to ask of him or her. We are continuing the system under the present legislation. The principles that the NDP endorses are ones of equity and redistribution of income. They have been watered down in successive reports, and in the Benson bill now before Parliament they have virtually been nullified.
I can well remember in the early stages the bold, brave Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). I believed then, and I still believe today, that the Minister of Finance really wanted to see a genuine tax reform in this country. People often ask me, who do you think is the villain in the piece? It is fashionable to paint the pipe smoking Minister of Finance as the villain in the piece. He is the one who did away with tax reform. He is the one toward whom all ire has been directed. But I think that in the early days there was a real wish on the part of this man to bring in genuine tax reform, but there was no rapport between him and his party and pressures were continually being brought on

December 17, 1971
Income Tax Act
him within his own party. His own backbenchers were going across the country saying how terrible this tax reform bill was, how they were going to do something about it, assuring their business supporters "do not worry, we will get to Benson and we will make him back off". They did get to the Minister of Finance and he has backed off.
The initial reforms were not significant to begin with, and the continuous watering down of those reforms has left us with a meaningless document which does nothing to further the cause of equity and fairness in our society. We have the lightweight capital gains tax. This government takes great pride in having brought in the capital gains tax and now they are bringing in arguments to show how useful this tax will be. This is the last country in the industrialized world which does not have a capital gains tax, and now they are taking pride in having introduced it. It is only a half-gains tax. If a person gets his income from wages or salaries, if he works for his income in one way or another, he has to pay tax on every single cent that he earns. But if he has a lot of money, either left to him or available to him, money which he can invest, he is spared the cost of giving his share to the tax collector. He has to pay on only half of that money. We say, in effect, that it is far nobler to collect money that way and that therefore we will reward the man who obtains his income in that way. If he works for it one way or another, either in a white or a blue collar job, if he sweeps the floor in a factory or teaches university students, he pays tax on every cent he earns.
But if a man is an investor, then he does not have to pay the same rate of tax. If he is even more fortunate and happens to have invested in the oil or mining industries, then his rate of tax is even lower. We say to him, that is great; go ahead and put your money in these industries and we will give you a special tax break. Yet, evidence is mounting that these industries are responsible for destroying our potential for growth in this country. Whatever benefit they may have brought, whatever justification there might have been for tax concessions in the early stages of the development of Canada-and I will not argue that there were no benefits from them and that there were no reasons for encouraging this kind of investment-there is no longer such justification.
We are a nation of 22 million people who desperately need to find jobs for almost 300,000 new entrants a year into our labour force, and we cannot find them if the emphasis continues to be on resource development. It would be bad enough if the tax system were completely neutral and we were still heavily emphasizing resource development. But to have a high level of unemployment, such as we have now, and to see young people coming into the labour force for the first time seeking jobs, and in the face of this to encourage the resource industries by tax concessions is positively insane. One wonders how any government could have brought in provisions of this kind, or could have failed to see the merit in reducing such benefits to the resource industries.
It can be argued that while the national interest would call for a diminution of encouragement to resource development, there are some provinces that need such develop-

ment. This is a good argument. It is one I accept. But we have two choices. We can either say, "We are going to do this in the national interest regardless of the consequences to individual provinces," or say something that would be more fair, namely, that to the extent that any province is disadvantaged as a result of our taking action in the national interest, we will see to it that the revenues of the country are shared equally.
In that event, we would change our tax sharing agreements between the federal government and the provincial governments. We would secure the increase in manufacturing that we think needs to occur, and the increase in the service industries that we think needs to occur in order to provide jobs for our young people, and distribute the resultant increase in tax revenues all across the land so that there would not be a feeling of dissatisfaction. The people in the west would no longer see the actions taken as being only for the benefit of Ontario. We would have to make the case that they were for the benefit of the entire nation. Those are the kinds of tax sharing agreements that we should have. Unfortunately, we do not have them at the moment. The sell-out to the resource industry lobby is particularly shocking at this time because, Mr. Speaker, in the first place the government did not intend to do very much. The result is that the resource industries are almost back to enjoying the advantages they had at the beginning.
I can remember when estate tax legislation was discussed in the House of Commons. Today I listened to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), a man for whom I have a great deal of respect, and I wondered at his rather short memory of that debate. But maybe I just did not understand the hon. gentleman. It seemed to me as though he was deploring the fact that the federal government had dropped its role in estate taxation. That sounded a little strange. I know that many of the people in the Conservative party were quite happy to see the federal government get out of the field of estate taxation. I also know they will be happy to see the provinces get out of that field. But then I heard that the Leader of the Opposition is far more progressive than some of his followers. That is something I can understand. However, we should not forget that debate and the vigorous fight put up by the Conservative party against any increases or adjustments in estate taxes.
It is foolish to stand up in this House and cry over the fact that the federal government is getting out of the estate tax field. I think it is wrong for the federal government to get out of that field, and in an earlier speech I said that the decision to do so was made in an absent-minded fit of pique. The federal government was not deriving much revenue from that tax, and it got mad at the provinces. It asked, "Why should we collect this for the provinces? Let them stew in their own juices. Let them collect their own estate taxes." This will have an adverse effect on federal-provincial co-operation. This shattered egg will have to be restored in a new form. As other hon. members have pointed out, there will be a tremendous transfer of wealth take place when this legislation comes into effect.
Tax relief for old age pensioners and the immediate removal of some taxpayers from the rolls are a long-overdue recognition by the government that it should stop robbing the poor. This relief will do little more than par-
December 17, 1971

tially compensate those taxpayers for their losses through inflation in recent years. The other day my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), made a fine contribution to this tax debate when he pointed out that the increase in exemptions was not even equivalent to the rise in inflation that has taken place since the last time the exemption levels were set.
Not only does the outcome of this tax debate leave us with a most unsatisfactory income and wealth tax structure, but nothing has been done to end the regressiveness of our tax system. Greater recognition of the financial requirements of the provinces, which are facing the growing costs of urbanization, educational and social needs, should have been a first step in any kind of tax reform. Almost nothing has been done in that area.
I would like to make another point about the taxation of resources. When the federal government abdicates its role to tax new resource industries at the same level as it taxes manufacturing, it must be remembered that the resource industries are not completely exempted from tax. The situation is not quite as it appears on the surface because resource industries do pay tax, although perhaps not as much as they should. The question then must be asked, to whom should they pay this tax? Should it be to the federal government which has a redistribution program which in fact takes wealth from some of the richer provinces and makes it available to the poorer provinces? Should it be to the provinces, under a tax system which permits the wealthier provinces to keep the bulk of the wealth for themselves? To the extent that the federal government abdicates its role to tax resource industries, it provides an opportunity for provincial governments to move in and take the lion's share of this tax wealth, which is not distributed but is used by the individual provinces concerned. This is a way for the richer provinces to avoid the responsibility that they have to the poorer provinces. Sharing does not take place to the extent that it should.
We have been very critical throughout this whole debate, and we think we have had good cause to be critical. But in summing up at the close of the debate, we do not want to leave simply the criticism. We also made many constructive proposals. We made many suggestions as to the shape that the country's tax system should have. I would like to summarize our views on the kind of tax system we would like for Canada.
First, we think a comprehensive income concept has to be adopted, with all forms of economic gain to be included and subjected to a graduated scale of income tax based on ability to pay. There has to be an elimination of the traditional double standard in our system. Taxes should be based on a person's ability to pay rather than on how he derives his income. We see no justification for saying that this kind of income will be taxed at one rate, another kind of income at another rate, and that a third kind of income will receive special preferential treatment. That is unfair. We accept the Carter Commission proposal that all income be taxed on the same basis.
Second, capital gains should be taxed at full rates, rather than at the half rates proposed in the bill, on realization, in the same way as salaries, wages and other forms of income, with adequate provision for averaging, exemptions for the family home and farm home, and safeguards to prevent the break-up of family farms and
Income Tax Act
small businesses when passed on to sons and daughters. We look around this country, which has been more than generous in its tax system and tax treatment to business, and we see the results of that kind of favouritism. This country has the highest level of foreign ownership of any country in the world and, to a large extent, the tax system is to blame for that. The absence of a capital gains tax in Canada has encouraged our business men to sell out rather than operate their business because they could make a profit on which they paid no tax, but if they continued to operate they would have to pay tax.
We have offered a 20 per cent dividend tax credit to investors in the vain hope that these financial incentives would encourage Canadian ownership but that has failed. The pace of foreign acquisition is the greatest in the world.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is an awfully good idea.


Max Saltsman: You like foreign investment?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You would recommend a full capital gains tax, yet you are against foreign investment. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot take all the capital gains from Canadians, and then cry about foreign investment; that is the anomaly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a speech while remaining seated. That is not in accordance with the Standing Orders or any kind of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I got involved in a little argument.


Max Saltsman: I am glad to see that the hon. member was paying attention to the debate, although I might say he was not paying much attention to the economy as the peculiar logic he has expressed demonstrates.
We in the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, also believe there should be a system of tax credits instead of exemptions, because exemptions provide better benefits to those with higher incomes while tax credit makes it easier to maintain equity when making tax changes.
As a fourth point, we believe in the removal of unjustified tax concessions for natural resource industries, especially concessions relating to depletion allowances.
As a fifth point, we want to see strict limits on corporation capital cost allowances, advertising, entertainment and convention expenses. Some might argue that this is what the government is attempting but there is no real indication that they have made any substantial advance in curbing the excessive costs, despite the new legislation.
As a sixth point, we want to see the removal of the dividend tax credit, since it mainly benefits upper income groups and is not necessarily an incentive to growth. Abolition of the much abused dual rate, but adoption of other provisions to assist small businesses in obtaining credit, is desirable.
Throughout debate we have tried to make the point that there should be substantial assistance to small businesses trying to get established. We need more businesses, more entrepreneurship in Canada and that assistance should be forthcoming. We do not believe the way to do it is to

December 17, 1971
Income Tax Act
reward businesses after they have made money, which is what the present tax system does; we believe it should be done through incentives and encouragement when those businesses need help the most. The present system is a "give away" program rather than a real assistance to business, and we think it is the wrong kind of incentive and works against the idea of assisting genuine small businesses which are trying to grow.
As a seventh point, we believe the same treatment for employment expenses should be allowed for wage and salary earners as is now allowed for the self-employed, plus tax credits for the cost of child care. The government proposes a $150 employment expense deduction. That is unsatisfactory, since in a few cases it might be too much but in most cases it is inadequate. Many employees incur expenses in excess of this amount. There are many special cases and extraordinary expenses which will not be met by this provision. When we contract that with the generous provisions for the self-employed who are allowed to deduct all the costs, we find the system grossly unfair.
The argument put forth by the government is not an objection to the principle of equity. They agree that the system is inequitable. They accept the argument that the treatment of the self-employed is much better than the treatment of employees, and that something should be done about it, but they offer the argument of administrative efficiency. They say that since there are many more employees than self-employed, it is not practical to examine the tax returns of every employee to permit them to include legitimate expenses. That is a spurious argument, Mr. Speaker, and surely a disgrace to any tax system. To say that it cannot be done because it is not easy or is not convenient will not be accepted by those persons being harmed under the system. Either we have a tax system which provides that everyone will be limited to a certain amount or we have a tax system which accepts legitimate employment expenses incurred by both the self-employed and employees, and we examine their tax returns to that end. Other countries do this, so surely it is not beyond the administrative ability of the Canadian government to work some kind of equity into our tax system.
As an eighth point, we think inheritances and gifts should be subject to a tax levy which would be paid by the recipient, not by the donor, to ensure that the state receives a fair share when transfers between generations occur. Particular arrangements would be made to prevent undue hardship when family farms or small businesses are transferred from parents to children. It does not seem that much argument can be made against an inheritance tax in our society. If a man's individual efforts were responsible for the creation of growth without any assistance from society, his employees or any of the other organizations that exist, there might be an argument against inheritance tax on the wealth to be passed on. But we know this is untrue; in our civilized society people cannot operate without assistance from each other. Business today is probably the largest recipient of benefits from the government. There are many programs for assistance and there is the provision of fire and police services, of roads and transportation networks, so there is a social input. Land does not increase in value simply because it sits there; it increases in value because of the social conditions which contribute to the growth of a

country. For those reasons, I think that the government of a country has a claim on part of the wealth that is created. I do not think there should be too much objection, if that claim is a fair one, if some of it is paid to the government and the other people in the country, upon death.
Mr. Speaker, nine years ago many of us looked forward to seeing genuine tax reform and the events of the last couple of years have been a grave disappointment. We had hoped that the Carter commission, with its superb logic, its well documented cases, would have some influence on the minds of those in government. It has had little or no influence at all.
The thrust of the debate in this House was not to the effect that the government was being far too timid in implementing tax reform. The thrust was in the opposition direction. It was suggested that the government was being far too progressive. Committees like the Committee on Fair Taxation spent enormous sums of money trying to persuade the ordinary people of Canada that the new tax system would be too socialistic. The business community rose as a group and attacked the modicum of tax reform there is in the bill and said that the bill is too socialistic. Unfortunately, between elections, the ordinary people are not organized to make representations on this subject. It is our hope that at the next election they will cast their judgments and thereby say that this tax bill constitutes a sabotage of tax reform.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As hon. members will observe, three of our colleagues seek the floor and there are perhaps 40 minutes left for debate pursuant to the order under which we operate at the present time. The Chair has taken the liberty to put into operation this afternoon rule 75d which is a new rule. After consultation, there has been agreement to divide the time available among a minister, a spokesman for the official opposition and an independent member. For the time being the Chair will recognize the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray). I might say that these spokesmen will speak under an allocation of time determined by the Chair. The time will be watched closely.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by saying that points of the kind just made by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) have been previously raised and, I think, effectively rebutted by other speakers on behalf of the government earlier in the debate. None of his arguments can remove the fact that the government's proposals will bring about lower taxes for millions of Canadians, particularly those in the lower income groups. Therefore, these proposals deserve the support of the House at this time. Mr. Speaker, now that Parliament appears to be moving closer to the point of final decision on tax reform legislation, I think that the House would expect me to say something-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Say something.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -about the way the Department of National Revenue will approach the task of its administration of
December 17, 1971

the new law when it receives final parliamentary approval and royal assent.
Any task of administration, Mr. Speaker, is, of course, governed by the provisions of the law in question. But it is unrealistic to expect that tax laws, both those which have been on the statute books for years and, more particularly, new laws such as we are considering now can be drafted so perfectly that there is no room for differing interpretations of them in some circumstances. Despite the best of intentions, it is inevitable that there are ambiguities to be resolved in the interpretation of laws of this kind. Therefore, in deciding upon an official interpretation the Department of National Revenue is guided by legal advisers and by considerations of reasonableness and practicality.
However, where two interpretations seem to have equal support, having regard to equity, reasonableness, statutory interpretation and the general intent of the legislation as a whole, the interpretation is adopted which gives the benefit of the doubt to the taxpayer. This is already the department's policy under the present law. I want to assure the House that this will certainly be the policy of the department when it starts applying the many new provisions contained in the bill which is presently before us, once, of course, it receives final parliamentary approval.
The underlying philosophy of the taxation division of the department, as hon. members know, has been evolving over the past several years to take account of increased taxpayer interest and participation in the process of tax administration. The main thrust of these changes has been in the direction of the most complete possible dissemination of taxation information to all taxpayers and the establishment of better communications between taxpayer and the department. When it adopted this approach the department knew it would likely be faced with the job of administering a new tax statute.
We recognized, of course, that in spite of efforts not to have them, inevitably there would be problems in adjusting to a new tax system, both for the taxpayer and the tax administrator. We have therefore been trying to anticipate what the major problems might be and to plan our administrative practices with a view to minimizing any possible difficulties for the taxpayer and the department.
The department acknowledges the inherent right of the taxpayer to all the information and all the assistance that it can give him. As well, it realizes that if its administrative mechanism is in any way high-handed, it is only adding to the problems of administration. The department cannot expect a taxpayer to accord it the co-operation it requires to maintain the efficiency and integrity of our voluntary compliance system if it does not extend the fullest co-operation to him. The department, therefore, intends to make a very special effort to ensure that the needs of the taxpayer under the new tax system are met fully and sympathetically. Therefore, I would like to describe to the House some of the steps we will be taking to assist taxpayers in the adjustment period to try to achieve as smooth a transition as possible from the old to the proposed new tax system.
While there are other measures which I shall describe later in my remarks, let me speak first about the public 24725-41
Income Tax Act
information program on the new law the department will begin to administer once the law receives royal assent. The department will be centering this public information program around a series of pamphlets covering the various topics of tax reform. In our view, this is the most effective way to handle material of this complexity. These printed publications are being written in as simple language as possible and in a form which is concise and to the point.
To lessen the possibility of confusion, the department has developed a selective mailing system so that most taxpayers will receive only the information they will want and require. Groups of taxpayers have been selected from our computer master file and direct mail packages containing topics affecting each group will be mailed, using computer-generated address labels. These publications will also be advertised nationally as being available from our head office or any of our 28 district taxation offices. The advertising messages will serve those taxpayers who for whatever reason are not on the tax roll, those who may mislay the publications they receive through the mail and those who cannot be selected as a distinct group.
In summary, what the department is endeavouring to do is give each taxpayer in every walk of life sufficient printed information in understandable terms so that he will be able to be aware of the changes brought about by the new law. What the department is trying to avoid is the flooding of the taxpayer's mail with information that he would not likely consider to be relevant and useful to him.
I would like to give the House more details of this publication program. Eleven pamphlets have been planned, each dealing with a different subject, and there will be additions to the list if the need arises. These subjects are: Highlights for individuals, Valuation Day, Child Care Expenses, Moving Expenses, Capital Gains, Partnerships, Rental Income and Undeveloped Land, Goodwill and Similar Assets, the Professions-Income Calculation, Basic Herds, and Corporate Tax Guide.
I have referred to the groups of taxpayers which will be selected from the computer master file. The groups are: married women, businessmen, professionals, farmers, rental property owners, corporations, and all other individuals. Each of these groups, some of which of course will overlap, will receive a package of pamphlets of direct interest, although some of the printed publications such as Valuation Day and Highlights for Individuals will go to most groups.
I will not take the time of the House to describe all the publications in detail, but it may be of interest to hon. members if I give some explanation of two of the pamphlets that I have mentioned, Highlights for Individuals, and Valuation Day. The Valuation Day pamphlet will attempt to achieve two purposes. First, it will point out in simple language that most people will not be affected by Valuation Day, and others may or may not be affected initially. This message will be prominently displayed on the first page. Taxpayers who are affected will be invited to read on, to find out what action they should take. As the publication will make clear, such action will be in their interest, and the bulk of the text will be used to explain this.

December 17, 1971
Income Tax Act
The pamphlet entitled Highlights for Individuals will outline all major changes that may affect the individual taxpayer. In addition, the taxpayer will be informed as to whether any immediate action is required on his part. If so, he will be directed by the text to one of the specialized pamphlets to which I referred earlier in my remarks.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It sounds easy.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If not, the text will inform him that further information on how to file will be forwarded with his return and guide when it becomes necessary and he will be informed this will not be necessary until filing time in the early part of 1973.
Hon. members will have observed that in referring to pamphlet titles I have not mentioned a number of subjects of tax reform. In most instances, these are subjects that are of interest to a minority of taxpayers. We have planned to treat those subjects by the issuance of information circulars which will go on our regular mailing list and be available in our district offices, rather than publish separate pamphlets which would be required in comparatively small numbers. The department has tried to anticipate all the requirements for printed information. But, as I indicated earlier, the situation will be watched closely and if it appears other subjects should be dealt with by specialized pamphlets, resources will be available to act immediately.
We believe the distribution of these publications will serve to answer the vast majority of questions that will occur to taxpayers. At the same time, we realize that we can never anticipate all the questions and problems that may arise. As an additional means of providing increased assistance to taxpayers during the early stages of implementation of the new law, we are establishing a new informal consultation service.
I have mentioned that the taxation component of the Department of National Revenue has 28 district offices across Canada. We have one of the most highly decentralized departments of government, with 85 per cent of our taxation employees situated in the district offices to provide direct service to the public. Each district office now maintains an inquiry service. Taxpayers may inquire at the counter, telephone or write for information. Last year, for instance, these offices dealt with more than two million such inquiries. With the advent of tax reform, this service is being expanded and improved.
Taxpayers may visit, telephone or write their own district office for information. In most instances our regular information staff, augmented as the need arises, will be able to answer questions arising out of the new law. But some taxpayers will have difficult problems dealing, for instance, with a complex business operation. These taxpayers will be referred by the regular information staff to our informal consultation service which will be staffed by officers in each district office with special training and who will be particularly well informed about the new legislation. These expert advisers, in turn, will be in ready touch by telephone with a central group of experts in head office. As soon as an answer can be provided by this informal consultation service, the taxpayer will be contacted by telephone or by the quickest possible means. In 
this way we will be able to provide a relatively fast answering service for difficult problems, consistent with a proper consideration of them by knowledgeable taxation employees.
This advice will not be binding on the department but will merely be the best opinion that can be given without the detailed documentation that would be required for a binding advance income tax ruling. The aim is to provide the best quick service that we can. I referred earlier to efforts of the department to establish better lines of communication with the taxpayer so as to remove as far as possible the uncertainty as to his position under the law. One of several steps in that direction was the inauguration of an advance ruling system under which the department provides rulings binding on the department as long as the relevant law remains unchanged.
When I spoke to the Tax Foundation in Vancouver a few weeks ago I said it had been incorrectly reported in the press that the department will not give binding advance rulings under the proposed new law once it came into effect. Let me again confirm that these reports were not correct. The department will continue to give these rulings once the new law goes into effect, subject only to the same limitations and qualifications as in the past.
I know that many taxpayers are relying on the availability of this service to assist them in removing uncertainties. I have therefore directed that every effort must be made to expand the staff of the department's rulings division. This is being done in an endeavour to meet the concern about the degree of delay in the issuing of rulings that may be caused by the volume and complexity of the requests for them. The rulings division staff will be augmented with experienced officers from the district taxation offices and other branches at head office on a loan basis as well as by the recruitment of some additional personnel on a permanent basis. By these means there will be an expansion of about 50 per cent in the number of experienced accountants engaged in this work. As a result, we now anticipate that advance income tax rulings will be obtainable under the proposed new law, once it receives royal assent, within approximately the same span of time that they have been obtained under the present law.
It is certainly incumbent on the tax administrator to offer every assistance to taxpayers, especially when the laws are revised or new measures are introduced. I want to repeat that the department is most anxious to help taxpayers in every walk of life to become familiar with the new law in the form it is passed by Parliament. As a further means of trying to be helpful, the department is planning a series of special briefings in convenient locations across the country.
Some professional organizations have already held seminars on tax reform and others will be holding tax conferences in the months ahead. These meetings and the information disseminated by these organizations are of great assistance to their members. But there are other taxpayers and tax practitioners in relatively small practices who do not have such means of acquainting themselves with the new law. For the benefit of these taxpayers and for private practitioners or consultants who help them prepare their returns but who feel they are not able to get adequate information through professional organi-
December 17, 1971

zations, we are proposing to hold special tax reform briefings in various communities. Videotape recordings and other such aids will be used at these briefings to explain the new law, and taxation officers will be in attendance to answer questions.
We propose to hold these briefings after the 1972 filing season has ended, that is, from next May on. Prior to that time taxpayers will be concerned primarily with filing under the present law and practitioners will be similarly engaged.
Whenever Parliament amends the Income Tax Act it is necessary to establish a definite starting date for the new or revised provisions in the law.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister, but it is my duty to do so. As His Honour mentioned earlier today, under the new Standing Order there is an informal arrangement that I know all hon. members will want to follow.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, with the limited time at my disposal I will try to cover some of the points I want to make. The speech of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) is what we expect from this particular member, certainly from a coastal constituency: it is filled with red herrings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Bernard Rynard: Some have been answered by my colleagues, but the remarks dealing with the amendment are the reddest and most odorous of all.
We have used a simple device on third reading to send the bill back to committee of the whole to review the proposal for splitting the bill, a proposal which has received universal approval from all over this land, from people in business, farming, industry and the press. Only the Liberals have rejected it. We do not seek to bind the hands of the committee as to the exact means of division. But our views are known and accepted. What we want is a division on lines acceptable to the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Bernard Rynard: I believe one of the saddest spectacles I have seen in this Parliament was the night the tax reform bill of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) was passed in the House, 75 clauses, with less than one-quarter of the book of 735 pages reviewed. It required over 135 amendments to deal with corrections to this one-quarter that was reviewed. On the same basis, it would require well over 400 amendments to correct the whole of the bill.
A complex and complicated bill that even the tax accountants and tax lawyers could not understand was passed in a period of 3j hours. The Members of Parliament were robots, forced to bow to a majority government run by a modern dictatorship. The hysteria of the cockpit was nothing compared with Parliament that night.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Bernard Rynard: The government argued as its reason for bringing in closure that over 40 days were taken up with discussion and that was long enough. Mr. Speaker, what has that to do with it? The bill should be properly
Income Tax Act
analysed on the floor of this House until it has been understood and until all of it has been reviewed.
One might accept the government's premise if the bill had been the usual short one, containing a few pages, but this was a 737-page document which required 137 amendments in a quarter of its length. To show the complexity of this legislation I am tabling an article by Marshall, Russell and White that bears this point out. Surely, the point has been entirely missed. Whether it required 10 days or 100 days for consideration is irrelevant. What matters is that it should be adequately discussed. In fact, the House and the committee of the whole made progress with reasonable speed by comparison with the time taken to consider other bills.
In any case, the government could have agreed to divide this long, ponderous bill, separating the non-contentious areas which were easily understood. But they flatly refused to do this. The government alone must accept responsibility for the fact that almost three-quarters of the measure has been forced through the House by closure. This was done despite the pleas of the Senate committee and the various other groups and institutions which counselled against approving parts of the legislation, and the wishes of the five Premiers who urged the government not to proceed with it. Incidentally, two of these Premiers represent the provinces of Ontario and Quebec which between them contain 75 per cent of the population of Canada. Perhaps the only analogy we have is the Domesday Bill put through by William the Conqueror almost 900 years ago.
In defence of these proposals, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made one of his infrequent speeches in this chamber during which he referred to the million people he was taking off the tax rolls. Mr. Speaker, those people should have been taken off long ago. Inflation, set off by this government, has proceeded at such a pace that the government was obliged to take this action. They had been asked over and over again by the opposition to do so, but they refused to act until they had no choice. This section could have been passed two months ago, three months ago, six months ago or two years ago. But the government did nothing about it. Now they put this little sugar pill in with all these other provisions. It is bitter aloes, though, because it should have come much sooner. They should have done this three years ago.
Members opposite claim that the press are behind them. They say their actions are supported by editorial writers. I wish to read from the Globe and Mail, Canada's national newspaper, which had this to say:
What the government is saying to all of us is this: swallow what we hand you whether you understand it or not, or we'll use closure to make you swallow it. How bad this will be with the tax bill we cannot know till it hits us. But if the government employs the same tactics with the Competition Act and with legislation to control foreign and even Canadian investment, then both the economy that supports us and the freedoms we enjoy could be at grave risk. What has been proposed would deny many rights to individuals and could plunge us into depression. But if we ask for time to argue the points, the government can slap on closure and make us, in a very real sense, its prisoners.
What we are fighting is not any longer the tax bill-bad as it may be-but this arrogant use of closure to shut Parliament and people out of the running of their own affairs.
24725-4 U

December 17, 1971
Income Tax Act


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Right.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Now, Mr. Speaker, just to set the record straight, may I remind the House that as reported in Hansard at page 2162 on March 26, 1962, my right hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) introduced a motion to do away with closure. He had this to say:
All of us agree that full and free debate is necessary in the parliamentary system, the examination without restraint of the programs and policies advanced not only by the government but by those in the opposition who would provide an alternative government. In the process of national decision-making the role of Parliament is pre-eminent and vital. I believe, in the light of the experience of the past, that the principle of closure need no longer be accepted under our system-
We in Parliament have a duty to preserve the freedom of debate because our freedom, the freedom of parliament, is essential to the freedom of the people we represent. When we have rules that confine or limit our freedom in debate we are permitting rules that also limit freedom in Canada outside Parliament as well.
Then he went on to refer to a statement by Mr. Ernest Lapointe:
It is the will of Parliament, not that of the government, that is the will of the nation.
If the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) has anything to say, let him get up and say it and not keep talking from his seat, as is a habit of his. Now I wish to read what Mr. Mackenzie King had to say on the same subject:
I want to make it perfectly clear that the battle which has been put up in connection with this measure is not merely over the rights of minorities or the rights of majorities; it is true that it has to do with the rights of both, rights which in the case of the majority no less than in that of the minority, are threatened.
Next I wish to read what Mr. Pickersgill had to say. He was one of the prominent members of this House. He learned his lesson, and this ought to be required reading for all members on the other side:
I believe that no government in its senses would ever again use the existing closure rule in our book. I therefore do not see any sense in leaving it there.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Did you buy that?


Philip Bernard Rynard: I shall now put on record what the Winnipeg Tribune has to say about contempt for Parliament.
In the 1969 summer session, the Trudeau government delivered a one-two sneak punch to freedom of debate in the House of Commons. The government invoked closure to choke off debate on a bill that gave it even more drastic powers of closure-the notorious Bill 75c.
At the time Donald Macdonald, the Liberal House leader, contended that 75c would never be used to limit debate to the minimum allowed on a major bill. Today the Trudeau government is using 75c to choke off discussion of its 707-page tax bill before the first 200 pages of the measure have been given clause-by-clause scrutiny.
So much for assurances by autocrats that they will never use autocratic powers. And so much for Ron Basford's soothing assurances that the harsh provisions of his Competition Act will not be invoked.
During the 1969 debate, Prime Minister Trudeau made it clear that he regarded MPs on opposition benches as a bunch of nobodies. He made the smart-alec comment that the IQ of the Commons rose every time an opposition MP left the chamber. He showed his disdain for parliamentary process then, as he is showing it now, by ramming through tax legislation that will vitally affect every citizen and business firm in the country.
(Mr. Rynard.]
Even government spokesmen admit they do not understand all the ramifications of the bill. They even admit that the bill probably contains errors and mistakes. They are still making amendments to it. But Mr. Benson is so determined to get the measure on the statute books before the end of the year that the rights of both Parliament and ordinary citizens are being ridden over roughshod-
In any event, what is now unfolding in Ottawa is systematic contempt for Parliament.
While we are talking about the use of power, I would remind hon. members that Senator Gratton O'Leary spoke in the other place about the disturbing growth of the power of the Prime Minister, adding that the Prime Minister of Canada had more power than even the President of the United States whose actions were controlled by a system of checks and balances and who held office for a dated four-year term. Yes, the government of Canada is neither the House of Commons nor the cabinet: it is the million-dollar plus establishment of the Prime Minister and the office of the Privy Council. These are the ones who are gradually usurping the power of Parliament.
Why continue to have a Parliament, except as the heritage for which people have fought and died so that they might enjoy a system of government in which their voices be heard? The voice of the people will rise again to haunt this dictatorial government. The men in power who stride today across the field of politics are like passing shadows in the night-they come, they go. As Edmund Burke said in the British House of Commons on February 7, 1771: "The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse." And as Lord Acton said in his "Essays on Freedom and Power": "All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." We are seeing an example here today. I repeat, let us hope the voice of the people will be heard again after the next election and that once again the freedom of the people will be restored to Parliament.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have a few minutes to express my views on the bill before the House, a bill of the utmost importance. We have reached the end of our many discussions on the bill, and in view of my status I feel I should explain the stand I must take on it.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to note the discussions we have held on the importance of this bill. It all began with a white paper. I thought such action was wise at the time, and I still think it was timely. That statement of policy allowed the people to analyse the importance of the bill. Obviously, since the white paper was published, several needed changes have been made to the proposed tax policy. I should like to point out especially the contribution of the opposition parties and the government to the changes made, if we go back to the early stages of the bill, that is to say the white paper.
I take the liberty of congratulating the opposition parties. They have often raised some valid points. I especially want to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who made a tour of the country to sensitize the people. It was a brilliant idea and the trip of the Leader of the Opposition had some good consequences, since several organizations and provincial governments made after-
December 17, 1971

wards representations to the federal government which realized the importance of some proposed changes. It has therefore decided, as a result of valid points which had been raised, to propose some one hundred amendments.
We would surely be tempted to charge the government with taking a backward step because it has proposed those amendments. I would like, in all objectivity, to congratulate the government for having realized that it was necessary to make the changes proposed by the opposition parties as well as by responsible organizations in the interests of Canadians.
I would like also to recognize the fact that the minister and the government have shown a certain open-mindedness when they accepted the amendments aimed at improving the bill. It is obvious, of course, that this bill is not perfect. We must, however, in all objectivity, recognize the merits of several sections of this bill, as well as the advantages that it contains.
It can still be improved. The minister has even admitted to the House that in the light of experience, he expected to bring forward some amendments, and I hope that he will stick by his intention to make the required changes.
I would also like to express my appreciation concerning the discussions which dealt with the co-operative movement and the caisses populaires. The necessary amendments have been introduced and passed.
I am happy about the representations made in favour of such institutions by many hon. members and many organizations. I am especially happy to see that the government has felt the need to restore to the co-operative movement the particular character that it is necessary for it to have in order to attain its objectives.
I would have hoped that the basic exemptions would be much more than $1,500 and $2,850. In present circumstances, that is obviously insufficient. There is a fairly important improvement, but, as no change had been made in this area in the past 20 years, I feel that the basic exemptions are not high enough, and I hope that the government will seriously consider raising them further in the fairly near future, a move that would be completely justified, especially in the case of certain classes of wage-earners.
I would have hoped also that serious consideration would be given to a special tax allowing for the establishment of an old age security program for people 60 and over. I know that this would require large amounts of money, but as the government has the responsibility to create a proper social climate, it should not hesitate, I think, to develop a tax policy taking into account the establishment of a special tax so that pensioners 60 and over could enjoy a sufficient income. This, in my opinion, would surely constitute another step toward a more just society.
I do hope that within the next few months the government will seriously look into this matter.
I would also like to refer to the speech made last night by the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans). I would have hoped, of course, that the government would give much more consideration to the comments of the hon. member for Duvernay. I think this is the best speech I have ever heard in the House regarding tax reform.
Income Tax Act
I believe the hon. member for Duvernay got to the sore spots of our economy and offered advice to which the government should give notice. His words should be considered not only by hon. members but also by the government.
I would like to comment a particular paragraph of his speech that reads as follows:
-a nation's natural resources are not past-production; they are the wealth of its soil and waterways. As such, they cannot be viewed in the same light as current production, as goods and services that we produce each year. Those goods can legitimately be disposed of at will by the people who produce them currently in any given year. Resources are a trust. They have been received from the past. They are to be husbanded by the present generation and they are to be passed on to future generations. A generation that deliberately squanders a nation's natural wealth-I emphasize "deliberately squanders"-to enhance its own standard of living will have much to answer for.
I wish the government would carefully study the hon. member's speech , a speech that could be of direct interest to Canadians. I continue the quotation:
Ten years ago a group of men were named to draft for Canada a fair and just taxation policy that would emphasize growth, employment and stability in the economy. I do not think the task is over. All I want to do is remind the Canadian people and the Canadian government .. . that after ten years that task it not over. This task has to be begun again. I sincerely believe this government can put together all of the elements of an economic policy that will give us growth and employment. In any event, I certainly hope so.
At any rate, it is obvious that the government respects the views of the hon. member for Duvernay and I believe his speech certainly deserves consideration by the government.
In conclusion, I should like to add that there has been much complaint about the motion of closure. I am among those who believe in limiting debates but I feel it is wrong to wait until third reading to limit the debates. It is difficult for parties to come to an agreement in the heat of debate.
Mr. Speaker, the present system may not compell us to commit blunders, but it permits them to exist. I trust we shall apply corrective measures to it, that will enable us to plan a legislative program before each session, so that all hon. members may be aware of the time allowed for debates.
During the forty days given to the consideration of the bill in committee of the whole, hon. members could have been more practical in the discussions. We would have progressed more than we did during the consideration of the bill in committee of the whole, since we were expecting the time of debate to be unlimited.
The government must do some planning; Parliament must plan its business. I believe in limiting debates, provided the limit is established at the beginning of each session, so that we may know how much time we will be allowed to discuss such or such a bill.
Such planning is necessary and once those changes are made we will not have to discuss the implementation of the closure rule which, in certain circumstances, may be fair.
I regret that, at the third reading stage, the debate lasted only four days. In view of the importance of this bill it is obvious that third reading required more time and I think

December 17, 1971
Division
that perhaps we over did it in committee of the whole. I am convinced that the adoption of a legislative program including a limit on debates would make hon. members more objective to the benefit of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I will	vote for the bill even though it is
causing deep concern to the public at large. If I refer to the speech of the member for Duvernay, such concern is well known. However, the bill will have beneficial effects for a category of Canadians. I wish to say I am in favor of this tax reform. Even though it is not perfect it is providing some profitable changes for Canadians.	
[English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker :: Order, please. It being 3.45 p.m.,
under the provisions of Standing Order 75C and pursuant to order made Tuesday, December 14, 1971, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith and successively every question necessary in order to dispose of third reading and pass each stage of the bill now before	
the House.	
The first question is on the amendment to the main motion. All those in favour of the amendment Arill please	
say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: : All those opposed will please say
nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is as follows:
Mr. Benson, seconded by Mr. Laing (Vancouver South), moved that Bill C-259, to amend the Income Tax Act and to make certain provisions and alterations in the statute law related to or consequential upon the amendments to that act, be now read the third time and do pass.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: I gather it is the wish of hon. members that we call the vote without ringing the bells. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the balance of this day, because of the late hour and the tragic circumstances of this Parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: -I would suggest we not proceed with private members' hour.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion has been made that we do not proceed with private members' hour. The hon. parliamentary secretary.


Mr. lerome:: Mr. Speaker, rather than abandon the hour, especially in this atmosphere, I understand that two members have bills which would propose to change the names of constituencies. Also, two members who spoke yesterday on the Bank of Canada bill are very anxious to continue debate until five o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed in today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills and private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, November 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Rowland:

That, in the opinion of this House, there should be further improvements made in the operation of the committee system in order to enhance the influence of the House of Commons upon the policy-making process and in order to reduce the information gap between private members and cabinet ministers and to that end that the following subject-matters be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization for the purpose of study apd the making of recommendations (a) the possibility of establishing a means whereby committees could take the initiative in recommending to the House matters which should be referred to them by the House; (b) adequate staff support for committees; (c) the advisability of making it mandatory for each committee to prepare at the end of each session a running record of recommendations it has made to the government and government action taken on its recommendations; (d) making it mandatory for a motion of concurrence to be moved in connection with all committee reports and discovering a means by which debate on such motions could be kept to a reasonable level, specifically the possibility of increasing the number of assigned days, the increase in number to be allocated to the discussion of committee reports, the reports to be considered to be determined by opposition parties; (e) making it possible for minority reports to be tabled together with majority reports from committees; (f) allowing standing committees to be constituted as committees of inquiry.
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to say that I was here when the motion was first presented by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland). I completely agree with the motion to have the whole committee system reviewed. I want to take only a few minutes to present one or two points because I feel the motion should be brought to a conclusion before five o'clock.
The hon. member for Selkirk came to this House after 1968 and I suspect he has suffered some of the frustations of hon. members like myself and others who came in at that time. We have been active in committees since 1968. In the first year I remember the fisheries committee, for example, sitting for weeks on end discussing various pieces of legislation and the estimates. The members were desirous of clarifying the legislation and having people come before the committee to present their points of view. It has been a frustrating experience because over the last couple of years members have found that the committee system is being treated as an appendage to the House of Commons, with matters being dominated by the party in power to the extent that it becomes a useless exercise.
In the regional economic affairs committee and the fisheries committee we have often worked for weeks on a piece of legislation, only to find out that members who were in no way involved came before the committee and were used as a task force or a special force to get the legislation through without amendment. We found, no matter how much work we had done in connection with amendments and how much research had gone into them, the government was unwilling to accept any changes of substance.
I remember the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Jerome) presenting the point of view here that because under our parliamentary system it is necessary for the House to have confidence in the government, and because the will of the government is expressed in the committees, the committees have become an echo of the House of Commons and it is necessary for that confidence to be extended to committees. I challenge
Messrs:
Murta
Nesbitt
Nowlan
Ny strom
Peddle
Peters
Ricard
Ritchie
Rodrigue
Rondeau
Rose
Rowland
Rynard
Saltsman
Schumacher
Scott
Southam
Stanfield
Stewart (Marquette) Thompson (Red Deer) Thomson
(Battlef ord-Kindersley) Winch Woolliams Yewchuk-83.
December 17, 1971

that. Like the hon. member for Selkirk, I am concerned about the role of our committees.
One of the major difficulties stems from the fact, I suggest to Your Honour, that almost every day members of the House request unanimous consent for certain subject matters to be referred to standing committees. Since coming here I can remember only one occasion when the House accepted a motion under Standing Order 43 and allowed a matter to be referred to a particular committee. There have been numerous occasions, occurring almost daily, when the House has felt it necessary to have a committee investigate a particular circumstance. The most recent example that comes to mind involves the fisheries committee and the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. That example arose because the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), as a result of a tremendous lack of sensitivity regarding the marine resources of Canada-a lack of knowledge, a lack of understanding, a lack of interest and a lack of political backbone necessary to bring into play the decision-making capability that is necessary to enforce obvious rules to conserve the resources of the continental shelf-went his own, unique, unconcerned way and negotiated a series of treaties with European countries. The treaty with Norway is the most recent of such treaties. We have tried to negotiate a treaty with Denmark. We have tried to negotiate one with Portugal and one with Spain. We have one with France and one with the U.K.
There have been motions and arguments by members from the Atlantic region, especially from the province of Newfoundland, suggesting that the whole business ought to be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. We feel that it is necessary for those committees to consider these questions because the few minutes available when the estimates are considered in the spring will not be enough. These opportunities have been denied us and, since the government has refused to accept legitimate motions calling for the reference of important subject matters to standing committees, I feel that the committee system is being seriously undermined.
We feel, also, that there might be changes in the question period. We wonder whether Canada has the right to go ahead and, without consulting the Atlantic provinces, to negotiate these kinds of treaties in a vacuum. We wonder whether the government has the constitutional or the moral right to make on behalf of Canada this kind of in-vacuum decision. We question whether it is in order for the government of Canada to make these kinds of decisions without referring them to the House of Commons, to the representatives of the Canadian people.
We have felt seriously that the consideration of such treaties would provide a prime opportunity for the various committees involved, the committee on external affairs and the committee on fisheries, to call before them representatives of the Save our Fisheries Association, commonly referred to as SOFA, to call before them representatives of our party coming from the Atlantic region, to summon representatives of the provincial authorities that are so vitally affected and to have the whole matter brought, by means of our committee system,
Improvements to Committees System
before the Canadian people and before the members of the House of Commons.
We are worried about the lack of concern which does not allow such committee representation, because even if that process did not result in any firm resolution or firm decision on the part of the committee, at least it would provide the vehicle necessary for airing the grievances and concerns of frustrated people in the Atlantic region who have not been receiving a legitimate response from the government on this most vital issue that affects their whole future. That is one matter I wanted to put before this House.
I hope that some of the changes suggested by my colleague for Selkirk will be seriously considered and accepted. I recently heard the government House leader make a statement to the effect that it is contemplated there will be changes with respect to the committee system. I do not feel that there is any need for major changes in the rules in this regard if we accommodate some of the legitimate requests that arise from day to day for numerous issues to be referred to our committees.
Last year, in the fisheries committee, I recall we were discussing a particular piece of legislation, the end result being that the issue of conservation, when it came before that committee, could be discussed for only one day. The committee could afford to spend only one day of its time on the matter of fish conservation, principally because the estimates had to be put through by the next day. We had one day to discuss an issue which is one of the most important issues affecting the Atlantic region. When we were able to bring one of our spokesmen from the Atlantic provinces, Mr. Etchegary, President of the Save our Fisheries Association, before that committee to testify, even though he appeared only for a few hours I think the minister and some of his officials were shocked to hear the presentation of facts regarding the tragedy of Atlantic marine resources. We were hurried in that committee and discussed the estimates most inadequately. Actually, the Canadian people would be shocked with our whole parliamentary system if they knew how the committee handled estimates involving several hundred million dollars.
I feel that even within the present rules, Standing Order 43 ought to be utilized more effectively so that we could refer some of these matters to committee. Unless we do that, or unless we amend our procedures regarding the 40-minute question period so that these matters can be delved into in greater detail in the House and bring forward more legitimate responses from the government that is responsible for its behaviour during the question period to the Canadian people, I forecast that in the coming year, 1972, the House of Commons will hardly be a fit place to be in during the question period.
I have been watching, during the last couple of weeks, what has been going on. Speaking as a member who participates actively in the question period, I have watched closely the absolute frustration and demoralization of certain members on this side of the House which has stemmed from their inability to take part actively in the House of Commons proceedings during the question period. We have been getting responses from the government that have frequently misled the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
10594

Improvements to Committees System


John Howard Lundrigan: The government has been frequently misinforming the House and not informing the House. They are not opening up, so to speak, and giving us legitimate responses. Consider the inability of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to answer questions regarding our resource problems. His answers have given rise to much frustration. Unless some way can be found either to enlarge the scope of the question period and provide more legitimate responses from the government, or for more motions under Standing Order 43 to be accepted-many of these motions being on issues that ought to be referred to standing committees-I suggest that the last session of the twenty-eighth Parliament will be one involving great challenges for the Chair and other hon. members.
There is no way that we, the members from the Atlantic region, Mr. Speaker, will take a back seat on the issue of fish conservation and marine resource management. In view of our motions calling for reference of specific subject matters to certain committees, we feel that the government has a responsibility for tabling the documents relating to the treaties and other arrangements entered into with European countries. Under the terms of confederation I do not feel that the government of this country has the right, in a vacuum, to negotiate treaties that are so disadvantageous to the people of the Atlantic region.
That is my small contribution on the matter brought forward by my colleague for Selkirk. I congratulate him for presenting this marvellous motion. It was well researched and it deserves the support of all members of the House.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker,
I was expecting some other notice of motion to be brought forward today. If you will excuse my unpreparedness, I should like to comment on this notice of motion in the name of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) which was discussed last month. Unfortunately, at that time I was not able to be present in the House. Many hon. members, of course, wish to speak on this matter. If you will forgive my relatively unprepared presentation today,
I should appreciate saying a few words on it.
First, I should like to suggest to the hon. member for Selkirk that it would have been better if the notice of motion had not included in its wording almost everything that it is possible to suggest about our committees. It runs to many parts and contains just about everything but the kitchen sink. This is a complex question and I think there might be some difficulty voting on a motion which attempts to deal with all the frustrations the hon. member might harbour with regard to the committee system. He has included them all in one notice of motion.
I suggest that the motion could have been a little tighter. Even though it is not as tight as it might be, there is no doubt that following the revision of our rules the committee system of the House of Commons is now better than it was. However, I feel there are many areas where it could be improved. I would briefly like to note some of these along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Selkirk.
It should be borne in mind that many of my criticisms of the committee system are basically a criticism of Mem-

bers of Parliament, essentially backbenchers, for not making use of the committee system as it now exists. There is great potential in the committee system which is not being used. I feel most strongly that if members of committees, mostly backbenchers with the odd parliamentary secretary who comes along to protect the minister, would attempt to use the committee system more intelligently, we could do a great deal more without any substantial change. An example given immediately prior to my intervention was the fisheries committee.
Much more could be done in the fisheries committee by the backbenchers. I exclude in this case the two parliamentary secretaries who always come prepared. Both are in the chamber, so I obviously have to exempt them. Backbenchers should be willing to do the preparatory work. They could write letters to members of the civil service who are going to appear before a committee and say that such and such a subject will be discussed, will they kindly arrange to have the people who know something about it there. They could write to the minister and say that such and such an area is of concern and would he be prepared to answer the following questions. In this way, the committee system would work a great deal better.
At present, members come to committees relatively unprepared. They hear a brief presentation by the minister or deputy minister and the officials who happen to be there. For the first time their mind is seized of the problem of the particular department. On the spur of the moment, they think that is interesting or may effect the boys back home. They feel they had better ask a question about a particular fish, fishery, boat, subsidy or whatever it may be.
I feel the committee system would work immeasurably better if Members of Parliament would take the trouble to prepare themselves for the meeting. The cry will understandably go up that they do not have time. I have made this complaint myself. Somehow or other there are too many things for Members of Parliament to do. They have to attend the House, the committees, visit their constituencies and, therefore, they feel it necessary to have a committee staff to help them in the real areas of concern. I do not deny that this argument has validity.
I notice that under paragraph (b) of his multisubdivided resolution, the hon. member refers to adequate staff. This is only an aim he is talking about. It is true that staff might be helpful. With the research assistants provided to the opposition and the government, too often the tendency is for members to pick up a piece of paper which some research assistant has prepared, read the question and get a reply from the minister which has been similarly prepared in a sort of limbo government department. There are men there who think up questions and answers. You have an exchange of views between two people, but this is not a meeting of minds. I see a member nodding in agreement. A member asks a question about a subject he knows very little about, through no fault of his own.


William Arnold Peters: Researchers ask questions and researchers answer questions.


David Anderson: The hon. member has said that often the researchers ask the questions and the researchers answer the questions. He has phrased it better than I. A research-
December 17, 1971

er, through the mouth of a member of the opposition, asks a minister a question and a researcher, through the mouth of a minister, replies. If there is a supplementary question, you are into a never-never land of lack of communication because neither really knows what their researcher is talking about. These words are simply being mouthed on both sides of the House. I appreciate the hon. member's assistance in making this point.
If we had committee research staff, the committees might operate in the same way. When an expert witness appears, a committee member may have a researcher sitting beside him and feeding him little notes. The researcher will tell him the thing to do is hit the witness on this subject. While the member is asking a question, the researcher writes out another question and slips it to the member. Once more the member is simply a mouthpiece for the researcher. This is not the most desirable situation. There is some balance between the two, some area where you can use a researcher to get assistance. I hope all hon. members will accept the blame. I place this blame on my own head as well as on the heads of other members. At present we do not do enough work for the committee system. We could do a great deal more. If we did more, we would not be so enthusiastic about getting extra staff.
I know that the time is short, but I would like to touch on one other aspect. With a functioning committee system, the committee is a small group which in my experience is generally very friendly. Even the member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), who sometimes differs with me on the fisheries committee, will agree that we are a friendly, small group. That type of group tends to get seized with the subject of a committee and works out a program for the government or suggests an amendment to the bill. You then get into a very interesting constitutional area. It is the government which will take responsibility for it.
I would be the last to suggest that because the hon. member for Selkirk or the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) participated in a committee and made useful suggestions which the government accepted, and which later turned out to be not quite as good as we thought, that they should be stopped from criticizing us on the ground that they participated in formulating government policy through the committee system. This may sound a trifle esoteric to people in the gallery who are not parliamentarians. However, it is true that we function in this House in a somewhat partisan sense from time to time. I think this was demonstrated in the last hour. I think it is unfortunate if the suggestion is put forward that somehow or other committees can overcome this fact. I do not think it can be overcome. I do not think that under the British parliamentary system it should be overcome. I only make these comments more or less as a warning.
Even though theoretically the academic will quite often tell us that we should have committees which take the best ideas of the New Democratic Party, the Creditiste party, the member for St. John's East and members on this side of the House, and synchronize them in order to come up with the best thinking of the House, where would that leave the adversary system with the responsibility of questioning ministers? I do not know. I do not try to come down one way or another. All I do is raise it as a problem.
Improvements to Committees System
When the academics, who very often do not have any knowledge of this House, suggest how we should rearrange our affairs, they should bear in mind that this is a very realistic problem. I know the hon. member for Selkirk is aware of it. I do not say this as any real criticism of his motion but only to point out that it is something that cannot be overlooked.
The government takes responsibility for legislation. If the taxation proposals on which we just voted turn out to be bad, I do not think the members of the New Democratic Party who voted in the House of Commons committee on the white paper should in any way feel they must not criticize the government. Perhaps at one stage or another in the system of committees, they went along with such and such a proposal. I do not think it would be right for them to feel this way. I hope that people on the outside realize this.
There is another point I would like to mention. Basically, the motion by the hon. member for Selkirk refers to the possibility of establishing a means whereby committees could independently initiate investigations. I am the chairman of the only committee of the House of Commons which has a general reference. It is an accident of history. If anyone has forgotten it, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni knows a great deal about it. An accident led to the establishment of this committee. Its responsibility is to inquire into the problems of pollution in Canada and the plans of the federal government in relation thereto.
It is the only committee having a general reference. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni, the other members of the steering committee, or the committee itself might well, with me, decide to look into the question of pulp mill pollution, pollution from gold mines, or mercury pollution. Then, of course, we are faced with the enormity of the subject, the number of matters which could be taken up. So if there are to be more committees having general terms of reference, a great deal more in the way of responsibility must be shown by committee members themselves.
Many times, instead of saying, "That nasty minister will not allow me to put in a motion to refer a certain subject to a parliamentary committee," or, "That miserable man, the parliamentary secretary or the leader of the House will not allow me to do so," members will have to say from time to time, "My local problem is important but there are even more important problems to be considered elsewhere in the country."
I know that as chairman of a committee having a general reference I am subject to certain pressures to do one thing or another thing. For example, I received a letter some time ago accusing myself, or members of the committee generally, of being paid off by the pulp and paper industry because we declined to look into pollution from a certain pulp mill in an area where the writer of the letter has his summer home. I am not worried that he accuses me and other members of the committee in this way; we politicians are used to the kicking we get. But if committees became independent, every member would have to bear a great deal more responsibility for what is done. Time is limited, and the committees themselves would
10596

December 17, 1971
Improvements to Committees System
have to come up with solutions which would from time to time go against the grain of an individual regardless of party.
Perhaps I have spoken too negatively on the hon. member's motion. I have no wish to do this, except to the extent of indicating that there are enormous difficulties associated with the committee system and that these difficulties cannot be resolved quickly. Glancing at the motion itself, I find I completely agree that committees should have more initiative in choosing subject matters for consideration instead of the minister telling them what to do on every occasion.
As to the recommendation that there should be adequate staff support, I agree, subject to the observation that though additional staff might well result in committees doing more work, it would not give them any more time in which to do it. Recommendation (c) has in mind making it mandatory for each committee to prepare at the end of each session a running record of the recommendations it has made to the government and of government action taken on those recommendations. I think this is a good proposal. There is no objection to that.
I am not decided about the suggestion that it should be mandatory for a motion of concurrence to be moved in connection with all committee reports, although I remember having myself brought a motion for concurrence before the House without great success. I think the hon. member's comments on minority reports are excellent and I agree with him that useful inquiries might well spring from the findings of standing committees.
Perhaps I might conclude by saying this. With the exception of those held by the present and former parliamentary secretaries to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) and the other parliamentary secretaries who are here this afternoon, most of these jobs are not particularly onerous. If the committees are to be restructured and are to be given more staff, we should encourage the House and the country to regard committee chairmen as being of importance. I feel that a committee chairman should be just as important as a parliamentary secretary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Anderson: I notice there are some who are kind enough to indicate their approval. It is important that more responsibility be placed on a committee chairman. If he brings in a report at the end of the year saying, "we held no meetings because we could not figure out what to do," someone should be able to ask, "What did you do for your extra pay? You are being paid extra for a special job; for God's sake get off your backside and do it."
The hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker) says committee chairmen are not paid extra. That is true. My suggestion is that instead of paying parliamentary secretaries extra, the money should be paid to committee chairmen.


Mr. Isabelle:: We'll send you a cheque tomorrow.


David Anderson: Before I get into deeper trouble on this issue, perhaps I should resume my seat.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)

on having brought this motion forward, particularly at a time when we are nearing the end of the session and possibly the end of a Parliament. This is a good occasion on which to assess what is happening in our committees.
I have been very interested in observing the changes which have been made in the committee system in the last few years and in reaching some conclusions as to the results of those changes. One thing has been most evident. Committees have become very tiring, very difficult and very time-consuming places into which to put a large number of people.
As to the advantages, I really do not see much change at all. There has been one improvement, though, to the extent that the provision for changes in personnel means that an hon. member can take part in the discussion of a specific subject in which he is interested without needing to be involved for a long period of time in the whole field under consideration. For example, should a member be interested in a particular problem which affects his own area, he has an opportunity to become well informed about the circumstances and take part in discussions concerning it without this involvement becoming an annual operation.
What really bothers me about the operations of committees is the way in which the government pursues the idea that it must always maintain its majority. Take, as an example, the agricultural committee, a committee which has had some very heavy legislation before it and which has travelled around the country hearing representations. I am sure there is not a single committee which has experienced a greater turnover in terms of membership. One cannot help noting that whenever a decision is to be made, the government whip ensures that bodies attend the committee meeting in order to participate in the voting.
It is very easy to make the switch that is necessary before a vote is taken. These people vote on subjects they know absolutely nothing about. Indeed, they do not care what the voting is about. They vote the way the minister or his deputy at the meeting wishes them to vote. To be fair about it, the other parties act in the same way, only to a lesser degree. I am sure there are members of the opposition who would be much more in favour of supporting changes in legislation than leaving things the way they were. Obviously, the government takes the position that things should remain as they are.
The previous speaker said a lot of the legislation referred to committees is civil service legislation and a large number of experts have to deal with collective problems which the minister, the deputy minister and others from the department who appear before the committee are not competent to discuss. If the officials are not competent to discuss such a matter, then all you can do is call for the vote and pass it in that way, because if it is discussed members might be convinced-perhaps wrongly-that the legislation should be changed.
I am sure this is true of the income tax bill. No matter what committee the bill had been sent to, the same decision would have been arrived at as the committee of the whole arrived at, which was to pass the bill in its totality. It would not have been cut up because it would never
December 17, 1971

have been put together again. How would we know which provisions affected one department or another, or one particular taxpayer or another? One consideration of the government has always been as to whether we are changing the balance of ways and means.
If I may go back to the subject of the agricultural committee, that committee considered a number of fairly complex bills. For example, it discussed the labelling of poisons legislation and a number of other matters that affected not so much agriculture but allied fields. I think it is safe to say that the committee did make the decisions and they were made fairly quickly. The members of the committee knew something about the subject and sometimes knew more than the officials. The amendments proposed by the committee were not questioned by the officials and as a result were incorporated into the legislation and the legislation became law.
Where the committee witnesses are not competent in their own field, the committee system cannot honestly and effectively make changes to legislation. One area where in my opinion we have slipped backwards is in the sending of estimates to standing committees. Estimates are sent to the various committees for examination, but the system does not work because seldom is there anyone in the committee who is prepared to take responsibility for the theory behind the estimates. As a result, the chairman of the committee says it is a matter of policy and that since the minister is not there the committee cannot discuss it. If there is a technical discussion on a particular item and the official is not there, the chairman usually says that a written answer will be provided at a later date. I suggest the committee system does not work the way we thought it would.
Previously the minister had to come to the House with his estimates and they were before the House until everyone was satisfied that his estimates were acceptable, that they went far enough or that they did not go too far. If a member asked the minister a question on a specific estimate, he got an answer. The minister was allowed to have two officials sitting at a table. If they were unable to supply the answer, he called for another official from the gallery. This was why part of the gallery was reserved for departmental officials.
This is not the case any more. The minister does not have to take responsibility in committee. Some ministers attend the committees regularly, others do not. Some send their parliamentary secretaries, others do not. Some departments send a large number of officials. I am sure the members of the veterans affairs committee would agree with me that every official who could add or subtract anything from the committee's deliberations participated fully in the discussions.
Depending on the chairman of the committee, there are many ways in which officials can speak. On the other hand, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) came to the agricultural committee and told the
Improvements to Committees System
committee that it had to damned well pass the bill and that it would sit until it did. We all know what happened. The country made the decision on that particular minister and piece of legislation. I am sure all members of that committee realize that the legislation itself was not all wrong. There were many good things about it, though sections of it were very bad. Surely if the committee system were functioning properly, the members of the committee would have been able to correct the bad things and strengthen the good things, in which case it would have been acceptable to the committee and to the country, and to hell with the minister. In my opinion, it is not really his business whether or not-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I bring to Your Honour's attention the fact that there have been certain consultations among the parties. It is generally felt that since this motion did not get the full hour planned when it was stood over from November 19, it might retain its place for another occasion. I think you will find that there is general agreement to this.


James Aloysius McGrath: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that is substantially correct. Since I should like to make a submission to the House on this subject, if it meets with the approval of the House I would move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Walker:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say, as I said the last time this order was before the House, that I consider this one of the most important topics in terms of parliamentary procedure that we parliamentarians during this finest hour in the week between four and five o'clock on a Friday afternoon have a chance to discuss. I support any assistance Your Honour can give to the House to seek unanimous consent for the motion to retain its position on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps it should be put into position No. 1.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has one doubt about this. Do I understand that the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) used the terminology that he wished to adjourn the debate? I could not accept that motion because the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has the floor. I take it that the hon. member for St. John's East is indicating his agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker) that this motion retain its place on the order paper. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday afternoon next at 2 p.m.
At 5.02 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday. December 20. 1971.