1971-12-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce the transfer of ministerial responsibility for the co-ordination of government action on the status of women from the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to the Minister of Labour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am happy to report that the interdepartmental committee which was set up last spring has now completed its examination of the commission's report and is drafting its recommendations for cabinet consideration. [Translation]
The study of the interdepartmental committee indicates that the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour covers a good part of the legislative action to undertake. For this reason, I asked the Minister of Labour to assume this additional responsibility.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on November 24 the British government announced proposals for settlement of the constitutional position of Rhodesia. By now, hon. members will be familiar with the main features of these proposals which include provisions concerning the franchise and the composition of the legislature designed to give an increasing political voice to Africans, provisions intended to reduce racial discrimination, including a justifiable Declaration of Rights, a large development program, and a test of acceptability to be conducted by a commission appointed by the British government.
For the convenience of members I am prepared to table the British white paper containing these proposals which are complex and cover a number of interrelated procedures that must be completed before a settlement can be said to be secured.
The reason I say I am prepared to table this document is that I am not sure whether it is proper to table in the Canadian House of Commons a white paper put out in Britain. If there is any question about it, I have copies which hon. members can obtain.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement that the Secretary of State for External Affairs may table the white paper to which he has referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: From the beginning, Canada has held that the solution in Rhodesia should be a constitution providing for the rapid election of a government broadly representative of the Rhodesian people, of whom the overwhelming majority are black. The constitutional arrangements which have been announced fall short of this objective. The period for the transition to majority rule is not specified and the means for achieving it are highly complicated. Given the past experience with complicated constitutional provisions in Rhodesia and in various other parts of the world, there is inevitably concern as to how these arrangements will be implemented. Much will depend on the good will and co-operation of all concerned-qualities not always evident in recent years in the conduct of the Rhodesian regime.
When I visited Africa last March I was struck by the fact that two great contemporary dramas were being played out on that continent. Southern Africa is the scene of one of the most crucial chapters in the world-wide search for racial equality and human dignity, and the scene of the final stages in the liquidation of the European colonial empires.
Both of these themes are found in Rhodesia. In seeking to provide equitable arrangements for Rhodesian independence, Britain has had to face the fact that the white minority is at the present time unwilling to yield power to the black majority and that British capacity to influence the situation is very limited. Even mandatory United Nations sanctions have not been sufficient to produce this transfer of power. The only alternative means of bringing about a radical change would have been the use of force, a course of action which has been judged unacceptable by successive British governments.
Mr. Godber, the British Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whom I saw on November 27, gave me to understand that in the stalemate which has resulted such factors as the political stagnation for the Rhodesian Africans, the drift toward apartheid, the isolation of all Rhodesians from the outside world, and the distortion of Rhodesia's economic and social development, had led the British authorities to believe there were serious disadvantages to the perpetuation of the status quo. These were among the considerations behind the decision of the British government to make these propos-
10042

December 1, 1971
Rhodesian Position in Commonwealth
als which they hope may establish a new point of departure for Rhodesia's political development.
We expect there will be strong misgivings on the part of many Africans over the proposals. It is entirely understandable that they should wish all Africans in Rhodesia to have the advantages which they themselves have obtained through independence on the basis of majority rule. Canada is completely in accord with the desire of Africans to achieve the abolition of all forms of racial discrimination throughout Africa and the realization of full political rights for all African peoples, a desire we and they have repeatedly expressed in the United Nations and at Commonwealth meetings.
The Commonwealth has not been successful in its attempts to solve the Rhodesian problem. In my view this does not mean that the Commonwealth should be considered of lessening importance. In its brief existence as a multiracial association, it has contributed greatly to the adjustments required by the accession to independence of its members from Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. Canada is confident that the Commonwealth can continue to perform a vital role in the seventies.
The proposals envisage seeking the views of the people of Rhodesia. It is entirely right that this should be so. This is obviously a vital element in the achievement of any settlement. The provision for a commission appointed by Britain represents a serious attempt to test the opinion of Rhodesian Africans. Nevertheless, there are inherent complications. The vast majority of the people have been given little opportunity in the past to express their political will, certainly not on complicated constitutional questions. There are definite physical limitations on the ability of the commission to consult everyone. Another cause of concern is the state of emergency which apparently will prevail during the commission's deliberations. African nationalist parties such as have come to power elsewhere, notably ZAPU and ZANU, will, it appears, continue to be unable to operate, and their leaders will be prevented from influencing public opinion during the consultations.
I am sure that I speak for all members of this House when I say that we hope that notwithstanding these limitations the commission will be able to ascertain the views of the Rhodesian people and, in particular, the African population as to the acceptability to them of the proposed agreement. I feel confident that men of the integrity of those nominated to be chairman and vice-chairmen will report not only the views they hear but also on the adequacy of the procedures for ascertaining those views.
As Canadians we may view the proposals as falling short of what is desirable, but we cannot substitute our judgment for the judgment of the Rhodesian people themselves as to whether they prefer to go on as at present or to accept the settlement that has been proposed. Whatever happens, Canada will not cease to be concerned with the attainment of full democracy and social justice in Rhodesia.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, this is a statement to which it has been difficult to find a response that satisfies. In one sense I feel it is a bit premature for us to pass judgment upon what has been
(Mr. Sharp.l
done or, indeed, to express an opinion. I am sure we would all welcome an announcement of the end of a certain type of government wherein such a minority rules over such a majority by such means. Therefore we do not regard this as an announcement of the best kind by any means. Indeed, the minister couched his statement in those terms.
These are the kind of questions about which there is no monopoly of concern in any group or in any country. I am sure that we cannot over such questions mount a successful exercise in excessive party or personal purity. We all wish that more could be accomplished toward the aims to which this country has paid its allegiance, and to which all of us still pay allegiance.
We know that in Britain there is great concern and anxiety about the longlasting Rhodesian problem. I have been watching with great interest the concern that a man like the Right Hon. Nigel Fisher, one of the great liberal Africanists of today, a man so well acquainted with African problems and so sympathetic to them, has displayed. He has come to the conclusion that the step that is being proposed is in fact a step in the right direction.
I also noted in the minister's statement a realistically painful recognition that many of the programs that were brought about in connection with the Rhodesian problem have not been very successful. I think we have all reached the stage where we must admit not only the lack of success but the great degree of hypocrisy connected with the sanctions program. Indeed, some nasty person said the other day that the sanctions were as leaky as certain governments. The other day we read with anxiety that the United States was to purchase chrome from Rhodesia. Of course there should be reason for that anxiety, but Rhodesia has been producing chrome for years and years and I have heard no one say that it has been stockpiled. It might be interesting to know where that chrome has gone in the last eight years.


An hon. Member:: To Russia.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I was impressed by the minister's statement about the importance of events in South Africa. I agree with what he said. I would point to that to renew my urging that the government, which the other day with flags fluttering and banners flying opened a legation in Algeria, should move to open a legation in Zambia which I understand has been seeking such an opening for a long time.
I know there is much that can be said on the other side about the satisfactory situation of some people in Rhodesia in that, although they do not wield power, the economic conditions under which they live are better than those in other countries of Africa. I am impressed by that but not convinced by it. I agree with John Stuart Mill who many years ago said that even good government is no substitute for self-government, and I do not call the government of Rhodesia a good one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I ought to note, because the people of Canada are interested in this question, as they should be, that certain misleading statements in the press have indicated that what is taking place in this area, or may
D ecember 1, 1971

take place means the return of Rhodesia to the Commonwealth. This is not so. This is a matter which must be decided by the member states of the Commonwealth and not by the United Kingdom alone.
There is one aspect of this which interests me. Although the British, since this is their constitutional right and, indeed, their problem, and it has been a difficult one, have chosen to appoint a commission of British subjects or native nationals, I think it might have been more imaginative if they had broadened the scope of that commission and appointed a Commonwealth commission. I can think of some outstanding African statesmen who could have served on it with distinction. I can think of some Canadians who could have made some important contribution to that commission. The name of former Prime Minister Pearson was mentioned. I also say that another former prime minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who did a great deal in bringing about a colour-blind Commonwealth, could have made a great contribution. I think that Howard Green, whose services have not been sufficiently used by the government of his own country, could have been very valuable on such a body. The Commonwealth could have been involved in this very important matter.
Canada made an important contribution 50 years ago in establishing the equality of states within the Commonwealth. A few years ago one of our prime ministers made a great contribution toward establishing the principle of equality of peoples within the Commonwealth. So there could be a Canadian role although, as I say and admit, the constitutional problem is one for Britain to deal with. We all realize that this situation, which we must study very carefully before we become too definite or final in our judgment, falls far short of the ideal. However, for the first time Mr. Smith has signed an important document which says:
The Rhodesian government have intimated to the British government their firm intention, within the spirit of these proposals, to make progress toward ending racial discrimination.
That has been admitted, and while there may be some concern as to how long this will take, at least that intention is something. Of course, I agree with the minister that Canada cannot and must not desert its concern for the attainment of full democracy and justice in Rhodesia. That must be our goal. That must be our value judgment. However, I think that at this stage it might be prudent, it might be pragmatic and, in the long run, sensitive, to allow for development of the commission which, after all, has set out to elicit the views of the Rhodesian people. They must entertain the views of as many Rhodesians as possible, especially those who are politically activated and politically concerned.
The minister's statement-the best part of it in my opinion-was that no matter how concerned we are we cannot in the long run substitute our judgment for the judgment of the Rhodesian people. We hope and pray that every effort will be taken to ascertain fully and thoughtfully the judgment of these people.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) was 24725-7 i
Rhodesian Position in Commonwealth
faced with a difficult task in commenting on the proposals for the settlement of the Rhodesian constitutional problem. The proposals are complicated and the dilemma is excruciating. I find it, therefore, rather difficult to blame the minister for the vagueness and ambiguity of his statement. None the less I wish the minister had felt himself able to take a more unequivocal stand in favour of selfrule for the black majority of Rhodesia-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: -and against the inadequacy of the present proposals we are discussing. The principle of what has become known as NIBMAR, no independence before majority rule, in our view is the only basis for a satisfactory settlement of the Rhodesian question. The Canadian government repeated this principle as recently as November 23 without prejudging the proposals of the British government.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home claims that the proposed settlement is fully within the five principles to which the British government has constantly adhered. We do not agree.
The fifth principle, and perhaps the key to the question now facing the world, is that any basis proposed for independence would be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. If in fact the present proposals were acceptable to the people of Rhodesia this country and the world community might, whatever its misgivings, have to accept the proposals. But under the present proposals this test of acceptability is to be determined by a commission headed by a judge from Britain, Lord Pearce, supported by two other commissioners who will tour Rhodesia.
There are a number of reasons this test may well be unsatisfactory. There is no proposal for a referendum. The present state of emergency in Rhodesia is continued until after the lifting of sanctions. Normal conditions do not prevail in Rhodesia. Radio and television time to discuss the proposals is available only to political parties represented in the House of Assembly. This effectively excludes some of the most important national African leaders from the discussion of the proposals. At the time the test of opinion is under way only 54 of the 116 political detainees will have been released. In these circumstances the most careful scrutiny must be insisted on before the conclusions of the commission could be accepted by world opinion.
Principle one of the five principles is that the principle and intention of unimpeded progress to majority rule would have to be maintained and guaranteed. The proposals do include the removal of the provision in the 1969 Rhodesian constitution which precludes any possibility of progress beyond parity. But this provision is specious. It means that the 100 per cent impossibility of going beyond parity is changed to something like a 95 per cent impossibility. Progress to majority rule can be impeded by a handful of white Members of Parliament. It is by no means assured or guaranteed.
There are some 250,000 white people and some five million black people in the country. The parity proposed is parity between 250,000 whites and five million blacks. As the blacks increase their literacy and their role in the economy, their representation may slowly move upward.

December 1, 1971
Rhodesian Position in Commonwealth
However, a statistical analysis published in the Sunday Times last Sunday found that majority rule would be possible in about 65 years. According to the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Harold Wilson, it would take Africans to achieve legislative parity-this is not majority rule-between 15 years and 600 years. Does the world expect the people of Rhodesia to wait so long for this incomplete and inadequate goal of simple parity?
Principle No. 3 was that there would have to be immediate improvement in the political status of the African population. The proposal we are discussing calls for immediate improvement in the political status of the African population by the addition of four extra African seats in the assembly. This is minimal. It constitutes in substance a very grave omission from the five principles.
Principle No. 4 is that there would have to be progress toward ending racial discrimination. The proposals we are discussing simply record the Smith regime's intention to reduce racial discrimination and set up a three-man commission to review the question without any powers.
The Land Tenure Act is the main bastion of apartheid. This act is only to be reviewed by the commission. There is no guarantee that there will be any action on it. The commission's recommendations will be "commended" by the Smith regime "except where there are considerations which any government would regard as overriding". This is a loophole a mile wide. All in all the proposals are quite inadequate.
The Canadian government should express grave reservations about the whole proposal. It should not rush headlong into endorsing what may turn out to be a snare and delusion for legitimate African aspirations, and should maintain its sanctions until the opinion of the black people of Africa has been secured and the United Nations has accepted their withdrawal.
Canada has a good reputation as a white western country that has shown sympathy and understanding of black African aspirations and an abhorrence of racial discrimination. In the interest of good relations between the races of the world and in the interest of future world peace and security this reputation must not be thrown away. Canada should consult with its Commonwealth partners and should withhold recognition of an independent Rhodesian government until genuine majority rule in Rhodesia is attained.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Sheiford):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has just tabled a statement by the British government concerning the agreement recently entered into between the British government, representing the Commonwealth, and the Rhodesian government.
Mr. Speaker, before I had the opportunity of visiting Rhodesia on August 16, I had been brainwashed as most other Canadians were. Indeed, the international news services had led me to believe that Rhodesia was a dictatorship, a fascist and totalitarian country. Now I had the opportunity with three other members-and I think it would be advisable to have them express an opinion-to travel in Rhodesia whence we returned with a similar
conviction. During our trip, we were compelled to leave our prejudices aside, to squarely consider the facts and to investigate. We visited the whole of Rhodesia. We met all heads of government as well as the revolutionary chiefs who want the government to follow the example of other black African countries which, after gaining their independence, have become communist satellites of China or the U.S.S.R.
I am happy today to give a different version from that of the hon. members who spoke before me. We have found that order, discipline and prosperity prevail in Rhodesia. We were asked to send our surplus technicians to Rhodesia where, we were told, work would be found for them when there is little for them here in Canada. The unfortunate fact with regard to Rhodesia is that, in 1961, when England tried to interfere in the internal affairs of the country, the latter declared its independence unilaterally. That was its sin.
Today, after five years of unsuccessful economic and political sanctions from Canada, the United States and other countries, we must envy the prosperity and discipline of Rhodesia.
Canada even stopped selling wheat to Rhodesia. That country did not produce wheat, but following the economic sanctions imposed by several countries, it started its own production of which it even exports a part today.
Genera] Motors, Ford and Chrysler closed their plants in Rhodesia. That did not affect the white minority, but the majority of black people who worked for them.
Mr. Speaker, those who have had the privilege of visiting Rhodesia can repudiate the misinterpretation of facts that is constantly appearing in newspapers. And instead of giving advice to the Rhodesians or to rebuke them the House should appoint a special committee responsible for carrying an investigation in that country, which has not been done since 1961. If such a committee were established it could ascertain whether the Rhodesians are such bad people as the international press portrays them.
No country is now exercising economic control over Rhodesia. It is strange that the United States and some other countries which have imposed sanctions are nevertheless exporting goods to that country. Why? Because Rhodesia has the necessary funds to purchase various things.
Mr. Speaker, I also would like to say a word about the famous sin of discrimination. The majority rule in Rhodesia does not exist. I am not going to read comments or articles from newspapers. I have in hand a copy of the Debates of the Senate of Rhodesia, dated September 1, 1971, where it says that the Senate has returned a bill through a black majority. The Rhodesian Africans represented in the Senate or in the government of Rhodesia have reversed a bill which was deemed to have been introduced by the Whites. Contrary to what some people would have the whole world believe, it is untrue that the Whites are governing Rhodesia and that the Blacks are under their authority because the Rhodesian African senators have returned a bill which was deemed to have been introduced by the government. This means that the black senators have, on any given day, the possibility of rejecting any bill which they are not satisfied with. This is
(Mr. Brewin.J
December 1, 1971

why it is so deceiving for other countries to denounce the scandal which allegedly exists in Rhodesia.
I recently read an article on the agreement between the British Commonwealth and the Rhodesian government. Having imposed ineffective sanctions against Rhodesia in 1961, England must change its decision.
Strangely enough, the leaders of the communist countries are in agreement with those of many other countries to denounce the alleged dictature which exists in Rhodesia.
Mr. Speaker, if the communist governments denounce Rhodesia, it is because they do not have the opportunity of creating discord and upsetting the government in view of the economic stability, the order and the discipline which are prevailing. Far from lecturing Rhodesia, we would have lessons to learn from that country provided we would go over there and find out what is going on. It cannot be that the government, with its white minority, will indefinitely control a black majority if it is as bad as it has been intimated, from the time Rhodesia has committed the sin of leaving the Commonwealth.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ]ohn N. Turner (Minister oi justice): Mr. Speaker, several questions have been raised in the House about the disposition of the Lavell decision of the Federal Court of Appeal of Canada. On October 8 of this year the Federal Court of Appeal pronounced judgment in the case of Jeanette Vivian (Corbiere) Lavell against the Attorney General of Canada. The three-man court, speaking through Mr. Justice Thurlow, ruled unanimously in favour of Mrs. Lavell's contention that the Canadian Bill of Rights rendered inoperative those provisions of the Indian Act pursuant to which Mrs. Lavell's name had been struck from the register of the Wikwemikong Band upon her marriage to a non-Indian.
Under the Indian Act, where an Indian woman marries outside her band she is no longer entitled to be registered with that band, but if her husband is an Indian belonging to another band she may be entitled to be registered with that other band. However, if she marries a non-Indian she loses completely her status as an Indian and her name is automatically struck off the register. On the other hand, where an Indian male marries he continues to belong to his band and his wife, whether she is an Indian belonging to another band or a non-Indian, is entitled to be registered with his band.
The Federal Court of Appeal found these provisions discriminatory by reason of sex, and that they denied the right of an Indian woman as an individual to equality before the law because they did not accord Indian women the same rights and privileges on marriage as Indian men.
This is a most important case, Mr. Speaker. It is important with respect to women's rights and the status of women upon marriage; it is an important case with
Indian Affairs
respect to Indians as a group and as a people; and it is an important case because it places a further interpretation on the application of the Canadian Bill of Rights with regard to the concept of "equality before the law." It is also the first case dealing with "discrimination ... by reason of sex."
Because of the importance of the Lavell case with respect to the very important issues I have mentioned, and because it will be necessary for the government, with the assistance of the Indian people, to devise policies and laws that will respect the legitimate claims of all concerned, I have concluded that it is my duty as Attorney General of Canada to ask the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of Canada, to review the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal. In this regard I think that the women of this country, the Indians and, indeed, all Canadians who may be affected at some time by the interpretation that has been placed on the Canadian Bill of Rights are entitled to have the judgment of the court of last resort on the important issues that are involved.
In the course of these remarks I should make it clear that it would be imprudent, indeed improper, for me as Attorney General to express any views about the merits of the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, particularly as the issues involved can still be regarded as sub judice. However, I do believe it to be important to have the court's judgment reviewed by the Supreme Court of Canada and affirmed, if it was correctly decided, or reversed or modified, if it is found to be in error. I have therefore instructed my counsel to make certain that all of the important issues and arguments in the case are fully canvassed before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for sending me a copy of his statement at about one o'clock today. I appreciate having had the opportunity to read it and to review the decision in the case.
At the outset I may say that the first question with respect to this matter was asked by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) on April 20, 1971. I am advised that the husband's father and mother live in his constituency.
Briefly may I say that the facts of the case are very simple. The appeal court of the new Federal Court created by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) ruled unanimously, by a judgment of Mr. Justice Thurlow, in favour of Mrs. Lavell's contention that the Canadian Bill of Rights rendered inoperative those provisions of the Indian Act which, as interpreted by the Department of Indian Affairs, meant that when an Indian woman marries and at the time of her marriage is a member of an Indian band living on a reservation, then because she marries a white man she loses all her rights as an Indian and ceases to be a treaty Indian. However, if the facts are reversed and an Indian man romances a white girl then that man does not lose his rights. The situation seems very strange in view of the fact that when we have pressed the Minister of Justice from time to time to institute an appeal in reference to the constitutionality of Bill C-176 he has refused.

December 1, 1971
Indian Affairs
I just want to take a moment to put in its proper perspective what the position is in regard to the Bill of Rights. Section 1 of the bill says:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex-
The Bill of Rights confirms that all individuals, whatever their sex may be, are equal. If the Lavell decision makes any sense surely it is because it decides for the first time in Canada that all men and women are equal and that men of all colours are equal in Canada. This, of course, is the first premise of the Bill of Rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Section 1 of the Bill of Rights must be read in conjunction with section 2 which reads as follows:
Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgement or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared-
I have already set out what the freedoms are as far as this matter is concerned. It seems very strange to me that this government and this minister would want to use the taxpayers' money to enter an appeal on a question of social justice, real justice, when we have for the first time a ruling establishing equality between the sexes and equality as far as race and colour are concerned.
In brief, the Federal Court ruled that an Indian woman cannot be deprived of her rights because as an Indian she married and romanced a non-Indian. Apart from the Dry-bones case this is the first time a Canadian court has applied the 11 year old Bill of Rights to the issue of sexual equality or sex equality. The trial judge was reversed by the appeal court which has delivered a judgment tempered with justice, natural justice and social justice, ending once and for all the discrimination between sexes and above all between all colours, races and religions. It is therefore most surprising that the government has taken this attitude.
When the appeal goes before the Supreme Court of Canada I hope the Minister of Justice will see to it that the respondents receive money from the treasury of Canada so they can afford the best counsel, the best kind of evidence and put forth the best kind of argument for social justice, equality of the sexes and equality for people in Canada irrespective of race or colour.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, in 1961 when we passed the Canadian Bill of Rights the philosophy behind it was equality of all persons regardless of race, religion or sex. After waiting for ten years I am sure that Indian women must have considered that this law of equality did not apply to them.
Taking into account that many of the provinces have passed legislation with regard to discrimination in employment and housing and other matters it rather surprises us in the New Democratic Party that the Minister of Justice did not act earlier with regard to this serious problem. Surely it could have been solved many years ago by making a simple amendment to the Indian Act. This
[Mr. Woolliams.I
would have avoided not only the appeal to the Federal Court of Canada but also the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Minister of Justice still has time to bring forth legislation to amend the Indian Act and to give Indian women an opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to state their views with regard to the provisions of that act.
Regardless of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, I hope the Minister of Justice will take the initiative and amend the Indian Act. Not only should he do that but he should follow the recommendations set forth in the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and bring forward other legislation concerning discrimination in other fields that is affecting women across Canada. This approach would be much better than to undergo the delay that will be caused by the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. members who spoke before me, I too have doubts that it should be necessary to go through the Supreme Court to apply a basic principle of human rights.
I should merely like to point out that this is an example of the difference that often exists between theory and practice. In the Bill of Rights, the rights are expressed in theory, but the vast majority of the Canadian people doubtless are not aware of the discrimination that exists, even though human rights should normally be recognized. Consequently, the laws applied in our land should take this fact into account.
But I still want to make a minor reservation in view of the privileges acquired by the section of the population of Canada comprising Indians and Eskimos. Of course we should not go against the interests of those directly involved, the Indians. I wonder whether that is not the major reason behind the minister's decision to go through the Supreme Court.
Anyway, I am still wondering whether this was necessary. I think the minister could have given us more information and enlightened us more on the present dilemma, which is, whether the Indians themselves would prefer things to be left as they are at present, as was ruled by the Federal Court of Appeal.
Let us hope that all this will promote real freedom in our country ,and that we will always-in any legislation- respect the rights of the individual and the community.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that, even though talks have taken place, agreement could not be reached on the provisions of Standing Order 75A or Standing Order 75B with respect to the proposed allocation of sitting days for the consideration of the committee of the whole stage of Bill C-259.
December 1, 1971

Accordingly, I am now giving notice that at the next sitting of the House I shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 75C, that four additional days be allotted to the committee on the whole stage of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What generosity!


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I can be heard through the unseemly merriment on the other side which hardly seems justified I want to take what I consider to be some well-founded and reasonable technical objections to the procedure as it has been launched. Other hon. members will have opportunities to speculate on the wisdom of this course after the very sensible proposal made by my leader which was stupidly rejected. Because of that but also because of the fact this is the first time the government has attempted to pursue its very vague way throughout the dangers, shoals and reefs of Standing Order 75, and because we are treading new roads and establishing precedents for the future, I think it is essential that I take exception. After listening to the President of the Privy Council I think I can do so in two respects.
I know that Your Honour is well aware of the provisions of Standing Order 75, but I must go through all the provisions in order to lay the foundation for the argument I propose to make. Standing Order 75A provides:
When a Minister of the Crown, from his place in this House, states that there is agreement among the representatives of all parties to allot a specified number of days or hours to the proceedings at one or more stages of any public bill, he may propose a motion-
I emphasize the words "one or more stages". Standing Order 75B is just a little different but the difference is significant. It reads:
When a Minister of the Crown, from his place in the House, states that a majority of the representatives of the several parties have come to an agreement in respect of a proposed allotment of days or hours for the proceedings at any stage of the passing of a public bill, he may propose a motion-
Standing Order 75C reads:
A Minister of the Crown who from his place in the House at a previous sitting has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 75A or 75B in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration-
I admit at once that, when we were holding the discussions which constitute the conditions precedent before the minister would even have the legal status to launch this application, we considered the number of days which would be required with respect to the committee stage and third reading. I think my friends will agree that in doing so so many days were suggested in respect of the committee stage and so many days were suggested in respect of the third reading stage. However, Mr. Speaker, we were dealing with a package proposition. We are not met here, as we should, must and have to be met, with a situation where a minister of the Crown, within the terms of the Standing Order, states that there was a specific
Business of the House
request to limit the numbers of days for the committee of the whole stage alone.
I suggest this is like a tax bill. Under the interpretation of statutes it must be construed strictly against the government. Unless the minister is able to say to the House that he had a discussion with regard to the committee stage alone, the stage in respect of which he proposes to move at a later date-I will have something to say about that later-he is out of court. I will be quite candid and say that in respect of the agreement which we had been discussing I told the minister yesterday that it was impossible for us to meet the terms of Standing Order 75A or 75B.
With the greatest of respect, I suggest that in coming here today the minister must be prepared to state categorically that he offered to the representatives of the other parties, within the meaning of Standing Order 75, a suggestion that there should be a limited time with respect to the debate on the committee stage alone. That was not done. We discussed a package deal. In the package deal there was a division. It was compartmentalized. We considered the total number of days divided between the committee stage and the third reading stage.
This is not simply a technicality. We are dealing with a very serious matter, an attempt to impose fiscal measures upon this country through the use of closure. I ask for Your Honour's serious consideration of that argument.
As I understood the words of the minister, he said "I will be moving on the following day". I assume that to be tomorrow. He used the words "the following day".
I may be premature but I also wish to point out the following under the provisions of Standing Order 75C:
-and has given notice of his intention so to do may propose a motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days-
I suggest that any motion proposed must be considered in relation to the terms of Standing Order 42(1) which reads:
Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee-
Throughout the years I have been in this House it has been standard practice as far as a substantive motion is concerned that, unless there is wording in the particular Standing Order to the contrary upon which the government or the mover of the motion may rely, 48 hours' notice is essential and is a condition precedent before the motion can be put.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Horner:: The Liberals use closure.


Gerald William Baldwin: Your Honour may not be called upon to make a clear decision on this point today. If the minister, pursuant to what I understand is his announced intention, rises in the House tomorrow to move, as he indicated he will, the allocation of time, the guillotine, I will expand on this argument tomorrow. I make my argument now to Your Honour for the two reasons I have indicated. The notice which the minister sought to give today is not one of which he can avail himself in order to make tomorrow this particular motion with which he has threatened us today.

December 1, 1971
Business of the House


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Closure!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment briefly on the two points of order raised by the hon. member for Peace River and I then wish to raise one of my own.
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that any debate on the substance of the motion must, of course, take place when the motion has been presented to the House, presumably tomorrow, so at this point we are dealing only with procedural points that should be dealt with before we move to the stage of actual debate.
Despite the many times I find myself in very close agreement with my friend from Peace River, I am afraid I do not see eye to eye with him on the points he has raised this afternoon. It is true that in the secret meetings of House leaders we discussed the whole package.


An hon. Member:: A lot of leaks there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, leaks are the order of the day. In this case the government has to operate under Standing Order 75C as it reads. Standing Order 75C permits a motion dealing with only one stage of debate. There is a reservation, namely, that if there were a report stage and third reading coming up, those two could be dealt with in one motion, but as far as a debate in the committee of the whole stage is concerned a motion under Standing Order 75C can deal with that and that alone. I do not see that the minister is out of court on that count.
The second point that the hon. member for Peace River raised had to do with his contention that 48 hours' notice is required, that the motion has to be put on the order paper and so on. Again, however, I have to disagree with my good friend because it seems to me the wording of 75C is quite clear. It says that a minister of the Crown who from his place at a previous sitting has done two things, has stated that agreement cannot be reached under 75A or 75C, and who has given notice of his intention to do so, may move that motion at the next sitting. The hon. member relies on Standing Order 42. I suggest that 75C is more analogous to Standing Order 33 in this respect. Standing Order 33, an infamous one, provides for the full-dress kind of closure and in that Standing Order there is the same kind of reference, namely, to the minister giving notice the previous day from his place in the House. No 48 hours notice is required in that case; no notice is put on the order paper. So I would say that the minister has the right to give notice, as he has done today, and to make his motion tomorrow.
However, despite my disagreement on those two points there is a point which I feel should be raised even though Your Honour might feel you should treat it simply as a caveat. As the hon. member for Peace River has said, this is the first time, out in the open at least, when an attempt has been made to use Standing Order 75C. So whatever happens now becomes a precedent and we may find ourselves guided in the future by the precedent created on this occasion. The point which it seems to me ought to be made is that Standing Order 75C can be used by a minis-
(Mr. Baldwin.)
ter of the Crown only when he can assert that there has been no agreement under either 75A or 75B. If, at this time, the three of us on the opposition side of the house were in agreement as to what we should do about the remainder of the debate, and could cite that agreement, the minister would not, I submit, be able to proceed under 75C. This is obvious, but it seems to me that if this point is not made when the rule is being used on this occasion the minister might on some other occasion get up and try to do it again in circumstances which were somewhat different.
The fact of the matter is that on this side of the House, although all three parties are opposed to Bill C-259, we differ as to how we should spend the remaining time, what subjects we should spend it on, and so on. We have not been able, therefore, to reach a three-party agreement as to what should be done with the remainder of the time. It is only because of this situation that the minister is in a position to use Standing Order 75C. My indication at this time that we do not take procedural objection to the use of this rule by the minister is made for the purpose of the record and it is put there for future reference.
When we come to discuss the motion itself, presumably tomorrow, we shall indicate our opposition to this rule being used. We believe that just as we have conducted this debate so far-granted, for many days-on the basis of unanimous agreement among the House leaders, a further attempt should have been made to reach a conclusion to this debate by agreement rather than by the method of confrontation.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I support the comments which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has just made. Bill C-259 is in my opinion a kind of bill omnibus and I wish that it could have been split up. It could have been passed more quickly.
It is now useless to hope that it can be split up. We should bow to facts and take matters as they come and I think that we, of the Social Credit party, have expressed our willingness to co-operate with the government so that parliamentary procedure would be complied with, that we could have reasonable discussions and that the government could pass the bills it has introduced.
I think that if we read the same things in French we can come to an agreement.
I think that Standing Order 75C which is being used for the first time will pose certain difficulties. You will remember that Standing Orders 75A, 75B and 75C were debated in this House. Of course, the majority came up on top but it was understood that it was simply a measure of protection and that Standing Order 75C would never be applied.
In any case if it became necessary to do so its application would be dictated by certain rules that are well established. I think the minister assuming the responsibility of introducing such a motion should give notice as he did today and the motion could be passed tomorrow. This is my way of seeing things. I think that if the government intends to resort to Standing Order 75C, it should give hon. members enough time to assume their responsibilities as representatives of the people and study as many
December 1, 1971

sections as possible. There are 330 in all, and there are still roughly 220 to be passed. So, it is not easy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. When the hon. member had the floor a few days ago he pointed out that it was perhaps unfair to him-order, please. I am just drawing attention to the fact that the hon. member for Bellechasse took exception some time ago to the fact that when he or another member of his party took the opportunity to raise points of order or make statements on motions they did not receive the same attention as did other members. The reason suggested was that they were expressing themselves in French. I could not agree with that, but this is another occasion upon which it is extremely difficult to hear what the hon. member is saying.

I believe the hon. member should enjoy the same privilege as his other colleagues, that of being heard in the House.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your generosity and sense of justice for all members, even those who express themselves in French. I am sure all hon. members will wish to co-operate. I once brought up that point and realized that the majority of members agreed. I would not like to get back to the matter every day. I thank you for your intervention and for setting the record straight.
In concluding, if the procedure proposed today is approved, I believe a precedent will be created. If, some day, Canada should live under a government with more pronounced dictatorial ideas, then, our parliamentary system might be ruined and we would turn towards the establishment of a parliament which would not discharge its duties as efficiently and as democratically as today.
In my opinion, the motion which has just been introduced should be studied carefully. The House leaders of the different parties should study it in order to reach an understanding, in order that the whole country-and even the Commonwealth nations-should not be left with the impression that the Canadian Parliament is becoming more and more difficult, but rather that it is a Parliament where the members are really responsible, where even those in the opposition are ready to co-operate. To co-operate does not mean that all the bills introduced by the government should be rushed through. To co-operate means to study them wisely and intelligently, to make suggestions, to propose amendments such as the rules permit.
I do not think that there was obstruction, and I would not like to see Standing Order 75C applied at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Peace River rising to speak to the same point of order? The hon. member will appreciate that he has already spoken but it may be he would like to address himself to the additional point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I see at the same time that the hon. member for
Business of the House
York East wishes to participate in the procedural debate and perhaps he should be recognized first.


Mr. Steven Otto (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I rise only to deal with the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I ask your instruction since he indicated that he wanted you to rule on the interpretation of the word "or" in Standing Order 75C. He wanted to enter a caveat depending on how Your Honour interpreted the meaning of that Standing Order. He interpreted it to mean where an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 75A "and" 75B. If Your Honour is going to make a ruling on that point, then I think we should have an opportunity to argue it. I suggest with all respect that the only issue at stake now is Standing Order 75A. There has been no unanimous agreement. I submit that is the only point you should cover in your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I might lay to rest or ease the hon. member's difficulty if I tell him that my understanding of the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was that it was more theoretical. He indicated he was only entering a caveat. I think any hon. member who has looked at this rule over a period of months would appreciate that there is a difficulty here. Fortunately for the Chair that decision does not have to be made at this time. That is my understanding of the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 37 I wonder whether I might confirm what Your Honour has just said. I was not asking what the hon. member for York East said I was asking in any case. But neither was I asking for a ruling from Your Honour on the crucial point in this rule at this time; I was simply entering a caveat so that on another occasion what has happened today will not be a precedent that could be used against us.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, on the same basis may I say I am not going to deal with the matter raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre save as it is related to what I said on my first point. What I was saying, if I may put in one sentence-and I think it is substantiated indirectly by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-was that the minister cannot stand today and say that an agreement was not reached under 75A or 75B in respect of the stage which we are now at, the committee stage, because never were we asked with respect to the committee stage alone to agree to this number of days. We dealt with the matter as a package-five days and three days.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to interrupt this interesting debate and if hon. members want to make further contributions I will listen to them. It might be easier for the Chair to listen to argument on this point than to go to the question period. If there are no other contributions I am prepared to make a ruling.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by agreeing with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the point of order presently before the House does not raise the point against which he has now issued his caveat. I
10050

December 1, 1971
Business of the House
quite agree that what is occurring now would not constitute a precedent for a future event. I also want to enter a caveat and to reserve our position to argue that point when it does arise on an entirely different basis.
I have two comments to make and one has to do with notice. I have read the words of the Standing Order which on that point seems to be clear. I am reinforced in my position by the wording that appears, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned, in Standing Order 33, which seemed to me to be absolutely four square. As we know, in the past Standing Order 33 has been interpreted as permitting me to give notice today and to move the motion tomorrow. So on that point I do take that position.
With respect to the first point made by the hon. member for Peace River, it seems to me that my obligation, or at least the obligation of a minister of the Crown, is to state that there has not been an agreement. That obligation is imposed upon a minister by the Standing Order.
It is clear from the discussion that there has not been an agreement. There has not been a majority agreement along the lines that would frustrate the operation of Standing Order 75C. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has stated, if a conclusion had been possible under 75B, if all the opposition parties had agreed to a particular position, then he would at least be able to argue the point of order that he will argue at some time in the future. But at the moment it is clear from what has been said that I am perfectly correct in telling the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 75A or 75B. That is clear and it has been supported by the evidence of all opposition House leaders. Therefore I feel that the conditions of Standing Order 75C have been met.
Standing Order 75C does not prescribe any by-laws or guidelines on the way that the informal meetings of House leaders should be conducted. In the absence of that we must take the wording of the Standing Order as it is. All I can say is that the point raised by the hon. member for Peace River was fully covered in our discussions. He knew, as all other hon. members who took part in the discussions knew, the proposal that I had made relating to the committee stage of the bill. That is the fact and it has been supported by another spokesman.
Therefore I simply argue that I have satisfied the obligation of a minister of the Crown to state that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 75A or 75B. It seems to me it is not for anyone to inquire at this stage how that factual conclusion was reached, but that is the factual conclusion.


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no other contributions to the interesting debate on the procedural point raised by the hon. member for Peace River I might be prepared to give my opinion at this stage.
Dealing first with the last point, that raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I should like to reiterate that what he is doing now is entering a caveat which refers to the possible application and reference of Standing Orders 75A and 75B and to the question of whether, in certain circumstances, it would be open to a minister on
(Mr. MacEachen.l
behalf of the Crown to invoke the provisions of Standing Order 75C in cases where there had been agreement between the three opposition parties, or more if there were more in the House. Of course, as had been pointed out by hon. members, this is a theoretical point at this time on which the Chair should not be called upon to rule. I should therefor like to go to the other two points which were made by the hon. member for Peace River.
The hon. member for Peace River suggests that the motion should propose a time allocation to cover all the remaining stages. He suggests, if I understand him well, that it is irregular to have a motion which would refer to only one stage. This, essentially, is the point that he has made. If I am wrong, and the hon. member seems to indicate that I am, I will ask him to correct me in my interpretation of what he said.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate ever to correct you. The point I was trying to make was that our discussions took place with relation to both remaining parts of the bill, the completion of the committee stage and third reading, and that our discussions with regard to that were bounded by that particular consideration. It is true that a number of days was considered with respect to both parts, but it was a package. I suggest that the minister must now establish prima facie that we rejected an agreement with respect to the committee stage alone.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the point which the hon. member is making. Effectively, what he wants the Chair to do is to go beyond the terms of the Standing Order as it now is. That is exactly the point which was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He suggested that the Chair has to rule on the Standing Order as written and as it is before me for interpretation. Standing Order 75C says that if a minister has given notice of his intention so to do he may "propose a motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage." This, I suggest, is what the minister has done at this particular stage. I do not see how it is open to the Chair to go beyond this. Perhaps the Standing Order should be rephrased and presented in another way, but my understanding of it is clear. I have to take the statement made by the minister as expressing the situation which is covered by those words of the Standing Order.
The second point is perhaps a little more knotty, a little more difficult to deal with. It has to do with notice. Obviously, in a general way all motions proposed to the House require 48 hours written notice. I think it is important to note that in this particular case it is not notice of the motion which the minister is required to bring forward at this time, which might put him under the disposition of Standing Order 42(1) dealing with 48 hours of notice of motions. Standing Order 75C requires the minister to give notice of intention to move a motion. I suggest that there is a substantial difference between the two. Standing Order 42(1) specifies the circumstances in which any member of the government or any member of the House proposing a motion must give 48 hours written notice. The type of notice specified in Standing Order 75 is not, I suggest, covered by the terms of Standing Order 42(1). It seems to me that this type of notice is more analogous to the type of notice required under Standing Order 43,
December 1. 1971

under Standing Order 6(5)(a) or even under Standing Order 26, where a specific and perhaps exceptional procedure is proposed by the Standing Order.
I think it should be mentioned, to be fair to hon. members, that we are not dealing with something which, in practice, is all that serious. If the Chair were to rule that 48 hours notice is required, it would mean that the notice would be filed this afternoon before six o'clock and, instead of the motion being moved tomorrow, it would be moved on Friday. I appreciate that 24 hours difference and an additional day's debate in the House is a matter of importance. I am not trying to minimize that at all. However, we are not dealing with anything which is basic or substantial. I would think that the Chair would find it very difficult to convince himself that the provisions of Standing Order 42(1) apply to this case and that 48 hours written notice is required. I have to take the Standing Order as it is presented to me. That is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested. He stated a moment ago that he does not often disagree with the hon. member for Peace River. I would say that although I sometimes disagree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in this case I think his interpretation of the Standing Order is closer to mine than that proposed by the hon. member for Peace River. I would think I would have to rule that the notice of intention proposed by the President of the Privy Council would meet the requirements of the Standing Order as it appears in the Standing Orders of the House at the present time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which does not arise from the notice or from your ruling. Some days ago I asked the government House leader whether the standing committees of the House would sit while the tax bill was being debated before the committee of the whole House. Since the guillotine is going to fall, I would think that the government and the government House leader ought to act in the best interests of Parliament. These committees have been sitting. I had to attend a committee session yesterday, because I was obliged to, and I therefore missed a part of the debate on the tax bill. If the guillotine is to be lowered, let the government introduce some procedure under which Members of Parliament can express their views on a bill as important as the tax bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Although I have not looked this up, I recall that when I raised this matter with the government House leader he suggested and gave me to understand without any qualification that there would not be any standing committees sitting. We find ourselves involved in this sort of procedure because the government will not even accede to our suggestion and split the bill.


An hon. Member:: Guillotine MacEachen.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, more than once I gave assurances to the House that I would attempt to reduce the sittings of committees at times when we were sitting in committee of the whole on the tax bill. If you look at the record you will see that while this bill has been in committee of the whole very few committees have been sitting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
24725-8 i
Business of the House


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It has not always been possible to prevent sittings of committees, because chairmen of committees and other hon. members of the House who have rights, as has my hon. friend who has raised the objection, have come to me and said that for one reason or another a committee must sit. This applies to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates because it is operating under a dead-line of its own. Today, for reasons which the chairman can explain, a particular committee will sit. I do not think it is a great obligation on members of the House, even though I am striving to cut down the number of sittings of standing committees, to expect them to attend one or two committee meetings while the House is sitting in Committee of the Whole. If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, from my own observation of the Committee of the Whole members are not impeded in attending the committee because of other committee sittings. I think it is because they have other responsibilities not in the standing committees which have prevented them being in the chamber in the last few weeks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I have not read it, but if my memory serves me right-I have not checked it today because this matter arose after the notice and ruling were given-the government House leader said there would not be sittings. He did not say that some would not sit and others would. I would like to hear him say that he gave his word to the House that the committees would not sit.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On this point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say what was said by the government House leader or by the House leader of the Conservative party. I wonder if we could have an indication from the House leader of the government concerning what will happen now that closure has been invoked by the government. Will the committees continue to sit during the four-day debate on the tax legislation? Could we have some statement from the House leader in that regard? Surely, owing to the country's concern over this tax bill, no committees should sit except the Committee of the Whole of the House of Commons.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to advise my hon. friend that closure has not been invoked and it is not the intention of the government to invoke closure on this particular bill. This is an entirely separate procedure. I will tell my hon. friend what I told the hon. member for Calgary North earlier, that I will do my very best to reduce the number of committees or eliminate them entirely. I do not remember exactly what I said at the time and neither does my hon. friend, but I did say I would cut them down as much as possible and I will do that during the next few days.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[Stage Direction]
December 1, 1971
Questions

Mr. Mather: Is a motor vehicle safety investigation being made into alleged (Nader) defects of (a) Chevrolet-engine mounts in 1966-69 models (1969 models currently under NHTSA investigation) (b) Chevrolet Corvair-clutch cable in 1965-66 models (c) Pontiac, Chevrolet, Buick and Oldsmobile-Rochester quadrajet carburetors in 1966 models (d) Chevrolet Vega-dash panel flammability in 1971 model (e) GM full size model ears-power braking systems in 1967-70 models (/) Mercury Capri-engine fires in 1970 model (g) full size Ford-hood latch in 1970 model (h) Plymouth, Dodge and Chrysler-Brake Drum in 1967-71 models (i) Fireball Industries, "Castaway 18.5 Motorhome"-spare wheels size does not correspond with size of "running" wheels?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Department officials are investigating the alleged defects in 1966-69 model Chevrolet engine mounts. The size of the affected vehicle population in this country has been defined and officials are now examining service records in cooperation with General Motors of Canada as well as evaluating the performance of specific Canadian vehicles of this design.
With respect to the other alleged defects announced in the United States by Mr. Nader, the Department is attempting to obtain all available information form the United States Department of Transportation and Mr. Nader so that investigations of similar Canadian vehicles may be initiated.


PREPARATION AND PUBLISHING OF GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Did the government publish the texts of all regulations promulgated since January 1970 and, if not, which texts were not published and for what reasons?
2.	Were such texts drafted in French and in Egnlish and, if so, when did the government adopt this policy?
3.	What are the names of the legal officers in charge of drafting the regulations promulgated by the government?
4.	Are the legal officers bilingual and did they receive Common or Civil Law training?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: The Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices and the Department of Justice advise as follows:
1.	Yes, with the exception of those regulations exempt from publication, pursuant to section 9 of the Regulations Act, by Order in Council P.C. 1954-1787 of 18th November, 1954, which was published in Statutory Orders and Regulations Consolidation, 1955, Vol. 3 page 2676.
2.	The texts of regulations as defined in the Regulations Act are required to be drafted in the French and English language. This policy was first established by Order in Council P.C. 5355 of 30th December, 1946, which was published in Statutory Orders and Regulations of January 8, 1947, page 2.
3.	and 4. There are no legal officers particularly charged with the drafting of regulations promulgated by the Government. The drafting of regulations is part of the duties of every legal officer advising a department, board, commission or corporation that makes or recommends the making of regulations.
[Mr. MacEachen.J


CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has corporal punishment been used in federal institutions in 1970 and, if so, how many times?
2.	How many prisoners have received corporal punishment more than once?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.


STATISTICS ON CANADIAN AND INDIAN POPULATION
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the last year for which figures were available, what was the total per capita investment in housing?
2.	In the same year, what was the total per capita investment for Indian housing from (a) the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development appropriations (b) band revenues (e) individual contributions?
3.	What were the average salaries and wages (excluding military pay) for 1970 earned by Canada's labour force?
4.	What was the average income of Canadian Indian families excluding general assistance and family allowances?
5.	What was the average age of death for all Canadians, male and female, for the last year for which figures are available?
6.	What was the average age of death for Canadian Indians, male and female, for the same year?
7.	Of the total Canadian population, how many families live in houses of three rooms or less?
8.	Of the total Indian population, how many families live in houses of three rooms or less?
9.	Of the total Canadian population, how many live in homes which are provided with electricity, sewer services or septic tanks, running water and indoor baths?
10.	Of the total Indian population, how many live in homes which are provided with electricity, sewer services or septic tanks, running water and indoor baths?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: 1. The total "per capita" new investment in housing for the Canadian population was estimated at $102 during the calendar year 1970.
2.	(a) $105.52; (b) 13.15; (c) 5.87.
3.	Not available as asked. The total salaries and wages paid during 1970 divided by the average number of paid workers was $6,522.15.
4.	Accurate information relating to average income by families is not available. Data are being compiled and based on information obtained in a National Survey in 1969. Approximately 14,395 individuals were earning up to $1,000; 9,133 individuals were earning up to 3,000; 3,159 individuals were earning up to 4,000; 6,530 individuals were earning over 4,000.
5.	Average age of death for all Canadians in 1969 was: Males, 62.9 years; Females, 67.3 years.
6.	Average age of death for Canadian Indians in 1969 was: Males, 38.6 years; Females, 42.1 years.
7.	Distribution of families by number of rooms per dwelling is not available. However, 1961 Census data show that at that time in Canada there were 682,376 households living in dwelling units of three rooms or less.
December 1, 1971

8.	30.6 per cent of total number of on-reserve families live in houses of three rooms or less.
9.	This information is not available for families, but at the time of the 1961 Census there were the following numbers of Canadian households with: Running Water 4,058,313; Installed Bath or Shower 3,659,520; Connection to Sewer 2,902,622; Septic Tank 948,257. The question on electricity was not asked in the 1961 Census.
10.	81 per cent of Indian homes on reserves are equipped with electricity. 25 per cent of Indian homes on reserves are equipped with sewer services or septic tanks. 30 per cent of Indian homes on reserves are equipped with running water. 19 per cent of Indian homes on reserves are equipped with indoor baths.


INFORMATION CONCERNING STAFF OF PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE AND PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	(a) How many full-time employees were there on the staff of the Prime Minister as of October 1, 1971 (b) what was the total salary cost of that staff as of October 1, 1971, in terms of gross annual salary rates?
2.	(a) How many full-time employees were there in the Cabinet Secretariat as of October 1, 1971 (b) what was the total salary cost of that staff as of October 1, 1971, in terms of gross annual salary rates?
3.	(a) How many full-time employees were there in the Federal-Provincial Relations Secretariat as of October 1, 1971 (b) what was the total salary cost of that staff as of October 1, 1971, in terms of gross annual salary rates?
4.	(a) How many full-time employees were there in the Administrative Division of the Privy Council as of October 1, 1971 (b) what was the total salary cost of that staff as of October 1, 1971, in terms of gross annual salary rates?


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. (a) Total of 90 including two by contract, 39 stenographers, and 21 clerical staff and messengers, (b) $915,684.
2.	(a) Seventy six, including 31 stenographers and one clerical staff, (b) $1,119,448.
3.	(a) thirty two, including 14 stenographers (b) $406,476.
4.	(a) One hundred and thirty, including 12 stenographers and 99 clerical staff and messengers, (b) $926,736.


OWEN SOUND AIRPORT-INSURANCE OF LICENCE TO OPERATOR OF NOR-VAR AERODROME
Mr. Noble: Does the Minister of Transport intend to issue a licence to the operator of an aerodrome designated as NOR-VAR, located near Owen Sound, Ontario?


Gérard Duquet: No. The Minister considers that the NOR-VAR aerodrome is too close (2.6 miles) to the existing Owen Sound Airport.


HIGHWAY SAFETY-LIGHTING, DEFROSTING AND DEFOGGING SYSTEMS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Will the government advise when the testing under Canadian conditions to improve vehicle forward lighting systems and rear-window defrosting and defogging systems will be completed?
Questions
2.	Will the recommended changes apply to used motor vehicles as well as new ones and will the new regulations be implemented this year?


Gérard Duquet: 1. The headlamps comparison phase of vehicle forward lighting systems testing has been completed in September and a computer simulation model will be developed by N.R.C. at the end of the next year. The cold chamber testing of vehicles rear-window defrosting and defogging systems is being completed now; the analysis of data and the evaluation of performance levels are expected to be reported in the spring.
2.	Notice of proposed regulations for rear-window defrosting and defogging will be given later in 1972. These safety standards will apply only to vehicles manufactured after the regulation is proclaimed.


CONSULTATIONS CONCERNING SPECIFICATIONS RELATIVE TO FERRIES HOLIDAY ISLAND AND VACATION ISLAND
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): What consultations took place between the Department of Transport and the Government of Prince Edward Island relative to the specifications for the two ferries, the Holiday Island and the Vacation Island on the Tormentine-Borden run?


Gérard Duquet: The specifications for these two vessels were compiled after full and careful studies were made of present and future traffic demands. The Government of Prince Edward Island was consulted on the data on which architectural decisions were made and on certain aspects of the vessel design such as cafeterias, etc., for the crew.


QUEBEC-NUMBER OF ENGLISH SPEAKING PENSIONERS IN RECEIPT OF OLD AGE SECURITY
Mr. Godin: In the Province of Quebec, how many English speaking pensioners receive Old Age Security?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Old Age Security records are not kept in such a way as to make it possible to answer this question.
*roHALIFAX HARBOUR-CONTAINER TERMINAL FACILITIES


Mr. Stanfield: 1.	Has the Minister of Transport completed his review of the serious allegations made with regard to the container terminal facilities in Halifax Harbour and is the Minister now satisfied that all facilities are fully adequate?
2.	Will the Minister table any reports or studies on the adequacy of the facilities?
3.	Will the Minister inform the House when additional container facilities will be established in Halifax Harbour and has a location been determined?
[TranslationJ


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is rather long, and, with the consent of the House and

Decembe r 1 ^ 19J_ 1
Questions
particularly of the hon. member, I would ask that it be printed in Hansard and considered as read.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The above-mentioned answer reads as follows:]
The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. The 55-acre container facility at Pier C in Halifax completed in August of 1971 with two cranes and two berths appears fully adequate to meet short run current demands. Its capacity can be expanded if demand warrants with the addition of one or two cranes.
2.	Studies of both long term and short term demands are now in progress by consultants who will recommend the most suitable location for any additional container handling facilities that may be required. The consultants Gibb Albery Pullerits and Dickson were recommended by the Port Task Group of the Metropolitan Area Planning Committee and the studies are financed jointly by the Province and the Federal Government DREE. Publication of the consultants' report is a decision to be made by the Metropolitan Area Planning Committee.
3.	The National Harbours Board after receipt of the Consultants' Report will recommend when and where new container ships berths should be constructed. The Minister will report to the House after due consideration the action to be taken on those recommendations.


CAPE BRETON-THE SYDNEYS CONSTITUENCY-PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
Mr. Muir: 1.	What projects will be carried out in the constituency of Cape Breton-The Sydneys by the Department of Public Works during 1971-72?
2.	For each project, what is the estimated expenditure?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1 and 2.
The following projects have been completed or are underway in the Constituency of Cape Breton-The Sydneys during 1971-1972:
Project	Cost
New Waterford-
Accommodation	$	28.96
North Sydney-
Fenders and electric outlet	1,400.00
Federal Building-Drainage facilities	8,500.00
Federal Building-Accommodation	53.50
Public Wharf	170.08
Federal Building-Accommodation	106.30
Federal Building-Accommodation	29.50
Wharf	870.00
Federal Building-Accommodation	30.00
Wharf	310.95
Sydney-
Federal Building-E.M.O. Alterations	7,000.00
Accommodation-D.V.A.	1,486.00
Accommodation-Income Tax	1,779.30
Accommodation-D.O.T.	2,034.00
Accommodation-Federal Building	1,908.00
Accommodation-D.V.A.	25.50
Accommodation-Naval Admin.	187.90
Accommodation-C.M.C.	43.30
Federal Building-Accommodation	43.30
Federal Building-Accommodation	41.00
Federal Building-Accommodation	32.55
Naval Admin.-Accommodation	146.43
Federal Building-Accommodation	40.00
C.M.C.-Accommodation	48.60
C.M.C.-Accommodation	42.10
Federal Building-Accommodation	32.55
Naval Admin.-Accommodation	30.00
Naval Admin.-Accommodation	30.60
Federal	Building-Accommodation	92.00Federal	Building-Accommodation	30.00Federal	Building-Accommodation	49.20Federal	Building-Accommodation	45.00Naval Admin.-Accommodation	300.00Federal Building-Accommodation	118.00Federal Building-Accommodation	47.50C.M.C.-Accommodation	36.56Federal Building-Accommodation	45.00R.C.M.P. Admin.-Accommodation	1,404.15Federal	Building-Accommodation	60.00Federal	Building-Accommodation	388.00Federal	Building-Accommodation	25.50Federal	Building-Accommodation	54.00Federal	Building-Accommodation	40.00C.M.C.-Accommodation	31.20Federal	Building-Accommodation	45.00Federal	Building-Accommodation	72.96Federal	Building-Alterations	600.28Federal	Building-Renovations	146.60Federal	Building-Interior painting	575.00Various	buildings-Window cleaning	16,340.08Federal	Building-Fence repairs	1,397.00Federal	Building-Alterations D.V.A.	1,486.00Federal	Building-Alterations D.O.T.	2,013.00Federal Building-Alterations Income Tax	1,737.00Repairs to Heating System	1,905.00
Sydney Mines-
Accommodation	66.65
New window sash	2,137.00
The following will be carried out or commenced before the end of the present fiscal year: Project: Big Bras D'or, Road acquisition and repairs. Bras D'or, Accommodation-Interior improvements. North Sydney, Wharf; Federal Building-Ramp improvements; Postal-General improvements. Sydney, Federal Building-Roofing repairs; Floor covering; C. & C.A. renovations; Interior
[Mr. Duquet.J
December 1, 1971

painting P.O.D. Storage; EM.O. renovations; Department of Labour renovations; Renovations to heating plant; I.A. & N.D. renovations; Naval Administration Building, General improvements. Sydney Mines-C.M.C.-Improvements. Whitney Pier-Postal improvements. It is not customary to give estimated costs before contracts have been awarded.


IMPORTATION OF RUSSIAN TRACTORS
Mr. Gleave: 1.	When were the first tractors of Russian make imported into Canada?
2.	Who was the importer and what was his address?
3.	How many Russian tractors have been imported to date and what was (a) the total for Canada (b) the total for each province?
4.	Is a supply of repair parts assured for those tractors which have been sold and are in operation and, if so, where are the parts stored?
5.	What discussions has the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce had with their USSR counter-parts in order to assure that the conditions of financing and supply would be satisfactorily arranged?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Agriculture as follows: 1. The first Russian tractors were imported into Canada for trial purposes in 1968. There were eight tractors involved in this phase.
2.	The importer was Twin Lake Tractors Ltd. located at the time of importation in Orillia, Ontario. This company is now located in Oakville, Ontario.
3.	There have been 115 units of various sizes imported into Canada, since May 1970. Of these, some 40 are in the hands of farmers in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. The balance is in warehouses in Oakville and Montreal. 70 per cent of the total sales have been to Ontario with the balance split evenly between Quebec and Alberta.
4.	Service and repair parts are available for all units in operation in Canada and this service is operated from Montreal.
5.	The arrangements made for marketing the Russian built tractors in Canada was a purely commercial venture between Tractorexport and Twin Lake Tractors Ltd. Neither the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce nor the Department of Agriculture have participated in any discussions with their USSR counter-parts.


SCIENCE COUNCIL EXPENDITURES
Mr. Howard (Skeena): What amount was spent for the fiscal year 1970-71, for the Science Council?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the Science Council of Canada is concerned, the amount spent for the fiscal year 1970-71 is $1,184,740.97 and the amount of major services provided without charge by other government departments for the same period is $124,240.
Questions


MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Will the government require that all gasoline powered vehicles be fitted in such a manner as to control the pollution of exhaust emission?
2.	Will the government ensure that all motor vehicles will have pollution control equipment without increasing the cost of the vehicle to the consumer?
3.	To what extent is it anticipated that the pollution control for motor vehicles will be effective and what will be the anticipated percentage of pollution reduction from the average motor vehicle?


Gérard Duquet: 1. The Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations prescribe exhaust and evaporative emission standards for buses, chassis-cabs, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, passenger cars and trucks.
2.	The present emission standards have added to the cost of gasoline powered vehicles over those which were manufactured prior to the Regulations. Costs will be considered in establishing future Regulations.
3.	Pollution control regulations have already reduced the emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons from individual motor vehicles by 60 per cent to 70 per cent from the emissions of pre-regulated engines.


FISHERIES-CASSILIS, NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY FISH HATCHERY
Mr. Smith (Northumberland-Mirami-chi): 1.	How many salmon fry were hatched at the Cassilis, Northumberland County Fish Hatchery, in the years 1968, 1969, 1970?
2.	What rivers were stocked with such young salmon, and what percentage of the total hatch was deposited in the Miramichi River or its tributaries in those years?
3.	What percentage of the eggs used to produce such fry were obtained from salmon caught after August 15, in each of the above years.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: 1. 1968, 921,485; 1969, 316,584; 1970, 533,515.
2.	1968-Northwest Miramichi and tributaries; Southwest Miramichi and tributaries; Little Southwest Miramichi and tributaries; and Tabusintac. 1969-Southwest Miramichi and tributaries; Little Southwest Miramichi and tributaries; Northwest Miramichi; Bartibog; and Nepisiquit. 1970-Southwest Miramichi and tributaries; Northwest Miramichi and tributaries; Little Southwest Miramichi and tributaries. Percentages to the Miramichi and its tributaries in 1968 were 99.2; 1969-87.7; 1970-73.8. The remaining percentages were used for smolt production, Fisheries Research Board studies and pollution studies.
3.	1968, 96.4 per cent; 1969, 93.1 per cent; 1970, 59.4 per cent.


WORLD WAR II VETERANS-EDUCATIONAL GRANTS
Mr. Robinson: How many veterans of the Second World War obtained educational grants for (a) elementary school (b) secondary school (c) trades training (d) university education (e) professional education (f) other special courses?

December 1, 1971
Questions


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Statistical information relating to this question has not been maintained in the categories specified. To provide the information as requested would require an examination of each veteran student's file. Training at the elementary and secondary school levels was provided to approximately 29,000 World War II veterans in order to qualify them for entry to trades training or post-secondary education. Trades training was provided for 80,495 veteran students, and post-secondary education including university was provided to 53,949 veteran students. These figures include those who have received educational benefits under the Pensioners Training Regulations subsequent to the immediate post-World War II period.


WORLD WAR II VETERANS-TOTAL COST OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Robinson: What was the total amount paid to veterans of the Second World War for educational rehabilitation payments?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: The total cost of educational assistance provided to veterans of World War II under the post-discharge rehabilitation order, the Veterans Rehabilitation Act and Pensioners Training Regulations was $197,202,453 to March 31, 1971 including the costs of education and training paid to educational institutions and allowances to the veteran student.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-REMOVAL OF TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY SIGNS
Mr. Southam: Does the government support the recently announced British Columbia Government policy to remove Trans-Canada Highway signs on that part of No. 1 Highway going through British Columbia and to replace them with signs "British Columbia No. 1"?


Gérard Duquet: The Trans-Canada Highway sign was designed by representatives of all ten provinces in cooperation with federal government officials. By agreement by all ten provinces, this route marker was erected along the entire Trans-Canada Highway. It would be regrettable if the Government of British Columbia or of any other province saw fit to withdraw from this voluntary agreement.


MINIMUM WARRANTY STANDARDS FOR NEW CARS
Mr. Mather: 1.	Is consideration being given, in co-operation with the provinces, to establishing minimum warranty standards for new cars which will clearly impose upon the manufacturer the responsibility to repair or replace defective parts within a prescribed time limit at no cost to the purchaser?
2.	Is consideration being given, in co-operation with the provinces, to initiating and developing an effective program to dispose of abandoned motor vehicles, including a plan to rid the countryside of such vehicles and to speed the re-cycling of old cars into useable materials?


Gérard Duquet: 1. No.
(Mr. Robinson.!
2. No, it is not within the purview of the Department of Transport.


FEDERAL EXPENDITURES FOR HEALTH AND SCIENCES
Mr. Orlikow: In each of the past three years, what were the federal expenditures on the planning, building and equipping of health sciences teaching facilities for (a) Hospital Construction Grants (b) National Health Grants (c) General Public Health Grants (d) National Research Council (e) Medical Research Council (f) Health Resources Fund (g) others?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare and National Research Council as follows: Under the various programs administered within the Health Insurance and Resources Branch, Federal expenditures on the planning building and equipping of health sciences teaching facilities were as follows for the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71: (a) Nil; (b) nil; (c) nil; (d) nil; (e) nil; (f) 1968-69, $33,922,922; 1969-70, $34,382,978; 1970-71, $37,500,000; (g) nil.


NANAIMO HARBOURS COMMISSION
Mr. Rynard: 1.	What are the names of the three Commissioners serving on the Nanaimo Harbour Commission?
2.	What is the total amount of (a) remuneration (b) travel expenses paid to each of the Commissioners of the Nanaimo Harbour Commission?


Gérard Duquet: 1. (a) Mr. D. Robinson, Chairman; (b) Mr. D. M. Greer; (c) Capt. J. S. Clarke.
2. (A) (a)$ 1,500 per annum; (b) $1,000 per annum; (c) $1,000 per annum. (B) (January 1, 1971 to October 31, 1971) (a) $1,334; (b) $1,343.65; (c) $1,388.15.


STERILIZATION OF FEMALE PATIENTS AT WHITEHORSE GENERAL HOSPITAL
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	How many tubal ligations or other similar operations having as their result the sterilization of female patients have been performed at the Whitehorse General Hospital?
2.	Of such operations, how many have been performed on Indian patients and how many have been performed on white patients?
3.	In each such case where such operations were performed, was a form of consent signed by the patient and obtained from such patient before such operation?
4.	If such consent signed by such patient was not obtained, what other authority, if any, was obtained for the performance of such operation?
5.	In the case of each such operation, what was the name of the doctor performing the operation?


John Carr Munro: 1. 112 (During period July 1969 to June 1971 inclusive.)
2.	Eight Indians; 104 others.
3.	Yes.
4.	See question 3.
December 1, 1971

5.	Names of doctors not available. Yukon Territorial Ordinance prohibits publication of information from individual patient's records.


LAND FORECLOSURES-SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Gleave: !. Have any land foreclosures been made in Saskatchewan due to the unsatisfactory discharge of mortgages provided for by the Farm Credit Corporation in the years 1969-70, 1970-71 and to date in 1971, and, if so, how many in each period?
2.	How many farmers in Saskatchewan had Farm Credit mortgages as of (a) September 30, 1971 (b) September 30, 1970 (c) September 30, 1969 and what amount does this represent in each of these years?
3.	How many farmers are in arrears in Saskatchewan by (a) one year (b) two years (c) three years (d) four years?
4.	(a) How many actions for foreclosure have been commenced in Saskatchewan, up to the period ending September 30, 1971 (b) in those actions commenced, have stay of proceedings been granted by the courts and, if so, how many?
5.	Has the Farm Credit Corporation undertaken to pay property taxes on farm lands in arrears in Saskatchewan and, if so (a) how many in the years 1969-70, 1970-71 and April 1, 1971, to date (b) what amount does this represent in each year?
6.	In the case of foreclosures, how is the land disposed of and what is the total net loss or gain in each case?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: The Farm Credit Corporation advises as follows: 1. 1969-70, nil; 197071, nil; 1971 October 31, Nil.
2.	September	30,	1971	19,932	$324,588,890September	30,	1970	19,781	$313,897,612September	30,	1969	19,553	$304,036,1993.	(a) 2,753; (b) 574; (c) 72; (d) 6.4.	(a) One for the period ending Sept. 30, 1971; (b) Nil.
5.
(a) 1969-70, Nil	1970-71, Nil	1971 to October 31, Nil(b) 1969-70, Nil	1970-71, Nil	1971 to October 31, Nil6.	Not applicable.


POWDERED MILK PURCHASES
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Have any commercial organizations or companies requested to buy powdered milk for exporting purposes during the month of October 1971 and, if so, which organizations or companies?
2.	Which organizations or companies did buy powdered milk and in what quantities?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In so far as
the Canadian Dairy Commission is concerned, the answer is: 1. During the month of October some commercial organizations, both Canadian and foreign, enquired of the Canadian Dairy Commission whether it had milk powder for sale for export. The Commission had no powder and no record was kept of the enquiries. Information is not available as to requests to private Canadian organizations.
Questions
2. None from the Canadian Dairy Commission. Information is not available as to purchases from private Canadian companies.


COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITES
Mr. Robinson: Will a system of communications satellites obviate the necessity of having cablevision and will the government consider the feasibility of providing sufficient communications satellites so that Canadians will not require cablevision to obtain TV viewing excellence?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of Communications):: system of communication satellites is not expected, in the near future, to obviate the necessity of having cablevision for those who wish to enjoy a variety of signals and who wish to avoid the use of an antenna. The government is engaged in research work in the communications satellite field, designed to take maximum advantage of what this new technology has to offer. It is expected that, in the course of time, broadcasting from satellites direct to homes will prove to be attractive in certain situations, perhaps first in the rural and remote areas and later in urban areas. A great deal more needs to be known about the costs before accurate predictions can be made.


NEW MONTREAL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-LAND ACQUISITION
Mr. Hales: 1.	What is the area in square miles of the new airport at Ste. Scholastique in Quebec?
2.	How many acres have been acquired to date?
3.	What was the top price paid per acre?
4.	What was the lowest price paid per acre?
5.	What was the average price paid per acre?
6.	Was the land acquired by expropriation and, if not, by what other means?


Gérard Duquet: 1. 28 square miles for the airport proper.
2.	15,000.
3.	$1,000 including buildings.
4.	$500 including buildings.
5.	$725 including buildings.
6.	Yes.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. McGrath: Since the inception of the Regional Development Incentives Act, what was the distribution of industries, by establishment size, within each province?
Return tabled.

December 1, 1971
Orders for Returns


PENITENTIARIES-SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many inmates of federal penitentiaries were placed in solitary confinement each year 1965 to 1970?
2.	For what reasons were each held in solitary confinement and what was the duration of time that each served, during each period of solitary confinement?
Return tabled.


MANPOWER TRAINING ACT
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many adults in each province took courses under the provisions of the Manpower Training Act in each month in the year 1970?
2.	How many adults in each province took courses under the provisions of the Technical-Vocational Training Assistance Act in each month in the year 1970?
Return tabled.


NUMBER OF INMATES IN FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many inmates are there in federal correctional institutions at the present time?
2.	How many inmates are there in each of the institutions under (a) maximum security (b) medium security (c) minimum security?
3.	How many paroles were granted to the inmates of federal correctional institutions for each of the past two years, and of these, how many were (a) maximum parolees (b).medium parolees (c) minimum parolees?
4.	How many inmates are there in federal correctional institutions serving sentences after being sentenced to preventive detention, and in which institutions are these people detained?
5.	In the past two years, how many inmates serving sentences under preventive detention were paroled?
6.	In the past two years, what was the average time served by inmates paroled from Canadian institutions?
Return tabled.


STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Muir: 1.	How many students were employed during the summer of 1971 at the Cape Breton Highlands National Park and at the Fortress of Louisbourg?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these students?
3.	What positions did they fill and what salary did each receive?
Return tabled.


HEALTH RESOURCES FUND
Mr. Rynard: 1.	What is the total of all monies paid by the Health Resources Fund to the provinces since its inception?
2.	By year, what was the amount paid to each province?
3.	Have there been any cutbacks to any provinces and, if so, which provinces?
Return tabled.
[Mr. McGrath.)



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 259-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a report prepared for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development by Kaplan Consulting Associates Limited, entitled "Economic Impact Study of Alternative National Park Proposals at Val Marie, Saskatchewan".
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 259 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it agreed that this motion be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notices of Motions Nos. 75, 243, and 256.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-RESEARCH STUDIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 75-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the research studies undertaken by the Transportation Policy and Research Branch of the Department of Transport as reported in answer to Question Number 223 in Hansard of December 17, 1969 at page 2069.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, this motion seeks the release of 12 different consultant studies prepared for the transportation policy and research branch of the Ministry of Transport. Some of these studies hat e already been tabled, others have been provided to the hon. member. The three remaining studies are considered confidential and under the circumstances I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the motion could stand until the hon. member returns.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.
1971 CENSUS, REGINA EAST-NAMES OF PERSONS EMPLOYED
Motion No. 243-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the following regarding the 1971 Census (a) the names of all census enumerators in the constituency of Regina East (b) the names of all others who were engaged to work on census work in the constituency of
December 1, 1971

Regina EAst (c) the names of all those who applied for work in taking the census but who were not engaged.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, parts (a) and (b) are acceptable; however, with respect to part (c), Statistics Canada is applying the same rule as in section 25 of the Public Service Employment Regulations. Section 25 prevents such disclosure without consent of the individual concerned. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) feels that it would not be in anyone's best interest to secure such consent and to publish these names. If this is agreeable to the hon. member we would table the requirement in parts (a) and (b).


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Speaker, I will agree to the proposal as it is now subject to my right to resubmit a motion dealing with section (c).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 256-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between Ministers of the Crown and the Secretary of State relative to the approval of specific projects of the Opportunities for Youth Program.
Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, it is considered that such correspondence is of a confidential nature and that it would not be in the public interest to disclose it. I would request, therefore, that the hon. member be kind enough to withdraw his motion.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I find this an unusual request insasmuch as cabinet ministers are being given preferential treatment relative to other members of the House. It is a well known fact that members were asked to communicate with the minister in respect of this program. Therefore I would ask for an immediate vote.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister about his trip to Washington on Monday. In view of the statements from the President's office in Washington that the meeting with our Prime Minister is being held as part of the President's plan to meet with allied leaders prior to his visits to China and the USSR, can the Prime Minister tell
Inquiries of the Ministry
us what is the principal purpose of his visit to Washington and what topics are on the agenda.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the
agenda, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot enlighten the House yet. There has been no final agenda agreed to. The indication I have is that the President would prefer a very wide ranging discussion on very general matters, international and bilateral. For my part, I do intend discussing with the President some of these international matters but equally matters of concern to us as a result of Mr. Nixon's measure of last August.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of some of the statements from the Prime Minister's office, I should like to ask the Prime Minister what kind of "major breakthrough" he was referring to when he spoke to the press I think on Monday last? What kind of "major breakthrough" was the right hon. gentleman hoping for?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am rather certain I did not talk of a major breakthrough. What I did indicate was that discussions had been going on at the official and ministerial level for weeks and months, particularly since the August measures by the United States, and that we felt there were a certain number of questions which might be brought to a head at the meetings in Washington next Monday between the president and myself.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think the Prime Minister has indicated that he hopes to discuss the economic initiatives taken by the president in August, that is the surcharge. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he also intends to discuss with the president the auto pact and the arrangements we have between the two countries regarding production of armaments.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is possible that these questions will be discussed. I am waiting to learn from officials whether they are at the stage, as I think they are, at which we might be able to reach some conclusions. If further discussions are needed between officials, I will not try to take any final position in Washington.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to ask the
Prime Minister whether reports that some agreement at the official level with regard to Canada's abandoning of certain safeguards in the auto pact are correct, and whether the Prime Minister intends to inform the House before he goes to meet the president of the United States

December 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
of the government's position with regard to the auto pact, and particularly whether the government is in fact ready to agree to the removal of the safeguards contained in it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I have just indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, it is possible that by next Monday we will be in a position to state to the president Canada's bargaining position on this. I am not in a position to do so now. Both I and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce have said that the auto pact has been under discussion for many months, even before President Nixon's measures last August, and that of course there is always the possibility that one or the other side would denounce the pact and cease making it operative. That is why in our discussions we have always tried to ensure that there would not only be the best possible deal for Canada but that there would be also a deal which would be acceptable to the United States.


David Lewis: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will inform the House, and therefore the people of Canada, what the government's position is with regard to the negotiations on the auto pact. May I also ask him whether he has found, in the surveys that have been made I understand, that the impact of the 10 per cent surtax makes it unnecessary for him to seek to bargain with the president of the U.S. to have it removed so far as Canada is concerned.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We always took the position that we would not bargain for the removal of the 10 per cent surcharge. It was a unilateral decision by the United States, and we do not intend to bargain in any sense with the United States or to give away any of the things which we believe to be in Canada's interest in exchange for the withdrawal by the U.S. of its unilateral measure. As to the auto pact itself, it has been under discussion for many months, as I have said, long before the measures last August, and the two subjects are not related.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: In the discussions which the Prime Minister will have with the president of the U.S., can he assure the House that the so-called leaked Gray report will not be approved by the president before it is approved by the Parliament of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may ask a supplementary question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister failed to rise in his place to answer my first very logical and serious question, could the Prime Minister assure the House and thus the country that the screening mechanism outlined in the Gray report is not to be the White House of the U.S.?


Mr. Speaker:: I will return to the hon. member for York South for a supplementary question.


David Lewis: I should like to ask the
Prime Minister, in order to avoid misunderstanding, whether we can expect that he or some member of the cabinet will announce the government's policy with regard to foreign ownership, the screening process or whatever elements there are in that policy, before he sees the president of the U.S. and therefore before he discusses that policy with him, because in answer to a question some days ago the Prime Minister said that that subject might be discussed with the president of the U.S. Therefore, I would like to know whether we will hear from him before that happens.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When I dealt with this matter a few days ago, I indicated that the government intended announcing its policy and publishing the background material on the facts and the analysis at the same time. I indicated that this was really a technical question of translation, printing, editing, and so on. I made this announcement before I, myself, knew that I was going to see the president next Monday, and we have been trying to do this as quickly as possible. The government's position is known to the government. We will make it known to the country as soon as possible under the conditions which I indicated to the House a few weeks ago.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Has the government received any assurance from the government of the United States that the 10 per cent surcharge, as it applies to imports from Canada, will be removed if the two principal safeguards embodied in the auto pact are eliminated?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of the questions being put to the Prime Minister I wonder, without going into detail because I am not suggesting that would be proper, whether the Prime Minister would make a short statement before he goes to see the president
(Mr. Lewis.]
December 1, 1971

indicating the subjects he intends to discuss. That is the first part of my question.
The second part relates to the matter of energy. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to discuss this, particularly in view of the fact that our proven reserves in the last ten years have moved from 23 trillion to 60 trillion cubic feet, and there is a need for energy in the United States as well as a need for trade.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can only repeat that I cannot say what the agenda will be or what it will include, mainly for the reason that it has not yet been arrived at. I am only able to repeat what I said to the Leader of the Opposition, that I had an indication from the White House that they wanted to have a general discussion on international and bilateral talks. It is possible that we will raise the question then.


FORTHCOMING MEETING OF PRIME MINISTER WITH U.S.     PRESIDENT-POSSIBILITY OF AGREEMENT BY CANADA TO RAISE CEILING ON DUTY FREE PURCHASES BY TOURISTS
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Has the government tentatively agreed to raise the $24 ceiling on duty free purchases by Canadian tourists in the United States to make it more in accord with the allowances that the Americans give to Canadians, and will this agreement be formalized Muring the Prime Minister's visit to Washington?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not so agreed. But if we had, I imagine it would be very unwise of me to tell the House that we had if we wanted to use this as a bargaining point with the United States. It seems unwise for the opposition to ask the government to put all its cards on the table and thus throw away all its bargaining points.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. But first, I take the liberty of bringing to the attention of hon. members that there are quite a few supplementary questions which are being sought, and we may have to limit them in a short while. For the moment, the Chair has recognized the Leader of the Opposition.


ALLEGED AGREEMENT BY CANADA TO REMOVE AUTO PACT SAFEGUARDS AND INCREASE TOURIST ALLOWANCES-REFERENCE TO STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Robert Lorne Stanfield: wish to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs was stating government policy when, as reported in the Toronto Star of today, he said that Canada agreed to drop the safeguards in the auto pact for two years and tourist allowances would be enlarged.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs informs me
Inquiries of the Ministry
that he never said such a thing. He was not correctly quoted by the Toronto Star. He said that these subjects were discussed but that is as far as he went, and that we were studying them but that no decision had been made; certainly, none was announced by him.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the acknowledged difficulties that he has pointed out regarding the publishing and the printing of the Gray study, would he state government policy in advance of the publication of this study to end the uncertainty?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that about a month ago in the House the Minister of Transport was informed that the president of the Air Traffic Controllers Association, Mr. Campbell, was really concerned about the use of French in certain Quebec control towers, would the minister be in a position to tell if Mr. Campbell's concern is well founded or if this is news of minor importance only.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister oi Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I had what was agreed by both parties, and was so stated publicly, a most useful and successful meeting with representatives of the Air Controllers Association. This subject was fully covered. I think I can make two reports to the House. The first is that the bilingual policy, as it has been announced in relation to air controllers, does not in any way compromise safety, and the second report is that it is not an abnegation of the government's policy as stated with regard to bilingualism.




Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Haliiax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one asked previously by the Leader of the Opposition, and deals with

D ecem ber 1.1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
discussions that the Prime Minister might have with the President of the United States on questions of armaments and defence sharing. Would the Prime Minister indicate whether, in determining positions before he goes to Washington, he has concluded that this might be an area where we may have to make some major concessions with respect to future purchases of equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not see how a member can ask the government to say in advance that it is seriously prepared to make a concession in a negotiation that has not yet begun.


FORTHCOMING MEETING OF PRIME MINISTER WITH U.S. PRESIDENT-REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION OF INTERNATIONAL GRAINS ARRANGEMENT
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of his pending visit to Washington on Monday next, would he consider placing high on his agenda of discussions with President Nixon an item asking for the President's full support in a move to re-activate the International Grains Arrangement, more particularly as it would establish a floor price for wheat?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take the hon. member's suggestion under consideration, Mr. Speaker.
*  *


FAMILY INCOME SECURITY
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the right hon. Prime Minister indicated yesterday that he could not give an assurance that negotiations on social security with the province of Quebec will be completed before the introduction of that province's family allowance bill on December 25, could the minister indicate what stage negotiations have reached at the present time?


John Carr Munro: There are ongoing discussions, Mr. Speaker.


GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO BILL C-264
Jack Marshall: As a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate when we can expect second reading of Bill C-264, and is it still his intention to put increased family allowances into effect before May 1, 1972?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to proceed with the legislation depending on the time available in the House for it and on discussions with the provinces, including Quebec. Precisely when it will come before the House depends on both these matters.
[Mr. Forrestall.J


GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO PROVINCIAL PROGRAMS FOR NURSES IN MIDWIFERY TO RELIEVE SHORTAGE OF DOCTORS
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the serious and acute shortage of doctors, is the government prepared to explore ways of assisting the provinces in establishing programs for nurses in midwifery? In this respect, I mention the program which is currently being undertaken in the province of Ontario?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, through national health grants we are already supporting many demonstration projects being carried out in the provinces through medical schools, having this purpose in mind.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I would like to ask the minister whether he has conveyed to Westcoast Transmission Company a letter of intent with regard to a right of way for what is known as the Pointed Mountain Pipeline and, if he did, was he aware of the fact that this proposed pipeline would pass through territory involved in Treaties 8 and 11, concerning which no settlement of Indian lands has been arrived at?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes.
As for the second part, the hon. member himself gave the answer when he said that treaties nos. 8 and 11 have not been settled, which means that no lands have been made available to Indians in that area of the country.


REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINE
Thomas Speakman Barnett: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether in view of the objections to his course of action, which have been voiced by the Indians of the Northwest Territories, he will inform Westcoast Transmission that he is suspending this approval for the time being, and certainly until the Energy Board has held its hearings?
[Translation]	,


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we consulted with Indians of the Liard River area in that regard and several of them worked at the construction of installations there, and will later work on the pipeline project. I do not think it would be wise to take a new decision at this stage.
December 1, 1971


INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION OF SUPERVISOR OF EDUCATION
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is it true that a certain individual-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -in charge of the supervision of Indian education has been fired recently-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -because he attended a meeting of the Indian Affairs Committee?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that a question cannot be asked in this way. Perhaps the minister might assume that the question has been asked correctly, and so reply to it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might rephrase my question.


Mr. Speaker:: I was hoping that the minister understood it, but perhaps the hon. member might rephrase it.
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I was informed that someone was suspended for failing to meet obligations towards the Public Service Commission of Canada. Under the regulations governing the Commission that person was suspended as are all civil servants behaving likewise.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, the minister has suggested that a certain individual has been suspended. Would he qualify that? Does that mean suspended for X number of days or for X number of reasons, or does it mean fired, dismissed, and a complete fait accompli with regard to his employment?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, to me, "suspendu" means suspension.


IMMIGRATION
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I asked the Acting Prime Minister if the government had yet a report on an investigation made in connection with allegations of large scale smuggling of aliens into the United States from the Montreal area. I should like now to ask the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration, in light of new charges concerning large scale traffic in the smuggling of aliens and immigrants into the United States from both British Columbia and the Montreal area, when will the government be introducing its amendments to the Immigration Act and will the gov-
Inquiries of the Ministry
ernment refer this matter and related matters to a committee of this House to make a thorough and complete investigation?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the question of illegal entry of persons to the United States by way of Canada is one of continuous concern to the minister. He will be back in his place in the House on Monday, and I hope to see the question referred to him as early as possible.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has left the House, I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Could the minister tell us whether the Prime Minister will take the opportunity of his meeting with President Nixon to discuss the possible sale of CL-215 aircraft to the United States, in order to create employment at Canadair, which is seriously affected by unemployment these days?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister has said that the agenda has not been discussed, but I do know it will be the purpose of the Prime Minister in his representations to the United States to support the economy and employment in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Mackenzie. I apologize to the hon. member for Sainte-Marie, he had a supplementary question. The hon. member for Mackenzie will be recognized afterwards.


Georges-J. Valade: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
In order to clarify my question as well as the minister's answer, does the minister intend to ask the Prime Minister to suggest to the United States that they buy CL-215 aircraft, with a view to increasing production at Canadair?


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Some time ago I directed a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration which was taken under advisement by the Minister of Labour. It related to the 30-man hour requirement before a project could be approved. At that time the minister said he would take it under advisement. Ha? any decision

December 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
been made in this regard so that smaller municipalities may participate in the program?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker,
I took the matter up with the deparment, and I think the question was raised subsequently in the House. The minister pointed out that the department was quite responsive to the concept of pooling small projects for smaller municipalities. There seems to have been some objection from certain municipalities to the basic formula, however. After the review of the 30-man day concept in the next few weeks, possibly the minister would be able to make a statement on whether it is necessary to vary this particular format.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask, after the government has made a decision in this regard whether they will be meeting with some of these municipalities to discuss some sort of formula that could be implemented immediately so that there would be no further delay in this matter?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the present scheme allows for a 30-man day formula. The difficulty with this formula is that some of the smaller municipalities and some of the smaller projects are unable to meet this standard. The minister has suggested, with some effectiveness, that certain projects be pooled in order to meet the 30-man day formula, which means hiring only six people over five months. If this proves to be ineffective as well, then I presume the minister would want to consider further modifications.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: In the
absence of the Prime Minister, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question arising out of the statement the Prime Minister made today that the task force considering the Status of Women report has finished its work. Could the minister, who has now taken upon himself the heavy responsibility of dealing with women's rights, give some idea when this task force report will be tabled in the House?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am at a disadvantage, not having been here when the Prime Minister made the announcement. If I recall the report, it was sent to the appropriate interdepartmental committee. That committee has finalized its report, and is in the process of reporting back to me. I would imagine it would be at least two months before the report of the interdepartmental committee is on my desk for appropriate action.


RIGHTS OF INDIAN WOMEN WHO MARRY NON-INDIANS- REQUEST THAT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UPHOLD DECISION OF COURT
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question for the minister of Justice. In light of the
last question, and in light of the fact that the appeal court has ruled there should be equity as between women, will he now instruct the counsel whom he will pay to represent the Attorney General of Canada to take the position that the law as set down in the appeal case should be upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: I made my statement earlier today, Mr. Speaker.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour supplementary to that posed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. Unlike the Minister of Justice, who does not believe in the equity of the sexes,-


An hon. Member:: Wait till he goes home.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -I was wondering whether the Minister of Labour was now in a position to advise us if he is now reviewing the Fair Employment Practices Act and other labour legislation in order that we can have some consistency with regard to equality of the sexes? Has he any report in this area?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the legislation which has been brought forward so far this session reflects this positive approach. I am hopeful that in the next session of Parliament, when the Fair Employment Practices Act is revised, it will further reflect the principle that all of us in this House support, that of equality between the sexes.


An hon. Member:: Would that be for Indians, too?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. At the time he brings in this legislation, I wonder if he would take the matter up specifically and primarily first with the Minister of Justice.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have always found the Minister of Justice to be a very strong advocate in this particular field.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He is one of your boys.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: One Irishman to another.


CANADIAN NATIONAL
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.


[Mr. Korchinski.J
December 1, 1971

In view of the intention of the Canadian National authorities to close many stations in my constituency and to replace them by another service called Servo-Centre, may I ask the minister whether the Canadian Transport Commission will hold public hearigns in the area in order to provide those involved with an opportunity to express their views in that respect?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if this rationalization by the Canadian National Railways in the servo-centre sense is one which comes under the Canadian Transport Commission. I am making inquiries and will inform the hon. member.


PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT-EFFECT ON ENVIRONMENT AND INDIANS
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: My question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and also to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that the Quebec government has let a $20 million road contract in connection with the James Bay Power Project, what steps have been taken by the federal government to determine the effects this project will have on the environment, and what steps are being taken to protect the livelihood of thousands of native people which could be jeopardized?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development might handle the latter part of the question. There is a joint study going on in respect of the environmental effects between the province of Quebec and the federal Department of the Environment. Preliminary results will be made available in a study to be published in a few weeks time.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to answer the question of-


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would very much appreciate it if the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development could answer the latter part of the question, since it is very important.


Mr. Speaker:: This is what the minister was trying to do. [Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I was already standing to reply to the hon. member, and I am happy to tell him that the Quebec government, the federal government and the Indians have agreed that a conciliator should consider the problems of all Indians in this area, and the conciliator involved is already at work.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would recognize the hon. member for St. John's East. We will be running short of
Inquiries of the Ministry
time in a few minutes, so perhaps hon. members who have had an opportunity to ask questions during this question period will have to wait until tomorrow. The hon. member may have a supplementary, but we will have to try to limit supplementaries during the next eight or nine minutes.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The only reason I would like to ask a supplementary is that both ministers will not be here tomorrow, so I appreciate this opportunity. I hope the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will make sure that the consultation with the native people of this area will not be of the same type as it has been in Alberta, so that we will not have the same confrontation-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Quebec Indians are not coached like those in Alberta.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East has the floor.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Since the first report of the Atlantic Development Council has been on the table of this House since April 7, and since it contains important recommendations on the strategy for development of the Atlantic region, may I ask the minister if any policy decision has been taken on those recommendations and if not, why not?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: No, not yet, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question. I ask the minister if the government intends to adopt, in whole or in part, the recommendations of the Atlantic Development Council?


Jean Marchand: We are surely going to adopt some of the recommendations, but certainly not all, Mr. Speaker.


FREE TRADE ALLEGED OBJECTIVE OF AUTO PACT- CANADIAN POSITION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: A question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Following the publication in today's Globe and Mail of a letter by the important Chairman of the United States Finance Committee, Russell Long, in which he reiterates the American position that the autopact is a free trade agreement, and following a report that came today from Washington to the effect that senior Canadian and American officials

December 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
have agreed on the abandonment of the safeguards in the autopact, could the minister inform the House that it is the Canadian position that one of the objectives of the autopact is free trade in automobiles?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, one of the immediate effects of the automobile agreement, which was criticized in many parts of the House, was to open up a great deal of trade between Canada and the United States. The principal objection of the United States was that they felt we got a great deal more advantage out of it than they did. Perhaps, my hon. friend agrees but I do not.


AUTO PACT-ALLEGED AGREEMENT TO ABANDON SAFEGUARDS
John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question. Having received no answer at all, I ask the minister if it is government policy, as reported in Washington today, that the Canadian government is willing to give up the existing safeguards on the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement.


Mitchell William Sharp: Put in that way, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


UNITED NATIONS
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the United Nations General Assembly debate, is the Canadian delegation taking any initiatives which might lead to a reactivation of the Jarring commission which might bring about a situation in the Middle East whereby the Security Council resolution 242 might become something close to an actuality?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is the objective of the Canadian government to support resolution 242. We would be very happy if Ambassador Jarring could resume his activities. This is the general purpose of our activities in New York at the present time. However, as the hon. member knows, there are many difficulties in the way.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: My question is for the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Earlier this afternoon there was an announcement by the Minister of Justice regarding a decision handed down by the Federal Court respecting the rights and privileges of Indian women married to non-Indians. The minister said
this decision will be referred to the Supreme Court. Can the minister assure the House that the costs of legal counsel chosen by the Indians will be taken care of by the department?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to consider the hon. member's suggestion.


RIGHTS OF INDIAN WOMEN MARRIED TO NON-INDIANS- REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF RETROACTIVE ASPECT OF COURT DECISION
Robert Simpson: A supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since a decision was handed down some time ago by the Federal Court respecting the rights of Indian women married to non-Indians, can the minister say whether any study is being made by his department to give consideration to the retroactive aspects of this for the protection of Indian women who married non-Indians in the past and lost their Indian rights?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the consequences of the ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal and we are waiting for the Supreme Court decision before taking any action. It is obvious that radical changes will take place in the administration of my department if the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal.




Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: My question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government studied legislation approved by the State of Massachusetts to move their fishing protection boundaries 200 miles eastward, as promised by the minister on November 25? Can the minister say what indication this action will have on Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I said in reply to the question at the time, Mr. Speaker, we are asking the United States state department what they think about this. We have not yet had a reply.


FISHERIES TREATY WITH NORWAY-REQUEST FOR TABLING
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: My question is to the Minister of Fisheries. It is related to the previous question asked by the hon. member for St. John's West. Can the minister say whether on July 15 the federal gov-
(Mr. Broadbent.]
December 1, 1971

ernment signed a treaty with Norway regarding the sealing operation on the Atlantic coast, and whether that treaty enables Norway to harvest our marine resources up to within three miles of our coast, thereby violating our territorial seas? Will the minister table that document, and when?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, an agreement has been under negotiation with Norway relative to the phasing out of Norwegian fishing operations in Canada's fishing waters. Ratification of that agreement by Norway is now in process. The question as to when it might be tabled might better be addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


John Howard Lundrigan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been waiting three days to ask this question. The minister should answer it. Was a treaty signed between the two countries and does the treaty permit Norway to harvest marine resources within three miles of Canada's coast?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the Minister of Fisheries has said, Mr. Speaker, we have negotiated an agreement with Norway. It is not usual to publish such an agreement until it has been ratified. It is my understanding that the Norwegians have now released the text, and I will be happy to table it.


John Howard Lundrigan: When?


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. It is similar to a question asked yesterday about tropical plants. Will the minister investigate another report that nearly $40,000 worth of tropical plants were purchased for the Department of the Environment building in Hull and perished due to inadequate heating facilities?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: will be glad to investigate that, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time. Perhaps the matter of tropical plants ought to be pursued tomorrow.


WAR MEASURES ACT
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: My question is for another flower on the government side, the Minister of Justice.
Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: He is a wilted lily.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of a recent speech by the Quebec minister of justice, Mr. Choquette, in which he recommended three extensive changes to the War Measures Act having to do with the referral to the Supreme Court, the establishment of an ombudsman and a human rights tribunal, has the federal Minister of Justice conferred with the Quebec minister on these recommendations and are these recommendations presently under consideration for legislation, either later this session or in the next session?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker. There is an order of the House calling for a referral of this matter to a committee of the House.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question. The minister said "no". Does he mean no, there has been no communication with the provincial minister on his suggestions, or no to the fact there is no legislation beyond that which is presently on the Order Paper?


John Napier Turner: I meant no globally, Mr. Speaker.


TRANSPORT
John (Jack) Henry Horner: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received any report from the judge in Manitoba who is conducting the inquiry into the losses by contractors of the Great Slave Lake railroad? Has he received any report from the judge conducting that inquiry?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I was advised at lunch hour today that the report is complete and the judge in question will be forwarding it to me within a matter of days.


BROADCASTING
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My question may be related to that asked by the hon. member for Egmont. However, I want to ask it separately. Your Honour will be happy to know I am not going to ask the Secretary of State about the state of nai'vety of the Quebec Provincial Police. My question may have something to do with naivety. Has the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the CRTC, received repeated requests from the Quebec minister of communications to meet with him to discuss jurisdiction over cablevision? If so, has he replied to them and, if not, why not?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the Federal Minister of Communications (Mr. Stanbury)

December 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
and myself have held meetings with the Quebec Minister of Communications; the latter came here once and in answer to his invitation we went to Quebec two or three times.


QUEBEC CABLEVISION LEGISLATION-ALLEGED INTENTION OF QUEBEC TO ISSUE LICENCES
Mr.   J.P. Nowlan@Annapolis Valley: A supplementary question. In view of that rather equivocal answer and the fact that the minister may or may not have answered the question directly, I ask the minister if he is aware of the provisions of bill 35 in the province of Quebec and, more particularly, has he been personally advised by the communications minister that the province of Quebec intends to legislate or regulate the issuance of licences for cablevi-sion provincially and ignore the CR.TC?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, provisions in Bill 35 or in the Quebec green paper are self-explanatory. As to what the Quebec minister of Communications has told me in this regard, it concerned meetings about which we had, by common agreement, decided to make no public statement.


QUEBEC CABLEVISION LEGISLATION-STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the hon. Secretary of State.
As the Minister responsible for Communications in Quebec has given the outline of his bill, can the hon. Secretary of State tell us whether negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa have been completed and if so, when he is to make a statement in order that Quebec may legislate seriously in this matter?


Gérard Pelletier: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe Quebec has been inhibited in legislating, or has been concerned with our negotiations or the stand of the federal government. I can make no statement at all as to what action the government of Quebec will take. In my opinion, I must say, negotiations and exchanges have not been completed.


SCIENCE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Is the government considering creating an organization to formulate policy on general scientific and technological information as suggested by a report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development?


Alastair William Gillespie: I am sorry, but I did not fully under-
(Mr. Pelletier.]
stand the question. Perhaps the hon. member would put it again. There was noise on the other side of the House.


William Gordon Ritchie: Is the government considering creating an organization to formulate policy on general scientific and technological information, as suggested by a report from the O.E.C.D.?


Alastair William Gillespie: I do not know whether the hon. member is referring to an old report of the O.E.C.D. which suggested the formation of a ministry of state for science and technology.



PRIVILEGE


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With reference to a question of privilege I raised earlier today, Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs met at 3.30 and I see we have just finished the question period. Since I raised this question, I should like to read a short excerpt from Hansard for September 14, 1971. I put the following question to the leader of the House:
Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the government House leader in reference to the business of the House during the Income Tax debate? Has he given serious consideration to seeing that none of the standing committees of the House sit during the tax debate because of the difficulty and complexity of the bill that is under consideration and which will be considered further in the Committee of the Whole House?
The answer by the leader of the House was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to ensure that while the Committee of the Whole is sitting and discussing the tax bill no meetings will be scheduled for standing or special committees. That is the general policy that I hope will be followed. There may have to be an emergency committee meeting, but that is not planned. I hope that committees will meet in the mornings and that we will have the rest of the day for the bill.
In no way has any emergency arisen with regard to Bill S-9 or the other business before several committees. The minister cannot get out of his difficulty by way of that loophole. Knowing the leader of the House, I believe he will be the first to stand up and say he gave the undertaking which has been quoted. What has happened may not have been his fault, but the way in which these committee meetings have been scheduled has imposed heavy burdens on those who are trying both to attend committees and take part in the debate on the tax bill, particularly now that the guillotine, or call it what you will, has fallen and the hon. gentleman is ending the debate. So much for the undertaking given on September 14.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I thank the hon. member for reading that statement. I think I have carried out that undertaking. It has only been in the case of the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee,-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And the Justice Committee which is meeting right now.


An hon. Member:: And other committees, too.
December 1, 1971


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -which is operating under a special time deadline, that in order to give an opportunity to the committee to do its work I agreed that it might meet in the afternoon. In the case of a meeting this afternoon, the chairman represented to me that it was vital to hold a meeting today.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is not correct.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the representation which was received. I shall continue to curtail, as far as possible, the meetings of standing committees while this tax bill is in Committee of the Whole. I disagree with the conclusion reached by the hon. member. I believe I carried out that undertaking.


Mr. Speaker:: And that, of course, is a matter for debate between hon. members. Perhaps House leaders might discuss the question among themselves at the first opportunity.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, November 30, consideration in committee of Bill C-259, to amend the Income Tax Act and to make certain provisions and alterations in the statute law related to or consequential upon the amendments to that act-Mr. Benson-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order. In accordance with the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, as reported at page 10,032 of Hansard for November 30, the committee will now proceed to Clause 2 appearing at page 596.
Shall clause 2 carry?
On clause 2: Estate Tax Act.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: The clause reads as follows:
The Estate Tax Act does not apply in the case of the death of any person whose death occurred after 1971.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, to be relatively as brief as that clause is. Since the leader of the House is here, may I preface my observations by expressing the hope that in future we shall get away from the nonsense of one and a half hours on a Wednesday being counted as a debating day. I take strong objection to that. A good deal of the time spent so far today has been taken up by lengthy government statements. I hope that in addition to the nonsense of allocation of time the House will not be restricted by artificial guillotines in the form of time wasted by the government.
With regard to the clause under consideration, we in the official opposition are in favour of it. Nevertheless, one has to look at some of its effects. As I said on second reading and on a number of other occasions, the people of Canada are being saddled with an extra tax as a result of
Income Tax Act
the imposition of the capital gains tax. There is no way any government member can defend the imposition of an additional tax. The capital gains tax is incorporated into the income tax schedule and it is a new tax. The estate tax is being eliminated. True enough, in the province of Alberta this will mean there will be no estate tax or succession duty collected; that province will have the new tax.
One may say that a capital gains tax is merely a prepayment of an estate tax. The provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia at the present time levy their own succession duty, since provinces do not have the constitutional power to levy an estate tax. Succession duty is a direct tax; estate tax is an indirect tax. The net result is that by exercising its constitutional power, the province of Quebec is levying and collecting its own succession duty as is Ontario. Hitherto the federal government levied and collected estate tax, but there was an agreement with the province of Quebec whereby there could be mutual credits. In effect, the heirs of a citizen of Quebec who died, did not pay a double tax, and the same applied to citizens of Ontario and British Columbia.
We are now told that Manitoba and Saskatchewan intend that a succession duty be levied, since there is no way those provinces can get an estate tax. There is no federal-provincial agreement on intercredits or mutual credits in regard to a capital gains tax and a succession duty. Therefore, John Citizen who unfortunately passes away will have his estate subjected to two taxes in the appropriate cases, first the capital gains tax because of the deemed realization on death, and secondly the succession duty of the province in which he lives. Just because he pays a capital gains tax, it does not mean that he will pay any less succession duty. To the extent that he pays capital gains tax, he will be paying more tax. How does this sit with members, particularly those from the province of Quebec? Can they explain to their constituents that they are not paying additional tax as a result of this so-called tax reform?


Steve Eugene Paproski: They do not care about the Canadian taxpayer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They are all Trudeau servants. They do what they are told. They are serfs of the imperialistic Pierre.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I put the same question to hon. members from Ontario, such as the hon. member for Essex West. Is the former parliamentary secretary over on that side going to take the same attitude on this particular point as he took on the subject of co-ops and credit unions? Is he going to face up to his farmers and say they are not to be taxed an extra amount? He is going to have to admit that. If the government had followed the proposal put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, about which I have spoken many times and outlined in great detail, the federal government and the provinces might have reached an accord in the interval. The problem might, in this way, have been resolved. But this bill is going to come into force on January 1, 1972 come hell or high water, says the government.

December 1, 1971
Income Tax Act


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is why I find the attitude taken by government backbenchers so incomprehensible. They are supposed to represent their constituents, here in Ottawa and, as well, they represent the people at large. Notwithstanding what the Minister of Finance has said, it is an undeniable fact that the people in those provinces where succession duty applies, or where one is going to come into force, are going to pay an additional tax, a new tax. Not one hon. member opposite can deny that. Certainly, I defy the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre to gainsay that statement.


Mr. Osier:: Mr. Chairman, may I have the floor on a point of order.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is rising on a point of order.


Edmund Boyd Osler: My point of order is this. I was invited to say something, then when I rose in my place I was shouted down. I think the committee was left with the erroneous impression that, (a) I did not know what the people for Winnipeg South Centre wanted and, (b) for some reason they did not want this bill passed. Let me tell the hon. member I have been back to my riding quite often recently and the message that comes through loud and clear is that the people are fed up with the length of time this bill has taken. They want it passed, even though it may not be a perfect bill.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The Chair does not think the hon. member should take advantage of rising on a point of order to make that point. He should seek the floor if he wants to make any comments.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I was hoping that the hon. member would be moved to make a speech, not to raise a spurious point of order.


Edmund Boyd Osler: You should not make statements like that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I invite the hon. member to read an editorial which appeared in the Vancouver Sun for November 26. It quoted the main point made by the Minister of Finance and reads:
Mr. Benson's main point is that "the uncertainties of the current economic situation argue against delay".
That is what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said. It continues:
"We would accomplish nothing by a further unsettling period in anticipation of tax reform," he said. He also argued that his tax bill is incapable of separation into key components because of the "financial inter-relationship" among them".
That is wrong. I have shown how the clauses can be carved up without any difficulty. The editorial continues:
This is nonsense. Business planners and business advisers have told the minister almost unanimously that they can't understand many of his reforms let alone foresee how they might adjust to them. Members of parliament are even more uncertain about the consequences.
How true that is. Even when we asked the advisers to the parliamentary secretary yesterday, we could not get any answers because they were uncertain.


Edmund Boyd Osler: What are you trying to sell?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Certain government supporters have no idea as to what this legislation will do. They have no idea about these interrelationships.


Mr. Gibson:: How does the hon. member know that?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would say that the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth is possibly one of the most ignorant of the implications of the provisions of this act.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I think hon. members on both sides of the committee should let the hon. member make his speech and, at the same time, give the Chair a chance to hear what is being said.


Colin David Gibson: The hon. member is being carried away.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, some of the statements hon. members on the other side of the committee make have no more effect than the cawing of crows that sit on the wire fences on the prairies. Be that as it may, may I conclude my remarks-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -by saying that
although we support this section, we want it clearly understood that there are reservations about it. I hope the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, the former Solicitor General, who applauded when I said I was about to conclude my remarks, will take the time to explain to his constituents the suggestion that there is not to be a new tax for them, that there is to be a credit system between Ottawa and the province of Ontario whereby there can be an intercredit with regard to whatever is paid on capital gains, that is, on the deemed realization on death, and the succession duty that may follow. I know he is a competent solicitor and in his former portfolio must have been familiar with this problem. I am sure he will be able to explain to the satisfaction of his constituents how it is that additional taxes are no longer additional taxes. They are, somehow, to be melted into something else. Now you see them, now you don't. That is the precise effect which the government wants to bring about with regard to the capital gains tax and the continuation of succession duties in the provinces.


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton West has made much of the estate tax formerly levied by the federal government, except that in some cases the government handed over the amounts levied to these provinces.
We are talking here in terms of approximately $120 million of which 75 per cent was given back to the provinces. The point raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West has no special merit. On the other hand, I respect him very much for he sat with many of us on the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. He contributed much to the debate and we needed his
December 1, 1971

enlightened comments from time to time. But I think that in this case, his lights seem to be rather dim.
I must say that faced with a loss of revenue which could amount to $75 or $100 million approximately, some provinces will have to manage without that.
The hon. member for Edmonton West spoke of the province of Quebec, and even attacked us to a certain extent asking us to be brave enough to speak on behalf of our province. I say it again: I am pleased to accept his challenge. I say to him that, if my memory serves me right, there was a Belanger Commission on taxation. I believe the secretary of that commission was Mr. Robert Bourassa, an economist and lawyer. One of the main recommendations this commission made to the province was that is it should tax capital gains.
Now, basing myself on the report of the Belanger Commission, whose secretary was Mr. Robert Bourassa who, fortunately for the province of Quebec and Canada as a whole, is now premier of that province, 1 am convinced that the income Quebec loses can easily be made up by a capital gains tax. I feel that in the near future the Quebec premier will also want to introduce a mini-budget or at least make a few proposals concerning a tax reform in Quebec, a reform which will, in particular, also consider taxing capital to recoup its losses as far as succession duties are concerned. I do not think, however, that those hypothetical expenses could be removed, as suggested by the hon. member for Edmonton West. I have perhaps some information sources which are not available to the hon. member. This can happen. As a result of a possible loss of revenue, namely the succession duties, in order to come to an agreement with the provinces which have not established succession duties and to discourage Canadians from moving to provinces where there are not any to die, I am convinced that the province of Quebec will closely consider that bill to increase its revenue by levying a capital gains tax.
What are the terms of such taxation? I do not know, but I think that our terms are satisfactory. However, it is unnecessary at the present time to discuss how capital gains will be taxed, because the matter has been eloquently stated by the hon. member for Edmonton West. However I think it is a very plausible solution, bearing in mind what has already happened in the province of Quebec.
I was listening very attentively, as usual, to my hon. friend from Edmonton West, who was speaking as though the bill had already been adopted. I am very happy about that. I believe, of course, that the bill will be adopted shortly. I am happy to see that he talks about it as if it were already law. It will come into force on January 1, 1972. I am very happy about this.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, after resorting to closure!


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, although many sections in this bill seemed to have been introduced in a fit of absentmindedness and, sometimes, in a spirit of expediency on the part of the government, the particular section dealing with estate taxes seems to be introduced in a fit of pique. It seems that, the government became angry with the provinces because the provinces were not agreeing with
Income Tax Act
every suggestion the federal government was making and that it said to the provinces, "We are not getting much money out of estate taxes, the heck with it. Collect your own. We are out of it." I suggest that that was a most irresponsible act on the part of the federal government, particularly since in many areas of federal and provincial jurisdiction there is friction. We ought to make every effort to co-operate, and we should not bring about confrontations such as this particular section of the bill may do.
I listened to arguments about capital gains taxes versus estate taxes, and some hon. members spoke in a way that suggested you could trade off one tax against the other.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is what the minister suggested.


Max Saltsman: I find it difficult to believe everything I hear. I do not know how much hon. members who suggest that one tax may be a trade-off against another know about taxation. How do they think taxes are raised? Do they think that you raise taxes from people who have no money, from the poor, or do you raise them according to ability to pay, and therefore from those who have sizeable incomes. There is no other way. One is not a substitute for the other.
The fallacy of the argument is suggested in another way. While it may be true that some estates do have capital appreciation and might be subject to capital gains in the course of the years as the estate progresses or even upon realization of death, many estates have no capital appreciation. The capital gains tax, therefore, does not apply to those estates and we have handed them a large bonus. They will not be paying a capital gains tax and now they will not pay an estate tax, either. This whole thing from any point of equity is incomprehensible to me. We have to ask why this section was introduced and why Parliament is being asked to abolish estate taxes.
Just a little while ago we made a number of changes in the legislation which I think went a good distance in meeting some of the representations about estate taxation in Canada. For instance, we exempted the widow or widower survivor from particular taxes. We enlarged the provisions to enable surviving children to be granted major exemptions, particularly minor children. It looked as if we were moving in the right direction in respect of estate taxation. Even with this legislation, there would be an absolute limit concerning the amount of money any estate would pay. In many cases, our estate tax legislation was far more lenient than that of most countries of the world. Why then has the government apparently thought it is necessary to abolish the estate tax completely, if not as a way to retaliate against the provinces and then say in a very piqued way that it will collect the money for them. This is a continuation of the system of taxation anarchy we had hoped to avoid.
Now, the government says that it is putting the provinces in a very difficult position and that if four of them agree maybe something can be worked out. We have a situation where the provinces are trying to get the federal government to find some method to assist them in the collection of estate taxes. While it is true that estate taxes do not represent a large proportion of the federal govern-

December 1, 1971
Income Tax Act
ment's revenue, in the case of some provinces it represents a sizeable income for them which they can least do without. It is incomprehensible, when we are talking about more sharing between provinces and when there is a need for some sense of accommodation between one province and another, that we would deliberately make it possible for one province to have a better deal than another province. Presumably, national advertising campaigns will be conducted pointing out the glories of dying in Alberta in contrast to dying in Manitoba or in British Columbia. It is an insane program. In my view it is not something this House should countenance.
The Carter Commission looked into this aspect of taxation and made what in my view and in the view of my party was a very reasonable and sensible proposal. They said the tax should be borne by the recipient and not by the estate, and should be paid for at the marginal rate of the person who receives the benefit from the estate. A very wealthy man receiving another considerable or sizeable estate would pay a higher rate than the person who was not wealthy and received an estate. This would seem to be the fair way. Again, there is a maximum of something like 50 per cent on that. There are two ways to look at an inheritance. Some people, I suppose, would say if they were left $1 million it should not be taxable. Others might say they should have to pay $500,000 in taxes and receive an amount of $500,000. Another person might say, "Isn't it wonderful, I received $500,000".
Now, you can always make an argument for a person who has earned the money directly himself because he would say he should have some enjoyment of the money he acquired primarily through his intelligence, his perseverance or whatever it might be. I believe he has a fair claim. It is a claim which must be listened to. But how strong is the claim of a person who did not contribute to the formation of the estate when he says he does not want to pay any tax on it. What claim does a person like that have? Certain people have claims. Farmers' sons, for instance, have some claim because I know that very often sons of farmers contribute to the establishment of the estate. Therefore, my party is quite agreeable to seeing special provisions brought into the estate legislation that would recognize the claim of a farmer's son.
I think the wife of a person who has acquired an estate also has some claim, because even Carter has pointed out that very often the estate is built up, not through the work of the male head of the household alone but also through the contribution of the wife. We realize the validity of that claim that the wife should be exempt from taxation during her lifetime in respect of the inheritance. Then, there are the claims of those who often are not even immediate members of the family and who may be removed by considerable distance from the family itself so far as blood relationship is concerned. What claim do these people have that they should not pay their fair share of taxes on the wealth they inherit? In my view, they have very little claim and I find it very difficult to sympathize with people who do not wish to pay a share of the taxes that I think are due to society.
There is another factor in this argument which I believe is important. Society, in my view, has a claim on estates. In the modern world, very few fortunes are built up just through the personal work of the individual. Many for-
[Mr. Saltsman.l
tunes are acquired because of the social structure of our society and because of the protection our society affords to entrepreneurs through education, markets and many other things. Therefore the wealth created in our society is not created by an individual alone but by all the things in our society which assist him. A person who wants to live by himself in the jungle, and who can make $1 million selling coconuts to himself may say he is entitled to all the money he can make selling coconuts to himself, but that is not the way things are in Canada or in any other modern civilization. Therefore we think this section is a great mistake. It is a mistake in the sense that before long Parliament will have to consider alternative legislation in order to avoid a war between provinces, a war which most provinces would not want, in the field of inheritance taxation and related items of that kind. We will regret the passage of this particular section and we will regret that there was not sufficient foresight on the government benches to anticipate the problems which arise from the abolition of estate taxes in this country.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Edmonton West who has done such an outstanding job on this bill. I must say that as I listened to him I obtained a greater appreciation of the importance of this legislation to the Members of this House. Because I believe the bill is important, and because I feel members d the House should be here to hear this debate I move:
That the committee now rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Out.


Gérald Laniel: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Out.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I think hon. members know the rules. The motion has not been put as yet. I have not read it. The minister wishes to rise on a point of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He is not rising on a point of order.


Mr. Gray:: How do you know? I have not stated it yet.


Mr. Bell:: Put the motion, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gérald Laniel: Order.


Thomas Miller Bell: Put the motion.


James Aloysius McGrath: This is disgraceful conduct on your part, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: I recognized the minister on a point of order.


Thomas Miller Bell: You cannot do that.
December 1, 1971


James Aloysius McGrath: Put the motion.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Put the motion. The motion comes first.


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. The motion for adjournment has been made. It must be put forthwith. There can be no debate, no point of order, no discussion.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I would like to speak, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gérald Laniel: Order.


Thomas Miller Bell: You must put the motion. You have been waiting 15 minutes to put the motion.


Gérald Laniel: Yes, order.


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: Will you resume your seat. I recognized the minister on a point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: You cannot. I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Question.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East moved that the committee rise, report progress and ask for leave to sit again.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question? All those in favour of the motion.


Thomas Miller Bell: Gibson, out. You were not here all the time.


Some hon. Members:: Deachman, out.


Gérald Laniel: Order.


Thomas Miller Bell: The Liberal whip just came in. Out.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gérald Laniel: All those against the motion?


Thomas Miller Bell: This is phony. They cannot come in.


Gérald Laniel: Those against the motion please rise.


Thomas Miller Bell: Oh, no. This is a farce.


James Aloysius McGrath: To hell with this. This is disgraceful.


Mr. Crouse:: The Chairman should resign.


Gérald Laniel: Will all hon. members resume their seats, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Out you go.
Income Tax Act


Thomas Miller Bell: Rotten.


Gérald Laniel: Will hon. members resume their seats.


Some hon. Members:: Resign. Leave the chair.


Gérald Laniel: Standing Order 12(2) reads:
When Mr. Speaker is putting a question, no member shall enter, walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or disturbance.


Thomas Miller Bell: They must leave.


An hon. Member:: Put the motion.


Gérald Laniel: I read the rule so that if any hon. member has not followed the rule he will remember that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Deachman, out.


Thomas Miller Bell: The Liberal whip sneaked in. Leaky Dick sneaked in.


Gérald Laniel: All the hon. members who heard me read the rule, will please take note. All hon. members opposed to the motion, please rise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is rotten. It is a sham.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


An hon. Member:: How can you do it?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They did not win on the first count so they want to win on the second. How rotten can you get.


Mr. Cote:: Come on, now.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The House leader was not in the House when the vote was called. He has no right to vote.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Will everyone resume their seats, please?
Motion (Mr. McGrath) agreed to: Yeas, 44; Nays, 42.
Progress reported.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time on a question of privilege. During the course of the vote that was just taken there were one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine members on the government side who came into the chamber and participated in the vote after the question had been put. I will discuss this further. There will probably be other proceedings taken in respect of it, but I thought it was my duty at this first opportunity to put the matter before the House.


Mr.   Homer@: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of privilege dealing with the procedure during the taking of the vote. I know that the Assistant Deputy Chairman was caught in a very embarrassing position and I hold no animosity towards him for the way in which he attempted to clarify the wishes of the House, but I want to point out to Your Honour that on the occasion of the vote just taken the government side was counted twice, with quite an

December 1, 1971
Income Tax Act
interval between the counts, while those upholding the motion on this side of the House were only counted once. It may well have been although I did not notice it, that members came into our ranks too during that interval.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am assured by my colleagues that there were none, but still the principle is the same, that only one count for each side should be taken. There should not be a second count taken on the other side if there are not enough members there in the first instance. I cannot help but rise at the first opportunity to raise this point of privilege because this may be establishing a precedent which will not augur well for democracy in the years ahead.


Steven Otto: On the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) has put forward a position which you might take into consideration, and if the counting of the heads was not proper then of course the count should be nullified.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: You are the rottenest one of the lot over there.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I merely rise on a point of order to point out to Your Honour that in contravention of Standing Order 12(2) hon. members walked into this House while the vote was being taken.


James Alexander Jerome: On both sides.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. The point has been made by the hon. member for Peace River, and other hon. members, who indicate that in their view there was an irregularity in connection with the vote taken in committee. The matter can be looked into, but there is really nothing before the House now. I am wondering what order of business should be identified.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to refer to what happened in the committee-


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: You can't because you were not even here. You sneaked in. That is why you cannot speak.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would take his right seat he could then address the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I note that we have solved that problem, that one point which is well taken.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member and I thank him for drawing this to my attention. My seat had been occupied by another person. That is why I was not in it.
In view of the fact that it is 5.20, Mr. Speaker, and that it would not be appropriate to call another item of business, I would move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at the regular time of sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the minister making a formal motion, with a seconder?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I second it.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. MacEachen, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre), moves that the House do now adjourn. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On motion of Mr. MacEachen the House adjourned at 5.19 p.m.

Thursday, December 2. 1971