1971-12-08

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It was only yesterday late in the afternoon that I received in my office a copy of the annual report by the "Dominion Bureau of Statistics" for the fiscal year 1969-70, dated "November 1971."
That report contains a statement concerning the job vacancy survey which is being carried out by Statistics Canada for the Department of Manpower and Immigration. That statement is at substantive variance with the reply given on October 18 of this year by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Jerome) to question No. 1,719 which I had put on the order paper on September 20 of this year.
To my question, "what is the first month in which results from the survey were prepared", the parliamentary secretary replied:	"June, 1970." The Statistics
Canada annual report, page 24, states:
The complete system of this twice-a-month survey, including all mail and field interview phases, became operational late in 1969. Since that time, data have been produced for the Department of Manpower on a regular schedule.
The parliamentary secretary's reply also states that the initial publication will be for the period commencing June, 1970, that thereafter data will be reported monthly and that the initial publication is scheduled to begin before the end of 1971.
My question of privilege relates to the fact that as a member of this House I am only permitted to make inquiry of the ministry, pursuant to Standing Order 39(1). The ministry is not obliged to reply. But since the ministry chose to reply I maintain that I have the right to accurate information.
In view of the statement in the annual report by Statistics Canada, addressed to the Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), I am faced with contradictory information.
I do not intend to present a motion at this time, but I will resubmit the same question with the hope that the two ministers involved will agree on a mutually acceptable answer.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the recently announced local initiatives program. As of yesterday, December 7, a total of 2,752 applications had been received by the regional offices of the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Of these 2,247 were from private groups and organizations and 505 were from municipalities.
The first approvals were made on Wednesday, November 24, and as of yesterday a total of 177 projects had been approved, for a total federal contribution of $4,569,419. It is expected that 2,231 jobs will be created by these projects, all of which are either under way or ready to commence immediately.
Representations have been made by and on behalf of many small communities, indicating that the minimum project size of 30 man-months employment placed the program beyond their capabilities. In response to these representations I am pleased to inform hon. members that the minimum is now reduced to 15 man-months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Any projects previously rejected because of failure to supply 30 man-months of work may be resubmitted.
It is now apparent that more applications which meet the basic criteria will be received than can be approved within available funds. To spread funds as broadly as possible it was felt that construction and maintenance projects for educational institutions and their grounds and hospitals and their grounds might be excluded from support under the program. This position was stated in a release dated November 24. Since that time representations have been received from some provinces requesting that this limitation be removed.
In response to these representations I am pleased to inform hon. members that applications by or on behalf of educational institutions and hospitals will be considered on their merits and given support under the local initiatives program where appropriate when viewed in relation to available funds and other applications from the area. All such applications will be treated as municipal for purposes of fund allocation and as such will be considered by my department only after receiving the concurrence of the provincial government concerned.

December 8, 1971
Manpower
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the rate of approval of applications has now increased to a fairly rapid one. I have just been informed of today's figures bringing up to date the number of applications approved. These figures show that 231 applications have been approved for a total of $6,427,475 and an expected creation of 3,015 jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party I want to express our appreciation to the minister for his attention to our observations on the local initiatives program. I want to say as well that we are pleased that our recommendation that the 30 man-month restriction be eliminated was accepted in part but we are still not totally satisfied with the 15 man-month restriction. I firmly believe that this will limit the number of communities that can apply for assistance under the program.
Before making in two or three minutes a few recommendations to the minister, I should like to remind him of some realities that the government must consider in respect of the program. One is that, according to yesterday's figures, 503,000 Canadians are unemployed. Another is the deepening disparities across Canada made evident by the figures released yesterday. This will be further strengthened by argument from other members on motions later. There is also the fact that the program did not officially get under way until November 24 when the first jobs were created and will be terminated in May. The program was not well prepared; it was pulled out of the desks of deputy ministers when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) realized that unemployment was going to be as bad as we had said it would be if no action were taken.
The final reality is that, using the minister's corrected figures given a few moments ago, 231 applications have been approved for 3,000 jobs out of, I would presume, roughly 3,000 applications received. According to the earlier figures the minister gave us, 177 applications had been accepted out of 2,752 received, for the creation of 2,231 jobs. Inasmuch as in the previous month we lost 100,000 jobs in Canada, this does not provide too much consolation to the government or to the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: Here are a few suggestions for the minister. First, the decision-making process must be speeded up. We have received complaints of applications lodged for 21 days without a response despite the fact that I know that officials in the department are working many hours of overtime to try to accommodate the program. Second, since only 3,000 jobs have been created, and in view of the terrible ratio between applications accepted and applications received, consideration must be given to increasing the funds available. Third, consideration must be given to extending the program beyond the month of May because, as we saw last winter, some of the months with the highest unemployment were in the late spring, even including June. I think the minister must reconsider his position on that particular point. Fourth, consideration must be given to introducing more flexibility into the program in order to allow smaller communities that are not formally, structured as municipalities, local improvement boards or the
|Mr. Lang.]
like to make applications even if it means the creation of only three, four or five jobs for the winter months. I say that because some of these smaller Canadian communities suffer from the highest unemployment rates. Fifth, we believe that special consideration has to be given to areas of high unemployment. I am not referring necessarily to provinces with high unemployment as much as to particular parts of Canada, to certain municipalities or communities that are being hit so hard by the unemployment which has been induced in recent years as a result of the government's restrictive measures. I am especially thinking of the pulp and paper communities across this country that are being devastated as a result of lay-offs.
Finally, or semi-finally-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: -having looked at the ratio between applications received from private institutions and from municipalities, I think the 50-50 basis for allocation of funds which I believe was incorporated in the original terms issued by the minister has to be reconsidered, because it looks as though private groups are responding to a greater extent than many municipalities. This should be considered. Finally, we feel that the program must be taken under continuous evaluation so that corrections can be made from week to week in order that what was an ill-defined and ill-conceived program can have a more beneficial effect as the winter months go by.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, that is a tough act to follow. I should like to join in welcoming the announcement by the minister that the minimum project size under the local initiatives program has been reduced from 30-man months of employment to 15-man months and that applications by or on behalf of educational institutions and hospitals will be considered on their merits and given support under the local initiatives program, where appropriate, when viewed in relation to available funds and other applications from the area. I am pleased to see that the minister and the department have been sufficiently flexible to accommodate real need and to adjust the program as a result of representations made in this House and by municipalities. I find it unfortunate that these provisions were not included in the program as initially devised, because the delays in making these decisions and communicating that information to the communities which will want to become involved in the program now that the regulations have been changed will mean that fully effective use of the funds available simply will not be possible.
I also wish to point out to the House that even now, at this late date, only about 6 per cent of the funds allocated have been utilized. I think this shows the disadvantage of introducing such a program as late as it was introduced and demonstrates the lack of attention which was given to details in the devising of the program. The protests which were received from the provincial governments necessitated further delays and consideration before the plan could come into effect.
I want to underline at this point the necessity for the local manpower centres, now that these two decisions have been made, to communicate that information to the municipalities within their areas, to the hospital boards
December 8, 1971

that might be interested and to the school boards that might be interested and, as well, to communicate that information widely, effectively and immediately. This information ought to be made available at the earliest possible moment so that the communities can get down to work and make plans for submission to the government in order that they may become involved in this program.
[Translation)


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing for the minister to report to the House once in a while on progress made to this day under the local initiatives program.
Personally, I am not at all surprised by the changes that have been made in order to allow a greater number of municipalities or small communities to meet the requirements which, in my opinion, was extremely difficult for some localities to do before. I was precisely telling the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Prud'homme) yesterday that I was worried because the minimum of 30 man-months of work prevented many small rural municipalities from taking advantage of the program. The fact that it has been reduced to 15 man-months should enable a greater number of small municipalities to benefit from the pro-gramm in submitting projects which I hope would be considered acceptable.
What surprises me in all that is that on page 2 of the statement appears the following:
It is now apparent that more applications which meet the basic criteria will be received than can be approved within available funds.
Once more, we have a ceiling because of lack of funds, artificial scarcity of money. Men are available, waiting for work, seeking jobs. Materials are plentiful, dealers and manufacturers are falling all over themselves to sell them. Nevertheless, we shall have to restrict work for lack of funds. An artificial scarcity of money.
I don't know when it will be realized that money should be man's servant and not his master, and that a responsible government in a democratic country such as ours should act as a wise administrator and arrange for money to be available when people plan to carry out work that will benefit the population. In any event, I believe we should consider this matter more thoroughly and take the necessary steps in order that the funds be made available at the proper time, so that we may be able to answer favourably all reasonable requests.
Secondly, I wish to express my sales fact on and congratulate the minister for having amended the program so that school boards and hospital authorities will benefit from it.
Personally, I think it is an improvement from which several Quebec communities and school boards will benefit-I refer to these because I know them best-thus clearing the way for school renovation while creating a number of jobs in appropriate conditions of, instead of cutting branches in four feet of snow workers can do some painting in public building, which the whole community could benefit from, I think this would be a good step forward.
Regional Economic Expansion
Mr. Speaker, I must limit my remarks because you remind us of it quite often. In concluding, I would simply ask the minister to continue to provide us with information. As far as we are concerned, we can promise him that we will give him our support and make suggestions which may improve the program in order that our unemployed can find employment before May 31. Time goes by very quickly indeed and applications must have been received before January 31.
I think that it will be possible to do more, but once again I would like the applications to be considered and answers given as soon as possible so that the people will know that we mean business and so that our program will operate efficiently.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43. I do so because of the November unemployment figures released yesterday by Statistics Canada which showed that the number of unemployed persons in the four Atlantic provinces is 9,000 higher than in the previous month of October.
The unadjusted unemployment rate for each province was greater than in the previous month. In Newfoundland the rate jumped two percentage points to 11.4 per cent. In Prince Edward Island the rate jumped by 2.5 per cent to 7.5 per cent. In Nova Scotia the rate rose from 6.1 per cent to 7.4 per cent, and in New Brunswick the rate increased to 6.5 per cent from 5.5 per cent for the previous month.
In view of this deteriorating situation and the failure of the government's regional economic policies in relation thereto, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That the first report of the Atlantic Development Council, containing recommendations for a development strategy for the region, be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's East under Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not, and the motion cannot be put at this time.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I took great pleasure in seconding this motion because we are seeing a proliferation-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: There is an increasing proliferation of important documents which are being tabled, witness the report tabled yesterday by the Secretary of State on the Opportunities for Youth program. There is

December 8, 1971
Manpower
no opportunity under the present system for members to consider seriously these important documents.
Jr-	*



MANPOWER


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask leave of the House to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Yesterday in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates the Minister of Manpower and Immigration admitted that $2,220,000 in over-expenditure reflected money spent or to be spent on advertising the local initiative program, the student summer employment program and the Keep Canada Growing campaign. The additional funds represent a 271 per cent increase over the amount originally requested for advertising by the department in the main estimates.
The urgency and importance of this matter are related to the need to ensure beyond all doubt that public funds are not being used, even indirectly, for partisan or electoral purposes, and are also related to the fact that there will be no further opportunity to discuss the matter in the House. I therefore ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson): That the extent and nature of government advertising be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for consideration and report.


Mr. Speaker:: Just as in the previous case, this motion presented under the terms of Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity and the question cannot be put.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion in a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
On February 15, 1970, a special federal task force was appointed and charged with the responsibility of making recommendations to the government with regard to the serious social and economic problems existing as a consequence of the phase-down of the United States naval station at Argentia, Newfoundland, and also the added financial burden placed on the municipalities in the area by the government's resettlement program. Since it is now obvious that the task force has failed to deal effectively with the problems and has not come forward with a
|Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).J
long-range plan for the area-indeed, it has not met since April of this year-I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the chairman of the task force be directed to appear before the Standing Committee on Regional Economic Expansion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. McCleave: 1.	Who attended a recent "think-in" organized by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation? *
2.	What was its general purpose?
3.	Where was it held, for how long a period and at what cost?
4.	What were the total fees paid and what was the range of such fees?
5.	(a) In what form are the conclusions of the "think-in" to be presented (b) will these be made public (c) how soon will the government react thereto?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation held a staff training course for 25 of its employees.
2.	The purpose of this course was to develop the skills of the employees to enable them more effectively to contribute to the policy development functions of the Corporation.
3.	The course was held at Ste-Adele, Quebec, from January 10 to January 22, 1971. The costs of such training courses, conducted by the Corporation, are internal administrative matters. It has not been the policy, nor the practice, to answer questions relating to the internal administration of the Corporation.
4.	Arrangements for the participation of speakers, and payment to them, were made by the Intendes Research Foundation, which was then under contract to the Corporation.
5.	(a), (b), (c) Since this was a training course, reports were not called for nor made.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-THE GENERAL STORE
Mr. Hales: 1.	What was the total amount paid to the Alice Street Commune (The General Store), Project No. 548 under the Opportunities for Youth Program?
2.	Was there an on-site inspection of the project before the grant was approved?
3.	Was an audit conducted before the final payment was made?
December 8. 1971

4.	What were the names and addresses of those employed in the store and what salary was paid to each?
5.	What was the total number of customers and sales of the General Store?
6.	What were the operating expenses not including wages?
7.	Is an audited statement available and, if so, from whom? [Translation]


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: 1. The total amount paid to the Alice Street Commune (The General Store) Project 300-548 under the Opportunities for Youth Program was $4,250.
2.	No, but immediately following approval, as per normal procedure, a visit was made.
3.	The project organizers have not yet received final payment. However, the project will be audited before the final payment is made.
4.	It is the policy of the department not to divulge publicly either the name or the place of residence of each employee of a project. However, Michael Bernhard and Fred Dell'Amico are the two contact people for the General Store. They can be reached at 6A Alice Street, Guelph, Ontario. Each member of the staff received a salary of $800 for a ten-week period.
5.	Approximately 100 shoppers used the General Store per week for a total of 1,000 shoppers for a ten-week period. Sales varied from $200 to $350 per week. The money received from sales each week was turned over for buying new stock.
6.	The operating expenses for the project were $250.
7.	The audited statement will be prepared by the Department of Supply and Services. However, this statement constitutes an internal document for the use of the department and other government agencies only.


TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR PUBLIC SERVANTS EXCLUDED FROM COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Mr. Orlikow: Has the government introduced any changes in the terms and conditions of employment of a non-salary nature since the last report of the Advisory Group on Executive Compensation (the Clyne Committee) regarding (a) the executive category (b) other public servants excluded from collective bargaining?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: (a)
Yes. As a result of the recommendations in the second report of the Advisory Group on Executive Compensation, certain non-salary benefits have been extended to employees in the executive category. These are payment by the employer of the premiums for the basic life insurance and five units ($50,000) of accidental death insurance under the Public Service Management Insurance Plan, four weeks' vacation irrespective of length of service and provision for extended sick leave of up to 6 months when needed, and if the employee has insufficient sick leave credits available, (b) Yes. Revised terms and conditions of employment for other public servants have been approved and are being issued. In general the terms and conditions of collective agreements will apply to excluded employees in comparable groups. At more senior levels, in the Administrative and Foreign Service and Scientific and Professional categories, provision has been made for
Questions
certain additional non-salary benefits. These are management leave in lieu of overtime, improved meal allowances when working overtime and provision for repayable advances of sick leave credits of up to thirteen weeks.


HEALTH AND WELFARE-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR RESEARCH PROJECTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many applications for grants to finance research projects did the Department of National Health and Welfare receive in the past year?
2.	What was the total dollar value of the projects requested from the Department?
3.	How many of the applications made to the Department were approved in full?
4.	How many of the applications were approved in part only?
5.	How many applications for research grants were turned down last year?
6.	What were the reasons for the refusals?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: For the fiscal year 1970-71, under the Public Health Research program, the National Health Grant program and the National Welfare Grants program: 1. 469.
2.	$12,529,442.
3.	268.
4.	76.
5.	125.
6.	Applications not within terms of reference; poor scientific merit; weakness of presentation and design; proposed methodology judged inadequate; lack of funds; duplication of research.


CMHC-INVENTORY OF HOUSING
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the government have an inventory of housing in Canada?
2.	Does the government have any forecast of the numbers of senior citizens requiring housing or shelter in the next ten years and are plans being instituted to take care of this problem.
3.	What is the total number of public housing units and what percentage is this of the total amount of housing units?
4.	How many public housing units will be needed over the next ten years?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. Although the government does not have an inventory of housing in Canada, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has made estimates of the housing stock which, in 1971, is estimated to total 6,217,000 dwelling units.
2.	The government has a forecast of the number of persons 65 years of age and over for the next 10-year period, based on assumptions concerning such things as mortality rates and immigration. It is estimated that this section of the population will number 1,916,700 in 1976, and 2,188,800 in 1981. Some members of this group will require shelter and provisions for financing needed housing units are included in the Capital Budget of the Corporation.
3.	To August, 1971, the total number of public housing units built or approved under the National Housing Act is

December 8, 1971
Questions
90,695 and 1,025 hostel beds. These self-contained units form 1.5 per cent of the total estimated housing stock in Canada in 1971.
4.	To the end of 1969, 59,264 self-contained dwelling units and 295 hostel beds had been approved under the NHA in public housing projects. Commitments in 1970 and in the first eight months of 1971, have totalled 31,431 self-contained dwelling units and 730 hostel beds in such projects. The government recognizes the increasing need for the provision for accommodation of low-income families and is maintaining a high level of participation in the provision of housing for low-income families in the Capital Budget of the Corporation.


CANADA COUNCIL GRANTS
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	Since September 1, 1970, how many grants were made by Canada Council?
2.	What agencies received grants?
3.	What was the amount of each grant?


Gérard Pelletier: 
Mr. Coates: Was a grant provided to a group of individuals under the Opportunities for Youth Program to produce "The People's History of Cape Breton" and, if so (a) what was the amount of the grant (b) to whom was it awarded (c) what were the names of the individuals associated with the project (d) what was the outcome of their work?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. Yes, a grant was provided to a group of individuals under the Opportunities for Youth Program to produce "The People's History of Cape Breton", (a) The amount of the grant was $3,130. (b) The grant was awarded to Allan Story, (c) It is the policy of the department not to divulge publicly the names of individuals working on a project, (d) They published a 47-page booklet, researched, designed and prepared by three students. A teacher's manual and a bibliography were also included.


INDIAN RESERVES
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	For the periods 1867 to 1965 and 1966 to 1970 inclusive, by provinces and territory, how many acres of land on Indian reserves and settlements have been purchased by (a) Canadians (b) Americans (c) others?
2.	For each year, 1965 to 1970, how many teachers in (a) federal schools (b) non-federal schools are Canadian Indians?
3.	To date, how many federal and non-federal schools for Indian children teach mostly in (a) French (b) English (c) Indian?
4.	How many (a) federal schools (b) non-federal schools for Indian children include in their curricula Indian culture and traditions?
5.	For the period September 1970 to June 1971, how many primary schools in the Province of Quebec taught (a) French only and a few hours of English per week (b) English only and a few hours of French per week?


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.
Departmental records are not kept on an ethnic or nationality basis, therefore, the information requested is not available.
2.	(a). 1965-66, 114; 1966-67, 135; 1967-68, 136; 1968-69, 158; 1969-70, 130; 1970-71, 206*.
"'This figure includes teachers and teacher-aides.
(b) Information on teachers of Indian status employed in provincial schools is not available.
3.	(a) and (b) All schools, federal and non-federal, use English as the main language for teaching, with the exception of 96 schools in the Province of Quebec where the main language used for teaching is French, (c) In British Columbia and Manitoba, the Indian languages are used for part-time instruction at pre-school level.
4.	(a) 207; (b) 253*
*This figure excludes schools in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario where such instruction is provided as an option or supplement to established curricula.
5.	(a) 81; (b) 44.


CMHC-RESEARCH ON IMPACT OF HIGH RISE APARTMENTS ON FAMILY LIFE
Mr. Kaplan: What studies have been conducted or are being conducted by or for the government to investigate the question of the desirability of raising children in high rise apartments?


Robert Knight Andras: In February, 1970, a grant was authorized by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the National Housing Act, Part V, to the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto to undertake research on the impact of high rise apartments on family life. This study is not intended to reflect on the desirability of high rise apartments for family living, but to examine factors which affect family living in this form of housing. The study is still in progress, with the final report being expected early in 1972.


CANCER RESEARCH
Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister of National Health and Welfare prepared to advocate an increase of support of cancer research by increasing the size of the block grant it has given to the National Cancer Institute of Canada, particularly in the area attributable to cigarette smoking?


John Carr Munro: More than $40,000,00 is being made available for health research mainly through such programs as Medical Research Council, Public Health Research Grant, Nation-
[Mr. Andras.J
December 8, 1971

al Health Grant and Smoking and Health program. Consideration is given to all applications for support projects in the field of cancer research within the terms of these grants, including those submitted by the National Cancer Institute.


AWARD TO NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE
Mr. Robinson: Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare advocate an increase in the size of the annual award to the National Cancer Institute of Canada?


John Carr Munro: Upon receipt of a suitable application from the National Cancer Institute, the Department is prepared to repeat in the fiscal year 1971-72 the $250,000 grant that was made to the Institute in 1970-71. Researchers in the field of cancer research, including the National Cancer Institute, are encouraged to submit applications for support of specific projects within the terms of the Department's research grant programs.


NUMBER OF WORLD WAR I VETERANS IN CANADA
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many veterans of the First World War are there in Canada?
2.	How many veterans of the First World War are receiving veterans pensions?
3.	What is the average pension received by veterans of the First World War?
Hon. ]ean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs): In
the records maintained by the Department of Veterans Affairs, information with reference to veterans of World War I includes the veterans of the Boer War. Consequently the answers to Parts 1, 2 and 3 of this question incorporate the information requested in Question No. 2002. 1. Based on information obtained from the 1961 Census and adjusted for mortality by the Canadian Life Tables, 196062, the estimated number at June 30, 1971 is 96,500.
2.	21,122 as at September 30, 1971.
3.	Pensions are paid at varying rates dependent on the degree of assessable disability. Additional pension is paid to pensioners with dependants, and allowances are granted for certain other factors such as need for attendance and exceptional incapacity. As an example, a married 100 per cent pensioner with six dependent children, in receipt of the maximum Attendance and Exceptional Incapacity Allowances would receive $11,712 annually, non-taxable. A single man, at the 5 per cent rate, without additional allowances, would receive $175.20 annually. 21,122 World War I veterans, as at September 30, 1971, were receiving a total amount of $30,822,543.


NUMBER OF WORLD WAR II VETERANS IN CANADA
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many veterans of the Second World War are there in Canada?
2.	How many veterans of the Second World War are receiving veterans pensions?
Questions
3.	What is the average pension received by a veteran of the Second World War?
Hon. ]ean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs): 1.
Based on information obtained from the 1961 Census and adjusted for mortality by the Canadian Life Tables, 196062, the estimated number at June 30, 1971 is 789,000.
2.	102,033 as at September 30, 1971.
3.	Pensions are paid at varying rates dependent on the degree of assessable disability. Additional pension is paid to pensioners with dependants, and allowances are granted for certain other factors such as need for attendance and exceptional incapacity. As an example, a married 100 per cent pensioner with six dependent children, in receipt of the maximum Attendance and Exceptional Incapacity Allowances would receive $11,712 annually, non-taxable. A single man, at the 5 per cent rate, without additional allowances, would receive $175.20 annually. 102,033 World War II veterans, as at September 30, 1971, were receiving a total amount of $124,120,803.


NUMBER OF KOREAN CAMPAIGN VETERANS IN CANADA
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many veterans of the Korean War are there in Canada?
2.	How many veterans of the Korean War are receiving veterans pensions?
3.	What is the average pension received by veterans of the Korean War?
Hon. ]ean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs): 1.
Based on information obtained from the 1961 Census and adjusted for mortality by the Canadian Life Tables, 196062, the estimated number at June 30, 1971 is 26,000.
2.	2,025 as at September 30, 1971.
3.	Pensions are paid at varying rates dependent on the degree of assessable disability. Additional pension is paid to pensioners with dependants, and allowances are granted for certain other factors such as need for attendance and exceptional incapacity. As an example, a married 100 per cent pensioner with six dependent children, in receipt of the maximum Attendance and Exceptional Incapacity Allowances would receive $11,712 annually, non-taxable. A single man, at the 5 per cent rate, without additional allowances, would receive $175.20 annually. 2,025 Korean Campaign veterans, as at September 30, 1971, were receiving a total amount of $2,172,803.


NUMBER OF BOER WAR VETERANS IN CANADA
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many veterans of the Boer War are there in Canada?
2.	How many veterans of the Boer War are receiving veterans pensions?
3.	What is the average pension received by a veteran of the Boer War?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1,
2, and 3. Estimates of the veteran population and record of pensions in payment do not separately identify veterans of the Boer War. These data are included in World War I figures provided to answer to Question No. 1,993.

December 8. 1971
Questions


STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF ABORTION
Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the feasibility and necessity of conducting a study on the effects of abortion upon society?


John Carr Munro: The forthcoming proposed debate on abortion in Parliament should allow the government the opportunity to consider a study on the effects of abortion upon society.


YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES-ORIENTATION COURSE FOR TEACHERS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Is there an orientation course for teachers going to teach in the Yukon or Northwest Territories and, if so, how long does this course last?
2.	Who were the teachers at least year's orientation course, and what were their qualifications and training for the course?
3.	What were the subject-matters covered at the orientation course?


J. Judd Buchanan: 1.
Yukon, no. Northwest Territories, yes, the duration of which varies from three days to six weeks.
2.	Teachers at N.W.T. orientation courses were as follows: (a) Mr. N. J. McPherson, M.A., who did his major work in teaching English as a second language and who has ten years experience in the North, (b) Mr. M. Mallon, B.A., head of the Eskimo language school at Rankin, fluent in Eskimo, (c) Professor R. Williamson, University of Saskatchewan-fluent in Eskimo, (d) Mr. W. D. Thomas, M.A.. Director of Education for IAND. Alberta an Indian with many years experience in Indian education. (e) Dr. Gloria Sampson, specialist in the field of teaching English as a second language, (f) Dr. J. W. Chalmers, expert in inter-cultural education, Alberta, (g) Mr. Paul Robinson, Director of Curriculum, NWT Department of Education, (h) J. H. Parker, Deputy Commissioner of the Northwest Territories, (i) B. C. Gillie, Director of Education, NWT Government.
3.	Subject matters covered at the NWT orientation courses were school-community relations, curriculum adaptation including cultural and linguistical components, functions and objectives of schools in native communities, northern development emphasizing future objectives. In addition, panels of native peoples addressed the teachers on various aspects of community needs in the north.


ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM
Mr. Robinson: Has the government considered making the Royal Ontario Museum a national museum for grant purposes?


Gérard Pelletier: No. We are, however, drawing up a policy dealing with museums and the national heritage, following the guidelines set out in my public announcement last February.
|Mr. Dube.]


CBC-LOSS OF EQUIPMENT FROM PARKED VEHICLE IN TORONTO
Mr. Hales: Did the CBC have some of their equipment stolen in October, 1971 from a parked vehicle in Toronto and, if so (a) what was stolen and what was the original cost of the equipment (b) was the vehicle locked (c) how long had the vehicle been parked in that location (d) on what date was the theft reported and to whom (e) what disciplinary action was taken (f) was the equipment insured and, if so, was the cost of the equipment recovered?


Gérard Pelletier: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: The CBC has no knowledge of any of its equipment being stolen from a parked vehicle in Toronto during October. However, the question probably refers to a missing camera package and its subsequent return in the month of September. The equipment involved was an assembled camera package consisting of an electronic camera, viewfinder, zoom lens and camera shoulder-mount, having a replacement value of approximately $20,000. The CBC truck containing this equipment had been parked on CBC premises and locked at about 11:30 p.m. on September 6 but was found unlocked on the morning of September 9. The theft was reported to the police late that afternoon following internal investigation. No disciplinary action was taken as no case could be established. The equipment, which was insured, was found and returned to the CBC in good working order; hence no claim was necessary.


PUBLIC SERVICE-HIRINGS AND DISMISSALS
Mr. Robinson: In each of the past ten years, how many public servants were (a) hired (b) released?


Gérard Pelletier: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: (a) Hired 1961, 23,124; 1962, 19,338; 1963, 14,750; 1964, 19,199; 1965, 21,700; 1966, 21,979; 1967, 31,293; 1968, 20,397; 1969, 20,773; 1970, 23,055.
Note: The data on hiring relate to the number of initial appointments to the Public Service made by the Public Service Commission and its predecessor, the Civil Service Commission.
The Public Service Employment Act (1967) widened the Commission's appointing authority to cover certain kinds of employees such as "prevailing rate" employees and ships' crews who were exempt from the previous legislation. Thus the data for 1967 to 1970 are not strictly comparable with the data for previous years. It should also be noted that the total for 1961 includes about 1500 employees in Revenue Post Offices who were brought under the Act at that time.
(b) Released 1961, 12,466; 1962, 12,396; 1963, 11,226; 1964, 13,162; 1965, 14,546; 1966, 14,343; 1967, 16,830; 1968, 17,465; 1969, 17,512; 1970, 20,619.
Note: These figures include separation for various reasons such as resignations, death, rejection on probation,
December 8. 1971

Orders for Returns
dismissal, personal reasons, etc. They do not include summer students, seasonal and term employees.


PUBLIC SERVICE-NUMBER OF INDIAN AND ESKIMO EMPLOYEES
Mr. Robinson: How many Indians and/or Eskimos are employees of the Public Service?


Gérard Pelletier: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: Section 12(2) of the Public Service Employment Act provides that the Commission, in prescribing selection standards, shall not discriminate against any persons by reasons of sex. race, national origin, colour or religion. As a consequence, no records are maintained of employees on the basis of ethnic origin.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many people were employed by CBC during each year 1960 to 1971 inclusive?
2.	What was the CBC budget in each of these years?


Gérard Pelletier: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Number of continuing CBC employees as of March 31 for each of the years in question: 1960, 7,127; 1961, 7,431; 1962, 7,756; 1963, 7,606; 1964, 7,783; 1965, 8,130; 1966, 8,284; 1967, 9.123; 1968, 9,042; 1969, 9,147; 1970, 8,951; 1971, 8,885.
2. CBC net operating budgets for each of the years in question, provided through parliamentary appropriation: 1959/60, $52,300,000; 1960/61, $59,288,000; 1961/62, $70,252,000; 1962/63, $72,655,000; 1963/64, $78,377,000; *1964/65, $85,869,000;	1965/66, $95,063,000;	1966/67, $112,403,000;1967/68,	$139,503,000;	**1968/69,	$148,329,000;	1969/70,
$166,000,000; 1970/71, $166,000,000.
*CBC began to pay capital loan principal and interest out of operating funds
CBC absorbed the shortwave international service into its regular operations.


NUMBER OF CANADIANS JAILED FOR DEBT
Mr. Robinson: How many Canadians have been jailed for debt in each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive and 1971 to date?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: In so far as Statistics Canada is concerned: This information is not available.


PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
Mr. Robinson: How many women and how many men are employed in the Public Service of Canada?


Gérard Pelletier: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: The Public Service Commission Annual Report to Parliament for the year 1970, Appendix E, page 76, indicates that as at December 1970 there were 55,861 women and 142,840 men under the Public Service Employment Act. These figures do not include term employees.


NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS FOR PENSION AWAITING DECISION
Mr. MacRae: What is the total number of applications for pensions presently awaiting decising before the various adjudication bodies, i.e., the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Pension Commission and the Pension Review Board?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: As
at October 24, 1971, the Canadian Pension Commission had 5,639 applications for entitlement to pension awaiting adjudication or in the process of adjudication. The Department of Veterans Affairs does not itself deal with pension applications. The Pension Review Board presently has no applications for pensions awaiting decision.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Barnett: 1.	Were any copies of (a) a poster, size 24" X 37", "Youth Canada Jeunesse-L'aventure on the road" (b) a card, size 12" X 18", identically worded, purchased by the government and, if so, how many?
2.	What firms printed these posters and cards and where were they printed?
3.	To whom were they consigned for distribution and at what locations in Canada?
4.	What was the cost of these posters and cards and the points of distribution?
5.	To what individuals or organizations, in what places and in what quantities were these posters and cards distributed?
6.	What was the total cost of this distribution?
7.	Were all the posters and cards ordered and paid for by the government distributed and, if not, what quantity of each remains in stock?
8.	What was the purpose for which these posters and cards were produced and distributed?
9.	Which of the individuals or organizations to whom they were consigned were advised of the intended purpose?
10.	Has the government an estimate of the percentage of copies consigned which were used for the intended purpose and, if so, what is it?
Return tabled.


LOSS OF FISHING RIGHTS AS A RESULT OF ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL PARK, KENT COUNTY
Mr. Crossman: Of the fishermen who lost fishing rights due to the establishment of the National Park in Kent County, how many have

December 8, 1971
Motions for Papers
received compensation from the government and (a) what are their names and addresses (b) what amount did each receive?
Return tabled.


MAURICIE NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Matte: 1.	What was the date of the commencement of the work currently underway in Mauricie National Park?
2.	What was the exact nature of the work completed to date?
3.	What work is currently in progress?
4.	How many employees have been hired?
5.	What is the name, the address, the qualifications and the salary of each employee?
6.	To date, what amount has been expended?
7.	What is the estimated budget for next year?
8.	How many additional employees will be hired within a year?
Return tabled.


CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES-NUMBER OF CARIBBEAN STUDENTS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many students from Caribbean countries attended Canadian universities during each of the years 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
2.	What subsidy is paid to these students by the government?
3.	How many students have remained in Canada after training at Canadian universities and colleges?
4.	Is there any requirement whereby the students must return to their own country after receiving their education in Canada?
Return tabled.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, on January 28, 1971-almost a year ago-I put question No. 830 on the Order Paper. I have often drawn the attention of the parliamentary secretary to this fact and he promised several times that an answer would be given. Could he tell us when the minister will answer my question?


Mr. Jerome:: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to give that information this time.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion No. 75?
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-RESEARCH STUDIES 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.


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, last week I pointed out that we had given to the hon. member several of those studies, that some had been tabled and that three others were privileged. Moreover, I asked the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the courtesy extended in supplying a number of studies that the department has, I agree to withdraw my motion at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


James Alexander Jerome: May I ask that the remaining notices of motions stand?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Notice of Motion No. 257 standing in my name, since the Minister of Transport was kind enough to supply these materials to me directly I would ask to have this motion withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Are the other notices of motions allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House that he had not raised the problem of the DISC legislation with the President of the United States in Washington. Did the minister raise this subject with the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Connally, when he was in Washington and did Secretary Connally advise the minister as to how this legislation might be applied in so far as it would affect Canada? May I also ask whether the government now has any contingency plans in regard to the DISC legislation, or is it the minister's attitude that the whole matter is still hypothetical?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the matter has been discussed with the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States and we have indicated our opposition to the DISC proposals. I am presently having my department analyse the DISC proposals as they are proceeding through Congress, and we do have some con-
|Mr. Crossman.J
December 8. 1971

tingency plans or at least are considering what we might have to do in case the proposals are enacted.



CANADIAN-U.S. DOLLAR RELATIONSHIP-DISCUSSION WITH U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY

Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a supplementary question relating to the minister's efforts in Washington. The Prime Minister also said yesterday that he had not raised with the President the relationship between the Canadian dollar and the United States dollar. Did the minister raise this matter with the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Connally, and did he receive from the secretary any assurance that the United States would not insist upon a further upward valuation of the Canadian dollar in relationship to the United States dollar?


Edgar John Benson: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the determination of a country's currency is a national matter and is not determined by the United States or anybody else. Second, I should like to state that we have made our position quite clear, that we believe that if there is a general realignment of currencies the Canadian dollar should, at least in the short run, continue to float.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It is clear from what the minister has said that he did not receive any approval or acceptance of this point of view from the Secretary of the Treasury.


Edgar John Benson: Nor do I require it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Following his conversations with Mr. Connally and following the view expressed by the Prime Minister that these monetary matters would all be settled at the next meeting of the Group of Ten or at the subsequent meeting and that the United States surtax would be repealed at that time, I am wondering whether the Minister of Finance, being the great economic prophet of this government, shares this prophecy of the Prime Minister and is prepared to bet on it?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



UNEMPLOYMENT-POSSIBILITY OF NEW PROGRAMS IN LIGHT OF SMALL DECLINE

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister inform the House whether the decline in the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment from 6.7 per cent last month to 6.6 per cent this month represents, in his opinion, an adequate decline for this time of year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member's question is not asked in the proper way. He is inviting the minister to express an opinion and in those terms his question is not in order. The hon. member might like to rephrase the question or to ask a supplementary.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase my question. In light of this very small decline, is the minister giving
Inquiries of the Ministry
any consideration to announcing new programs to reduce the rate of unemployment markedly?


Edgar John Benson: Not at this point, Mr. Speaker.


David Orlikow: May I ask the minister whether he can assure the House that this slight decline is the beginning of the movement toward the less than 6 per cent unemployment that the minister has been predicting for some time now?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Gan-der-Twillingate on a supplementary.



UNEMPLOYMENT-SPECIAL PROGRAM FOR LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYED

John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has any special program to offer those Canadians who have been unemployed for a long time in view of the fact that the statistics released yesterday show that 42 per cent of the people who are unemployed are classified as longterm unemployed?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we have already announced programs that are unprecedented in Canada's history.
* sH



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES AND MUNICIPALITIES ON STUDENT EMPLOYMENT-EARLY IMPLEMENTATION NEXT YEAR

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. It relates to the evaluation report tabled yesterday on the Opportunities for Youth program. In view of the limited information it gives about clearly important questions, I wonder whether the minister can indicate to the House whether or not there has been or will be any extensive consultation with the municipalities and provinces regarding the general question of student employment in so far as that comes within the responsibility of the federal government, and will this form part of the over-all proposal that the minister will put forward in regard to the Opportunities for Youth program?


Gérard Pelletier: The answer to both parts of the question is yes, Mr. Speaker. I have spent the better part of my time, in the last three weeks, at those consultations and, of course, their result will constitute an important element of any policy on youth the government may adopt sometime in December.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could indicate if he will be prepared to make a statement in the House before it adjourns inasmuch as he

December 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
indicated two days ago to a question that he would be prepared by the middle of the month to indicate the government's position with regard to the program? [Translation]


Gérard Pelletier: That is not exactly the case, Mr. Speaker. I said the decisions would be made around the middle of December and that a statement, probably on motions, would be made at the latest on January 15, provided of course the House is sitting at that time.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the overriding concern many students will have as a result of this year's experience with the lateness of the date and the planning time needed, can the minister assure the House that the program will be implemented early in the new year so that adequate planning can take place both on the part of students and those responsible for administering the program?


Gérard Pelletier: 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-SUGGESTED HIGHER REMUNERATION FOR STUDENTS

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that according to the evaluation tabled in the House yesterday only 5.8 per cent of project leaders and 3.7 per cent of the staff saved more than $800 in the program last summer, can the minister assure the House that next year's program will have a more realistic per capita remuneration so that working class students who participate can be assured of earning enough money to go back to university next fall?


Gérard Pelletier: I can assure the hon. member that this question is under consideration, Mr. Speaker.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-INQUIRY AS TO APPLICATIONS ON FILE

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the proposed program and the possibilities for next summer, can the minister say whether there are any projects on file at the present time with the department?


Gérard Pelletier: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not understand the meaning of the hon. member's question.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I should like the minister to say if he knows whether any projects are at present on file with the department in the event that the proposals may come up or that the program may be put into effect.
IMr. MacDonald (Egmont).]


Gérard Pelletier: I am afraid I still do not understand, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member would specify-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure it would be very conducive to the efficient conduct of our business if the question were to be repeated, but the hon. member might like to repeat the question a third time and hopefully the minister will understand it. Otherwise we will have to continue our business.


Robert Simpson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In view of the short notice of this program given last summer and in view of the fact that many proposals which were sent in only a week or so after the program was initiated were turned down, I would ask the minister now whether there are any applications on file with the department for a possible program next summer?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, some projects submitted last year are still on our files. But, should the program be re-activated, it is possible that, because of the experience acquired last year , we feel that the standards to be announced before January 15 should be changed, and in consequence, those projects may not meet the new standards at all. In such cases, the young people should be invited to bring their projects up to date.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize a last supplementary on this subject by the hon. member for York South and then, recognize the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-EVALUATION BY TREASURY BOARD

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary of the President of the Treasury Board. In the normal supervision by the Treasury Board of expenditures has the Treasury Board or the minister's department made any evaluation of the Opportunities for Youth program and, if so, I wonder whether the House could have the report on that evaluation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in the ordinary course of events the Treasury Board would not make an evaluation of the program but merely an audit of the evaluation made by the department. The responsibility for the evaluation is that of the department and the responsibility of the Treasury Board is to see that an adequate evaluation is made.



NATIONAL LIBRARY


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. When will the Secretary of State be appointing the National Library Advisory Board which is called for under the National Library Act passed by Parliament about two years ago?
December 8. 1971

[ Translation]


Gérard Pelletier: Very soon, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the vital importance of the National Library as a centre for unbiased information, as contrasted with the government's chosen propaganda instrument, Information Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member for Joliette have a supplementary?



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-CONTINUATION OF PRESENT POLICY

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have a supplementary for the Secretary of State.
In view of the great interest which all members of this House as well as several Canadian organizations have in the Opportunities for Youth program, and considering that some organizations are concerned as to whether the program will be continued, and, 'finally, in the light of the minister's remarks, I would like to ask him, without trying to know specifically how it would be implemented, whether the Opportunities for Youth program will be continued in 1972.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a definitive answer in this connection as the final decisions have not yet been made. However, I can reassure the hon. member by saying that it seems likely that the program will be continued.



AGRICULTURE


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the minister of Agriculture.
In addition to the deficiency payments adjustments provided under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, has he given consideration to financially helping hog and egg producers who have been operating at a loss in the last 12 months?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I can repeat the announcements I have made in the House on several occasions but I am sure you would not allow me to do that. For the hon. member's information, I will be very happy to send him a printed copy of what we are going to do for the egg producers and the hog producers as soon as we have the statistics for 1971. I can also give him a report on the very significant improvement in egg prices as a result of the action we took about a month ago.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



CANADIAN CONTRIBUTION TO NATO-DISCUSSION BY PRIME MINISTER WITH PRESIDENT NIXON

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the announcement that ten European NATO members will increase their 1972 contributions to NATO in order to relieve the United States military and economic burden, has there been any change in this government's policy in respect of NATO?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker. As I recall it, the purpose of the U.S. policy, as was ours, was to increase the contributions that European countries would make to the NATO alliance.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary to the Prime Minister. During the recent talks between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States was Canada's commitment to NATO one of the topics of discussion?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the President and I did talk about NATO in general terms.



SHIPPING


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. The minister will recall that a few days ago when I asked him a question about the need for maintenance of the boat service on the west coast of Vancouver Island he indicated this was a matter for consideration by the Canadian Transport Commission. Has the minister had any response to the request that this matter be considered by the CTC and can he tell us the result?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I did make representations to the Canadian Transport Commission and furthermore satisfied myself that alternative means of transportation are not yet available in the area. I indicated this to the CTC and as a result they have agreed to the extension of the subsidies for a period of six months.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary to the Minister of Transport. When is the minister going to express his position on the application of Canadian Pacific Railway to the Canadian Transport Commission to remove 56 station agents in

December 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Saskatchewan and when will a statement be made on this matter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am
surprised at the nature of the supplementary question. I did not realize we had ferries in Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In any event, I will take this question under advisement.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. In light of the present heavy air traffic which will continue to increase because of the festive season, will the minister be bringing in special legislation with regard to hijacking offences to guarantee that there will be a real deterrent against this crime being committed again in Canada in light of the hijacking of a plane flying out of Calgary?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: The Secretary of State for External Affairs signed an extradition treaty with the United States last week which will be before the House. In that treaty there is provision for mutual extradition of hijackers. In Calgary seven charges were laid against the accused. We hope to complement the extradition treaty as soon as possible by legislation which will be incorporated in a larger bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder whether, without getting into any details of the offence itself, the minister would tell the House what charges were laid and whether the accused is being held in custody in light of the serious situation that has developed?


John Napier Turner: Perhaps the House will allow me to give a list of the seven charges to the hon. member.



HIJACKING-POSSIBLE RETROACTIVITY OF LEGISLATION IMPLEMENTING EXTRADITION TREATY

Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. Does he intend to introduce legislation with regard to the extradition treaty to make it retroactive so that it would apply to the accused man in Calgary?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one previously asked of the Minister of Justice. Will the extradition treaty recently signed by the Secretary of State for External

Affairs allow for the extradition by the United States of John Doyle, or does it require Joey Smallwood's signature?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



HIJACKING-CONSIDERATION BY HOUSE OF CONVENTIONS ADOPTED BY INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Will we also be asked to deal with the conventions passed by the International Air Transport Association regarding hijacking?


John Napier Turner: Will who be asked to deal with-


Robert Jardine McCleave: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. In trying to make my question short I have lengthened the time it will take. When the House is asked to deal with the Canada-United States extradition treaty amendment with regard to hijacking, will we also be asked to deal with the conventions passed by the International Air Transport Association this year in Montreal?


John Napier Turner: I would have to discuss that matter with the House leader and the Secretary of State for External Affairs.



SUGGESTED WARNING TO DOCTORS OF DANGERS OF HEXACHLOROPHENE

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the food and drug administration in the United States has sent out a warning to 600,000 physicians and other health professions regarding the dangers of hexachlorophene, what has the Minister of National Health and Welfare done to alert doctors and ancillary services in Canada?


John Carr Munro: I am pleased to advise the hon. member that the Food and Drug Directorate is looking at this very matter now and I expect to have an announcement very shortly.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether similar warnings will be sent out to the trade and whether warnings on labels against this drug will be required?


John Carr Munro: As I indicated, we are preparing our position on this matter. I will not be in a position to answer the hon. member more specifically for a day or two.
December 8, 1971



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice in his capacity as Attorney General for the Yukon. Since he has inaugurated a program of legal aid in the Northwest Territories as part of his responsibilities as Attorney General for that territory, can he say what steps he is taking to inaugurate a similar program in the Yukon as is his responsibility as Attorney General for that territory?


John Napier Turner: As long ago as last August, before I went up to Yellowknife to sign with the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories a program of legal aid for the Northwest Territories, I made a similar offer in similar terms for the same type of legal aid agreement for the Yukon. I was not able at that time to persuade the Commissioner of the Yukon, Mr. Smith, to sign a similar agreement.


Erik Nielsen: I have a supplementary question for the Attorney General for the Yukon. Since the barrier seems to be the Commissioner of the Yukon and since the Commissioner takes his orders from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, can the Attorney General for the Yukon speak with his colleague to see if this log jam can be broken?


John Napier Turner: I am in constant friendly communication with my colleague.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One of the few people who are.


Mr. Aiken:: That is because you are not an Indian, John.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I should point out to hon. members that there are many postulants for questioning and we will be running short of time unless we limit supplementaries.



REPORT ON NATIONAL LEGAL AID SCHEME-REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION

['-there was a clear indication that we should not land, and we did not. I do not think much would be gained by putting in a protest at present. What we would like to do is to get the plane on the ground.']
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Can
the Minister of Justice advise the House if he has received a report on a national legal aid scheme for Canada, and when will he be publishing the contents of that report?


John Napier Turner: I have been in communication with all provincial Attorneys General and expect to make a report to my colleagues within the next few days.



Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Have arrangements been made with India and Pakistan for the
Inquiries of the Ministry
unimpeded landing at Dacca of the Canadian defence forces plane which has made two unsuccessful efforts to land there, and has the government lodged a complaint with India over the anti-aircraft fire brought to bear on this plane by an aircraft carrier and two destroyers in the Bay of Bengal?


Mitchell William Sharp: In reply to the first question, we have a Hercules and the Royal Air force has two Hercules waiting in Bangkok to fly into Dacca as soon as we can get agreement on a ceasefire. That we have not yet obtained.
As to the second question, it is very difficult for us to lay a complaint because the facts are not altogether clear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder if the minister could explain why the facts are not clear? I think he is aware that the Pakistanis do not possess an aircraft carrier but the Indians do and it was from a ship of this kind that the firing came.


Mitchell William Sharp: There are several things that are not clear about the incident. It is not at all clear that there was firing on our Hercules, but in any event


An hon. Member:: The pilot would know.


Mitchell William Sharp: -there was a clear indication that we should not land, and we did not. I do not think much would be gained by putting in a protest at present. What we would like to do is to get the plane on the ground.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. The chairman of the Canada Development Corporation, Mr. Anthony Hampson, said, following a meeting of the directors, that the first activities of the corporation would be to negotiate with the government to take over Crown corporations. Can the minister enumerate to the House which of the Crown corporations are subject to negotiations for takeover by the Canada Development Corporation?


Edgar John Benson: It is in the bill.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the minister saying that negotiations are now going to go on with respect to all the Crown corporations enumerated in the bill?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, the Crown corporations enumerated in the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford would perhaps permit me to give the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands the opportunity of asking a second supplementary question.
10266

December 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



POSSIBLE PARTICIPATION IN MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION-CANADIAN FINANCIAL CONTROL-ROLE OF PANARCTIC OILS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Canada Development Corporation has affirmed the possibility of participating in the construction of Mackenzie Valley oil or gas pipelines to bring Arctic supplies to southern markets. Can the minister assure the House that any financing of oil or gas pipelines from the Arctic to bring supplies to the south will be under majority Canadian control and whether Panarctic Oils, in which the government has a major interest, will be included in such a consortium?


Edgar John Benson: This is a very hypothetical question. I do not really think that the chairman of the board of the CDC was setting out anything definite. It is merely a matter of interest to the corporation. This corporation should be interested in projects to develop Canada.
* * *[DOT]



POST OFFICE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General.
Did he recently undertake to hold a public debate at a Montreal radio station with the people in charge of the Lapalme employees in order to discuss their problems?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: No, Mr. Speaker.

(English]



IMMIGRATION


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I would like to ask the
Minister of Manpower and Immigration a question of which the Minister of Labour took notice a few days ago. Is the minister doing anything and, if so, will he make a short statement to the House later about the suggestions and charges that there have been large-scale, illegal movements of aliens from Canada, through Quebec and British Columbia, into the United States in which criminal elements are involved, including the allegation that there is laxity in the immigration laws of Canada which lead to this result?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would only say briefly that the Department of Immigration and the authorities in Canada co-operate fully in attempts to detect any such move-
ments. There have been no special circumstances recently to show new or different operations than those which occur from time to time. But our co-operation is extended in the fullest way in every way we can.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a question in connection with a resolution passed by the Labour Federation of Quebec which apparently accepted the principle that any province can secede of its own volition. What attitude does the government of Canada take on this unconstitutional position?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I treat that question as purely hypothetical.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, apparently everything is hypothetical that might embarrass the government. I ask the minister, whether he has been in touch with the provinces in connection with whether or not it would be constitutional for any province in this country to secede of its own volition? Has there been any correspondence or discussion with the provinces in that connection?


John Napier Turner: No, sir.



FINANCE


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that many municipalities in Ontario have been in a position for some time now to make application-


An hon. Member:: The minister isn't here.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, may I redirect my question to the very capable Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that many municipalities in Ontario have been in a position for some time now to make application for loans under the $160 million special development loan program, and in view of the fact that none of these applications can be processed here in Ottawa until the Ontario government makes up its mind as to how it will allocate its $27.7 million share of that fund, would the parliamentary secretary ask the minister if he would approach the Ontario government for an early decision so that these municipalities could be helped by this federal program?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cumberland-Col-chester North.
December 8, 1971


Norman Augustine Cafik: On a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member was not asking a question but making a suggestion and he has to assume that somebody has noted it.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is the minister in a position to indicate if an agreement has been reached between his department and the three maritime provinces with regard to the continued operation of the engineering services of his department that are located in Amherst?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with the council of maritime Prime Ministers. I think that this matter has now to be approved by the cabinet and that it will be done very shortly.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now that consideration of the India-Pakistan warfare has been transferred from the Security Council to the General Assembly, can he advise what role Canada contemplates as a member of the latter body as a consequence of yesterday's important move?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, during the discussions and the lobbying that took place in the General Assembly, Canada was not altogether satisfied with the nature of the resolution that was ultimately put forward although we did support it. We are now trying to get some action in addition to what has already been taken that would be of a more realistic nature.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Will Canada take leadership in proposing yet another resolution on this matter to the General Assembly?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if necessary we would. What we are trying to bring into discussion is a procedure to attempt to bring about a settlement and not simply a resolution condemning the participants.



INDIA-PAKISTAN WAR-EVACUATION OF CANADIANS FROM WEST PAKISTAN

Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secre-
24725-21.',
Inquiries of the Ministry
tary of State for External Affairs with respect to the evacuation of Canadians from West Pakistan. Would the minister state whether the flight from West Pakistan is now under way to evacuate Canadians in Karachi, Lahore, and Islamabad?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have a plane close at hand ready to fly into Karachi and probably into Islamabad. Unfortunately, we have not been able to obtain agreement to a ceasefire from the Indian government. The situation is very serious and I have sent a personal message to the Foreign Minister of India urging him to give clearance to the flight as soon as possible.



POLLUTION


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. It is supplementary to one asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena, some days ago which the Secretary of State for External Affairs took as notice. It has to do with the reported large discharges of refinery waste by the Atlantic Richfield refinery into the waters at Cherry Point, which are adjacent to the waters of British Columbia in that area. Is the minister looking into the situation to safeguard our area from this threat of pollution?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: The
answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. We have been in touch with the United States environmental protection agency and we are assured that the standards which will be in effect in the United States will be similar to the high standards which are in effect in Canada.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
As a small farm development program has been announced, can the minister tell if he has decided to change his agricultural assistance policy? Can it be concluded that the government will come back to the family farm policy? It can be said that really a great many small-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot make a speech. He has asked a question and perhaps he could allow the minister to answer it briefly.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the announcement that I made the day before yesterday

Inquiries of the Ministry
respecting additional assistance to small family-type farms is another example of the concern which this government has always expressed for this kind of operation.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. On Monday the Acting Prime Minister reported he was unable to state that there had been any progress or any results with regard to the investigation being conducted into the leaks of confidential cabinet documents several weeks ago and reported that the inquiries were in the hands of the departments. In view of the length of these examinations and the lack of results reported by the Acting Prime Minister, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to leave the investigation in the hands of the departments, or does he intend to take any additional measures with a view to tracing these leaks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what the Acting Prime Minister said the other day. We are following a very long established practice of previous governments in making the responsibility for any such leaks lie with the departments themselves. That is why after the incidents referred to I asked each minister to start an investigation into his own department. Where they need assistance or help they get it from the advisers in the Privy Council office or from the RCMP, but the investigation is still going on at the departmental level.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question. Since it is obviously not the intention to refer the matter to the skilled investigators in the RCMP, and it has not been referred to the special security police of the Solicitor General, what was the purpose of setting up the new security force under the Solicitor General?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that there are problems of security in the country outside of the civil service.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. It is a matter of concern to every member of the House. I ask the question because of the unprecedented large number of unprocessed and unpaid claims to entitlement for unemployment insurance that are presently directed to my attention. Can the minister not do something to increase efficiency in expediting claims, since many of these people are forced to resort to municipal relief because of their inability to obtain satisfactory payment of unemployment insurance benefits to which they are entitled?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I answer this question periodically. I can only say that there are 8,000 public servants working for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I think the constant attacks on these 8,000 public servants are very unfair. First of all


An hon. Member:: There is your problem.


An hon. Member:: You have too many.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has a right to ask a supplementary, but there are only two minutes left before the end of the question period and I am trying as hard as I can to give an opportunity to as many members as possible. The minister's reply should be as brief as possible. If supplementaries are required they might be asked at the time of adjournment or perhaps tomorrow.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister says my attack on so many thousands of civil servants is unfair. I am not making any unfair attack. I know that these public servants are working to the best of their ability, but because of the large number of cases that efficiency is not good enough.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


James Aloysius McGrath: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In face of escalating unemployment in the Atlantic region especially, with the figures for November showing a substantial increase in the four Atlantic provinces, and in view of the failure of the minister's policies to seriously affect the situation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly ask the question? This is debate.


James Aloysius McGrath: I was going to ask the minister if he would resign so that we could get on with new policies.


Gerald William Baldwin: And take some of his friends with him.



FINANCE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the Canadian government must leave on deposit with the chartered banks of Canada $100 million interest free in return for cashing government cheques, and as it is over a year since the chartered banks agreed to cash all cheques, personal
December 8. 1971

and government, free of charge, I ask the minister if he will take steps to collect interest on this $100 million left on deposit, or will he have the Bank Act amended so it will not be necessary for the Canadian government to leave $100 million on deposit interest free?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: I think this is an excellent suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and I shall look into it.




Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the minister received representations from the mayor of Vancouver to the effect that this area of British Columbia, which includes 35 to 40 per cent of the total provincial unemployment, has been excluded from the federal-provincial employment loans program and, if so, what action does he contemplate to remedy the situation?


Otto Emil Lang: I have received representations from the mayor, Mr. Speaker. What happened was that the amount available for the province of British Columbia had been allocated by the provincial co-ordinator and therefore approved prior to the application from Vancouver having been considered.


Donald MacInnis: In view of the fact that two weeks ago the province of British Columbia had already used up the entire $21 million allocated to it under the program, neither Vancouver nor Victoria having been included at that time, will the minister consider making additional funds available to the province?
* *



POST OFFICE


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. Is the minister in a position today to reply to a previous question regarding the long delayed increase for postmasters staff of post offices across the country?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, on November 10 a collective agreement was signed between the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Treasury Board for the program administration group, the group to which managerially excluded postmasters' pay rates are related. The collective agreement, which is retroactive to October 1, 1970, calls for increase in rates of pay up to 17.5 per cent for levels one and two and 16.5 per cent for levels three to six over the three-year period ending September 27, 1973. In addition, the Treasury
Inquiries of the Ministry
Board has recently revised its policy to allow for additional payment to managerially excluded employees for overtime, call-back and standby at the discretion of the deputy minister. Previously, no compensation was allowed in these cases.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture supplementary to one asked earlier regarding the small farm development program announced on Monday. As this program appears to be simply an expansion of the ARDA concept, will it be carried out under the present ARDA agreement and administered by the present ARDA staff of the provinces?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, it will not be administered by those staffs. It will be administered mostly by the Farm Credit Corporation and, hopefully, with some joint arrangements with the provinces for the extension and counselling services they already have in the field.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Before this program is finalized would the government agree to have it brought before the Standing Committee on Agriculture so that questions can be asked and ideas contributed to the program, or will legislation be involved?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in the next session there may be a bill. But this House has already given approval in the amount of $10 million in the last fiscal year and $16 million in this fiscal year for this type of program.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Since the minister and the authorities or the Premier of Quebec have differences of opinion about the grants of his department, could he tell us whether he has had talks with the Quebec government concerning the grant policy of his department?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister, the minister in charge of economic development and the Minister of Trade and Commerce are all quite satisfied with the way the department has been dealing with the province of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The oral question period has now expired.

Perhaps we might allow two or three questions, without supplementaries, in the next few minutes.

December 8, 1971
10270________________________________
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



MEETING BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT NIXON-DISCUSSION OF INTERNATIONAL GRAINS ARRANGEMENT AND FLOOR PRICE ON WHEAT

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Last Wednesday I asked the right hon. gentleman if he would place high on his agenda for discussions with President Nixon this week the suggestion that the President should co-operate with Canadians in reactivating the International Grains Arrangement and, more particularly, placing a substantial floor price under wheat. Can the Prime Minister advise the House if he acted on this suggestion and, if so, what was the President's response?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member but I did not understand his question. I will read it in Hansard.
# # *



POST OFFICE


Mr. Charles Turner (London East):: I have a question for the Postmaster General, Mr. Speaker. I understand that today the minister is having deliberations with the directors of the Royal Philatelic Society of Canada and the board of governors of the British North America Philatelic Society. Is the minister in a position to take this House into his confidence and reveal the subject of these deliberations and what progress is being made?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The distinguished members and officers of the Royal Philatelic Society of Canada and the board of governors of the British North America Philatelic Society have graciously agreed to meet, at my invitation, to offer suggestions and advice on a national stamp collection and a postal museum. Our deliberations have been very useful and rewarding. Many excellent ideas have been advanced relative to establishing a national stamp collection and a postal museum. I was honoured to welcome our guests to Ottawa this morning, and I am pleased to note their presence in Mr. Speaker's gallery this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
* sjc %



PARTICIPATION OF CANADIAN HOCKEY TEAM IN 1972 OLYMPIC GAMES

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the minister recently said that the 1976 Olympics will be the greatest event ever to occur in the history of Canadian sports, and since the 1972 Olympics
(Mr. Speaker.]
are to be a great event for Canadian athletes, great enough that we should be represented in our national game, can the minister advise the House why he advised Hockey Canada and the CAHA not to make representations today to the Olympics committee so that Canada could be represented in the 1972 Olympics?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I did not advise Hockey Canada. Hockey Canada is a corporation composed of representatives of all the interests in hockey, including the fitness and amateur sports directorate of my department. Collectively they advised me, and I must say I agree with them, not to field a hockey team at the winter Olympics. We will maintain our position internationally and not field a team until such time as we can put our best players on the ice to represent Canada effectively.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member wishes to ask a supplementary. As hon. members know, because I was anxious to recognize a number of hon. members who had been trying to ask questions for a few days I took the liberty, with the consent of the House, of extending the question period. I wonder whether we should not now call orders of the day. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there are players available who could make up a competent and competitive team. Honour and glory as measured by a gold medal may be a remote possibility, but there are Canadians-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, December 7, consideration in committee of Bill C-259, to amend the Income Tax Act and to make certain provisions and alterations in the statute law related to or consequential upon amendments to that act-Mr. Benson-Mr. Honey in the chair.
The Chairman:: May we have order, please, in the committee. It is very difficult for the Chair to read the order unless hon. members who are to participate in the work of the committee come to order.
On clause 1-section 2: Tax payable by persons resident in Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I propose in a few minutes to move an amendment which would have the effect of dividing the bill for purposes of proclamation, with a veiw to bringing into effect immediately those sections relating to personal income tax which are clearly desirable and not controversial and which are designed to help with regard to assessments and with regard to old people. These are measures which, although not perfect, are rec-
December 8, 1971

ognized by all members of the House, I think, as representing a very substantial improvement.
Much of the bill is so complex that I doubt if anybody in the country really understands it, although some claim they do. The bill is so complex that small businessmen in particular will need tax experts at their elbows every time they turn around. Although this may be great for the business of tax experts, it will be very rough indeed on the ordinary, small businessman who is struggling to get along and keep his head above water. We have here a bill of 707 pages, with a vast number of amendments. Even those who pretend to understand this bill admit that it is somewhat easier to understand Einstein's theory of relativity.
The other night I heard the Minister of Finance talking about this bill. I heard him describe it as the envy of the world-the envy of the world, Mr. Chairman! The thought immediately occurred to me, "Would it not be a great thing to export?"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As I listened to the Minister of Finance extolling the virtues of this bill, the virtues of this 707-page piece of legislation which is the envy of the world, I wondered how big would be the line-up outside the government publisher's office and how big would be the demand for this bill that we are told is the envy of the world. Of course, the truth is that it is a complicated absurdity. The provinces have asked for a delay in the implementation of substantial parts of the bill, if not of the whole bill. How can the provinces be expected to produce immediately duplicates of this horror of complexity?


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition. As I reminded hon. members earlier, it is difficult to conduct the proceedings of the committee if hon. members insist on carrying on private conversations. I sincerely ask hon. members who want to engage in conversation to go into the lobby or behind the curtains so that we can proceed with the committee's work. I would appreciate then co-operation in this respect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I was explaining briefly the difficulties of the provinces in duplicating very quickly on their statute books a copy of this horror of complexity. We must also consider the confusion on the part of the provinces with regard to succession duties. If the government jams the bill through, if it insists on proclaiming the whole bill immediately, what will be the virtual and immediate result?


An hon. Member:: Chaos.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We shall have a bill that not only members of this House but practically everybody in the country cannot understand. We shall have a bill which the provinces have asked to be deferred. They want its implementation deferred. A bill will have been passed which includes a provision for imposing a capital gains tax. I repeat, I am not opposed in principle to a reasonable tax on capital gains, although in this case I am certainly not satisfied with the provisions in the bill relating to
Income Tax Act
capital gains taxation applying to farmers. I think almost everybody in this House agrees that if there is to be a reasonable and equitable tax on capital gains, there must be associated with that a significant adjustment in connection with estate taxes and succession duties.
As far as this bill is concerned, the government is simply abandoning the estate tax field. It is suggested that the abandonment of the estate tax field by the federal government solves the whole problem, but it does not. According to my understanding, there has been absolutely no accord reached with the provinces as to what they will do in the field of succession duties. It is all very well for the Minister of Finance and the government to take the attitude that the whole problem will be solved by simply withdrawing from the estate tax field. However, the fact remains that the citizen is the same citizen whether he is caught by a federal estate tax or a provincial succession duty tax.
We are being asked to pass this bill. In fact, it is being forced through the House. The bill involves taxation of capital gains with no assurance as to what the end result will be. With the knowledge we now have, we are likely to end up in a tax jungle with this House being forced to adopt a tax on capital gains, and provincial succession duties piled upon us in a manner which we have no way of knowing will be equitable or in line with the views of a committee of the House of Commons when it was considering this subject. The sensible course would be to defer the capital gains until arrangements have been worked out with the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In the meantime we should retain the federal estate tax until these arrangements have been made. That is one problem, the relationship with the provinces and the matter of provincial taxation. The second question is, how relevant is this bill to Canada's economic conditions as they exist in the context of the situation that developed over the summer?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If it was relevant last spring-and this is by no means obvious-it is by no means clear that it is relevant now in the context in which this country finds itself as a result of President Nixon's initiative. We have the DISC proposal in Washington, although the Prime Minister did not feel it necessary to raise this matter with the President. This can have far reaching effects upon Canada. In addition, we have recently been reminded by the Economic Council of Canada of the challenge facing the government and this country in connection with additional jobs and further employment. There is not anything at all cheerful in the recent reports on unemployment published by Statistics Canada.
The need for an industrial development strategy and an economic development strategy in this country has been talked about for years. It was even assumed by the authors of the leaked, so-called Gray report that the government would produce a strategy for economic development and the screening process would be related to implementing that economic strategy. We are being asked to

December 8, 1971
Income Tax Act
adopt this tremendous, complicated morass of legislation with no idea of what the strategy for economic development in this country is going to be.
With regard to the loss of revenue involved, I would hazard a guess that if the estate tax was left in operation it would produce more revenue for the government in 1972 than the capital gains tax proposed in the bill. I agree that what I am proposing will involve some uncertainty in the business world and among taxpayers as to what will eventually be worked out and adopted as a long-range tax plan for this country. However, there is uncertainty anyway. The passage of the bill at this time will not remove the uncertainty that exists. There will be uncertainty, in any event, for many months as far as taxpayers are concerned with regard to getting interpretation on this very complex bill and officials of the Department of National Revenue trying to figure out what it means. There will be these uncertainties plus rulings, and the action taken by the provinces in the field of succession duties. There is a possibility of confusion as a result of the action the provinces may take in the field of personal and corporate income taxes. Passing this bill now will not eliminate these uncertainties.
It will be far better to delay the proclamation of the complex and involved parts of the bill for a while, than to stick the Canadian people and the Canadian economy with these 707 pages of legislation and all the amendments associated with it. The amendment I will propose will provide desirable, uncontroversial and clearly understood parts of this bill relating to personal income taxes coming into effect promptly, with the rest of the bill not being proclaimed until there has been further discussion and an affirmative resolution adopted by this House. I suggest that is the most sensible course to follow.
The reason for the government using closure to jam the bill through at this time is not to aid the Canadian taxpayer and to invigorate the Canadian economy; it is simply the result of stubbornness and a desire to save face. If the government really wants to do something for the economy it should accept the proposition I am putting forward, give priority to the tax reductions that are proposed and inform us of its policies so that we can deal with the serious trade situation that could develop into a crisis if we are not active and careful.
Let the government give us its trade policies. Let it give us its measures to offset the effect of the proposed DISC program in the United States. The government should inform us of its policies for restoring confidence and getting industrial development moving forward at a satisfactory rate, rather than giving us the dismal figures as to expectations as a result of surveys made by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. We do not need bad, ill-conceived bills such as this that do not offer anything to the Canadian people except confusion piled on confusion.
Nothing can undo the mistakes which the government has already made. You cannot recall time. But perhaps my appeal may help this government to at least partially regain its senses. If I can do that, the efforts of myself and my colleagues will not be completely in vain. For the sake of Canada, I hope this is so. I ask the government to accept the amendment which I now propose. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River:
I Mr. Stanfield.]
That clause 1 of the bill be amended by deleting lines 1 to 3 on page 1 and substituting therefor the following:
"1. Parts I to IIIA and parts V to VII of the Income Tax Act are repealed and the following substituted therefor so as to apply, subject to the said act as hereby amended and to part III of this act, to the 1972 and subsequent taxation years but the said act as hereby amended, excepting thereout those portions thereof containing an arrangement, revision and consolidation of the provisions of the said act as the said act is amended by the application mutatis mutandis of the provisions of sections 6 and 8, subsection 12 of section 20, and sections 62, 63, 109, 110 and 117 of the said act as hereby amended, shall not come into force and have effect as law until a day to be fixed by a proclamation that shall be subject to affirmative resolution of the House of Commons:"


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. I have very serious reservations as to whether I can accept the amendment which the Leader of the Opposition has proposed. I would be pleased to hear from hon. members who would like to assist the Chair on the procedural aspect. It does seem to me at this stage of the proceedings-I make these preliminary observations without in any way indicating to hon. members that I have any firm opinion-that the proposed amendment might involve something more than the committee of the whole has power to do. This appears to be a major amendment which might very well be opposed to the principle of the bill which was agreed to on second reading. However, I make this observation without being committed to a firm view and I invite the assistance of hon. members.


Gerald William Baldwin: We agree that a major step is involved in the amendment which my leader has proposed. But let me put it to Your Honour in this way: there is no other means, no other place available to us. Most bills contain a provision naming the date at which the bill is to come into force. The Interpretation Act provides that if there is no such date mentioned in the bill, the measure shall become law upon receiving royal assent. In clause 9 of the bill before us we read that the act shall become effective in certain ways and for certain purposes as of January 1, 1972.
Surely, it is only in committee of the whole that it is possible to deal with a specific clause. Your Honour would agree, I am confident, that it would be absolutely impossible for us to move an amendment of this kind on third reading or to have moved it on second reading. It is true we might on third reading move that the bill be referred back to the committee so the committee might consider certain matters and recommend to the House that parts of the bill be not implemented until a certain time. But if we cannot do so now, when should such an amendment be moved?
It might be argued that we should wait until this debate is finisned. But having regard to the drastic restrictions which have been placed on these discussions-I could use other words but they would not be parliamentary-we shall probably never get to a serious consideration of the balance of the legislation. There are probably 200 sections of this bill which we shall never be able to debate before the guillotine falls. This being the case, my hon. friend has to make a move at this point or not at all.
It should not come as any surprise, because notice was given by way of a speech which my hon. friend made
December 8, 1971

some time ago and in which he declared his intention of moving an amendment of this sort. I believe he said at that time that he would move it with respect to clause 9. Obviously, our prospects of getting to clause 9 are somewhat remote, so if the amendment is to be moved, it must be moved now. In these circumstances, the amendment can only be directed to one clause of the bill, and we are now on clause 1. I submit that an amendment can be moved which has the effect of providing that certain parts of the bill shall come into force at one time and other parts at another time.
If there is a ruling from the Chair that the amendment is not acceptable, I say with all respect there is no other place where it can effectively be moved during the time available for the consideration of this bill. We take this matter very seriously. This is not a spontaneous motion but one with regard to which notice has been given in statements made both inside and outside the House. This is our view of what constitutes a reasonable disposition of the difficulties which confront this country and the House, and only in this way can we place it before the committee.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: I would refer Your Honour to the wording of clause 1. These are the operative words bringing about the repeal of the totality of the present Income Tax Act. The 500 or more pages which follow are merely a substitution therefor. If the present act is to be repealed, it must be done at this point. It cannot be done at any other point. The motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition seeks to repeal certain parts of the act and substitute certain other provisions which include the tax cuts he has enumerated. My hon. friend proposes that the rest can only be proclaimed at a date to be fixed by proclamation, which would be subject to further discussion in the House.
The reasons in support of such a course have been outlined and I would suggest that this is the appropriate place at which to move such a motion, unless Your Honour holds that third reading is the only stage at which this can be done and that there must be a referral back to this committee with instructions to do precisely what Your Honour would forbid the committee to do now.
One has to realize that this is the point of departure. This is the time at which such an amendment must be put. If we are to be told that it must be done on third reading, that there must be a motion to refer back to the committee, should such a motion carry we would be back discussing the same kind of motion as we have just heard this afternoon.


Gerald William Baldwin: With the same objection.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, with the same objection. We would be back at third reading, and what sort of merry-go-round would that be? I put it to you, Mr. Chairman, that now is the time to put such an amendment, right on clause 1.


Russell Clayton Honey: If there are no other hon. members who want to assist the Chair on the procedural aspect, since the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Peace River, the hon. member for Edmonton West and others
Income Tax Act
have indicated that they view this amendment very seriously I must say, quite frankly, that I should like a little time to consider it. I would not be fair to the Leader of the Opposition or to other hon. members if I tried to give a decision before satisfying myself about it. If I have the permission of the committee, I should like to take the matter under advisement. I will, of course, make a ruling as quickly as possible.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is Your Honour suggesting that we debate the amendment while it is being taken under advisement, or is Your Honour suggesting that we adjourn for that period? The amendment is a very general one in the sense that it does not inhibit general debate. My own view, which I am sure is shared by the mover and by other members of our party, is that we should continue to debate the amendment as if it were in order and had been properly put. Your Honour could then consider your position on the amendment while debate continued.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Chairman, may I first take exception to the suggestion that we adjourn. After all, within two hours from now the entire discussion in committee of the whole will end. That is short enough time, so let us not shorten it any further.
The other comment I wish to make arises out of the fact that we are under an order to end this stage of the debate at 5:45 p.m. Therefore, it seems to me that to have discussion now on a motion which has not yet been accepted, a discussion that might last the full two hours, is unfair to some of us and to others who have proposals they would like to put before the committee. It is very clear that we cannot have all the discussion that we might want before the order becomes operative at 5:45 p.m.; but surely, just as the Leader of the Opposition has had an opportunity to put his amendment, I submit other hon. members should have a similar opportunity to put other amendments.
I think Your Honour should consider that you have called clause 1 and let such members as get the floor make any amendment they may wish to make. Then at some time before a quarter to six Your Honour can rule on the amendment now before the committee, and then at a quarter to six we can vote on all the amendments that are in order. I support the idea of Your Honour having time to consider this amendment, but I think that the rest of us should also have an opportunity to put amendments before the guillotine falls.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that there may be some very fine and meaningful amendments coming from hon. friends to my left, and we are always interested in such amendments. But we think that the amendment that has been moved is a major one, and while I do not want to inhibit my hon. friends I think we should have an opportunity to debate it. It may well be that we are persuasive enough to have the government first bring the Minister of Finance into the committee and then, having brought him in where he can listen to our arguments, be able to convince him that what we have suggested is reasonable. Both of these would be major accomplishments and I do not know whether either of them will take place; but I would not like to see the motion left so there is no opportunity to debate it.
In my view we should debate the amendment now. I do not think that the matter will take very long. It is a simple
10274

December 8, 1971
Income Tax Act
amendment and a decision can be made on it if Your Honour holds that it is in order. I think our debate on the amendment should commence now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend from Peace River was quite correct in assuming that in part I was speaking for myself and my colleagues in suggesting that we have other amendments to move. But I also know that my hon. friends in the Social Credit party have been waiting for days on end for a chance to move an amendment to section 8, which is one of the sections within clause 1. I do not think it would be fair if the remaining 105 minutes were used to debate one subject only when there are other subjects that hon. members would like to put before the committee in time for them to be put to a vote.
The Leader of the Opposition has achieved his main purpose: he has presented this amendment. The next hurdle is to get Your Honour to accept it. Then the final hurdle, of course, is to get it voted on at a quarter to six. However, surely other members should have the same opportunity to move amendments.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Chairman, I fear that we are treading on very dangerous ground. There is no question about the importance of the motion moved by the spokesman for the Progressive Conservative party, but if the Chair does not take a decision very soon and if we were to consider the motion moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) to the effect that his motion be discussed even it has been ruled out of order, this would mean that the House assumes that we believe the amendment is valid. Mr. Chairman, if this motion were to be considered acceptable after one or two hours of discussion, this would mean that all other members would have lost this time during which they could have moved other amendments.
And, as the previous speaker said, we do hope, by 5:45, to be able to submit an amendment allowing workers to deduct the cost of their equipment and other expenses for income tax purposes. We consider such an amendment to be extremely important and I feel that our arguments in this regard would hold water just as well as those of the Progressive Conservatives in favour of their amendment.
That, Mr. Chairman, is why we hope you will render a ruling as early as possible, to avoid our getting onto a slippery slope which would make us waste time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to amendments being put, but since this party, as it usually does, has taken the proper initiative in moving the amendment I feel we should not be deprived of an opportunity of debating it. It might be that other hon. members will have an opportunity to put their amendments, and we are not trying to inhibit them. But we do feel that there should be an opportunity for us, having moved the amendment, to debate it. I do not know what sort of time Your Honour has in mind before arriving at a decision, but I should like to think that in no later than three-quarters of an hour we should have an opportunity to continue the debate.
In the meantime, other hon. members might speak to any amendments they have, allowing a 20-minute limit in

each case. Then possibly we can come back and debate the amendment that has been put. I understand that the other opposition parties would like to have on the record amendments that will not be chopped off at a quarter to six, and I have no objection to that at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I think we have reached a happy resolution of what might have been an impasse. If Your Honour assumes that you have called clause 1 of the bill, then your next course is to see speakers in whatever order you choose to call them. If, when members of the Official Opposition are called, they wish to speak to their amendments, they should be allowed to do so. If I wish to speak to some other part of clause 1 and to move an amendment, and if my hon. friend for Lotbiniere or one of his colleagues wishes to do the same, then I think that should be allowed. It seems to me that the suggestion that has come out of the discussion does resolve the situation.


Gerald William Baldwin: And without any help from the
government.


Russell Clayton Honey: I think hon. members have resolved the situation and, without binding my colleague who may take the chair later, I do not see any difficulty. I think we should proceed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am now asking for the floor to take part in the debate, not to continue the discussion on the procedural point.
As hon. members are aware, we are getting to the end of committee of the whole discussion on Bill C-259. I think it is unfortunate that there will be so many sections within clause 1 and so many other clauses of the bill which will not be discussed at all before we are called upon to vote on them.
In addition to all the remaining sections within clause 1 and all the other clauses-about 72 of them, covering 100 pages-there are many amendments which have been moved by the Minister of National Revenue and other ministers, so that we really have a tremendous package to deal with at 5.45. It will be interesting to watch the voting on those questions because there will not even be an opportunity for a question to be asked concerning what the various amendments might mean. This is very unfortunate. This, of course, is one of the reasons we opposed the imposition of closure at this stage. However, I must not use all the time there is in complaining too much about that matter when there are a few things I would particularly like to say.
Clause 1 of the bill which we are now discussing includes, in lines 4, 5, 6, and 7, a pretty general statement. It provides:
An income tax shall be paid as hereinafter required upon the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time in the year.
So with those words as an introduction to this 596-page clause it would look as though one could talk about anything that is "hereinafter required." One of the requirements stipulated is the rate of taxation. That is found in some of the other sections in clause 1. We have had discussion about those rates and a vote or two on them. I regret
December 8, 1971

there does not seem to be an opportunity to have a discussion on a related matter, namely, clause 3 of the bill. Clause 3 will not be reached because it is beyond page 596. It has to do with the proposal to abolish the collection of special taxes for old age security either from individuals or from corporations.
I wish we had had a chance to get to that clause so that we could discuss this matter. I mention it now because it seems to me it is related to the general rates of tax that will be imposed upon individuals and corporations. In other words, when that clause comes into effect there will no longer be a special tax, either on individuals or corporations, for old age security. Rather, the money for old age security will be obtained from general taxation. That in itself is a good move, which we welcome. We have long contended that a flat tax with a ceiling on it was regressive in nature, and we believe it is far better that the money to be put into the old age security fund should come out of the general sources of taxation. We believe this to be a more progressive basis than the other tax.
However, there is one point which concerns me. This is the reason I wish we had reached the clause, so that we could have had a statement from the government on it. I hope there will not be a tendency on the part of the government to say that the people of Canada will no longer be paying taxes for their old age security, because the language of clause 3 is clear, that there will not be a direct, earmarked tax but that the' Minister of National Revenue will be asked to estimate each year how much would have been collected if that tax were in effect and recommend that that amount be taken out of general taxation and put into the old age security fund.
I should like to make the assertion that even though the imposition of taxes on individuals and corporations for old age security will not continue, the people of Canada both as individuals and corporations will still be paying taxes that go into the old age security fund and, among other things, that establishes their right to benefits under the Old Age Security Act. I note that although the government is prepared to cancel the direct income tax on individuals and corporations for old age security, it has kept in existence the most regressive tax of all, namely, the 3 per cent sales tax for old age security purposes.
Now, sir, this is ground for discussion. If the minister or someone should get the floor this afternoon and want to comment, I would be glad to listen to any such comment. As I say, I welcome the change but I do not want anyone to come around in a year or two and say that the people of Canada are no longer paying taxes for their old age pensions. They will be paying them all right, but in a different way and, indeed, perhaps in a more progressive way.
Among the many things we would like to have done something about is the question of the capital gains tax. The Leader of the Opposition this afternoon indicated that although he favoured the principle of a capital gains tax, he does not like the form in which it is set out in this bill. May I say that our party's position, which has been made clear a number of times, is that the capital gains tax principle does not go far enough.
We agree with the Leader of the Opposition that special consideration should be given to the application of the capital gains tax to farmers, and my colleague, the hon.
Income Tax Act
member for Regina East, has presented an amendment that would deal with that aspect of the matter if it were passed by the committee at 5.45. But apart from that, it is our view that it is grossly unfair and it is a form of discrimination and inequality to say to the industrial worker who struggles in a factory, or to the professional worker who works at his calling, that all the money he earns is taxable income, but to say to persons who enjoy capital gains that only half of it is income for taxation purposes. We think that anomaly should be corrected.
We are all for the kind of protection farmers have sought and the other improvements which perhaps should be made, but so far as the basic principle is concerned we feel the entire amount of a capital gain, wherever a capital gain is taxable, should be considered as the taxpayer's capital gain. In a moment I should like to present an amendment to that effect. But just as the Minister of National Revenue has presented not one amendment at a time but 50 and 95, and other ministers have done the same, I have two amendments and perhaps I might present both now-I was going to say, in order to avoid the necessity of my getting up again but perhaps I should do it now in case I do not get both amendments in before a quarter to six.
My second amendment has to do with the special exemptions given to periodicals like Time magazine and Reader's Digest. There is a section in this bill which grants them concessions, and we think it ought to be deleted. There is no time for the kind of argument that we would like to develop, and it would not be fair to my friends to the left and to the rest to take more time. Therefore, may I present these two amendments so that, like the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition, they may be put to the committee and voted upon at 5.45 p.m. My first amendment reads:
That Bill C-259 be amended at page 97 by deleting the phrase of" from line 4 and also by deleting the phrase " 1 of" from line 9.
That would be an amendment to section 38 of clause 1. Section 38 is the one which says that the tax on a capital gain is one half of the capital gain. We would like to delete the phrase "I of" so that when a person has a taxable gain as defined elsewhere in the act, the whole amount is taxable income just as is the whole amount in the case of an industrial or professional worker. The other amendment that I wish to present is:
That section 19 as set forth in clause 1 of the said bill be amended by striking out subsection (2) on pages 58 and 59.
That is the part of the bill that would provide certain exemptions for magazines such as Time and Reader's Digest. This is an amendment to section 19 of clause 1. I place these two amendments before you, Mr. Chairman, hoping that these two issues as well as others that are outstanding can be voted upon when we reach that point at 5.45 p.m.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the Chair might take these two amendments under advisement in order to consider them. I maintain that both amendments are out of order in that both tend to increase taxes.
24725-22'

December 8, 1971
Income Tax Act


The Deputy Chairman:: While it was the intention of the Chair to suggest to the committee that the two amendments be taken into consideration, I was trying at the same time to locate them. I found one, but as to the other I have only an indication of the pages involved. I think the best procedure would be to take a moment to examine the implications of the amendments that have been put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I am sure hon. members will wish to co-operate with the Chair in this regard.


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the proposals made a few weeks ago on section 8 by the hon. members who spoke before me. The publicity surrounding this bill and alleging that we were faced with a tax reform entails a thorough consideration of this section and its effects.
It is obvious that this legislation provides for tax deductions, but it is not certain that these changes are really valid. I, for one, think that the advantages of the legislation are very limited as compared with its disadvantages.
For example, when we see that the legislation in force as well as the bill under consideration recognize the right of contractors, salesmen, lawyers and doctors, to deduct the cost of their machinery, equipment or other expenses incurred in the exercise of their activities, whilst the government proposes to limit the amount deductible by workers to $150 per year or 3 per cent of their income whichever is the lesser, we maintain that there is an anomaly somewhere.
The only obvious conclusion which we can draw is that lumberjacks, mechanics and construction workers, for example, have been discriminated against and, in short, there is a flagrant injustice towards the majority of Canadian workers.
I acknowledge that the amount of $150 would cover part of the expenses incurred by some workers, but these are very few. In fact, it is not an amount which is granted to the workers, since its deduction is allowed. Actually, it represents some $20 to $25 per year.
Mr. Chairman, if this is not a mockery of the worker and his efforts, I wonder how we can describe this attitude. The minister has probably not thought of it, which is normal when one considers how busy he is. It is also possible that the officials who drafted the bill are spoiled kids who have entered the public service because of the protection they enjoyed, guys who think that they know it all and do not realize that other citizens contribute to the progress of this country and to the increase in Canadian production.
I think it is quite possible that those officials who have never seen anything but the streets of Ottawa and the beaches of Florida might have forgotten the working classes. This is why I say that an allowance of $150 per year is not much for the employee of the forest industry who has to drive 40 to 50 miles a day to and from his work. The $150 allowance does not even cover half the cost of registration of the car or small truck he could not do without.
Mr. Chairman, there are also those who have to drive 50 to 100 miles on the weekend and who must pay transpor-

tation expenses as well as for the purchase and maintenance of chain saws. Again, it is obvious in this case that the $20 tax deduction is far from the actual amount they will have to pay.
Also the construction workers who on top of their travelling expenses must buy equipment that can cost up to $1,000 in certain cases and that needs to be replaced and repaired.
Everybody knows that the workers have to travel more than they ever did. The jobs are less and less permanent. Sometimes a great number of workers have to travel in order to follow their bosses. Contractors from Trois-Rivieres get contracts in Quebec City and bring workers there who must travel every weekend. Contractors from all areas get contracts outside of their territory and if the workers want to keep their jobs they myst follow their boss and often pay the costs.
Mr. Chairman, for a Parliament member earning $26,000 per year, public accounts for the year 1970 show expense accounts of $4,000, $5,000 and even $6,000. A member who lives near Parliament has a smaller account, another who lives farther a bigger one. Everybody agrees with that. I repeat: It is strange indeed that in the case of a worker earning only $6,000 or $7,000 per year, Bill C-259 should provide for a deduction of $150 only, while in the case of a member earning $26,000, the deduction for expenses may amount to $6,000.
Mr. Chairman, this government has been in power for three and a half years and the people have been waiting for three and a half years for the establishment of a just society. I think that certain proposals will have to be taken into consideration if we want to come up with more than $20 a year for the workers' expenses.
As regards mechanics, the implementation of section 8 of Bill C-259 is also discriminatory if we compare it with the method applied for dentists, doctors and all other professionals.
It is ridiculous to offer a $150 deduction per year to mechanics.
We all have friends who are mechanics. Everybody knows that the mechanic who has to buy a complete set of tools must pay $1,400 or $1,500 for it. We also know that some tools must be replaced and in spite of depreciation the value of those tools is always between $1,200 and $1,500.
I am entirely in favour of permitting doctors, lawyers and other professionals to deduct the cost of replacement of their equipment as well as other expenses incurred in the discharge of their duties. However, I am convinced that the same treatment should be granted workers in the fields of forestry, construction and automobile.
The government allows substantial deductions to groups of persons who complete their tax returns according to their conscience. When it comes to taxation, however, some people slip their conscience into their pocket, under their handkerchief.
Mr. Chairman, whenever I consult my lawyer and obtain some advice allowing me to do good business, I am satisfied. I am ready to give him $15 or $20.1 pay cash and
December 8, 1971

do not ask for a receipt. And when my wife and other members of my family go to the dentist, the same thing happens.
If my son or my daughter has a toothache, I spend $10 to help him or her sleep soundly and the whole family is happy. The deal is good, the $10 bill is handed over and no receipt is asked for.
Indeed the government does not know how much these people earn each year; nonetheless, it acknowledges all their expenses. Today, by proposing an across-the-board amount of $150 as employment expenses for the worker, the government recognizes that there is discrimination between wage-earners and professionals. Finally the government has recognized the existence of a problem and has tried to do something about it. Unfortunately, it has followed its usual bureaucratic method and has adopted a standard exemption, casting everybody in the same mould. The same exemption will be allowed to the employee who needs only a bail-point pen while certain workers in the building industry must buy $500 to $1,000 worth of tools.
I think it is an appropriate opportunity for the government to decide to eliminate this inequity already tolerated for too long. This inequity is recognized but still no concern is shown for the work-man who invariably comes last.
I wonder for how many years we will have to protest in the House and outside so that justice prevail and laws be identical for all taxpayers. When shall we stop passing special laws? In the case of the auto workers, when the owner of a repair shop buys the very same tools he is allowed to deduct the depreciation from his income along with the cost of replacing and repairing them while the workman is imposed a $150 limit or 3 per cent of his income, whichever is the lesser.
Mr. Chairman, the remarks I am making today are based on experience since I worked as a lumberjack and a carpenter before my two years as manager of a company in the building trade. I have witnessed hundreds of those inequities, always at the workman's disadvantage.
It will be argued that by allowing the workers to deduct expenses incurred in their trade, the application of the legislation would be difficult and costly, but I consider this a very weak argument. We could ask ourselves why its application would be more difficult for workers than for professionals. I believe its implementation is easier for workers than for professionals.
In the case of wage earners, the department knows exactly how much they make, while it does not even know the income of professionals or others. Very often, expenses that are in no way related to the nature of the business are claimed by the taxpayer as deductions.
Mr. Chairman, it would be interesting to find out how many wives of professionals, industrialists, merchants have the advantage of using a car whose depreciation costs are claimed by the business or businesses the husband owns. How many expenses are deducted for business trips which are in fact only pleasure trips! I could go on giving similar instances for a long time.
Mr. Speaker, we should return to facts and stop being so stingy with workers. We have been hearing about a thor-
Income Tax Act
ough fiscal reform, but now is the time, I feel, to make a thorough job of it so that the law may be the same for all.
Therefore, I move, supported by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That section 8(1) of clause 1 be amended by substituting, in line 25, the word "all" for the words "such of", by deleting the word "following" in line 26 and by adding after the word "source", in line 27, the words "with supporting papers".
Mr. Chairman, the adoption of this amendment will allow the Canadian taxpayer to do with his expense account what he does now with receipts for charitable donations. This amendment would make it possible for the taxpayer which has very few expenses to avail himself of the deduction of $150 or of 3 per cent and those who will claim the deduction for greater expenses will be treated according to their tax returns and supporting evidence.


Gérald Laniel: Order. The Chair wishes to ask leave to consider the amendment moved by the hon. member, especially in order to understand correctly the meaning of the amendment and to be able to take a better decision concerning its receivability. Therefore I intend to take as soon as possible a decision concerning the three amendments the House is discussing now which are the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the amendment that has just been moved by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin).


Mr. Mahoney:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on just a couple of points. In last night's Hansard, at pages 10246 and 10247 there is reference to clause 57. I believe that should be clause 57.1 dealing with co-operative corporations, rather than clause 57 which deals with personal corporations. I would request a correction to that effect.
While I am on my feet in this regard, there was an amendment by the hon. member for Moose Jaw on section 8(l)(e) dealing with railwaymen and their expenses. The government subsequently introduced an amendment to carry out the effect of his amendment. I understand that the hon. member is in agreement with it and that his amendment is to be withdrawn, if there is unanimous consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That statement is correct. Therefore, on behalf of the hon. member for Moose Jaw I ask that his amendment be withdrawn in favour of the one introduced by the government.


Gérald Laniel: Does the committee give unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for Moose Jaw to withdraw his amendment to section 8?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Skoberg) withdrawn.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. It gives force to the reasons that I expressed earlier this week and several times last week as to why passage of the bill should be deferred. We have gone over this time and time again. I want to add a further reason which has to do particularly with hon. members who come from the province of Quebec. This refers to the result of the elimination of the estate tax.

December 8, 1971
Income Tax Act
I am told by representatives of the Society of Notaries that practically every will which includes the term "subject to the federal law" will have to be changed and that they do not know in what sense precisely. In the same way, if a will contains the term "subject to the provincial law" changes will have to be made and, again, they do not know in what way. Until there is agreement between the federal government and each province as to the impact of its succession duty, it is merely compounding confusion to insist upon passing this bill and its provisions dealing with repeal of the estate tax. The federal government has no right to tell the provinces to conform, but that is precisely what the provision we will vote on today is telling them- "Come to heel or else you will be responsible for any mess".
The provinces have equal jurisdiction with the federal government, but the federal government is insisting that the law come into effect on January 1. I say it has no more right to do this than has the province of Ontario to insist that the government of Canada amend the law to conform with theirs. They have the right to levy personal and corporate taxes. The provinces have rights with regard to the levying of succession duties, but by agreement only which expires in 1972. The federal government has offered to collect this income tax based on a uniform tax law in the provinces, and eight provinces have agreed. Ontario has farmed out the collection of personal income tax to the federal government but collects its own corporate tax.
The province of Quebec collects its own personal income tax and corporate income tax. Ontario collects its own succession duties, as does the province of Quebec. British Columbia has moved into the field of succession duties, 75 per cent, and all the other provinces which have a succession duty can get 75 per cent of the proceeds of estate tax under redistribution by agreement and they do not levy their succession duties. That is the way to get accord.
Mr. Chairman, today this government is asking members to tell the provinces, "We don't care a hoot about you. Come to heel and conform to this act". Most of the corporations of Canada are located in Ontario and Quebec, but neither province is in a position to amend its Corporation Tax Act nor to conform with this act. Of course, they may not want to amend and they have a perfect right not to. In this time of economic difficulty all we get are cracklings from the Prime Minister and other ministers to the effect that they are doing all they can to help the economy recover. But it is a backdoor approach. If any hon. member feels that he has greater wisdom than members on this side, let him undertake to operate a corporation in Ontario or Quebec as successfully as it should be operated.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will take that on.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With two tax systems that operate on different principles? I invite the Minister of Transport to operate them as successfully as it should be done, under two separate systems of taxation and even fundamental differences in principle. If the minister thinks that the office of Minister of Transport is some-

times difficult, I suggest that he would go straight up the wall and through the roof as a result of trying to operate such a business. Yet this is what the government is compelling businessmen in Ontario and Quebec to do. I wonder at the gall, the unmitigated arrogance displayed in that attitude. It is not just a question of trying to override the opposition because they have greater muscle. Just who do they think they are trying to overcome?
Mr. Chairman, those idle cracklings that come out of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-


Mr. Osier:: We have heard this speech ten times.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Sometimes in order to get through a thick skull one has to repeat, and I am telling the Minister of Agriculture, who in fact has one of the thickest skulls in this House-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not even close to it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He showed that on Bill C-176.


An hon. Member:: Smile, Marcel.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Sock it to them, Marcel.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The government's insistence on this particular point is not acceptable to the Canadian public. Whom do they think they are trying to overcome? Whom do they think they are trying to smother but the Canadian taxpayers? They are the people who are affected.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Why do not the parliamentary secretary and others over there read the editorials in their friendly newspaper, the Winnipeg Free Press'! Let the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre read the editorial of December 2 and then go and hide in shame. And the Vancouver Sun, another newspaper that is friendly to the government-


Donald Campbell Jamieson: With friends like that, who needs enemies?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Minister of Transport asks, "With that kind of friend, who needs enemies?" The Vancouver Sun? We will remember that remark in due course, and I hope the Sun will too. The Winnipeg Free Press, the Vancouver Province, the Globe and Mail-


An hon. Member:: How about the Montreal Star?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: That is a real Liberal rag, the Globe and Mail!


An hon. Member:: The Toronto Star?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I'll tell you about the Toronto Star. The Toronto Star kneels in adoration at its own altar. It bows before its own image.


John Napier Turner: What about the Montreal Star?
December 8, 1971


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister mentions the Montreal Star. Does he think it is friendly to the government on this bill?


Steve Eugene Paproski: What about the Montreal Gazette?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Take whatever little comfort you may from any of these newspapers.


Gerald William Baldwin: How many votes have they got?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: How many editors across this country are in favour of the guillotine cutting off debate on this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have made my point. We have repeated this argument. The facts are there, and the people will remember. The other day I brought forward an amendment to section 3 with regard to the capital gains tax affecting farmlands. At that time, for purposes of greater clarity and certainty, I ought to have brought forward a companion amendment to section 39. Therefore, to make sure that there is consistency in the stand that we have taken on section 3 with regard to farmlands disposed of for continuing farming purposes, I wish to move an amendment to section 39 as follows:
That section 39 of clause 1 be amended by:
(1)	deleting in paragraph (a) the word "and" in line 33 at page 97
and substituting therefor the word "or" and
(2)	adding immediately thereafter the following:
(iv) land used in farming as defined in this act and to be used for continuing farming and
(3)	deleting in paragraph (b) in line 13 at page 98 the words "or
(iii)" and substituting therefor "(iii) or (iv)".
It is difficult to draft these amendments because the original provision is extremely complex. However, I think the purport of the amendment is clear.
My third point is this. The other night we embarked on an extensive discussion on section 239(2) which deals with the indictment procedure. That procedure may be invoked at the election of the Attorney General of Canada. Since the government's position needs clarifying, I have moved an amendment. That amendment, in this case to section 235, says that there shall not be a penalty under any regulation that is made retroactively under section 221(2). In case the Minister of Justice wishes clarification, let me say that section 221(2) provides that a regulation shall not be effective until it shall have been published in the Canada Gazette, but if it is so stated in the regulations it can have a retroactive effect prior to the date of publication. I do not want there to be a penalty with regard to the period between the so-called effective date and the date of publication. There are many things wrong with the principle of having offences created under a regulation that has not been published because it will not be known that such an offence exists. My amendment to section 235 seeks to correct this. I agree that a regulation can have retroactive effect, but I do not agree that there shall be any penalty thereunder.
I should like to know the government's position on section 239(2), bearing in mind the amendment I have moved. I know that certain members of the government expressed reservations, as I did, about the justice of
Income Tax Act
allowing a minister of the Crown, even on the basis of incontrovertible facts put before him by the Minister of National Revenue, to say that a man shall go to jail. Under section 243 the court has no right to suspend sentence. I do not believe that any minister of the Crown has that right. I do not believe that he has the right to decide that a man shall go to jail. It is for the court to decide whether a man shall go to jail and, surely, not for a minister, a deputy minister or a director of prosecutions.
In no circumstances must we have that law in Canada. There can be adequate provision as to the sentence to be imposed by the court, and that shall be subject to appeal. Surely to goodness there should not in these cases be proceedings by way of indictment, especially since the finding of the court may indicate a considerably lesser offence than that charged in the information. For instance, a man may be charged with defrauding the Crown of a quarter of a million dollars and it may turn out that the amount is only $2,000. Yet because of the indictment procedure the man must go to jail. There is no relief; there can be no suspended sentence under section 243. This procedure may be invoked at the election of the Minister of Justice.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I never heard of such nonsense in any bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, while awaiting for His Honour to make a decision on the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition-and I am sure that sweet reason will compel him to decide in favour of the validity of the amendment-I wish to make a few comments on that amendment. On dirty Wednesday of last week the government, through its infamous closure measure, brought about a situation under which in a few minutes we shall be compelled to cease and desist from further discussion and debate on this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: I thought I heard hon. members on the other side say that they are in favour of closure. They do not need to say that; we know it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame on you all.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, closure of debate on this bill-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth rises on a question of privilege.


Mr. Gibson:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. With the greatest respect, I submit it is not right to call this closure when it is time allocation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gérald Laniel: Order.

December 8, 1971
Income Tax Act


Gerald William Baldwin: When I look at this bill I am reminded of the phrase "For whom the bill tolls". It tolls for members opposite, members on this side and all the taxpayers of Canada.


Edgar John Benson: With the reductions!


Gerald William Baldwin: We have been attempting to secure an equitable arrangement so that those parts of the bill which are necessary to provide stimulation of the economy will become law without further delay. The complex and difficult measures which the Minister of Finance and his officials do not understand should await careful deliberation before becoming law. We have the imposition of closure in an even more insidious way. If the member for Hamilton-Wentworth wishes, we can get into a debate on that point. If this were really closure a motion would have to be moved in respect of every section. This is a much more infamous way of dealing with it. We have been deprived of debating these measures. This is why rule 75C was invoked rather than the more moderate closure measure rule which any normal government would have invoked. Because of this closure there is no opportunity for reasonable debate and discussion on many of the sections.
Do hon. members know that we have passed between 115 and 120 sections? There are still over 200 sections and subsections to be passed. There has been casual discussion on them but not the kind of debate which is essential on such an important matter. This infamous conduct on the part of the government makes it all the more necessary to suspend the operation of those parts of the bill to which my leader referred in the speech he made earlier today. Members opposite say that we have had discussion. We want more than discussion, Mr. Chairman; we want discussion leading to change. There are some parts of the bill which do not need change. We admit that. We are reasonable people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edgar John Benson: Why did your members not attend the committee?


Gerald William Baldwin: There are many sections which need change. The proof of that is in the fact that day after day amendments were brought forward by the government. I challenge the genial Minister of Finance to stand in his place now and deny that during the next session the government will be introducing substantial amendments to the Income Tax Act. I am prepared to yield to the minister if he will accept my challenge. His refusal to accept it is proof that what I have said is correct.
I call as a witness one of the minister's colleagues, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He has a bill before the House in respect of the competition act. He is now engaged in chewing it up piece by piece, trying to explain away the fact that the bill will not be proceeded with in this session. He has made so many speeches that it is hard to keep up with him, but in a speech to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in Montreal on November 30 he said:
We have developed new techniques for the introduction of the legislation, by inviting the co-operation of the people with the
[The Assistant Deputy Chairman.)
practical knowledge and experience to make their own studies of the proposals and to put forward their view-
Surely, this is the responsible and appropriate way to approach legislation so fundamental to our economic life as the competition act.
For that I substitute "the amendments to the Income Tax Act."
And an approach consistent with producing sound legislation. To the extent that we can draw on the views of businessmen from the different sectors of the economy-
I think he said something different when the labour people were before him. I think he substituted "labour people" for "businessmen."
-that we are able to understand, and thus take account of, the particular needs of the many diverse and often conflicting elements that make up the Canadian economy-
I know that members opposite say that we have had a lot of discussion. Of course we have, as we must have discussion on matters so intrinsically important as this. We are not now dealing with the original discussion, the white paper or the original royal commission report; we are dealing with a bill which only came into our possession at the beginning of September.


Edgar John Benson: July 12. You were not here all summer.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was here throughout most of July. It is necessary to have a watchdog here to keep check on this government. I was here but I did not see this bill until after this session began.


Edgar John Benson: You need a new secretary.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have every reason to suspect it was probably leaked to me then.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, when I am finished. I have a lot to say and little time in which to say it. That is what the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had to say. It is not the way this bill has been rammed through this House. I suggest to hon. members and to the people of Canada that there is coming shortly a day of retribution. The Minister of Finance, his parliamentary secretary, all the members of the government and their supporters will have to answer to the taxpayers at the polls at the next election. That is the day they fear; that is the day they dread. I suggest that they now give thought to this last opportunity presented by the Leader of the Opposition and support his motion.
Only yesterday the government proposed very substantial amendments with regard to co-operatives and credit unions. The night before, as a result of proposals of this party, the government took into account some very cogent and reasonable arguments we made with regard to the administrative clauses. During the reasonably short debate on this bill, 135 or 140 amendments have been introduced by the government. Surely it is common sense to suspend the operation of these more difficult sections until there has been further opportunity for consideration. How is it possible for the tax experts, lawyers, accountants and their advisers, as well as the advisers of officials and corporations, to competently and intelligently advise their clients, the taxpayers of this country,
December 8, 1971

where they stand? I doubt if many of the ministers' advisers can do so. If so, they have not discharged their function. Certainly the minister and his parliamentary secretary do not understand them as well as they should.
In light of the amendments which have been introduced, and the fact the minister has not denied that he will be introducing a host of amendments in the next session, we have one of two ways in which to look at this matter. Either the government introduced the bill knowing it would be changed, which is both hypocritical and fraudulent-and this government excels in both of those characteristics-or they introduced the bill without being aware of its meaning and effect, which is plain stupid and indicates both administrative and parliamentary incompetence. I do not know on which pan of the scale to lay it. I think that in large measure it consists of both fraudulence and hypocrisy, and stupidity and incompetence.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Watch your language.


Gerald William Baldwin: When the government introduces amendments on the scale it has done, how can its members have the unmitigated gall to say to the country, "Please pass this bill. We want it through. We want every part of it and we are not prepared to accede to the reasonable request of the Leader of the Opposition." It shatters my faith in the government, what little faith I have left. Talking of shattering, I address this question to the minister: What shattering tragedy would come about if he were to accept the amendment offered by my leader? If it lies within the scope of the mind of man to devise a monstrosity like this bill, the same mind should be able to change it, to adapt it to cover the requirements of the amendment moved by my hon. friend.
There is another aspect. We are aware of the experience in the United Kingdom. Some years ago they introduced there, not a massive bill of the kind before us, one which is well called the "First Book of Ben," but a relatively short bill providing for a capital gains tax. I was in Britain not long ago. I talked with some of the officials there and they told me the measure had given rise to one of the most vexing administrative problems their competent and experienced staff had ever been called upon to face, namely, the integration of the new capital gains tax into the existing tax structure.
However, the government of Canada is not satisfied with this. They are providing for other changes as well. All the preponderance of convenience rests with us with regard to changes we have proposed. I know the answer may well be that any more delay will result in further uncertainty. But how much more uncertainty could there be than the uncertainty which presently perplexes the business community? It will be many months, possibly many years before tax appeal decisions have been handed down on a great many of the point which are now in doubt. I shall be greatly surprised if within a year or two not less than 150 amendments are brought in to change the unworkable and iniquitous provisions of the bill before us.
I conclude by saying this. Taxes, like death, are very final. What we are seeing now is a form of fiscal euthanasia. It is a tax rip-off. It will place small business
Income Tax Act
people, farmers and everybody else in a terrible predicament. I urge the minister to repent at the last minute, to stand up now and say; "I recognize the validity of the arguments which have been made. I respect the views of the Leader of the Opposition and I am prepared to accept his amendment." If he will do this, he will rise very sharply in my esteem. I shall now give the hon. gentleman an opportunity to do so.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Would the hon. member permit a question? He said he did not get a copy of this bill until September. Did he ever write to the Minister of Finance and ask him to deliver one as soon as it was available?


Gerald William Baldwin: No. I understand there is a distribution office here and when bills are left at the distribution office they are to go to members. The only reason I did not get the bill was that it did not go to the distribution office.


An hon. Member:: You were not here.


Russell Clayton Honey: If I might have the indulgence of the committee I should like to take a moment or two, in connection with the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, to deal with the point of procedure which the Chair raised and which was ably argued by hon. members who assisted the Chair.
The Chair is of the opinion that in the circumstances in which we are operating today, that is to say, when an order of the House imposes a time limit upon debate, it would be exceedingly difficult for the Leader of the Opposition to redraft his amendment should it be found that it was necessary to do so in order to meet procedural difficulties which might arise.
I shall not take the time of the committee to deal in detail with a matter which touches on an important constitutional question, but the final words of the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition cause me some extra concern. I mention this so there may be no misunderstanding. I refer to the words "shall not come into force and have effect as law until a day to be fixed by a proclamation that shall be subjected to an affirmative resolution of the House of Commons." This seems to propose a new concept in the legislative process. It is very doubtful, to my way of thinking, whether any precedent could be found to support the proposition that an amendment to a financial bill can override the principle that an act passed by two Houses of Parliament cannot be nullified by a resolution of either House. That is fundamental.
Having made this observation, however, I do not consider it to be a question to be summarily dealt with by the Chairman of the committee of the whole at this time because of its important constitutional implications. I do not wish to deal with this aspect for the time being, because of the lack of time this afternoon and the attendant circumstances. In my opinion, the committee should be allowed to resolve the question and I shall accordingly put the amendment. Is it the wish of the committee that I read the amendment again?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Whicher:: I have listened for the last few minutes to my good friend, the hon. member for Peace River. He

December 8, 1971
Income Tax Act
used a few words like "fraudulent" and "hypocritical" and actually applied them to me. Not only was the government guilty of fraud and hypocrisy, he said, but its supporters were fraudulent and hypocritical. That includes me.


Gerald William Baldwin: Oh, no.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: May I respectfully point out that people in glass houses should never throw stones?


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, I would not for the world be guilty of using the words "fraudulent" and "hypocritical" in relation to members of this House. I said the government was hypocritical and fraudulent or else stupid and guilty of both administrative and parliamentary incompetence. Anyone who wants to extricate an adjective out of the last phrase can do so, but not the first.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I think the hon. member probably said a few things which were not in his notes. However, I am glad to accept his apology. When the Carter commission was picked in 1962, the right hon. member for Prince Albert was meticulous in his choice. The commission was picked by a Tory government. Ever since the Carter commission brought in its report our friends have been running away from it as if it had a very bad case of diptheria. As far as any tax legislation and changes are concerned, since the Carter report there has been at least nine years' gestation, and even an elephant requires only two years. We could have developed a whole herd of elephants in Africa in the time it has taken to bring in tax changes in this country.
There are many good things in this bill. If the government is to be criticized at all, I think the criticism should be levelled at the fact that it is only now that we have taken a firm stand. In June, 1968, the government was picked by the people of Canada to govern. The reason hon. members on the government side are sitting where they are is that the people of Canada had confidence in them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The reason opposition members are sitting where they are, and where they will remain for many years, is that the people have no confidence in them. Some people hum and haw about things for years, but it is high time hon. friends to my left understood that they lost the last election and that the government has a duty to govern. As a backbencher of the Liberal party I am glad the government has finally taken this initiative.
As I say, there are many good things in this bill. I think, for example, of the increased exemptions for all people in Canada. Approximately one million Canadians, once this bill is passed, will no longer pay tax as they have in the past. This is a bill of which we should all be proud. In addition, there are one million old age pensioners in Canada who, through the goodness of this government, are receiving benefits supplementary to the basic old age pension and who will no longer pay tax as a result of the provisions of this bill. I say that the Minister of Finance should stand up and take a bow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: For years the mothers of Canada have complained not only to Conservative members but to all Members of Parliament that if they go out to work they have to employ a baby sitter to look after their family. There was no way they could get an exemption for the money thus expended. But now such a proposal is being implemented and I say that the mothers of Canada are proud of the government.
Furthermore, although our Tory friends have talked about implementing the capital gains tax, they are afraid to face the fact that it is only common sense that the man who makes half a million dollars on the stock market should be prepared to pay his just dues to society in the same way as if he is in receipt of a salary. Ninety-eight per cent of the people of Canada are in favour of a capital gains tax. Every western country supports such a tax, and they do so because it is a tax that is just and right. Our Tory friends who are sticking up for business interests do not have the gumption to stand up and say that a capital gains tax is a good thing.
It is true that this is a very large and comprehensive bill. It may also be true that there is no one in Canada who understands the entire bill. But that part of the legislation affecting 99 per cent of the people of Canada is very easy to understand and the people of Canada will appreciate it when it is passed and comes into effect on January 1 next. For too long have we been lead-swinging on the subject of tax legislation in this country. As far as I am concerned, the criticism that can be levelled at the government is that it did not take the initiative several months ago and do what it is now doing. The government was sent here to govern. The time for talk is passed; that is something hon. friends to my left should remember.
Periodically the Tories hold a convention and change their name. I remember when they were the good old Conservative party. Then they became the Progressive Conservative party. In view of the way they are acting on this bill, or were a couple of days ago, they should change their name to the retrogressive Conservative party-looking forward into the past and backward into the future. We need a constructive opposition in this chamber and the government does want to have a few members of the opposition back here after the next election. If the opposition would be a little more responsible, then at least some of them might get back here.
I have elaborated upon only four or five of the many good points in the bill. Lest my Tory friends think we are unwilling to face the electorate on this bill, let me tell them that we are willing to accept the gauntlet whenever the Prime Minister throws it down.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I think I should take a few moments to comment on the amendments that were moved earlier when I was presiding over the deliberations of the committee. I wish to inform hon. members that I have considered the three amendments that have been put on sections 38 and 19 by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and on section 8 by the hon. member for Portneuf. Although 1 still have strong reservations, particularly about one of them, and about the procedural acceptability of amendments to sections 38
December 8, 1971

and 8, as has already been mentioned by the Chairman of the committee I feel that the Chair should not at this time, in view of the exceptional circumstances and the limited time for debate, take the time of the committee to try to resolve the procedural problem presented by these three amendments.
I am sure hon. members will understand the difficulty that the Chair is facing and thus will not object to the question being put on these three amendments so that the committee can resolve them by voting on them. At the same time, I wish to add that this should not in any way be regarded as a precedent to be followed under more normal circumstances. I intend to put the three amendments at this time to the committee, unless there is objection.
As I have just said-and I want to point this out particularly to the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin)-I have examined the three amendments-including that of the hon. member for Portneuf-which have been proposed on section 8. The Chair does not want to take valuable time from the committee to discuss a matter of procedure relating to these amendments. This does not mean, however, that under normal circumstances the Chair would accept those amendments, as there really is a problem there. But for the present, considering the debate is to end in a few minutes, I will officially introduce those three amendments to the House.

It is moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:
That Bill C-259 be amended at page 97 by deleting the phrase " 1 of" from line 4, and also by deleting the phrase "1 of" from line 9.
It is also moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:
That section 19 as set forth in clause 1 of the said bill be amended by striking out subsection (2) on pages 58 and 59.

The hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) moves:
That section 8(1) of clause 1 be amended by substituting, in line 25, the word "all" for the words "such of", by deleting the word "following" in line 26, and by adding after the word "source", in line 27, the words "with supporting papers".

Order. Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rising on a point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Bellechasse.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, in support of the amendment moved by my colleague from Portneuf (Mr. Godin), I believe that this is probably the last opportunity I shall have of speaking during the debate in committee of the whole on Bill C-259, because the government-contrary to the wishes of all opposition parties and consequently of the majority of the Canadian people
Income Tax Act
which they represent-has decided unilaterally to put an end to the debate on a subject that is nevertheless very important since it will affect for many years to come the taxation system applicable to millions of individuals and thousands of corporations.
Once again I say that the party in power is the only one that can assume responsibility for this unfortunate decision, and it will have to attempt to explain to the people of Canada why it has compelled the legislators to vote in a few hours on a great many sections of this bill which are still remaining and some of which are nevertheless most important.
I quite agree on the need for a total tax reform to correct, among other things, some intolerable situations that in many cases had become obvious display of iniquity and frustration.
If I can support without any hesitation many provisions of the bill before us, I must also say that I can't do the same in connection with several others which seems to me completely inappropriate.
Thus, I felt it my duty to fight vigorously the notion of employed capital which was proposed as the main method of computing the co-operatives' taxable income. In this regard, I am very happy that the government has finally agreed to give more flexibility to its initial position and to delete this most controversial aspect.
There is however another point of prime importance which I must discuss. Indeed, I have objected since the beginning to section 8 (1) (a) which limits the employment expenses deductible from earnings from that employment. I really cannot see why the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) establishes an arbitrary maximum of 3 per cent or $150. It seems illogical to me not to grant the thousands of taxpayers who use the T-l short income tax return the same rights and privileges from which other classes of taxpayers benefit, including professionals of every category.
I think the government should take account of all the types of workers whose tools and travelling expenses eat up a substantial part of their modest income. Let us take for example a mechanic or a carpenter who, even before beginning to make a profit, must spend several hundred dollars for basic equipment or tools to which will be progressively added some quite costly implements many of which must regularly be replaced.
The same applies to the logger who in addition to being away from his family for weeks must bear heavy travelling expenses and considerable expenses for the purchase, maintenance and replacements of the essential tools of his trade.
As for travelling expenses, it seems to me entirely normal that they be deducted from taxable income, taking into account however such restrictions as a reasonable daily or weekly commuting distance. Let us consider, among others, the thousands of employees of the private and public transportation systems-railways workers, truckers, etc.-who are compelled to eat most of their meals away from home; as a result, they incur additional expenses for food and in some cases also, for lodging, both of which are basic individual needs and therefore lead to unavoidable expenses.
The government should therefore allow, in computing the taxable income, that those additional expenses directly related to such employment be taken into account.

December 8, 1971
Income Tax Act
Finally, I shall bring up another case in support of this proposal; the case of miners who, because the closing down of mines operating in an area close to their homes, must henceforth earn their livelihood at locations sometimes pretty far from their main residence, resulting either in major weekly, bi-montly or monthly travelling expenses, added to the expenses of setting up a secondary residence or, alternately, in a decision to move the whole family which involves, over and above disruption of the individuals social environment, the quite substantial material costs of actual moving expenses.
Mr. Chairman, I am not inventing those facts; they are real problems which hundreds of miners must face in Abitibi. We are actually witnessing in this area a constant shift of the Timmins-Rouyn-Noranda-Malartic-Val d'Or mining operations toward new development centres of mining explorations always located more to the north, hence the newly created towns of Matagami, Chibouga-mau and Chapais. These problems of regional economy, which directly affect the mobility of miners, are not only in this outlying Quebec area. I am convinced that other provinces are at grips with this type of difficulties. Those are, of course, very complex problems which the government, unfortunately, seems to overlook in its tax reform legislation.
I therefore ask the Minister of Finance to kindly reconsider seriously section 8(l)(a), that all types of workers might in the future deduct from their taxable income all expenses related directly to their work. The government owes it to itself to meet the needs and aspirations of all Canadian workers, and not only of various groups of professionals who already benefit from the advantages we request. The government cannot, in all honesty, treat individuals differently, according to their social status or occupation. The contribution of every worker, regardless of his trade or occupation, is important to the community and constitutes an essential part, an important fraction of a whole called the "collective effort" of society. It is therefore here and now, more than ever, that the Liberal slogan of the "just society" should be put into practice. The concept of equality of citizens in matters of taxation should also be recognized in the section of the bill dealing with deductions applicable. Otherwise, the general principle of tax equity underlying the bill before us will be defeated.
It is not a question here of claiming rights or privileges for a small group of citizens. It is rather a matter of including a general provision of which all workers could avail themselves and which would affect them more directly.
For instance, according to Statistics Canada, the number of workers in logging in 1969, was estimated at 64,900 and that of construction workers at 377,200. Those are two classes of workers who would benefit from our proposal. Construction workers only represented, in August 1971, about 6.8 per cent of Canada's labour force. If we add all the other groups of workers already mentioned, we find that they represent a very substantial part of the total labour force, which shows the importance of protecting them as much as the other citizens who benefit from a different tax treatment as regards deductions and 
who have nevertheless a substantially higher income than the workers affected by the proposal before us now.
Finally Mr. Chairman, while deploring the insanity of the coercion climate in which the debate on Bill C-259 is to come to a close, I should like to ask all my colleagues who are really concerned about respect for the fiscal equity principle and whom the arguments I stated may have influenced, to support unreservedly the amendment presented today by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin).
This amendment would include in the deductible elements of income all expenses directly related to the work of the individual whose transportation expenses exceed some limit to be set by regulations made under the legislation. We must consider that this amendment could, among other things, grant construction workers, lumbermen and mechanics the right to deduct from their income their various moving expenses and the cost of purchasing, maintaining and replacing their tools.
In the final analysis, such a provision would only bring about a higher degree of justice, since besides the classes of workers abovementioned and which would be the more affected, this proposal could also be applied, it need be, to all the groups of workers in our society who must incur large expenses in the practice of their main trade.
Therefore I believe that all the classes of workers I have mentioned largely contribute to build up and maintain many things that benefit the whole society.
If a husband and father leaves his family for weeks or months to work hundreds of miles away from his home, for instance to supervise the construction of a hospital or take part in the extraction of our natural resources, often in difficult and sometimes inhuman conditions, he deserves the same benefits granted to others able to earn larger sums of money in much better conditions.
After the government introduced amendments to the sections concerning the co-operatives, Caisses populaires and credit unions, several hon. members discovered their call was to defend such institutions, whereas at the start of the debate they were completely mute. This is the time to speak up for the Canadian workers to whom justice is not rendered under Bill C-259. All hon. members who belatedly took position on sections 136 and 137 must now have the courage to support the amendment.


Gérald Laniel: I apologize to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants but I think at this time I should revise the procedure regarding the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton West. I am informed that this amendment has not been formally put to the committee so I will put it at this time. It was moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West:
That subsection 39 of clause 1 be amended by: (1) deleting in paragraph (a) the word "and" in line 33 at page 97 and substituting therefor the word "or" and (2) adding immediately thereafter the following: "(iv) land used in farming as defined in this act and to be used for continuing farming". (3) deleting in paragraph (b) in line 13 at page 98 the words "or (iii)" and substituting therefor ", (iii) or (iv)"


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, we have four minutes before the vote and we have agreed to share that time equally with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
December 8, 1971

When one has a knife at one's throat, one is rarely a philosopher or a philologist in deciding whether what is happening is time allocation, gagging or some other form of despotic corruption. This will happen to us in a few moments.
I make these points, but first I wish to explain my party's opposition regarding many of the sections on which we will be voting. It is because we have not had explanations on complex sections. When section 104, dealing with trusts, is called and we say it is passed on division, let the government understand that it is because it has 22 subsections and covers 10 pages and we doubt that anybody over there knows what it is all about.
I would have liked an opportunity in this debate to discuss the interesting section on good will and the sale of "nothings." I simply make the point that when the hon. member for Bruce and his colleagues in the Liberal party troop to the polls next time, they will find out how quickly good will depreciates, and they won't get a market for "nothing."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants for sharing these last four minutes with me. I indicated that I would like the floor for this short period mainly to indicate how we intend to vote on the amendment proposed this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition. As hon. members are aware, despite any good that is in this bill, and despite the improvements that we have been able to have included in it in the last few days, we still feel there is so much in the bill that is bad that we have no alternative but to vote against it when we reach third reading, as indeed we shall do this evening.
However, Sir, we do not feel that we can support the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. We take this position for three reasons. In the first place, it seems to us that if the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition means anything, it involves concessions to big business. We do not go along with those concessions. In the second place, we do not think that the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition means anything for big business or for anything else, because if the amendment were carried and written into the bill and the bill were passed in that way, all the taxes in the bill would eventually come into force just as they are now spelled out in the bill and the people who thought they were getting something by the amendment would be fooled. They would not get anything at all except a change in the date when the tax changes would come into effect.
Our third reason for being opposed to the amendment is that we have too much regard for the parliamentary system. We think that trying to pass a bill through both Houses, yet having in it a provisional clause, is not the way to deal with legislation. We are against the bill. We are against this monstrosity. We deplore the fact that we have not had a chance to discuss hundreds of its pages. We deplore what will take place in about 30 seconds from now. But we do not think the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition makes any improvement. Therefore, we shall vote against it.
Income Tax Act


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, before the guillotine falls, and on behalf of all taxpayers in Canada, I want to show what I think of what is happening here by tearing this bill into pieces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to order made Thursday, December 2, 1971, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of committee of the whole stage of Bill C-259, an act 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. The Chair will first put the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. Moved by Mr. Stanfield, seconded by Mr. Baldwin:
That clause 1 of the bill be amended by deleting lines 1 to 3 on page 1 and substituting therefor the following:
"1. Parts I to IIIA and Parts V to VII of the Income Tax Act are repealed and the following substituted therefor so as to apply, subject to the said act as hereby amended and to Part III of this act, to the 1972 and subsequent taxation years but the said act as hereby amended, excepting thereout those portions thereof containing an arrangement, revision and consolidation of the provisions of the said Act as the said act is amended by the application mutatis mutandis of the provisions of sections 6 and 8, subsection 12 of section 20, and sections 62, 63, 109, 110 and 117 of the said act as hereby amended, shall not come into force and have effect as law until a day to be fixed by a proclamation that shall be subject to affirmative resolution of the House of Commons:"
Amendment (Mr. Stanfield) negatived: Yeas, 54; nays, 150.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, contrary to the provisions of Standing Order 12(2) the hon. member for Cochrane came into the committee and voted after the motion had been put. I would ask Your Honour to make a ruling.


Russell Clayton Honey: May I deal with the point of order first and then I will recognize the hon. member for Cochrane. The Chair did not notice when the hon. member came into the chamber. Perhaps this would be a good time for me to read Standing Order 12(2) referred to by the hon. member for St. John's East. I entreat all hon. members to observe the provisions of the Standing Order which reads as follows:
When Mr. Speaker is putting a question, no member shall enter, walk out of or across the House or make any noise or disturbance.
I know that hon. members will want to observe this rule.


James Aloysius McGrath: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I submit, with respect, that the vote taken was improper not only because the hon. member, contrary to the provisions of the Standing Order, came in after the motion had been put-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bell:: And voted. Take the vote over again.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The Chair accepts what the hon. member for St. John's East has stated. If the hon.

December 8, 1971
Income Tax Act
member for Cochrane did vote irregularly, I am sure he will indicate it at this point.


Some hon. Members:: Ask him.


Mr. Stewart (Cochrane):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, when I walked into the chamber there was such a din going on-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ralph Wesley Stewart: -which I found out later was because the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings-


An hon. Member:: He went out.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: -was being asked to leave. I really did not know what was going on and as a result I simply voted with my colleagues.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He is like the rest of the members- nobody knows about this bill.


James Alexander Jerome: You are afraid to read it.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member for Cochrane has indicated that when he came into the chamber he was not aware that a vote was being taken. I accept his word and the vote will be altered accordingly.


Mr. Forrestall:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, to indicate to the committee that I am paired with the Minister of National Defence and had I voted I would have voted in favour of the amendment.


James Aloysius McGrath: I submit to Your Honour, with great respect, that the Chair has no authority to alter or change the vote in any way. If the Chair upholds my point of order, the vote must be taken over again or it must be declared that it was not a legitimate point of order.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. With respect, I suggest there are many precedents which clearly show that when an hon. member has indicated that another hon. member may have voted irregularly, and that hon. member indicates that he may have voted irregularly, the vote shall be altered accordingly.
Shall clause 1, section 2, carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


James Aloysius McGrath: Read it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.


James Aloysius McGrath: I want to know what I am voting for or against, and I do not know unless Your Honour reads the section.


James Alexander Jerome: Where have you been for the last six weeks?


Russell Clayton Honey: I will, of course, be guided by the advice of hon. members. It seems to me, however, that it would be very unusual and irregular to read clauses which appear in the bill and which hon. members have had before them for some time. I would not think that situation would apply as far as amendments are concerned. Unless the hon. member can quote some authority to show that the Chair should read the clauses in a bill, I would not be prepared to do so.
[The Chairman.]


James Aloysius McGrath: I will be guided by your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, but I submit that there is nothing usual or regular about the procedure being followed here tonight.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 1, section 2, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 2, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: On clause 1, section 3, there is an amendment by Mr. Burton which appears at page 9622 of Hansard. I think the committee might deal with this amendment first.
Amendment (Mr. Burton) negatived: Yeas, 21; nays, 182.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is now on the amendment by Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West), appearing at page 9564 of Hansard.
Amendment (Mr. Lambert, Edmonton West) negatived: Yeas, 56; nays, 148.


Russell Clayton Honey: I declare the amendment lost. Shall section 3 carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.
Clause 1, section 3, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Sections 4 and 5 have been carried, as have sections 6 and 7. The hon. member for Portneuf today moved an amendment to section 8. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Godin) negatived: Yeas, 33; nays, 178.


Russell Clayton Honey: I declare the amendment lost.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, I am rising with respect to a point of procedure which could be classed as a point of order. This procedure is most confusing, to say the least, besides being autocratic. This is no way to do things. Amendments to the bill have not been printed on the pages of the bill. They are not available on our desks and I think that it would be reasonable and more democratic if Your Honour were at least to read the amendments that have been moved.


James Aloysius McGrath: Hear, hear!


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: There are numerous amendments to the bill. Would it not be possible for them to be read so that we may know what we are voting for or against?


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member's request is entirely reasonable and I have no hesitation in agreeing with him. As I indicated earlier, if hon. members indicate that they wish amendments to be read, they will be read. I think that is how we should proceed. Some amendments, particularly those which have been moved by the minister, have been included in Hansard, in some cases for weeks. I wonder whether hon. members would wish me to read those.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Russell Clayton Honey: Perhaps the Chair ought to read amendments which have not been printed in Hansard. If hon.
December 8, 1971

members wish the Chair to read amendments that have been printed in Hansard, they will be read if hon. members so indicate. The Minister of National Revenue has moved an amendment to section 8, as indicated on page 8934 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member for Scarborough East has also moved an amendment to section 8, as indicated at page 9608 of Hansard.
Amendment (Mr. O'Connell) agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall section 8, as amended, carry?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Clause 1, section 8, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Hon. members will note that sections 9 to 13 inclusive have been carried. Shall section 14 carry?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Clause 1, section 14, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Sections 15 and 16 have been carried. Shall section 17 carry?
Clause 1, section 17, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Section 18 has been carried. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre moved an amendment to section 19 as follows:
That section 19 as set forth in clause 1 of the said bill be amended by striking out subsection (2) on pages 58 and 59.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre) negatived: Yeas, 20; nays, 187.


Russell Clayton Honey: I declare the amendment lost. Shall section 19 carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Clause 1, section 19, agreed to: Yeas, 180; nays, 26.
Clause 1, sections 20 to 28 inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 1, section 29, agreed to: Yeas, 126; nays, 86.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think it should be brought to the attention of government members who do not know what they are voting on that the basic herd just went down the drain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: You have milked your last cow.


John Howard Lundrigan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Agriculture just rose to his feet. He should be heard. Perhaps he wants to explain the reason-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


René Matte: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on a point of order.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member for Champlain on a point of order.
Income Tax Act


René Matte: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if the hon. mem ber for Langelier (Mr. Marchand) and the hon. member for Saint-Boniface (Mr. Guay) were trying to indicate, with their hat on their head, that their party has a bee in its bonnet.

Clause 1, section 30, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall section 31 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 31, agreed to.
Clause 1, sections 32 and 33, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall section 34 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 34, agreed to.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, that is the problem which we face and were already facing when we started considering this bill. You are calling the numbers and maybe it's not your fault but you are calling them perhaps a little too fast. Finally, we have some difficulty to understand what section we are on. Also, when we say "on division" you do not hear it and it looks like the section is being carried unanimously, when it is not the case.
Mr. Chairman, since all the procedure is in English would you give us a chance to participate?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Just follow the text of the bill.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if it would be possible, when reading the numbers of the sections or clauses being voted on, to have the marginal notes read at the same time.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that we support this suggestion to allow hon. members to know where they are going and what they are voting on.


Russell Clayton Honey: The Chair will deal with the two points of order, which are related. I apologize to the hon. member for Lotbiniere if I am proceeding too quickly. But I would point out that the Chair is labouring under some difficulty, too, because there is murmuring in the background.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is the taxpayers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Russell Clayton Honey: It is sometimes difficult to hear it when hon. members call "On division". I invite any hon. members who wish a vote carried on division to interrupt the Chair. It is difficult to hear at this distance, particularly when there are discussions in the background. If an hon. member rises and indicates that a section is to be approved on division, it will be recorded that way.

December 8, 1971
Income Tax Act
With respect to the point raised by the hon. member for Regina East, I think it would be a departure from well established practice for the Chair to read either the sections of the bill or the marginal notes. Hon. members have had the bill before them for some time. Unless any authority can be shown, I would prefer not to read the marginal notes. But I will proceed more slowly.


Mr. MacLean:: May I suggest to Your Honour that when you call the sections you also mention the page number? Some of these sections take up only part of a column while others are several pages long.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: As we finish each ten pounds of the bill, Mr. Chairman, would you let us know?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Russell Clayton Honey: I think the hon. member for Malpeque has made a reasonable suggestion. The Chair will do that.


James Aloysius McGrath: It will be a long night. I wonder if it would be possible for us to vote from our seats?


Thomas Miller Bell: How would the Senate do this? They cannot keep getting up and down.
Clause 1, section 35, agreed to: Yeas, 146; nays, 66.


Russell Clayton Honey: Sections 36 and 37 have been carried. On section 38, to be found at page 97, there is an amendment by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre) negatived: Yeas, 19; nays, 183.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall section 38 carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.
Clause 1, section 38, agreed to.
p.tn.)


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on section 39. There are two amendments. The section may be found at page 97 of the bill. If the committee agrees, the Chair will put the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton West.
That section 39 of clause 1 be amended by:
(1) deleting in paragraph (a) the word "and" in line 33 at page 97 and substituting therefor the word "or" and o(2) adding immediately thereafter the following (iv) land used in farming as defined in this act and to be used for continuing farming and
(3) deleting in paragraph (b) in line 13 at page 98 the words "or (iii)" and substituting therefor "(iii) or (iv)".
Amendment (Mr. Lambert, Edmonton West) negatived: Yeas, 89; nays, 124.


Russell Clayton Honey: On section 39 there is a further amendment by the Minister of National Revenue which appears at pages 8935 and 8936 of Hansard.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall section 39, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 39, as amended, agreed to.
[The Chairman.]


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on section 40 which appears at page 99 of the bill. There is an amendment by the Minister of National Revenue appearing at pages 8936 and 8937 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?


James Aloysius McGrath: I think the amendment should be read. We do not have time to find the amendments in Hansard.


Russell Clayton Honey: I did indicate to all hon. members that the amendment to section 40 appears at pages 8936 and 8937 of Hansard.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I draw to the attention of the Chair the fact that there is only one set of Hansard for every two members of the House. When we come to the amendments I think the Chair is obligated to read them.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment to section 40?


James Aloysius McGrath: Read the amendment.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member has asked the Chair to read the amendment. The Chair has already indicated twice during the proceedings of the committee that unless the hon. member can indicate some precedent or authority, the Chair does not feel it should read the amendments. The amendments have been in Hansard for some time. However, the Chair has all the time in the world and hon. members can take the time to read the amendments if they wish.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is the committee ready for the question on the proposed amendment to section 40?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.
Clause 1, section 40, as amended, agreed to: Yeas, 140; nays, 64.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on section 41 which is to be found at page 102 of the bill. Shall section 41 carry?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On division.
Clause 1, section 41, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on section 42 which appears at page 104 of the bill.


André-Gilles Fortin: In the case of section 41, Mr. Chairman, did you put it down on division?


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. The Chair did not hear a dissenting voice. I would ask hon. members to have patience with the Chair because it is difficult to hear dissenting voices from so far away when there are other conversations being carried on in the Committee. If any hon. member wishes to dissent he should rise in his place. I think that
December 8, 1971

would be the best way to do it. I gather from the hon. member for Lotbiniere that his group dissented on section 41. The section has been carried but it could be carried on division if the committee wishes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There was an "On
division".


Russell Clayton Honey: I understand it was carried on division. The question is on section 42 which appears at page 104 of the bill. Shall section 42 carry?
Clause 1, section 42, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on section 43 which appears on page 104. Shall section 43 carry?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Clause 1, section 43, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on section 44 which appears at page 104 of the bill. Shall section 44 carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.
Clause 1, section 44, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on section 45 which appears at page 105 of the bill. Shall section 45 carry?
Clause 1, section 45, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on section 46. There is an amendment by the Minister of National Revenue which appears at page 8937 of Hansard. The question is on the amendment. Shall the amendment carry?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall section 46, as amended, carry?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Clause 1, section 46, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on section 47, appearing at page 109 of the bill. There is an amendment by the Minister of National Revenue, appearing at page 8937 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.
Clause 1, section 47, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on section 48 which appears at page 110 of the bill. There is an amendment by the Minister of National Revenue, appearing at page 8937 and page 8938 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall section 48, as amended, carry?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Clause 1, section 48, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on section 49. There are two amendments thereto. Section 49 appears at page 111 of the bill. The amendment by the Minister of National
Income Tax Act
Revenue appears at page 8938 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: There is also an amendment by the Minister of National Defence to section 49, which appears at page 9158 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.
Clause 1, section 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 1, section 50, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on section 51. First, there is an amendment to section 51 which appears at page 113 of the bill. The amendment by the Minister of National Revenue appears at page 8938 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.
Clause 1, section 51, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on section 52 at page
113.	Shall section 52 carry?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Clause 1, section 52, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on section 53. There is an amendment thereto by the Minister of National Revenue. The section appears at page 114 of the bill and the amendment appears at page 8938 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall section 53, as amended, carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.
Clause 1, section 53, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on section 54 which appears at page 123 of the bill. There is an amendment thereto by the Minister of National Revenue, appearing at page 8938 and page 8939 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall section 54 as amended carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.
Clause 1, section 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 1, section 55, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on section 59 which appears at page 137 of the bill. Shall section 59 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 59, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on section 64 at page 154 of the bill. There is an amendment thereto by the Minister of National Revenue which appears in Hansard on page 8940. Shall the amendment carry?

December 8, 1971
Income Tax Act


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall section 64, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 64, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on section 65 appearing at page 155 of the bill. Shall section 65 carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Clause 1, section 65 agreed to: Yeas, 115; nays, 67.


Gérald Laniel: The question is now on section 66 and on the amendment thereto by the Minister of National Revenue which appears in Hansard at page 8940. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 66, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Clause 1, section 66, as amended, agreed to: Yeas, 110; nays, 65.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I may have voted with the NDP, but I voted against the section for different reasons.


David Lewis: You can record that every time it happens.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 68, which appears at page 168 of the bill. Shall section 68 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 68, agreed to.
Clause 1, section 71, agreed to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I believe there were discussions about an hour or so ago as to the possibility of our taking a break for something to eat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The Chair understands that hon. members might have different opinions but they should let the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre make his point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I believe the reason for these discussions was quite clear, namely, that if we carry on until the end of the bill without a break we will swamp the dining-room. We are keeping people here for endless hours and it would be reasonable to have a break of about an hour.


Gerald William Baldwin: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I made this suggestion in good faith. If the government does not want to do it, that is fine. When a bully engages in rape, the details are immaterial.
[The Chairman.]


Gérald Laniel: Hon. members know that this can be done only by unanimous consent. There does not seem to be unanimous consent. Therefore, we will proceed with the question on section 73, at page 176 of the bill. There is an amendment to the section by Mr. Gray, which appears in Hansard at page 8941. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to: Yeas, 158; nays, 6.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 73, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 73, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 79 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 79, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 80, at page 184 of the bill, on which there is an amendment by Mr. Gray which appears in Hansard at page 8941. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 80, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 80, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 82 which appears at page 188 of the bill and which has an amendment by Mr. Gray, which appears in Hansard at page 8942. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 82, as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 82, as amended to, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 83 which appears at page 189 of the bill and on which there is an amendment by Mr. Gray which also appeared in Hansard at page 8942. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 83, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 83, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 84 which appears at page 190 of the bill, on which there is an amendment by Mr. Gray which can be found in Hansard at page 8942. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
December 8, 1971

Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 84, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 84, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 85 which appears at page 194 of the bill and on which there are two amendments, one by Mr. Gray which can be found in Hansard at pages 8942 and 8943, and a second amendment by Mr. O'Connell which can be found in Hansard at page 9608. The question is on the amendment moved by Mr. O'Connell. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. O'Connell) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on the amendment moved by Mr. Gray. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 85, as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 85, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 86 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 86, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 87 which is found at page 204 of the bill and on which there are two amendments, one by Mr. O'Connell, which is found in Hansard at page 9608 and another from Mr. Gray, which is found in Hansard at pages 8943 and 8944. Shall the amendment moved by Mr. Gray carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment moved by Mr. O'Connell carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. O'Connell) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 87, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division. Clause 1, section 87, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 88 which can be found at page 221 of the bill and on which there is an amendment by Mr. Gray which appears at page 8944 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.
Income Tax Act


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 88 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 88, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 89 which is found on page 223 of the bill and on which there are two amendments, one by Mr. Gray, to be found in Hansard at pages 8944 and 8945 and another by Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale), found in Hansard at page 9158. Shall the amendment of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment of Mr. Gray carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 1, section 89, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 89, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 90 which is found at page 234 of the bill. Shall section 90 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Could you slow down for a few minutes?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You should have studied that before today.


Gérald Laniel: The question has just been put on section 90. Shall the section carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 90, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 91 which is to be found at page 235 of the bill. Shall section 91 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 91, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 92 which can be found at page 236 of the bill and on which there is an amendment by Mr. Gray to be found in Hansard at page 8945. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 1, section 92, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 92, as amended, agreed to.

December 8, 1971
Income Tax Act


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 93 which is found at page 238 of the bill. Shall section 93 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 93, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 94 which appears at page 240 of the bill. Shall the section carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 94, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 95 which is found at page 241 of the bill. Shall the section carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 95, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 96 which appears at page 246 of the bill. Shall section 96 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 96, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 97 which appears at page 248 of the bill. Shall section 97 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Clause 1, section 97, agreed to: Yeas, 151; nays, 14.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 98 which is found at page 250 of the bill and on which there are two amendments, one by Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale), which appears at page 9158 of Hansard and one by Mr. Gray, which appears at page 8945 of Hansard. Shall the amendment of Mr. Gray carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on the amendment moved by Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale). Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 98, as amended. Shall the section as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 98, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 99 which appears at page 256 of the bill. Shall section 99 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 99, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 100 which appears at page 257 of the bill. Shall section 100 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 100, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is section 101 which appears at page 258 of the bill. Shall section 101 carry?


An hon. Member:: No.


Gérald Laniel: The Chair heard "No". Is the section carried on division?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 101, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 102 which appears at page 259 of the bill. Shall section 102 carry?
Clause 1, section 102, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
103,	found at page 259 of the bill. Shall section 103 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 103, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
104,	found at page 260 of the bill. The Minister of National Revenue has moved an amendment to this section, as reported in Hansard at pages 8945, 8946 and 8947. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to: Yeas, 197; nays 52.


Gérald Laniel: Before I put the question on section 104 as amended, may I ask hon. members of the committee to co-operate with the Chair. I invite hon. members to stay in their seats while a vote is being taken. Even after an hon. member has been counted he should stay in his seat until the voting is completed; otherwise great difficulties are created for the Chair and for others in this committee.
Shall section 104, as amended, carry?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Clause 1, section 104, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
105,	appearing on page 270 of the bill. Shall section 105 carry?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Clause 1, section 105, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
106,	appearing on page 270 of the bill. The Minister of National Revenue has moved an amendment to this section, as indicated at page 8947 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.
[The Deputy Chairman.]
December 8, 1971


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 106, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 106, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
107,	found on page 271 of the bill. The Minister of National Revenue has moved an amendment to this section, as recorded at page 8947 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 107, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 107, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
108,	found at page 274 of the bill. The Minister of National Revenue has moved an amendment to section 108, as recorded in Hansard at pages 8947 and 8948. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 108, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 108, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
111,	appearing on page 289 of the bill. The Minister of National Revenue has moved an amendment to this section, as recorded at page 8948 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 111, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 111, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
112,	found at page 293 of the bill. The Minister of National Revenue moved an amendment to this section, as recorded in Hansard at page 8948. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 112, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 112, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
113,	found at page 295 of the bill. The Minister of National
Income Tax Act
Revenue moved an amendment to this section, as recorded at page 8948 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 113, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 113, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
114,	found at page 298 of the bill. Shall section 114 carry?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Clause 1, section 114, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
115,	found at page 299 of the bill. The Minister of National Revenue moved an amendment to section 115, as recorded in Hansard at pages 8948 and 8949. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.
Clause 1, section 115, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
116,	found at page 302 of the bill. The Minister of National Revenue has moved an amendment to this section, as recorded at page 8949 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 116, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 116, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section 121, appearing at page 321 of the bill. Shall section 121 carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Clause 1, section 121, agreed to: Yeas, 128; nays, 10. Clause 1, section 122, agreed to: Yeas, 155; nays, 5.
Clause 1, section 123, agreed to: Yeas, 146; nays, 19.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I again invite hon. members to co-operate as much as possible with the Chair and the committee. I hope hon. members will not move abound the chamber while votes are being taken.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It is very obvious that each time the Chair speaks about order being maintained, he is directing his remarks to this side of the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

December 8, 1971
Income Tax Act


Donald MacInnis: This is despite the fact that the Minister of Labour walked in during the last vote, which was very obvious to the Chair, and nothing was said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Crouse:: No respect for the vote.


James Aloysius McGrath: Grit arrogance.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gérald Laniel: Order. I would remind hon. members that it is the duty of the Chair to keep order, and that this can only be done with the co-operation of the committee. There is no intention to point to individual members unless they do something which is completely irregular. I am simply asking for co-operation. I am not directing my comments to one side or the other. Shall section 124 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 124, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Next we have section 125, to which an amendment has been moved by Mr. Gray. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 125, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Clause 1, section 125, as amended, agreed to: Yeas, 135; nays, 39.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section 127. There is an amendment to this section in the name of Mr. Gray which is to be found at page 8949 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 127, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 127, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section 129, to which there is an amendment in the name of Mr. Gray, to be found in Hansard at pages 8949 and 8950. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 129, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 129, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
130,	There is an amendment in the name of Mr. Gray. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 130, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 130, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
131,	to which there is an amendment in the name of Mr. Gray, to be found at page 8950 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 131, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 131, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
132,	to which there is an amendment in the name of Mr. Gray which appears in Hansard at page 8950. Shall the amendment carry?


Robert Jardine McCleave: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 132, as amended, carry?


Robert Jardine McCleave: On division.
Clause 1, section 132, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
133,	to which there is an amendment in the name of Mr. Gray. Shall the amendment carry?


Robert Jardine McCleave: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 133, as amended, carry?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Clause 1, section 133, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Now we are on section 134, to which there is an amendment in the name of Mr. Gray. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.
Clause 1, section 134, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 141. Shall section 141 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 141, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: We have now reached section 142, to which there is an amendment in the name of Mr. 
December 8, 1971

Gray, which can be found in Hansard at page 8954. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 142, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 142, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section 143. Shall section 143 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 143, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section 163 which appears at page 435 of the bill. Shall section 163 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. Is this the section that was stood on November 17, the one prescribing penalties?


Gérald Laniel: The Chair is not in a position to answer that question.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: The parliamentary secretary agreed to stand this section on November 17. Have any amendments been made to it?


Edgar John Benson: No.
Clause 1, section 163, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section 184 which appears at page 454 of the bill. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.
Clause 1, section 184, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section 186 which appears at page 454 of the bill and to which there is an amendment by the Minister of National Revenue which may be found at page 8956 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 186, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 186, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section 188 which is found at page 457 of the bill. Shall section 188 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 188, agreed to.
Income Tax Act


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
189,	which is found at page 458 of the bill and to which there is an amendment by the Minister of National Revenue which appears in Hansard at page 8956.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.
Clause 1, section 189, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
190,	which appears at page 463 of the bill. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 190, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 190, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section 192 which appears at page 465 of the bill and to which there is an amendment by the Minister of State, found in Hansard at pages 9608 and 9609. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. O'Connell) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 192, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 192, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section 194, which is found at page 476 of the bill and to which there are two amendments, the first by the Minister of State, found in Hansard at page 9609, the second by the Minister of National Revenue, found in Hansard at page 8957. Shall the first amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the second amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. O'Connell) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 194, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 194, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section 196 which appears at page 479 of the bill. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 196, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.

December 8, 1971
Income Tax Act
Clause 1, section 196, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
212	which is found at page 500 of the bill and to which there is an amendment by the Minister of National Revenue, found in Hansard at pages 8958 and 8959. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 212, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 212, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
213	which appears at page 511 of the bill. Shall section 213 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 213, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
214	which is found at page 512 of the bill. Shall section 214 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 214, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
215	which is found at page 516 of the bill. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.
Clause 1, section 215, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
216	which is found at page 518 of the bill. Shall section 216 carry?
Clause 1, section 216, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section 217, which is found at page 521 of the bill. Shall section
217	carry?
Clause 1, section 217, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
218	which appears at page 522 of the bill. Shall section 218 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 218, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
219	which appears at page 543 of the bill. There is an amendment by the Minister of National Revenue to be found at page 8959 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 219, as amended, carry?
Clause 1, section 219, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section 235 which appears at page 547 of the bill. There is an amendment by the hon. member for Edmonton West which is to be found at page 10191 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, would the Chair be good enough to read this amendment.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Edmonton West moved:
That subsection 235(1) at page 547 be amended by deleting in line 22 the figures 221 and substituting therefor 221(1).
Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Amendment (Mr. Lambert, Edmonton West) negatived: Yeas, 44; nays, 127.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost. The question is now on section 235. Shall section 235 carry?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Clause 1, section 235, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section 239 which appears at page 549 of the bill. There is an amendment by the hon. member from Edmonton West, to be found at page 10029 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Read it.


Gérald Laniel: For the benefit of hon. members, the hon. member for Edmonton West moved:
That clause 1, subsection 239(l)(g) be amended (a) by deleting the words "two years" in line 39 at page 549 and substituting the words "five years" and (b) by deleting the whole of subsection (2) thereof and renumbering the following subsections accordingly.
Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Amendment (Mr. Lambert, Edmonton West) negatived: Yeas, 45; nays, 118 .


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost. The question is now on section 239. Shall section 239 carry?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Clause 1, section 239, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section 243, to be found at page 554 of the bill. Shall section 243 carry?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Clause 1, section 243, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section 245, to be found at page 560 of the bill. There is an amendment by the Minister of National Revenue, to be

[The Deputy Chairman.]
December 8, 1971

found at page 8960 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 245, as amended, carry?
Clause 1, section 245, as amended, agreed to.
[DOT]	(8:10 p.m.)


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section 246. Shall the section carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 246, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 247. Shall the section carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 247, agreed to.
Clause 1, section 253, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on section 255. Shall the section carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 255, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
256,	to which there is an amendment by the Minister of National Revenue.
Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the section as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 256, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The next question is on section
257,	to which there is an amendment by the Minister of National Revenue. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the section as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1, section 257, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question now is on clause 1, as amended. Shall clause 1 carry?
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to: Yeas, 160; nays, 63. Clause 2 agreed to: Yeas, 165; nays, 16.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
[DOT]	(8:20 p.m.)


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall the schedule to clause 4 which appears on page 598 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Schedule to clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to: Yeas, 192; nays, 48.
Income Tax Act


Russell Clayton Honey: I declare subclause 6 carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps you will enjoy being corrected. It is not a subclause. We finally got through them. It is clause 6.


Russell Clayton Honey: I beg the hon. member's pardon. That is correct. The question is on clause 6.1. There is an amendment thereto by Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale), appearing at page 9959, of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 6.1 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Edgar John Benson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the amendment to clause 6 is clause 6.1.
Clause 6.1 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 9 inclusive agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on clause 9.1 which is in fact an amendment by Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale), appearing at page 9159 of Hansard. Shall clause 9.1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 9.1 agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on clause 10 which appears at page 600 of the bill. There is an amendment to clause 10, by Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale). It appears at pages 9159 and 9160 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 10 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on clause 11, found at page 601 of the bill. The amendment, in the name of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale), appears in Hansard at page 9160. The question is on the amendment to clause 11. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 11 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 12 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to: Yeas, 161; nays, 16.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on clause 15 which appears at page 603 of the bill. Shall clause 15 carry?
10298

December 8, 1971
Income Tax Act
Clause 15 agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on clause 16 which appears at page 603 of the bill. Shall the clause carry?
Clause 16 agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on clause 17 which appears on page 604 of the bill. Shall clause 17 carry?
Clause 17 agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on clause 18 which appears at page 605 of the bill. Shall clause 18 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 18 agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on an amendment to clause 19, moved by Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale), which appears at page 9160 of Hansard. Clause 19 appears at page 607 of the bill. The question is on the amendment to clause 19. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on an amendment to clause 20. Clause 20 appears at page 607 of the bill. The amendment, in the name of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale), appears at page 9160 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on clause 21 which appears at page 614 of the bill. Shall clause 21 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 21 agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on an amendment to clause 22. Clause 22 appears at page 615 of the bill. The amendment, in the name of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale), appears in Hansard at pages 9160 and 9161. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on an amendment to clause 23. Clause 23 appears at page 615 of the bill. The amendment, in the name of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale), appears at page 9161 of Hansard. The question is on the amendment. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 23, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
[The Chairman.)


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on clause 24 which appears at page 619 of the bill. Shall clause 24 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 24 agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on clause 25 which appears at page 619 of the bill. Shall clause 25 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 25 agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on an amendment to clause 26. Clause 26 appears at page 619 of the bill and the amendment, in the name of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale), appears in Hansard at page 9161, 9162, 9163, 9164 and 9165. The question is on the amendment to clause 26. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 26, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on clause 27 which appears at page 628 of the bill.
Clause 27 agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on clause 28 which appears at page 628 of the bill. Shall clause 28 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 28 agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on an amendment to clause 29. Clause 29 appears at page 629 of the bill. The amendment, in the name o fMr. Macdonald (Rosedale), appears at page 9165 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to: Yeas, 145; nays, 18.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on clause 30 which appears at page 652 of the bill.
Clause 30 agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on clause 31 which appears at page 653 of the bill.
Clause 31 agreed to.
December 8, 1971


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on an amendment to clause 32. Clause 32 appears at page 653 of the bill. The amendment, in the name of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale), appears at page 9165 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on the amendment to clause 33 standing in the name of the Minister of National Defence, as recorded at page 9165 of Hansard.
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on the amendment to clause 34 standing in the name of the Minister of National Defence, as recorded at page 9165 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 34, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on the amendment to clause 35 standing in the name of the Minister of National Defence, as found on page 9165 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 35, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 36 and 37 agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on clause 38. Shall clause 38 carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.
Clause 38 agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on clause 39. Shall clause 39 carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.
Clause 39 agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on clause 40. Shall clause 40 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 48 inclusive agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on the amendment to clause 49 standing in the name of the Minister of National Defence, as recorded in Hansard at pages 9165 and 9166. Shall the amendment carry?
Amemdment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Income Tax Act


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on the amendment to clause 50 standing in the name of the Minister of National Defence, as recorded in Hansard at page 9166.
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on the amendment to clause 51 standing in the name of the Minister of National Defence, as found in Hansard at page 9166.
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 52 to 57 inclusive agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Clauses 57.1 and 58 have been carried. The question is on the amendment to clause 59 standing in the name of the Minister of National Defence, as recorded in Hansard at pages 9168 and 9169.
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 59, as amended, carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 60 and 61 agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on an amendment to clause 62. Clause 62 may be found at page 696 of the bill. The amendment, standing in the name of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) may be found at page 9169 of Hansard. The question is on the amendment. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 63 and 64 agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on clause 64.1. An amendment, in the name of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) appears at page 9169 of Hansard. It is apparently a new clause. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.
Clause 64.1, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on clause 64.2. It, again, is a new clause. The amendment stands in the name of Mr. O'Connell. It appears at page 9609 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. O'Connell) agreed to.
Clause 64.2, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on clause 65. The amendment, standing in the name of Mr. O'Connell, is found at page 9609 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. O'Connell) agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on clause 65.1. Again, it is a new clause. It is an amendment standing in the name
24725-23).

December 8, 1971
Income Tax Act
of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) and may be found at page 9170 of Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to. Clause 65.1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 66 to 76 inclusive agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall the title carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I am not rising to ask if it is now time to eat, but rather to ask if this bill, as amended, will be reprinted before it is called for third reading.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. With respect to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I think this is something that Mr. Speaker should deal with when he is in the chair. The hon. member can raise the point at that time. Shall the title carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.
Title agreed to.


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a point of order. I object to the procedure we have followed this evening. I think it is a farce. I want my objection to be noted in Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: We want Walter Gordon back.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Russell Clayton Honey: All those in favour of the bill as amended will please rise. All those against will please rise.
Bill as amended agreed to: Yeas, 122; nays, 67.


Russell Clayton Honey: I declare the bill as amended carried.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall I report the bill?


Gerald William Baldwin: No.


Russell Clayton Honey: All those in favour of reporting the bill will please rise. All those against will please rise.
Bill to be reported agreed to: Yeas, 122; nays, 64.
Bill reported.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: that the bill be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before you put the question as to when the bill shall be read the third time may I raise a point of order that I sought to raise when we were in committee of the whole. In view of the established practice under which bills which have been amended substantially are reprinted before third reading, may I ask if arrangements will be made for this bill, which has been substantially amended, to be reprinted before it is called for third reading?


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the request of the hon. member, obviously an order will be made to that effect and a reprint of the bill will be available to hon. members before third reading is reached, whenever that is.
It being after six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Thursday, December 9, 1971, at two o'clock p.m.
At 9.12 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday. December 9, 1971